33 Comments

  1. Geoff Hudson

    You wrote: “it was not the custom in this time to refer to Christians in general”

    What about the CHRISTIANOS inscription found at Pompeii. Scholars today are silent about it and that includes Mcgrath.

    Reply
      1. Geoff Hudson

        It is called The Christian Inscription at Pompeii by Paul Berry. Page 23 of the book says 18 scholars, historians, theologians, and archaeologists, from 1862 to 1987, worked on this inscription, such has been the interest. This was an inscription in Latin, dated before the eruption of mount Vesuvius in 79 CE. CHRISTIANOS is a plural noun. It is more than likely that it was inscribed a number of years before that. Pompeii was a place frequented by Seneca, a Stoic, who had a mansion there. Nero was also a visitor. So why do scholars today ignore this inscription, and yet create a big fuss over the Talpiot tomb?

        Reply

        1. Um, they aren’t ignoring. There has been monographs on it.

          Reply
          1. Geoff Hudson

            References?

          2. Geoff Hudson

            There appears to be only one monograph. It is the one I quoted – the The Christian Inscription at Pompeii, by Paul Berry. It also appears that the inscription CHRISTIANOS is very old, and is written in latin. Is that why many scholars are reluctant to get involved with it? It is almost certainly older than any other extant Greek text. It is probably older than any previous Greek text to do with the New Testament.

  2. Geoff Hudson

    The point is, when was Peter’s group that you refer to, called Christians repeatedly in Greek? You have no evidence that this group was the first to write. It is as you say a matter of ‘faith’. And did it mean the same as when the CHRISTIANOS inscription was inscribed in latin? I don’t think it did. Was this evidence that the CHRISTIANOS (latin) established themselves in Italy first?

    Reply

    1. Um, what facts are you reading? A balanced view of the facts reveal that Chrestianos is the better reading, that it doesn’t have to refer to Peter’s group, and the such.

      Reply
  3. Geoff Hudson

    So to what group does this obviously early inscription, CHRISTIANOS, in latin refer? One can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that it is earlier that any Greek reading you can produce.

    Reply

    1. Actually, I would say it doesn’t refer to a group but a person in particular, who was not a CHRISTIANOS, but chrestianos

      Reply
      1. Geoff Hudson

        In the Pompeii inscription, CHRISTIANOS is a latin plural noun, so it cannot refer to one person. It must refer to a group. What was that group? Do you agree that the parallel Greek term came later? If so, what evidence would you give?

        Reply
        1. Geoff Hudson

          I meant to say: If NOT, what evidence would evidence would you give?

          Reply

    1. Considering that Carrier and others are arguing against actual experts in the field, I’m going to go with the actual experts.

      Reply
      1. Geoff Hudson

        In fact it is obvious that Zara is quite dismissive of the CHRISTIANOS inscription (its actually a charcoal gaffiti). He has only one short paragraph about it and simply quotes another author. For me Berry’s book confirms what I have suspected for a long time. It is that the original Christians were not followers of Christ, but were ‘anointed ones’, filled with the Spirit. Such a practice by Jews could only have flourished in a land away from persecution in Judea, a land where there was already a sympathetic audience of Stoic followers such as Seneca who had a villa in Pompeii. The villa where the CHRISTIANOS grafitti was found was again obviously not a place of Jewish slaves, but a residence of Jewish aristocrats, probably of Hasmonean descent.
        Zara quotes one interpretation of the graffiti: “Bovos listens to the Chriatianos, the cruel haters”. I would suggest that the ‘cruel haters’ were the Jewish persecutors of those Jews who believed in the Spirit, and not sacrifice or slavish obedience of the law. The graffiti was sympathetic to the cause of the Christianos.

        Reply

        1. You can suggest what you want, but has it as no real foundation, you are only spouting. Further, Berry’s book suggests just the opposite.

          Reply
          1. Geoff Hudson

            But it has the touch of reality. The fictitious Paul was not on his way to Rome when he supposedly called in at Puteoli to see some brothers. James was on his way to Jerusalem.


          2. Oh wow…. And I guess their is a real life Kenyan Birth Certificate too.

  4. Geoff Hudson

    Its the same link. Zara concludes: Perhaps Jucundus was a part of a group called “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.” In other words he cannot conclude that Chrestiani refers to a group.

    About the Pompeii inscription, CHRISTIANOS, Zara says “the inscription already in 1864 was lost, and is only available in two conflicting drawings.” He quotes a 1984 book by Leslie Barnard.

    Zara’s statement (and Barnard’s) conflicts with what Berry says on plate 10, between pages 25 and 26. Berry appears to be quoting later research: “The lettering shown here was traced in 1995 from carbon particles retained in the wall surface.”

    Reply

  5. Hey Joel, thanks for this post. I would like to address this as soon as possible; maybe tonight. Will post a link when I can.

    Reply

    1. What issue?

      Also, I posted something else today – and will do one tomorrow.

      Reply
  6. Geoff Hudson

    Mcgrath wrote:

    “Carrier’s attempt to appeal to New Testament sources as evidence to the contrary, when those same sources provide evidence of a historical Jesus, is very strange indeed, and thoroughly unpersuasive”.

    I wonder when Mcgrath and others will wake up and realise that the New Testament has been extensively changed and added to. What he calls evidence is largely a pack of lies. Mcgrath’s so-called evidence is a myth, but proving that from the NT itself and from the extant history passed down to us is not an easy thing to do. At the moment, the real clues come from archaeology. But there is another way, and that is to reconstruct the valid bits of the NT to make a consistent whole. Obviously this would never be acceptable to an academic like Mcgrath.

    One fairly obvious archaeological fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Vespasian ever went to Galilee with an army, yet scholars ignore that fact. There are no first century remains of Roman army camps. In Judea the camps are large. Yet interestingly there are no remains of first century Roman camps around Jerusalem. If the received war history is wrong, then everything about the received NT history is wrong.

    Reply

    1. Um… Geoff… not everyone sees conspiracy and space aliens in everything. Some people actually believe facts.

      Reply
      1. Geoff Hudson

        Facts, so what are facts in relation to the New Testament? Do you mean the truth? Or is that a different question? You can say what you like, but if you want to learn about space aliens, just ask your master who you so admire.

        Reply

        1. Geoff, all you do is pose conspiracy theories. You aren’t necessarily presenting facts, or truths.

          Reply
          1. Geoff Hudson

            Can’t you answer one question? I’ll put it another way. How do you know when the bible is telling the truth or not?


          2. It’s always telling the Truth. Stating facts is a different story. But, it is not the product of conspiracy, like your ‘work.’

          3. Geoff Hudson

            The conspiracy was worked 2000 years ago. Your facts merely repeat that.

Leave a Reply, Please!