stephan huller

Sure it does.

Sheshbazzar

What I had in mind with the comment about the Joseph Smith Mormon mummies was that the Egyptian mummies old Joe was promoting and making a buck off from were genuine (as these Dura artifacts also most certainly are)

But old Joe was shilling the gullible christers with claims that they were the mummified remains of biblical Abraham and Sarah!
By God the Bible is true! Behold! I've got Abraham and Sarah right here to prove it to ya!. Step right up folks!

These Dura artifacts are getting the kind of religiously biased shill and sell job that would do old Joseph Smith credit.

Just like Joseph Smith used his magic peepers to 'examine' and 'translate' those old Egyptian hieroglyphic burial scrolls for his flock to tell them what they wanted to hear, so todays Christian 'scholars' likewise put on their Christian 'magic spectacles' to 'examine' these ancient pictures, and claim that they can 'read' who, what, and where, what was going on, and can even 'quote' the depicted figures words verbatim!

Today its the christer shysters in old Joe's shoes who claim; 'By God the New Testament Bible story is true! Behold! What we have here are the evident remains of Jebus! of Mary Magdalene! and of Saint Peter!
Why we can even make 'em tell you their names and recite entire New Tesament bible verses to ya! Step right up folks!'

Its like ancient archaeologists, when they encountered a fossilized mammoth bone; There be giants in the earth! Or a dinosaur skull; There be Dragons in the hills!
Its not the remnants that are false, but mens uncritical readiness to interpret those remnants in accordance with their mythologies, superstitions, and cultural biases.


For ye have the gullible always with you; Me ye have not always.

.

aa5874

The evidence clearly shows that the "show" began before the 4th century but you refuse to accept the evidence.

If the Paleographers had dated all NT writings to the 4th century or later would you not have accepted their findings??

You have placed yourself in a position where you are rejecting the very evidence that can help you.

May I remind that C 14 is NOT used to date the writing but the material on which the writing was made.

Effectively, C 14 alone is completely useless in some kinds of forgeries where earlier blank sheets of papyri are used at a very late time.

mountainman

But do they sell snake oil as well?

Is this the 21st century?

Where are the skeptics?




Working the crowd.

Business is business.

Tenure is tenure.

mountainman

The church dogma clearly shows that the "show" began before the 4th century but I refuse to accept the church dogma.


The paleographers are graduates from the Colleges of Church Dogma.


I am aware of these things.

I do like your Ghost Myth Theory.

But I still have many reservations about the chronology.

aa5874

Paleography is NOT Church dogma. You refuse to accept Paleography simply because they have dated NT writings before the 4th century. That is all.

Total nonsense. Paleographers did NOT even date any NT writings to the 1st century and before c 70 CE which is the Church dogma.

The very dates provided by Paleographers are sometimes more than a hundred years later than Church Dogma.


I really want you to like the actual evidence. My opinion might change but the evidence is cast in stone.

We know who FORGED WRITINGS under the name of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and Constantine.

IT was the Church of Rome and they did it for Hundreds of years.

We have the DONATION of Constantine.

We know how they did it.

Duvduv

And for some reason Epiphanius chose to accept the use of the name Panther/Pandera for a grandfather of Joseph though it doesn't appear in the NT, and without explaining the reason for accepting this name. I have yet to find this examined anywhere unless I have missed it.

aa5874

I want to make it extremely clear that I no longer accept Imagination as an alternative to recovered DATED manuscripts.

It is wholly unacceptable for me to ignore the Findings of Palaeographers and then accept the wild personal imaginations of posters who appear to be trained in the art of Speculation and the invention of plausible fiction stories.

Those who claim that all writings that mention Jesus before the 4th century are manipulated or forgeries have NOTHING but the very same manipulated and forged sources so have effectively eliminated themselves from making any credible argument.

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on actual recovered dated manuscripts and compatible sources.

I do NOT subscribe to the notion that all Apologetic sources were manipulated or forgeries.

I expected that there would be NO NT manuscripts that would be recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

That is precisely what has happened.

I also expected that there would be writings attributed to 2nd century Apologetic writers that would NOT mention Paul, the Pauline Churches and the Pauline letters even though they mention the Preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles and ALL Nations of the world.

That is Precisely what has happened.

The History of the Jesus cult is EXTREMELY easy to understand.

The EVIDENCE has been found in PRISTINE condition.

We have the Sinaiticus Codex. We have the short gMark story.

We have Apologetic sources that claim the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John and that Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written.

We have the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger that made NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth from c 1 CE up to c 115 CE.

We have Non-Apologetic sources that mention Christians that worshiped a crucified man ONLY from the 2nd century or later--Lucian and Celsus.

We have arguments among the Christian cults about the Nature of Jesus in the 2nd-3rd century.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The Jesus story and cult had NO impact whatsoever in the 1st century but from around the mid-late 2nd century.

I expected ARGUMENTS about the Nature of Jesus to be around the time [within a few years] of the origin of the Jesus story.

That is PRECISELY what has happened.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century--Jesus had NO real existence in the 1st century and before c 70 CE and the Pauline letters were NOT composed in the 1st century.

My argument cannot be overturned at all based on the present dated evidence.

aa5874

As I have stated before the history of the Jesus story and cult was EXTREMELY to resolve just time consuming.

We have ENOUGH evidence from antiquity to show that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

As soon as we carefully examine writings such as "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Church History" and "Letter on the Council of Nicaea" attributed to Eusebius and the known forgery of the Roman Church "The Donation of Constantine" we UNCOVER the Bogus Invented 1st century history in those very books.

It will be easily seen that there was really NO Bishops of Rome up to the 4th century.

All the Apologetic sources that wrote of the Doctrine of the Church up to the 4th century were NOT even Bishops--some were even Heretics.

It is claimed by the Church and its writers that the Apostle Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome sometime BEFORE c 68 CE.

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ch...ps_of_rome.htm

Examine the very Canon-- None of the Epistles attributed to Peter are deduced to have been composed before c 68 CE and the 2nd Epistle is ADMITTED to be a forgery.

The supposed first Bishop of Rome contributed NO Doctrinal writings for the Roman Church.

All the Epistles of Peter in the Canon are really Forgeries if Peter did live and was executed under Nero.

All the supposed Bishops of Rome after Peter in the 1st century wrote NOTHING except for an Anonymous letter written by the Church of Rome which could have been composed hundreds of years after the 1st century.

The evidence suggest that there was NO Church of Rome in the 1st century.

There is NO actual history or doctrinal writings from Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clement, Aristus and Alexander for the Church of Rome.

Many 2nd century Apologetic sources wrote NOTHING whatsoever of any Bishops of the Jesus cult in all of the Roman Empire during the 1st century.

It is claimed a writer under the name of Paul wrote letters to Churches but there is NO corroboration for those same letters in the Canon.

The author of Acts writing AFTER Paul was supposedly dead wrote NOTHING of Pauline letters to Churches including the Church of Rome.

The picture is EXTREMELY clear.

The Epistles of Peter, the supposed 1st bishop of Rome, were composed After Peter was dead, if he did live and died before c 68 CE under Nero.

The Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER Paul was dead if he did live and was executed under Nero before c 68 CE.

But, who MUST claim that there were Bishops of Rome and Churches of Rome since the time of the supposed Peter and Paul--before c 68 CE???

The answer is EXTREMELY EASY.

The Roman Church that wrote the Forgery called the DONATION of CONSTANTINE.

The Roman Church that composed the Forgery called the Donation of Constantine MUST, MUST, MUST INVENT a bogus history for the Church of Rome.

The Forgery of the Roman Church "The Donation of Constantine" We KNOW who invented the Bishops of Rome--it was the very Church of Rome.

We KNOW who forged, manipulated and corrupted writings under the name of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and others.

It was the Church of Rome.

The Church of Rome had everything to lose if they did NOT invent a bogus history of their own Church.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

All writings with Bishops of the Roman Church and Churches of Rome starting in the 1st century are most likely forgeries or corrupted by the Church of Rome itself.

Sheshbazzar

Wow! its really quite amazing how far removed this piece of Roman suck-up garbage is removed from the language of the Bible.

Like a whole different religion........Rev 17:15