Saturday, March 30, 2024

Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video)


Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews · Whaddo You Meme ?? Tried to Give His POV on Christ is King · Colin (Not a Pastor) on Fight For Truth Had a Better Take · Sharing : Isabel Brown · Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video) · Christ is King of the Jews, even if Tovia Refuses to See That · Tovia tried to counter ...

Christians Weren't Persecuted! | Dr. Candida Moss
History Valley | 12 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAabysJO1OU


9:40 Tacitus had in his first work Agricola, about an uncle general, broken a "media silence" as it is to us, lasting from the last lines of Velleius Paterculus.

In those days, you weren't just terrorised for being a Christian, but even for being a decent historian — a bit like in Putin's Russia, but worse.

10:19 They had already been called Christians in Antioch, and Nero's wife Poppaea had a predeliction for Jews, which may have well been abused to get her to target Christians. At least rather Christians than Jews.

POPPÆA SABINA:
By: Kaufmann Kohler, Eduard Neumann
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12274-poppaea-sabina


Mistress and, after 62 C.E., second wife of the emperor Nero; died 65. She had a certain predilection for Judaism, and is characterized by Josephus ("Ant." xx. 8, § 11; "Vita," § 3) as θεοσεβής ("religious"). Some Jews, such as the actor Alityros, were well received at court, and Poppæa was always ready to second Jewish petitions before the emperor. In 64 Josephus went to Rome to obtain the liberation of some priests related to him who had been taken captive to that city for some minor offense. With the help of Alityros, Josephus succeeded in gaining the intercession of the empress, and returned home with his friends, bearing rich gifts with him.


a) Jews were already unpopular
b) Christians were unpopular among Jews
c) Poppaea persuades Nero to target Christians rather than Jews.

The word of Tacitus shows they were targetted.

11:08 Reference in legal texts is desired.

[for the claim that ...]

11:42 "It would have been Jews"

Except for Poppaea.

11:58 The correspondence in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan shows Christians already being persecuted.

It does not mark a decision to persecute Christians.

The Romans were perfectly capable of persecuting Christians under a legal text which to them applied to "sth similar" namely Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus.

Sei quis velitod bacchanal habuisse ...


Romans were perfectly capable of classing Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists as Bacchus worshippers.

They were also (with a little help from Poppaea) able to distinguish between different groups that they would tend to view as Bacchus worshippers.

John Cooper
@user-tf6rf5ch9i
Pliny would have been three when the Fire and persecutions happened.. If the persecution was limited to Rome as seems to be the case then his relative lack of knowledge is explainable. At the end of the day there are at least two sources that say Nero persecuted Christians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@user-tf6rf5ch9i Thank you!

Tacitus and ...?


12:27 The reasons why Pliny and Trajan would still be having that conversation would be:

  • if the persecutions under Nero and Domitian had been intermittent, and ceased already
  • and their mediatisation had been inferior among Romans than among Christians
  • and on top of that had used legal clauses not originally meant for Christians.


henri
@Bluesruse
Pliny and Tacitus were buddies. Pliny's dad (the Elder) was considered a hero, and a contemporary to Nero.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest Tacitus wrote anything about any 'Christians' without Pliny knowing. Tacitus would have asked Pliny, or used his dad as a source, and Pliny would have known those sources by heart as well.

Tacitus wrote some dirt on Nero, because he didn't like him. Christians saw an opportunity to bullshit their way into history, just like they did with their so called 'Christ'. Case closed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bluesruse Let's take a look at Pliny the Elder:

"At the earliest time that Pliny could have left the service, Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, had been emperor for two years. He did not leave office until AD 68, when Pliny was 45 years old. During that time, Pliny did not hold any high office or work in the service of the state. In the subsequent Flavian dynasty, his services were in such demand that he had to give up his law practice, which suggests that he had been trying not to attract the attention of Nero, who was a dangerous acquaintance."


This means, his son could have been aware of Nero's persecution without being sure whether this should count as legal precedent.

henri
@hglundahl When you lift a direct quote from somewhere, you should really say where it's from. In this case, Google lead me to Wikipedia, and the quote in question to be completely sourceless. The opinion of a random person online can therefore be left on its own.

But just to comment what's wrong there: Any Emperor could have of course been a potentially 'dangerous acquaintance', but on its own this is like saying 'you didn't eat a Snickers bar yesterday, so you must be allergic to nuts'.

A more accurate and honest description of Nero is pretty far from the popular image people know that the Christians fabricated. You could say that Nero suffered the greatest character assassinations in history.

Also, Pliny the Yonger in his letters to Tacitus pretty clearly describes his father as a 'good Roman'. Something Nero arguably was not in the way the term was understood and meant to be understood by Tacitus. Shortest way to describe the situation is: Nero was "gay".

And the Elder being an army man and a friend to the general who ultimately takes the crown after a civil war (Vespasian, whom with the Elder had served together with in German legions), there's quite a bit wrong with saying the Elder didn't hold office in Nero's court, because Nero was a 'dangerous acquaintance'. He didn't hold office, because there was a) no reason to b) because he didn't want to. Vespasian changed both.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bluesruse Thanks for noting it's from wikipedia.

Still more credible than your own totally unsourced claims.

Nero was a man who forced Seneca and Burrus to commit suicide and who was thought responsible for the murder of his mother.

This is in Annals book VI, not in wikipedia (at least the passage about his mother's death) which means that this was the view Tacitus had of him. This being so, it was probably the view Pliny the Elder had of him, on your information. This being so, it is once again very likely that Pliny the Younger could have been aware of Nero persecuting Christians and even so being unsure if this was supposed to be legal precedent.

henri
@hglundahl "This means, his son could have been aware of Nero's persecution without being sure whether this should count as legal precedent."

Oh, and this is just some apologist non sequitur nonsense. It's not what the quote you refer to means even if we would take it seriously, which we shouldn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bluesruse I have no reason to take you seriously.

And "this means" in English is not uniquely used of exegesis of direct meaning, it is also used of implication.

henri
@hglundahl Still more credible than your own totally unsourced claims.

Umm, actually no? It's still at most just as unsourced as anything else. Although, I think I've been pretty straightforward about where my information comes from (letters between Pliny and Tacitus, and Trajan). What claim do you think you need a source for, specifically? What claim is in dispute?

Funny you should bring up Nero's mother, Agrippina, who by the accounts of Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Suetonius, and Juvenal, was a serial killer who would sleep with her own brother (Caligula, the real sicko) as well as probably trying to sleep with her own son too (yuck), and who manipulated her son to the throne for her own power hungry gains; who thought she could control him, and who tried to have him replaced (read: killed) multiple times when that didn't work anymore: When Nero would "put his foot down" so to speak.

Seneca was also involved in the conspiracy to have Nero killed (Dio Cassius), with no other than himself (rumored by Tacitus). Although, whether Seneca was involved in the conspiracy directly himself is disputed. Nero did sentence Seneca to death in the aftermath, but not Burrus. Burrus' death also being in dispute.

Regardless, having usurpers killed is not the reason Pliny would say Nero to not be a "good Roman" like his father. Augustus was the Son of God who had tons of his rivals killed in the most brutal of ways, yet he was "the best" of the Romans.

This being so, it is once again very likely that Pliny the Younger could have been aware of Nero persecuting Christians and even so being unsure if this was supposed to be legal precedent.

It's not likely at all. Nothing you have said connects anything to 'Christian' persecution still. You are simply spewing a non sequitur, for reasons we can only guess (you are probably Christian yourself). There is still zero evidence Pliny knowing of any 'Christian' persecutions by Nero. But there is evidence against it (Pliny's correspondences with Tacitus and Trajan).

@hglundahl I have no reason to take you seriously.

Of course you don't. That would require you to listen to reason (pun intended). Something Christians have great troubles with sometimes.

And "this means" in English is not uniquely used of exegesis of direct meaning, it is also used of implication.

Nothing you said implicates that, either. Still a non sequitur of an argument.


Faurisson thought he could achieve some good for the Palestinians by a much better motivated questioning of the Shoah as usually described than "henri" (Bluesruse) is providing motives for questioning the persecution under Nero.

I wonder whom "henri" thinks he is favouring.

Perhaps his goal is simply to ruin Christianity. Some people, and that would include some Jews and Noahides, have that goal.

The Messiah is Among Us! -Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 22 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiHqrMNSxAw


6:47 Jeremias 30:7 ...

Ver. 7. Great, and terrible for this city, the outer walls of which shall be demolished, (Beros.; Calmet) and all its glory perish. (Haydock) --- Of it. Cyrus liberated the Jews, 1 Esdras i.


Paula Wallace
@paulawallace8784
Christianity is the Last Beast, Enemy of Gd and His Chosen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@paulawallace8784 Pagan Rome was the last beast, and Christianity is the stone that toppled the statue.

If you believe the suffering servant in Isaias 53 is Judaism, then you disbelieve Deuteronomy 28.


Fuller dealing with that video in a separate post.

Anyway, "henri" seems to have similarily dim views of Christianity. He wants to deny Christians existed under Nero to persecute, since that would create some distance between documented Christians (for the time of Pliny he doesn't deny them) and the "alleged" life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and "alleged" creation of His Church starting with people who had known him for up to three and a half years, and who were able to testify to both death on the Cross and seeing Him alive after that.

In order to do so, apart from doing his Antichristian Superiority Complex, trying to discourage me, and trying to paint me as "not listening to reason", he gives as argument that Pliny's correspondence with Tacitus showed that Tacitus couldn't really have known of the Christians persecuted under Nero, since if so, Pliny's letters to Trajan would be "inexplicable." For the argument given in the video and then refuted. He claims to have a much more credible source than my citations from the wikipedia, namely the correspondence of Pliny and Tacitus.

This consists of 11 Letters in Epistulae, 2 each from book 1, 7 and 9, 1 each from books 4 and 8, and a whopping 3 from book 6.

I could theoretically ask "henri" which of the only 11 letters would have been worded differently if the common sense assumptions about history being true history are true. Given his anti-Christian provocation, I refrain from doing it today, Holy Thursday, and the following days, it will be published on Easter Sunday, so people do not think I am compllicit with him.

Meanwhile, he hasn't shown that Pliny couldn't have doubted the legitimacy of Nero's persecution as legal precedent, even if it happened, as documented.

Pliny the Younger : Letters
https://www.attalus.org/info/pliny.html
 
Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 1
https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny1.html


6 Cornelius Tacitus 20 Cornelius Tacitus

Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 4
https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny4.html


13 Cornelius Tacitus

Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 6 https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny6.html

9 Tacitus 16 Tacitus 20 Tacitus
 Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 7
https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny7.html


20 Tacitus 33 Tacitus

Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 8
https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny8.html


7 Tacitus

Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 9
https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny9.html


10 Tacitus 14 Tacitus


Update 9.IV.2024, I answered "henri" thus:

@Bluesruse It so hapens, I decided to not ruin my week of Easter, or yesterday, which was the Feast of Annunciation (since March 25 fell in Holy Week) by talking to you online.

It is possible, and if so not to your credit, if you have made a point of talking to me where I have my luggage, so as to make my acts stand in apparent contrast to that word.

Because I actually published it, and made this remark about you. Since the morning of Easter Day, this is on my blog:

Faurisson thought he could achieve some good for the Palestinians by a much better motivated questioning of the Shoah as usually described than "henri" (Bluesruse) is providing motives for questioning the persecution under Nero.

I wonder whom "henri" thinks he is favouring.

Perhaps his goal is simply to ruin Christianity. Some people, and that would include some Jews and Noahides, have that goal.


[omitting here the full reference to other debate]

Fuller dealing with that video in a separate post.

Anyway, "henri" seems to have similarily dim views of Christianity. He wants to deny Christians existed under Nero to persecute, since that would create some distance between documented Christians (for the time of Pliny he doesn't deny them) and the "alleged" life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and "alleged" creation of His Church starting with people who had known him for up to three and a half years, and who were able to testify to both death on the Cross and seeing Him alive after that.

In order to do so, apart from doing his Antichristian Superiority Complex, trying to discourage me, and trying to paint me as "not listening to reason", he gives as argument that Pliny's correspondence with Tacitus showed that Tacitus couldn't really have known of the Christians persecuted under Nero, since if so, Pliny's letters to Trajan would be "inexplicable." For the argument given in the video and then refuted. He claims to have a much more credible source than my citations from the wikipedia, namely the correspondence of Pliny and Tacitus.

This consists of 11 Letters in Epistulae, 2 each from book 1, 7 and 9, 1 each from books 4 and 8, and a whopping 3 from book 6.

I could theoretically ask "henri" which of the only 11 letters would have been worded differently if the common sense assumptions about history being true history are true. Given his anti-Christian provocation, I refrain from doing it today, Holy Thursday, and the following days, it will be published on Easter Sunday, so people do not think I am compllicit with him.

Meanwhile, he hasn't shown that Pliny couldn't have doubted the legitimacy of Nero's persecution as legal precedent, even if it happened, as documented.


As Easter is over and Annunciation is over, we can resume the debate if you wish.

No comments: