It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1st century Christians, as we understand them today, weren't the first Christians, not by a long shot.
In AD 134, after a visit to Alexandria, the Emperor Hadrian wrote a letter to his elderly brother-in-law, Servianus, in which he commented: "
He considers most IF not all of the sources you quoted as spurious and or edited by Christian scribes
He is mentioned a couple of times within about 80 years of his life by two Roman sources (Pliny and Tacitus; I’m not sure Suetonius can be used).
And he is almost certainly referred to twice in the Jewish historian Josephus, once in an entire paragraph.
The really compelling evidence, though, comes in the Christian sources.
That is after even the most skeptical date of Acts which is around 90 AD. So sorry Christianity predates that.
Hadran is explaining that some who follow Serapis are actually Christians and vice versa.
It was an existent Greek word. "Christ" isn't a concept owned by Jews, even though King Saul, King David, King Solomon and Cyrus the Great wore the "Christ" title. So did the Geek and Egyptian priests who had passed and were tasked to lead other through the Eleusinian Mysteries and baptism.
First of all, that citation confirms that there were other cults that called themselves Christians at the time, that could have been the very people that Pliny and Tacticus were referring to
BS! Jesus of Nazareth doesn't fit the Jewish Messianic prophecies.
"Christ" in the Septuagint doesn't refer to an human incarnation of Yahweh
....but pretending that is what is meant by the Gospel writers is dishonest.
"Christ" was a pagan concept. It was adopted by what we now call Christians through Paul's teachings.
The Chistian concept of Christ, adopted by 1st century Jews came from Philo of Alexandria's concept of the pagan Christ being quite the same as the Jewish Angel of the Lord. He married the two concepts into the Christian concept of Christ that we enjoy today. It has nothing to do with a man, who may or may not have really existed, named Jesus of Nazareth.
Any historical references to "Christus" or Chrestus" do NOT confirm the existence of one "Jesus of Nazareth".
No! Pretending that John 1:1 is a messianic reference to the Old Testament messianic prophecies dishonest.
The Old Testament Messianic prophecies don't fit Jesus of Nazareth.
So Ehrman agrees with my position on Pliny and Tacitus and says hes not sure about Suetonius
And he agrees that Josephus at least mentioned Jesus and I am pretty sure in a debate I was watching of his today he mentions that he thinks it has been partially interpolated as I have stated in the thread. So of the sources I've quoted one he mentions not being sure of. I see no mention of his opinion on some of the others.
In complete agreement here but this is extra biblical evidence so I didn't go into that.