Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-28-2012, 01:41 AM

There may be a particular problem with palaeography of small fragments. For good quality palaeographic dating it helps if one has examples of every one of the Greek letters. With really small fragments this does not happen.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-28-2012, 11:53 AM

After having been on this forum for years I have RESOLVED the fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Once the actual recovered DATED Texts of antiquity are taken into consideration then I only needed to FIND sources of antiquity that were Compatible with the RECOVERED DATED Texts.

There are TWO supposed early sources for the History of the Jesus cult of Christians.

1. Justin Martyr--writing c 160 CE.

2. Irenaeus--writing c 180 CE.

Justin Martyr is Fundamentally compatible with the Recovered Dated Texts.

Irenaeus is NOT compatible with the DATED Texts and provided Bogus information about the NT. Virtually everything claimed about the authorship, dating and chronology of the NT writings by Irenaeus is unsubstantiated.

This leaves ONLY Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr's writings REFLECT the Fundamental History of the Jesus cult of Christians.

There is NO need for anyone to INVENT any more theories about the Jesus cult of Christians.

Justin Martyr CLEARLY described his Jesus as the Son of God born of a Ghost that resurrected and Ascended and provided ZERO actual history of the disciples and Paul.

Justin Martyr SHOWED that the Jesus cult of Christians was in its INFANCY stage and that the Roman Emperor Antoninus , the Roman Senate and the Roman People had VERY LITTLE knowledge of the Jesus cult up to the mid 2nd century.

Justin Martyr REVEALED in his writings that he did NOT know of any Prominent Jesus cult of Christians and known Jesus cult Philosopher BEFORE his conversion.

Justin Martyr's Writings REFLECT precisely and Exactly what is EXPECTED when Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT have any real existence---NO history--No post-ascension activity.

If we REMOVE the Events about Jesus and the disciples in the Memoirs of the Apostles from the Writings of Justin Martyr then we have NOTHING left--ZERO.

"First Apology", and "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr REVEAL the people of antiquity merely STARTED to BELIEVE anonymous writings about Jesus in the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr fundamentally WROTE the History of the Jesus cult of Christians and it was hardly known in the mid 2nd century.

My ARGUMENT is that the Jesus cult of Christians is a 2nd century cult just as the dated sources and compatible sources show.

The writings of Justin are far more credible than Irenaeus.

Justin Martyr presented the fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

aa5874 · 07-28-2012, 02:26 PM

The writings of Justin Martyr Represent the fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Form "Dialogue with Trypho" we can deduce that all claims that Josephus wrote about Jesus called the Christ are indeed Forgeries.

There is NO record or acknowledgment by Justin or Trypho that a Jewish writer recognised any character called Jesus as the Christ.

Dialogue with Trypho CX

Quote:

And when I had finished these words, I continued: "Now I am aware that your teachers, sirs, admit the whole of the words of this passage to refer to Christ; and I am likewise aware that they maintain He has not yet come; or if they say that He has come, they assert that it is not known who He is; but when He shall become manifest and glorious, then it shall be known who He is...

Based on Justin the Jews did NOT know of Christ or recognised any Jew as the Christ up to the mid 2nd century.

Justin Martyr's writings represent the Fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The Jesus cult of Christians was initiated in the 2nd century when people of antiquity BELIEVED anonymous writings about Jesus.

aa5874 · 07-29-2012, 12:12 AM

If anyone wishes to get a fundamental understanding of the early Jesus cult of Christians then one can read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

We have TWO supposed 2nd century writers in Justin and Irenaeus.

Which one of them is compatible with the recovered dated Texts???

Both Justin and Irenaeus claimed their Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a virgin, was resurrected and Ascended to heaven.

Such a character could NOT have been human as described.

Now, once there was NO actual Jesus then there should be NO actual hand-picked Apostles of Jesus. And once there were NO hand-picked Apostles then NO actual person could have seen them.

Justin Martyr did NOT name any person OUTSIDE the Memoirs of the Apostles who knew any Apostle or the supposed Jesus.

Irenaeus claimed people OUTSIDE the four Gospels knew on and saw the hand-picked Apostles and the resurrected Jesus.

Irenaeus is NOT credible. Jesus and his hand picked Apostles ONLY lived inside the Gospels. The author of Acts and the Pauline writer could NOT have known of seen actual hand picked Apostles of Jesus.

Justin Martyr's history of the Jesus cult of Christians is compatible with a 2nd century anonymous Myth Fable that was BELIEVED to have been composed in the 1st century by the apostles.

Justin mentioned the magician Simon Magus since the time of Claudies c 41-54 CE but NOT the authors of Acts and the Pauline letters.

The writings of Justin Martyr are the Fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

There was NO stories about Jesus, disciples and Paul UNTIL the 2nd century.

aa5874 · 07-29-2012, 12:54 PM

My position is based on a source of antiquity not on imagination.

There are two sources of antiquity supposedly from the 2nd century that show two radically different state of the Jesus cult up to that time.

Justin Martyr is compatible with the DATED sources.

Irenaeus did NOT even know when Jesus was crucified, or when Pilate was governor of Judea and the bogus information about the NT has been Rejected even by scholars.

I will employ the wrtings of Justin Martyr to reconstruct the Fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians--NOT Irenaeus.

Justin Martyr writings are internally consistent, corroborated and compatible with the dated recovered texts.

The Jesus that Justin and Irenaeus believed in could NOT have existed so there could NOT have been any actual history of any hand-picked Apostles by the same non-existing character.

Justin showed NO history of the Jesus cult up to the mid 2nd century but Irenaeus did.

Justin is compatible with the Hard Evidence but Irenaeus is bogus.

The Jesus story is an anonymous 2nd century writing that was believed to have been written by apostles.

aa5874 · 07-29-2012, 06:26 PM

The writings of Justin Martyr are most remarkable and are compatible with the dated recovered sources of antiquity.

In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus it is claimed that gJohn was written by a disciple of Jesus called John sometime in the 1st century.

Now, in gJohn it is claimed Jesus was the Word and that the Word was God.
In gJohn Jesus and God are ONE.

John 10:30 KJV

Quote:

I and my Father are one.

But, Justin Martyr made NO such claim.

Justin claimed Jesus was SECOND to God.

First Apology 13

Quote:

... Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ........ He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.

For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all...

Based on Justin Martyr, up to the mid 2nd century, Jesus was SECOND to God.

This would IMPLY that gJohn was written AFTER the mid 2nd century.

Hippolytus appears to CONFIRM that gJohn was composed AFTER the writings of Justin.

Hipoolytus claimed that it was Callistus sometime around c 200 CE that introduced the HERESY that Jesus and God was ONE and the same. .

Refutation of All Heresies 9.7

Quote:

.....this Callistus..... devised some such heresy as the following.

Callistus alleges that the Logos Himself is Son, and that Himself is Father; and that though denominated by a different title, yet that in reality He is one indivisible spirit.

And he maintains that the Father is not one person and the Son another, but that they are one and the same...

Remarkably, Hippolytus stated Callistus, long AFTER Justin, is the person who Introduced the heretical teaching Jesus and the FATHER are ONE around the 3rd century.

Justin Martyr has been EXONERATED and Irenaeus Exposed as a Fiction writer.

The Jesus story and cult of Christians were INITIATED in the 2nd century and gJohn was composed AFTER the writings of Justin which is Compatible with the DATED Recovered Texts.

aa5874 · 07-30-2012, 07:53 AM

The reconstrction of the past, history, MUST be based on Credible sources of antiquity not on Presumptions and Assumptions.

If one desires to understand the history of the Jesus cult of Christians then it is IMPERATIVE that we FIRST locate Credible sources.

We have sources of antiquity that are Compatible with the Recovered dated sources.

We have Justin Martyr, Aristides, Municius Felix, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Arnobius, Tatian and others.

Now, it is Extrememly important to understand that everything the disciples did in the writings of Justin Martyr were FOUND written in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The LAST act of the disciples after Jesus Ascended was that they Preached the Gospel to all the world but that was the Great Commission of the Resurrected Jesus--the Non-historical Jesus.

It is clear that Justin Martyr's Jesus had NO real existence.

Justin Martyr merely BELIEVED the anonymous Memoirs were composed by the disciples of Jesus.

Justin's Jesus was a PHANTOM, a Myth--Only Appeared to have Flesh--Non-human.

First Apology

Quote:

... the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven...

In the writings of Justin Martyr, the author did NOT identify any one who SAW, MET or Interacted with Jesus and the disciples that were NOT mentioned in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The History, the Activities, of Justin's Jesus and disciples are CONFINED to the anonymous Memoirs.

Stephen, Saul/Paul, Barnabas, Titus, Silas, Sosthenes, Timothy and other mentioned in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters cannot be found in the writings attributed to Justin.

From the Non-historical Ascension, c 33 to c 150 CE, Justin Martyr Presented a Big Black HOLE for the Jesus cult of Christians.

Justin's History of the Jesus cult is from the 2nd century and UNKNOWN before c 130 CE during the time of Simon BarCocheba.

Justin Marty's writings are Compatible with recovered dated Texts and are corroborated by Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources.

Jesus, the Phantom, and the hand Picked disciples could have ONLY been BELIEVED to have existed and could NOT have been actually known in the 1st century.

aa5874 · 07-30-2012, 09:53 PM

The writings of Justin are EXTREMELY important because the writer is an Apologetic source who ATTEMPTED to prove Jesus Christ did actually Exist.

But, quite amazingly, Justin Martyr had NO actual history of Jesus OUTSIDE the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr did NOT use Josephus, Tacitus or Suetonius.

There is ZERO external corroboration of Jesus in the writings of Justin.

First Apology

Quote:

Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.

Justin Martyr merely BELIEVED there were registers of a taxing under Cyrenius because it was claimed there was a taxing under Cyrenius in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

....on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Jud a, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled..

Once we REMOVE the Memoirs of the Apostles from the writings of Justin Martyr then we have a BIG BLACK Hole for Jesus and the disciples.

Justin Martyr's Jesus story goes up in smoke without the anonymous Memoirs.

Justin Martyr has been DUPED.

Justin Martyr BELIEVED a Son of a God was in Galilee during the reign of Tiberius but he has NO corroborative sources.

No-one OUTSIDE the Memoirs of the Apostles Met Justin's Jesus and disciples.

Justin's Jesus had NO real existence and that is PRECISELY why Justin had ZERO external history of Jesus, the disciples and Paul which is Compatible with the DATED recovered Texts and Non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

aa5874 · 07-31-2012, 03:31 PM

In order to reconstruct the past or develop a theory it is IMPERATIVE that Credible DATA be employed.

I must locate a CREDIBLE source that Matches the actual recovered DATED Texts.

The writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian and Arnobius are Compatible with the Big Black Hole for Jesus, the disciples and Pauline letters the 1st century.

Justin Martyr is Corroborated.

1. Justin mentioned Revelation by John but NOT Paul and the Pauline letters.

This is Compatible with the Muratorian Canon since it is claimed Paul IMITATED his Predeccessor John when Paul wrote his epistles.

This is also Compatible with the claims by Origen and Eusebius that Paul was ALIVE when gLuke was already composed.

The first author to mention gLuke was Irenaeus some time around c 180 CE or After the time of Justin Martyr.

Based on the abundance of evidence the Jesus story most likely Originated from the 2nd century.

aa5874 · 08-02-2012, 01:26 AM

IF anyone wanted to find out what happened in Israel yesterday then they would SIMPLY use Credible sources.

That is ALL. One does NOT have to be an Expert to use Credible sources.

It does NOT matter how far back in time we go--the same things applies--Credible sources.

We SIMPLY have to LOCATE Credible sources for the time period.

That is all.

Are there NO credible sources of antiquity that mentioned Jesus Christ???

Irenaeus and Justin Martyr mentioned Jesus.

Which one is credible???

Justin wrote BEFORE Irenaeus and did NOT mention the Four Gospels, Acts and the Pauline letters.

Irenaeus wrote AFTER Justin and his information about the NT has been REJECTED by Scholars.

Irenaeus has been DISCREDITED by Scholars, Contradicted by Apologetic sources, and did NOT know when Jesus was supposedly crucified.

Justin Martyr's writings ALSO fundamentally contradicts Irenaeus and is Compatible with the recovered DATED Texts and other Apologetic sources.

Until new evidence is recovered then I will use Sources of antiquity that are Compatible with the DATED Texts of antiquity---NOT Irenaeus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2012, 01:41 AM	#131
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	There may be a particular problem with palaeography of small fragments. For good quality palaeographic dating it helps if one has examples of every one of the Greek letters. With really small fragments this does not happen. Andrew Criddle

07-28-2012, 11:53 AM	#132
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	After having been on this forum for years I have RESOLVED the fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians. Once the actual recovered DATED Texts of antiquity are taken into consideration then I only needed to FIND sources of antiquity that were Compatible with the RECOVERED DATED Texts. There are TWO supposed early sources for the History of the Jesus cult of Christians. 1. Justin Martyr--writing c 160 CE. 2. Irenaeus--writing c 180 CE. Justin Martyr is Fundamentally compatible with the Recovered Dated Texts. Irenaeus is NOT compatible with the DATED Texts and provided Bogus information about the NT. Virtually everything claimed about the authorship, dating and chronology of the NT writings by Irenaeus is unsubstantiated. This leaves ONLY Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr's writings REFLECT the Fundamental History of the Jesus cult of Christians. There is NO need for anyone to INVENT any more theories about the Jesus cult of Christians. Justin Martyr CLEARLY described his Jesus as the Son of God born of a Ghost that resurrected and Ascended and provided ZERO actual history of the disciples and Paul. Justin Martyr SHOWED that the Jesus cult of Christians was in its INFANCY stage and that the Roman Emperor Antoninus , the Roman Senate and the Roman People had VERY LITTLE knowledge of the Jesus cult up to the mid 2nd century. Justin Martyr REVEALED in his writings that he did NOT know of any Prominent Jesus cult of Christians and known Jesus cult Philosopher BEFORE his conversion. Justin Martyr's Writings REFLECT precisely and Exactly what is EXPECTED when Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT have any real existence---NO history--No post-ascension activity. If we REMOVE the Events about Jesus and the disciples in the Memoirs of the Apostles from the Writings of Justin Martyr then we have NOTHING left--ZERO. "First Apology", and "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr REVEAL the people of antiquity merely STARTED to BELIEVE anonymous writings about Jesus in the 2nd century. Justin Martyr fundamentally WROTE the History of the Jesus cult of Christians and it was hardly known in the mid 2nd century. My ARGUMENT is that the Jesus cult of Christians is a 2nd century cult just as the dated sources and compatible sources show. The writings of Justin are far more credible than Irenaeus. Justin Martyr presented the fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

07-29-2012, 12:12 AM	#134
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	If anyone wishes to get a fundamental understanding of the early Jesus cult of Christians then one can read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr. We have TWO supposed 2nd century writers in Justin and Irenaeus. Which one of them is compatible with the recovered dated Texts??? Both Justin and Irenaeus claimed their Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a virgin, was resurrected and Ascended to heaven. Such a character could NOT have been human as described. Now, once there was NO actual Jesus then there should be NO actual hand-picked Apostles of Jesus. And once there were NO hand-picked Apostles then NO actual person could have seen them. Justin Martyr did NOT name any person OUTSIDE the Memoirs of the Apostles who knew any Apostle or the supposed Jesus. Irenaeus claimed people OUTSIDE the four Gospels knew on and saw the hand-picked Apostles and the resurrected Jesus. Irenaeus is NOT credible. Jesus and his hand picked Apostles ONLY lived inside the Gospels. The author of Acts and the Pauline writer could NOT have known of seen actual hand picked Apostles of Jesus. Justin Martyr's history of the Jesus cult of Christians is compatible with a 2nd century anonymous Myth Fable that was BELIEVED to have been composed in the 1st century by the apostles. Justin mentioned the magician Simon Magus since the time of Claudies c 41-54 CE but NOT the authors of Acts and the Pauline letters. The writings of Justin Martyr are the Fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians. There was NO stories about Jesus, disciples and Paul UNTIL the 2nd century.

07-29-2012, 12:54 PM	#135
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	My position is based on a source of antiquity not on imagination. There are two sources of antiquity supposedly from the 2nd century that show two radically different state of the Jesus cult up to that time. Justin Martyr is compatible with the DATED sources. Irenaeus did NOT even know when Jesus was crucified, or when Pilate was governor of Judea and the bogus information about the NT has been Rejected even by scholars. I will employ the wrtings of Justin Martyr to reconstruct the Fundamental history of the Jesus cult of Christians--NOT Irenaeus. Justin Martyr writings are internally consistent, corroborated and compatible with the dated recovered texts. The Jesus that Justin and Irenaeus believed in could NOT have existed so there could NOT have been any actual history of any hand-picked Apostles by the same non-existing character. Justin showed NO history of the Jesus cult up to the mid 2nd century but Irenaeus did. Justin is compatible with the Hard Evidence but Irenaeus is bogus. The Jesus story is an anonymous 2nd century writing that was believed to have been written by apostles.

07-31-2012, 03:31 PM	#139
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	In order to reconstruct the past or develop a theory it is IMPERATIVE that Credible DATA be employed. I must locate a CREDIBLE source that Matches the actual recovered DATED Texts. The writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian and Arnobius are Compatible with the Big Black Hole for Jesus, the disciples and Pauline letters the 1st century. Justin Martyr is Corroborated. 1. Justin mentioned Revelation by John but NOT Paul and the Pauline letters. This is Compatible with the Muratorian Canon since it is claimed Paul IMITATED his Predeccessor John when Paul wrote his epistles. This is also Compatible with the claims by Origen and Eusebius that Paul was ALIVE when gLuke was already composed. The first author to mention gLuke was Irenaeus some time around c 180 CE or After the time of Justin Martyr. Based on the abundance of evidence the Jesus story most likely Originated from the 2nd century.

08-02-2012, 01:26 AM	#140
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	IF anyone wanted to find out what happened in Israel yesterday then they would SIMPLY use Credible sources. That is ALL. One does NOT have to be an Expert to use Credible sources. It does NOT matter how far back in time we go--the same things applies--Credible sources. We SIMPLY have to LOCATE Credible sources for the time period. That is all. Are there NO credible sources of antiquity that mentioned Jesus Christ??? Irenaeus and Justin Martyr mentioned Jesus. Which one is credible??? Justin wrote BEFORE Irenaeus and did NOT mention the Four Gospels, Acts and the Pauline letters. Irenaeus wrote AFTER Justin and his information about the NT has been REJECTED by Scholars. Irenaeus has been DISCREDITED by Scholars, Contradicted by Apologetic sources, and did NOT know when Jesus was supposedly crucified. Justin Martyr's writings ALSO fundamentally contradicts Irenaeus and is Compatible with the recovered DATED Texts and other Apologetic sources. Until new evidence is recovered then I will use Sources of antiquity that are Compatible with the DATED Texts of antiquity---NOT Irenaeus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.