aa5874

When one develops a theory the very HARDEST of evidence that is available MUST, MUST, MUST be employed NOT imaginary evidence and Presumptions.

Presently the HARDEST available evidence is the TEXTS of antiquity dated by Paleography and C 14.

The HARDEST available evidence show a BIG BLACK HOLE for the 1st century and Before c 70 CE for Jesus, the Disciples and Paul.

This BIG BLACK HOLE was EXPECTED when the Jesus story is FICTION.

NOTHING except Forgeries have been recovered and discovered.

The Single most important Jesus story is the short-ending gMark found in the Codex Sinaiticus because it is the ONLY Jesus story that is compatible with the HARDEST evidence available--the DATED Texts of antiquity.

The short-ending gMark CONTAINS a story of THREE CRUCIFIED where ONE SURVIVED and this unique story is found in the LAST writing of Josephus--The Life of Flavius Jopsephus--composed around the End the 1st century.

And what is even more remarkable, the person who ASKED for the Body of Jesus in gMark has the SAME Name as the one who ASKED that the three Crucified be taken down in "The Life of Flavius Josephus".

Both are called JOSEPH.

But, what MUST be remembered at all times about the short-ending gMark is that NO story was being PREACHED ANYWHERE of a resurrected Jesus as a Savior, Messiah and Son of God who was Sacrificied and Resurrected for the UNIVERSAL Remission of Sins and that Jewish Laws for Remission of sins were obsolete.

The short-ending gMark has NOTHING about a new religion.

The Jesus cult of Christians STARTED AFTER the short-ending gMark sometime AFTER the End of the 1st century.

The HARDEST evidence, today, the DATED Texts of antiquity place the ENTIRE Canon authors and the start of the Jesus cult NO earlier than in the 2nd century.

Mark 15Life of Flavius Josephus 75

mountainman

We have evidence in the form of the gnostic gospels and acts of the apostles. Who were the gnostic heretics that authored these texts, and when, and what does this evidence represent?

aa5874

Right now, I no longer accept imaginary evidence. The acceptable methods of dating ancient writing material and writing style, Paleography and C 14, SHOW that the Jesus story is 2nd century and NOT 1st century.

As soon as more evidence becomes available I will review my position.

Imaginary evidence does NOT resolve anything.

The Present DATED Texts show a MASSIVE Black Hole for Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and this is compatible with the short-ending gMark, writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix and "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus based on Origen's "Against Celsus".

Also, it would appear that the Forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 may have been written AFTER Eusebius was dead.

Based on "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor he was NOT aware that any well-known writers wrote anything about Jesus and Paul.

aa5874

The use of IMAGINARY evidence and IMAGINARY Dating of Text is out of control. People here IMAGINE when the Pauline letters and the Gospels were written and completely IGNORE ACTUAL DATED sources.

And not only that, those very people who RELY on IMAGINATION IMPOSE their Speculation on others.

The very people who ADMIT Acts of the Apostles is not to be trusted are the same persons who use Acts ALONE to Date the Pauline letters.

Dating writings by Acts is WHOLLY unacceptable. There is NO corroborative source for any statement made in Acts about the history of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The ACCEPTABLE methods to date writings and material is Paleography and C14.

ALL DATED TEXTS of antiquity SHOW a BIG BLACK HOLE in the 1st century for Jesus, the Disciples and Paul.

In other words, the HARD EVIDENCE [the Dated Texts] supports the theory that the Jesus cult of Christians is a 2ND century cult.

An argument, a theory, a conclusion should be based on the HARD evidence available, Not Imaginary evidence.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT really exist in the 1st century then this is EXACTLY PRECISELY what we EXPECT--NO EVIDENCE at all in the 1st century.

We would ALSO EXPECT that the real history of the disciples and Paul would NOT ever be found in the 1st century and that is PRECISELY EXACTLY what has happened.

Now if Jesus, the disciples and Paul did EXIST before c 68 CE we would Expect OPPOSITION to and Arguments Against the NEW religion but we have NOTHING in the 1st century.

The OPPOSITION and Arguments AGAINST Jesus, disciples and Paul OCCURED in mid-late 2nd century, or 100 years LATER .

The Jesus cult of Christians is a 2nd century cult and the Pauline letters are Anti-Marcionite Texts.

Grog

Is it just me or is this really starting to make sense?

aa is correct about the dating of Paul. I have held long to 1 century Paul, but based on authority and consensus.

I remember when I first came on Roger Pearse said something about being careful or this will all start to make sense. He meant it as a warning, of course.

But now...

How can we hold to early Paul? So much of the early Christian record makes little sense and is hard to fit together. When and how and why were the pastorals written?

I'm asking these questions, still holding on to early Paul, but also feeling that aa is making a good point, albeit one that is largely ignored.

Tommy

My two cents:

The gospels don't pretend to be witness statements. They describe events where the writer couldn't have been present - "the beginning", Jesus' birth, the temptation in the desert etc. GMark, perhaps, includes the least of this.

The gospels describe remarkable public spectacles for which there is no contemporary independent corroboration. You would think some Jew, Roman or Greek would record Herod slaying kids in Bethlehem, the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem or a resurrected man appearing to 5000 folk.

Paul never mentions meeting Jesus and in fact persecuted the first Christians.

Basically there isn't much evidence. However, charismatic leaders weren't uncommon, Jesus was a common name and lost documents could be unearthed tomorrow so I hedge my bets on HJ/MJ.

aa5874

It is NOT a fact that Paul persecuted the first Christians because there is NO evidence at all of such event in the 1st century.

Remember there is NO DATED Texts, by Paleography or C 14, that mentions Paul in the 1st century but letters have been forged to place Paul in the 1st century.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

Instead of finding credible evidence for a 1st century Paul--we find FORGERIES.

De Viris Illustribus" Jerome used Forgeries to place Paul before c 70 CE.

Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke when Paul was supposed to be dead.

An ANONYMOUS letter was the first to mention Paul as a letter writer but it was FALSELY attributed to Clement of Rome..Not Even the Church of Rome know when Clement was bishop for hundreds of years.

The author of Acts although he claimed to have traveled with Paul did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Churches.

The Jesus story is OUTSIDE the 1st century based on the abundance of evidence.

J-D

It's just you. Since you ask.

aa5874

Again, you are NOT credible. You have EXPOSED your problems. I no longer trust you as a fair moderator.

It is most remarkable what you do to show that you are presenting mis-leading information.

You very well know that other posters stated that my posts make sense and well developed in this very thread.

mountainman

Physical manuscript evidence exists for the gnostic gospels. When one develops a theory one must explain all the physical non-imaginary evidence. How does your theory explain the physical (non canonical) evidence?