It is currently Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:33 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Christos or Chrestos?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Here's a very good website with loads of information about early Christian history, from a mythicist perspective! It looks like some mainstream scholars and researchers are catching on.

Interestingly, I did bring up the Chrestos angle in my book The Christ Conspiracy, but in the late 90s when I wrote it I didn't have access to the various codices and so much more that's come out since then.

This material constitutes one of the pieces of the puzzle that needed fleshing out. Here's the gist: The "Christians" of the first century AD/CE were in reality "CHRESTIANS," from a cult that had sprung up beginning at least a couple of centuries prior to the common era. There was no "historical" founder of this cult who tromped around Palestine during the first century, doing miracles.

During the second century, this Chrestian cult was co-opted, Judaized and historicized, with the appearance of the canonical gospels as we have them at the end of the second century. It's all pretty much in my book "The Christ Conspiracy," which I'm currently revising and which will include goodies from this History Hunters site (cited properly, of course).

Quote:
Chrest Magus

We also know – as we discussed in Archaeology of the earliest canonical gospels – that Jesus Christ does not appear until the 2nd century of this era.

Some of the writing is a bit scattered and difficult to follow, but they also include many interesting and fascinating images, such as this bowl - some may recall this news from a year or two ago - which refers to "Chrestos" (not "Christos"), a popular name/epithet prior to and into the common era.

Image

Here's another article, "Archaeology in the earliest canonical gospels," in which this same author, John Bartram, writes:

Quote:
Though Jesus Christ is a fabrication...

Bartram makes repeated statements like these throughout his many articles. In fact, after he realized there were those questioning the existence of Christ, he began taking that position as the perspective in which his articles are framed. In other words, he's now essentially using archaeology and textual examination to prove that Christ is a mythical figure.

How refreshing after doing this work online since 1995, after I began writing about it in 1993. We've come a long way, baby!

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Here's another nice juicy quote from this site:

Quote:
"We do not yet have first-century papyri discussing Jesus of Nazareth….

"For the balance of the first century and the first third of the second, not a single archaeological artifact attests to the existence of the Jesus-centered Christianity in the whole of the empire. During this same period no evidence for any of the higher religious offices dedicated specifically to the Christian church are to be found in either the archaeological or historical record. We are therefore justified on the basis of these conclusions to dispense for the moment with both an historical first-century Jesus and his church."

--David, History Hunters International, "Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine"

If anyone can figure out what David's last name is, please let me know!

Here's a quote from another very interesting article on that site, by John Bartram, who basically proves major contentions I made in Christ Con so long ago:

Quote:
"Not a single artefact of any medium—including textual—and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian….

"There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term 'Christian.'

"The earliest fragments and codex of the New Testament pre-date the fourth century, though nowhere in them have we found the key word Christ. Many biblical scholars claim that they do, but our visual inspection of them fails to find a single such usage of this term. We have been unable to find a single text transliterated correctly in this regard….

"As there are gospels and other texts of a religious character, so there is archaeology for places of worship and many artefacts: none spell Christian. Claims that any are Christian are, in fact, a matter of opinion only and we disagree with all such opinions."

--John Bartram, "The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity"

For making the same basic statement, over the past 15 years online I've been attacked, ridiculed, libeled, slandered, insulted, ignored, ostracized, bullied, threatened, harassed, stalked and subjected to all kinds of calumny and sociopathic behavior. If you scroll down to the bottom of the above article, you will see he's been receiving the same treatment.

Some of the comments coming from the misanthropes over at TWeb include calling him a "moron" and saying that the "IIDB regulars think he's off his rocker." (Many of us here think the IIDB regulars are off THEIR rockers.)

Of course, calumny is about the best they can do, since they still haven't provided him with the evidence.

Here's another quote from HHI:

Quote:
"For myself, the history of Judea in the first half of the first century does not allow a Jesus Christ."

--John Bartram, "Archaeology of the earliest canonical gospels"

And another:

Quote:
"The question becomes: what was this first-century form and how did it transition in the second and third centuries CE into what later periods recognize as Christianity? The heart of this explanation, given the current state of the archaeological evidence, must explain plausibly why second-century Christianity was compelled to invent or develop a first-century prophet or Son of God."

--David, "Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine Men"

Quote:
"We have been in error, accepting the view of biblical scholarship and Christian tradition which dates the canonical gospels to the early period of the Roman empire."

--John Bartram, "Mani and Authorship of the Canonical Gospels"

Quote:
"The non-canonical Gospel of Judas has been radiocarbon dated to 280 CE +/- 60 years and I now declare that the canonical gospels in their near-final form likely belong to this period.

"Here is how I reached this position:

"In The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity, I presented our findings from surveying the archaeology of this period: there is no clear, unambiguous use of the term ‘Christ’ (including ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianity’) in any medium, before the fourth century. One must note that Christ is translated as Messiah, the annointed.

"In Archaeology of ‘Chrest’ I presented various artefacts that mention ‘Chrest’, ‘Isu Chrest’ and ‘Jesus Chrest’. One must note that Chrest is translated as Good.

"With no archaeology – and this includes texts – for Christ or Christianity before the fourth century, there is no Christian Church: no offices and officers, including Popes; no churches; no iconography of Jesus Christ. The Good Shepherd motif is Panhellenistic, specifically of Hermes Kriophoros.

"The warning for this Christian vacuity comes from Josephus, whose chronicles fail to describe even a nascent Christianity. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius’ census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Regardless of the disputed reference to “Jesus, who was called Christ”, Josephus is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity, yet says nothing of it: this is so unlikely as to be almost impossible.

"When Hadrian invented the cult of his Antinous, he created masses of good archaeology for us to find: an entire city, temples, very many statues and even the obelisk describing how Antinous was made a god. Though Christianity claims to be empire-wide and with many adherents belonging to the Greco-Roman elite, it has nothing. That is another impossible position. We can prove that the first-century miracle worker Apollonius of Tyana existed, but not that anyone was Christian until the fourth century."

--John Bartram, "Mani and Authorship of the Canonical Gospels"

Quote:
"As well as the danger of relying on texts which do not exist, there is the massive problem of known texts which have been 'lost' (such as the declarations of loyalty to Diocletian from every town and city in the empire) and the enormous quantity of texts which Christian scholars and the Christian Church admit to being forgeries. Between the destruction of important texts and inscriptions, and the admitted dishonesty for Christian texts, a scholar is faced with the unedifying task of investigating a religion which, down to its roots, is riddled with lies and fakery."

--John Bartram, "Mani and Authorship of the Canonical Gospels"

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:49 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 41
"The fish as a symbol possibly represented several goddesses, associated with Aphrodite, Atargatis, Dagon, Ephesus, Isis, Delphine and Pelagia. Barbara Walker, in her book The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects, suggests that Ichthys was the son of the sea goddess Atargatis and that his symbol was a representation of sexuality and fertility."

source:
http://historyhuntersinternational.org/catalogue-of-chrest/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:53 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:48 am
Posts: 43
In The Quodlibeta Forum they raised this point:

Quote:
Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD) wrote in the Apologeticus, addressed to the Roman magistrates

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf ... P267_68508

Chapter III.

[1] What are we to think of it, that most people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name;.....

[5] Well now, if there is this dislike of the name, what blame can you attach to names? What accusation can you bring against mere designations, save that something in the word sounds either barbarous, or unlucky, or scurrilous, or unchaste? But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you "Chrestianus" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity. You hate, therefore, in the guiltless, even a guiltless name.


Can someone locate an image of this passage in some manuscript? Here's a list of them at tertullian.org - "the best of these MSS are the oldest - S, P and M."
I guess the History Hunters want actual pre-4th century copies so any 9th to 12th century copies are mercilessly ignored?

Also, what about this "new gospel" fragment from Oxyrhynchus:
Quote:
A new fragment of the beginning of the Gospel of Mark has been identified, which was probably enclosed in an amulet and likely dates to the third century. Like several other important witnesses, it lacks the phrase "Son of God" after "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." But, unlike any other manuscript, it has the definite article "tou" before "Christou."

Note: this info comes from a lecture by Dirk Obbink and is not available online anywhere.

Here's a high resolution image of the fragment:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/images/hi_res/12836 ... gospel.jpg

I suck at deciphering this Greek stuff, so can you tell me where the "tou Christou" is? And is it the full Christou or an abbreviation again?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
I've been doing quite a bit more research on this subject of Christos v. Chrestos. Coincidentally, someone sent me an interesting document that included a link to this PDF:
Quote:
Chrestians before Christians? An Old Inscription Revisited
by Erik Zara, ThD

In the 18th century the Italian historian Lodovico Antonio Muratori collected many ancient inscriptions in the work Novus Thesaurus Veterum Inscriptionum. Amongst them, one marble inscription, originally from Rome,1 has puzzled some scholars. The inscription, an epitaph, given the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum identity number CIL VI 24944,2 reads:

D. M
M. T. DRVSI . PATERES
PRIMICINIO3. QVI VIXIT
ANN. XXXXII. DIES VII

FAVSTVS. ANTONIAE. DRVSI. IVS EMIT. IVCVNDI. CHRESTIANI. OLL4

According to Dr. Heinrich Chantraine, the stone cutter severely disfigured the text and it is “nicht sicher zu heilen.”5 “D.M.” is an abbreviation of “Diis Manibus”, “to the gods of the underworld”, and has been said to indicate that the grave was a pagan’s grave.6 The text, being difficult to interpret as it is missing “essential” words, could be interpreted as saying that M. (and) T.7, the father/fathers8 of Drusus, dedicated the tomb to his/their first born9 son, who lived for 42 years and seven days, and Faustus, the son/slave/freedman of Antonia, the daughter/wife10 of Drusus, bought (emit) the right for the urn (with cremation ashes) to be put in a certain columbarium or other burial place (jus oll.),11 from Jucundus, the Chrestian.

“Antonia” has often been interpreted as referring to Antonia Minor (36 BCE - 37 CE),12 the daughter of Mark Anthony the triumvir, and mother of the emperor Claudius. She was married to General Nero Claudius Drusus, from (18 or) 16 BCE until he died in 9 BCE.13 Faustus has been regarded as a freedman14, servant15 or slave16 of Antonia. It is not possible, based only on the information given, to conclude with absolute certainty that the Antonia and Drusus in the inscription actually are the famous Antonia and Drusus mentioned above.17 “Jucundus Chrestianus” has by some been interpreted as referring to a Christian person, who no longer needed the right to put his urn in a certain place (because Christians did not cremate their dead) and thus sold this right to a pagan.18 Jucundus19 (meaning pleasant, delightful or agreeable20), was by Dr. Johann Sepp thought of as one of the earliest Christian believers in Rome.21 Others believe that Chrestianus (perhaps deriving from the Greek word chrêstos, meaning good, useful, and service-able22, which was a common name23) was the person’s proper name.24 If Chrestianus is not a servant’s name, it could be referring to a person belonging to the new religion (i.e. Christianity), Dr. Marta Sordi concludes.25. Dr. Joseph B. Lightfoot has stated, regarding Chrestianus, that the name is improbable and that it is not known to have existed, and the name is rarely used, and seems unused in the 1st century CE.26

Regarding the dating of the inscription, it has been said that it cannot have been made later than 37 CE, the year Antonia Minor died.27 Dr. Martin Karrer, who seems to agree about this dating, calls the inscription the earliest documentation of the word Chrestianus,28 a word non-Christians used, referring to Christians, in the days of Tertullian (very late second century).29...

...On the whole, no indisputably Christian inscriptions seem to exist, which can be dated to earlier than about 200 CE, and most Christian epigraphs are from the 3rd century or later.38

Unfortunately, the author misses the opportunity to emphasize that the earliest extant Bible manuscript has in three places not the word "Christian(s)" but "Chrestian(s)." Instead he says so in a footnote:

Quote:
In the earliest extant complete bible, Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent), the Greek words are even spelled [chrestianou], [chrestianon] and [chrestianos], i.e. Chrestian/Chrestians....

Then Zara concludes:

Quote:
Since indeed no usage of the apparently very uncommon proper name or cognomen Chrestianos or Chrestianus, in Rome, during the life time of Antonia Minor, or the rest of the first century, can be confirmed, and since no known group seems to have been called Christiani or Chrestiani before 37 CE (and the Christians did not call themselves Christians until later, in their own documents), I conclude that the inscription, if correctly interpreted and dated, probably refers to something else.50 Perhaps Jucundus was a part of a group called the “Chrestians”, but as no external evidence in support of such a notion exists, I will leave the subject without further conclusions about the meaning of the word Chrestiani here.

While this conclusion is minimalist, scientifically based on the extant evidence, it should be noted that before this inscription was found, this term "Chrestian" was supposedly unknown in the first century. Yet, here is the evidence that it was not unknown - there may have been more evidence of this term, if it was ever written down, since it might be part of the mysteries, that was destroyed long ago. Moreover, it needs to be reiterated that "Chrestian" is the precise term used in the earliest New Testament manuscript, and one could certainly posit it is part of the same tradition. It is puzzling that Zara chose to ignore the Sinaiticus Bible by including it as an aside and then not factoring it into his conclusion, but he is a theologian.

Furthermore, we must include in this analysis the fact the Marcionites followed "Jesus the Good," i.e., Jesus Chrest, and that the earliest known extant church is a Marcionite one in Egypt with the name "Jesus the Chrest" over the doorway. In addition, in the OT we find passages in which the Lord is called "the Good" or "Chrestos"; hence, it is already in pre-Christian times an epithet for God. What appears to be happening is one faction with its favored epithet "Jesus the Chrest" and another, the more Jewish one, favoring the epithet "Jesus the Christ." The "Chrest" appears to be the earliest tradition, one that obviously extended into the fourth century, when the Codex Sinaiticus was written. At what time the words were altered to "Christian(s), I do not know. I would hope someone has done a study of that issue, but so many are timid and afraid of stepping on toes just by acknowledging this alteration occurred in the first place.

Here's another one from Erik Zara, this time about the word "Chrestianos" in Tacitus.

The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated

This one cites another apparent error on the part of Richard Carrier:

Quote:
Some (like Richard Carrier, Ph.D.) have recently (autumn 2008) argued that earlier scholars like Harald Fuchs have erred, when they asserted that the word Christianos (Christians) originally was spelled Chrestianos (Chrestians), i.e. with an “e” instead of the now present “i”. This view seems to be generally accepted, and is repeated in textbooks.6 I will not detail all the arguments regarding the subject, but only mention a few. An argument in favor of the Chrestianos-position has been that the “ri” in the word is written in a different way than the “ri”-combination usually is, in the manuscript. Against this, it has been claimed that the scribe only “goofed” by writing “i” in a different style compared to what he normally did after the letter “r”. Georg Andresen found in 1902 that there is an (unusual) gap between the “i” and the “s” in the word, and that this has been over bridged (in fact under bridged) by a hyphen, which led him to believe that the “i” was corrected from an original “e”. According to Andresen, the “bulb” of the “e” filled out the now empty space.7 Others, like Carrier, have claimed that the space isn’t that unusual, and that the letter thus not of necessity was altered.

Harald Fuchs asked the then-director of the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Dr. Teresa Lodi, to examine the document. She wrote to him: «The "e", written originally, of which there are still signs left at the erased area [Italian: rasura], was changed into "i" taking out the upper circle and the horizontal line, while the remaining part was corrected, in my opinion, with the same ink and the same hand, towards an "i". Another hand added the dot above the "i" and the hyphen between "i" and "s"»8 I have not found any examination of the original manuscript refuting the conclusions made by Dr. Lodi, but still her study is at least 58 years old, and the technique has since become better....

When I got an ultraviolet photograph of the manuscript, I could see that the change of the “e” into an “i”, was clearly visible. The traces of the erased “e” can be seen...

This part is odd, however:

Quote:
For the sake of clarity, I will add that this particular manuscript of Annales does not contain the name Chrestus. No evidence of any alteration of the word “Christus” can be found in the ultraviolet photograph.

This part refers to the following passage in Tacitus:

Quote:
Consequently, to get rid of the rumor [that Nero ordered the fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [i.e. Christ], the author of the name....

Why would they be called "Chrestians," if the "author" of the "class" was called "Christus?"

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Already then! Analyzing christos using Perseus Hopper is very enlightening.

The first thing we see is the use of the form christon in Aeschylus (Prometheus Bound 476-482)

Quote:
τὰ λοιπά μου κλύουσα θαυμάσῃ πλέον,
οἵας τέχνας τε καὶ πόρους ἐμησάμην.
τὸ μὲν μέγιστον, εἴ τις ἐς νόσον πέσοι,
οὐκ ἦν ἀλέξημ᾽ οὐδέν, οὔτε βρώσιμον,
οὐ χριστόν, οὐδὲ πιστόν, ἀλλὰ φαρμάκων
χρείᾳ κατεσκέλλοντο, πρίν γ᾽ ἐγώ σφισιν
ἔδειξα κράσεις ἠπίων ἀκεσμάτων

Here is Herbert Weir Smith's translation:

Quote:
Hear the rest and you shall wonder the more at the arts and resources I devised. This first and foremost: if ever man fell ill, there was no defence—no healing food, no ointment, nor any drink—but for lack of medicine they wasted away

Euripides (Hippolytus 516) also uses the term in conjunction with medicine:

πότερα δὲ χριστὸν ἢ ποτὸν τὸ φάρμακον;

Dio Chrysostom (61.45) speaks likewise of drugs and ointment, here associated with the Goddess:

Quote:
μὰ Δία οὐχ ὑπὸ φαρμάκων χριστῶν ἢ ποτῶν οὐδὲ ὑπὸ ἰοῦ τινος διεσθίοντος

In the anthology of Greek writings, we read:

Quote:
anonymi epigrammatici
εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους Ἀναργύρους τοὺς εἰς τὰ Βασιλίσκου
τοῖς σοῖς θεράπουσιν ἡ θεράπαινα προσφέρω
σοφία τὸ δῶρον. χριστέ, προσδέχου τὰ σά,
καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ μου μισθὸν Ἰουστίνῳ δίδου,
νίκας ἐπὶ νίκαις κατὰ νόσων καὶ βαρβάρων.

There are four other such results in The Greek Anthology (tr. W. R. Paton. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1916. 1.)

Here we can see the words therapousin, sophia, doron, christe, barbaron and so on. If we search for the root words χράω/khrao and χρίω/krio, we will find many more references. The Hopper requires a bit of maneuvering, as it sometimes returns a "no results" page when you can in fact find some discussion of the term. Such is the case with the khrio/krhao search results, which require one to click on "frequency statistics," as the links in this sentence. If we follow up on those numerous usages of these related terms, we will undoubtedly discover much fascinating information, including possible precedences for the various forms and usages of christos.

And then there's the Hopper search results for chrestos - it is clear that this term was far more commonly used as an epithet in antiquity than was christos. Yet, the two words are evidently related through the verb forms χρίω and χράω.

An in-depth study would obviously be of tremendous interest.

Another useful tool in this regard is the online abridged Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. This version has its limitations, and I prefer the Perseus Hopper. However, a test shows that both systems missed search terms found by the other, so it's a good idea to check both sites.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5199
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
A study on the Tacitus manuscript under ultraviolet light reveals that an "i" has been overwritten on an "e" in the word chrestos.

Image

from Kenn Humphreys' website

Plus, Archeologist finds a 50 BCE cup with the word "Christ"
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2274

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Hot off the presses! Here is a MAJOR piece of the Christ-myth puzzle. I have taken a lengthy article and broken it down into different essays, with numerous links both to these other articles and to references, citations and annotated footnotes. You will see the other new articles in this "Chrestos" series in the "Related articles" and "Further Reading" sections. This "Chrestos" research ties together many loose ends in study of Christian origins. Enjoy!

Is Suetonius's Chresto a Reference to Jesus?

Does the Roman historian refer to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, or is the famous Suetonian passage concerning "Chresto" about another individual altogether?

One of the few citations from antiquity proffered by Christian apologists and others to prove the purported historicity of the figure "Jesus Christ" is a sentence from the ancient Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus's Lives of the Twelve Caesars (book 5, Life of Claudius 25.4). Published around 120 AD/CE, this passage is one of two in Suetonius's works held up as "evidence" of Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a "historical" personage, the second a sentence in that writer's Life of Nero 16.2 which supposedly discusses "Christians." Here I will examine the Claudius passage in terms of its value in this quest for the "historical Christ."...

Image

If will be making the entire article available as part of my PDF package shortly.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5199
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
This issue of Christos and Chrestos is so important and extremely significant to the case against the historical Jesus. I'd like to compile as many of the relevant links from the forum as possible for ease of convenience:

Is Suetonius's Chresto a Reference to Jesus?

Chresto in the Suetonius Manuscript Tradition

Chrestos Magical Cup?

Does Suetonius refer to Jesus?

Isis the Chrest

Apollo the Chrest? God of Oracles and Son of God (Apollo, Son of God and the Chrest?)

Christos or Chrestos?

Archeologist finds a 50 BCE cup with the word "Christ"

A study on the Tacitus manuscript under ultraviolet light reveals that an "i" has been overwritten on an "e" in the word chrestos

The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity

Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence

Chrestians before Christians? An Old Inscription Revisited

Isis the Chrēst

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:05 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:37 am
Posts: 48
Quote:
The non-canonical Gospel of Judas has been radiocarbon dated to 280 CE +/- 60 years and I now declare that the canonical gospels in their near-final form likely belong to this period.


The author of those words thereby declares his inability to distinguish between a written work and the medium by which it is transmitted. Which is odd, in an era that takes books and turns them into electronic versions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:41 pm 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:32 pm
Posts: 15
Acharya wrote:
Here's another nice juicy quote from this site:

Quote:
"Not a single artefact of any medium—including textual—and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian….

"There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term 'Christian.'

"The earliest fragments and codex of the New Testament pre-date the fourth century, though nowhere in them have we found the key word Christ. Many biblical scholars claim that they do, but our visual inspection of them fails to find a single such usage of this term. We have been unable to find a single text transliterated correctly in this regard….

"As there are gospels and other texts of a religious character, so there is archaeology for places of worship and many artefacts: none spell Christian. Claims that any are Christian are, in fact, a matter of opinion only and we disagree with all such opinions."

--John Bartram, "The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity"


For making the same basic statement, over the past 15 years online I've been attacked, ridiculed, libeled, slandered, insulted, ignored, ostracized, bullied, threatened, harassed, stalked and subjected to all kinds of calumny and sociopathic behavior. If you scroll down to the bottom of the above article, you will see he's been receiving the same treatment.

Some of the comments coming from the misanthropes over at TWeb include calling him a "moron" and saying that the "IIDB regulars think he's off his rocker." (Many of us here think the IIDB regulars are off THEIR rockers.)



Hello Acharya,

Just to clarify something here....

John Bartram in the above article is summarising the treatment that I have been receiving.
On IIDB I have been posting under the id of "mountainman".
FYI.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:08 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
Leucius Charinus wrote:
John Bartram in the above article is summarising the treatment that I have been receiving.
On IIDB I have been posting under the id of "mountainman".
FYI.


Pete,

Thanks very much for joining Free Thought Nation. There is a trove of good material at your website http://www.mountainman.com.au/ which readers can benefit from.

The low quality of intellectual debate regarding religious history is one of those cultural conundrums. It illustrates how people's opinions and interests in these topics are often driven more by emotion than reason, and how we still lack a simple compelling paradigm for the emergence of Christianity. I think you are doing some superb work towards constructing such an explanatory story, so do please keep it up, and share with us here.

This Christos/Chrestos question is one of those Orwellian nightmares in Christian history. As Winston Smith discovered, Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia, and any inconvenient evidence to the contrary was targeted for destruction. Orwell's 1984 is an astute story about the psychological and political processes whereby history is written by the victors. The Pope (with Stalin) is the great model for Big Brother. In this case of the amendment of Chrestian to Christian, the late Christians wished to coopt useful references to themselves such as the crude crossing out of the e in Tacitus described above.

It would be nice to catch up on the South Coast, maybe around Christmas?

Robert


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Thanks, but I don't understand. I'm the one who said this:

Quote:
For making the same basic statement, over the past 15 years online I've been attacked, ridiculed, libeled, slandered, insulted, ignored, ostracized, bullied, threatened, harassed, stalked and subjected to all kinds of calumny and sociopathic behavior. If you scroll down to the bottom of the above article, you will see he's been receiving the same treatment.

Some of the comments coming from the misanthropes over at TWeb include calling him a "moron" and saying that the "IIDB regulars think he's off his rocker." (Many of us here think the IIDB regulars are off THEIR rockers.)

That's how the IIDB has been abusing me over the many years.

Or, are you saying that when you scroll down that post, it's about you they're claiming is "off his rocker?" If you are experience the same sort of abuse by these sociopaths, my condolences. Thanks for hanging in there.

It does sound like you and Robert would have much to talk about!

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Acharya wrote:
Here's another nice juicy quote from this site:

Quote:
"Not a single artefact of any medium—including textual—and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian….

"There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term 'Christian.'

"The earliest fragments and codex of the New Testament pre-date the fourth century, though nowhere in them have we found the key word Christ. Many biblical scholars claim that they do, but our visual inspection of them fails to find a single such usage of this term. We have been unable to find a single text transliterated correctly in this regard….

"As there are gospels and other texts of a religious character, so there is archaeology for places of worship and many artefacts: none spell Christian. Claims that any are Christian are, in fact, a matter of opinion only and we disagree with all such opinions."

--John Bartram, "The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity"


For making the same basic statement, over the past 15 years online I've been attacked, ridiculed, libeled, slandered, insulted, ignored, ostracized, bullied, threatened, harassed, stalked and subjected to all kinds of calumny and sociopathic behavior. If you scroll down to the bottom of the above article, you will see he's been receiving the same treatment.

Some of the comments coming from the misanthropes over at TWeb include calling him a "moron" and saying that the "IIDB regulars think he's off his rocker." (Many of us here think the IIDB regulars are off THEIR rockers.)



Hello Acharya,

Just to clarify something here....

John Bartram in the above article is summarising the treatment that I have been receiving.
On IIDB I have been posting under the id of "mountainman".
FYI.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:56 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:32 pm
Posts: 15
Acharya wrote:
Or, are you saying that when you scroll down that post, it's about you they're claiming is "off his rocker?"


Correct. I am "off my rocker" because I question the evidence. John Bartram gathered up about ten different disparaging comments about ideas I had discussed in IIDB (and elsewhere) at the end of his page on "Vacuum of Evidence for Pre-4th century Christianity"


Quote:
If you are experience the same sort of abuse by these sociopaths, my condolences. Thanks for hanging in there.


Thanks too for all your research.

Here is some of my research for you and your members:
The Gnostic Gospels and Acts - a review of the New Testament Apocryphal texts

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... _Index.htm


Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:04 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:32 pm
Posts: 15
Robert Tulip wrote:
The low quality of intellectual debate regarding religious history is one of those cultural conundrums. It illustrates how people's opinions and interests in these topics are often driven more by emotion than reason, and how we still lack a simple compelling paradigm for the emergence of Christianity. I think you are doing some superb work towards constructing such an explanatory story, so do please keep it up, and share with us here.


Thanks Robert.


Quote:
This Christos/Chrestos question is one of those Orwellian nightmares in Christian history.


Here is some more data:
Do a google search on PapyriFromTheRiseOfChristianityInEgypt for a pdf.

Have a look at the number of instances of early references to "Chrestians" (or variants)
and zero instances for "Christians".


Quote:
It would be nice to catch up on the South Coast, maybe around Christmas?


Sure. I am both in Sydney and the South. Starting a BA in Ancient History next month.
Let me know your plans closer to time.

Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support