aa5874

Again, at any level, witnesses that are compatible with the HARD EVIDENCE are considered Credible.

What can you prove?? Can you ever prove that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th century?? You know darn well that you have Nothing but your imagination.

You have a No Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument.

You MUST first locate Credible Sources--Credible Data to reconstruct the past.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr are Credible because the writings attributed to him are Compatible with the Recovered Dated Texts.

The Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are NOT Credible--they are a Pack of Lies so I will NOT employ them to reconstruct the history of the Jesus cult.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Witness to the resurrected Jesus, that his gospel was NOT from a human being and that the resurrected Jesus gave him information about the Last Supper--those are Pauline Lies.

If you want to argue that Justin is NOT Credible then you need to IDENTIFY his statements that he knew were false.

You have NOT identified any discrepancies, anachronisms, contradictions in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

Please Identify them and stop wasting time.

Your statement is UTTERLY erroneous. Your post is a FAILURE of Facts.

I have the Recovered Dated Texts, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, the SHORT gMark, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Aristides, Arnobius, Tatian, Minucius Felix, Celsus in "Against Celsus" by Origen, Ephraim, and Julian the Emperor.

Now, what about your 4th century "castle"?? What is it built on?? Imagination

Now NAME your sources for your argument for a 4th or 5th century origin of the Jesus cult.

Name them!!!! You can chose any one or all.

1. Imagination.

2. Speculation.

3. Presumptions.

Now, the very worse position for anyone is to ADMIT and Agree the Sources for an historical Jesus are historically problematic and then turn around and state that historically problematic sources do NOT affect the argument for an HJ and then use them WITHOUT any corroboration.

Ehrman' s argument is wholly contradictory and absurd.

After examing numerous sources, It would appear that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

The SHORT gMark, the earliest Jesus story of the Canon appears to have been composed AFTER the writings of Josephus or after c 96 CE.

The Entire Canon is AFTER the SHORT gMark.

Sheshbazzar

Good grief! What an utterly stupid post. You waste space quoting all of this latter invented religious horse shit. Texts which even you have been able to demonstrate were unknown to, and of latter origin than the writings of Justin, et al.
And here you are, now attempting to pretend that this admittedly latter invented religious material has any bearing upon what any possible 1st century Jewish preacher may have actually said or done.

'Writings attributed to Justin Martyr are Credible'? What an utter crock. You only wish to proclaim some small parts of them them 'credible', as a method of supporting your faulty logic and asinine claims.
You have no proof that Justin Martyr even wrote any of that line of religious horse shit which is attributed to him.



.

aa5874

Again, Please your posts are just EMPTY words and do NOT require any knowledge of Sources of antiquity.


You MUST identify where writings attributed Justin Martyr are NOT Credible.

You are wasting time.

And again, What sources did you employ to find that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were LATE and Forged??

Now, Ehrman claims his Jesus was Scarcely known but states the Gospels provide Powerful Evidence for an historical Jesus.

I will show that the Gospels POWERFULLY CONTRADICT Ehrman and DEVASTATE his absurd Scarcely known Jesus.

In the Gospels, Jesus TAUGHT DAILY in the Temple with his disciples and was Known by Jews, and the Chief Priests and Scribes.

Luke 19 Ehrman's "Scarcely known Jesus" is UTTER absurdity as soon as he assertd the Gospels provide "Powerful evidence" of an HJ.

Sheshbazzar

Woop de doo. I also believe that you are wasting our time.
By the way, When did this become a thread devoted to EHRMAN'S claims?

aa5874

Come on, please Answer the question.

What source did you employ to find that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were LATE and FORGED??

In this thread--My Thread-- I argue AGAINST any claim that the Jesus story and Jesus cult originated in the 1st century.

I expose those who use Discredited Sources for history and assemble a Jesus of Fiction uder the guise of history.

Ehrman's Scarcely Known Jesus is a production fiction--Not Facts.

Ehrman claimed in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" that his Jesus was SCARCELY Known. Ehrman's claim is utterly erroneous and Contradicted by the very NT which he claims provide "Powerful Evidence" for an HJ.

Let us Examine Ehrman's supposed Powerful Evidence. It will DEVASTATE Ehrman himself.

Examine Mark 2. In gMark, if it is powerful evidence, then the Jews, the Disciples of John and the Pharisees KNEW Jesus.

Mark 2 In gMark, the Pharisees were in direct contact with Jesus and argued with him.

Ehrman's claim that Jesus was Scarcely known is UTTER BS as soon as he assserted that the Gospels provide powerful evidence for an HJ.

The FACTS are that NO recovered Dated Texts show any Jesus story or cult in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

The NT is a compilation of 2nd century and later Myth Fables.

My Argument is SOLID and cannot be contradicted by you or Ehrman's No Source--No Evidence--No Proof assertions.

anethema

greetings aa, i can understand your methodology in dating these texts, but only providdes a terminus post quem for them. they could have been written any time after each emporers reign. not that i disagree with your conclusions, only that so precisely dating original ancient manuscripts is highly problematical.

Iskander

You are right.
We need mountainman back; he is the best person to speak on this subject

aa5874

I have accepted that the writings of Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens and Aristides are from the 2nd century as claimed by the authors just like I accept the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder are from the 1st century and just like I accept the writings of Suetonius and Tacitus are from the 2nd century.

All those writings also are Compatible with the Recovered DATED Texts.

There is NO evidence that Suetonius, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus and Athenagoras wrote in the 4th or 5th century.

On the other hand, the Pauline writings are extremely questionable. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke but was killed under Nero--those two statements cannot be true.

In another Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, it is claimed Paul wrote his Epistles After Revelation by John.

I cannot use the Pauline writings as Credible Sources when even writers for the Church seem not to know when Paul lived.

aa5874

In order to reconstruct the past Credible sources are Imperative. It is the History from the Credible sources of antiquity that is the Real HISTORY not what people Imagine.

Ehrman in his introduction to "Did Jesus Exist?" implied Jesus was Scarcely known and he also claimed the Gospels provide "Powerful evidence" for HJ.

Well, let us continue to Examine the Gospels and see that the Actual WRITTEN statements in the Gospels powerfully Contradicts Ehrman's Scarcely Known preacher man.

In gMark 1--The Jesus character was WELL known.

In gMark 2--The Jesus character was Well known.

What about gMark 3???

In gMark 3, Jesus was in the synagogues healing people on the Sabbath day and was under "surveillance".

The Pharisee were planning to have Jesus destroyed.

How in the world could Jesus be Scarcely known when he was being Watched by the Pharisees as he healed people in the Synagogues????

Mark 3 Ehrman's Scarcely known Jesus is based on NO actual Souce of antiquity whether the source be fiction or fact.

The Jesus character of the Gospels, invented or not, was WELL KNOWN.

Ehrman's argument is a NO Source, No Evidence, No Proof argument.

Carrier is RIGHT--- Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is a Failure of Facts and Logic.

The FACTS are that NO dated recovered Texts show any Jesus story and cult in the 1st century and before c 70 CE and there are Apologetics Sources that are in Agreement With them.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul NEVER had any real existence in the 1st century and before c 70 CE. They are all fabrications of the 2nd century and later.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the author of the Short gMark was even a Jesus cult Christian, that he was writing either history or theology, and that there was a Jesus cult when gMark was composed.

The SHORT gMark totally contradicts Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Sheshbazzar

So Ehrman's views are inconsistent with the evidence and are thus evidently in error.
Not many here whom would dispute that.
Yes, and as you have proclaimed repeatedly in multiple threads, these NT writings- The Gospels and Pauline Epistles- were by the evidence, unknown to Justin, Philo, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, Aristides, Theophilus, Athenagoras, or to any other known early writer.
That these late and lying NT writings contradict Ehrman, has no bearing at all upon the QUESTION of whether the name or mythic figure 'Jesus Christ' was known by anyone in the 1st century.

I have not been disputing with you whether Ehrman's claims are faulty. (I also believe that they are, for those reasons you have mentioned, -as well as many more)
But whether your claims may likewise have certain logical faults.

You accept that Justin Martyr, your 'credible witness' writing circa 150 CE knew and actually wrote about the existence of 'Christians' and about a being believed in, named 'Jesus Christ';
Do you dispute that your 'credible witness' wrote such things ???

Am I wrong to presume that you -have- read Justin's The Dialogue with Trypho' ???

Do you find Justin's account of his meeting and conversation with a certain old man;
to be a credible verbatim account of an actual event, and of an actual conversation that was engaged in, and accurately reported by Justin Martyr???

Is your 'credible witness' credible when he writes that his 'love of Christ' and consequent conversion to the religion called Christianity came about as a result of meeting this 'old man', and that conversation that is recorded in 'The Dialogue With Typhro'???

Was there ever really such an 'old man'?

Did this 'conversation' ever actually take place?

Or was Justin Martyr 'a liar for the name "Jesus Christ" in falsely reporting that there were Christians before him, that believed in the name 'Jesus Christ'?

A liar for Jesus just like 'Paul' and other NT writers?

Was Justin Martyr the very first of these 'liars for the name of 'Jesus Christ'?

Do you think Justin was lying in his tale about meeting this 'old man'? and knowing others whom had believed in Christ before him?

In your learned opinion aa, WHOM was the very first person to have ever used the name 'Jesus Christ'? Where? and When?
Do tell.