aa5874

There are some who claim that the Jesus cult was really started in the 4th century contrary to the Dated Texts which show or suggest that the Jesus story was most likely known and initiated in the 2nd century.

Now, there is a most significant observation made when examining Apologetic arguments against Skeptics and Heretics.

We have Apologetic sources that made arguments ONLY against 2nd century Heretics and Skeptics.

Justin Martyr supposedly ARGUED Against Trypho a 2nd century Jew.

Trypho ARGUED that the Jesus story was like Greek Mythology.

Tertullian supposedly ARGUED Against the followers of Marcion a 2nd century Heretic.

Marcion argued the Son of God was a PHANTOM in Capernaum.

Origen supposedly ARGUED Against the writings of Celsus a 2nd century writer.

Celsus ARGUED Jesus was NOT born of a Ghost but had a human father called Panthera.

Lucian of Samasota wrote of Christians in the 2nd century who believed in a crucified man

If the Roman Church INVENTED all these writings then we can see that they did NOT INVENT any arguments Against any Heretic or Skeptic in the 1st century and before c 70 CE

This is quite odd when the Roman Church claimed Jesus the Son of God was in Galilee and Jerusalem from c 1 BCE to c 33 CE and that the Disciples, Apostles and Paul preached Christ crucified and resurrected for the sins of mankind since c 33 CE yet they did NOT invent any Heretic or Skeptic for the 1st century.

No-one was INVENTED by the Roman Church to Argue Against the Jesus stories in the 1st century!!!!

Why did NOT the Roman Church INVENT Trypho the Jew, Marcion of Pontus, Celsus and Lucian of Samsota as 1ST CENTURY characters to show that the Jesus story was WELL known in the 1st century???

2ND CENTURY Heretics and Skeptics and 2nd-3rd century Arguments would NOT help the Roman Church to show that the Jesus story originated in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The answer is quite simple.

Trypho the Jew, Marcion of Pontus, Celsus and Lucian were NOT Invented by the Roman Church in the 2nd century---the Heretics, Skeptics and Arguments AGAINST the Jesus stories BEGAN in the 2nd century ONLY when the stories were KNOWN and circulated.

It was NOT necessary for the Church to make or INVENT 1st century Arguments against Heretics and Skeptics that did NOT exist and WROTE Nothing in opposition to the Jesus stories.

The very Apologetic Arguments AGAINST only 2nd century Heretics and Skeptics corroborate the DATED Texts.

I expected ARGUMENTS AGAINST the Jesus stories within a DECADE or so after they were known NOT after 100-150 years and that is PRECISELY what we have.

We have NO ARGUMENTS against the Jesus stories by Non-Apologetic sources in the 1st century INVENTED or NOT.

The Jesus cult started in the 2nd century based on stories about the Son of God called Jesus.

mountainman

Your statement above is highly ambiguous. I have texts from my electricity and water suppiers which are dated. These texts have a computer allocated date as part of the data in the text. The texts of the Jesus cult were originally handwritten in Greek, and the person or persons who authored and/or preserved these texts of the Jesus cult did not include a date. The texts are thus able to be securely classified as UNDATED texts. They are not dated.

This ambiguity can be resolved by inserting the adverb "palaeographically" before the word dated thus:

There are some who claim that the Jesus cult was really started in the 4th century contrary to the palaeographically dated Texts which show or suggest that the Jesus story was most likely known and initiated in the 2nd century.

I have before me the First and Second Epistle of John.

According to WIKI:


Are you claiming that the Letters of John were written in the 2nd century?

These letters attest to the existence, or invention, of a widespread group of people who would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh". This is tantamount to people who would "not confess Jesus appeared in history". Who were these very many people? Why did they put Jesus story in the junk mail bin?

J-D

A hypothetical book. I was posing a hypothetical question. That's why it began with the word 'IF'. I'm sorry if you have difficulty understanding the meaning of that word.I referred to the last page, but now that I think about it the logic of the situation is the same regardless of which page it is.Since it's a hypothetical book, that's not possible.Since it's a hypothetical book, we can hypothesise either way. But I'm not clear what difference it would make. If, hypothetically, we establish which of the two physical objects is older, I don't see how that automatically demonstrates which of the two versions of the text is older.You must stop saying things like that.I don't see how.As I pointed out above, the fact that one physical version of the document is older than another is not by itself automatically enough to establish conclusively that one version of the text is older than another.

mountainman

I understand that you were posing a hypothetical question about a hypothetical book. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Tchacos are not hypothetical books. Q is an example of a hypothetical book. aa5874 consistently refers to evidence of the physical kind, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Tchacos, not the hypothetical kind.

One may still formulate hypotheses about the authorship and chronology of undated physical evidence, but one does not need to hypothecise the existence of physical evidence when it is physically before us.

aa5874

It is well established that in order to present a case, a theory, a charge, a verdict, that one MUST have first found credible evidence to support it.

The police do NOT charge people with crimes WITHOUT the supporting evidence.

A SCIENTIST does NOT develop theories by Speculating.

In court trials the Prosecution do NOT argue from Imagination.

The Myth Jesus theory is BASED on the EXISTING DATED EVIDENCE.

ALL theories, Verdicts and Conclusions can be REVIEWED and MODIFIED as soon as NEW DATA is found.

AS it stands right now, at this present moment, Jesus was a Myth character DEVELOPED in the 2nd century.

100% of the Dated Texts about the Jesus stories by Paleography and C 14 SUPPORT MY VERDICT.

100% of the DATED Texts about the Jesus stories do NOT extend below the 2nd century.

The VERDICT cannot be changed or reviewed UNTIL New DATA is found.

I no longer accept imagination and speculation as historical data.

If we continue to allow HJers to present imagination and speculation as history then NOTHING will be resolved.

HJers are WASTING our time

They seem to have NO intention of presenting any Credible and DATED sources for THEIR HJ argument.

Every single source of antiquity that mentions Jesus, the disciples and Paul are KNOWN Fiction or implausible.

Every single non-apologetic source that mentioned Jesus and Paul are Forgeries or questionable.

We have got to move forward. Imaginary evidence and Speculation cannot help us at this point.

I EXPECTED that 100% of the DATED Text about Jesus, the disciples and Paul would NOT be from before c 70 CE.

I EXPECTED that 100% of Non-Apologetic Texts that mentioned Jesus, the disciples and Paul would be FORGERIES or questionable.

This is PRECISELY, EXACTLY what has happened.

My verdict is most reasonable--most sound. The Jesus cult was INITIATED sometime in the 2nd century by stories about a character called Jesus the Son of God that was crucified because of the Jews.

anethema

Hi Im new here, I have a question. for aa5874. When are you proposing a date for the first conception or idea of an actual living historical person? Your presentation and conclusions are fascinating to me.

aa5874

It is the evidence from antiquity that is fascinating. Whatever is proposed MUST be compatible with the DATED Texts.

We have the DSS, the Nag Hammadi and other Dated Manuscripts and they are VOID of a Jesus story in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

This is PRECISELY and EXACTLY what is EXPECTED when Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist.

Even if it is assumed all sources of antiquity were manipulated by the 4th century Church it must be NOTED that it was in the 2nd century that Arguments Against the Jesus stories were made by Non-Apologetic sources--Not the 1st century.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

Justin Martyr supposedly Argued Against Trypho in the 2nd century.

Tertullian supposedly Argued Against the 2nd century Marcion

Origen supposedly Argued Against the 2nd century writing of Celsus.

Non-Apologetics sources, the Skeptics and Heretics, even if there were invented, they were still fabricated for the MID to LATE 2nd century--Not the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

But, even more significant, the supposed 2nd-3rd century Christians writers claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and Also the Son of God WITHOUT a human father.

So, the Dated Texts and the supposed 2nd-3rd Christian writers are compatible.

2nd century Justin Martyr allegdly wrote "First Apology" to the Roman Emperor, the Senate and the Roman people EXPLAINING the Beliefs and practices of the Jesus cult and tells them Jesus was the Son of a God, the Son of a Ghost and Second to God.

2nd-3rd century Tertullian allegedly writes "On the Flesh of Christ" and claimed Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost and was God the Creator.

3rd century Origen writes "Against Celsus" and claimed the very same thing--Jesus is the Son of a Holy Ghost.

Remarkably, it was the Skeptics like Trypho in "Dialogue with Trypho" and Celsus in "Against Celsus" who claimed Jesus could NOT be the son of a Ghost and Son of God.

But, again, these arguments are from the 2nd century--Not the 1st century.

The concept that Jesus was human did NOT originate from the Jesus cult at all based on Apologetic sources.

The Concept of a human Jesus originated OUTSIDE the Jesus cult by 2nd century SKEPTICS.

anethema

Thank you aa5874. Is your theory testable or falsifiable. Say something discovered internally, or should I say intertextually or both to date the any of the epistles to pre-70 change the basic premise?

aa5874

When I say "DATED TEXTS" I refer to the list of New Testament Papyri.

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

100% of the New Testament Papyri that hace been dated by Paleography or C 14 do NOT extend to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Now, in the "Life of Flavius Josephus" written some time after 94 CE attributed to Josephus there is a unique story about Three Crucified and One Survived. No other writings of Josephus contain such a story of a SURVIVAL after crucifixion.

The Life of Flavius JosephusAmazingly, in the short-ending gMark the name of person who asked for the body of Jesus is ALSO Joseph.


Mark 15:43 NIV The evidence of antiquity support the theory that the Jesus story was INITIATED in the 2nd century.

aa5874

The claim by HJers that there was an historical Jesus is based on sources that are "akin to Bullshit reeenactments" based on the words of Diogenes the Cynic.

It is hardly likely that a NEW religion which would COMPETE with Ancient Existing religion would be Initiated by KNOWN BULLSHIT.

The HJ argument put forward the most Heinous suggestion that EVERYBODY in Galilee who knew Jesus did KNOW the Jesus story was BULLSHIT yet accepted it and some were Martyred and Persecuted for the Publicly known Bullshit reenactments.

The HJ argument is ridiculous.

The Jesus cult MOST likely started when NO-ONE had ever heard of and knew of Jesus of Nazareth.

That is, when the Jesus story was written and INITIALLY circulated, it is MOST likely that NO-ONE knew Jesus did NOT ever exist at the time.

The LATER the Jesus story-- the easier it is to be BELIEVED.

So, if Jesus was just a man WHO DIED around 33 CE then for Paul to have written letters claiming that Jesus was NOT human, was the Son of God and Jesus was RAISED for Remission of Sins then the Pauline writer would have been known as a LIAR.

But, Pauline writings written in the 2nd century or Later would be EXTREMELY difficult to be shown to be fiction.

All the characters associated with Jesus would be ALREADY DEAD by the mid 2nd century.

The 2nd century or later is where we find ALL of the DATED NT manuscripts.

In the 2nd century, whether or not Jesus did exist, people COULD HAVE only believed the stories of Jesus since NO-ONE would be expected to have seen Jesus if he died at around 33 CE.

ALL that is required for a Jesus cult in the 2nd century is for someone to write a story about Jesus the Son of God who was REJECTED and Crucified because of the Jews and claim the Story is TRUE and was based on prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

We have a story--we have the short-ending gMark.

The Jesus story in the short-ending gMark is based on prophecies in Hebrew Scripture and it is EVIDENT that the authors of INTERPOLATED gMark, Matthew, and gLuke ACCEPTED the short-ending gMark story.

The Jesus story was UNKNOWN in the 1st century based on Non-Apologetic sources and ONLY the short-ending gMark is COMPATIBLE with them.

The Jesus cult of Christians was INITIATED in the 2nd century based on a Jesus story that was also known and ciculated for the very first time in the 2nd century.