Sheshbazzar

Gee..Thanks!

However, I do not accept aa's allegations that I have made misleading statements.
He simply has a serious deficiency in his ability to parse and to correctly comprehend the content and intent of sentences and paragraphs written in English, thus transfers his faulty understanding into strawman arguments which are of no value, other than publicly displaying his appalling lack of comprehension.

aa5874

Well if you are not attempting to derail my thread why don't tell us how you managed to FIND that the claims about Jesus in Acts and the Pauline writings were Late and Forged and that these asshats Never met any Jesus when You Don't Know all the Text Ever written about Jesus???

Come on Sheshbazzar--you are illogical--"the Pertinent information is Known to be lacking"--"The information is Unknown to any living person".

You seem to be attempting to derail my thread with your absurd argument.

Sheshbazzar

Stupid question. But perhaps that is to be expected as being par for the course.

The tales themselves -tell- us that all of this took place after Jesus was DEAD and GONE. (if he had ever existed)

'Paul' as far as his writings reveal, NEVER in his life so much as laid eyes on any flesh and blood physical Jesus.

The internal and consistent theology of these late forgeries, is not that of the highly diverse and divided early church, but that of long established and 'orthodox' views, the ones that were arrived at over centuries of 'Christian' debate and bloodshed.

No one needs all of the religious texts of the 1st century to be able to smell the inserted and rank stink of the 2nd through 5th century Papistic Trinatarians, Cross kissers, and Maryolaters.




.

aa5874

Well, let us see your answer!!!

What??? But you are Now using the tales of the ASSHATS!!! Look at your own post #262.

Come on Sheshbazzar--You don't know every Text written about Jesus by the Pauline writer. Remember you FOUND that the Pauline writings were Late and Forged.

Tell us about ALL the Pauline letters that are NOT LATE and Not Forged.

Sheshbazzar---That information is unknown to any person living...

So you are NOW employing your LATE and FORGED sources as CREDIBLE historical evidence.

You cannot be serious. You attempt to ridicule me and derail my thread because I use Justin Martyr yet you use ADMITTED LATE FORGED material.

Why are you, NOT a Christian, using ASSHATS material???


What???? No one needs all of the religious texts from the 1st century...!!!!!

You must have been trying to derail my thread because now you have REVERSED yourself and is now making your own stupid argument.

Your own absurdity has back-fired.

Please, you have presented a load of BS.

You use the very LATE and Forged Material as evidence and now admit that no-one, no-one, needs all the Texts from the 1st century to come to a conclusion.

Please, take a time out. You must be sleepy or confused.

You don't make much sense.

Sheshbazzar

Continue to take statements out of context.
Yes, I use this ADMITTED LATE and FORGED material in the examination of 2nd century and latter religious development.
I DO NOT use these ADMITTED LATE and FORGED 'Pauline' writings or 'Acts' to determine anything about the NON EXISTENT and fictional character called 'Jesus Christ', or 1st century history. period.

In my view there never was any person known as 'Jesus Christ'. So I do not use the ADMITTED LATE and FORGED material of the 'Pauline' epistles or 'Acts of The Apostles' to determine anything about the character called 'Jesus Christ'.
Just like I don't use the contents of The Quran or The Book of Mormon to determine what constituted 1st century CE Jewish religious beliefs or practices.

In that these ADMITTED LATE and FORGED writings did not even exist in the 1st century, they are -anachronistic- and hold very little of relevance or of value to my views on the history of 1st century Jewish religion.

But of course you do not understand what I am writing so must pervert it to fit it into your own warped ideas.

You may continue to construct these inane types of replies as an excuse to avoid dealing with the incontrovertible FACT that you are pulling your claim that "there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century" out of your asshole.
And staying 'ON TOPIC' I will continue in this thread to point out that you ARE in FACT pulling this claim out of your asshole every time that you make it.



.

aa5874

Now, that you have Denied using the Late Forged Text then you have confirmed you are engaged in a NO Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument.

Your arguments were just a load of BS. You REFUSED to name your Sources and have been contradicting yourself posts after posts.

You have Reversed yourself and now admit that NO-ONE needs to know all of the 1st century text.

From the very start of my thread I have been arguing that Jesus had NO REAL existence using Recovered Dated Texts and Compatible Sources and that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

These are some of MY Sources--The Recovered DATED Texts, the Short gMark, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Minucius Felix, Tatian, Arnobius, Ephraim the Syrian, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus in "Against Celsus" and Julian the Emperor.

I won't be engaged with your NO Source, No Evidence and No Proof argument.

Sheshbazzar

Out of context again. What I actually stated was that no one needed "the religious texts of the 1st century to be able to smell the inserted and rank stink of the 2nd through 5th century Trinatarians, Cross kissers, and Maryolaters."
The subject of this paragraph is NOT the 1st century, nor 1st century texts,
But is clearly, based solely upon the content of 2nd century and later FORGED texts "to be able to smell the inserted and rank stink of the 2nd through 5th century Papistic Trinatarians, Cross kissers, and Maryolaters."
This observation is NOT dependent upon anything in 1st century texts but upon what is contained in those FORGED 2nd century and latter texts.
There was no 'reversal' or admission inherent in this statement, as truely in this instance there would be no need to know the content of all earlier writings in order to detect that 'stink'
It is a 2nd and latter century subject, based upon the contents of 2nd and latter century writings.
Unlike your 'No Jesus stories in the 1st century CE' claim, it requires no deep knowledge of, nor evidence which could only be gleaned from 1st century CE writings.

Again you have only proven that you cannot correctly parse and comprehend the content of simple English paragraphs.
Whether this apparent inability on your part, to parse, to understand, and to correctly comprehend the content and the sense of paragraphs composed in English is real or is being conveniently feigned, I do not know.
I do well recall however, those posts made by others here whom have also at various times, called into question your often evident lack of comprehension of English language statements.




.

Sheshbazzar

Oh really?

I would think that it should be apparent by now, even to you, that you have been so engaged over the course of several hundred posts.
And I expect, that unless you choose to abandon your unprovable and ridiculous '"No Jesus story in the 1st century" claim, or put me on 'ignore' that you will be continuing to be engaged with my counter-arguments and rebuttals of your silly claim for quite some time.

You are welcome to stop replying....But do expect that I will continue to point out the logical fallacies inherent in your "NO Jesus story in the 1st century" claim as often as you raise it.

There is much we can agree about. And there is much that we do agree about.

Its really up to you what it is that you wish to make the focus of this thread, the one thing that we disagree about.
Or those hundreds of things that have been revealed that we do agree about.

We both agree that any historical Jesus is nothing more than a Myth.

My wife and I agree about most things in life. There have always been some few things that for our individual conscience sake we must continue to disagree about.
Our marriage has survived and has grown ever stronger with the passing of each of its 44 years, as we early on learned not to pick at one another's sore spots and scabs every day.

A lasting truce always takes a mutual agreement that is respected and is held to by both parties.
You might consider thinking about it.



.

aa5874

Yeah, really!!!

You cannot name your sources or the evidence for your findings that parts of Acts and the Pauline writings are Late and Forged and that the "asshats" never met Jesus.

You are ENGAGED in a No Source--No Evidence--No Proof Argument.

Your claims must be unproveable since you don't know all the written texts about Jesus.

NAme your Sources--Identify your Evidence.

Sheshbazzar

I already have.
The evolved apologetics of the 4th century religion should not be present in 1st and 2nd century texts. When and where they are, it is the evidence of latter tampering and forgery.

I don't provide this for your sake, as it is obvious that it will exceed the limited abilities of your comprehension.
Most others here will have no problem.