Duvduv

When AA presents his arguments he allows himself the privilege of using words like "suggests," "logical inference" "anonymous" etc. regardless of the lack of evidence for his assertions.

However, he does not allow anyone else the same privilege, for whom he demands "evidence," "proof" etc.

There is no way of making any headway with him when challenging him at all. I was warned about this months ago but thought a new face could make headway. I was wrong.

aa5874

Your statement is WHOLLY erroneous. You employ a NO Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument for your 4th or 5th century Jesus story and cult.

I PROVIDE the Sources for my argument. Please examine some of the Sources.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

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

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0410.htm

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...oras-plea.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book1.html

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Rome...alilaeans.html

tanya

Thanks for that comment and others in this thread, well written.

And thank you aa5874, for explaining yourself, again, for our benefit.

The ideas here are really important, in my opinion.

I like the fact that aa5874 quotes Justin Martyr, but, I would be much happier, if he could provide a link to the source material from which these quotes arrive. To the best of my knowledge, (admittedly modest in dimension), we have perhaps a single manuscript, in Latin, dating from 4th or fifth century. I confess, I find Sheshbazzar's expose very appealing. The Irenaeus story, is another fable, I agree, and filled with contradiction, just like the other "second century" author, Justin.

Why should we have more respect for "memoirs of the apostles", than for writings attributed to Marcion, another phantom? As far as I know, we have zip, nada, for either guy. At least, with Tacitus, we have ONE whole manuscript, yeah, from a cave in Italy, written a thousand years ago, not two thousand years ago....This is a messy business. Thank goodness Ehrman discovered the missing Aramaic texts....otherwise, we would just be in a boatload of guano, floating on lake Galilee.

aa5874

Please, Identify what you find appealing?? He used no source, no evidence and no proof for any of his assertions.

It is completely absurd to suggest that the contradictory writings attributed to Irenaeus is just like any other second century author when it is WHOLLY erroneous.

Irenaeus' claims about the dating, authorship and chronology of the Four Canonised Gospels have been Rejected by virtually even Scholar.

Irenaeus claims about the Pauline letters including the Pastorals have been Rejected by Scholars, and also by Apologetic Sources like Hippolytus, and the Muratorian Canon.

The List of sucession of Bishops of Rome by Irenaeus has been Contradicted by Tertullian, the Latins, Augustine of Hippo, Optatus, and Rufinus.

The claim by Irenaeus that Jesus suffered when he was about 50 years old is Contradicted by Apologetic sources even Eusebius who used the writings of Irenaeus as history claimed Jesus suffered when he was about 33 years old--Not even 40.

Remarkably, many claims made by Irenaeus that are Not found in the writings of Justin are contradicted Not only by heretics but Apologetic sources--contradicted by the very Church writers and agents of the Church itself.

Please identify where Justin is NOT Credible.

Why should we have more respect for any writings of antiquity?? Please, it is the contents of the writings that MUST be FIRST read and analyzed. Can we simply discard all writings of which we have NO dated manuscripts??

The Credibility of a Source is Extremely Important.

Must we dump Josephus "Wars of the Jews", Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius", Tacitus "Histories, Suetonius "Life of the Twelve Caesars" and Julian's "Against the Galileans"???

When Sources are considered Credible then they can be accepted as historically reliable.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus can be shown to be NOT Credible unlike those of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Arnobius, Tatian, Minucius Felix, and Julian the Emperor.

Ehrman did what??? Ehrman is now floating in a "boatload of guano" with his "Scarcely known" Jesus.

There is NO Obscure Jesus of Nazareth in or out the NT. Ehrman's book is a failure of Facts and Logic based on his peer Carrier.

Now, there is a Codex of a manuscript of the writings of Justin Martyr dated sometime in 14th century and the earliest for Josephus is around the 15th century.

See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/...s.x.ii.ii.html

aa5874

At page 70 of "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman it is claimed the Gospels "provide powerful evidence" for an HJ and also implied in his introduction that Jesus was Scarcely known.

Well, I have gone through Excerpts from gMark 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the supposed "Powerful Evidence" states Jesus was WELL KNOWN by Jews, the Chief Priests, the Saducess, Pharisees, the Scibes, and Jesus taught people in the synagogues and seen in the Temple.

Examine Mark 6.

Jesus went to his own country and Taught people in the Synagogue. Jesus was a publicly known figure in the gMark story.

There was so much people attempting to see, hear and be healed by Jesus that he and his disciples had to go in the Desert to get some rest.

Mark 6 Ehrman's Scarcely Known Jesus of Nazareth is a product of his imagination if the Gospels are powerful evidence.

Ehrman must go back on the QUEST for some other Jesus--Ehrman's Scarcely Known Jesus of Nazareth had No real existence in or out of the NT.

Sheshbazzar

In this case it means that aa5874 doesn't have the foggiest idea of whom wrote 'The Memoirs of The Apostles' or when they were written.

Really, I am amazed at the level of your uncritical gullibility in swallowing the claims of The Orthodox Catholic Church's religious propaganda.
Here is this religious character, one 'Justin Martyr', -a religious character, a Catholic Church 'Saint', totally unknown and unattested to by anyone outside of those apologetic writings of The Orthodox Catholic Church- And yet you uncritically accept on faith as though it were 'gospel' that The Orthodox Catholic Church's character 'Saint Justin', and those 'testimonies' which were fabricated in that name relate real some real Christian history. Because ... well because the Church tells you so.
You sure as hell did not ever find anything about any 'Saint' 'Justin Martyr' in any source other than Church produced propaganda.

Good god man! Actually read 'Justin's' "Dialogue with Trypho" there is no way in hell that this text is any account of any actual history or conversation.
Its a freaking Orthodox theological trestie falsely masquerading as being the writing of a 'Church Father'.
Its reasonings regarding such things as the cross, virgin birth, and many other subjects, are NOT the things that were of any great concern to primitive 2nd Christianity, but were fabricated and back-dated to bolster and give a patina of support to those views and doctrines held by the 3rd century and latter Orthodox Christian authorities.

You don't have any Recovered DATED 1st century Christian texts to make any such comparison with. That does not entail that they never existed, only that they have not been located.
These 2nd century DATED texts prove nothing about the content of any possible but unavailable 1st century texts. Your premise is faulty.

'The Memoirs' are much more than anonymous. They are non-existent.
The text called 'The Memoirs of The Apostles' -if any such text had ever existed- would have been the most treasured, and the most copied of all early Christian literature, being that it was allegedly universally read from in Christian church's every week.
Of this text, what would be the most treasured and important text that the Christian faith could ever produce, there has not been one single copy ever found, no, not even so much as one identifiable tiny fragment.
'Christian History' with its 'Church Fathers' and their alleged 'writings' is all a fabricated farce. There never was any such text.
These 'Church Father's' never even existed outside of the fertile imaginations and the lying pens of latter Theologians.

Yeah. that was really a big deal. .....with The Orthodox Catholic Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

My answer to this ought to be already self-evident. But for the extremely dense I'll spell it out;
The lying religious writers (that is a -plural- for such as have difficulty understanding plain English) of The Orthodox and Catholic Christian Church.
The Orthodox and Catholic Christian Church produced huge amounts of such religious propaganda, much composed and repeatedly revised to suit the vagaries of Church politics.
These pseudo-'Church Father' writings are not the product of any one year, and few ever originated when or with such (often non-existent) characters as they are falsely ascribed to.

aa5874

Well, please provide the Source for your assertions.


Again, your statement is WHOLLY erroneous. I stated SPECIFICALLY that Justin's Martyr's writing were COMPATIBLE with the RECOVERED DATED TEXTS.

Again, Jesus stories have been ACTUALLY recovered and DATED to the time of Justin so there was NO NEED for him to fabricate any story about Jesus and the Apostles.

Sheshbazzar

And just what 'time' was that aa?

Duvduv

Shesh, in terms of determining the period when the Justin writings were produced, do you have an opinion in terms of accounting for the absence of any reference to anything about Paul or his ideology if Justin writings were produced and backdated by a mature Byzantine regime church authority which would have already incorporated pauline material??

aa5874

Sheshbazzar has already claimed that he has found information about Jesus in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings to be LATE and FORGED but cannot show the source, or the evidence from antiquity to support his findings.