aa5874

My argument is SOLID and cannot be contradicted.

My argument is that the Jesus story is NO earlier than the 2nd century and that Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence.

My argument is EXTREMELY easy to follow.

In order to make an argument there must be HARD EVIDENCE.

There is NO Jesus story that has been discovered and DATED to the 1st century by Paleography and C 14.

Now, there was a writer called Josephus who wrote the War of the Jews, the History of the Jews and his OWN biography.

In Wars of the Jews, his earliest writing, Josephus clearly stated that Prophesied Messianic rulers were EXPECTED at around c 70 CE --NOT c 33 CE--and this is supported by Suetonius and Tacitus.

The EXPECTED Jewish Messiah was NOT known as Jesus of Nazareth but was believed to be Vespasian the Emeperor of Rome.

In effect, even if Jesus of Nazareth did EXIST he was UNKNOWN as a Messianic ruler to Josephus.

The Short gMark is compatible with the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

The short gMark is about the UNKNOWN Messiah or the Rejected Jesus who was only known to the Insiders as a Messianic ruler but NOT to the Outsiders.

In short gMark the very day Jesus PUBLICLY declared he was the Messianic ruler he was KILLED.

"Wars of the Jews" destroys all NT stories that Jesus was KNOWN as a Messianic ruler, and that Jews were claiming that Jesus was the Messianic ruler up to c 75 CE.

Up to c 75 CE, it was claimed that Vespasian was the Prophesied Messianic ruler.

The Pauline writings are historically Bogus since the author claimed the resurrected Jesus was the Messianic ruler over 150 times.

The Gospels are Historically Bogus when it is claimed the resurrected Jesus AUTHORISED Jews to preach that he was the Messianic ruler during the reign of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vitelius.

It is far more likely that the Jesus story and cult was initiated in the 2nd century AFTER Josephus was dead EXACTLY as the HARD EVIDENCE suggest.

aa5874

If Jesus did actually exist then he was human.

If Jesus was human then NT Canon is total Fiction.

Jesus was NOT the Son of God born of a Ghost, God the Creator, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

It makes ZERO sense that the Pauline writers would ACTUALLY travel around the Roman Empire WITHIN a few years of the supposed crucifixion of Jesus and make BLATANT False claims about a KNOWN human being.

It makes ZERO sense that a supposed Jew and Pharisee would go even to Rome and tell Roman citizens to WORSHIP a resurrected JEW as the Son of God and the Messianic ruler who had the POWER to FORGIVE Sins.

Based on the HARD EVIDENCE the NT Canon is a Compilation of Myth Fables from the 2nd century or later.

The short gMark had NOTHING whatsoever to do with any NEW religion and was written as an explanation for the Fall of the Temple and details in the short gMark show that it was most likely written AFTER the autobiography of Josephus.

aa5874

The Fundamental problem with the HJ argument is that HJers cannot produce any evidence to show that any story of Jesus was derived from an EYEWITNESS.

Not even the supposed contemporaries admitted they SAW a real human Jesus.

Paul ADMITTED he ONLY SAW MYTH Jesus. See 1 Cor.15

In Acts of the Apostles, the author claimed PAUL ONLY HEARD MYTH Jesus. See Acts 9

HJers have NOTHING to offer except continuous rhetoric.

The HARD EVIDENCE is there to ARGUE that the Jesus story and cult is from the 2nd century.

HJers have NO argument that can be supported by the PRESENT DATED COLLECTED EVIDENCE.

Ehrman blew a Massive Hole in the HJ argument and it is beyond repair.

aa5874

I must put HJers on notice.

In order to begin to put out a proper argument for an historical Jesus there are several criteria that MUST be met.

1. HJers MUST show that the Jesus story could NOT have been invented whether wholly or in part.

2. HJers MUST show that the Jesus stories in the Canon Must be from eyewitness accounts whether wholly or in part.

3. HJers MUST show that an Historical Jesus played an ACTUAL role in the development of the Jesus cult.

4. HJers MUST present actual dated recovered sources of the Jesus story.

5. HJers MUST present ACTUAL Dated sources for any evidence that is disputed.

From since I have began posting here HJers have been arguing for authenticity of several writings including Josephus Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus Annals.

Well, I will NO longer entertain such argument UNLESS HJers produce 1ST CENTURY copies DATED by Paleography or C 14.

HJers ADMIT that documents relating to Jesus may be forged or manipulated and that stories in the Bible are "Bullshit Reenactments" yet present NO originals or dated texts when arguing for authenticity.

The writings of Josephus and Tacitus that we use today are NOT from the time of authorship so any argument for authenticity cannot be ascertained.

And if we take Origen statements into consideration then Antiquities of the Jews MUST have been manipulated. See Against Celsus 1.47 and 2.23
.
The HJ argument cannot be maintained because there is NO known actual dated recovered evidence from the 1st century and not even supposed contemporary sources claimed they saw or Met Jesus as an actual real human being.

aa5874

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult began in the 2nd century or later and it is based on the ACTUAL recovered DATED Jesus stories.

No-one can challenge my argument because NO-ONE will be able to produce any actual recovered DATED sources before the 2nd century that mentioned Jesus.

Please forget about Tacitus and Josephus because NO actual recovered dated Texts from these writers are from the 1st century.

Recovered Dated Texts from Tacitus and Josephus are at least from c 1000 CE and later.

People who want to argue for Authenticity MUST, MUST, MUST produce actual Dated Texts from Tacitus and Josephus from the DATE of authorship.

All mention of Jesus called Christ in any Texts of antiquity cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by actual recovered DATED sources.

For example, the earliest source to mention the TF appears to be Church History attributed to Eusebius but there is a massive problem.

The earliest copy of "Church History" is from c 462 CE or about 150 years AFTER Church History was supposedly composed.

Once we are invetstigating whether or not sources were manipulated and forged then it is IMPERATIVE that we get a copy of "Church History" from the time of supposed authorship c 312 CE.

After all "Church History" itself may have been manipulated.

In effect, all arguments for the authenticity of Tacitus and Josephus cannot ever be ascertain because we have NO actual recovered DATED sources of Tacitus and Josephus and NO actual recovered Dated Texts of those that mention them.

And in addition, sources that mention Josephus show that Antiquities of the Jews MUST have been manipulated because certain statements that should have been in Josepjus are MISSING. See 'Against Celsus" 1.47 and 2.23.

The actual recovered Dated Texts support my argument that the Jesus story was a 2nd century Myth Fable and that the Entire Canon was composed in the 2nd century or later.

aa5874

My argument is that Jesus of the NT had NO real existence.

Who was the Jesus of short gMark?? A transfiguring water-walker. Mark 6 & 9

Who was the Jesus of long gMark?? A resurrected Ghost. Mark 16

Who was the Jesus of gMatthew?? A son of a Ghost. Matthew 1

Who was the Jesus of gLuke?? A Son of a Ghost. Luke 1

Who was the Jesus of gJohn??? The Logos of God --John 1

Who was the Jesus of Acts?? An Ascended Ghost--Acts 1

Who was the Jesus of the Pauline letters?? A resurrected Non-human being--Galatians 1

The NT is just a Compilation of Myth Fables from the 2nd century or later just like the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans.

The very same people, the Greeks and Romans, who BELIEVED Myth Fables are the very same people who accepted the Myth Fable character called Jesus as a God.

Sheshbazzar

All this, but poor benighted aa doesn't have a shadow of a clue why these texts were written, or what their intended purpose and goal for humanity is.
There is a Wind that blows right over his head, and whispers oft into his ears, with the words of a message he wills not to understand.


ששבצר העברי

aa5874

Please, PRESENT DATED recovered Texts to support your claims.

Please, I no longer accept Presumptions.

The Jesus stories are Myth Fables of the 2nd century or later BASED on the DATED recovered Texts.

My argument will be reviewed WHEN and ONLY when NEW dated sources have been recovered.

Sheshbazzar

Fine with me. I have known a lot of dense and irrational people.


ששבצר העברי

aa5874

My argument, which cannot be contradicted, is that the NT Canon is a compilation of Myth Fables from the 2nd century or later about a character called Jesus, a Transfiguring Water-walker that was raised from the dead based on ACTUAL Dated recovered sources and that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus.

The earliest short gMark Jesus story was NOT about sacrifice or resurrection for the Universal remission of sins but was to fulfill prophecy.

The Jesus story in short gMark was written to EXPLAIN the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem.

We can clearly see that the short gMark Jesus story was the MOST influential story in the Canon and that NOT a single Gospel author used a sentence from the Pauline letters.

The long gMark author used about THREE THOUSAND words from short Mark and the author of gMatthew used HUNDREDS word-for-word from the same story.

In the Pauline writings themselves the author claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH that he preached and that there people and Churches in Christ BEFORE him.

The Jesus story was KNOWN orally and in writing BEFORE Paul started preaching the Faith and writing Epistles based on the very Epistles. See Roman 16, Galatians 1, and 1 Cor. 15.

The actual recovered DATED Texts do INDEED show that all the Jesus stories-gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, and gJohn could have been written before the Pauline letters were composed.

The Canonised Gospels could have been written c 200 CE and the Pauline letters c 250 CE.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri