aa5874

The history of mankind at any level for any time period MUST rely on Credible Sources.

As soon as a Source is identified as fundamentally historically bogus then it cannot be used to reconstruct the past.

The NT is universally accepted as historically bogus by Historians--many events in the NT could NOT have happened even if Jesus did live.

Ehrman in a most illogical fashion introduced a Scarcely known Jesus using a PERJURED Source--a source of admitted fiction--the NT.

The Perjured Source claimed Jesus was Well known.

Now, HJers in their desperation, seem to think that the word "Christ" only refers to Jesus.

Well, even Apologetic Sources have admitted that there were other people who claimed to be Christ in the 1st century.

Against Celsus 1 The Presumption that the word "Christ" belongs ONLY to Jesus is NO longer acceptable.

Even in gMark, it is claimed there was some person was using the name of Christ.

Mark 9:38 KJV
Apologetic sources have placed at least 2 other persons called Christ in the 1st century.

The argument for a 1st century Scarcely known Jesus character cannot be realized--there is NO Credible or recovered dated evidence.

aa5874

The history of mankind MUST be a product of Credible Sources NOT admitted sources of Fiction like the New Testament.

Now, there is NO reasonable doubt that the New Testament is a source of Fiction for the accounts of the character called Jesus.

There is also NO reasonable doubt that in the NT it is claimed the Resurrected Jesus AUTHORISED the preaching of the Gospel.

This is the Single Most Significant event in the NT.

The character who AUTHORISED the supposed disciples to preach the Gospel did NOT exist when the Authority was granted.

In effect the Authority to preach the Gospel did NOT need a figure of history.

And what is most remarkably is that authors of the NT attested that the Authorisation was carried out by a resurrected Non-historical character.

The Gospel of Mark is NOT from a human character but from the resurrected.

KJV Mark 16.15 The Gospels in the very Canon, the Jesus stories in the Bible, were AUTHORISED by a Resurrected Non-historical Jesus.

In other words, No human character called Jesus had anything to do with the propagation of the Gospel or its content.

The author of gMatthew also made the very same claim. It was the resurrected Non-historical Jesus that AUTHORISED the teachings of Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew is NOT from a human character but from the resurrected.

Matthew 28:19 KJV The author of gLuke--the same thing. No human character called Jesus authorised the Gospels. It a Resurrected Non-historical character.

The Gospel of Luke is NOT from a human character but from the resurrected.

Luke 24:47 KJV Now, where did the Pauline writer get his Gospel??

Did he get it from a human character or one who was RAISED from the dead???

The Pauline writer Got his Gospel from the RESURRECTED character called Jesus.

Galatians 1 The Gospel stories and the Pauline Gospel in the NT had NOTHING to do with a human character called Jesus.

The Pauline and Non-Pauline Gospels were INVENTED by the very authors themelves.

The words of the Pauline writer.
The "words" of the Resurrected Jesus.
The NT Canon is a compilation of 2nd century Myth Fables about a Resurrected character called Jesus based on the Abundance of evidence compatible with the DATED Recovered Texts of antiquity.

avi

Thanks for noting the "spirit" nature of the original version of the short version of Mark. Nothing historical in this narrative:

Mark 3:29
ος δ αν βλασφημηση εις το πνευμα το αγιον ουκ εχει αφεσιν εις τον αιωνα αλλ ενοχος εστιν αιωνιου κρισεως ...

whoever, moreover, anyhow, shall blaspheme against the spirit holy, never has forgiveness to the eternity, but guilty is [of] eternal sin ...

Duvduv

Speaking of our old friend Justin of the "second century." How is it that he gets such little coverage from all these writers considering Justin allegedly wrote such extensive apologetics and a letter to the Emperor although no one bothers to know whether or not the Emperor received it and the effect on the "Christian community" of his appeal, or for that matter the antecedents of Justin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr
The earliest mention of Justin is found in the Oratio ad Graecos (“Oration Against to the Greeks”) by Tatian, who calls him "the most admirable Justin," quotes a saying of his, and says that the Cynic Crescens laid snares for him. Irenaeus (Haer. I., xxviii. 1) speaks of his martyrdom, and of Tatian as his disciple; he quotes him twice (IV., vi. 2, V., xxvi. 2), and shows his influence in other places. Tertullian, in his Adversus Valentinianos, calls him a philosopher and martyr, and the earliest antagonist of heretics. Hippolytus and Methodius of Olympus also mention or quote him. Eusebius of Caesarea deals with him at some length (Ecclesiastical History, iv. 18).

For all his importance, the text attributed to Tertullian leaves him out in the cold with mention of his name only once.
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/r...ranslation.htm

Methodius allegedly a "contemporary" also gives him short shrift, as does Hyppolitus.

aa5874

Your own post shows that Justin was a Well Known 2nd century philosopher.

You actually listed SIX Sources of antiquity, including 2nd century contemporary sources, that Acknowledged him.

1. Tatian--a contemporary.

2. Irenaeus--a contemporary.

3. Tertullian--a near contemporary.

4. Hippolytus--a near contemporary.

5. Methodius--a 3rd-4th century writer.

6. Eusebius the author of "Church History".

Duvduv

AA, you know exactly what I meant. The fact is that this all-important gentleman who is your law client is of virtually no importance even to those who are said to have been important heresiologists, or even mention the outcome of that great letter to the 2nd century emperor on behalf of all the oppressed sects... This does not mean any of them actually lived in the second century at all. Unless you have those fingerprints, retina scans and signed affidavits.

aa5874

I am really showing the Fictional nature of the Short and Long gMark.

In the Short gMark, the Jesus character did NOT authorise the disciples to preach the Gospel during his alleged lifetime.

This is MOST remarkable.

The Jesus stories in the Canon were AUTHORISED by an Admitted Fictitious character--the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer also Acknowledged that his Gospel was derived from the very same resurrected Fiction character.

The NT story of Jesus is a Product of Fiction.

These are the words of the Resurrected Fiction character in gMark 16.15.

The Pauline writer CERTIFIED that he Got his Gospel from a Fictitious Source.

Paul STIPULATES that ONLY the Gospel of the Fictitious source MUST be preached.

Galatians 1 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV The NT is a compilation of 2nd century or later Myth Fables and Fiction and REQUIRED a Source of Fiction--- a Fictitious Resurrected character..

aa5874

You don't make much sense. You show that Justin was WELL KNOWN as a 2nd century Christian writer by actually mentioning SIX sources of Attestation.

Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius and Eusebius all ATTEST to Justin Martyr EVEN THOUGH his very writings CONTRADICT the History of the Church.

Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledged the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Non-Pauline letters.

Justin Martyr's history of the Jesus cult shows ZERO activity in the 1st century and is COMPATIBLE with the DATED Recovered Texts.

The Jesus story was KNOWN in the 2nd-3rd century based on Paleography and this is in Agreement with the writings attributed to Apologetic and Non-Apologetic Sources.

Duvduv

You are not focusing on my point at all. Please go back and read what I posted originally about Epiphanius, although I know you won't because that doesn't interest you.

aa5874

Based on the Recovered dated Texts there was NO Jesus story known in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

The Recovery of the the Short gMark in the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have exposed that the Gospel of the Jesus character PREDATED the Gospel of the Pauline writer.

The Gospel of the Jesus character in the Short gMark was PREACHED BEFORE the crucifixion and resurrection.

This is extremely important.

Examine Sinaiticus Mark 1 The Gospel, the Good News, was that the Kingdom of God was Coming Soon.

Shortly AFTER the Baptism and Temptation by Satan the short gMark Jesus began to Publicly Preach Good News.

No Apocalypse--- GOOD NEWS--the Gospel, the Kingdom of God is Coming Soon.

The Jesus character of the Short gMark does NOT need to be crucified and resurrected to preach Good News.

But, the Pauline writer NEEDS the crucifixion and resurrection BEFORE he can get his Gospel--his Good News.

The Pauline Good News is that Jesus died for the Sins of Mankind, was RAISED from the dead on the Third day.

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15 The Gospel of the short gMark was PREACHED BEFORE the mircales, BEFORE the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

The Pauline Gospel was Preached AFTER the Resurrection, AFTER the Pauline writer was a Persecutor, AFTER there were Churches in Christ and AFTER Over 500 people Saw the resurrected Jesus.

Again, the author of the short gMark does NOT need the Pauline writings for the Good News that the Kingdom of God is Coming Soon.

The Good News of the Coming of the Kingdom of God in the Short gMark Predated the Good News of the Resurrection in the Pauline writings.

The Good News of the Soon Coming of God's Kingdom was composed sometime around or AFTER the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger or around or after c 115 CE.

The Pauline Good News of the resurrection was AFTER the writings of Aristides and Justin Martyr or after c 150 CE.