aa5874

Again, you have not addresses the content and context of the NT Canonical texts. You are merely making assertions.

Which post of yours in this thread that directly and actually addressed the content and context of the NT Canonical texts?

The DSS are significant texts since they are considered to be of Jewish origin and some have been dated to the 1st century which is suposedly the time of Jesus and Paul.

The contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls do NOT show any influence by Jesus of Nazareth, his disciples or the revealed Gospel of Paul of Tarsus.

There are no arguments against the Jesus story or the teachings of the cult in the DSS.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist in the 1st century then we would expect the DSS to look exactly as they do now.

The DSS is evidence against early Pauline writings.

Onias

I agree with you that Paul and the Jesus of the extant gospels do not date to the first century, but please tell me which of the DSS date to the first century CE.
Thanks,
Onias

aa5874

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...ad_Sea_Scrolls

Nothing has been found to corroborate Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul. No manuscripts have been found and dated to the 1st century with arguments AGAINST the supposed new Jesus cult.

We have a big Black hole for every character directly associated with the Jesus cult in the 1st century.

Once we understand that there was NO separation of Church and State in antiquity then it can easily be deduced that neither Jesus or Paul existed in the 1st century.

The teachings of the Revealed Gospel of Paul WOULD have had an impact on the Roman Empire.

The Pauline writings had NO impact on the Roman Empire until well after the late 2nd century.

The Jesus story had an impact on the Roman government before the Pauline teachings.

Duvduv

Why are you straying off to talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is not what I thought you would reply to in terms of my prior posting? Besides, there are a variety of those scrolls, and they have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, and in my opinion, nothing to do with the Christian texts.

aa5874

Again, the Dead Sea Scrolls are extremely significant because some have been dated by Paleography and C 14 in the 1st century.

Please, examine the Dead Sea Scroll 4Q521 it is relevant. It is dated to the 1st century and does NOT mention Jesus and Paul.

That is exactly what was expected if Paul and Jesus did NOT exist.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...ad_Sea_Scrolls

Duvduv

For all we know some of the scrolls weren't originally intended to be taken literally, but merely metaphorically. Even the Kittim, ToR, and Evil Priest.

Duvduv

Except that that is sheer speculation because no actual evidence for a second century Marcion canon exists, and everyone who believes it existed knows this to be true, yet continue to behave as if it were not true. Faith in the writings attributed to Eusebius or Tertullian is all that counts.

aa5874

Again, there is no known credible corroborative source that can show Marcion wrote gLuke or was in possession of gLuke or mutilated gLuke.

In the first copies of writings to mention the Pauline letters to seven Churches the author did not even know when Jesus was crucified and when Paul preached Christ crucified.

The stories about Marcion in "Against Heresies" are most likely fiction.

In the Three Prose "Against Marcion" by Ephraim there is no mention whatsoever that Marcion mutilated gLuke or the Pauline letters.

Astonishingly, Ephraim's Against Marcion although supposedly written AFTER "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian and AFTER "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus there is virtually no corroboration for the claims made by Tertullian and Irenaeus.

Against Marcion by Ephraim corroborated Justin Martyr that Marcion preached another God and another Son.

It makes no sense that Marcion would need gLuke when it was claimed Jesus was born of a Virgin and a Holy Ghost in that Gospel.

gLuke and the Pauline letters were planted in the hands of Marcion long after he was dead.

I have already pointed out the "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was unknown by the Church and its writers up to the 5th century and that it is virtually impossible that "Against Heresies" was composed by a presbyter of Lyons who claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after being 30 years old at baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Effectively the first two writings that mentioned the Pauline letters to Seven Churches are all forgeries or manipulated sources.