Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 29, 2024, 5:22 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
(May 24, 2015 at 3:51 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: I was thinking about the First Century Roman emperors, such as Claudius.  I believe he has a historical record with the Christians as well as a Biblical one.  And I was also thinking about the catacombs but their involvement with Christian burials may start around the Third Century.  

Anyway, your Greek link is written in modern Greek so it's a fraud. That also blows Nestor's link out of the water for the same reason.

There is only one reference in Claudius (Suetonius) and that is to "Chrestus" not "Christos."  It also says that Chrestos was in Rome during the reign of Claudius which is completely at odds with the later "jesus" bullshit story as it developed.  You are correct about the catacombs.  We have no first century xtian burials in Rome.  That shows up later in the 2d century.  I actually got to visit one when I was in Rome.  Covered with swastikas which made the Jewish members of our group somewhat uncomfortable.  The guide assured them that these were Persian good luck charms of the day and not German graffiti from WWII.

We have multiple references to Chrestus and Chrestianos (followers of Chrestus).  Sadly we cannot be sure that helpful xtian scribes were not simply correcting what they assumed to be spelling errors.  The Suetonius mentioned above says Chrestus but that manuscript is one which came down to us from a non xtian chain of custody so the need to
correct the spelling may have not been as obvious.  Remember, even the manuscript of Tacitus' Annales clearly shows under ultraviolet light that the word was originally "Chresitanos" not "Christianos."  And for the idiots who say "it's only one letter difference:"  That is true of Farm and Fart, too.  Makes a great difference in meaning.

The link does say "original Greek" where available.  I don't think they are trying to con anyone.


Quote:What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.


Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

Actually slightly more reasonable than your jesus bullshit.  Especially the Yoko part.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament - by Minimalist - May 24, 2015 at 12:58 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Did Jesus call the Old Testament God the Devil, a Murderer and the Father of Lies? dude1 51 9100 November 6, 2018 at 12:46 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Old Testament Prophecy Proof of Jesus Nihilist Virus 45 6802 August 12, 2016 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: Nihilist Virus
  The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament athrock 307 38276 January 31, 2016 at 5:03 pm
Last Post: Aegon
  Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament Randy Carson 69 17163 October 8, 2015 at 10:51 pm
Last Post: orangedude
  The Utter Irrelevance of the New Testament Whateverist 66 11237 May 24, 2015 at 6:59 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Question of the Greek New Testament Rhondazvous 130 23113 May 19, 2015 at 8:13 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Historical Easter Question for Minimalist thesummerqueen 26 7718 April 5, 2015 at 3:47 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  New Testament arguments urlawyer 185 23586 March 24, 2015 at 5:26 pm
Last Post: The Reality Salesman01
  Reliability of the creation account robvalue 129 13455 January 20, 2015 at 3:48 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Jews and the old testament Vivalarevolution 40 7278 October 21, 2014 at 5:55 am
Last Post: Vivalarevolution



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)