dejuror wrote: The so-called Epistles of Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with the fabrication of fables about the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

I propose they were one of the first steps; that they were the one of the motivators for the author of the gospel of Mark.

[the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Mark could have been written concurrently]

Yes, it seems almost certain that

dejuror wrote:The elements for the construction of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth the supposed Messiah were directly lifted from Hebrew Scripture or Septuagint and as a result of the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

But saying

dejuror wrote: The so-called Epistles of Paul were invented [using] already existing known and circulated fables of Jesus and attempted to historicise them claiming to be witnesses of events in the Jesus stories that could not have happened.

contradicts your first statement [quoted above]


It is likely that "elements for the construction of [Paul's] alleged Jesus the supposed Messiah were directly lifted from Hebrew Scripture or Septuagint" in parallel with Gnostic myths."


Yes,

The character called Paul in the NT is unknown by writers who mentioned events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius. Writings attributed to Philo, Plutarch, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger show no historical evidence of a supposed Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin who asked people in the Roman Empire to worship a dead Jew, a crucified criminal, as a God and the Creator.

but note I said "these characters, including Paul, are represented as being active and significant in the period in the lead up to and even start of the First Roman-Jewish War" - ie. represented by the Christian stories as being active pre-War.

dejuror wrote:

dogsgod wrote:So Paul is our itinerant preacher, our historical Jesus all along, whowouldathunk? It makes sense, so there's one way of looking at it. I wouldn't go and formulate any beliefs on the topic but it does make sense.

It makes no sense that the character called Paul was the historical Jesus.

The quest for the historical Jesus is to determine if a supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth who was claimed to be crucified under Pilate c27-37 CE did exist as written in the NT and Christian writings.

The character called Paul in the NT is another character [ a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin] who was claimed to have been alive after Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and who was believed to have died in the time of Nero sometime around c 66-69 CE.

Epistles attributed to Paul may have had an influence on the author of the Mark Gospel when he wrote about Jesus. I was commenting on an article I had read by RG Price, an author that reads between the lines better than I do.

dejuror wrote: The so-called Epistles of Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with the fabrication of fables about the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

RealityRules wrote:I propose they were one of the first steps; that they were the one of the motivators for the author of the gospel of Mark.

There is no evidence at all to support such a proposal.
1. The short gMark story of John the Baptist is not anywhere in the so-called Epistles of Paul.
2. The miracles in the short Gospel of Mark are found nowhere in all the Epistles under the name of Paul.
3. The story of the baptism of Jesus by John is missing in the Pauline Epistles.
4. The transfiguration and triumphant entry is not at all in the Epistles.
5. The story of the trial of Jesus under Pilate is found nowhere in the so-called Epistles.
6. There is no claim that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus in the short gMark.
7. There is no claim in the short gMark that the resurrected Jesus told his disciples to preach the Gospel.
8. There is no claim in the short gMark that the disciples were in Jerusalem preaching the Gospel after the crucifixion and resurrection.
9. None of the disciples was told about or seen of the resurrected Jesus in the short gMark which contradicts the Epistles.
10. The Jesus character in the short gMark commanded his disciples not to tell anyone he was the Christ which would contradict the Pauline Epistles where it is claimed Paul was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel

It is extremely clear that the author of the short gMark did not require any NT Epistle, Pauline or not, to fabricate his fables of Jesus.

It was the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and supposed prophecies about the coming of Jewish Messianic rulers in Jewish writings as stated in writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius that motivated people to invent conspiracy theories which would later become the foundation of a new religion sometime in the 2nd century.

RealityRules wrote:

[the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Mark could have been written concurrently]

Such a proposal is not even logical. There are multiple Epistles which are supposed to have been written over several years and to different congregation in the Roman Empire and in addition many of the Epistles are falsely attributed to Paul.

RealityRules wrote:
Yes, it seems almost certain that

dejuror wrote:The elements for the construction of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth the supposed Messiah were directly lifted from Hebrew Scripture or Septuagint and as a result of the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Yes, it is almost certain that the Epistles under the name of Paul are not the motivation for the Jesus of Nazareth story.

RealityRules wrote:
But saying

dejuror wrote: The so-called Epistles of Paul were invented [using] already existing known and circulated fables of Jesus and attempted to historicise them claiming to be witnesses of events in the Jesus stories that could not have happened.

contradicts your first statement [quoted above]

No, No, not at all. It is you who have contradicted yourself since you admit that it is almost certain Jesus of Nazareth is a construct of Hebrew Scripture and the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

The very Pauline writers claimed that their Jesus was already dead and resurrected, that other people were already preaching about Jesus and that Paul persecuted those who preached about Jesus before the Epistles were written.

In fact it is claimed in the Epistles that the dead and resurrected Jesus told him about the Last Supper, that he was commissioned to preach the Gospel as Peter was.

The Pauline Epistles show that parts of the Jesus story found in the Gospels were known to their authors.

RealityRules wrote:It is likely that "elements for the construction of [Paul's] alleged Jesus the supposed Messiah were directly lifted from Hebrew Scripture or Septuagint" in parallel with Gnostic myths."

The claims about Jesus in the Epistles are almost always from Jewish Scripture or the Gospels. There are no known Gnostic myths before 70 CE which make claims or teachings about a resurrected character called Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pilate.

There is no known Gnostic myth before c 70 CE which claimed the dead in Christ shall meet Jesus in the air in the 2nd coming.

RealityRules wrote:Yes,

The character called Paul in the NT is unknown by writers who mentioned events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius. Writings attributed to Philo, Plutarch, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger show no historical evidence of a supposed Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin who asked people in the Roman Empire to worship a dead Jew, a crucified criminal, as a God and the Creator.

but note I said "these characters, including Paul, are represented as being active and significant in the period in the lead up to and even start of the First Roman-Jewish War" - ie. represented by the Christian stories as being active pre-War.

Again, Christian stories are not credible historical sources. The claim that Paul is pre-war in the NT is no different to the claim that Romulus was the founder of Rome in Roman mythology.

The time period for Paul in the NT allows us to search for such a character within that time frame however one will never ever find Paul in any historical source. Paul never lived. The Epistles are 2nd century or later propaganda introduced specifically to historicise the fiction called the Gospels.

I have to cry shenanigans when people say christianity formed in the 2nd century or later, let's remember that Nero persecuted the Christians following the great fire of 64, ergo, there were already christians around by that time.

Svartalf wrote:I have to cry shenanigans when people say christianity formed in the 2nd century or later, let's remember that Nero persecuted the Christians following the great fire of 64, ergo, there were already christians around by that time.

Do you even know who wrote declarations that Nero persecuted Christians, Svartalf? You might be able to look it up, and you should cite it properly if you want to cite it, and make sure that you can back up your assertion that it started at year 64. It's not as easy to do as you might wish. Otherwise, you're just one more online opinionator who just has to stick his oar in ignorant of any facts, when facts perhaps can be established.

You can be forgiven a bit of wibbling, here, because facts are very thin on the ground in general in these discussions, except the kind of facts stating that somebody identifiable wrote something, the provenance of which can be established. People stick a five foot oar into waters of one fathom's depth and find deepity.

IIRC, there's mention of that in Suetonius, who can hardly be called a christian apologist.

Svartalf wrote:IIRC, there's mention of that in Suetonius, who can hardly be called a christian apologist.

There's another thread about that, Svartalf, started by Leucinius Charinus. There's probably much more to it than meets your eye, just as there's so little there that you can probably license yourself to believe whatever you want to about it.

I really emphasize how little there is on which to base an opinion you express as confidently as you do. Your recollection does not suffice for me, but it is part and parcel of the low quality of discussion that dominates threads like this one.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Svartalf wrote:IIRC, there's mention of that in Suetonius, who can hardly be called a christian apologist.

There's another thread about that, Svartalf, started by Leucinius Charinus. There's probably much more to it than meets your eye, just as there's so little there that you can probably license yourself to believe whatever you want to about it.

I really emphasize how little there is on which to base an opinion you express as confidently as you do. Your recollection does not suffice for me, but it is part and parcel of the low quality of discussion that dominates threads like this one.

It appears that this is one of those topics wherein a lot of unlearning is required, and as it turns out, a lot of history lessons are like that, a tossing out of what we thought we knew.

Svartalf wrote:I have to cry shenanigans when people say christianity formed in the 2nd century or later, let's remember that Nero persecuted the Christians following the great fire of 64, ergo, there were already christians around by that time.

There were no Christians in the time of Nero. It was proven that the word Christians was a forgery in the copy of Tacitus Annals 15.44.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[19] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

Even, the NT does not mention any one called Christians.

dejuror wrote:

Svartalf wrote:I have to cry shenanigans when people say christianity formed in the 2nd century or later, let's remember that Nero persecuted the Christians following the great fire of 64, ergo, there were already christians around by that time.

There were no Christians in the time of Nero. It was proven that the word Christians was a forgery in the copy of Tacitus Annals 15.44.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[19] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

Even, the NT does not mention any one called Christians.

You stand corrected, Sir.

Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

dogsgod wrote:
Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Copied from the New International Version of the Bible, right?

Let's have a look at the Complete Jewish bible now.

Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. They met with the congregation there for a whole year and taught a sizeable crowd. Also it was in Antioch that the talmidim for the first time were called “Messianic.”

Acts 26:28 Agrippa said to Sha’ul, “In this short time, you’re trying to convince me to become Messianic?”

It is of course quite possible that neither translations are correct, but since the earliest complete manuscripts of Acts of the Apostles we know of stem from the fourth (the Alexandrian variant) and the sixth (the Western text-type) century respectively, we don't know if an unadulterated account of the Acts existed in the first place.

The basis on which Acts was written, Antiquities of the Jews by Titus Flavius Josephus, isn't much help either. Although written around 93 or 94, the earliest complete Greek manuscript of the Antiquities at our disposal dates from the eleventh century. That time span presents ample opportunity for excisions, interpolations, wilful changes and plain copying error.

In short, it seems to me impossible to determine which, or if any of the biblical texts and their translations at all, be they modern or ancient, can be trusted to be historically true. Same goes for much of the associated texts, of course.

Svartalf wrote:I have to cry shenanigans when people say christianity formed in the 2nd century or later, let's remember that Nero persecuted the Christians following the great fire of 64, ergo, there were already christians around by that time.

dejuror wrote:There were no Christians in the time of Nero. It was proven that the word Christians was a forgery in the copy of Tacitus Annals 15.44.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[19] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

Even, the NT does not mention any one called Christians.

dogsgod wrote:You stand [to be] corrected, Sir.

Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Hermit makes some good points in the post above this one, eg. Many characters and events in Acts are based on Josephus ...

There are a whole lot of other issues. Such as: Acts is not history. It's largely an elaborate narrative to rehabilitate Paul with the Gnostic and other 'Catholic' books of the NT.

See Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report, the culmination of a decade long collaborative study through the Westar Institute, -

Findings
The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
2. Acts was written in [the early decades of] the second century. [brackets mine: it could be much later, even 3rd c.]
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

And, like Tacitus Annals 15.44, the first extant Christian bibles, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have, in Greek, Chrestians instead of Christians, including in Acts.

There are potentially a lot of issues with Annals 15.44 and the proposals or assertions of persecutions by Nero. See my next post ...

Svartalf wrote:I have to cry shenanigans when people say christianity formed in the 2nd century or later, let's remember that Nero persecuted the Christians following the great fire of 64, ergo, there were already Christians around by that time.

The main source of the assertion that Nero persecuted the Christians following the great fire of 64 is Annals 15.44 attributed to Tacitus (there is poor provenance for all the Annals attributed to Tacitus - no-one refers to them for centuries, let alone Book 15, Section 44. Single sections were found in two different monasteries in the 13th/14th century, and then passed through the hands of one of a Pope's propagandist).

Arthur Drews argued Annals 15.44 was written by Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century. See his The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus/Part 2/Section 2 - Tacitus

Jay Raskins has an interesting proposition: that Annals 15.44 is largely authentic but that Tacitus originally wrote that Nero sent the Procurator Porcius Festus to put down 'Chrestians' who were then causing problems, as Jews also were then in Judea - and there were lots of Jews and zealots uprising in Judea in the times of Nero (eg. The Egyptian, Joesphus War II.261-262; and Jesus son of Saphat, see Josephus War III, 9, 7, -

the most potent men among the seditious made a sally upon them armed; their leader was one whose name was Jesus, the son of Saphat, the principal head of a band of robbers. Now Valerian, neither thinking it safe to fight contrary to the commands of the general, though he were secure of a victory, and knowing that it was a very hazardous undertaking for a few to fight with many, for those that were unprovided to fight those that were ready, and being on other accounts surprised at this unexpected onset of the Jews, he ran away on foot, as did five of the rest in like manner, and left their horses behind them; which horses Jesus led away into the city, and rejoiced as if they had taken them in battle, and not by treachery. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-3.html

Rakins thinks "Christian interpolators, 'misunderstanding', changed [Porcius Festus] to Pontius Pilate, and changed Chrestus to Christ and Nero to Tiberius". He uses what Josephus says about Porcius Festus in Antiquities 20.8.10 to support his argument; in part, -

Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

See https://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/294/

That might align with what Seutonius says in Nero 16, -

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

Seutonius referred to Jews and a Chrestus in the reign of Claudius (41 to 54 AD) in Claudius 25, -

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

The Latin is ambiguous. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius ... _reference

Moreover, Brent D Shaw published a paper in The Journal of Roman Studies in late 2015 titled 'The Myth of the Neronian Persecution', -

A conventional certainty is that the first state-driven persecution of Christians happened in the reign of Nero and that it involved the deaths of Peter and Paul, and the mass execution of Christians in the aftermath of the great fire of July 64 c.e. The argument here contests all of these facts, especially the general execution personally ordered by Nero. The only source for this event is a brief passage in the historian Tacitus. Although the passage is probably genuine Tacitus, it reflects ideas and connections prevalent at the time the historian was writing and not the realities of the 60s.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 0B87B1A234

Christopher P Jones responded with 'The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw', published in New Testament Studies in January 2017, -

Brent Shaw has recently argued that the Neronian persecution never occurred. In fact, there are no grounds for doubting Tacitus’ report of the persecution. Sources later than Tacitus (Melito, Dionysius of Alexandria) date the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul to the reign of Nero, but those reports have no bearing on the veracity of Tacitus’ account.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... F8945D38D3

Shaw responded again, 'The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution' [<- link to the full paper] in New Test Studs, 2018

dejuror wrote:
1. The short gMark story of John the Baptist is not anywhere in the so-called Epistles of Paul.
2. The miracles in the short Gospel of Mark are found nowhere in all the Epistles under the name of Paul.
3. The story of the baptism of Jesus by John is missing in the Pauline Epistles.
4. The transfiguration and triumphant entry is not at all in the Epistles.
5. The story of the trial of Jesus under Pilate is found nowhere in the so-called Epistles.
6. There is no claim that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus in the short gMark.
7. There is no claim in the short gMark that the resurrected Jesus told his disciples to preach the Gospel.
8. There is no claim in the short gMark that the disciples were in Jerusalem preaching the Gospel after the crucifixion and resurrection.
9. None of the disciples was told about or seen of the resurrected Jesus in the short gMark which contradicts the Epistles.
10. The Jesus character in the short gMark commanded his disciples not to tell anyone he was the Christ which would contradict the Pauline Epistles where it is claimed Paul was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel

It is extremely clear that the author of the short gMark did not require any NT Epistle, Pauline or not, to fabricate his fables of Jesus.

It was the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and supposed prophecies about the coming of Jewish Messianic rulers in Jewish writings as stated in writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius that motivated people to invent conspiracy theories which would later become the foundation of a new religion sometime in the 2nd century.

I can't disagree with this, though I'm not sure it was "conspiracy theories" which would later become the foundation of Christianity.

dejuror wrote:... many of the Epistles are falsely attributed to Paul.

True.

dejuror wrote:... it is almost certain that the Epistles under the name of Paul are not the motivation for the Jesus of Nazareth story.

That is certainly possible.

The Dutch Radical AD Loman proposed in the late 19th century that -

"Christianity in its origin was nothing else than a Jewish-Messianic movement [with Peter as its central character] ... the figure of Jesus had never existed, but represented a symbolization and personification of thoughts that could only make full headway in the second century.

A Gnostic-Messianic community [with 'Paul' as its representative-character] later appeared alongside the Jewish-Christian messianic community.

In the period between 70 and 135 CE the two groups opposed one another with bitter animosity.

"Only in the middle of the second century did they achieve a reconciliation, in which the gnostic community had Paul as its representative, and the Jewish-Christian community had Peter. The result of this process of reconciliation was the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. ... the letters of Paul are all inauthentic and represent the product of the newly-believing, gnostic-messianic community."

Michael Hoffman's summary of The Fabricated Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight by Hermann Detering (1995)

dejuror wrote:The very Pauline writers claimed that their Jesus was already dead and resurrected, that other people were already preaching about Jesus and that Paul persecuted those who preached about Jesus before the Epistles were written.

In fact it is claimed in the Epistles that the dead and resurrected Jesus told [Paul] about the Last Supper, that he was commissioned to preach the Gospel as Peter was.

The Pauline Epistles show that parts of the Jesus story found in the Gospels were known to their authors.

... The Epistles are 2nd century or later propaganda introduced specifically to historicise the fiction called the Gospels.

Fair enough.

Mmh, Paul as a gnostic preacher? that doesn't vibe with his description in Acts and with the epistles attributed to him.

dogsgod wrote:You stand corrected, Sir.

Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Acts of the Apostles was not written in English. The earliest Codex the Sinaiticus is written in Greek and does not contain the Greek word for Christian/Christians.

The Sinaiticus Codex is evidence that no person was known as Chistian when Acts of the Apostle was composed.

Another early Codex, the Vaticanus also does not contain the words Christian and Christians.

well, it interesting but true that the word 'christian' appears in neither the gospels nor in Acts, I don't remember if it ever slipped in any of the epistles.

Svartalf wrote:well, it interesting but true that the word 'christian' appears in neither the gospels nor in Acts, I don't remember if it ever slipped in any of the epistles.

It is the same problem in the Epistle [falsely] attributed to Peter. The earliest Codex, the Sinaiticus, does not contain the Greek word for Christian in 1 Peter 4.16.

1 Peter 4.16 in the Sinaiticus Codex is evidence that there were no person known as Christian.

Surely if the author of 1 Peter claimed his Jesus was the CHRIST and was a follower or believer in the CHRIST then he should have known he was a CHRIST--IAN..

The very author of 1 Peter never heard of Christians when he composed the Epistle.

dejuror wrote:

dogsgod wrote:You stand corrected, Sir.

Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Acts of the Apostles was not written in English. The earliest Codex the Sinaiticus is written in Greek and does not contain the Greek word for Christian/Christians.

The Sinaiticus Codex is evidence that no person was known as Chistian when Acts of the Apostle was composed.

Another early Codex, the Vaticanus also does not contain the words Christian and Christians.

OK, so where does Christian first appear?

The very first thing that must be understood is that the Greek word for "the good/the good one" and the Greek word for " the anointed/the anointed one" were known for hundreds of years before the Jesus Christ fables were manufactured.

In the Greek Septuagint, composed before the fables of Jesus Christ, the God of the Jews was referred as the Good/Good One [CHRESTOS] multiple times -For example see the Psalms in the Greek Septuagint where the God of the Jews is called CHRESTOS by the Psalmist.

In multiple books of the same Greek Septuagint, several characters are called the ANOINTED/THE ANOINTED ONE [CHRISTOS] - King David and King Saul are called CHRISTOS.

The Greek word representing CHRESTOS "THE GOOD/GOOD ONE" was never known to mean followers or believers in the character called Jesus of Nazareth and the Greek word for CHRISTOS "THE ANOINTED/ANOITED ONE" referred to Jewish Kings and Priests who were in fact physically ANOINTED with oil when in the tradition of Jews.

The Greek word representing CHRESTOS never meant MESSIAH in any writing found in the OLD TESTAMENT of the SEPTUAGUNT.
The Greek word representing CHRISTOS is translated as THE ANOINTED'ANOINTED ONE in the OLD TESTAMENT of the SEPTUAGINT.

It was so called Christian writers sometime in the 2nd century who corrupted the meaning of the Greek words for CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS falsely claiming that followers of the GOOD ONE, followers of CHRESTOS, were Christians when followers and believers in the GOOD ONE predates the fables of Jesus Christ of Nazareth by hundreds of years.