Sheshbazzar

No more than that HUGE dose of imagination and speculations that you yourself have been employing daily here.

We have not recovered any actual Ignatian DOCUMENTS that can be either paleographically or c.14 DATED to the 2nd century.
Nor has any Ignatian writing ever been recovered in a 2nd century CE archaeological situ.
You are -speculating- and -imagining- that there were such.

It is up to you. Do you want to relinquish that -speculative- and imaginative claim you have repeated throughout this thread, that Paul and the Pauline Epistles were not written or known of until after c. 150 CE ?

The writings of Ignatius, if you wish to accept them as being authentic, make a lie out of that speculation.

You can -speculate- and -imagine- that there were no Paul or Pauline Epistles before c.150.
Or
you can -speculate- and -imagine- that these Ignation writings are authentic, and Ignatius actually wrote them before c. 117 CE.

But you cannot rationally -speculate- and -imagine- and claim both, as these -speculations- and -imaginations- are mutually exclusive.
It is either one, the other, or none. No way for both.

If you choose to support your late Paul position. You can drop the Ignatius horse-shit you have been attempting to insert.

Duvduv

AA is always enjoying his speculations. He still has no empirical proof for the existence of a "Justin" in the 2nd century beyond the claims of the apologists and heresiologists, yet he keeps playing the game as if he does.

aa5874

You have already admitted to your "little speculation" and it is noted and accepted.

You seem not to understand that your "little speculation" adds up over time.

You Speculated about Saul's writings, now you Speculate on Justin.

Now my argument is that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on the actual recovered dated manuscripts and compatible sources.

I expected NO evidence--No mauscripts would have been found about Jesus, the disciples and Paul dated to the 1st century and that is EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what has happened.

I expected that there would be Apologetic sources which were claimed to be from the 2nd century which would NOT mention Paul and the Pauline writings and that is EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what has happened.

I expected that there would be Christians of antiquity that did NOT believe the Jesus story and that is EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what has been found.

My argument is solid and cannot be overturned by anyone today--Scholar or not

There is simply no actual evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul as actual human beings before c 70 CE.

Sheshbazzar

You have not recovered any actual Ignatian DOCUMENTS that can be either paleographically or c.14 DATED to the 2nd century.
Nor has any Ignatian writing ever been recovered in a 2nd century CE archaeological situ.
You are -speculating- and -imagining- that there were such.

It is up to you. Do you want to relinquish that -speculative- and imaginative claim you have repeated throughout this thread, that Paul and the Pauline Epistles were not written or known of until after c. 150 CE ?
The writings of Ignatius, if you wish to accept them as being authentic, make a lie out of that speculation.

You can -speculate- and -imagine- that there were no Paul or Pauline Epistles before c.150.
Or
you can -speculate- and -imagine- that these Ignation writings are authentic, and Ignatius actually wrote them before c. 117 CE.

But you cannot rationally -speculate- and -imagine- and claim both. as these -speculations- and -imaginations- are mutually exclusive.
It is either one, the other, or none. No way for both.
If you choose to support your late Paul position. You can drop the Ignatius horse-shit you have been attempting to insert.

aa5874

You are entirely confused. You don't know the difference between an "argument" and your admitted "speculation".

You speculated that Justin "pops in from outside of the existing Christian community, buys himself a philosophers coat, and wallah! He is transformed into Church's foremost spokesperson"

You knew in advance that you had no evidence whatsoever that Justin bought a philosopher's coat and had no evidence whatsoever that Justin claimed to be transformed into the foremost spokesperson of the Church.

You knew you were speculating from the very start.

You should have admitted that you were speculating a long time ago but have cluttered my thread with baseless assertions.

Why, why, why???

Please, just open your own thread about Justin's purchase and transformation based on admitted speculation.

It would appear to me that you have nothing to contribute at this time.

This thread is about the actual recovered dated manuscripts and compatible evidence that support my argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

You have no argument aa, that is not based on your own speculations and imaginations.


He TELLS us that he did. And of his extensive involvment in the pagan Greek philosophical schools. He does not give any credit to any other Christian in his community. It appears by the content of his writings that he was a totally self-centered jerk.

I have Justin's own written words indicating that he was proud of his Philosophers 'dress' and 'costume', and wrote about it so we all would take note of it. Your only valid quibble here is whether he bought it, stole it, or was given that infamous 'costume'. If you wish to argue that it was given to him, have at it.

We have more writings from Justin that are considered authentic by scholars than for any other Christian writer prior to 150 CE.
You have no evidence for your -speculated- and -imagined- writings from other earlier Christian sources.

Stop being an ass and trying to change what I wrote.
I never once wrote that 'Justin claimed' to be the Church's foremost spokesperson.

It is my opinion that Justin was the Christian Church's most prolific writer and thus foremost spokesperson before 150-60 CE. And there are no contemporary Christian DOCUMENTS that exist that dispute the content of his texts. The contemporary Christian Church that became the Orthodox and Catholic Church accepted Justin's writings and accorded him sainthood.

And anyone reading the last few posts is well aware that you still are.

What a putz. Dishonestly trying to present Ignatius's c. 117 writings with all their 'Paul' references as authentic, while at the same time trying to claim that knowledge of Paul and the Pauline Epistles did not exist before c 150 CE.

You should not have brought Ignatius, your rubber sword into this argument. Told you not to.

Because you are being devious and dishonest aa. Tell us about Ignatius aa. Go ahead and tell us how genuine and authentic you find the writings of Ignatius to be.
Accept that Ignatius in 117 CE was a devotee to the Gospel of the blessed Paul at whose feet he knelt.

Nope, that ain't gonna happen aa. I'm going to stay right here while you continue to expose what manner of low character you are

Well great aa. Now how about you start producing some of these actual 2nd century DATED manuscripts for your rubber sword Ignatius, and for Justin.

tanya

Here is a very good summary of the manuscript evidence concerning Ignatius:

aa5874

The Ignatian letters have not been actually found and dated to the time of Trajan so they are really of very little value as evidence against the argument that the Pauline writings were NOT composed in the 1st century.

Effectively, they cannot show that the stories of Jesus and Paul were composed or known before the 2nd century.

There is no actual dated evidence that can overturn my argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

Even if the Ignatian letters are authentic that does NOT mean that they are historically accurate and the letters themselves do NOT show that the Pauline letters were composed before c 68 CE.

It must NOT ever be forgotten that NO author of the Canon corroborates the Pauline letters.

We can go through the Entire Bible word by word and the Pauline letters have ZERO corroboration.

The author of Acts claimed or implied Saul/Paul existed but NEVER EVER claimed or implied Saul/Paul wrote Letters to Churches and to his acquaintances Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

Once no manuscript has been actually recovered and dated BEFORE c 68 CE that mentions Paul then it is virtually impossible to overturn my argument that the Pauline writings were composed in the 2nd century or later.

aa5874

It is clear to me that those who continue to promote early Pauline letters are merely doing so for propaganda purposes.

We can EASILY IDENTIFY the early Pauline propaganda--NO actual evidence is ever produced.

Any person, Scholar or not, who does a thorough analysis of the Pauline writings will see that they are without a shred of corroboration in the very NT Canon itself and that sources outside the Canon which mentioned the Pauline letters are NOT credible.

Scholars over a hundred years ago have argued that all the Pauline letters are NOT authentic yet Scholars today seems completely unwilling to show the Public that the Pauline writings are INDEED WITHOUT corroboration.

There is NO actual corroborative evidence for a single Pauline letter to a Church or an acquaintance of the supposed Paul--NOTHING.

The author of Acts most likely writing sometime after gLuke was composed did NOT corroborate any Pauline letters and actually claimed it was the Jerusalem Church that handed letters to Paul and his companions to DELIVER.

1. Acts of the Apostles is EVIDENCE AGAINST EARLY PAULINE LETTERS.

2. 2nd Peter mentioned Paul but is admitted to be a forgery in the History of the Church.


The supposed earliest non-Canonised source that mentioned Paul is an ANONYMOUS letter of which their is no dated original is claimed to be from the Church of Rome and composed when Clement was Bishop.

Even, the very Church writers did NOT know when Clement was Bishop of Rome--there is a discrepancy of 25-30 years.

But, inadvertently, the Church and its writers did NOT even realize the serious implications by NOT knowing when Clement was Bishop.

Effectively, The Church writers did NOT when anyone was Bishop of Rome.

If Clement was Bishop c 95 CE then who was the bishop c 68 CE.

If Clement was Bishop c 68 CE then who was the Bishop c 95 CE.

All sources which mentioned Paul are themselves NOT credible.

The next source that mentioned Paul are the Ignatian letters but multiple letters have been found which suggest that the Ignatian letters are highly questionable and appear to have been manipulated.

Then, we have the writings attributed to Irenaeus which mentioned the Pauline letters to Seven Churches and to Timothy and Titus.

These writings suggest that they were massively mutilated. It is claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius and was about 50 years of age which must mean that the author could NOT have known of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Incredibly, the supposed very first source that should have shown that the Pauline writings were early did the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

The next supposed author who mentioned all the Pauline letters to Churches was a composition of Five Books by Tertullian.

But, from the very start, we have a MAJOR BLUNDER, the author claimed he made some mistakes in an early version, that some other person copied another version of his work full of errors and published them and that he is now writing something NEW.

It cannot be determined what is the first, second or third version or which one is accurate of "Against Marcion".

And further, other Apologetic sources, suggest that "Against Marcion" is completely in error when the author claimed Marcion used the Pauline writings.

Hippolytus and Ephrem CONTRADICT "Against Marcion".

Hippolytus stated that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but the doctrine of Empedocles.

Ehprem the Syrian wrote "Against Marcion" and did NOT claim that Marcion used or maipulated the Pauline writings.

There is ZERO corroboration for early Pauline writings--ZERO.

From the Canon itself it can be deduced that it was NOT the Pauline writings that influenced those who wrote stories of Jesus in the Canon but it was the author of the short gMark.

The short gMark was most likely composed AFTER PAUL was supposedly executed under Nero c 64-66 CE.

The Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Canonised short gMark Jesus story was already known.

aa5874

It has been drawn to my attention that the claims of interpolations in the Pauline writings are flawed.

If the Pauline letters were actually composed early, that is, before c 68 CE then there would be no need for an intepolator to make the writings appear to have been composed later.

It makes absolutely no sense for an interpolator to manipulate authentic EARLY writings with LATE blatant anachronisms.

However, it makes a lot of sense for an interpolator to make a LATE writing appear EARLY.

So, if any Pauline writings contain some information that appear to be EARLY and some other information that appear to be LATE then it is most likely the EARLY information that was interpolated.

It is known that virtually all writings of the Canon that Church writers claimed to be early were late and sometimes by over 50 years.

The claim that a disciple of Jesus called Matthew first wrote gMatthew before gMark gives the impression that gMatthew was written early.

The claim that a disciple of Peter called Mark wrote gMark during the time of Philo gives the impression that gMark was early.

The claim that John the disciple of Jesus wrote gJohn gives the impressiom that gJohn was composed Early.

The claim that Luke a disciple of Paul wrote gLuke and Acts gives the impression that gLuke and Acts were Early

The pattern is clear.

Additions to the NT stories, whether authorship or contents, are to make them appear EARLY not late.

So, if any writings are found with information that show parts are early and parts are late then it is most likely the early parts that are historically bogus.

In effect, LATE Paul is the real Paul.