Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus, Suetonius as church forgeries

Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:07 pm

The archaeological evidence that Christians existed in Rome during Nero's reign is extremely vague, and the RCC's bias in promoting tales of Christian persecutions is extremely clear. That doesn't mean we can conclude that the tale of Christian persecution by Nero is false, but it shouldn't just be accepted on the basis of majority opinions in academia. Even if the evidence had not been forged by the Church, it is still quite possible that they just got their facts wrong on the basis of information that was decades old. Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:16 pm

[quote=""Copernicus""]The archaeological evidence that Christians existed in Rome during Nero's reign is extremely vague, and the RCC's bias in promoting tales of Christian persecutions is extremely clear. That doesn't mean we can conclude that the tale of Christian persecution by Nero is false, but it shouldn't just be accepted on the basis of majority opinions in academia. Even if the evidence had not been forged by the Church, it is still quite possible that they just got their facts wrong on the basis of information that was decades old. Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.[/quote]

Yet familiar enough to make sure they "renounced" allegiance to their Jewish leader and swore allegiance to the Emperor and that they were not a secret society planning criminal activity against Rome or its citizens. An occurrence evidently so familiar--and dangerous--that he felt it necessary to kidnap and torture two female "deaconesses" in order to make absolutely sure their "superstition" did not spread.

That's a hell of a backstory Pliny tacitly relies upon to act so viciously toward what turn out to just be a group of hippies. Particularly when you factor in Tacitus being biased against Nero and thus made up the idea that Nero tried to scapegoat the Christians. Which in turn would have meant that Nero did not try to scapegoat them at all; that they did in fact burn Rome deliberately as an act of sedition.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:19 am

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
Copernicus;624134 wrote:The archaeological evidence that Christians existed in Rome during Nero's reign is extremely vague, and the RCC's bias in promoting tales of Christian persecutions is extremely clear. That doesn't mean we can conclude that the tale of Christian persecution by Nero is false, but it shouldn't just be accepted on the basis of majority opinions in academia. Even if the evidence had not been forged by the Church, it is still quite possible that they just got their facts wrong on the basis of information that was decades old. Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.
Yet familiar enough to make sure they "renounced" allegiance to their Jewish leader and swore allegiance to the Emperor and that they were not a secret society planning criminal activity against Rome or its citizens. An occurrence evidently so familiar--and dangerous--that he felt it necessary to kidnap and torture two female "deaconesses" in order to make absolutely sure their "superstition" did not spread.

That's a hell of a backstory Pliny tacitly relies upon to act so viciously toward what turn out to just be a group of hippies. Particularly when you factor in Tacitus being biased against Nero and thus made up the idea that Nero tried to scapegoat the Christians. Which in turn would have meant that Nero did not try to scapegoat them at all; that they did in fact burn Rome deliberately as an act of sedition.[/QUOTE]
Carrier has actually discussed Pliny at length in internet forums, so I think you can find something about his take on the subject with a search engine. IIRC, there were no hippies in Roman times, but there were plenty of illegal cults and "associations", which even included such innocuous groups as fire brigades. Failure to show respect for Roman deities was a crime that Jews came to be specifically exempted from, but Christians were not considered Jews. Pliny was not allowed to torture or kill Roman citizens, so some of the Christians were simply let go. The ones he tortured were not Roman citizens and were, apparently, violating the law that he was charged with enforcing.

User avatar
Kookaburra Jack
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:02 am
Location: Falls Creek, rural Australia
Contact:

Post by Kookaburra Jack » Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:17 am

[quote=""Metacrock""]
Kookaburra Jack;623601 wrote:
ruby sparks;623440 wrote:And sources outside Christianity would have to be rewritten too.

Some as late as the middle ages.

Was there no fire in Rome that Nero blamed xtians for?

The Neronian persecution of Christians is pseudo-historical propaganda.
Bull shit! the lengths you guys will go to to keep from from admittin g the evidence isnot in yourfavor.[/QUOTE]



The evidence? The literary evidence of Tacitus for example, UNCITED but preserved in the archives of the utterly corrupt church organisation, which happened to have been "suddenly and unexpectedly" discovered over a thousand years later?

Will you be telling me next that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during the rule of Nero?




.
Last edited by Kookaburra Jack on Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who was Leucius Charinus? ... A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius][Website]

User avatar
Kookaburra Jack
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:02 am
Location: Falls Creek, rural Australia
Contact:

Post by Kookaburra Jack » Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:26 am

[quote=""Copernicus""]Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.[/quote]


Notes on Pliny: Persecution and Martyrdom in Early Christianity, Pliny's Questions concerning Treatment of Christians and Trajan's Reply, Notes ... Professor Darrell Doughty.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... jan.htm#m3
Who was Leucius Charinus? ... A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius][Website]

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:26 pm

[quote=""Copernicus""]The archaeological evidence that Christians existed in Rome during Nero's reign is extremely vague, and the RCC's bias in promoting tales of Christian persecutions is extremely clear. That doesn't mean we can conclude that the tale of Christian persecution by Nero is false, but it shouldn't just be accepted on the basis of majority opinions in academia. Even if the evidence had not been forged by the Church, it is still quite possible that they just got their facts wrong on the basis of information that was decades old. Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.[/quote]

you will not find many real historians (ie Ph.D. teaching in university publishing and going to conferences) who don't accept Tacitus as real. the only reason you think it's forged is because you don't like what he says.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:33 pm

[quote=""Kookaburra Jack""]
Metacrock;624129 wrote:
Kookaburra Jack;623601 wrote:
ruby sparks;623440 wrote:And sources outside Christianity would have to be rewritten too.

Some as late as the middle ages.

Was there no fire in Rome that Nero blamed xtians for?

The Neronian persecution of Christians is pseudo-historical propaganda.
Bull shit! the lengths you guys will go to to keep from from admittin g the evidence isnot in yourfavor.


The evidence? The literary evidence of Tacitus for example, UNCITED but preserved in the archives of the utterly corrupt church organisation, which happened to have been "suddenly and unexpectedly" discovered over a thousand years later?

Will you be telling me next that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during the rule of Nero?




.[/QUOTE]



automatically discrediting all evidence from anyone connected with the church in any way is not scholarship it is stupid it is ignorant it''s bias and it is a lie.

that you don't get how many of those church historians are not believing and don't care about apologetic shows how badly read one is who thinks this.

The historian for whom I worked as a TA was not a big believer. I am not sure if he even went to church he had no commitment. He said outright Doherty is an idiot. he also said he we did history like Jesus mythers we would have to admit we know nothing. historians do not rule out sources merely because they are religious.

The historian who chaired my dissertation committee was an atheist he had the same opinion.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:36 pm

[quote=""Metacrock""]
Kookaburra Jack;624160 wrote:
Metacrock;624129 wrote:
Kookaburra Jack;623601 wrote:

Some as late as the middle ages.





The Neronian persecution of Christians is pseudo-historical propaganda.
Bull shit! the lengths you guys will go to to keep from from admittin g the evidence isnot in yourfavor.


The evidence? The literary evidence of Tacitus for example, UNCITED but preserved in the archives of the utterly corrupt church organisation, which happened to have been "suddenly and unexpectedly" discovered over a thousand years later?

Will you be telling me next that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during the rule of Nero?




.


automatically discrediting all evidence from anyone connected with the church in any way is not scholarship it is stupid it is ignorant it''s bias and it is a lie.

that you don't get how many of those church historians are not believing and don't care about apologetic shows how badly read one is who thinks this.

The historian for whom I worked as a TA was not a big believer. I am not sure if he even went to church he had no commitment. He said outright Doherty is an idiot. he also said he we did history like Jesus mythers we would have to admit we know nothing. historians do not rule out sources merely because they are religious.

The historian who chaired my dissertation committee was an atheist he had the same opinion.

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:45 pm

I used to frequent one or two history forums online. Part of my reason for doing so was (I confess) to try to shed some light on the idea that most historians don't take Jesus Mythicism all that seriously. I was looking to find qualified historians and ask them a few questions.

By and large, that's what I found.

I was given many examples of published, qualified historians, in their books, making the call that they believed, on balance, that he probably existed, even if not many of them, if any, went into great detail about him. I wasn't shown any examples of the opposite (other than Carrier). I'm not saying I know for sure he's the only one, but I don't know of any others for sure.

Not that that is necessarily a ringing endorsement. For one thing (I reckon) historians can err slightly on the side of assuming existence. I may need to be corrected on that.

However, what I found interesting, from a number of posters, was the given reason why.

Basically, or so it was explained to me, to not end up plumping for existence would be to go against the historiographical methodologies that are used. So, as a stricture, in order to be consistent, it is apparently felt that there is, comparatively speaking, more historical reasons to opt for existence than non-existence. We have, for example, much more textual evidence, both independent and non-independent, than we have for any other Jewish messiah-type figure of those times, and arguably for many other figures from ancient history.

Sometimes, some will say that there is a dearth of evidence, when in fact, relatively speaking, there isn't.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:04 pm

[quote=""Copernicus""]IIRC, there were no hippies in Roman times[/quote]

I didn't mean that literally, but yes, there certainly were as Pliny describes them anyway.
but there were plenty of illegal cults and "associations", which even included such innocuous groups as fire brigades. Failure to show respect for Roman deities was a crime that Jews came to be specifically exempted from, but Christians were not considered Jews.
Except for the Jews among them. And Pliny does not talk about the Christians showing disrespect to Roman deities. He talks about them swearing allegiance to the Emperor. He talks about them "denouncing" their allegiance to Jesus, not declaring that Jesus is not a god or the like. Which, supposedly, at that point, no one did. So what does "renouncing" Jesus even mean to ROMANS at that time? Not to the Christians; to Pliny and Trajan.

The Christian narrative for the past two millennia has it that the Roman Emperor had to be worshipped as God, which is false. They had to be worshipped as a God. No one was required to give up any of their other gods. Roman Emperors were not instigating monotheism.

The language is unmistakably about allegiance to a ruler or leader, not believing in more than one god. To a Roman the idea of swearing allegiance to the Emperor would have meant worshipping him as a god, not the only god and not in denial of any other gods they worshipped. That didn't happen (ironically) until Constantine.

So take off your Christian cult colored glasses my friends and ask yourself what a Roman would have meant by the terms Pliny uses.
The ones he tortured were not Roman citizens and were, apparently, violating the law that he was charged with enforcing.
No, he tortured them in order to make sure they were not violating any laws. There's a difference. Laws Pliny did not understand why they were even applicable to Christians in the first place. Which must have meant that they were applicable to Christians in the first place at some time prior to Pliny being appointed. Hence his asking Trajan for clarification on how to sort out (or sift, I can't remember) those who are just hippie religious freaks and those who are committing the crimes "around" Christianity that must have at one time been plentiful enough for his questions in the first place and serious enough that they required torture and summary execution.

Playing hacky-sack and talking about their belief that a long dead Jewish Rabbi was a messiah who preached love of one's enemies and ascended spiritually into heaven doesn't exactly amount to ANY threat against Rome that torture and murder is required.

Hence, there must have been some other far more serious "teachings" going on or actions taken "at the instigation of Chrestus" right around the time twenty five years hence to Pliny that he relates some among them renounced Jesus to begin with. Most curious that one. It's only significance of course is that it is perfectly in keeping with the actions of someone after a revolution or two has failed brutally.

ETA: It's truly remarkable how early Christianity just seems to be magically devoid of ANY of the mounting revolutionary sentiment in the exact same region that it supposedly takes place, even though throughout Mark there are strong indicators--including the whole Barrabbas uprising and the fact that Jesus was supposedly crucified with two other insurrectionists ("thieves" the cult would claim).

Every time you peel anything back it points to Christians being insurrectionists first and foremost and the non-separation of church and state accounting for the theology associated with it. Always through a cult-lense backwards of course.
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:29 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:21 pm

[quote=""Metacrock""]
Metacrock;624325 wrote:
Kookaburra Jack;624160 wrote:
Metacrock;624129 wrote:
Bull shit! the lengths you guys will go to to keep from from admittin g the evidence isnot in yourfavor.


The evidence? The literary evidence of Tacitus for example, UNCITED but preserved in the archives of the utterly corrupt church organisation, which happened to have been "suddenly and unexpectedly" discovered over a thousand years later?

Will you be telling me next that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during the rule of Nero?




.


automatically discrediting all evidence from anyone connected with the church in any way is not scholarship it is stupid it is ignorant it''s bias and it is a lie.

that you don't get how many of those church historians are not believing and don't care about apologetic shows how badly read one is who thinks this.

The historian for whom I worked as a TA was not a big believer. I am not sure if he even went to church he had no commitment. He said outright Doherty is an idiot. he also said he we did history like Jesus mythers we would have to admit we know nothing. historians do not rule out sources merely because they are religious.

The historian who chaired my dissertation committee was an atheist he had the same opinion.
Interesting...And how did such come up in the conversation? Were you sitting around the table with your dissertation committee and did a round where everybody declared their religious affiliation? All a part of the rites of passage?

Like you, I'm reluctant to blythely dismiss sources from within the church. Sometimes, they can be very, very helpful. The whole group of Father Raymond Brown, Father John P. Meier, former priest John Dominic Crossan, and now Father Thomas L. Brodie, from within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church, have been very helpful in my process of coming to the view that the Jesus of the New Testament is most likely a literary construct...the result of midrash; a pesher, as I understand it. Evidently, Father Brodie is of similar opinion. I'd like to read his musings in Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of Discovery, but at this point it is still a mite pricey.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:56 pm

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]
Metacrock;624327 wrote:
Metacrock;624325 wrote:
Kookaburra Jack;624160 wrote:


The evidence? The literary evidence of Tacitus for example, UNCITED but preserved in the archives of the utterly corrupt church organisation, which happened to have been "suddenly and unexpectedly" discovered over a thousand years later?

Will you be telling me next that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during the rule of Nero?




.


automatically discrediting all evidence from anyone connected with the church in any way is not scholarship it is stupid it is ignorant it''s bias and it is a lie.

that you don't get how many of those church historians are not believing and don't care about apologetic shows how badly read one is who thinks this.

The historian for whom I worked as a TA was not a big believer. I am not sure if he even went to church he had no commitment. He said outright Doherty is an idiot. he also said he we did history like Jesus mythers we would have to admit we know nothing. historians do not rule out sources merely because they are religious.

The historian who chaired my dissertation committee was an atheist he had the same opinion.
Interesting...And how did such come up in the conversation? Were you sitting around the table with your dissertation committee and did a round where everybody declared their religious affiliation? All a part of the rites of passage?
People in graduate school tend to be human being type people so we often do this w9red th9ng called making friends. Some of those friends are our professors. Being almost normal we talk to our friends. So I did something radical and ask them what they thought of the Jesus myth issue.
Like you, I'm reluctant to blythely dismiss sources from within the church. Sometimes, they can be very, very helpful. The whole group of Father Raymond Brown, Father John P. Meier, former priest John Dominic Crossan, and now Father Thomas L. Brodie, from within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church, have been very helpful in my process of coming to the view that the Jesus of the New Testament is most likely a literary construct...the result of midrash; a pesher, as I understand it. Evidently, Father Brodie is of similar opinion. I'd like to read his musings in Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of Discovery, but at this point it is still a mite pricey.
Then you didn't pay attention because non of the people reject the historicity of Jesus. Crossan specifically des not think well of Doherty and has been critical of him. Brown was a believer. he was closer to the conventional sense. Crossan is a believer too (in a liberal sort of way) but Brown was more Orthodox.

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:06 am

[quote=""ruby sparks""]Part of my reason for doing so was (I confess) to try to shed some light on the idea that most historians don't take Jesus Mythicism all that seriously. [/quote]That's about the rub... It would set a really weird precedent to start assuming non-existence whenever there are questions about sources, so most would prefer not to, even though they don't particularly care about Jesus specifically one way or the other.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Samnell
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:45 am
Location: Northeastern Lower Michigan, USA

Post by Samnell » Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:41 am

[quote=""Politesse""]
ruby sparks;624331 wrote:Part of my reason for doing so was (I confess) to try to shed some light on the idea that most historians don't take Jesus Mythicism all that seriously.
That's about the rub... It would set a really weird precedent to start assuming non-existence whenever there are questions about sources, so most would prefer not to, even though they don't particularly care about Jesus specifically one way or the other.[/QUOTE]

If we dumped every source we had questions about, we would be out of sources. Whether one prefers "everyone lies", "everyone is biased", or some other variation, it comes down to the same thing. Those bastards who wrote our sources were people, damn them.

Spent some time last week trying to help a student figure out a bit about that, in fact. She had a guy, one of the founders of Omaha, who claimed that he ducked out of Kansas with the help of his friend William Phillips, an antislavery newspaper man who was lynched shortly thereafter. But there were two antislavery William Phillipses in Kansas, only one of whom was lynched. The other guy was the news correspondent. So we ended up comparing materials to see if both Phillipses wrote for the papers or if we had yet a third Phillips and second lynching victim. Doesn't appear they did or we have, which suggests strongly that her guy was either very confused or telling stories, but she wrote off to the archive that has his papers in hopes of more insight.

I suspect the latter, incidentally. Lynched William Phillips was only every locally notable so far as I can tell. He worked as a lawyer for about two years before dying in a gunfight. Easy enough for the father of Omaha to decide in later years that he'd rather be associated with the famous Phillips who went on to command a unit in the Civil War, wrote a history of early territorial Kansas (well, a polemical document that's useful as a primary source but called itself a history), and serve in the House.

Then we commiserated about the absurd situation and poor nineteenth century clerical habits:

"Is the testimony in chronological order?"
"Not really. It's chronological, mostly, by events but there's a big appendix of additional testimony."
"Of course!"
"And the pagination restarts for the testimony. Citations in the summaries aren't to page numbers, but to witness names. Sometimes misspelled or mis-cited too."
I have a blog about nineteenth century America. It's theoretically educational!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:06 am

[quote=""Metacrock""]
Roo St. Gallus;624337 wrote:
Metacrock;624327 wrote:
Metacrock;624325 wrote:


automatically discrediting all evidence from anyone connected with the church in any way is not scholarship it is stupid it is ignorant it''s bias and it is a lie.

that you don't get how many of those church historians are not believing and don't care about apologetic shows how badly read one is who thinks this.

The historian for whom I worked as a TA was not a big believer. I am not sure if he even went to church he had no commitment. He said outright Doherty is an idiot. he also said he we did history like Jesus mythers we would have to admit we know nothing. historians do not rule out sources merely because they are religious.

The historian who chaired my dissertation committee was an atheist he had the same opinion.
Interesting...And how did such come up in the conversation? Were you sitting around the table with your dissertation committee and did a round where everybody declared their religious affiliation? All a part of the rites of passage?
People in graduate school tend to be human being type people so we often do this w9red th9ng called making friends. Some of those friends are our professors. Being almost normal we talk to our friends. So I did something radical and ask them what they thought of the Jesus myth issue.
Like you, I'm reluctant to blythely dismiss sources from within the church. Sometimes, they can be very, very helpful. The whole group of Father Raymond Brown, Father John P. Meier, former priest John Dominic Crossan, and now Father Thomas L. Brodie, from within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church, have been very helpful in my process of coming to the view that the Jesus of the New Testament is most likely a literary construct...the result of midrash; a pesher, as I understand it. Evidently, Father Brodie is of similar opinion. I'd like to read his musings in Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of Discovery, but at this point it is still a mite pricey.
Then you didn't pay attention because non of the people reject the historicity of Jesus. Crossan specifically des not think well of Doherty and has been critical of him. Brown was a believer. he was closer to the conventional sense. Crossan is a believer too (in a liberal sort of way) but Brown was more Orthodox.
Heh...I didn't say that they were mythicists. Indeed, I know that they are historicists...except for Father Brodie, as I understand. I started my studies with the esteemed Father Meier. I liked his work, but found vaulting assumptions with which I did not agree. Father Meier's work is based strongly on that of Father Brown, but I have not spent much time directly reading Brown; no need, what with Meier..I moved on. Crossan was a mite better, what with his sociological/anthropological approach. Crossan actually left the priesthood to pursue his research because he did not want to be restricted by imprimatur. I liked his assessment and recognized that he fell largely in to the 'Jesus as a Cynic Sage' camp, but again, the assumptions left gaping holes. I also liked Horsley, Morton Smith, Schweitzer, Borg, Vermes, and Funk. All historicists. I am an absolute fanboy of Burton Mack, and, so far as I know, he remains an 'historicist'. Then, I stumbled on to G.A. Wells and found that there was a completely different hypothesis...mythicism.

Since then, I've read my way through most of the popular scholars on "the Quest." The Roman Catholic priest historians were my beginning. It was their inability to convince which eventually led me to mythicism...the long way 'round.
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Kookaburra Jack
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:02 am
Location: Falls Creek, rural Australia
Contact:

Post by Kookaburra Jack » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:51 am

[quote=""Metacrock""]automatically discrediting all evidence from anyone connected with the church in any way is not scholarship [/quote]

The historical method itself allows for an evaluation that any given source may be forged or corrupt. When the church is regarded as an hierarchical organisation of men, it may be treated as a single source.

Furthermore it is not an automatic discrediting, since it is based on the historical events in the history of the church between the 4th century and the middle ages.


it is stupid it is ignorant it''s bias and it is a lie.
Between the 4th century and the middle ages the church organisation has been engaged in a whole Host of utterly corrupt activities. These include the inquisitions, genocides, executions, tortures, exiles, imprisonments, book burning, censorship, and literary forgery.

You are free to treat them as a "Divine Institute" if you wish, however as far as I am concerned the church organisation was utterly corrupt, and I have no obligation whatsoever to automatically accept any manuscript or literary evidence provenance within the archives of the church as authentic.

Do you?


If you wish to view the Christian references in Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus, and Suetonius as genuine, that's your call. My call is that it is more likely that these references are not genuine and authentic, but have been fabricated in the middle ages by the utterly corrupt church organisation. I have listed timelines and sources. In iconic Orwellian fashion, they were motivated to control the past in order to control the present and future.

We are, after all is said and done, discussing the church organisation. From the perspective of political history, this was an extremely powerful and lucrative monopoly BU$$INE$$ INDU$TRY.



.
Last edited by Kookaburra Jack on Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Who was Leucius Charinus? ... A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius][Website]

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:32 am

[quote=""Kookaburra Jack""]
We are, after all is said and done, discussing the church organisation. From the perspective of political history, this was an extremely powerful and lucrative monopoly BU$$INE$$ INDU$TRY.[/quote]

Indeed, in my estimation, it is the very exemplar of the venal conspiracy to control thought through deception, fraud, and terror.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:48 am

[quote=""Kookaburra Jack""]
Metacrock;624327 wrote:automatically discrediting all evidence from anyone connected with the church in any way is not scholarship
The historical method itself allows for an evaluation that any given source may be forged or corrupt. When the church is regarded as an hierarchical organisation of men, it may be treated as a single source.

no it doesn't. charges of forgery are serious you just lob them at every passage you don't like.

Furthermore it is not an automatic discrediting, since it is based on the historical events in the history of the church between the 4th century and the middle ages.


First of all I don't think he named any as late as 4th, they were all fiom first (he named Tascitus) and second. Secondly, he named several of the sources used to argue ofr Jesus' historicity If Let him keep going I bet he will name everyone of them he


it is stupid it is ignorant it''s bias and it is a lie.
Between the 4th century and the middle ages the church organisation has been engaged in a whole Host of utterly corrupt activities. These include the inquisitions, genocides, executions, tortures, exiles, imprisonments, book burning, censorship, and literary forgery.
That is not cart Blanchet o assert any fool charge against any Christian idea. It has nothing to do with the issue of Jesus' historicity. None of the evidence is from latter than second century maybe some of it early third.

You are free to treat them as a "Divine Institute" if you wish, however as far as I am concerned the church organisation was utterly corrupt, and I have no obligation whatsoever to automatically accept any manuscript or literary evidence provenance within the archives of the church as authentic.
so you are just going to make up your own bull shit and treat it like fact because it's what you want. thanks for admitting what I already knew that Jesus mytherism is an ideological propaganda ploy to ruin people's faith and belittle belief it has nothing to do with evidence.
Do you?
If you want to be a good historian you do have an obligation to follow the principles of historical critical methods; why are you giving me this song and dance about the corruption of the church if you are not by that admitting that you have no interest in truth you just hate Christianity?
If you wish to view the Christian references in Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus, and Suetonius as genuine, that's your call. My call is that it is more likely that these references are not genuine and authentic, but have been fabricated in the middle ages by the utterly corrupt church organisation. I have listed timelines and sources. In iconic Orwellian fashion, they were motivated to control the past in order to control the present and future.


you do not base that upon any warrant at all. It's totally ideological.


We are, after all is said and done, discussing the church organisation. From the perspective of political history, this was an extremely powerful and lucrative monopoly BU$$INE$$ INDU$TRY.
OK that's another thing. I was a communist, a Trotskyite. there is nothing you can tell me about spotting class interest in a given text. It is totally ridiculous to base denial of Jesus' historicity upon your dislike for that church and your political ideology. One has nothing to do with the other.

Christianity began a working class movement. If Jesus existed he existed whether the workers were oppressed or5 the church was full of crap or not.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:52 am

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]
Kookaburra Jack;624447 wrote: We are, after all is said and done, discussing the church organisation. From the perspective of political history, this was an extremely powerful and lucrative monopoly BU$$INE$$ INDU$TRY.
Indeed, in my estimation, it is the very exemplar of the venal conspiracy to control thought through deception, fraud, and terror.[/QUOTE]

that proves Jesus didn't exist. It also prove wore blue robes instead of white. that's a little fact they tell you about. he also snorted when ye laughed now how could the son or God snort?

you really have just admitted a lot.

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:41 pm

exemplar of the venal conspiracy to control thought through deception, fraud, and terror
(Not loaded: IQyqx1K495U)
(View video on YouTube)

I am merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a Jungian archetype who he is.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Kookaburra Jack
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:02 am
Location: Falls Creek, rural Australia
Contact:

Post by Kookaburra Jack » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:39 am

[quote=""Metacrock""]
Kookaburra Jack;624447 wrote:The historical method itself allows for an evaluation that any given source may be forged or corrupt. When the church is regarded as an hierarchical organisation of men, it may be treated as a single source.

no it doesn't.[/quote]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Core principles for determining reliability

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.
Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.



Yes it does.


First of all I don't think he named any as late as 4th, they were all fiom first (he named Tascitus) and second. Secondly, he named several of the sources used to argue ofr Jesus' historicity If Let him keep going I bet he will name everyone of them ...
Who is "he" and how does what "he" named relate to the OP?


That is not cart Blanchet o assert any fool charge against any Christian idea. It has nothing to do with the issue of Jesus' historicity. None of the evidence is from latter than second century maybe some of it early third.

IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST. Eusebius, the first "historian of the nation of Christians" gathered together the fragmentary records of the past in the 4th century, three hundred years after the events which supposedly occurred in the New and Strange Testament.



so you are just going to make up your own bull shit and treat it like fact because it's what you want.

It is a fact that the church organisation has a dismal history of corruption. If you'd prefer to bury your head in the sand and ignore this evidence, then you are not doing history.

If you want to be a good historian you do have an obligation to follow the principles of historical critical methods;

In which one of the core principles is that any given source may be forged or corrupt. Hello?

why are you giving me this song and dance about the corruption of the church if you are not by that admitting that you have no interest in truth you just hate Christianity?

My interest is in the historical truth, and the ancient historical evidence supports the contention that, between the 4th century - when the church became a political instrument of the Roman Emperors, and the Roman State - and the middle ages - when they were conduction the inquisitions and censoring academic opinions by means of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, this organisation was politically corrupt.

Why are you giving me this song and dance that, if I question the political motivation of the church and find it extremely unethical, then it follows that I am to be classified as a "hater of Christianity".


If you wish to view the Christian references in Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus, and Suetonius as genuine, that's your call. My call is that it is more likely that these references are not genuine and authentic, but have been fabricated in the middle ages by the utterly corrupt church organisation. I have listed timelines and sources. In iconic Orwellian fashion, they were motivated to control the past in order to control the present and future.


you do not base that upon any warrant at all. It's totally ideological.

The evaluation of the corrupt nature of the church organisation(s) is firmly based on almost 17 centuries of historical evidence. It has nothing to do with ideology or dogma, and everything to do with the historical method.

We are, after all is said and done, discussing the church organisation. From the perspective of political history, this was an extremely powerful and lucrative monopoly BU$$INE$$ INDU$TRY.
OK that's another thing. I was a communist, a Trotskyite. there is nothing you can tell me about spotting class interest in a given text. It is totally ridiculous to base denial of Jesus' historicity upon your dislike for that church and your political ideology. One has nothing to do with the other.
The OP is looking at the likelihood that the Christian references in the Roman writers listed are not authentic, and have been interpolated or forged into the manuscripts by the corrupt organisation who's business operating principles mandated that they preserve these manuscripts.
Christianity began a working class movement.

I think it is more likely that Christianity simply began as a spin-off racket of the greatest racket of all - WAR. The four historical "Monotheistic Book Religions" - Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam - each have their "Holy Writs". Each were first implemented by supreme military commanders at the zenith of their absolute power within their respective empires in antiquity. War is a racket. After the victors win, spin-off rackets are implemented in order to more efficiently maintain and control the large geographical expanses. One Codex and One Magi slash priest slash bishop slash vicarius (vicar) per diocese [see Diocletian's reforms] was a control racket common to the history of all these "Book Religions".

If Jesus existed he existed whether the workers were oppressed or5 the church was full of crap or not.
The primary historical evidence for the hypothesis that Jesus existed are the books of the new and strange testament, a holy writ. Essentially Jesus dwelt in a codex, the high technology of antiquity in terms of data storage systems, literature, etc.

It is the Church organisation's business to preserve books. Unfortunately, as I have been saying, evidence firmly indicates that they also destroyed, burnt, and censored books. They fabricated other books out of whole cloth, and they interpolated extant literature for their own ideological ends. This utterly corrupt business agenda is common knowledge, and you will not learn this sort of stuff in Theological Institutes, Biblical Colleges or the like, because they do not bother to examine and analyse the political history of the church back through the intervening centuries back from the 21st to antiquity.

The NT was fabricated - at least in part - from the Greek LXX by a literary school which needed to have had no association to Judaism. This literary school fabricated a political manifesto which - entitled the "Good News" - was to announce the Kingdom of Heaven and Force All Men into it. It took a while for the canonised Holy Writ of the NT to be closed, but by that time the political situation is to be found in the decrees of the Roman Emperor Theodosius:


'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.'

381 CE




My final question to you:

Did Saint Peter really resurrect a smoked Herring ? ["Acts of Peter"]



.
Who was Leucius Charinus? ... A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius][Website]

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:25 am

[quote=""Kookaburra Jack""]
Metacrock;624480 wrote:
Kookaburra Jack;624447 wrote:The historical method itself allows for an evaluation that any given source may be forged or corrupt. When the church is regarded as an hierarchical organisation of men, it may be treated as a single source.

no it doesn't.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Core principles for determining reliability

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.
Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.



Yes it does.[/QUOTE]

if you really knew anything about historiography you would not quote Wikepidia. that was probably edited by a Jesus myther, maybe you.


First of all I don't think he named any as late as 4th, they were all fiom first (he named Tascitus) and second. Secondly, he named several of the sources used to argue ofr Jesus' historicity If Let him keep going I bet he will name everyone of them ...
Who is "he" and how does what "he" named relate to the OP?
the guy in the op



IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST. Eusebius, the first "historian of the nation of Christians" gathered together the fragmentary records of the past in the 4th century, three hundred years after the events which supposedly occurred in the New and Strange Testament


Ad hom in ad hom atheists trust! Nothing Iv said depends upon appeal to Eusebius


It is a fact that the church organisation has a dismal history of corruption. If you'd prefer to bury your head in the sand and ignore this evidence, then you are not doing history.

irrelevant. can you say "guilt by association?" atheism murdered 200 million people. face the truth,

In which one of the core principles is that any given source may be forged or corrupt. Hello?
what are you talking about? you still must have a warrant for an argument you can't name a principle and pretend it's proof.

My interest is in the historical truth, and the ancient historical evidence supports the contention that, between the 4th century - when the church became a political instrument of the Roman Emperors, and the Roman State - and the middle ages - when they were conduction the inquisitions and censoring academic opinions by means of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, this organisation was politically corrupt.
existed 400 years before that so they have no control over that they can't make him go away and neither can you.
Why are you giving me this song and dance that, if I question the political motivation of the church and find it extremely unethical, then it follows that I am to be classified as a "hater of Christianity".
O come now surely you can understand how irrelevant that is. Jesus didn't exist because a corrupt church said he did? you really can't see how silly that is? Sov obviously rationalization.


The evaluation of the corrupt nature of the church organisation(s) is firmly based on almost 17 centuries of historical evidence. It has nothing to do with ideology or dogma, and everything to do with the historical method
.


It has nothing to do with historical methods. have you not heard about links. the very same logic you are using says atheism is wrong because of Stalin and Mao. Can't you see that?
OK that's another thing. I was a communist, a Trotskyite. there is nothing you can tell me about spotting class interest in a given text. It is totally ridiculous to base denial of Jesus' historicity upon your dislike for that church and your political ideology. One has nothing to do with the other.
The OP is looking at the likelihood that the Christian references in the Roman writers listed are not authentic, and have been interpolated or forged into the manuscripts by the corrupt organisation who's business operating principles mandated that they preserve these manuscripts.
my thing asserts the very same thing you are.

A is bad, so we can't trust A
A says "X"
therefore X must be wrong

do it either way, let A be either Church or Atheism (communism)
let X be either Jesus existed or he did not exist.

fallacious with either set.
Christianity began a working class movement.

I
think it is more likely that Christianity simply began as a spin-off racket of the greatest racket of all - WAR. The four historical "Monotheistic Book Religions" - Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam - each have their "Holy Writs". Each were first implemented by supreme military commanders at the zenith of their absolute power within their respective empires in antiquity. War is a racket. After the victors win, spin-off rackets are implemented in order to more efficiently maintain and control the large geographical expanses. One Codex and One Magi slash priest slash bishop slash vicarius (vicar) per diocese [see Diocletian's reforms] was a control racket common to the history of all these "Book Religions".

you continually ignore the facts. most early Christians were slaves. working class. you can't ignore the truth
If Jesus existed he existed whether the workers were oppressed or5 the church was full of crap or not.
The primary historical evidence for the hypothesis that Jesus existed are the books of the new and strange testament, a holy writ. Essentially Jesus dwelt in a codex, the high technology of antiquity in terms of data storage systems, literature, etc.

we have fragments of those books that go way back way before the church was corrupted, they could not control all copies. so if there were copies with stuff in them that disproved Jesus then we have some trace of it.

It is the Church organisation's business to preserve books. Unfortunately, as I have been saying, evidence firmly indicates that they also destroyed, burnt, and censored books. They fabricated other books out of whole cloth, and they interpolated extant literature for their own ideological ends. This utterly corrupt business agenda is common knowledge, and you will not learn this sort of stuff in Theological Institutes, Biblical Colleges or the like, because they do not bother to examine and analyse the political history of the church back through the intervening centuries back from the 21st to antiquity.


tons of scholars are unbelieving or through arrogant motives seek to make name for themselves, no way they could suppress. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. they kept them controlled for years but people got hold of them.
The NT was fabricated - at least in part - from the Greek LXX by a literary school which needed to have had no association to Judaism.


you have no understanding of any of this. quoting passages and making literary allusions is not forgery. this was a Hebrew thing called "Midrash."

This literary school fabricated a political manifesto which - entitled the "Good News" - was to announce the Kingdom of Heaven and Force All Men into it. It took a while for the canonised Holy Writ of the NT to be closed, but by that time the political situation is to be found in the decrees of the Roman Emperor Theodosius:


'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.'

381 CE




My final question to you:

Did Saint Peter really resurrect a smoked Herring ? ["Acts of Peter"]



.
I see it was the Time Trapper? Turned out to be Cosmic boy but before he attacked the Legion but first he wrote the New Testament. where does Brainiac come into it? Was Saturn Girl in that one?

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:32 am

guilt by association is a fallacy. one cannot use sins of the church as historical evidence against the NT historicity. That is sheer sophistry.

Of course I know It's fallacious to blame all atheists for the murders of communism, that's my point.

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:36 pm

[quote=""Metacrock""]
Copernicus;624134 wrote:The archaeological evidence that Christians existed in Rome during Nero's reign is extremely vague, and the RCC's bias in promoting tales of Christian persecutions is extremely clear. That doesn't mean we can conclude that the tale of Christian persecution by Nero is false, but it shouldn't just be accepted on the basis of majority opinions in academia. Even if the evidence had not been forged by the Church, it is still quite possible that they just got their facts wrong on the basis of information that was decades old. Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.
you will not find many real historians (ie Ph.D. teaching in university publishing and going to conferences) who don't accept Tacitus as real. the only reason you think it's forged is because you don't like what he says.[/QUOTE]
No, I believe that the Christian references may have been interpolations, because I have found the arguments against veracity to be more convincing than the arguments for it. You are of the opposite opinion. As far as I am concerned, my personal bias does not undermine my conclusion any more than yours undermines your conclusion. Attacking the motives of a person you disagree with is a common rhetorical tactic when one has no better reason for dismissing the opinion of that person.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:41 am

[quote=""Copernicus""]
Metacrock;624322 wrote:
Copernicus;624134 wrote:The archaeological evidence that Christians existed in Rome during Nero's reign is extremely vague, and the RCC's bias in promoting tales of Christian persecutions is extremely clear. That doesn't mean we can conclude that the tale of Christian persecution by Nero is false, but it shouldn't just be accepted on the basis of majority opinions in academia. Even if the evidence had not been forged by the Church, it is still quite possible that they just got their facts wrong on the basis of information that was decades old. Pliny apparently knew of the existence of Christians, but he claimed to be unfamiliar with them.
you will not find many real historians (ie Ph.D. teaching in university publishing and going to conferences) who don't accept Tacitus as real. the only reason you think it's forged is because you don't like what he says.
No, I believe that the Christian references may have been interpolations, because I have found the arguments against veracity to be more convincing than the arguments for it. You are of the opposite opinion. As far as I am concerned, my personal bias does not undermine my conclusion any more than yours undermines your conclusion. Attacking the motives of a person you disagree with is a common rhetorical tactic when one has no better reason for dismissing the opinion of that person.[/QUOTE]

there is not such evidence of which am aware. If so what is it?

Post Reply