aa5874

You don't even seem to understand what "actual evidence" means??

The actual recovered dated evidence and compatible sources ALLOW me to present the STRONGEST possible argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

There is no actual evidence to supply names of the authors of the NT Canon.

Again, the actual evidence ALLOWS me to argue that Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

In other words, the name Paul or the Pauline writers were INVENTED sometime in the 2nd cetury or later to DUPE and DECEIVE people in the Roman Empire into believing that Jesus and his disciples did exist and was resurrected.

Sheshbazzar

The name Greek Ἰησοῦν is pronounced e'ay-sooce is the source of our well known name 'Jesus' > Jees-us.

'Joshua of the Hebrew and Greek texts is not treated carefully in English translations. Custom and tradition are followed rather than always following the forms that the ancient documents would indicate as being correct.
Or let me put it this way, IF 'Jesus' were a correct English rendering of that name, there would be not be a single 'Joshua' to be found anywhere in any English language Bible.
The Church and the Bible translators have always compromised and 'played games' with this particular name.

The Hebrew name יהושוע is composite, being actually a statement or short sentence in Hebrew. (similar in this to many Native American names)

The elements that comprise the name הושוע beigin with the name of the man הושע spelled 'Oshea' in most English texts, but actually 'Ho'sheah' or 'Ho'shua' as pronounced in Hebrew (Numbers 13:8)

This is the name that 'Moses' changed by adding the prefexd yod [ י]
Because of the peculiarities of Hebrew syntax this accomplishes indicating two interdependent thoughts.
First as the word or name Hoshea signifies to 'help', 'deliver', 'resecue', or 'save' prefexing the yod would form the short and simple Hebrew sentence 'He helps' 'He saves' or He delivers'.
BUT secondly, another pecularity is that simply שוע independently, means 'to 'help', 'deliver', 'resecue', or 'save'.
and this prefexed with the theophonic יהו ('Jeho' Yahu)
would indicate 'Yah's' help, 'Yah's' Deliverer' or 'Yah's Salvation'
And as the theophonic Name יה 'YAH' or 'YAHH' signifies Self-Existant, the name 'YAH-Hoshua' has an implicit meaning of being 'Self-Existent Help' or 'Self Existent Salvation', that 'HELP' or salvation residing within the maintaining of the very name itself!

The peculiar Name thus effectively becomes a shibboleth military 'pass word'.

This is why such stress is laid upon believing, 'calling upon', and being 'baptized' immersed "in the NAME of ....." throughout the NT.

The Greek and any other variant pronunciations are thus effectively the sibbolehts of those devoted to destruction.


'Jesus' is the English version of Ἰησοῦν [E'ay-sooce']. The form Jesu comes from the Greek spelling Ἰησοῦ, which lacks the terminal gender indicator ν 's'.
My time is limited at the moment so I will, if nescessary, address your other questions at a latter time.


Sheshbazzar

MrMacSon

Cheers. Thank you very much.

I have delved a bit more into Christus & Christos, but would be interested in your take.

MrMacSon

Yes, but 'netzer' is used elsewhere?

Yes, but it seems more stories were developed around that name ...

MrMacSon

aa5874,
I agree that the current versions of the current Jesus-[the]-Christ story are likely have been collated and intertwined in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, but I also subscribe to theories that the Christian-biblical stories had their antecedents in stories that began around the time the LXX was translated into Greek ~ 2-300BCE.

It seems there was a real mish-mash of stories in that Messianic Age: Zoroastrianism, Mithracism, Docetism, Arianism, etc transitioning to & leading to Montanism, early Christianity, etc,

aa5874

The Jesus story was fundamentally derived from Hebrew Scripture. Jesus, the Son of man is specifically based on prophecies found in Daniel.

The Gospel of Jesus, the son of man, that the kingdom of God was at hand and was coming in the clouds of heaven is found DIRECTLY in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 7Mark 14 The Jesus of the NT was the One like the Son of man that was to come in the clouds of heaven found directly in the book of Daniel and Hebrew Scripture.

Hebrew Scripture, Jewish Mythology, the fundamental source for the Jesus story is Bolted and Bound to the NT Canon of the Christian Bible.

TedM

So, you claim to know approximately when and why the writings first existed.

I've seen your evidence about 'when'.

How about 'why'? Where is your evidence that these writings were written in order to 'dupe' and 'deceive'? Who was trying to deceive who? And what was their method of deception?

aa5874

It is plain to see that without Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings there would be Nothing of the post-resurrection and ascension activities of the Apostles and Saul/Paul.

No other books in the Canon of the Canon mentions any acts of the Apostles or Saul/Paul after Ascension.

Acts of the Apostles is a work of Fiction including the Ascension, the Coming of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, the miracles [ instantly raising the dead], speaking fluently in foreign languages [talking in tongues], and the conversion of Saul/Paul when he was blinded by a bright light and "heard" the voice of the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer attempted to corroborate Acts of the Apostles and claimed that Jesus was God's Own Son , that he Paul Spoke in tongues, that he SAW the resurrected Jesus and that the very same Jesus revealed his gospel to him--No Remission of Sins--No Salvation without the resurrection.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are a Pack of LIES which have Duped and Deceived people in the Roman Empire into believing the Monstrous Tale of Jesus, the disciples and Paul is the truth.

Against the Galileans
The very Church and its writers claimed Paul was Executed under Nero yet simultaneously claimed or implied Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was Composed.

The very Church claimed Paul was executed under Nero yet an Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claimed or implied Paul was ALIVE AFTER Revelation by John was composed.

The ACTUAL Recovered Dated evidence is compatible with Apologetic sources that claim Paul was ALIVE AFTER c 70 CE or After the Fall of the Temple.

The NT Canon is a compilation of 2nd century Myth Fables of a Son of a God primarily from Jewish Myhtology, and that of the Greeks and Roman

TedM

You didn't answer my question. None of what you wrote indicated 'why' there would be a coordinated attempt to fabricate the beginnings of Christianity, nor is it evidence for the reason of deception.

Instead you alluded to Paul's conversion. That works against you since Galatians and Acts poorly coincide. If the writer was the same person then the account in Galatians would have been the same--with a vision and a voice.

Instead you appeal to Against the Galileans, which was written in the mid 4th century. It is of virtually no value if you claim these books were written in the 2nd century. How would the author have known? If he could write about history 200 years later, why couldn't the books of the 2nd century have also been translating history from the 1st century?

Instead you appeal to a possible mistake regarding the timing of Paul's death. If it was made up, why would they make a mistake? They had every opportunity to do a great job with their conspiracy, yet there were so very many mistakes. This needs to be explained for it to hold any water.

Instead you appeal to the existence of the supernatural in the documents. Since writing about both the supernatural and natural are not mutually exclusive tasks, this argument is of no value to your theory as to WHEN they were written.

Instead you appeal to a very questionable interpretation of the Muratorian Canon, which I showed previously was a very weak argument on your part. Even if you are right it again points out the weakness of conspirators--why couldn't they manufacture the timelines of a very few number of major characters in their 'story of deception' in a way that was clear?

The idea of a conspiracy in which dozens and dozens of books were manufactured, which contradicted each other and contained much information that reflected long-evolved traditions instead of a fresh writing of history is, quite frankly, far-fetched and devoid of common sense.

Would you care again to try and answer the questions?:

If your only source is a writer 200 years later that was 'convinced' they were fabrications by men of wickendness, then your theory is in big trouble. Where is your CREDIBLE evidence that these writings were written in order to 'dupe' and 'deceive'? Who was trying to deceive who? What was their motivation? And what was their method of deception--how could they pass the word along, and to who?

aa5874

My argument is solid and cannot be overturned.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

In effect, the NT is a compilation of 2nd century and later Myth Fables that were circulated in the Roman Empire.

Now, a writer Bart Ehrman wrote a book "Did Jesus Exist?"--"the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth" and in chapter 5 he argues that there are "two key data for the historicity of Jesus".

What are those two key historical data according to Ehrman??

1. The Crucifixion.

2. Paul and his associates, Peter and James.

Ehrman's "two key data" was derived from the NT.

Now, hear how Ehrman himself describes the NT--his source for the "two key data".

Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” page 182 Ehrman challenges his readers--Pick any the same stories in the NT and they are filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

Ehrman's own challenge will show that his own "two key data" are WORTHLESS--essentially "historical garbage".

The crucifixion of a character called Jesus of Nazareth, and the Apostles Paul, Peter and James are unknown outside the NT and Apologetic writers.

Pick any story about Jesus and you find discrepancies and contradictions.

Pick any story about Paul in Acts and the Pauline letters and you will most likely find discrepancies and contradictions.

1. The author of Acts never claimed Paul wrote letters of doctrine and never claimed he wrote letters to Churches. See all the Pauline letters

2. The author of Acts never claimed the Apostle James was the Lord's brother and Never claimed Paul met an actual brother of the Jesus. See Galatians 1

3. The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul went to Arabia. See Galatians 1

4. The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul only met Peter and James. See Galatians 1

5. The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul went to Jerusalem ONLY twice in 14 years. See Galatians 2.

6. The author of Acts claim Paul was BLINDED and did NOT see Jesus contrary to the Pauline writer. See 1 Cor. 15

7. The author of Acts did NOT claim a Gospel was Revealed to Paul. See Galatians 1

8. The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul consulted entities WITHOUT Flesh and blood. See Galatians 1.

The stories of Paul in Acts and the Pauline writings are indeed filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

Either one or both are in Error.

Both Acts and the Pauline letters cannot be correct and there is NO external independent non-apologetic source that mentioned the activities of Paul.

Ehrman's "two key data" to argue for an historical Jesus are of zero help in his argument.

Ehrman really had NO "key data"--Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are both works of Fiction about a character called the Son of God who was Raised from the dead.

The NT is indeed a compilation of 2nd century Myth Fables that were Believed in antiquity.