Jesus.
- This topic has 256 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
” It is a book based on signs; it was symbolically written for the Christian communities of the first century that were persecuted by the Roman.”
There was no Roman persecution. See Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution.
” The number 666 has nothing to do with wars and antichrists; it refers to a Roman emperor known as Nero.”
Yes, but it was written during the Nero Revivication era. For decades after his death, it was hoped by the Roman proletariat that Nero would return. For them he was the most popular and loved Emperor. The numbers 666 came to represent him and were also thus a symbol of Rome.
Even Christian writers, who promoted the myth of persecution never applied it to Nero’s reign and would surely have done so had there been any Neronian persecution.” The time has already passed; Nero is dead, and the Roman Empire collapsed; therefore, churches are only preaching fears.”
The Roman Empire was entering its most powerful era. This particular Apocalypse (of John – there were many) was written in the 90s CE; Rome still had 400 years of empire.
” It is a book based on signs; it was symbolically written for the Christian communities of the first century that were persecuted by the Roman.”
There was no Roman persecution. See Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution.
————————————————————————
There was a Roman persecution. I do not have to read her; I have other sources which said that there was a Roman persecution
” The number 666 has nothing to do with wars and antichrists; it refers to a Roman emperor known as Nero.”
Yes, but it was written during the Nero Revivication era. For decades after his death, it was hoped by the Roman proletariat that Nero would return. For them he was the most popular and loved Emperor. The numbers 666 came to represent him and were also thus a symbol of Rome.
Even Christian writers, who promoted the myth of persecution never applied it to Nero’s reign and would surely have done so had there been any Neronian persecution.
—————————————————–
It was applied to Nero and the Roman Empire. It was studied by a German universityI should have specified. But even atheist academics say there was an historical Jesus. As anyone reading this thread should be able to see, I don’t.
There is no evidence at all for an historical Jesus, nor for any of the apostles. But this is a “fringe view” in the academic world and is not taken seriously. Please read the thread before commenting. Thank you.
This investigator has conducted thorough research on the Bible and the book of Revelation. I prefer him and other sources. He can also read the bible in the original languages. Your sources said that there was no human sacrifice, and it is written in the bible by the prophet Jeremiah in 3 different places in the Bible
Enter the 21st century please, Ciudanado, instead of relying on Engels and 19th century writers.
There were prosecutions but not persecutions – except for maybe 12 years in all, under Diocletian. The Christians were never a target of persecution but did break laws and were sometimes prosecuted like anyone else – upon which they would shout about persecution.
The Christians won, and the winners write the history.
(I know that Marxist believers in a “revolutionary, communist Christianity” that never existed require the myth of persecution to be real for their thesis to work, but there is no real evidence for it.)
I am in the 21st century, and my sources are in the 21st century; the problem is that you think that your sources are the only valid ones and the only correct ones
” Your sources said that there was no human sacrifice, and it is written in the bible by the prophet Jeremiah in 3 different places in the Bible.”
I never said that at all. I asked if you thought the sacrifices of children in large numbers was more than just Roman propaganda. I never made any claim either way. I have no sources on this, so how could “my sources” claim otherwise?
The Romans saw Christians, after Christians became a visible sect of their own and not just Jews, which was later than the first century where the Romans were concerned, as an irritant at most.
Roman governors would send Christians demanding to die back home in the same way police have to deal today with persistent confessors.
And we also need to stop talking about Christians as if they were any one thing. There was never a Christianity, only Christianities.
“Please read the thread before commenting. Thank you.”
You wrote “most academics”, not most academics in a particular field,
Please write carefully before posting, you patronising twat
Apologies, TM if my language was a little agricultural, you were being patronising, but my response was inappropriate
My apologies if I appeared to be patronising, but it appeared to me you hadn’t read the piece on Richard Dawkins, who is not a biblical scholar and thus not in the field of exegesis.
Academics who are not in the field tend to yield to those who are in matters of their domain. Thus, after Dawkins had cast doubt on an historical Jesus, he was criticised and yielded to the academic consensus. Biblical academics and history academics, to whom non-related field academics yield on the matter, consider those who deny Jesus’ historicity as a fringe minority, and this is backed up on search engine results (and hence in schools and colleges). One noted atheist even said that we have more evidence for Jesus’ existence than we have for the existence of Josephus the historian! They also said there is more evidence for Jesus than for anyone in the ancient world.
This is not to say they believe in the supernatural stories, but it gives ammunition to believers, who proclaim, “Look! Even noted atheists say Jesus was real!”
One might say it doesn’t matter either way, as I am sure many here might, but it poses the question of the place of evidence in history (and the lack of it).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.