Sheshbazzar

Anyone at all in possession of a rational mind, and able to apply logic and reason.
I spelled out the major hole in your premise in my previous post. In BOLD A. and B.
Read it. And address it.... or not. Your present avoidance of addressing this matter is now speaking louder than words, while your present continued blab just avoids confronting the facts.

I also carefully spelled that out in my previous post.
To repeat for the extremely dense, Those ORIGINAL manuscripts that MUST have preceded any COPIES.
These, to anyone who has the least grasp of the concept of LOGIC, would have HAD to have preceded anything that is a COPY.

I did NOT state that they "must" be in the 1st century. I clearly stated; 'late first, OR the early second century"

It is dishonest to willfully misquote and misrepresent what has been so clearly stated.

This statement has two parts;
This part is a logical and correct deduction.


There exist no positive evidence to support this part of your claim.
And a simple lack of positive evidence ( those documents earlier than we now possess) DOES NOT constitute, nor support any claims that such evidence was non-existent
Exactly when the Gospels were first penned remains an open question. One that can only be properly closed by the locating and positively identifying and dating an ORIGINAL 'First Edition' manuscript.
Such has not as yet ever been done, and the case must remain marked as 'Under Investigation' until this critical evidence can be produced.

Repetitious twaddle.
Yes the STORY states these things. And as far as we know the accepted Christian version of this STORY always has.
This proves absolutely nothing about exactly when this 'gospel' was originally written.

No catch 22 nor logical conundrum to it.
You are trying to invent one by employing and attacking the arguments of those pseudo-'Christians' that clearly do not believe nor accept the well known and long established teachings of The Christian Faith.

The 'Jesus' and 'Gospel' of real Christians is nothing other than exactly that one which is presented within The Gospels.
Any 'other' Jesus, not conforming to that one described in The Gospels is NOT that Jesus that is taught by the Christian Church and Faith.

That you base your faulty argument on the false religiosity and non-Christian theories of such a selection of degenerates and apostates from the known fundamental teachings of the Christian Gospel and Faith, makes your 'argument' moot anyway because it is a straw-man argument that does not even address the actual teaching of Gospel believing Christians regarding the historicity of Jesus.

aa5874

Did I not ACTUALLY post what you wrote?? Please, be careful with your propaganda. Look at an excerpt again and stop making erroneous claims.

Please, why MUST there be late 1st century or early 2nd century messianic BELIEVERS???

You were NOT there!!!!

What Messianic believers are you talking about???

What Originals are you talking about??

Imaginary Messianic Believers and Imaginary originals!!

You are NOW in a Catch 22--you are in a logical conundrum with NO Way out.

Now, since you don't know of any actual late 1st century or early 2nd century Messianic Believers then you don't know what they may have had or should have had.

You really do not know if there are any originals to be located in the late 1st century or early 2nd century.

And it gets worse for you. It appears you are in double jeopardy.

If the 2nd century Texts are copies then the original would say that Jesus was a Ghost, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

I am not finished with you.

1. Even if a document is dated in the 2nd century and is deemed to be a copy then the original can be from the very same century.

It does NOT take years to copy a letter or a book.


You are in QUADRUPLE Jeopardy--A Catch 22 of a Catch 22.

Your argument have EXTREMELY Large holes.

You PRESUME that there were late 1st century and early 2nd century Messianic Believers JUST like HJers today when you have ZERO evidence.

mountainman

The Criterion of What?


Oh sorry. I know. The illogical criteria of Apologetics.

How embarrassing is the criteria of Embarrassment?
How embarrassing is the criteria of dissimilarity ?
Ehrman's royalties may make him somewhat immune from embarrassment.



Anyone who accepts these criteria of apologetics is consciously or unconsciously indulging inside a Catch-22 situation which assumes straight up that the story of the HJ is a TRUE story.

aa5874

HJers ARGUE that the Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible was NOT derived from written and oral sources but that Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible was based on a real actual human character.

However, the authors of the NT did claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the WORD that became flesh just like Adam was made Flesh by the WORD.

See John 1 and Genesis 1

Genesis 1 26-27 The Myth character ADAM was made from WORDS of God alone.

The Myth character called Jesus was made from the WORDS of God alone.

John 1.1-7 Now, HJers who claim Jesus was NOT derived from WORDS will use the Very WORDS of the Bible for their Jesus of Nazareth.

HJers have MADE their Jesus in their OWN IMAGE by the Words of God in the very Bible.

HJ of Nazareth is the WORD that was made Flesh just like ADAM.

Adam

You've been listening to Tanya too much.

aa5874

You are NOT credible.

I use sources of antiquity.

Did I not refer to Genesis 1???

Did I not refer to John 1???

Please, please, please!!!!

1. ADAM was made Flesh by the WORD of God.

2. Jesus of Nazareth was made FLESH by the Word of God.

3. HJ of Nazareth was MADE in the image of the WORDS of the Bible.

HJ of Nazareth is Biblical MYTH.

Matthew 26:56 KJV HJ of Nazareth MUST, MUST, MUST be the Word of God made in the image of MAN.

There is NO way out.

aa5874

It is most amusing that some people here think that a Text dated to the second century should have an original decades earlier.

Such an idea is hopelessly absurd.

For example, if any person was to receive a letter from any one and a copy was required then the ORIGINAL letter could be COPIED the very same day.

If a Pauline writer sent an ORIGINAL letter to a Church and it was RECEIVED on the first day of the first month of 225 CE then a Copy of the Original can be made or PROCEED on the first day of the first month of 225 CE.

In effect, a COPY and an Original letter could be written in the very SAME Month of the very same year.

We have the Pauline writings which are DATED by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century so the Originals and Copies could have been written within the same time period.

After all, if a Church wanted a Copy of an Original Pauline letter they would have EXPECTED to have Copied the Original Shortly after it was RECEIVED.