aa5874

Where did you get that story??? Name your sources. What 1st century texts are you talking about??? Those that you imagine into existence.

What evolved apologetics are you talking about??

Please, I have no time to waste with your ambiguous unsubstantiated claims about "latter tampering and forgery" when you have NOTHING but a blank piece of paper from the 1st century.

Are you implying that your comprehension is NOT limited??

Sheshbazzar

See. You are STILL engaged with my, (in your opinion) 'NO Source, No Evidence and No Proof argument.'

And plain for all to see, you wrote that you wouldn't be so engaged.

It really bugs you that I won't play your game in your way or by your rules doesn't it?

WHY then are you still engaged in playing these tit for tat debating games with me long after you have clearly stated that you won't???

Not much of 'a man of your word' are you???

Why should anyone trust the words of a man who cannot faithfully keep to his own word for even a single day???

You say that there was 'NO Jesus story in the 1st century CE'.
WHY should anyone believe your words, when you have proven that you are willing perjure and falsify even the claims of your own words within the space of twenty four hours???

I don't trust you aa.

I don't trust your reasoning ability.

I don't trust your claims.

I don't trust your words.

And I KNOW by the evidence of this thread, that your words cannot be trusted.



.

Sheshbazzar

Where did I get this STORY???
What ever could be its SOURCE???
What ever could be its EVIDENCE???

The 'STORY', its 'SOURCE' and its EVIDENCE are internal to the story, but may surely be perceived of those external.
And they don't need any 'evidence' from a Justin Martyr, or from anyone external to these writings to do so

aa5874

Please, your diversion tactics won't work. I have seen these tactics used before. You do anything except Name your sources and evidence from antiquity for your 1st century texts.

Who told you that there were 1st century texts??

Asshats like Irenaeus??? Asshats like Eusebius???

Sheshbazzar

Seem to be working fairly well. And doing a pretty fair job at exposing that you are not a man of your word.
One whose boasting words cannot be trusted for even a single day.

As to to what you don't know and cannot know because I won't tell you, Well, I guess that you will just have to continue to guess about that won't you?

And because you have missed the train, you will never be able get aboard, nor ever understand exactly what it was that you missed and has passed you by.

aa5874

Your response show exactly why I will not engaged in your No Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument.

I really don't need your unknown sources.

When I make an argument I will engage Sources of antiquity and Name my Sources--Not Imagination.

My argument is that Jesus was a Myth character and that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on the Recovered Dated Texts and Compatible Sources of antiquity.

Sheshbazzar

Oh that's all right. You really DON'T need my unknown sources,... you've got your own. But you have these really nice and so convenient Catholic Christian Saint -names- for them. Woopie.

Hell, I have been long used to hearing that same type of faulty reasoning and uncritically accepted 'sources' being employed by the Christers.
You guys are all alike in basing your views on religion on that horse-pucky that has been spoon fed to you by the Christ cult church generated garbage religion of the 2nd century.
Like I said, some unknown church lackey told you that 'Justin Martyr' wrote this or that in the 2nd century, and you have swallowed their bait, -hook, line, and sinker.

Strangely, for all of your pleas for Evidence, you do not require even a smidgen of contemporary non-apologetic evidence for the life and writings of your beloved Saint Justin. Or for any of a dozen other of these Catholic Saint writers.
That one or another of these Catholic 'Saints' 'drops a name', is gullibly taken as being the 'evidence' that this or that, -otherwise entirely unknown an unattested to- Catholic Church 'Father' really existed and wrote the crap that the Catholic Church has attributed to them.

Believe in, and play in whatever pile of Christian generated horse shit it is that suits you, its not my problem.




.

aa5874

You are back with your "Catholic" BS. Please Identify your Catholic Source. Your stories come from your imagination because you have NO Evidence.

I don't need you with your No Source speculation and imagination.

When I argue that Jesus was a Myth I name my Sources.

Ignatius To the EphesiansJustin Martyr's First Apology 21 Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" Origen's De Principiis
My argument is SOLID and cannot be contradicted by those who engage in No Source--No Evidence arguments.

J-D

On the contrary, anything you say can easily be contradicted by anybody who cares to. Few things are easier than contradicting people. Two-year-olds learn to do it.

Sheshbazzar

All above 'Sources' are ALL Catholic Church 'Fathers' and Catholic 'Saints'.
Not a one of which whose existence is attested to by any contemporary, external and NON-Catholic source.

Your only source for these 'SOURCES' that you employ is the claims and that false 'church history' that was fabricated in the 2nd and latter centuries by that Source known as The Catholic and Orthodox Christian religion.

Tell me, in the ancient world, WHO WAS IT that ever actually knew and met your Source named 'Justin Martyr'???

Who was it in the ancient world that ever actually knew and met your 'Source' named 'Tertullian'???

Who was it in the ancient world that ever actually knew and met your 'Source' named 'Origen'???

Who was it that -told- you when these Catholic Saints lived???

Who was it that -told- you that what you have quoted is what they wrote???

Knowing you will be evasive and will not answer these questions, I'll tell you.
You have but one single Source for ALL of this, The writings of The Orthodox and Catholic Church.

The Church's 'Apostles' and early Church 'Father' figures are all fabricated Catholic saints.

No one ever met a single one of them. No one ever knew a single one of them.
They were all nicely long dead and gone before their 'writings' showed up in the hands of The Catholic Church.
-which then proceeded to invent names and highly imaginative Church 'histories' for these otherwise unnamed and unknown Catholic saints.

The -names- and imaginary 'histories' that the Catholic religion attached to these Church produced writings signify nothing.
These 'Church saints' and 'Church fathers' never existed any more than did any real 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke', 'John', 'Peter', 'Paul', 'Clement' -and on and on.
It was ALL fabricated.
So many 'talking heads' for a popular religion made up and fabricated out of syncretized fables and outright lies.

You are uncritically using the Catholic Church's writings, and lying and totally fabricated version of human history as your sole Source.

Don't bother reciting the names, or quoting the writings of these Catholic Saints to me.
You want to prove something about real human history, quote to me from the writings of those CONTEMPORARY, non-religious and non-Catholic writers whose writings support and confirm your Catholic version of history.
As you have listed your quotations from these Catholic Saints, Now go ahead and list the names and quotations from those known and contemporary NON-Catholic writers which will verify that these 'Catholic saints' lived, wrote those works, and did those things that your accepted CATHOLIC version of history attributes to them.

Your argument may be crowned with gold, and as solid as iron and brass. but it stands upon feet of clay.


.