Sheshbazzar

No, it is a statement.

Although I will admit that your book is one mighty load of horse shit.
A few years and real scholars will have finally dug through that huge steaming load you have dumped,
and will thoroughly discredit your theory and your methods.


Sheshbazzar

aa5874

] Again, your claims about me are utterly erroneous. Your response has deteriorated over the years.

I have used and found an abundance evidence from writings of antiquity to support a WATER tight argument, Far Superior to you, that the Pauline writings are not from the 1st century and do not reflect the teachings of the Jesus cult up to at least c 180 C E.

Effectively, the Pauline corpus are now known to be manipulated sources.

You are the one who has zero wriggle room and must rely on sources that you admit were manipulated and are not credible.

You are the one who exposed or implied that the Pauline writings were interpolated but still cling to the very same writings for your history of an early Jesus cult before c 68 CE.

Only those without wriggle room must use Acts of the Apostles to date Paul.

You seem not to know or have not realized that it was the passages that make the Pauline writings appear early that were most likely inserted.

If Paul was early then he wrote NO letters--there is no wriggle room for you.

1. The only canonized WRITING, Acts of the Apostles, to claim Paul was early wrote NOTHING of the Pauline letters.

2. The Canonised earliest author of the Jesus story,from baptism to the resurrection, wrote Nothing of the Pauline revealed Gospel--Nothing of Salvation by the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

I examined multiple sources and found that there were NO Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century and No Pauline letters.

We all know that you have zero corroborative evidence from antiquity for Paul and the Pauline writings.

We all know that the Church writers and even the Church did NOT know when Paul really lived, when he really died, what he really wrote and when he wrote them.

We all know that the earliest Pauline letters recovered and dated are no earlier than the mid-2nd century.

Every single Parameter to date the Pauline letters before c 68 CE ARE MISSING.

Every single Parameter to show that the Pauline writings represent the early Jesus cult is MISSING.

All the Parameters would be missing when there was NO Jesus cult of Christians in Jerusalem.

jdboy

I think Earl is right that the ideas of Logos Saviour of Mankind were being introduced early and that this is what the Jewish priests could not accept
Josephus tells us that and Suetonius confirms. I think this is why they had to introduce the human jesus messiah that is then transformed to Saviour.
The Jesus story appears to be first but in fact could be later.

Sheshbazzar

I have no argument with that. There is plenty of evidence indicating that Greek philosophers, authors, and cults were already deeply into logos theology in the BC era. That fact however has little bearing upon when the 'Pauline epistles' were actually written, when they first came to the attention of the church, or how long various sects within the church had practiced their 'Jesus Crucified and Resurrected' religion while remaining totally unaware of these 'Pauline epistles'.
_In fact they might not have had the written gospels, and only believed in a 'cosmic Christ Jesus' just as Earl thinks at the beginning...but that would still constitute no evidence that they got their theological beliefs from any 'Paul' or had any of these 'Pauline epistles' in their possession.
There is no reason to think that 'Paul' was the first, or only person with these ideas. And they could well have composed the Gospels before ever hearing of any 'Paul'.

And as there has never been found a single manuscript of 'Paul' that can be dated to the 1st century, and the early 2nd century writers that should have been aware of any 'Paul' or his 'epistles', evidently are not, there is no valid reason to believe that these 'Pauline epistles' ever reached their written form before 180CE. (although perhaps cobbled together from earlier 'Logos' crapola)

This however still leaves the huge credibility problems with 'Paul's claims to have been the foremost 'Apostle to The Gentiles', the 'Apostle to the Uncircumcision' and the head-honcho founder of the gentile churches, preaching and founding churches throughout the entire region, when Christian writers as late as 160 CE remain unaware of what a great guy this Paul was supposed to be.
He toots his own horn for the period far to loudly, while no one else is adding a single note.



.

aa5874

The supposed birth of Jesus was not even an event. The short gMark did not mention the nativity and both authors of gMattew and gLuke claimed he was the product of a Holy Ghost.

There were no Christians in Jerusalem in the time of NT Jesus.

The very Canon of the Jesus cult claimed it was the Holy Ghost that gave the disciples the power to preach the Gospel--Not Jesus.

The extraordinary event was the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The Jesus story and cult came AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Every single piece of NT manuscripts that have been dated cannot show any story or cult before c 70 CE.

Doherty's arguments are without corroboration.

The recovered dated NT manuscripts match Acts of the Apostles with respect to the Pauline letters.

All the Pauline are forgeries, fiction, and were unknown by the early Jesus cult of the 2nd century.

EarlDoherty

Why not do it yourself? If you are so convinced my book is horse-shit, it must be because you have a shit-load of counter-arguments and means of discrediting it yourself. Otherwise, you have nothing to back up your dismissal of it. If you are convinced that "real scholars" can thoroughly discredit me, I guess that means you consider yourself anything but a real scholar. So why are you pontificating against me?

I'm a patient man. Why don't you tackle my book chapter by chapter? Pick the most egregiously horse-shitty aspect of each one and debunk it. But you'll have to do it with more substance and understanding of my arguments than you have shown to date.

Or is it that all you have is the proverbial chip on your shoulder, directed against anyone who disagrees with your own theories? Pointing out your failings is a cardinal sin, to be answered by empty insults and misrepresentations? Bart Ehrman has already tried to discredit me and other mythicists and look at the sloppy mess he produced. If you think you can do better, do it. Never mind the "horse-shit."

As for being anchored in concrete, that was the Mafia's methodology. Very effective, too, for burying bullheaded wiseguys. Our friend "aa" is already at the bottom of the lake, and you've jumped in to follow.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

You have not presented any actual evidence. What you think is not evidence?

Perhaps billions of people think Jesus existed as God.

I have already notified posters here that Doherty merely Presumes that the Pauline letters were composed when he thinks it does.

This is completely unacceptable to me.

Doherty must provide attestation from antiquity that early Christians believed Jesus was only heavenly, never on earth, and was not believed to be crucified on earth before c 70 CE.

Who were these early Christians?

Not even Jesus Christ of the NT support Doherty.

Mark 9:31 KJVLuke 24:7 KJV I am interested in the witnesses of antiquity.

I want to hear what Aristides said about the story of Jesus.

Aristides Apology Doherty's heavenly crucified Jesus is a modern invention and WITHOUT attestation in or out the Canon.

There were not a single Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century before c 70 CE--we have CORROBORATION with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, the short gMark, Aristides, Justin Martyr and Minucius Felix.

Sheshbazzar

Because so many others have already devoted themselves to the task. And I have other things to do.

Hey, we all know that I'm just a anonymous nobody Forum poster, and what I write here will largely never go beyond here.
Nope, I hold no delusions that anything I write here will have any significant impact beyond the readers of this thread.

It is out in the big world, the Academic world, where the faults in your theory are going to have the wedges of logic and sound scholarship by known, recognized, and credible professional scholars driven into every crack in your claims until every error becomes a gaping chasm, visible to all that look.

Why am I pontificating against you here? Because you are here, arguing.
I never once mentioned you, or your views till you stuck your proboscis in.
Go away and I'll again have nothing to say about you or your conceits.

My world, contrary to your inflated ego, does not revolve around you or your ideas. You think you are really something, a real God's gift to man. To me you are just another flyspeck that time will see wiped away and forgotten.

jdboy

"The reign of Augustus is distinguished by the most extraordinary event recorded in history, either sacred or profane, the nativity of the Saviour of mankind; which has since introduced a new epoch into the chronology of all Christian nations. The commencement of the new aera being the most flourishing period of the Roman empire, a general view of the state of knowledge and taste at this period, may here not be improper.
Suetonius (2012-12-04). Complete Works of Suetonius (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics) (Kindle Locations 2733-2735). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.

Suetonius is not even talking about jesus. The idea of Caesar as a Saviour of Mankind is the most extraordinary event.
Now Mark starts with the Lord(Caesar as Jesus) filled with the spirit of God coming to Galilee and telling the people to repent.

None of it has anything to do with a Jesus, it's all a fiction pointing to the actions of the Caesars as Saviour of Mankind.

I can't figure out how to simply quote your post?

aa says
"The supposed birth of Jesus was not even an event. The short gMark did not mention the nativity and both authors of gMattew and gLuke claimed he was the product of a Holy Ghost."

EarlDoherty

OK, now that we've dealt with the "horse-shit" let's deal with these arguments--once again, as I've been through this before, but perhaps like any education, it must be repeated to get absorbed. Actually, they are not arguments because they are not backed up with actual evidence.

First of all, and this is the third time I have pointed this out, we DO have writings from the early 2nd century which show a knowledge of Paul and his writings. Do I need to repeat that again? Both 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius show that knowledge. So does 2 Peter. Are we to push all of these post-180? We have writings from later in the century by commentators who go over the earlier Marcionite usage of the Paulines, demonstrating that those epistles were available in written form to Marcion long before 180. Do I need to repeat that again? Shesh has presented zero, absolutely nothing, to counter those observations. Again, we have varied attestation of one form or another long before 180.

We not only have no manuscripts of Paul from the first century, we have no manuscripts of any Christian figure from the first century. That hardly proves anything. It does not prove that no such writings existed before the year 200, since that is the earliest date we have anything in manuscript form, even fragments, only excepting P52 from John, whose dating any earlier than 150 is extremely uncertain.

Attestation, as I've stressed before, is not the deciding factor, let alone the only factor, in dating something. One has to see how a given text or set of texts fits in with what else is going on as seen in other texts. One has to consider whether the content fits properly with the time of attestation. If it does not, if it seems more primitive, or reflecting an earlier stage of belief then we are justified in dating it earlier. The epistle to the Hebrews is a prime example.

I don't know if everyone can recognize the lack of logic in this. The "they" who did not "have the written gospels" are known from the epistles. The Paulines are part of that body of epistles. So somehow there was an early group of believers who believed in a cosmic Christ without gospels, and yet this cannot include the writer(s) who produced the majority of the epistles which witness to that group of believers? I fully agree that the NT and other non-canonical epistles are not 'all of a piece'. Hebrews (outside of its interpolated postscript) shows no sign of Paul or his ideas. Neither does the epistle of James. Revelation is more akin to some Jewish sectarian writings than to the epistles. But if Shesh can accept that some body of believers produced some part of the body of epistles we have, and they come before the written gospels, what basis does he have for rejecting the same standing and provenance for the Paulines? From what I can see, absolutely none.

So if he has acknowledged (under pressure) that some epistolary communities could have preceded the Gospels, and the Gospels were supposedly written and disseminated by not too long into the second century (we can see that in Ignatius, in Marcion's use of Luke, and some forms of them were current in Rome by the mid-century when Justin appeals to them, and when Acts was written reflecting at least a knowledge of Luke), then he has acknowledged that some epistles come earlier, with nothing to prevent the earliest ones from having been written in the first century. Is there a huge difference in content and style of faith between some of the epistles and others? Nothing that Shesh has demonstrated to exclude the Paulines from that earlier period.

And despite my entreaties he still provides no feasible explanation for why the Paulines could have been written so late (180) and yet show zero Gospel content or even presentation of an historical Jesus.

And just why should we be taking Paul at his word? Within his world of apostleship, preaching his particular version of the heavenly Son, he may have felt like a head-honcho or wanted to present himself as such, though sometimes having to admit that there were others around doing the same thing who didn't agree with him. But that very picture illustrates my point. Paul was not the center of the Logos/Christ universe, and certainly not as time progressed after his death. Not even Paul himself claims to have founded all the gentile churches--almost none of them, in fact. So many of the surviving writers from the first two-thirds of the 2nd century don't seem to have heard of him. So what? The "Christian" movement was anything but monolithic.

We can see that in the surviving documentary record itself. As I've pointed out, the bulk of the extant manuscripts from the second century (up to 180), do not even have a sacrificial Son, they are apologists who belong to a Logos religion whose heavenly Son saves by revealing God. IOW, they have nothing to do with Paul and his type of faith. Nor do they have an incarnated Son (other than Justin), and so they don't come out of the Gospel tradition of a Jesus on earth either. (Yes, they have some common elements with other circles of Christian or proto-Christian faith, but they don't all belong to the same club, with annual meetings so that everyone can meet and greet and get familiar with everyone else.)

The only huge credibility problem here is Shesh's own, his failure to produce reasonable evidence or argument for his contentions, and his failure to even acknowledge my repeated arguments, let alone rebut them.

Earl Doherty