Duvduv

How the hell could AA know if a dated text was authentic or not? Does he have a signed affidavit or a time machine?
"Recovered" dated data my foot. He should just admit he believes the dating of Justin because he has faith in those who claim it isn't a forgery, but doesn't afford the same to those who date texts to the first century.
If this isn't using an imagination, then what is??!!

Sheshbazzar

Certainly. I find them to be late, and forged.
Why should I, not a Christian, use what I find to be late and forged to determine anything about the character called 'Jesus Christ'? These asshats never even met any 'Jesus Christ'.
Do you use The Acts of The Apostles and Pauline Epistles to determine anything about the character of 'Jesus'? If not, why should I?
So what do you know about the 'character' of a 'Jesus Christ' that is NOT derived from the Acts of The Apostles or the 'Pauline' writings?
You got some other 'Jesus Christ' that you imagine hidden somewhere?
You are most certainly welcome to tell us all you know about this 'Jesus Christ' of yours who is NOT described in The Acts of The Apostles or 'Pauline' writings.
I can hardly wait to hear what it is that you know about the 'character' of this 'Jesus Christ".
Not at all if those written statements were composed decades or centuries latter by individuals who never met the figure they were inventing their tales about.
It is unreasonable, and perhaps a bit insane for you to insist that we must take these latter religious compositions as being serious or valid descriptions of the original conceptions of the 'Jesus Christ' figure.

aa5874

Please, how did you manage to find out that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are Late and forged??

This is the sort of thing that I find EXTREMELY disturbing with you. I am arguing that the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are LATE and you ALSO FIND that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are LATE and FORGED.

My eyes are NOT working??? Did you write that you "find them to be LATE and FORGED"

This is some kind of TIPO or a joke.

Please, just explain what sources of antiquity you employed to conclude that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are LATE and FORGED.

I hope it is NOT your imagination.

My argument that the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are LATE is based on the RECOVERED DATED TEXTS and Sources that are in Agreement with them.

aa5874

The writings of Justin Martyr are extremely significant because they fundamentally contradict the history of the Jesus cult as stated by Irenaeus an Apologetic source.

Justin Martyr is unaware of the books of the Entire Canon except for Revelation by John.

During a recent reading of "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" it was brought to my attention that Justin Martyr did NOT really know of the Canonised gJohn.

Justin's Jesus was NOT the Maker or Creator as stated in gJohn.

John 1 It is clear that the Johanine Jesus was the Maker of all things.

Contrarily, Justin's Jesus was NOT called the Maker of all things. Justin's Jesus was NOT the Creator. It was God the Father that was the MAKER or Creator.

Dialogue with TryphoDialogue with Trypho In gJohn, Jesus was God. The Johanine Jesus was ONE with the Father.

John 10:30 KJV But, Justin's Jesus was Second to God the Creator.
First Apology The writings of Justin reveal that gJohn as found in the NT Canon was NOT known to Justin Martyr.

The Memoirs of the Apostles of Justin Martyr predated gJohn.

Sheshbazzar

All of which does nothing at all to prove that the 'Jesus Christ' figure and various stories regarding 'Jesus Christ' were unknown by anyone in the 1st century CE as you have repeatedly asserted.

You may go on and on and on, but you are simply using your imagination when you claim that the name of 'Jesus Christ' (or one of its variant spellings) was unknown in the 1st century CE.

You have NO knowledge or valid basis on which to be making a DECLARATIVE claim that the name of 'Jesus Christ,' or that a Christian cult did not exist in the 1st century.
You DON"T positively know what various small 1st century religious cults may have believed or taught.

You don't even know what present day obscure religious sects or individuals may believe and teach.
If you do, you will be able to inform everyone here as to exactly what my beliefs are.

A simple challenge I give you here aa in the sight of all whom read these words, Explain to everyone what my beliefs are concerning the mathematics and geometry of ha'Shem. The length of Ezekiel's -[I]measuring reed[/I-], how many hand-breadths, and how many finger-breadths it contained and why.
And please tell everyone why Acts of the Apostles records how many fathoms deep the water was.
Then tell them what it is that all of these things signify to me.

This challenge ought to be extremely easy for you with your omniscient knowledge of precisely what names and things men know, believe, and teach.

If you cannot give concise answers to this challenge, I offer your ignorance of this matter as evident proof that you do not know what you are talking about.

aa5874

Please, Answer the question??? What did you use to Find that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were LATE and Forged??

Did you use your imagination??

Did you use Acts of the Apostles??

Did you use the PAULINE letters???

I use the Recovered Dated Texts and Sources that are in mutual agreement with those DATED Texts to ARGUE that the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are LATE.

aa5874

It is IMPERATIVE that Credible sources be FIRST located before one attempts to reconstruct the History of the Jesus cult.

The NT is ADMITTEDLY NOT Credible. Scholars, whether MJ or HJ, Concede that the NT is historically Problematic.

Historical ClAIMS about Jesus, the Disciples and Paul in the NT are NOT compatible with the DATED Recovered Texts.

I cannot accept the writings in the NT Canon as historically Credible.

The supposed 2nd century Irenaeus is NOT considered Credible---His Claims about the authorship, dating and chronology of the books of the NT Canon has been fundamentally REJECTED by Scholars, whether MJ or HJ.

The claims made by the supposed 2nd century Irenaeus are NOT Compatible with the DATED Recovered Texts.

I cannot accept writings attributed to Irenaeus as Historically Credible.

The History of the Jesus cult of Christians MUST be reconstructed from Credible Sources of antiquity--Sources that MUTUALLY Agree with the DATED RECOVERED TEXTS

This is a PARTIAL List of those Sources:

I USE JUSTIN MARTYR, ARISTIDES, ARNOBIUS, TATIAN, MINUCIUS FELIX, THEOPHILUS and ATHENAGORAS.

Now, the writings of Justin Martyr are ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING.

Justin Martyr fundamentally Contradicts the History of the Jesus cult of Christians as PRESENTED by Irenaeus and Eusebius yet the very claims of Justin which Contradict Irenaeus and Eusebius are corroborated or attested by even other Apologetic sources and Non-Apologetic sources.

For example,

1. Justin mentioned NO Bishops of the Jesus cult --he mentioned PRESIDENTS.

Lucian of Samosata a 2nd century non-apologetic writer named a PRESIDENT of Christians in Palestine.

2. Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledge Paul as one who Evangelised the Gentile world.

Aristides an Apolgetic source also did NOT acknowledge Paul.

3. Justin Martyr did NOT use the writings of Josephus to claim Jesus of the NT did Exist.

The writings of Josephus have been admitted to have been manipulated by Scholars.

4. Justin Martyr did NOT claim Jesus and God were ONE and was God the Maker or God the Creator.

Hippolytus an Apologetic source claimed that the Heresy that Jesus and God were ONE originated about the 3rd century by Callistus.

5. Justin claimed Marcion preached another God and Another Son and DENIED that God is the Maker and Creator.

Ephraim the Syrian claimed that the Marcionites did NOT Admit that God was the Creator.

6. Justin mentioned Revelation by John but did NOT mention the Pauline writings.

In the Muratorian Canon, it is claimed Revelation by John PREDATED the Pauline letters.

7. Justin did NOT mention Paul.

Letters to show Paul was of the time of Seneca have been deduced to be Forgeries.

8. Justin mentioned NO Bishops up to the mid 2nd century.

Apologetic sources claimed there were Bishops of Rome in the 1st century but did NOT really know when.

9. Justin did NOT mention the Pauline writings.

Origen claimed a 2nd century writer called CELSUS did NOT mention the Pauline writings in his "True Discourse."

10. Justin did NOT mention the contradictory genealogies in gMatthew and gLuke.

Origen claimed Celsus did NOT mention the Contradictions of the genealogies in "True Discourse".

11. Justin claimed Jesus was born in a Cave.

Origen claimed that in the Gospels Jesus was Born in a Cave.

12. Justin did NOT know who really wrote the Memoirs called Gospels.

Scholars claim that the Gospels were Anonymous.

The writings ATTRIBUTED are NOT ONLY compatible with the Dated Recovered Texts but they are also Corroborated bu Apologetic Sources, Non-Apologetic sources and Even Scholars today.

Duvduv

I must admit that AA does a great job of serving as the lawyer for the texts ascribed to a second century Justin. AA keeps repeating and repeating the same points with no change of nuance.
I wonder if he works for Justin as his attorney on a contingency.

aa5874

You REPEAT THE SAME unsubstantiated claim or belief that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th century and do NOT ever present a Credible Source OF ANTIQUITY.

HJers repeat constantly, day after day, that the Pauline writings are EARLY and that there was an Historical Jesus WITHOUT any Credible Sources of antiquity.

My THREAD is about CREDIBLE Sources of antiquity to reconstruct the history of the Jesus cult.

My Theory of the History of the Jesus cult is DIRECTLY dependent on Sources that are Mutually in Agreement with the Recovered DATED Texts.

I NO longer accept IMAGINATION, Speculation and Sources of antiquity that t are NOT Credible to reconstruct the history of the the Jesus cult.

The author of Acts and the Pauline writers are NOT Credible--they are NOT in Agreement with the Recovered Dated Texts.

Now, Justin Martyr is claimed to be a 2nd century and supposedly wrote about 100 years AFTER Paul.

Based on Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings, Paul traveled "all over" the Roman Empire preaching the Jesus story and wrote letters to Churches.

By the time of Justin Martyr, 100 YEARS LATER, we would expect that the Jesus story and cult was well established in the Roman Empire.

Justin Martyr SHOWED the Complete opposite--The Jesus cult and story was Hardly known.

It was during the time of Justin, 100 years AFTER the supposed Paul, that the Roman Emperor, the Roman Senate, and the Roman people were told about the Jesus cult, their Beliefs and Manner of Worship--See First Apology.

The Jesus story and cult is NOT from the 1st century but the 2nd based on the Recovered Dated Sources and sources of antiquity that are in agreement with the dated Texts.

avi

Thanks to so many forum members for a useful, entertaining, and provocative thread.

Shesh, I don't quarrel with your insistence that aa5874 has failed to convince anyone that there is conclusive evidence that a Jesus cult did not exist until the second century, and I also share duvduv's skepticism, suggesting that the whole shebang may be simply a 4th century story, but, in my opinion, the real task that lies ahead, maybe someone has done it, and I simply don't know the literature, but, what is needed, in my opinion, is a huge chart, with maybe 50 or 100 or even 200 names of folks mentioned by name as authors or participants ostensibly involved in the elaboration of the Jesus story, with a couple of attributes associated with each name on the list:

(-1) name;
(0) title of book, or article, or letter, or poster;
(1) date of authorship;
(2) basis for claiming that date of original authorship;
(3) age of oldest extant manuscript;
(4) basis for claiming this age of the oldest extant manuscript;
(5) oldest extant manuscript copied in original language of composition?

Agree, well written aa!
:thumbs:
++
:notworthy:
I think I share the skepticism of Duvduv and Sheshbazzar on this issue. I want to imagine that Justin Martyr's texts are definitive, but that's because I dislike Irenaeus. Neither attitude is proper. We need to examine evidence, not let our emotions guide our analysis. I am wrong for claiming Justin superior to Irenaeus. I am wrong because I haven't properly constructed that chart: what is the status of our extant documents for both men? I don't know. Since I don't know beans, why am I then entitled to an opinion?

For all I know, both Justin and Irenaeus are fictitious characters.

Agreed. We need that chart....

avi