The start of the Jesus story

[billd89]

Do not the writings of Josephus mention John the Baptist? Do not the writings of Josephus mention Banus?

No, Josephus does not detail comprehensively or systematically all Jewish cults in the region. You're wrong, trapped in a blind bias.

Your argument has been utterly destroyed since it is evident that it is not necessary at all for cults to have developed over hundreds of years to be mentioned by ancient writers.

No, mere mention is not the point and insufficient here; Plutarch details the history of the Serapis cult. You need to find 5-10 relevant comparisons to see your own erroneous & illogical rationalization.

... Christ who was worshiped as a God by at least ten thousand Jews before c 60 CE...

The Christ might then have had thousands of followers throughout the Empire; Jesus didnt. That was addressed above: you're being childish, now.

[hakeem]

You keep forgetting that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messianic ruler, during the reign of Nero. Tacitus himself wrote about the fact that Jews believed their prophesied Christ [Messianic ruler] would be revealed precisely in Nero's reign. The fire in Rome during the reign of Nero occurred at around the time the Jews expected their prophesied Christ.

Tacitus never wrote about Jesus of Nazareth or believers in Jesus of Nazareth but about Jews who believed in their prophesied Christ [Messiah] who would emerge sometime in the reign of Nero.

But Tacitus did not write about an expected Messiah to come: according to Tacitus, before Nero's reign, Christ had already emerge and then died during the reign of Tiberius, under Pilate's rule:
"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

I just showed you Tacitus' Histories 5.13. which is corroborated by Josephus and Suetonius. Plus, it is confirmed by ultra-violet light that Tacitus in
Annals 15.44 did not write about ChrIstians and also Sulpitius Severus in Sacred History shows that the word Christus was never in the original passage.

Tacitus's Annals 15.44 is a confirmed forgery using apologetic, non-apologetic and scientific sources.

The ancient records of the Jews contained no prediction of a Jewish Christ or expected Jewish Christ in the time of Pilate called Jesus of Nazareth which is corroborated also by Josephus' War of the Jews 6 and Suetonius' Life of Vespasian.

Certainly. But what does that prove?
Another argument from silence again. That seems to be your main evidence, again and again.

Your main "evidence" is a known forgery.

My evidence is found in writings of antiquity.

The story of Jesus of Nazareth started after it was realized that the Jews were deceived into believing their Christ [Messianic ruler] would emerge in the time of Nero after the Jews lost the War and their Temple destroyed.

Speculation.

Speculation? Josephus admitted the Jews were deceived after the they lost the War and the Temple destroyed.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 "

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

[hakeem]

Do not the writings of Josephus mention John the Baptist? Do not the writings of Josephus mention Banus?

No, Josephus does not detail comprehensively or systematically all Jewish cults in the region. You're wrong, trapped in a blind bias.

I never claimed that Josephus wrote about all Jewish cults and never asked if he wrote about all Jewish cults. You are trapped in your own fallacies.

Your argument has been utterly destroyed since it is evident that it is not necessary at all for cults to have developed over hundreds of years to be mentioned by ancient writers.

No, mere mention is not the point and insufficient here; Plutarch details the history of the Serapis cult. You need to find 5-10 relevant comparisons to see your own erroneous & illogical rationalization.

Your argument has been destroyed. Ancient writers mention many new cults which originated during their lifetime. Pliny the younger mention a Christian cult which supposedly started within 25 years of his writing to Trajan.

... Christ who was worshiped as a God by at least ten thousand Jews before c 60 CE...

The Christ might then have had thousands of followers throughout the Empire; Jesus didnt. That was addressed above: you're being childish, now.

You just make up stuff. What you say is irrelevant without evidence.

Acts of the Apostles claimed there were at least about 10 thousand Jewish believers before c 60 CE or before the time of Festus.

The apostles supposedly converted about 8000 and Paul converted thousands [plural] which implies at least more than 2000 which adds up to at least 10. 000 converts.

Acts 4:4---Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
Acts 2:41--Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 21:20---And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law.

The 10,000 Jewish converts do not even include the non-Jews in the supposed Pauline Churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Thasalonica, and Colosse and those allegedly in Asia like Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.

In the NT, the new Jesus cult would have been very large however there is no mention whatsoever of this large new Jesus cult in Josephus Antiquities written c 94 CE.

The Jesus of Nazareth story was invented after at least the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius. It was not until c 133 CE that the Jews claimed Simon Barchocheba was their Christ [Messianic ruler].

[Bernard Muller]

to Hakeem,

I just showed you Tacitus' Histories 5.13. which is corroborated by Josephus and Suetonius. Plus, it is confirmed by ultra-violet light that Tacitus in
Annals 15.44 did not write about ChrIstians and also Sulpitius Severus in Sacred History shows that the word Christus was never in the original passage.

We discussed that before: Tacitus' Annals was recopied several times:

Books 11-16 of the Annals, and what remains of the Histories, also survived in a single manuscript, written at the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino, and also preserved in the Laurentian library (MS. plut 68.2.) This is referred to as M. II or 'second Medicean', to distinguish it from the unique codex of Annals 1-6. Like source M, this codex is dated by the Laurentiana to 1000-1100.

"This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55 AD). It derives from an ancestor written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier, but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand.

(from Jeremy Norman’s HistoryofInformation.com at https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3742

And I made the argument that Christians was written by Tacitus because it does not make sense Christus beeing derived from Chrestians.

And Sulpitius Severus in Sacred History only wrote a short condensed rendition of part of the "Christian" passage of Tacitus. You cannot expect to see in Severus all the details showing in Tacitus.
Again you are making an argument from silence.

hakeem wrote:
The story of Jesus of Nazareth started after it was realized that the Jews were deceived into believing their Christ [Messianic ruler] would emerge in the time of Nero after the Jews lost the War and their Temple destroyed.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Speculation.

Speculation? Josephus admitted the Jews were deceived after the they lost the War and the Temple destroyed.

The speculation is about the story of Jesus of Nazareth started after the temple destruction.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

My position is that the Jesus story was an invention fabricated after the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the desolation of the Holy city called Jerusalem c 70 CE.

In my earlier posts it is shown that no independent writer mentioned any new Jewish religion where thousands of Jews were worshiping a Galilean called Jesus as a God or a Messianic ruler and that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all admitted that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messiah, in the time of Nero.

The Jews themselves fought against the Romans based on the belief that their prophesied Christ, their Messianic ruler would emerge and be victorious over the Romans during the reign of Nero.

Christian writings also show, inadvertently, that there was really no Jerusalem Church of Christians.

In the NT, a writer under the assumed name of John claimed he had revelations from Jesus Christ about events that must shortly come to pass. It was revealed to the supposed John that Jesus Christ was about to return in a very short time.

These are the last words of the heavenly Jesus in Revelation 22.20 “Surely I come quickly”.

This revelation appears to be extremely important and should be known by all the Churches.

Every Church must know that the second coming of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is imminent.

Now, read the words of the heavenly Jesus in the Revelation of John.

Revelation 1:11

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

There were only seven Churches when the Revelation of John was written.

The heavenly Jesus had an angel for each of the seven Churches.

Revelation 1:20

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

The Jesus in Revelation only had seven angels for seven Churches and each angel had a message for their assigned Church.
The author of John must write the message for each angel to the designated Church.

Revelation 2:1
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things ….
Revelation 2:8
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things….
Revelation 2:12
And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things…..
Revelation 2:18
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things…..
Revelation 3:1
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things…..
Revelation 3:7
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things …..
Revelation 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things….

Jesus in Revelation had seven angels for the seven Churches of Asia but there was none for the Jerusalem Church, none for the Church of Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Philippi and Colosse.
The Jerusalem Church and those of the supposed Paul did not exist when the Apocalypse was composed.

And, now Eusebius in “Church History” would admit he had no writing with the chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem.

Eusebius’ Church History” 4.5.1 1.

The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing…

The Jerusalem Church and bishops were invented by hearsay at least 300 years after the time of Tiberius.

If the author of Apocalypse knew of the Jerusalem Church and those of Paul then it would certainly be expected that he would write to them about his revelation from their Lord and Savior Jesus about his imminent return.

He did not write to them because they did not exist.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

In my earlier posts it is shown that no independent writer mentioned any new Jewish religion where thousands of Jews were worshiping a Galilean called Jesus as a God or a Messianic ruler

Argument from silence.

and that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all admitted that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messiah, in the time of Nero.

The Messiah of the Christians had died in the reign of Tiberius. He could not have been the expected Messiah in the late 60's, one generation after.

Christian writings also show, inadvertently, that there was really no Jerusalem Church of Christians.

Which writings? be specific.

Revelation 1:11 is only about the churches in the Roman province of Asia. And the churches in Revelations are in a relatively small part of that province (200 X 200 kms). The author had knowledge of what was going on in these nearby churches, which suggests he was living there.
1 Peter (known by Papias), probably written earlier, surmises that Christianity had churches almost all over what is now Turkey.
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

The Jerusalem Church and bishops were invented by hearsay at least 300 years after the time of Tiberius.

Even if there were no bishops, that does not mean the Jerusalem Church did not exist before the destruction of Jerusalem.

If the author of Apocalypse knew of the Jerusalem Church and those of Paul then it would certainly be expected that he would write to them about his revelation from their Lord and Savior Jesus about his imminent return.

Argument from silence again.
And the author(s) of the Apocalypse wrote after 70 CE. By that time, there were no Jerusalem and no Church of Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

If the author of Apocalypse knew of the Jerusalem Church and those of Paul then it would certainly be expected that he would write to them about his revelation from their Lord and Savior Jesus about his imminent return.

Argument from silence again.
And the author(s) of the Apocalypse wrote after 70 CE. By that time, there were no Jerusalem and no Church of Jerusalem.

Argument from lack of knowledge.

In Eusebius' Church History 4.5.2 it is claimed that there were 15 bishops of the Jerusalem Church until the time of the siege by the Jews under Adrian c 118-138 CE.

Eusebius Church History 4.5.2.

But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate.

Christian writings do claim the Jerusalem Church existed up to at least c 118-138 CE but the author of the Apocalypse and his heavenly Jesus knew nothing of them.

Revelation 1:11

..... I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Surely the Jerusalem Church would have wanted to see what John had written about the angel for the Holy City.

But John did not because they did not exist.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,
From Eusebius' History of the Church, book 4, ch.5

1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.

2. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.

3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.

That's total BS from Eusebius because then there was no Jerusalem. Jerusalem from 70 to 130 CE was a thoroughly destroyed city, with most of its city walls (including their foundations) also destroyed, and in these conditions very unlikely to be besieged (there was nothing to defend).
Josephus' Wars book VII, Ch. 1, section 1:

NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.

Josephus was an eye witness of all that.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

That's total BS from Eusebius because then there was no Jerusalem. Jerusalem from 70 to 130 CE was a thoroughly destroyed city, with most of its city walls (including their foundations) also destroyed, and in these conditions very unlikely to be besieged (there was nothing to defend)...

There is a lot of BS from Eusebius when he wrote about events before and after c 70 CE. At least Eusebius admitted that he nowhere found in writing the chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem.

In Cassius Dio "Roman History" it appears that Jerusalem did exist and that Jews were living there but the name was changed in the time of Hadrian sometime around c 130 CE or before the Jewish revolt by Simon Bar Kochba.

Dio's Roman History LXIX .12

At Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, 2 for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.

[MrMacSon]

to hakeem,

You keep forgetting that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messianic ruler, during the reign of Nero. Tacitus himself wrote about the fact that Jews believed their prophesied Christ [Messianic ruler] would be revealed precisely in Nero's reign. The fire in Rome during the reign of Nero occurred at around the time the Jews expected their prophesied Christ.

Tacitus never wrote about Jesus of Nazareth or believers in Jesus of Nazareth but about Jews who believed in their prophesied Christ [Messiah] who would emerge sometime in the reign of Nero.

But Tacitus did not write about an expected Messiah to come ...

Saying that--that "Tacitus did not write about an expected Messiah to come"--is beyond disingenuous, Bernard, when the next part of hakeem's post included a passage from Tacitus saying what you subsequently try to deny, viz. -

You keep forgetting that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messianic ruler, during the reign of Nero. Tacitus himself wrote about the fact ...

Tacitus' Histories 5.13

... there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judæa, were to acquire universal empire.

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves ...

This is an interesting point [re-jigged/re-ordered] -

The story of Jesus of Nazareth started after [the Jews lost the War and their Temple destroyed and] it was realized that the Jews [had been] deceived into believing their Christ [Messianic ruler] would emerge in the time of Nero