Duvduv

How could you now say it originated in the second to third centuries if you loyally believe it existed already BEFORE the Apology of Justin to the Emperor arounf 150 CE?!! This precludes the third century and must be well before the middle of the second century. Especially if you believe the notion that Marcions father was already a bishop. This pushes it back to early second century!

aa5874

Again, if we were to BURN every single writing that supposedly passed through the hands of the Church, from the supposed earliest writer to the very latest and used Only the Fragments that have been recovered and dated then we would STILL NOT have any fragment of a Jesus story in the 1st century.

We would have Fragments dated from the 2nd-3rd century.

In effect, we would have DATED evidence that the Jesus story was known, written and circulated in the 2nd--3rd century.

Duvduv

Could you translate that into English? I asked you a simple question based on your stubborn loyalty to conventional date of the Apology of Justin, and you are beating around the bush. Why do you allow yourself to quietly change your opinions but don't allow that kind of room for anyone else?!

The fact is that if you believe that someone named Marcion in the mid 2nd century had a father who was a Christian bishop, then the religion must have existed when and before the father became a bishop, getting us back to the dawn of the 2nd century if not earlier, adding to that your Justin writing about existing communities to the emperor around 150 CE. And now you say the cult may have emerged even in the THIRD century?!!

aa5874

I have answered your questions!! You are speculating that the writings of Justin was manipulated--Well, you can burn them.

Burn the writings attributed to Eusebius.

I don't need them.

You can BURN ALL the writings attributed to every apologetic source of antiquity from the earliest to the latest and use ONLY the manuscripts that have been found and dated and we will STILL see the same result.

The Jesus story was known, and composed in the 2nd-3rd century--NOT the 1st century and NOT the 4th century.

Just, look at the recovered dated NT manuscripts.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

aa5874

The argument for an HJ of Nazareth is like the argument for a FLAT STATIONARY earth.

No actual evidence will ever be presented by HJers--just a load of BS and rhetoric.

Hundreds of ancient writings have been recovered and NOT one of them that have been dated by C 14 or Paleography mentioned Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist in the 1st century then that is exactly what is expected---Nothing would be written about them.

The actual recovered dated ancient manuscripts completely support 2nd century writings about the Jesus story that show NO Activities of the disciples and Paul.

There are two supposed contemporary authors of Tiberius in the NT the author of Acts and the author of the Pauline letters.

None of them acknowledged that they met or interacted with an human Jesus and none of them claimed the Pauline letters were actually composed before c 70 CE.

There is ZERO corroboration for Jesus as a human being and the date of composition for the Pauline letters within the very NT Canon.

The very NT does NOT even contradict the recovered dated recovered manuscripts because there are no dates for Pauline letters and no acknowledgment of Jesus as a human being.

The HJ argument is totally devastated--NO evidence whatsoever--No corroboration whatsoever.

The NT as Ehrman stated is NOT historically reliable.

The History of the Jesus cult is found in the writings of Justin Martyr and other compatible sources---the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century and up to the time of Justin it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that was read in the Churches--Not the Pauline letters.

Based on Paleography the Pauline letters could have been composed as late as the 3rd century.

Duvduv

Hmmm.....now all the back and forth on "Justin" of these many months can be thrown out with the trash according to AA, since the Jesus story may have only been known only in the 3rd century, thereby changing the date of composition of the Justin Apology from the mid-2nd century.

Kent F

The earliest datings of the NT papyri have parts of gJohn written at about 125-150 CE and parts of gMatthew and Revelation written at about 150 CE. Almost every scholar I have read or heard about date gMark as the earliest gospel written but the earliest manuscript or fragment of gMark is dated to mid 3rd century. Based on these datings, should we then believe that gJohn was the first gospel written and gMark the last?

The datings do not prove much, other than the fact that christianity was known at the start of the 2nd century. Justin Martyr wrote at around 150 CE and quotes something he called the Memoirs of the Apostles. Unless he invented his sources, christianity had to exist before he wrote about it. So we're pushing close to the start of the 2nd century for it, perhaps late 1st century as well.

Aa makes a big affair of the fact that Justin doesn't quote the Pauline epistles but at this time, Paul was still the apostle of the heretics and his writings were not quoted because he had not yet been assimilated within the Roman church. After all, Justin claimed Marcion was still alive at this time, and Marcion had the epistles as we know from several other sources.

Marcion, who supposedly lived to mid 2nd century, had the Pauline epistles and one gospel with no author. This is verified by dozens of writings against him. To assume that Marcion was an invented bogey man figure is ludicrous. Why invent a heretic with a whole set of beliefs and show that he had different versions of the epistles, versions which then was verified by a lot of other writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Jerome? Is it not easier to assume that there indeed existed a Marcion or Mark who had these epistles and that the Roman church attacked them because they were a real threat to their beliefs?

The inscription on a synagogue in Syria, dated 318 CE, is the oldest christian (or rather chrestian) church inscription so far found and it was done by Marcionites, dedicated to Chrestos. If Marcion was invented, then we have to assume that some Roman church members did the inscription to verify their own bogey man. That's just plain silly.

The name or title Chrestos or chrestianoi is found on lots of tombstones in the Phrygia area and in catacombs, dated from 2nd century and onwards. Where did all these inscriptions come from?

Then there's the change in the Codex Sinaiticus where some scribe has changed "chrestianoi" in Acts to "christianoi". Justin Martyr also talks about "chrestianoi" so we have to assume that this description of the first believers were common in the 2nd century. Why?

Aa:s theory is that christianity was an invention by the Roman church some time in the 2nd century despite evidence like this suggesting otherwise.

Another important factor to consider is the fact that the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Are we to assume that this devastating blow to the old Jewish faith would not result in someone trying to re-interpret the old mosaic law to find answers as to why God had allowed this to happen? Is it so far-fetched to believe that Jews looked elsewhere for an explanation, i.e. Alexandria?

Whatever his real name was, Paul fits the bill perfectly. He talked of a new covenant, that the old one had become obsolete and that his new covenant was for Jews and Gentiles alike. His writings were clearly a reaction to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Such a theory is far more plausible than the theory that the entire NT, despite its many contradictions, was an invention by the Roman church sometime in the 2nd century.

Aa: Who or whom created christianity and why was it done if it had nothing to do with the destruction of the Temple in the 1st century?

aa5874

You very well know the problems associated with Papyrus 52. It is an extremely small fragment about 3.5 X 2 inches and its contents was re-constructed.

In reality Papyrus 52 tell us very little and its dating is not at all secure.

Some Paleographers have dated Papyrus 52 to a later time period.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

You seem to have completely forgotten that non-Apologetic manuscripts have been found and dated by Paleography and C 14 to the 1st century and that they show ZERO Jesus stories.

You seem not to remember the Dead Sea Scrolls have been found and dated. The DSS are evidence AGAINST early Jesus stories.

There is just no recovered manuscripts that corroborate an early Jesus cult in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

Stop right there. Justin Martyr did NOT state that Marcion had any Epistles of Paul.

1. Justin did NOT acknowledge Paul as an early evangelist to the Gentiles.

2. Justin did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters to Churches.

3. Justin was a contemporary of Marcion and did NOT claim Marcion wrote any books.

4. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian appears to be a MASSIVE forgery--Not even Eusbeius and Jerome of the 4th century claimed Tertullian wrote "Against Marcion" when they listed the books authored by Tertullian.

5. Even Apologetic sources Contradict "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian. Hippolytus in "Refutation of Against All Heresies" stated that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but that of Empedocles.

It was NOT Marcion that was invented but "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian. Ephrem the Syrian wrote Three Proses "Against Marcion" and they do NOT corroborate your claim that Marcion used the Pauline Epistles and gLuke.


Your statement is UTTERLY erroneous. I never ever made such an argument. Please, you are on a smear campaign. Why can't you even repeat my argument??

Again, my argument is that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later based on the Recovered dated manuscripts and compatible sources.

No way!! Paul was a Fraud. There is NO evidence whatsoever of a Jew and Pharisee called Paul who was "all over" the Roman Empire telling people that a dead Jew resurrected and the resurrected Jew was the Son of God, the Messianic ruler and Savior of ALL in the Roman Empire and that he abolished the Laws of the Jews.

The Pauline writings are historically bogus.

Again, I have not claimed that the Jesus story had nothing to do with the Fall of the Temple. Why do make such mis-leading implications?? Why??

My argument is that the Short gMark was composed to explain the Fall of the Temple and had NOTHING to do with Universal Salvation by Sacrifice of the Jesus character.

My argument is that all the Canonised books are AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and AFTER Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" c 115 CE.

Duvduv

Kent, if one apologist bases his writings against Marcion on the writings of another apologist, that doesn't verify anything. Especially when there is virtually nothing known about a heresiologist himself. Beyond that, there isn't a shred of a remnant of anything written by Marcion or evidence of what he did or did not have as texts. Even "Justin" who supposedly lived in the same town at the same time doesn't mention anything about his writings or epistles in the name of Paul or anyone else.

aa5874

We now have recovered dated manuscripts that can corroborate 2nd century and later Jesus stories.

Based on Paleography and/or C 14 there are Jesus stories from the 2nd century and later.

There are sources that directly claim to be writing in the 2nd century which mention stories about a character called Jesus.

1. Justin Martyr claimed he wrote "First Apology" to the Emperor Antoninus.

2. Aristides also claimed he wrote his Apology to Emperor Hadrian.

I will not use admitted historically problematic sources of Fiction and Myth Fables like Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters as credible sources.

I will use Justin Martyr, Aristides and other sources that are compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts.