The Resurrection of Jesus - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Did Jesus Christ actually rise from dead?

Definitely Yes
16
25%
Probably Yes
1
2%
On the Fence
1
2%
Probably Not
11
17%
Definitely Not
35
55%
#14836969
ingliz wrote:John L. Ateo & Rachel C. tried.

Reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

1. There is no mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in the New Testament or any early Christian writings. Surely, given the desire for miraculous proof of the divine nature of Jesus, such a relic would have rated a mention.

2. The cloth is incompatible with New Testament accounts of Jesus' burial. John's gospel (19:38-42, 20:5-7) specifically states that the body was "wound" with "linen clothes". We're told that on reaching the empty tomb, they 'saw the strips of linen lying there'. Still another cloth (called "the napkin") covered his face and head. In contrast, the Shroud of Turin represents a single, draped cloth (laid under and then over the "body").

3. The clear implication of all three synoptics is that the material was bound tightly round the body, yet the Shroud of Turin shows an image made by simply lying a linen shroud on top of the front of the body, over the head and down the back.

4. The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes the body being wrapped with "a hundred pound weight" of burial spices (myrrh and aloes) — not a trace of which appears on the cloth, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death (from STURP's final report, 1981).

There is an additional problem with the matter of spices on the body. Both the gospels of Mark and Luke state that Joseph merely wrapped the body, and that the women had prepared spices for the body and were going to apply them when they noticed the body missing. Yet John's gospel states that Joseph not only wrapped the body, he added spices. In John's gospel there is no mention of the women preparing spices, obviously since it had already been done. So according to John's account the shroud should have traces of spices, but according to Mark and Luke, there should be no trace of spices. So whether spices are found or not, a passage in the Bible will support either stance. This blatant contradiction means that any argument regarding spices can not be resolved or used for support.

5. John 19:40 indicates that the burial was a normal one, following the Jewish traditions. Thus, Joseph of Arimethea would have washed the body. The body shown in the Shroud of Turin was not washed.

6. No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case. The weave was used in Europe in the Middle Ages.

7. The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a soldier of fortune who cannot or will not say how he acquired the most holy relic in all of Christendom.

8. The shroud surfaced in France exactly at the height of the 'holy relic' craze, the collection of patently false relics relating to Jesus. Not one such relic has ever been proved to be genuine, and the faking of relics was rife at this time. There were between 26 and 40 "authentic" burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one.

9. The earliest written record of the shroud is a Catholic bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims. The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it".

10. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.

11. As St. Augustine lamented in the fourth century, Jesus' appearance was [and still is], completely unknown, and the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness. That is, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and the image of Jesus in medieval Gothic art.

12. There is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. Thus the cloth was never used to wrap a body. If the image had been formed when the cloth was around Jesus' corpse it would have been distorted when the cloth was straightened out. The image would be wider and you would have an imprint of the sides of the body, not just the front and back. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.

13. There are serious anatomical problems with the image. Jesus' face, body, arms, and fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated (like figures in Gothic art), his left forearm was longer than his right, and his right hand is too long. The man is impossibly tall, being 6ft 8in (2.03m). The head is disproportionately small for the body, the face unnaturally narrow and the forehead foreshortened, and ears lost. The front and back images, in particular of the head, do not match up precisely, and the back image is around 2 inches (5cm) longer than the front. The back of the head is wider than the front of the head. The Shroud image is, in fact, so unusually very long and narrow that one pro-Shroud pathologist suggested that Jesus must have had Marfan's syndrome!

14. The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Real blood spreads in cloth and mats on hair, and does not form perfect rivulets and spiral flows. Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. It is absolutely certain that in the hour or so that passed before the removal from the cross, any blood which remained on the head, the back and the forehead, dried up and was congealed, because this is the natural behaviour of blood which leaves the body and is exposed to air. The alleged blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age. All the wounds, made at different times according to the Gospel accounts, appear as if still bleeding, even though blood does not generally flow after death. A corpse does not bleed, however it can leak blood through an open wound due to gravity. This could explain some blood but not all the bleeding wounds or the the problem in explaining how the blood flows transferred to the cloth while retaining their perfect detail.

15. There is no blood on the Shroud: all the forensic tests specific for blood have failed (although some investigators unrigorously concluded that blood was present after conducting numerous forensic tests for iron, protein, albumin, etc., which came up positive because these materials are indeed on the Shroud in the form of tempera paint).

16. "Blind" microscopic analyses show significant traces of paint pigment on image areas, thus proving the pigment red ocher was a component of the image. The "blood" was actually tempera paint. Real blood does not contain red ochre, vermilion, and alizarin red pigments.

17. Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

18. The "bloodstains" are redder than other parts of the image. Bloodstains do not remain red over time. They turn black or dark brown. These "bloodstains" also have a chemical composition matching paint which was used in medieval times.

19. It is true that there are higher concentrations of iron and protein, as are found in blood, in the areas of the "bloodstains". But iron and proteins are also found in pigments. Iron oxide is often used as a red colouring. Iron oxide fades to yellow when dehydrated so much of the iron oxide has now faded to yellow.

20. There is also significant amounts of mercuric sulphide, which is a well-known pigment called vermilion — a red pigment.

21. There is no trace of sodium, chlorine or potassium, which blood contains in high amounts and which would have been present if the stains were truly blood.

22. Porphyrins are present in the area of the "bloodstains". These are found in blood, but they are also found in other animal and plant products, such as those used to make artists' pigments.

23. Claims that the blood in the "bloodstains" is type AB "are nonsense", according to Ray Rogers, a retired research chemist and member of STURP (Rogers 2004).

24. Evidence of human DNA in a shroud "blood" sample is meaningless. The scientist at the DNA lab, Victor Tryon, told Time magazine that he could not say how old the DNA was or that it came from blood. As he explained, "Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there." Tryon resigned from the new shroud project due to what he disparaged as "zealotry in science". Even the Archbishop of Turin and the Vatican refused to authenticate the samples or accept any research carried out on them.

25. The theory that the image was caused by contact with oils and spices can be discounted since these were not found on the shroud, also a cloth wrapped around the body would produce an expanded image of the body when flattened out. The image would also be blurred as the oils soaked into the cloth.

26. The theory that the image was caused by the projection of body vapours can also be rejected since vapours don't travel in straight lines, but disperse, so once again the image would be blurred, which it isn't.

27. The most popular theory by the pro-shroud groups is that the image was caused by a short burst of radiation caused by the resurrection, which also altered the C14 ratio, causing an erroneous carbon dating result. This too has been discredited because the fibres in the image areas show no additional degradation than the non image areas. Radiation would cause visible damage to the fibres (when viewed microscopically) and this is not evident. Radiation would also cause the image to penetrate the cloth, unlike the superficial shroud image that is observed. Also to receive the exact amount of radiation required to alter the date of the cloth to the medieval date of its first documented appearance would be a remarkable coincidence.

28. The Shroud image is NOT a true photographic negative but only an apparent one — a faux-photographic negative. As with a true negative, light features such as skin are dark on it and light on the positive and shadows are light on it and dark on the positive. Unlike a true photographic negative however, dark features like the beard, moustache, hair, and blood are dark on it and light on the positive. The "positive" image shows a figure with white hair and beard, the opposite of what would be expected for a Palestinian Jew in his thirties.

29. The claims of pollen from Palestine supposedly found on the Shroud have been discredited as "fraud" and "junk science." The person who originally claimed to have found the pollen on the Shroud was Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist. However the pollens were very suspicious, as pollen experts quickly pointed out — first of all, they were missing the most obvious pollen you would expect, which would be olive. There's not any! 32 of the 57 pollens allegedly found by Frei are from insect-pollinated plants and could not have been wind-blown onto the exposed shroud in Palestine. Similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. Cloth was often brought to medieval Europe from Palestine, so there is no strong support from the pollen anyway.

30. It is likely that the Shroud was constructed using a rubbing technique on a bas-relief model. Joe Nickell demonstrated this using a bas-relief and the pigments and tools available in the Middle Ages. "After experimenting with various techniques, the Shroud artist prepared a suitable mixture of pigments and tempera binder, moulded a wet linen sheet over the bas-relief he had constructed, and used a dauber (also termed a pounce or tamper) to apply the mixture to the surface of the linen. Methods for creating similar images are known and these methods were widely known in the Middle Ages." The statement that we cannot make such an image is simply false propaganda. Faux-negative images are automatically produced by an artistic rubbing technique. The July 2005 issue of Science & Vie (Science and Life) magazine documents the making of a shroud by these medieval techniques. Also as noted above scientist Luigi Garlaschelli made a very convincing reproduction of the shroud in 2009.

31. The claim that the image contains unique 3D information producing a perfect 3D image has been disputed by other mathematical modellers. However, since the image was probably produced from a 3D object, such as a bas-relief, 3D coding is completely natural and this claim adds nothing to the authenticity debate.

32. The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated in 1988 to circa 1260-1390 CE by three separate laboratories. This date is consistent with the earliest documentary evidence of the shroud's existence. It is also consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed.

33. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernise the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equalling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century. Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the carbon-dating laboratories.

34. The expression is strangely composed for someone tortured to death, and the hands are neatly folded across the genitals. A real body lying limp could not have this posture. Your arms are not long enough to cross your hands over your pelvis while keeping your shoulders on the floor. To achieve this the body can not lie flat, yet Jewish burial tradition did not dictate that a body must be hunched up so as to cover the genitals before wrapping in the shroud. The claim that rigor mortis had set in and thus caused the legs not to be straight is ridiculous, since the arms should also be contracted, plus the timing is all wrong for rigor mortis. The most obvious answer is that the artist knew the image would be displayed, and didn't want to offend his audience or have to guess what the genitals of Jesus would look like. It is also suspicious that Jesus is depicted assuming a pose that medievalists refer to as the venus pudica pose. This pose is associated with nudity and loss of innocence.

35. The Shroud is a 14th-century forgery and is one of many such deliberately created Jesus related relics produced in the same period, all designed to attract pilgrims to specific shrines to enhance and increase the status and financial income of the local church. There were countless crucifixion nails, crowns of thorns, and lances. And there were burial shrouds. There were between 26 and 40 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, fragments supposedly cut from the True Cross were available in almost every church in Europe. A church in St. Omer claimed to have bits of the True Cross, of the Lance that pierced Christ, of his Cradle, and the original stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments had been traced by the very finger of God! Three churches in France each professed to have a complete corpse of Mary Magdalene. Jesus' foreskin was preserved in at least six churches. Vials of Jesus' tears, vials of Jesus' mother's milk. One catalogue from that time includes the following: "A fragment of St. Stephen's rib; Rusted remains of the gridiron on which St. Lawrence died; A Lock of Mary's hair; A small piece of her robe; A piece of the Manger; Part of one of Our Lord's Sandals; A piece of the sponge that had been filled with vinegar and handed up to Him; A fragment of bread He had shared with His disciples; A tuft of St. Peter's beard; Drops of St. John the Baptist's Blood." Many churches vied to become known for the number and importance of their relics. As early as 1071 the cathedral at Eichstatt possessed 683 relics, while by the 1520s the Schlosskirche at Wittenburg had 19,013 and the Schlosskirche at Halle boasted more than 21,000 such objects. "About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories". Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples: "letters in Jesus' own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on..." During the Middle Ages particularly, relic-mongering was rampant; and of course, there were no scientific means to test things, so all manner of things were sold as authentic. Including shrouds of Jesus.

36. The church conducts secret tests and suppresses unfavourable results: In 1969 the Archbishop of Turin appointed a secret commission to examine the shroud. That fact was leaked, then denied, but "At last the Turin authorities were forced to admit what they previously denied." The man who had exposed the secrecy accused the clerics of acting "like thieves in the night." More detailed studies — again clandestine — began in 1973. The commission included internationally known forensic serologists who made heroic efforts to validate the "blood," but all of the microscopical, chemical, biological, and instrumental tests were negative. The commission's report was withheld until 1976 and then was largely suppressed, while a rebuttal report was freely made available. Thus began an approach that would be repeated over and over: distinguished experts would be asked to examine the cloth, then would be attacked when they obtained other than desired results.

37. The group most famous for claiming the authenticity of the shroud is STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project), now disbanded. 'Unfortunately, almost all of these were religious believers, most of them were Roman Catholics', and the scientists were all selected by the Holy Shroud Guild; in fact, the leaders of the group, John Jackson and Eric Jumper, 'served on the Executive Council of the Holy Shroud Guild, a Catholic organisation that advocated the "cause" of the supposed relic. So having this group investigate the Shroud was a little bit like having the Flat Earth Society investigate the curvature of the Earth'. STURP was comprised of 40 US scientists, made up of 39 devout believers and 1 agnostic. Knowing that the proportion of believers to agnostics is much different in scientific circles than it is in the general population, it has been calculated (Debunked! by Georges Charpak and Henri Broch) that the odds of selecting a group of 40 scientists at random and achieving this high ratio of believers is 7 chances in 1,000,000,000,000,000. In other words, the formation of this group is stacked and very biased towards authenticating the shroud, and therefore you must take their claims with an extremely large grain of salt.

38. From an historical perspective, many scholars have shown that there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. Other than the New Testament of the Bible, there exists no other written document that mentions Jesus as an historical figure. The writings of Josephus and Tacitus that mention Jesus have been shown to be clear forgeries by the early church. At the end of an article by Frank R. Zindler — 'Did Jesus Exist?' — he lists 38 other Jewish and pagan historians and writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived. If Jesus really did do all these miraculous things that the Bible attributed to him, it's surprising that none mentioned him. You can't crucify a man that doesn't exist, so even if the shroud did contain a crucified man, it wasn't Jesus.

39. The church has never claimed the shroud as an authentic relic, however it has not discouraged the myth. Father Mike Mahler from 'Cornell United Religious Works' states:

"The Vatican has never made a statement about the authenticity of any relic, including the shroud. It is also highly unlikely that it will ever do so. Further information is found in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 13, and Volume 18, page 476. The latter article raises many good points which create serious doubts about the authenticity of the shroud as Jesus' burial cloth, even if the shroud originated in the first century."

Yet the Vatican has no problem verifying miracles. In 2002 the Vatican recognised the 1998 after-death-miracle on Monica Besra which has been attributed to Mother Teresa. This has been very controversial, with the doctor who first diagnosed Besra saying the church should not push Besra's case because it was medication, not a miracle that cured her. Her husband also supports the doctor's version of events. Doctors that are on record saying that it is a miracle did so anonymously and can not be traced. Besra's medical records containing sonograms, prescriptions and physicians' notes have been seized by the church. Besra is a 30-year-old tribal woman from Dulidnapur village. She is illiterate and speaks her tribal mother tongue only. Until recently she has not been a Christian, yet her statement is written in fluent English and shows familiarity with details of Catholic belief. It is obvious that the text has not been written or dictated by her. But Besra cannot be questioned, she has vanished.

It is very damming that the Vatican will authenticate such a controversial case, contrary to medical advice, yet won't pass the same authority on the Shroud of Turin.

40. Even if the linen was produced in the 1st century CE, or if it did contain human blood and pollen from Palestine, and even if it had wrapped a crucified man, this in itself proves nothing about it being the burial cloth of Jesus. Everyone agrees that linen was common in 1st century CE Palestine, as was blood, pollen and crucified men. Claiming more than this is as silly as that claim from apologists that a 1st century CE boat has been excavated near the Sea of Galilee, reasoned that Jesus would have ridden in a boat like this, therefore this was "evidence" that Jesus existed! The most pro-shroud advocates could ever do is show that it was an authentic 1st century CE burial shroud of a crucified man. However, as shown above, Biblical details would still indicate that it didn't belong to Jesus. Unless of course, the Bible is wrong.

41. Possibly the most powerful argument, more than any single piece of evidence, is the consensus of expert opinion. Biblical 'evidence', historical evidence and scientific evidence all converge on the clear conclusion that the shroud is a fake.
:)

This is B.S. that has already been proven false.
#14836976
starman2003 wrote:But if Nero just wanted to use the holy joes as a scapegoat, what sense would it make to hear their appeals?

The Roman Emperor only heard appeals of official Roman citizens. The Christians of that time never became Roman citizens and had no appeal rights. The apostle Paul became a Roman Citizen before the Christian movement.
#14836995
Of course a martyr tradition wouldn't develop based on Tacitus's account of it.

I agree.

No mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century. But you would expect a tradition based on the event, unless, as is more than likely, the 'event' is nothing more than "the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century."

Hindsite wrote:This is B.S. that has already been proven false.

By whom?


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 26 Aug 2017 12:02, edited 1 time in total.
#14837014
Hindsite wrote:The Roman Emperor only heard appeals of official Roman citizens. The Christians of that time never became Roman citizens and had no appeal rights. The apostle Paul became a Roman Citizen before the Christian movement.


And therefore had, I assume, to accept sacrifices to the emperor and to the god-emperor Julius. I have always thought that Saul's Roman citizenship had some interesting consequences in the concept of Jesus as man-god.
#14837176
Ned Lud wrote:And therefore had, I assume, to accept sacrifices to the emperor and to the god-emperor Julius. I have always thought that Saul's Roman citizenship had some interesting consequences in the concept of Jesus as man-god.

In the first century AD, Jews lived across the Roman Empire in relative harmony.

Protected by Rome and allowed to continue their religion, everything was fine until rebellion in Judaea (66 A.D) led to a major change in the practice of their faith.

Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance.

Although Judaea was ruled by the Romans, the governors there had practiced the same kind of religious tolerance as was shown to Jews in Rome. However, Roman tactlessness and inefficiency, along with famine and internal squabbles, led to a rise in Jewish discontent.

There was no pressure on Saul (Paul) or any the Jews to abandon their traditional religion until the revolt.

"Under Julius Caesar, Judaism was officially recognized as a legal religion, a policy followed by the first Roman emperor, Augustus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... man_Empire
#14837291
Hindsite wrote:In the first century AD, Jews lived across the Roman Empire in relative harmony.


There was a great deal of tension, even violence, between Greeks and jews in places like Caesaria. This foreshadowed the kitos bloodbath.

Protected by Rome and allowed to continue their religion, everything was fine until rebellion in Judaea (66 A.D)


There was plenty of violence prior to that that.
#14837296
Hindsite wrote:In the first century AD, Jews lived across the Roman Empire in relative harmony.

Protected by Rome and allowed to continue their religion, everything was fine until rebellion in Judaea (66 A.D) led to a major change in the practice of their faith.

Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance.

Although Judaea was ruled by the Romans, the governors there had practiced the same kind of religious tolerance as was shown to Jews in Rome. However, Roman tactlessness and inefficiency, along with famine and internal squabbles, led to a rise in Jewish discontent.

There was no pressure on Saul (Paul) or any the Jews to abandon their traditional religion until the revolt.

"Under Julius Caesar, Judaism was officially recognized as a legal religion, a policy followed by the first Roman emperor, Augustus."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Roman_Empire


Paul keeps insisting not that he lived peaceably under Rome but that he was a Roman citizen. That is a different thing.
#14837388
Hindsite wrote:the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance.

Jews under Augustus.

Philo, Legat. 155-156 wrote:[T]he great section of Rome on the other side of the Tiber is occupied and inhabited by Jews, most of whom were Roman citizens emancipated. For having been brought as captives to Italy they were liberated by their owners and were not forced to violate any of their native institutions… . [T]hey have houses of prayer and meet together in them, particularly on the sacred Sabbaths when they receive as a body of training in their ancestral philosophy … [T]hey collect money for sacred purposes from their first-fruits and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices.

Ned Lud wrote:not that he lived peaceably under Rome

Jews under Tiberius (19 AD).

Tacitus, Ann. 2.85 wrote:Another debate dealt with the proscription of the Egyptian and Jewish rites, and a senatorial edict directed that four thousand descendants of enfranchised slaves, tainted with that superstition and suitable in point of age, were to be shipped to Sardinia and there be employed in suppressing brigandage … The rest had orders to leave Italy, unless they had renounced their impious ceremonial by a given date.

Josephus, Ant. 18.83-84 wrote:[Tiberius] ordered the whole Jewish community to leave Rome. The consuls drafted four thousand of these Jews for military service and sent them to the island of Sardinia; but they penalized a good many of them, who refused to serve for fear of breaking the Jewish law

Jews under Claudius (41 AD).

Josephus Ant. 19.288-290 wrote:Kings Agrippa and Herod, my dearest friends, having petitioned me to permit the same privileges to be maintained for the Jews throughout the empire … I very gladly consented, not merely in order to please those who petitioned me, but also because in my opinion the Jews deserve to obtain their request on account of their loyalty and friendship to the Romans… . It is right, therefore, that the Jews throughout the whole world under our sway should also observe the customs of their fathers without let or hindrance.

It didn't last.

Within months of the edict, the Jews were squabbling amongst themselves, and lost their right of assembly.

Cassius Dio 60.6.6 wrote:As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.

Soon after.

Suetonius, Claudius. 25.4 wrote:Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

Not Christ.

Suetonius’s account says that Chrestus himself was present in Rome, as an instigator of the unrest. In further rebuttal of the Christian hypothesis, it must be pointed out that Suetonius only later introduces the Christian movement (Nero 16.2), suggesting that Christianity was an insignificant sect at this time.

Judeo-Christians under Nero (65 AD)

Suetonius, Nero 16.2 wrote:Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

But there is no mention of massacres and burnings, and Suetonius does not relate the persecution* to the Great Fire of Rome.

* afflicti suppliciis christiani would suggest the punishment meted out was not capital in most instances.

Christians under Trajan (98–117 AD)

Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan, in which Pliny encounters Christianity for the first time.

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97 wrote:It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.


wiki wrote:The temporal order for the documents begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius around 122 AD (Benko; Novak).


:)
#14837415
This is an interesting thread. For those of weak faith it is probably typical. Also typical of the immense amount of time naysayers are willing to waste to try to dissuade one of those Christians of weak faith.

People of strong personal faith do not look for proof of God in the historical record. To do so would be completely unnecessary. It could even be seen as a sign of weak faith. After all. If someone's faith relies for support on a 13th century cloth, it is not very strong in the first place.

Whether or not Jesus was historically provable I approve of this verse. I believe it speaks to a belief in God quite well.

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”


This is why it is pointless to attack people of strong faith on the basis of the historical record. They simply do not care because it is unnecessary and unimportant.

Now it might be valuable for a religious person to understand how doctrine has changed over the millennia but not very much. Faith is about one's belief in and relationship with God. Historical doctrine is about which club to join.
#14837431
For those of weak faith it is probably typical.

I am not a believer.

Also typical of the immense amount of time naysayers are willing to waste to try to dissuade one of those Christians of weak faith.

And I am not trying to dissuade any person of faith from believing; I honestly don't give a shit what Hindsite does with his faith. What pisses me off is his credulous acceptance of 'born again' bullcrap, his adoration of relics, and his willingness to turn Christ's message of hope on it's head.
Last edited by ingliz on 27 Aug 2017 07:52, edited 1 time in total.
#14837467
Ned Lud wrote:Paul keeps insisting not that he lived peaceably under Rome but that he was a Roman citizen. That is a different thing.

At that time, Saul, who took the Roman name of Paul could become a Roman citizen by pledging allegiance to the Roman government, just like people of various religions can become citizens of the USA today. Can you show me evidence to the contrary?

Drlee wrote:If someone's faith relies for support on a 13th century cloth, it is not very strong in the first place.

My posts was to show that this was not a 13th or 14th century cloth, but a much older cloth that is most likely a cloth dating back to the time of Jesus. I became a believing Christian before I knew about the Shroud or the Sudarium, so my faith does not rely on these pieces of linen. Praise the Lord.
#14837594
ingliz wrote:Suetonius’s account says that Chrestus himself was present in Rome, as an instigator of the unrest.


Says or seems to imply? I suspect what happened was that christian missionaries came trying to convert the jews of Rome many of whom were upset and rioted against the missionaries. Seeking to learn the cause of the ruckus, the Roman authorities probably arrested and interrogated a number of people involved. Some could've said "these followers of christus came here, angered many people and caused this trouble." The Romans might've misinterpreted that to mean christus (or "chrestus") was actually alive telling his followers what to do.


In further rebuttal of the Christian hypothesis, it must be pointed out that Suetonius only later introduces the Christian movement (Nero 16.2), suggesting that Christianity was an insignificant sect at this time.


But by then a couple of decades later there was an established christian church or presence as opposed to a few missionaries, whose point of view may not have been heard.

But there is no mention of massacres and burnings, and Suetonius does not relate the persecution* to the Great Fire of Rome.

* afflicti suppliciis christiani would suggest the punishment meted out was not capital in most instances.


What else were they being punished for?
#14837604
What else were they being punished for?

Suetonius, The Life of Nero 38 wrote: 1 But he showed no greater mercy to the people or the walls of his capital. When someone in a general conversation said: "When I am dead, be earth consumed by fire," he rejoined "Nay, rather while I live," and his action was wholly in accord. For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and fire-brands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone.
2 For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs. At that time, besides an immense number of dwellings, the houses of leaders of old were burned, still adorned with trophies of victory, and the temples of the gods vowed and dedicated by the kings and later in the Punic and Gallic wars, and whatever else interesting and noteworthy had survived from antiquity. Viewing the conflagration from the tower of Maecenas and exulting, as he said, in "the beauty of the flames," he sang the whole of the "Sack of Ilium," in his regular stage costume.
3 Furthermore, to gain from this calamity too all the spoil and booty possible, while promising the removal of the debris and dead bodies free of cost he allowed no one to approach the ruins of his own property; and from the contributions which he not only received, but even demanded, he nearly bankrupted the provinces and exhausted the resources of individuals.

Suetonius clearly knows nothing about any blame for the fire falling on Christians, much less a persecution that allegedly claimed "multitudes". Suetonius’ brief mention of the Christians being punished comes earlier in 16:2 and no connection is made by the author to the fire. In fact, in chapter 16 Christians are mentioned right alongside Nero’s banishment of other troublemakers, such as chariot drivers, actors and their partisans. From this we could infer only that Christians might have been included in a general clean-up of the city, ridding it of those who are guilty of disorderly conduct, much in line with Tiberius’ actions of 19 AD but not as a result of blame falling on them for the fire.

Suetonius, The Life of Nero 16:2 wrote:Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.


Brent D. Shaw (2015) The Myth of the Neronian Persecution, The Journal of Roman Studies Volume 105. pp. 73-100


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 27 Aug 2017 17:57, edited 4 times in total.
#14837605
Hindsite wrote:At that time, Saul, who took the Roman name of Paul could become a Roman citizen by pledging allegiance to the Roman government, just like people of various religions can become citizens of the USA today. Can you show me evidence to the contrary?

Paul didn't become a Roman citizen, he was born one, and Roman citizenship implied a very different attitude to certain sacrifices and so on than would normally be acceptable to Jewish believers. You seem to be in some sort of argument about whether Jews were persecuted under Rome, which, for all I know, may be an open question: I am only interested in what might prompt an apparently strict Jew like Saul to expound so very unJewish an idea as a man-god, and it seems to me evident that the model of Julius Caesar would give him that, What would you regard as evidence? I was brought up as a serious Anglican Christian Socialist and studied Classics, and it seems to me obvious.
#14837716
Ned Lud wrote:Paul didn't become a Roman citizen, he was born one, and Roman citizenship implied a very different attitude to certain sacrifices and so on than would normally be acceptable to Jewish believers. You seem to be in some sort of argument about whether Jews were persecuted under Rome, which, for all I know, may be an open question: I am only interested in what might prompt an apparently strict Jew like Saul to expound so very unJewish an idea as a man-god, and it seems to me evident that the model of Julius Caesar would give him that, What would you regard as evidence? I was brought up as a serious Anglican Christian Socialist and studied Classics, and it seems to me obvious.

Paul may have become a Roman citizen by birth. I am not certain on that point. However, I was providing my theory of how the apostle Paul, who says he was from the tribe of Benjamin, may have become a Roman citizen. I base my statements on what I have read from the history of those times.

I was brought up in a Southern Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas and did not study the classics as you have. So it could be that you know more than I do on the subject. Concerning the persecution of Christians and Jews, you might be helped by researching the subject on the internet.

Wikipedia reports the following in one of their articles:

According to some historians, Jews and Christians were heavily persecuted toward the end of Domitian's reign (89-96).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... man_Empire

Paul the Apostle and Judaism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_ ... nd_Judaism

Peter (Cephas) in generally considered to be of the tribe of Naphtali, not of the tribe of Judah. It could be that Paul (Saul) considers all the tribes of Israel to be Jews regardless of their tribe, because he often makes a general division of all people as either Jew (Israelite) or Greek (Gentile).
#14837895
ingliz wrote:Suetonius clearly knows nothing about any blame for the fire falling on Christians,


I don't think he's reliable. A recent historical work on Nero says he didn't start it.
Btw Hindsite, just curious: Did you know a Kelly Bell in that TX city?
#14837931
@starman2003


ingliz wrote:Suetonius clearly knows nothing about any blame for the fire falling on Christians.

Collins puts forward the theory that the people persecuted by Nero were not Christians, but priests of Isis. Christians were few at the time and relatively unknown; the Isis followers were many and not well liked.

Also, Tacitus's detailed description of the punishment given, "covered with skins" and "torn by dogs", fits with this Egyptian sect (See Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris iv; xiv). There is nothing in this unusual punishment that plays on Christian doctrine for sick amusement.

Tacitus, The Annals 15:44 wrote:Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished

Plutarch's Morals, Theosophical Essays. On Isis and Osiris iv wrote:For it were absurd that people should divest themselves of their own hair, shaving the body very smoothly, during the fasts, and yet should envelope themselves in the hair of beasts

Plutarch's Morals, Theosophical Essays. On Isis and Osiris xiv wrote:This infant Isis nursed, and he grew up her guard and minister, being denominated Anubis; and said to watch for the gods just as dogs do for men.

The theory that later copyists interpolated Christians back into the text because legends had grown up about Nero's Persecutions is, if nothing else, plausible.


Stephen D. Collins The Great Fire of Rome: The Fall of the Emperor Nero and His City.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 28 Aug 2017 21:22, edited 4 times in total.
#14838027
starman2003 wrote:Btw Hindsite, just curious: Did you know a Kelly Bell in that TX city?

Probably not. I don't recall the name.
#14960083
Suntzu wrote:Image


Lol... Just noticed that's actually my Edition of the holy Bible.

Douay-Rheims Baronius Press Leather Hardcover Family Bible edition.

https://goo.gl/images/FfQg9K

I love this copy of the Bible, it's basically a classic Catholic study edition with heaps and heaps of notations.
#14961911
Hindsite wrote:

My posts was to show that this was not a 13th or 14th century cloth, but a much older cloth that is most likely a cloth dating back to the time of Jesus. I became a believing Christian before I knew about the Shroud or the Sudarium, so my faith does not rely on these pieces of linen. Praise the Lord.


Indeed, as the Ancient Orthodox Christian that I am, the false and lying miracles of the Papist Church, designed to mislead many into either their superstition or into infidelity altogether, are to be expected. My faith comes from the testimony of the Early Church, the Apostolic Fathers and Holy Scripture, and not a reliance on ''Miracles'' that put God to the test.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

In my opinion, only crazy liberals would think we[…]

Sorry for the trouble with the links. This sho[…]

Individuals suspected of making a false accusatio[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Avenatti will probably represent himself. I can’t[…]