ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 20703
Fri, 5-Aug-11 10:05:14
Moderator
Posts: 5945
Fri, 5-Aug-11 10:11:09
Fri, 5-Aug-11 10:36:53
Proteus wrote:Harry has written post after post, literally plastering the forum with them recently, stating he can "prove" that Jesus existed.Would you care to substantiate that via direct quote from any of my posts? ("Literally plastering the forum"?)
The Wikipedia article on Paul (not recommended) includes a quotation from 1 Clement, dated ca. 90 C.E., suggesting that Clement of Rome was familiar with Acts. . . .His sole surviving known authentic work, 1 Clement, at 47:1ff, clearly references Paul's 1 Corinthians; placing that as a first-century work. (post #15 this thread)
The point in referencing Marcion is not to endorse any of his beliefs, but rather note the fact of his having referenced, prior to the third century, Paul's letters. (post #19 of this thread)
Fri, 5-Aug-11 10:42:11
Posts: 975
Mon, 8-Aug-11 09:51:52
Proteus wrote: Harry has written post after post ... stating he can "prove" that Jesus existed.When and where did I say I "can 'prove' that Jesus existed"?
Thu, 11-Aug-11 13:05:39
... "Chrestians" question appears here.
Tue, 16-Aug-11 12:18:15
Tue, 16-Aug-11 14:26:42
An essay by William Shandruk from the University of Chicago examines the ways in which Christ and Christian are spelled in Greek papyri. Chrestos, which was pronounced the same way as Christos, was a common slave name meaning "good" or "useful."
Wed, 17-Aug-11 10:20:53
Wed, 17-Aug-11 10:22:52
The whole story is much bigger than the two sentences you quoted.
Wed, 17-Aug-11 10:24:09
I'm really surprsied you'd resort to that tactic, Sophiee.
Wed, 17-Aug-11 11:02:32
Proteus wrote:.AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT FOR THE JOHN TEXT, ..... not to mention the whole rest of the GT, are — what?
Wed, 17-Aug-11 11:04:35
Wed, 17-Aug-11 11:09:46
It certainly gives an impression very different from the conclusion you've drawn.
Wed, 17-Aug-11 11:23:34
Wed, 17-Aug-11 13:10:36
Sophiee1 wrote: Proteus wrote: .AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT FOR THE JOHN TEXT, ..... not to mention the whole rest of the GT, are — what?That early sources used a term that was commonly used of slaves and meant "good" and that some anonymous authors hundred or hundreds of years later (John for example) turned it into a man/god/messiah. The ramifications are the paganization of Christianity by authors unknown.
Proteus wrote: .AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT FOR THE JOHN TEXT, ..... not to mention the whole rest of the GT, are — what?
Wed, 17-Aug-11 13:33:38
NAS (7) - easy, 1; good, 2; kind, 2; kindness, 2;
Wed, 17-Aug-11 15:33:22
The archaeology used commonly to claim the earliest appearances of Jesus Christ and Christianity in the record is shown here to be false: they are ‘interpolations’ and misreadings of panhellenistic symbols. Christianity first appears unequivocally in the early fourth century and we have found not a single artefact, including text, bearing the term Christ and dated reliably before the fourth century. What then, of Chrest and Chrestians – what happened to them? They were the subject of prosecution, because their commercial, low magic (theurgy) was illegal and under the emperor Diocletian, reached a high point, recorded by a member of the imperial court, Lactantius. Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320), a Latin-speaking native of North Africa, was an advisor to Roman emperor Constantine I, guiding his religious policy as it developed, and tutor to his son. In his early life, he taught rhetoric in his native place, which may have been Cirta in Numidia, where an inscription mentions a certain ‘L. Caecilius Firmianus’. At the request of Diocletian, he became an official professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia, the voyage from Africa described in his poem Hodoeporicum. There he associated in the imperial circle with the administrator and polemicist Sossianus Hierocles and the philosopher Porphyry; here he will first have met Constantine and Galerius. LACTANTIUS. [TRANSLATED BY THE REV. WILLIAM FLETCHER, D.D.] CHAP. VII.—OF THE NAME OF SON, AND WHENCE HE IS CALLED JESUS AND CHRIST. …But although His name, which the supreme Father gave Him from the beginning, is known to none but Himself, nevertheless He has one name among the angels, and another among men, since He is called Jesus among men: for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus. Editorial note: Suetonius speaks of Christ as Chrestus. The Christians also were called Chrestians, as Tertullian shows in his Apology. Here we have an open admission to how Chrest becomes Christ. After this point in time, Chrest is Christ, Chrestians are Christians and monks began the process we noted, supra, of changing the biblical texts accordingly. It also remained to claim panhellenic symbols used in Chrestian texts as ‘nomina sacra’ for Christianity.
The archaeology used commonly to claim the earliest appearances of Jesus Christ and Christianity in the record is shown here to be false: they are ‘interpolations’ and misreadings of panhellenistic symbols.
Christianity first appears unequivocally in the early fourth century and we have found not a single artefact, including text, bearing the term Christ and dated reliably before the fourth century.
What then, of Chrest and Chrestians – what happened to them? They were the subject of prosecution, because their commercial, low magic (theurgy) was illegal and under the emperor Diocletian, reached a high point, recorded by a member of the imperial court, Lactantius.
Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320), a Latin-speaking native of North Africa, was an advisor to Roman emperor Constantine I, guiding his religious policy as it developed, and tutor to his son. In his early life, he taught rhetoric in his native place, which may have been Cirta in Numidia, where an inscription mentions a certain ‘L. Caecilius Firmianus’.
At the request of Diocletian, he became an official professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia, the voyage from Africa described in his poem Hodoeporicum. There he associated in the imperial circle with the administrator and polemicist Sossianus Hierocles and the philosopher Porphyry; here he will first have met Constantine and Galerius.
LACTANTIUS. [TRANSLATED BY THE REV. WILLIAM FLETCHER, D.D.] CHAP. VII.—OF THE NAME OF SON, AND WHENCE HE IS CALLED JESUS AND CHRIST. …But although His name, which the supreme Father gave Him from the beginning, is known to none but Himself, nevertheless He has one name among the angels, and another among men, since He is called Jesus among men: for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus. Editorial note: Suetonius speaks of Christ as Chrestus. The Christians also were called Chrestians, as Tertullian shows in his Apology.
LACTANTIUS.
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. WILLIAM FLETCHER, D.D.]
CHAP. VII.—OF THE NAME OF SON, AND WHENCE HE IS CALLED JESUS AND CHRIST.
…But although His name, which the supreme Father gave Him from the beginning, is known to none but Himself, nevertheless He has one name among the angels, and another among men, since He is called Jesus among men: for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus.
Editorial note: Suetonius speaks of Christ as Chrestus. The Christians also were called Chrestians, as Tertullian shows in his Apology.
Here we have an open admission to how Chrest becomes Christ. After this point in time, Chrest is Christ, Chrestians are Christians and monks began the process we noted, supra, of changing the biblical texts accordingly.
It also remained to claim panhellenic symbols used in Chrestian texts as ‘nomina sacra’ for Christianity.
Thu, 18-Aug-11 11:33:13
Something very similar had occurred to me, in terms of a better expression of what I think Sophiee had in mind.Since the Chrestians predated the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople by almost four hundred years, do we even know what the "Chrestians" believed?It appears to me that there were no "Chrestians" apart from Christians, and no "Chrest" as a person apart from ... That is, no "Chrest" as the central figure of a religion, apart from Christianity, either.Even the quotation from Lactantius seems to me to say as much, as also do portions of the First Science News article that Sophiee did not quote here.At this moment, it seems to me to be a question of what we today call homographs and homophones. Homophones are two different words that are pronounced exactly the same, and the First Science News article indicates that in the time frame in question, "chrest" and "christ" were pronounced exactly alike. Whether Koine Greek had anything like contemporary English orthogony (spelling rules), I don't know. If it did not, then people were free to spell a word however one might choose, as long as the spelling fit the pronunciation. So any given writer might freely use one spelling or the other, or go back and forth between the two. Orthogony did not come into English until the 17th century; in his own will, written in his own hand, Shakespeare spelled his own name four different ways.Homographs are two different words that are spelled exactly the same, such as "affect" the verb meaning "to influence" and "affect" the noun meaning "emotion;" or "lay" the infinitive meaning "put" and "lay" the past tense of "lie," meaning "reclined." Or "lie" meaning to tell a falsehood and "lie" meaning to recline. In that regard, we would have "chrest" as an adjective commonly used to describe slaves; and "chrest" a wholly different noun "by [which] the Jews were accustomed to call their kings," as per the "History Hunters International" article.(P.S. -- The link to History Hunters International does not work.)The bottom line is that the constituent texts of the GT, regardless of how the word was spelt, nonetheless clearly all date from the first century, and all clearly refer to that religion which is today called Christianity.
Thu, 18-Aug-11 11:51:49
Share This