aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. The Jesus character is a FAKE supported by fiction stories in the Canon.

Vespasian was the prophesied Messianic ruler and Savior and it was documented by Jewish and Roman writers.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Tacitus and Suetonius CONFIRMED that Vespasian was the Prophesied Messianic ruler and did Perform Miracles--he made the BLIND see and healed the Lame.

Suetonius' Life of Vespasian Vespasian was the Savior, Benefactor, Miracle worker and Messianic ruler.

Wars of the Jews 7.4.1 Suetonius' Life of Vespasian

gurugeorge

But what significance did the authors of the fabrication think those names had, such that they (the authors) thought people would be deceived as to the antiquity of the revelation? Why did they think invented people with those names would be particularly convincing?

Or did they just pick the names out of a hat?

aa5874

Why are you asking the same questions over and over? Do you read only read the Pauline Corpus?

Again, do you not see that there are four Synoptic Gospels attributed to authors called Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

Is it not true that virtually every thing stated about the date, authorship and chronology of the Synoptics in Church History has been deduced by Scholars to be in error?

1. In "Church History"3.24.6 it is claimed or implied Matthew was an actual disciple of Jesus and that Matthew was the first to write his Gospel and did so in the Hebrew language before gMark was composed or before c 50 CE.

2. In "Church History"2.16.1 it is claimed or implied that gMark was composed AFTER gMatthew and by a follower of Peter named Mark since the time of Philo or sometime before c 50 CE.

3. In Church History 6.25 it is claimed or implied that gLuke was composed by a companion of Paul and that he Paul commended Luke--Paul supposedly was executed sometime c 64-68 CE.

These errors cannot be mere coincidence because Jesus cult writers of the 2nd century wrote nothing of authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul.

The authors of the Synoptics were deliberately fabricated to appear as authors who composed their Gospels BEFORE the Fall of the Temple, c 70 CE, thereby giving the notion that the Jesus character of the Synoptics did accurately PREDICT the Fall of the Temple and the Calamities of the Jews found in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21.

The entire NT Canon including the Pauline Corpus only makes sense AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE or AFTER the Jews could no longer carry out Temple rituals for atonement of sins.

gurugeorge

Indeed, but why did they then go on to invent someone called "Paul" and his supposed letters? Didn't they think the gospel fabrications were good enough as purported eyewitness accounts (some of which actually include accounts of the risen Christ anyway)? Why invent another character, who apparently appears late on the scene, never new the cult deity in person, etc., etc., and has proto-Gnostic proclivities to boot?

Don't you see that this is a gap in your theory?

J-D

Because you keep not answering them.

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Jesus was like a cross between MLK Jr and David Blaine. He was Mr. Cool.

Plus, he washed people's feet and gave his disciples a chance to upgrade to apostles. Once they became apostles, they could learn magic.

It was like a big pyramid scheme based on illusions and good sermons. The pyramid scheme is still going on today, though it has splintered into different factions and now has many more levels.

aa5874

I have answered your questions in posts #905, 919, 926 and 933.

"Paul" was fabricated to DECEIVE.

J-D

True or false, that does not answer gurugeorge's questions.

aa5874

The start of the Jesus cult of Christians is documented in the writings attributed to Aristides' Apology and Justin's Dialogue and Apology composed in the 2nd century.

Aristides' "Aplogy" It was the Jesus story in the GOSPEL that STARTED the Jesus cult of Christians.

1. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho C 2. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CV 3. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CIV4. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho5. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CVII6. Justin's First Apology LXVII It was BELIEF in the Jesus story in the Gospels that STARTED the Jesus cult of Christians sometime in the 2nd century.

The Pauline writers composed their letters AFTER the Jesus story was well established and circulated in the Roman Empire sometime after at least c 180 CE.

Romans 1

gurugeorge

Maybe so, but what is it about the fabrication (of this proto-Gnostic latecomer, who didn't know the cult deity personally, unlike the eyewitnesses who had supposedly written the gospels) that you think the fabricators thought would be convincing, what is it about this fabrication they they thought would actually help their deception, as they presumably must have intended it to do?

Or: why were the gospels, supposed eyewitness accounts (including to the resurrection), not sufficient? What was supposed to be more convincing, or what was supposed to add to the convincingness of the gospels, in the further fabrication of this "Paul" fellow?

Or: why invent a character whose only contact with the cult deity was purportedly only through some sort of mystical experience, when you've already invented eyewitnesses who supposedly received teaching from him in person while he was in human form on the earth? What is supposed to be useful about that idea, in the context of trying to deceive people that there was a Jesus Christ, etc., etc.?