Did Jesus exist, Part II

Article 4 of most versions of the Apostles' Creed says something along the lines of "crucified under Pontius Pilate", scholars date all the theological expansions of the creed to Church Councils starting no earlier than 390 AD but there is no reason to believe that some proto-creed was not in use back to the earliest times. It's a critical part of the Catechism, the confession at Baptism, and the common passion account shared amongst all 4 evangelists.It is exactly the sort of thing a deaconess would recite under torture.

Oh, have a look at Kenneth Humphreys's interpretation of Antiquities 20 while you are at it: James – Radical Jew Sanitized into Pious Christian Martyr

Off topic inappropriate post - do not respond

* guiltyThis message has been edited by AdminNWR, 01-10-2006 08:40 PMThis message has been edited by Iblis, 01-10-2006 10:07 PM

Bit of a logic trap there brother. Are there any professors of economics who deny that Jesus was cost-effective? Are there any professors of dentistry who deny that he had bad teeth? Are there any geologists who deny he was a rock? Most importantly, are there any professors of history who deny that Santa Claus existed?In every case, why would they bother, it would be out of their field. The fact that historians don't base any theories on the assumption that he did exist (unlike say Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great) is the real fact here.There are gobs of professors of theology with good history credentials that harp long and hard on the subject all day long though.

Well we are just a few posts short of 13 o'clock and the last 3 pages haven't added much. Let's go over the sources one more timePhilo -- Nothing, not a word, though he seems to be the same religion or philosophy or whatever-it-is as John the Evangelist and would have presumably gotten a kick out of any "Logos" mythology that might have been availableJosephus, Antiquities 18 -- not quoted by Origen though he uses Josephus extensively in his lifelong argument with Celsus regarding the accuracy of Christian records; an obvious insertion in that it appears out-of-context in a list of 3 terrible massacres by Pilate involving multitudes of Jews; extreme hyperbole, about ten times more "purple" than any other passage in Josephus, and using several words not written by Josephus in any of his known writings; not quoted by anyone or appearing in any texts before Eusebius in 340 ADJosephus, Antiquities 18, Arabic version -- not quoted by anyone before the beginning of Islam, corresponds exactly to Muhammed's view of JesusJosephus, Antiquities 20 -- not quoted verbatim by anyone before Eusebius; by verbatim I refer specifically to the "so-called Christ" part, an obvious insertion in that the Jesus being referred to is the son of Damneus, who was made high priest after his brother James' (Jacob's) deathPliny, correspondence with Trajan -- does not assert historicity, regards Christ as a god of a mystery religion, does not mention Jesus at all, gets his information by torturing deaconessesSuetonius, Life of Claudius -- mentions a certain Chrestus, apparently alive and instigating a Jewish revolt in RomeSuetonius, Life of Nero -- mentions Christians (not Chrestians) who are accused of burning Rome, not quoted before Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century, an obvious insertion in that it appears out of context in a list of good things done by NeroTacitus -- mentions Christians, their founder Christus who "suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified dead and buried", and blames Nero for the actual burning of Rome, placing him on the scene when in fact we know he was at Anzio at the time; not quoted before Sulpicius Severus although it like Josephus 18 is a grab-bag of Christian creed elements that would have benefitted from historical supportSo, it looks like we need for Eusebius and Sulpicius to be very truthful moral people, not subject to any doubt as to their sense of history or their concept of truthfulnessSulpicius Severus is the author of the Life of St. Martin, which attributes to the said neo-Pelagian, his own contemporary, far more and weirder miracles than all the gospels together attribute to Jesus.Eusebius is the author of the Letters of Antoninus Pius, a 4th-century document attributed to a 2nd-century pagan emperor which seizes on the epithet "Pious" to make him a sympathizer, forbidding "tumults against Christians" and containing numerous anachronisms (it has a Greek emperor for one thing, there were none before Constantine). Here is a nice quote from Eusebius regarding his view of history: "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2)Anything I missed?* turns out there is, here is the title of the 32nd chapter of Eusebius' 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation: "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."This message has been edited by Iblis, 01-16-2006 01:44 AM