Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 08-24-2012, 01:58 PM

You make me laugh......what the hell makes a text said to have been written in the 2nd century credible??!!!!
Nothing, I repeat, nothing. except your insistence based on the claims of the ancient and modern propagandists........nothing....do you have a sworn affidavit? A video testimony? Do you have a time machine? AA saying it's "credible" doesn't make it so.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Sheshbazzar · 08-24-2012, 02:23 PM

On and on, but none of it is evidence nor proof that the name 'Jesus Christ' (or its variant Hebrew, Aramaic, or Hellenic spellings or vocalizations) did not at all exist in the 1st century, as aa ignorantly asserts.
aa doesn't even know what it is that I, his contemporary, Sheshbazzar the Hebrew believes, or how he pronounces, much less what unrecorded and unreported beliefs men held during the 1st century.

aa is attempting to press the flaky premise that anything that he doesn't personally know about, or if a thing has not been written down in a book available to him, it must not exist or have existed. His is an argument from ignorance.
-There is a Torah sheh'beh'al'peh, a 'Torah which is by mouth', which is only to be passed on man to man, and which is NOT to be written down.
aa and his ilk will NOT ever find it written within goyim books.

The Bible never directly tells us the exact number of subdivisions in the ammah, ('cubit') or what the difference is between the 'cubit after the first measure' and that cubit which is 'of the Sanctuary', or the cubit of a 'cubit and an hand breadth' employed within Ezekiel, (40:5) or how many atzebaoth, 'fingers'- 'digits' are in each of the three Hebrew qaneh ha'middah 'measuring reeds'. That lack a wriiten definition does not entail that such precise divisions did not or do not exist. Nor more importantly, what invariable principals these ancient units of measure were based upon or exactly what they signify.
The matter is left for careful and contemplative men of wisdom to study, to reason, to discover, and to work out for themselves. (and those told, to hold these secrets to their graves)
All things to be revealed only in their due time.

That a matter has not been published and publicly disseminated is not evidence that powerful distinctions and differences do not exist, or are not highly significant and of application amongst those who were (are) knowledgeable and trained.

There is a Commandment in The Law of us Hebrews;

Quote:

"You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure....."

This is an ethical injunction, a social obligation that is accepted, endorsed, and will come to be enforced by all civilized men everywhere.
The Hebrews (or 'Jews') are internationally known for their long tradition of being most meticulous and exacting in measurements of precious metals and jewels. (and of course their fame for their observances of the counting of days, and the observing of The set times.)
That men such as aa here blunder about in the darkness of their profound ignorance regarding such matters is no indication that there were no men having a good understanding in the 1st century CE, nor in this day. HaShem is much more than a name.

As a young man, I used to enjoy the observing of that fascinating science demonstration of bringing a vacuum filled bulb into proximity of a highly charged yet invisible force, and observing it begin to dimly light up;

Quote:

27. But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country;

28. And sounded, and found it twenty fathoms: and when they had gone a little further, they sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms.

How many feet is twenty fathoms? How many feet is fifteen fathoms?
What are each of these measures in inches? (or by 'cubits'?, or by 'fingerbreadths?' or by 'spans'? or by 'measuring reeds'?)
What is the difference?
It is loaded to those who have discerment.

What other figures, sums, and divisions share these measures? Can you number the number? Discern and divide with perfect equity, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.?
The beni-elohim can, do, and yet will.

Watch out aa, lest that invisable 'holy ghost bird' in passing over your head shits in your eye.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

.

aa5874 · 08-24-2012, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You make me laugh......what the hell makes a text said to have been written in the 2nd century credible??!!!!
Nothing, I repeat, nothing. except your insistence based on the claims of the ancient and modern propagandists........nothing....do you have a sworn affidavit? A video testimony? Do you have a time machine? AA saying it's "credible" doesn't make it so.....

What you say does NOT make it so.

Do you have a 4TH century time Machine, a sworn affidavit and Video testimony of that TIME period???

Name your sources of antiquity--I no longer accept your imagination as evidence of the 4th century.

What makes your claim credible that the Jesus story was NOT known in the 2nd century???

What credible sources of antiquity, what dated evidence support you???

Nothing--ZERO-NIL.

Again, whether or not you believe the writings attributed Justin Martyr are credible does NOT make the Recovered Dated Texts disappear.

Based on Recovered DATED NT Manuscripts by Paleography the Jesus story was KNOWN since the 2nd century.

My theory is fundamentally based on Justin Martyr, Aristides, Arnobius, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix and Tatian.

Please, it would appear that you have NO CREDIBLE SOURCES.

Now, Justin Martyr described his Jesus that supposedly existed in the time of Tiberius and stated that his Jesus was Born WITHOUT Sexual Union, Resurrected and Ascended.

This description is Extremely important

Justin's Jesus was NOT historical. Justin's Jesus was DERIVED from Anonymous Myth Fables.

Justin's Jesus could NOT have any real disciples--Justin's Jesus is Mythology.

"First Apology" XXI

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven....

Duvduv · 08-24-2012, 03:48 PM

Do I hear an echo????

aa5874 · 08-24-2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Do I hear an echo????

You have a NO SOURCE argument.

aa5874 · 08-24-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, I have PRESENTED the evidence for my argument that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[Again, you have abysmally failed to prove that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century or before c.70 CE.

Your statement is NOT logical. You are Engaged in a NO SOURCE argument.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was a Jesus story in the 1st century because if there was you would have SHOWN me.

Every time you post and repeat the same statement you EXPOSE that you do NOT really understand what "evidence" means.

My argument is that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century and Before c 70 CE and have shown you the Recovered NT manuscripts and there is NO-NIL-ZERO--NONE--NOTHING Dated to the 1st century and Before c 70 ce about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Again, you are making a NO Source--No Evidence argument.

Please, answer the question--What source of antiquity did you use to Find that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were "Late and Forged" ??

I used the recovered DATED NT manuscripts, and sources of antiquity that mutually agree with those recovered dated sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...You write about things that you think took place or were written in the 2nd century CE.- That does NOT evidence what was or was not believed regarding any 'Jesus Christ' figure in the 1st century.

Again, the DATED NT Manuscripts do contain 2ND-3RD century Jesus stories so your assertion is really of no real value. There is NO evidence of 1st century Jesus stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

..Justin, if he is a legitimate 2nd century witness, reports on a faith that he accepts had existed since the 1st century, and that he had learned of from a predecessor or predecessors. That, if it is fact, in no way establishes that the figure of, and stories about a 'Jesus Christ' figure did not exist before Justin's writings, or in the 1st century.
On a lack of evidence You are jumping to an illogical, unwarranted, and unsupportable conclusion.

Again, Justin did NOT establish that there existed 1st century Jesus stories. Justin established the OPPOSITE.

Justin claimed it was the same questionable characters called Apostles in the Memoirs that wrote them. Justin Martyr Established THAT his knowledge of Jesus and the disciples were NOT found in any non-apologetic sources and did NOT acknowledge any actual persons under the name of Paul, James, Jude, Mark or Luke that wrote anything about Jesus.

It is NOT speculation amd imagination that supports an argument--it is evidence.

What evidence do you have that there might have been 1st century Jesus stories??? What part of the 1st century do you EXPECT Jesus stories?? Who would you expect to write about 1st century Jesus stories??

May I remind you that I do NOT expect any 1st century evidence for Jesus stories. I expected 2nd century Jesus stories and they have been recovered and dated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. Justin Martyr mentioned stories about Jesus WITHOUT acknowledging the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Big eF'ing deal. STORIES about a 'Jesus Christ' figure in the 1st century (or 2nd) DO NOT require any Pauline writings or Acts of the Apostles.

Again, your response is NOT logical.

The fact that the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are NOT mentioned by Justin SUPPORT the claim that Acts of the Aostles and the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the writings attributed to Justin especially when NO Pauline letters have ever been recovered and dated to the time of Cladius or Nero.

Sheshbazzar · 08-25-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, I have PRESENTED the evidence for my argument that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[Again, you have abysmally failed to prove that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century or before c.70 CE.

Your statement is NOT logical. You are Engaged in a NO SOURCE argument.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was a Jesus story in the 1st century....

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was NOT a 'Jesus' story in the 1st century.
Absence of evidence, is NOT positive evidence of absence.
A thing or situation can have existed without being written down, and many early writings simply have not survived. That fact is not 'evidence' that they never existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Every time you post and repeat the same statement you EXPOSE that you do NOT really understand what "evidence" means.

Every time you repeat your inane assertion that there was no 'Jesus Christ' or no 'Jesus Christ' stories in the 1st century you EXPOSE that you do NOT rally understand what 'evidence' means.
A lack of information regarding a suspect or a subject, is NOT any 'evidence' or proof that can be employed against said suspect or subject.
In this case we simply DO NOT KNOW one way or another whether there were any stories or believers in the name 'Jesus Christ' in the 1st century.
What Justin Martyr wrote during the 2nd century does not inform us on this matter, only that this name and various stories and beliefs regarding one 'Jesus Christ' were in circulation in his day. That DOES NOT tell us when this name, or the stories -first- came into being.
I don't know, and neither do you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My argument is that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century and Before c 70 CE

Your argument is erroneous, faulty, and illogical and will not stand up to examination by scholarship, nor would it stand in any just Court of Law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

and have shown you the Recovered NT manuscripts and there is NO-NIL-ZERO--NONE--NOTHING Dated to the 1st century and Before c 70 ce about Jesus,...

Again, the absence of this evidence IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that there never were any such manuscripts or beliefs.

It is a well known fact that many well known early documents have NO surviving contemporary exemplars. That fact does not allow scholars to use that lack of surviving exemplars to be bogusly employed as the 'evidence' that such documents never existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, you are making a NO Source--No Evidence argument.

Again you are employing faulty reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, answer the question--What source of antiquity did you use to Find that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were "Late and Forged" ??

Your jumping on an entirely different horse with this question.
It is NOT a question about whether the name 'Jesus Christ' or stories about a 'Jesus Christ' figure were known and circulating in the 1st century;
This question is about those writings called 'THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES' and the 'PAULINE WRITINGS'....NOT at all about your insane assertion that the name, and stories about a 'Jesus Christ' were unknown in the 1st century.

We have covered this ground repeatedly in dozens of previous threads, where I have agreed with your views regarding Acts and the Paulines on innumerable occasions.
The documentary evidence does indicate that they are late and fabricated (forged) religious literary productions and are NOT the eyewitness reports that they pretend to be.
That already mutually agreed to FACT has no bearing at all upon the question of whether the name of, or stories about a 'Jesus Christ' were known in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I used the recovered DATED NT manuscripts, and sources of antiquity that mutually agree with those recovered dated sources.

And you have not produced one iota of evidence that ANY of these 'recovered DATED NT manuscripts' are the ORIGINAL and FIRST EDITIONS straight from the pens of the ORIGINAL AUTHORS, rather than copies of copies of manuscripts that NO man living knows were how much older.

To the best of my knowledge, there is not ONE scholar nor scientist who has actually examined these 'recovered DATED NT manuscripts' that has ever took and defended a proposition that these 'DATED recovered texts' were the initial and ORIGINAL productions straight from the pen of the ORIGINAL AUTHORS.
Which is what your 'position' would demand to make it valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...You write about things that you think took place or were written in the 2nd century CE.- That does NOT evidence what was or was not believed regarding any 'Jesus Christ' figure in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, the DATED NT Manuscripts do contain 2ND-3RD century Jesus stories so your assertion is really of no real value. There is NO evidence of 1st century Jesus stories.

Again you engage in the logical fallacy of pretending that if positive evidence has not survived, it can be used as 'evidence' or proof that something was not known or did not take place.
THAT is not 'evidence'or proof, but only engaging in making biased assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

..Justin, if he is a legitimate 2nd century witness, reports on a faith that he accepts had existed since the 1st century, and that he had learned of from a predecessor or predecessors. That, if it is fact, in no way establishes that the figure of, and stories about a 'Jesus Christ' figure did not exist before Justin's writings, or in the 1st century.
On a lack of evidence You are jumping to an illogical, unwarranted, and unsupportable conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, Justin did NOT establish that there existed 1st century Jesus stories. Justin established the OPPOSITE.

No. Justin DID NOT 'establish the 'opposite'.
Justin could not 'establish' any such thing.
He never met the person or 'god' in the flesh of whom he was writing about.
He wrote about something he (and evidently others) believed to have taken place in the 1st century.
That he believed or others certain things no more 'establishes' those things as being factual than Joseph Smith believing or writing about something 'established' it as being factual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin claimed it was the same questionable characters called Apostles in the Memoirs that wrote them. Justin Martyr Established THAT his knowledge of Jesus and the disciples were NOT found in any non-apologetic sources and did NOT acknowledge any actual persons under the name of Paul, James, Jude, Mark or Luke that wrote anything about Jesus.

Latter accreditations to earlier 'Jesus' stories DO NOT establish or prove anything regarding whether the name or figure, or STORIES about a 'Jesus Christ' were known and circulated during the 1st century CE.
The names 'Paul', 'James', 'Jude', 'Mark', 'Luke', or 'John' were NOT needed for there to be stories in the 1st century CE about a figure named 'Jesus Christ'.
The DOCUMENTED manuscript evidence indicates these names and their 'history' was invented and supplied by religious writers of a latter date.

The lack of these names in earlier DATED manuscripts tells us NOTHING at all regarding the question of whether the NAME 'Jesus Christ' (or one of its variant forms) was known within the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is NOT speculation amd imagination that supports an argument--it is evidence.

Evidence which you are sorely lacking in regards to the question of whether the name 'Jesus Christ' was known during the 1st century CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What evidence do you have that there might have been 1st century Jesus stories???

I have discussed this subject quite extensively in previous threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What part of the 1st century do you EXPECT Jesus stories??

Throughout. And for several -previous- centuries. From the time that 'The Septuagint translation' came into usage. Jews and gentiles who employed it would have been expectant of a 'Christos' named 'Iasus' (the Eng. 'Jesus')

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Who would you expect to write about 1st century Jesus stories??

Dissident Hellenistic Jews and gentile ger toshavim expressing their contempt for the corrupt established Jewish Priesthood via way of the composition of midrashic 'Joshua' propaganda stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

May I remind you that I do NOT expect any 1st century evidence for Jesus stories. I expected 2nd century Jesus stories and they have been recovered and dated.

May I remind you that I really don't give a hoot what it is that you 'expect'???
You don't impress me as being an authority on anything.

You engage in the 'Ron Wyatt' school of 'investigation', where amazingly! whatever it is that you 'expect' is always 'confirmed' by your own interpretations of your personal 'findings'.
It is certain that you have earned, deserve and should be awarded with a Graduate Degree in Confirmation Bias

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. Justin Martyr mentioned stories about Jesus WITHOUT acknowledging the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Big eF'ing deal. STORIES about a 'Jesus Christ' figure in the 1st century (or 2nd) DO NOT require any Pauline writings or Acts of the Apostles.

Again, your response is NOT logical.

The fact that the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are NOT mentioned by Justin SUPPORT the claim that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the writings attributed to Justin especially when NO Pauline letters have ever been recovered and dated to the time of Cladius or Nero.

I am NOT, and HAVE NOT been arguing that Acts and the Paulines were not composed AFTER the writings of Justin.
That they were composed AFTER Justin's writings has not one damned to do with the question of whether the NAME 'Jesus Christ' or any stories about a 'Jesus Christ' were known or were circulated in the 1st century CE.

1st century people didn't need any 'Peter', 'Paul', 'Mark', or 'John' in order to be to circulate midrashic anti-Temple religious propaganda about an imagined messiah named 'Iasus' who put all their religious adversaries to shame.
The 'Jesus' religious propaganda story (which was really only of any value to its composers while their religious opponents were still in power) stuck, and was embellished by 'Christian' writers over the succeeding centuries.

anethema · 08-25-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your statement is NOT logical. You are Engaged in a NO SOURCE argument.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was a Jesus story in the 1st century....

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was NOT a 'Jesus' story in the 1st century.
Absence of evidence, is NOT positive evidence of absence.
A thing or situation can have existed without being written down, and many early writings simply have not survived. That fact is not 'evidence' that they never existed.

Every time you repeat your inane assertion that there was no 'Jesus Christ' or no 'Jesus Christ' stories in the 1st century you EXPOSE that you do NOT rally understand what 'evidence' means.
A lack of information regarding a suspect or a subject, is NOT any 'evidence' or proof that can be employed against said suspect or subject.
In this case we simply DO NOT KNOW one way or another whether there were any stories or believers in the name 'Jesus Christ' in the 1st century.
What Justin Martyr wrote during the 2nd century does not inform us on this matter, only that this name and various stories and beliefs regarding one 'Jesus Christ' were in circulation in his day. That DOES NOT tell us when this name, or the stories -first- came into being.
I don't know, and neither do you.
Your argument is erroneous, faulty, and illogical and will not stand up to examination by scholarship, nor would it stand in any just Court of Law.
Again, the absence of this evidence IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that there never were any such manuscripts or beliefs.

It is a well known fact that many well known early documents have NO surviving contemporary exemplars. That fact does not allow scholars to use that lack of surviving exemplars to be bogusly employed as the 'evidence' that such documents never existed.

Again you are employing faulty reasoning.

Your jumping on an entirely different horse with this question.
It is NOT a question about whether the name 'Jesus Christ' or stories about a 'Jesus Christ' figure were known and circulating in the 1st century;
This question is about those writings called 'THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES' and the 'PAULINE WRITINGS'....NOT at all about your insane assertion that the name, and stories about a 'Jesus Christ' were unknown in the 1st century.

We have covered this ground repeatedly in dozens of previous threads, where I have agreed with your views regarding Acts and the Paulines on innumerable occasions.
The documentary evidence does indicate that they are late and fabricated (forged) religious literary productions and are NOT the eyewitness reports that they pretend to be.
That already mutually agreed to FACT has no bearing at all upon the question of whether the name of, or stories about a 'Jesus Christ' were known in the 1st century.

And you have not produced one iota of evidence that ANY of these 'recovered DATED NT manuscripts' are the ORIGINAL and FIRST EDITIONS straight from the pens of the ORIGINAL AUTHORS, rather than copies of copies of manuscripts that NO man living knows were how much older.

To the best of my knowledge, there is not ONE scholar nor scientist who has actually examined these 'recovered DATED NT manuscripts' that has ever took and defended a proposition that these 'DATED recovered texts' were the initial and ORIGINAL productions straight from the pen of the ORIGINAL AUTHORS.
Which is what your 'position' would demand to make it valid.

Again you engage in the logical fallacy of pretending that if positive evidence has not survived, it can be used as 'evidence' or proof that something was not known or did not take place.
THAT is not 'evidence'or proof, but only engaging in making biased assertions.

No. Justin DID NOT 'establish the 'opposite'.
Justin could not 'establish' any such thing.
He never met the person or 'god' in the flesh of whom he was writing about.
He wrote about something he (and evidently others) believed to have taken place in the 1st century.
That he believed or others certain things no more 'establishes' those things as being factual than Joseph Smith believing or writing about something 'established' it as being factual.

Latter accreditations to earlier 'Jesus' stories DO NOT establish or prove anything regarding whether the name or figure, or STORIES about a 'Jesus Christ' were known and circulated during the 1st century CE.
The names 'Paul', 'James', 'Jude', 'Mark', 'Luke', or 'John' were NOT needed for there to be stories in the 1st century CE about a figure named 'Jesus Christ'.
The DOCUMENTED manuscript evidence indicates these names and their 'history' was invented and supplied by religious writers of a latter date.

The lack of these names in earlier DATED manuscripts tells us NOTHING at all regarding the question of whether the NAME 'Jesus Christ' (or one of its variant forms) was known within the 1st century.

Evidence which you are sorely lacking in regards to the question of whether the name 'Jesus Christ' was known during the 1st century CE.

I have discussed this subject quite extensively in previous threads.
Throughout. And for several -previous- centuries. From the time that 'The Septuagint translation' came into usage. Jews and gentiles who employed it would have been expectant of a 'Christos' named 'Iasus' (the Eng. 'Jesus')
Dissident Hellenistic Jews and gentile ger toshavim expressing their contempt for the corrupt established Jewish Priesthood via way of the composition of midrashic 'Joshua' propaganda stories.

May I remind you that I really don't give a hoot what it is that you 'expect'???
You don't impress me as being an authority on anything.

You engage in the 'Ron Wyatt' school of 'investigation', where amazingly! whatever it is that you 'expect' is always 'confirmed' by your own interpretations of your personal 'findings'.
It is certain that you have earned, deserve and should be awarded with a Graduate Degree in Confirmation Bias

Quote:

Again, your response is NOT logical.

The fact that the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are NOT mentioned by Justin SUPPORT the claim that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the writings attributed to Justin especially when NO Pauline letters have ever been recovered and dated to the time of Cladius or Nero.

I am NOT, and HAVE NOT been arguing that Acts and the Paulines were not composed AFTER the writings of Justin.
That they were composed AFTER Justin's writings has not one damned to do with the question of whether the NAME 'Jesus Christ' or any stories about a 'Jesus Christ' were known or were circulated in the 1st century CE.

1st century people didn't need any 'Peter', 'Paul', 'Mark', or 'John' in order to be to circulate midrashic anti-Temple religious propaganda about an imagined messiah named 'Iasus' who put all their religious adversaries to shame.
The 'Jesus' religious propaganda story (which was really only of any value to its composers while their religious opponents were still in power) stuck, and was embellished by 'Christian' writers over the succeeding centuries.

as a catholic im appalled! just kidding lol. the history is just what aa says it is i have no no idea why anyone would question it. the problem was the protestants that tried to rewrite histoy to achieve their vision of faith vs belief. luther used this to begin a new pogrom against the jews. calvin bellieve in predestination so who cares? the only thing that matters to me today is how people relate to each other. ooo ooo age of aaqaurius. no i believe that whatever passes for xtianity works for the rest of of my family. everybody else can argue HJ vs MJ i know some people that believe and they are the best peoplr i know.

aa5874 · 08-25-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There is NO evidence whatsoever that there was NOT a 'Jesus' story in the 1st century.
Absence of evidence, is NOT positive evidence of absence...

What a load of BS. You keep repeating fallacies.

People have been EXONERATED by ABSENCE of evidence.

If you were charged with a Crime you better hope that there is ABSENCE of evidence or else you may very well be found guilty.

Absence of Evidence ALLOWS an argument for "Not Guilty"

Absence of Evidence ALLOWS the jurors to come back with a "Not Guilty" verdict.

ABSENCE of Evidence of a 1st century Jesus story allows me to ARGUE that there was NO 1st century Jesus story and cult.

The more you post, it is evident that you do NOT understand what "Absence of evidence" means.

My argument for NO Jesus story and cult in the 1st century is based on the Recovered DATED Texts and Sources that are in Agreement with those Dated Texts.

Your argument is a NO Source argument.

aa5874 · 08-26-2012, 10:51 AM

The claim by HJers that some sources of antiquity mentioned "Christians" is an indication that Jesus did exist is DESTROYED by writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras of Athens.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote Three Books entitled "To Autolycus" and claimed he was a Christian but NEVER ONCE mentioned Jesus called Christ.

Theophilus told his Friend Autolycus that he was was a Christian because he wanted to be Serviceable to GOD.

To Autholycus 1

Quote:

Since, then, my friend, you have assailed me with empty words, boasting of your gods of wood and stone, hammered and cast, carved and graven, which neither see nor hear, for they are idols, and the works of men's hands; and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable to God.

Belief in GOD Predated the Jesus story by Hundreds of years.

Theophilus of Antioch has shown that it cannot be PRESUMED that any mention of Christians must mean that the supposed Christians Believed the Jesus stories.

"To Autolycus" 1

Quote:

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying.

First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. ..........Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

Theophilus claimed he was a Christian because he was Anointed by the Oil of God and mentioned NOTHING about the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in his THREE books "To Autolycus".

The Jesus story had ZERO impact on Theophilus. He did NOT need the Jesus story to be a Christian.

ONLY GOD should be worshiped according to Theophilus in ALL THREE books "To Autolycus".

To Autholycus 1

Quote:

But God, the living and true God, I worship, knowing that the king is made by Him....

It is seen that there were Christians in antiquity that ONLY Believed in God so any mention of Christians does NOT indicate the existence of Jesus, a Jesus story or a Jesus cult.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-24-2012, 03:48 PM	#274
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Do I hear an echo????

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.