Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2012, 01:49 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012 02:06 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Re "Why is it that each time textual evidence is supplied that contradicts your view you must play the interpolation card, Mark?"

Call it poetic license.

Interpolation was part and parcel of the manufacturing of the New Testament.

These are small interpolations ( the insertion of "Jesus" in front of "Christ" wasn't hard).

I've admitted I can't prove this. If it was cut and dry the truth about all this would be too obvious.

PS I like a lot of what you said in your last post. I want to share a little more with you and everyone else ( particularly Chas who I know is sitting on the edge of his seat LOL ) but I gotta go out now. Talk later!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012 08:40 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Now, if I understand you correctly, you are claiming that "the same person" is Jeebus. You are saying Paul thinks Jeebus sent him to the pagans (the uncircumcised) and Peter to the Jews (the circumcised). Your theory that Paul is referring to Jeebus makes very little sense because Jeebus was dead. What is more, Paul never claimed he talked to Christ. He had revelations ABOUT CHRIST (from God) but not FROM CHRIST.


Of course Jesus was dead. Now, we both agree that Paul was a liar, but the quotes of him below are textual evidence that contradicts your claim, even though your claim is the truth. Do you understand?

Quote:1Co_9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


We both know Paul never seen Jesus, that is a given. But it's not a matter of what the truth is, but a matter of what Paul claims in the texts.

Now, since you have used the Book of Acts for your argument, it is only fair that I can use it also. And as you know, in the Book of Acts, Paul claims to have spoken to the risen Jesus.

And as far as Paul "believing" that Jesus "spoke" to him, it wouldn't matter in the slightest if it was some kind of revelation or an audible sound. The point is all about what Paul claims, and Paul does indeed claim to be speaking to Jesus in 2Co 12:9, for example.

In regards to his revelations, he claims they came directly from Jesus Christ:

Quote:Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.



Quote:Now....I think it is clear Paul is referring to James. Paul doesn't name him because he doesn't want to acknowledge his authority. James is in charge of the Nazarenes (including Paul). The exact same scenario is clearly explained in Acts. James sends Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Your theory that Paul is referring to Jeebus makes very little sense because Jeebus was dead. What is more, Paul never claimed he talked to Christ. He had revelations ABOUT CHRIST (from God) but not FROM CHRIST.

Referring to James makes no sense, since we are talking about an apostleship here, and we both already know that Paul claimed to have been an apostle to the Gentiles long before Ad49, and also we know Peter was considered an apostle to the Jews long before AD49. In addition to that, the textual evidence I provided cannot be disputed with unsupported claims of interpolation. In fact, you have not disputed my position at all, because you can only dispute it with some kind of contrary evidence, and not with assertion.

You can hold on to your theory if you like, but it will be rejected in scholarly reviews I assure you. They will tell you precisely what I am telling you because the evidence is stacked very high against you.

At the end of the day, the evidence strongly indicates that Paul's Yeshua was modeled after the brother of James, the same Yeshua whom Pontius Pilate crucified. We can say this with confidence, and without the need to make any unsupported claims of interpolations or otherwise.

Anyways, enough time as been wasted on this, and it's getting tediously boring.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 09:09 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(29-11-2012 08:52 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I've been watching about ten videos of the series and I have to say his analysis is absolutely brilliant. If you don't mind, Free, I'd like you to take a day off someday and watch his entire series. I'm interested in your opinion about his evaluation of the evidence for a historical Jesus, because he comes to a different conclusion than you.
I have watched many of these conspiracy theory videos over the years, and I know how they can appeal to people. However, being the reasonable and logical person that I am, I have always been able to pick out the numerous logical fallacies and unsupported suppositions of arguments like that.

I will demonstrate this to you in my next post when I review the previous video you posted about the Chestians/Christians issue.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 09:18 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
LOL. There are many similarities to the Homeric poems in Mark's gospel. That is no "conspiracy" theory.
Of course everyone assumes they are "logical and reasonable", but when someone keeps pointing out they read things with
"exceptional clarity", (snort), one has to wonder.
The words "pompous ass" come to mind. Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-11-2012, 09:19 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  I have watched many of these conspiracy theory videos over the years, and I know how they can appeal to people. However, being the reasonable and logical person that I am, I have always been able to pick out the numerous logical fallacies and unsupported suppositions of arguments like that.

I will demonstrate this to you in my next post when I review the previous video you posted about the Chestians/Christians issue.
What conspiracy theory are you talking about? He's analyzing the textual evidence, just like you do. Regardless, I'm looking forward to your response.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 10:58 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 09:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LOL. There are many similarities to the Homeric poems in Mark's gospel. That is no "conspiracy" theory.
Of course everyone assumes they are "logical and reasonable", but when someone keeps pointing out they read things with
"exceptional clarity", (snort), one has to wonder.
The words "pompous ass" come to mind. Big Grin
Says the one who's signature says, "Insufferable know-it-all." Laughat

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012 01:55 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
He doesn't take the analyzing far enough to give you the whole picture.

The narrator of the video begins by making a point that Tacitus and Codex Sinaiticus both demonstrate the word "Chrestian" in the text as opposed to "Christian." Codex Sinaiticus was written around AD400, and the Tacitus text he refers to is dated to around the middle of the 11th century.He then produces another manuscript of the "Testimonium Flavius" that was extremely late dated to around AD1600.

The narrator then says, "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian."

Do you see the assumption and the suggestion? He is stating that all three instances of Christian in the New Testament were originally Chestian, giving the false impression that he is speaking of the original texts. Since we do not have the original texts, and he is only referring to documents that are 350, 1000, and 1700 years after the fact, then his suggestion that "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian" finds no historical support other than the text he quotes from.

So where do we go from here? I once told Bucky that we must view things multi-dimensional, as though viewing the 6 sides of cube, in order to see the whole story. Therefore, we must ask the following question:

Q: Are there any other instances where the word "Christian" was used before the dates of the documents that were displayed by the narrator of that video?

That's a very good question, and a question that requires a very good answer.

We have an extant copy of Polycarp, which is dated to around AD110. Within the Greek text we see "Christianos," which, as we all know, translates to Christians, and not Chrestians.

Ignatius' epistles, seven, are extant. They were written in Greek, and spell the word as "Christian" in all instances. They are dated arohnd the mid to late 2nd century, around AD 175.

I could go on with far more instances of the spelling of Christian before the video narrator's dating of his texts, but I think you get the point. They are seemingly endless.

So what does this suggest to a reasonable and logical mind? To me, at least, it suggests with indisputable evidence that the word "Christian" dates back to at least the early part of the 2nd century if not the 1st, and was used by early Christians.

Also, to those of us with some knowledge of the ancient Greek language, we know that the pronounciation of Chrestian and Christians are virtually identical. It would be very easy to confuse the spelling.

In addition to this, the video narrator neglected to mention to you that the very same text he uses to demonstrated "Chrestians" from Tacitus clearly shows that these "Chrestians" got their name from Christus, and not "Chrestus."

Finally, Roman historian Suetonius' extant work regarding the 12 Caesars specifically says "Christians" in the text, and not Chrestians. He wrote close to the time of Tacitus.

So, to summarize:

1. The impression the video narrator is trying to give you is false. He's attempting to convince you that the original New Testament documents had "Chrestians" when he should be more intellectually honest and say, "The oldest known New Testament document shows the word "Chrestians." Since we do not have the originals, he has no basis to make such a claim.

2. The video narrator shows you only a singular dimension in regards to the issue at hand. He is only showing you what he wants you to see so that he can gain an advantage by not showing you what he should be. By not demonstrating that the word "Christian" does indeed date back to the 1st century and was in wide useage, he leaves you with the impression that it only dates to the 4th century. That is the wrong impression, and intellectually dishonest.

3. The video narrator shrewdly avoids showing you the spelling of "Christus" in Tacitus' Annals, and avoids discussing that the "Chrestians" got their name from "Christus." More intellectual dishonesty.

4. He stays totally clear on Suetonius work where we have yet another Roman historian like Tacitus spelling the name of "Christians."

5. As far as the inscription he mentions in the video, he again shrewdly neglected to mention to you that there are many others found in Phrygia and that a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".




So, the video narrator tries to tell us near the beginning that the earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in the NT, and then goes about demonstrating with a 4th century text the the original word was "Chrestians. The fact remains, that- even if the word Chrestians was actually used in the original NT- the earliest spelling of Christians predates his texts. He then uses and 11 century and 18th century text to further his agenda.

I have used texts that demonstrate that the "earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in a 4th century text, but found hundreds of years earlier.

He basically showed you nothing, except what he wanted you to see. I have shown you both sides of the coin. But what does it all mean? Who knows, but the reasonable conclusion is that both words were interchangeable, and since both words are used to decribe the followers of someone named Christus or Chrestus, then we can conclude that both words are, as they say, "six of one, and a half dozen of the other."

Now you can judge with a greater degree of information. It doesn't matter what you conclude. It's fine with me if you think the word "Chrestian" somehow makes any difference. I simply don't understand why it would.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012 02:36 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 01:33 PM)Free Wrote:  He doesn't take the analyzing far enough to give you the whole picture.

The narrator of the video begins by making a point that Tacitus and Codex Sinaiticus both demonstrate the word "Chrestian" in the text as opposed to "Christian." Codex Sinaiticus was written around AD400, and the Tacitus text he refers to is dated to around the middle of the 11th century.He then produces another manuscript of the "Testimonium Flavius" that was extremely late dated to around AD1600.

The narrator then says, "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian."

Do you see the assumption and the suggestion? He is stating that all three instances of Christian in the New Testament were originally Chestian, giving the false impression that he is speaking of the original texts. Since we do not have the original texts, and he is only referring to documents that are 350, 1000, and 1700 years after the fact, then his suggestion that "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian" finds no historical support other than the text he quotes from.

So where do we go from here? I once told Bucky that we must view things multi-dimensional, as though viewing the 6 sides of cube, in order to see the whole story. Therefore, we must ask the following question:

Q: Are there any other instances where the word "Christian" was used before the dates of the documents that were displayed by the narrator of that video?

That's a very good question, and a question that requires a very good answer.

We have an extant copy of Polycarp, which is dated to around AD110. Within the Greek text we see "Christianos," which, as we all know, translates to Christians, and not Chrestians.

Ignatius' epistles, seven, are extant. They were written in Greek, and spell the word as "Christian" in all instances. They are dated arohnd the mid to late 2nd century, around AD 175.

I could go on with far more instances of the spelling of Christian before the video narrator's dating of his texts, but I think you get the point. They are seemingly endless.

So what does this suggest to a reasonable and logical mind? To me, at least, it suggests with indisputable evidence that the word "Christian" dates back to at least the early part of the 2nd century if not the 1st, and was used by early Christians.

Also, to those of us with some knowledge of the ancient Greek language, we know that the pronounciation of Chrestian and Christians are virtually identical. It would be very easy to confuse the spelling.

In addition to this, the video narrator neglected to mention to you that the very same text he uses to demonstrated "Chrestians" from Tacitus clearly shows that these "Chrestians" got their name from Christus, and not "Chrestus."

Finally, Roman historian Suetonius' extant work regarding the 12 Caesars specifically says "Christians" in the text, and not Chrestians. He wrote close to the time of Tacitus.

So, to summarize:

1. The impression the video narrator is trying to give you is false. He's attempting to convince you that the original New Testament documents had "Chrestians" when he should be more intellectually honest and say, "The oldest known New Testament document shows the word "Chrestians." Since we do not have the originals, he has no basis to make such a claim.

2. The video narrator shows you only a singular dimension in regards to the issue at hand. He is only showing you what he wants you to see so that he can gain an advantage by not showing you what he should be. By not demonstrating that the word "Christian" does indeed date back to the 1st century and was in wide useage, he leaves you with the impression that it only dates to the 4th century. That is the wrong impression, and intellectually dishonest.

3. The video narrator shrewdly avoids showing you the spelling of "Christus" in Tacitus' Annals, and avoids discussing that the "Chrestians" got their name from "Christus." More intellectual dishonesty.

4. He stays totally clear on Suetonius work where we have yet another Roman historian like Tacitus spelling the name of "Christians."

5. As far as the inscription he mentions in the video, he again shrewdly neglected to mention to you that there are many others found in Phrygia and that a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".




So, the video narrator tries to tell us near the beginning that the earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in the NT, and then goes about demonstrating with a 4th century text the the original word was "Chrestians. The fact remains, that- even if the word Chrestians was actually used in the original NT- the earliest spelling of Christians predates his texts. He then uses and 11 century and 18th century text to further his agenda.

I have used texts that demonstrate that the "earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in a 4th century text, but found hundreds of years earlier.

He basically showed you nothing, except what he wanted you to see. I have shown you both sides of the coin. But what does it all mean? Who knows, but the reasonable conclusion is that both words were interchangeable, and since both words are used to decribe the followers of someone named Christus or Chrestus, then we can conclude that both words are, as they say, "six of one, and a half dozen of the other."

Now you can judge with a greater degree of information. It doesn't matter what you conclude. It's fine with me if you think the word "Chrestian" somehow makes any difference. I simply don't understand why it would.
I'll re-watch the relevant parts and see if your criticism holds water. In the meantime, thanks for taking the time to respond. A few things have already bugged me when I compared what you wrote to what I remember from the videos. For example, you say that "He stays totally clear on Suetonius work where we have yet another Roman historian like Tacitus spelling the name of "Christians." when he actually talks about Suetonius in one of the videos I posted.

Just to make sure: Did you watch all of the videos that belong to the "Chrestus vs Christus" topic?

(30-11-2012 01:33 PM)Free Wrote:  He then uses and 11 century and 18th century text to further his agenda.
This is getting odd, Free. First you accuse the videos of propagating a conspiracy theory and now you claim that the creator of a video is purposely misleading people to further an agenda. What is this agenda even supposed to be?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 02:33 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 02:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 01:33 PM)Free Wrote:  He doesn't take the analyzing far enough to give you the whole picture.

The narrator of the video begins by making a point that Tacitus and Codex Sinaiticus both demonstrate the word "Chrestian" in the text as opposed to "Christian." Codex Sinaiticus was written around AD400, and the Tacitus text he refers to is dated to around the middle of the 11th century.He then produces another manuscript of the "Testimonium Flavius" that was extremely late dated to around AD1600.

The narrator then says, "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian."

Do you see the assumption and the suggestion? He is stating that all three instances of Christian in the New Testament were originally Chestian, giving the false impression that he is speaking of the original texts. Since we do not have the original texts, and he is only referring to documents that are 350, 1000, and 1700 years after the fact, then his suggestion that "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian" finds no historical support other than the text he quotes from.

So where do we go from here? I once told Bucky that we must view things multi-dimensional, as though viewing the 6 sides of cube, in order to see the whole story. Therefore, we must ask the following question:

Q: Are there any other instances where the word "Christian" was used before the dates of the documents that were displayed by the narrator of that video?

That's a very good question, and a question that requires a very good answer.

We have an extant copy of Polycarp, which is dated to around AD110. Within the Greek text we see "Christianos," which, as we all know, translates to Christians, and not Chrestians.

Ignatius' epistles, seven, are extant. They were written in Greek, and spell the word as "Christian" in all instances. They are dated arohnd the mid to late 2nd century, around AD 175.

I could go on with far more instances of the spelling of Christian before the video narrator's dating of his texts, but I think you get the point. They are seemingly endless.

So what does this suggest to a reasonable and logical mind? To me, at least, it suggests with indisputable evidence that the word "Christian" dates back to at least the early part of the 2nd century if not the 1st, and was used by early Christians.

Also, to those of us with some knowledge of the ancient Greek language, we know that the pronounciation of Chrestian and Christians are virtually identical. It would be very easy to confuse the spelling.

In addition to this, the video narrator neglected to mention to you that the very same text he uses to demonstrated "Chrestians" from Tacitus clearly shows that these "Chrestians" got their name from Christus, and not "Chrestus."

Finally, Roman historian Suetonius' extant work regarding the 12 Caesars specifically says "Christians" in the text, and not Chrestians. He wrote close to the time of Tacitus.

So, to summarize:

1. The impression the video narrator is trying to give you is false. He's attempting to convince you that the original New Testament documents had "Chrestians" when he should be more intellectually honest and say, "The oldest known New Testament document shows the word "Chrestians." Since we do not have the originals, he has no basis to make such a claim.

2. The video narrator shows you only a singular dimension in regards to the issue at hand. He is only showing you what he wants you to see so that he can gain an advantage by not showing you what he should be. By not demonstrating that the word "Christian" does indeed date back to the 1st century and was in wide useage, he leaves you with the impression that it only dates to the 4th century. That is the wrong impression, and intellectually dishonest.

3. The video narrator shrewdly avoids showing you the spelling of "Christus" in Tacitus' Annals, and avoids discussing that the "Chrestians" got their name from "Christus." More intellectual dishonesty.

4. He stays totally clear on Suetonius work where we have yet another Roman historian like Tacitus spelling the name of "Christians."

5. As far as the inscription he mentions in the video, he again shrewdly neglected to mention to you that there are many others found in Phrygia and that a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".




So, the video narrator tries to tell us near the beginning that the earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in the NT, and then goes about demonstrating with a 4th century text the the original word was "Chrestians. The fact remains, that- even if the word Chrestians was actually used in the original NT- the earliest spelling of Christians predates his texts. He then uses and 11 century and 18th century text to further his agenda.

I have used texts that demonstrate that the "earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in a 4th century text, but found hundreds of years earlier.

He basically showed you nothing, except what he wanted you to see. I have shown you both sides of the coin. But what does it all mean? Who knows, but the reasonable conclusion is that both words were interchangeable, and since both words are used to decribe the followers of someone named Christus or Chrestus, then we can conclude that both words are, as they say, "six of one, and a half dozen of the other."

Now you can judge with a greater degree of information. It doesn't matter what you conclude. It's fine with me if you think the word "Chrestian" somehow makes any difference. I simply don't understand why it would.
I'll re-watch the relevant parts and see if your criticism holds water. In the meantime, thanks for taking the time to respond. A few things have already bugged me when I compared what you wrote to what I remember from the videos. For example, you say that "He stays totally clear on Suetonius work where we have yet another Roman historian like Tacitus spelling the name of "Christians." when he actually talks about Suetonius in one of the videos I posted.

Just to make sure: Did you watch all of the videos that belong to the "Chrestus vs Christus" topic?
Not all of them, no. But I can bet you dollars to donuts that when he speaks about Suetonius he will be making an argument against the Christian belief that the part that says "at the instigation of Chrestus" his aim will be to dispute the Christian position that the word "Chrestus" rrefers to Jesus Christ.

Personally, I have no idea who the Chrestus is as mentioned by Suetonius. It could be Jesus, as it is mentioned during the supposed time of Jesus in the text. Or it could be some other crazy bastard trying to raise a little hell with the Romans.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 02:36 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 02:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 01:33 PM)Free Wrote:  He doesn't take the analyzing far enough to give you the whole picture.

The narrator of the video begins by making a point that Tacitus and Codex Sinaiticus both demonstrate the word "Chrestian" in the text as opposed to "Christian." Codex Sinaiticus was written around AD400, and the Tacitus text he refers to is dated to around the middle of the 11th century.He then produces another manuscript of the "Testimonium Flavius" that was extremely late dated to around AD1600.

The narrator then says, "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian."

Do you see the assumption and the suggestion? He is stating that all three instances of Christian in the New Testament were originally Chestian, giving the false impression that he is speaking of the original texts. Since we do not have the original texts, and he is only referring to documents that are 350, 1000, and 1700 years after the fact, then his suggestion that "All three instances of Christian in the New Testiment were originally Chrestian" finds no historical support other than the text he quotes from.

So where do we go from here? I once told Bucky that we must view things multi-dimensional, as though viewing the 6 sides of cube, in order to see the whole story. Therefore, we must ask the following question:

Q: Are there any other instances where the word "Christian" was used before the dates of the documents that were displayed by the narrator of that video?

That's a very good question, and a question that requires a very good answer.

We have an extant copy of Polycarp, which is dated to around AD110. Within the Greek text we see "Christianos," which, as we all know, translates to Christians, and not Chrestians.

Ignatius' epistles, seven, are extant. They were written in Greek, and spell the word as "Christian" in all instances. They are dated arohnd the mid to late 2nd century, around AD 175.

I could go on with far more instances of the spelling of Christian before the video narrator's dating of his texts, but I think you get the point. They are seemingly endless.

So what does this suggest to a reasonable and logical mind? To me, at least, it suggests with indisputable evidence that the word "Christian" dates back to at least the early part of the 2nd century if not the 1st, and was used by early Christians.

Also, to those of us with some knowledge of the ancient Greek language, we know that the pronounciation of Chrestian and Christians are virtually identical. It would be very easy to confuse the spelling.

In addition to this, the video narrator neglected to mention to you that the very same text he uses to demonstrated "Chrestians" from Tacitus clearly shows that these "Chrestians" got their name from Christus, and not "Chrestus."

Finally, Roman historian Suetonius' extant work regarding the 12 Caesars specifically says "Christians" in the text, and not Chrestians. He wrote close to the time of Tacitus.

So, to summarize:

1. The impression the video narrator is trying to give you is false. He's attempting to convince you that the original New Testament documents had "Chrestians" when he should be more intellectually honest and say, "The oldest known New Testament document shows the word "Chrestians." Since we do not have the originals, he has no basis to make such a claim.

2. The video narrator shows you only a singular dimension in regards to the issue at hand. He is only showing you what he wants you to see so that he can gain an advantage by not showing you what he should be. By not demonstrating that the word "Christian" does indeed date back to the 1st century and was in wide useage, he leaves you with the impression that it only dates to the 4th century. That is the wrong impression, and intellectually dishonest.

3. The video narrator shrewdly avoids showing you the spelling of "Christus" in Tacitus' Annals, and avoids discussing that the "Chrestians" got their name from "Christus." More intellectual dishonesty.

4. He stays totally clear on Suetonius work where we have yet another Roman historian like Tacitus spelling the name of "Christians."

5. As far as the inscription he mentions in the video, he again shrewdly neglected to mention to you that there are many others found in Phrygia and that a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".




So, the video narrator tries to tell us near the beginning that the earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in the NT, and then goes about demonstrating with a 4th century text the the original word was "Chrestians. The fact remains, that- even if the word Chrestians was actually used in the original NT- the earliest spelling of Christians predates his texts. He then uses and 11 century and 18th century text to further his agenda.

I have used texts that demonstrate that the "earliest use of the word "Christians" cannot be found in a 4th century text, but found hundreds of years earlier.

He basically showed you nothing, except what he wanted you to see. I have shown you both sides of the coin. But what does it all mean? Who knows, but the reasonable conclusion is that both words were interchangeable, and since both words are used to decribe the followers of someone named Christus or Chrestus, then we can conclude that both words are, as they say, "six of one, and a half dozen of the other."

Now you can judge with a greater degree of information. It doesn't matter what you conclude. It's fine with me if you think the word "Chrestian" somehow makes any difference. I simply don't understand why it would.
I'll re-watch the relevant parts and see if your criticism holds water. In the meantime, thanks for taking the time to respond. A few things have already bugged me when I compared what you wrote to what I remember from the videos. For example, you say that "He stays totally clear on Suetonius work where we have yet another Roman historian like Tacitus spelling the name of "Christians." when he actually talks about Suetonius in one of the videos I posted.

Just to make sure: Did you watch all of the videos that belong to the "Chrestus vs Christus" topic?

(30-11-2012 01:33 PM)Free Wrote:  He then uses and 11 century and 18th century text to further his agenda.
This is getting odd, Free. First you accuse the videos of propagating a conspiracy theory and now you claim that the creator of a video is purposely misleading people to further an agenda. What is this agenda even supposed to be?
His entire video library on the subject is to one way or another discredit Christianity. That's his agenda.

Christianity already sux enough that we don't even need to be intellectually dishonest about it. The truth alone is enough for its destruction.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: