Duvduv

Tanya, the evolving relationship with AA is a result of his refusal to discuss and exchange ideas while endlessly repeating his doctrines. I personally don't think that's what discussion forums are best used for.

tanya

You are not wrong, here, Duvduv, but J-D claimed to be unable achieve a clear understanding of his writing, rather than emphasizing incivility vis a vis dialogue.

aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writings were composed in the 1st century by Scholars is based directly on Presumptions--No credible or direct evidence has ever been produced to support their claim.

Early Paul is like the "Stationary Earth" --it must remain unchallenged and must not ever be challenged even when those who have such a opinion have produced no evidence and will not ever present any.

The early dates of authorship of the Pauline letters are completely INVENTED.

Not even the Pauline letters made any claim that any one of the letters was actually composed before c 59-62.

Not even, the author of Acts, the supposed close companion of Saul/Paul ever wrote that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches in the Entire Acts of the Apostles.

Apologetic sources state that the Pauline letters were composed after Revelation by John.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written.

Apologetic sources of the 2nd century did NOT acknowledge the Pauline writings up to the mid 2nd century.

None of the Gospel stories used the Pauline post resurrection story that over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.

Seneca/Paul letters to place Paul in the 1st century have been deduced to be forgeries.

Up to the mid century it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that was read in the Churches based on Justin.

No Pauline manuscripts have been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

The variants per page of the Pauline writings Match late writings.

J-D

You only think you understand. You don't really. aa5874 has confirmed this directly, earlier in this thread.Yes, true, those are indeed two different things. I already knew that, so your explanation is supererogatory.If I see a document written in a language I don't understand--Arrernte, for example, or Basque, or Etruscan--I can't say whether the contents of the document are true or false, sensible or silly, supported or unsupported by evidence--in fact, I can't say anything about the contents of the document at all, because I don't know what the contents of the document are. I am in exactly the same position in relation to aa5874. aa5874's argument might as well be made in Arrernte, or Basque, or Etruscan, for all the meaning I am able to extract from it.Since you don't understand aa5874's argument (aa5874 has confirmed this), I don't see how you can help me to understand it.

aa5874

The Pauline letters are completely irrelevant to the HJ argument. They offer nothing.

Early Pauline letters are Unattested by the very authors of NT.

Acts of the Apostles contains details of the Activities of Saul/Paul and nowhere did Saul/Paul write a letter to a Church.

Saul/Paul was given letters by the Jerusalem Church to deliver and he delivered them. See Acts 15.

We know nothing of any corroboration or attestation of the date of authorship of the Pauline.

Where did the dates come from??? Who made them up??

The Pauline letters themselves do NOT even state when they were written.

Dating the Pauline writings to the 1st century is like dating the making of a 3-D movie of World War 1 to 1918 just because the 3-D movie mentions events in that year.

And further, the Pauline writer was a witness of the post resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer have zero historical value for an HJ.

The Pauline writings are historically worthless and support Mythology--the Good News of the Resurrection.

aa5874

The history of mankind must be assembled from credible sources.

As soon as credible sources have been located then we will simply use their statements as history.

Nothing can be simpler.

In or out a court, it is credible witnesses that give us History.

Credible Sources Tell us What happened. It is so Easy.

Now, some claim that Tacitus and Pliny mentioned Christians but fail to remember that HERETICS and Heresies were mentioned by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius.

Most amusingly, HJers seem not to understand what 'Heresy' means.

If HJers understood what 'Heresy' meant then they would NOT have argued that the mention of Christians by Tacitus and Pliny refer to followers of the Jesus cult.

Heretics are Christians of non-orthodox beliefs.

In effect, Christians are people who believe anything but are called Christians..

As soon as it was Admitted there were Christians called Heretics whose beliefs Differed from one another then the mere claim that Nero persecuted Christians or that Pliny executed Christians tells us NOTHING of their Beliefs.

In antiquity some Christians did NOT believe Jesus was on earth and some did NOT believe Jesus came in the Flesh.

These are some of the writings which claim that there were Heresies or Christians of Non-orthodox beliefs.

1. Epistle to the Trallians attributed to Ignatius

2. First Apology attributed to Justin

3. Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus.

4. A plea fot the Christians attributed to Athenagoras.

5. To Autolycus attributed to Theophilus of Antioch

6. Prescription Against the Heretics attributed to Tertullian.

7. Refutation Against All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus.

8. The Stromata attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

9. De Principiis attributed to Origen.

10. Church History attributed to Eusebius.

The claims that Nero persecuted Christians and that Pliny executed and tortured Christians are worthless to determine the history of the Jesus cult and the origin of the Jesus story.

Some Heretical Christians did NOT confess that Jesus came in the Flesh.

The recovered dated sources do NOT show any stories about Jesus the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

The abundance of evidence suggest that Christians of the Jesus cult are from the 2nd century or later.

aa5874

The history of mankind must be assembled from credible sources not from admitted sources of fiction and contradictions.

Ehrman admits his Jesus was derived from the NT which is filled with discrepancies and contradictions both large and small. See Did Jesus Exist? page 182 and 183.

There are massive problems with the NT and Apologetic writings from Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Now, in writings attributed to Justin there is no acknowledgment of Paul and the Pauline letters to Churhes.

Justin Martyr supposedly wrote about the mid 2nd century.

The very first writer to claim Paul wrote letters before c 70 CE was a writer called Irenaeus, a supposed presbyter and later bishop of Lyons in "Against Heresies".

"Against Heresies" is evidence that the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles and even gLuke was unknown to the supposed Irenaeus up to 180 CE.

If the author of Against Heresies 2.22 was aware of Galatians, gLuke, and Acts of the Apostles then his claim that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at around 50 years would be UTTER Fiction.

If people of antiquity were aware of Galatians, gLuke and Acts then they would have immediately called Irenaeus a Liar and discredited AH 2.22.

If the Church of Lyons knew of Galatians, gLuke and Acts then it would have immediately recognized that Irenaeus was a Heretic and a Liar.

No Church writers, Not even Eusbius, attempted to refute that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was cucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age.

It is clear that Irenaeus was a Heretic and that his writings were massively forged to give the impression that he knew of the Pauline letters, Acts of the Apostles and gLuke.

It is virtually impossible to show that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age using those writings.

Paul preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE in 2 Cor. 11.

In Acts 2, Peter preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected on the Day of Pentecost about 50 days AFTER the crucifixion under Pilate.

In gLuke, Jesus was about to be 30 years old when he was baptized by John and was crucified when Caiaphas was high priest and Pilate the Governor.

Against Heresies 3.13 Inadvertently, "Against Heresies" has corroborated the writings of Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus and the people he argued against in the 2nd century did not know of the Pauline letters, Acts of the Apostles and gLuke.

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery.

aa5874

The history of mankind is assembled from credible sources but not from admitted sources of fiction like Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The writings attriubute to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian, Municius Felix and Arnobius are the Witness Statements of the 2nd-3rd century.

They will TELL us what they know or believed in the mid 2nd-3rd century

Justin Martyr was a Witness and contemporary of Marcion.

If I want to find out what Marcion preached then I just read the Witness Statements.

I invent Nothing.

Marcion preached another God and another Son. See First Apology

If I want to find out if there was a Canon in the mid 2nd century then I just read the Witness Statements.

In the mid 2nd century it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that was read in the Churches. See First Apology.

I invent Nothing.

I am dealing with Witnesses of the mid 2nd century and later.

The Recovered DATED Manuscripts denies the credibility of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

On the day of Pentecost the author of Acts claimed the disciples Magically became Fluent in Foreign languages and were understood by those of other "tongues".

Amazingly, incredibly, the Pauline writer claimed he spoke in Tongues more than any one else when the events in Acts are total fiction.

It is virtually impossible for any one to become fluent in a foreign language by Magic or a Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV Behold the things which Paul wrote are a Pack of Lies.

There is no evidence for a Jesus cult that spoke fluently in foreign languages after encountering some kind of Ghost during the 1st century.

Apologetic writers outside the NT Canon wrote nothing about their personal magical ability to speak fluently in foreign languages after an encounter with some kind of Ghost.

In Acts, the disciples did NOT need interpreters and translators to Preach the Good News of the Resuurection "all over" the Roman Empire.

The author of Acts and Pauline writings were writing Fiction.

The Pauline Good News of the Resurrection was not from a human being.

The Pauline Jesus was a Myth like the God of Moses, Adam and Eve.

aa5874

The history of mankind MUST be assembled from credible sources not the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

The Recovered dated manuscripts show NO Jesus story, and cult in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The Recovered Dated manuscripts support 2nd century writings about the Jesus story and cult.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are NOT compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts.

I will use sources that are found to be credible that are claimed to be from the 2nd century or later.

There several supposed writings from so-called Christians and Christian Apologist in the 2nd century or later and they contradict Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and do NOT even acknowledge any book called Acts and letters by Paul.

The following Christian writers are supposedly from the 2nd century yet none of appear to be influenced by any Pauline writings which should have WRITTEN, TAUGHT and CIRCULATED within the Christian Churches for at least 100 years BEFORE them.

1. Justin Martyr

2. Aristides

3. Theophilus of Antioch

4. Athenagoras of Athens

5.Tatian

6. Municius Felix

7. Arnobius

This lack of influence of the Pauline letters to Churches was also EXPOSED by Origen in "Against Celsus".

An author called Celsus wrote "A True Discourse" against the story of Jesus and the Jesus cult however Origen exclaimed that Celsus mentioned NOTHING of the Pauline letters.

Against Celsus 1.63 The Pauline letters should have been written DIRECTLY to the Churches and should have been a fundamental and primary part of the supposed EARLY Theology of the Jesus cult yet up to the mid 2nd century it was a Synoptic type Jesus story and Christology that was preached, known and circulated within the Churches.

We have supposed Christians and Non-Apologetics who were aware of the Jesus story but Nothing of Paul the Pharisee that claimed a dead Jew was raised from the dead and was the Messianic ruler, Savior and Son of God since 37-41 CE and wrote letters to Churches.

It is clear that the Pauline letters were most likely UNKNOWN to Christians of the mid 2nd century.

aa5874

The history of mankind MUST be assembled from Credible sources and Data--not from admitted sources of Perjury like Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Some persons seem not to understand even if I do NOT use the writings atrributed Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Municius Felix, Tatian and Arnobius that the actual recovered Dated manuscripts will SHOW the very same thing--A BIG BLACK HOLE in the 1st century and before c 70 CE for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

With the exception of actual recovered dated manuscripts, Let us for argument sake Burn every apologetic writing that was attributed to Justin, Aristides, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Municius Felix, Arnobius, Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Origen, Hippolytus, Polycarp, Eusebius and later writers.

All we would have remaining are the Recovered DATED Manuscripts which includes many non-apologetic writings like the DSS and NT manuscripts.

The Existing recovered DATED ancient manuscripts show NO Jesus story and NO Jesus cult until the 2nd--3rd century.

The EXISTING recovered Dated ancient writings show a BIG BLACK HOLE for Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century.

The fragments survived in a random fashion yet NOT one piece with a Jesus story has been dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The picture is extremely clear when we BURN every single writing that supposedly passed through the Church and use ONLY the dated surviving fragments.

So far, By Paleography we will see that NO Jesus story has ever been dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The Jesus story and cult originated sometime in the 2nd-3rd century.