Toto

Please don't dig yourself deeper into a hole.

Most of the people promoting this "mythical Jesus stuff" put a great deal of effort into reading original material.

aa5874

Are you even aware of fraud and forgery?

The mere fact that it has been deduced that more than one person wrote the Pauline Epistles and that ALL the OTHER authors of the NT were really unknown then one cannot NAIVELY accept that ALL the Church writings were correctly attributed to their real authors.

It would appear that the historical information or the information that can date any Church writing may have been PLANTED to deceive.

Even a Church historian claimed 2 Peter did not belong to the Canon. The Church is ADMITTING there are forgeries in the Canon.

According to the Church historian the apostle Peter wrote ONLY 1st Peter.

But the apostle Peter was a fictitious character. He wrote NOTHING.

Fraud and forgeries appear to be widespread in the Church writings.

stephan huller

What hole? I'm Jewish, I don't know I am alive if there aren't white people trying to get me.(lol)

We are all on the same page. But some get to the idea that Jesus wasn't a historical person by reading the original sources and other do so by looking at a picture drawn by a five year old of Jesus flying through the air.

I was distinguishing between people who read and don't read the original material. I agree with the idea that Jesus was not originally conceived as a human being but I do so based on a reconstruction of the information which comes out of the surviving sources.

There are some people at this forum who don't read the surviving material but yet somehow think they are qualified to make pronouncements about the origins of Christianity. That's fine, but those opinions shouldn't stand at the same level as the opinions of those who spend their lives engaging the subject matter.

aa5874

Please state ONE single document of antiquity that you have read about Jesus, the disciples and Paul that was CONFIRMED to be an ORIGINAL.

Solo

withdrawn

stephan huller

o·rig·i·nal (-rj-nl)
adj.
1. Preceding all others in time; first.

In other words, an 'original' doesn't have to mean the handwritten text made by Paul but rather 'the one in our possession which 'precedes all others in time, the first.'

Or indeed again:

4. Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made.

Again the 'original' wouldn't necessarily mean the text that Paul wrote but according to the context of the discussion a text written after that document but which served as the source for other copies.

In this case we obviously recognize that we do not have Paul's handwritten Apostolikon or Irenaeus's original lectures but we still can call the oldest text we happen to retain in our possession as 'the original' owing to its relation with all the later copies circulating in the world today.

aa5874

I did not ask for a definition of the word "original". And now you have given the definition you have still failed to state an original document of antiquity that you have read about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

But, I see another massive problem, you think that an original means any document that is the earliest to be retained . Such a view is totally erroneous.

Perhaps that is the reason why you think you have read "originals" when you may have ONLY READ an early copy that was manipulated.

Iskander

This is not evidence at all.
You have no evidence only opinions.
Can you provide an abundance of evidence? Itt is again you opinion; you are only repeating what you believe and what you don’t believe.
You are still using the texts written by Christian writers as evidence for their non-existence!!

charles

I agree with what you are saying fully

avi

my emphasis.

This is the same question with which I am constantly hounding Doug Shaver:

What original material are you writing about? Are you discussing P45? P46? P75? What about Codex W? What about your claim that "the original" new testament was written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek?

Where's that document?

avi (one of those who is BOTH too stupid, AND too lazy....)