TedM

Sheshbazzar, you have revealed an enormous inability to logically follow what I have stated with regard to the likelihood that Paul was writing about a historical person who had lived shortly before, thus spawning the religion about which was then increasingly written about. The fact that you argue that it very well could have existed 500 years prior shows that you have no common sense. I'm sorry to be so blunt but your reasoning is extremely lacking. I therefore consider it a waste of time to continue along the lines of this discussion with you.

Likewise aa, in your response to my demonstration of the weaknesses of your 16 points, you have shown that you too cannot think reasonably. It's truly amazing to see how you respond to reasonable arguments. It shows that you really doesn't understand how to analyze. It seems to be enough for you to be able to simply say that if there is an absence of something it is very meaningful. You see no problem with NOT taking into account the implications of that absence to conspiracy theory, or NOT taking into account the context of what was written, and so many other things. While I know you will deny it (because you are unable to process clearly), your responses to my points were incredibly off-point. It's not worth my time to continue our discussion either.

aa5874

You had NOTHING to contribute to this thread from the start but was attempting to derail my thread with your repetition of your absurdities and illogical statements without a shred of any evidence.

My argument is extremely solid and cannot be overturned at all based on the Existing Facts--the Jesus story and cult ORIGINATED in the 2nd century.

No Scholar, No Expert can overturn my argument.

There is NO actual physical evidence for stories about Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century.

There is ACTUAL physical evidence for stories about Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 2nd century.

My argument is NOT based on hypothetical evidence.

My argument cannot be overturned at all until new evidence is found.

There was never any documented evidence that Jesus existed because for Hundreds of years Christians themselves were arguing about the nature of Jesus.

1. Some Christians argued that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

2. Some argued that Jesus was NOT born.

3. Some argued that Jesus was God the Creator.

4. Some argued that the Son of God was a Phantom.

The historicity of Jesus was NOT established in or out the Canon by Apologetics--the very Christians of the Jesus cult had NO idea who Jesus was.

The NT Canon is a compilation of the Myth Fables that were believed by the Jesus cult in antiquity.

We can identify THREE Major Jesus cults in the Canon.

1. The Early Jesus cult that used the Synoptic type teachings.

2. The Jesus cult that used the Johnanine teachings.

3. The Later Jesus cult that used the Pauline teachings.

TedM

Context, Context, Context, Sheshbazzar!

It is ironic that aa relies so heavily on Justin to support his 2nd century Christian creation theory, because Justin is DEVASTATING to aa's argument.

Justin clearly believes in the Jesus of the Gospels, referencing them a number of times. He believed Jesus lived in the early 1st century too -- referencing his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

A few things suggest to me that the beginnings of Christianity had to be a century or so prior to Justin:

1. The well-established traditions. The fact that worship included reading from the memoirs of the Apostles, which were likely composed of multiple gospels (Justin says they were written in Gospels (plural), suggests that those memoirs had existed for at least a couple of generations.

2. The number of Gentile Christians is significant enough to suggest the religion had existed for decades, beginning first with the Jews, and spreading out to the Gentile lands. In the First Apology LIII:
3. The number of False Heresies. He mentions four different groups by name that were called "Christians":

What would inspire four groups to arise over the preceding decades, all sharing a belief in a risen Christ? Most likely Christianity had existed for a century or more in order for this many movements to have gained such critical mass.


Now, on to Paul:

One of these heretical groups was Marcion's. While Justin's surviving works (8 of them) only mention Marcion 3 times, it is clear that he despised their beliefs. Iraeneas writes that Justin wrote an entire book against Marcion. It would be very interesting to know if/how Justin referenced Paul in that book. In the surviving works he only writes a few sentences on two occasions, and mentions the name on the other. The sentences indicate that Marcion still was alive, teaching a despicable theology about God.

In the brief paragraphs about Marcion there is no mention of Paul. If one assumes Marcion didn't really rely on Paul that is understandable, but there is NO BASIS for that assumption.

So, how to explain the absence of mentioning Paul?

Justin's main 3 works are:
First Apology: The Gentiles are only briefly mentioned. No one should expect him to mention in that context. He does mention Marcion twice though..keep reading..

Second Apology: Here there is no context for mentioning Paul.

Dialogue with Trypho: There are plenty of contexts here for mentioning Paul, since he discusses Gentile conversion a number of times.


There are three good reasons for Justin to have not mentioned Paul in the 3 surviving works. In conjunction they argue against mentioning Paul at all, and especially in the Dialogue with Trypho:


1. Paul was likely highly associated with Marcionism, as all sources indicate. Justin would have been well-served to avoid opening the can of worms regarding a debate about which of the writings were authentic to Paul and which weren't. In addition, the issue he mentions regarding Marcionism had to do with the OT God(s), and not Paul.

2. It wasn't Justin's style. Justin was reliant almost exclusively on 2 things: The OT prophets, and the Memoirs of the Apostles (Gospels). He explicitly stated:

That is what Justin used for his arguments.


3. Relying on Paul would have been like shooting oneself in the foot. He was arguing with Trypho, a JEW who favored keeping the LAW:

The theology was completely at odds with Paul's writings. If Acts is to be believed, the pro-Law Jews HATED Paul. Jews of Justin's time would have HATED Paul's legacy. If Paul had existed, he would have been the LAST source for Justin to quote to a JEW, as it would have conjured up images of Benedict Arnold. And, it would have given FRESH FODDER for the Jew to use the Marcion-Paul connection against Justin to further the idea that Paul was a heretical figure. It was far smarter for Justin to use the OT to support his pro-Gentile case.

And that's exactly what he did.

aa5874

It is clear to me that TedM is attempting to derail my thread with a massive amount of repetitive clutter.

I am interested in actual evidence NOT Speculation.

TedM does NOT understand that MORE DATA--MORE FACTS make an argument stronger and that each piece of DATA or FACT depends on each other just like a jig-saw puzzle.

Each piece by itself does NOT display the whole picture and it cannot be discarded. The more pieces we put together the more of the whole picture will emerge until it may not even be necessary to use all the pieces.

There are enough pieces of Facts to show that stories of Jesus, the disciples and Paul were 2nd century or later Myth Fables.

These are some of the FACTS that allow me to argue that the Pauline writings are Late.

When these pieces of facts are assembled together the Pauline writings are 2nd century or later sources of Fiction or Myth Fables like those of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

1. The author of Acts, writing AFTER c 59-62 CE, did NOT ever acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

2. Letters between Paul/Seneca are deduced to be forgeries.

3. No author of the Canon used a single verse from the Pauline letters.

4. The theology in the Pauline writings are more advanced than the Synoptics.

5. No Pauline letter have been found and dated to the 1st century.

6. An Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation by John.

7. An Apologetic Source, First Apology attributed to Justin, claimed the Memoirs of the Apostles were read in the Churches--NOT the Pauline Epistles.

8. None of the acquaintances of the Pauline writer have been found in 1st century writings.

9. Barnabas is associated with Paul---writings attributed to Barnabas are not dated to the 1st century.

10. The early Gospels do NOT claim Jesus died for our sins--the Pauline writer claim Jesus died for our sins which is found in the later Gospels.

11. No author of the Canon claimed over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus--only the Pauline writer.

12. No author of the Canon claimed that without the Resurrection there would be NO remission of Sins--Only the Pauline writer.

13. An Apologetic source, Hippolytus, claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings.

14. An Apologetic source, Ephraim the Syrian, wrote Three Prose Against Marcion and did NOT acknowledge that Marcion used the Pauline writings.

15. Apologetic sources, Eusebius and Origen, claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written--gLuke is considered to have been written long after the Fall of the Temple.

TedM

It's good that you are sticking around to keep things on track, aa. I've answered your 16 items so there is no point to me repeating it again for the benefit of those seeking the truth. You can have your thread 'back'. It's a shame you are trying to convert people to such a silly idea. As I told you before, since you can convert only a small percentage of atheists it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will be able to convert any more than an extremely small percentage of believers. Maybe .0001%. Is it really worth all this time and effort you are putting into it?

And for what? What alternative do you have--rotting in the grave? Taking away hope for salvation?

Oh well, since your theories are so far out there I have few worries about the impact on others. As I said before I was just trying to help save you from yourself, and maybe a few gullible ones who believe your theory.

I'll make a deal with you. Get away from this for a while, have some fun, and I promise you I'll do the same. I will anyway..

Sheshbazzar

Oh that's alright, it balances out, you swallow horse shit, and your knowledge is extremely lacking.

But smooth move to avoid actually having to address the points I raised that reveal how utterly ignorant and flakey your claims are .

Composer

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

&

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm)


:eating_popcorn:

Sheshbazzar

Then why are you addressing this to me? That is arguing against aa's argument, not mine.

You ass-ume to much and know too little. You seem to be entirely ignorant of the FACT that I have argued against aa's 2nd century Jesus theory at length in numerous threads in this Forum, including this one.
It is a well documented, long standing, and well known unresolved conflict of views between aa and I.

Just as you, I believe that Jeezuz Gospel stories were present in the 1st century CE, although perhaps not as 'polished' as we are now accustomed to...
(You do know I have a running debate going on with Adam over his attempts to edit the supernatural elements and miracles out of these Gospel stories to present a Gospel that as far as is known, has never existed?)
...But in addition to that, I believe that these stories were assembled from Jewish midrash and 'sayings material' from various sources that had accumulated over centuries.
Many of 'Jeezuz' sayings are nothing more than slightly rephrased sayings that can be traced back to earlier Jewish teachers, and to other figures of ancient history.
The bulk of what 'Jeezuz' allegedly 'said' wasn't all that earth shaking because it had already been said by others before 'him'. (The Gospels are practically composed around the 'fulfilling' of quotations cribbed from the Prophets.)

The Gospels were patched together from hundreds of earlier sources. They are not eyewitness accounts. They are religious propaganda fiction.

No argument there. Justin believes that there was 'once-upon-a-time' a miracle working Jew in the days of Pontius Pilate (which was after all in the 1st century)
That was the story he heard, that was the story he read, and that was the story that he believed.
BUT....he never met this miracle working, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, first born Son of God, Jeezuz that he believed in and taught about.
Justin is no more of an eyewitness to the existence of a human Jeezuz than you and Benny Hinn are.

Of course. It would be. It was what -Trypho- said.

Why would you expect Trypho the Jews theology agree with that of 'Paul' the 'Christian's ?

lmbarre

I would suggest that sound argumentation must meet those arguments and conclusions that argue for a 1st century date of composition for many if not most of New Testament literature. This site represents the position of many mainstream scholars.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

LMB

aa5874

You have EXPOSED your problem. From the very start You were terrified that people will believe the evidence that I have presented in my thread.

Well, it is too late now. The evidence of Myth has been presented.

Christians of the Jesus cult ARGUED that Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN by all authors of the Canon.

The very Church and its writers have ADMITTED Paul did know of gLuke.

It was a LIE that Paul died under Nero--A big LIE. gLuke was composed AFTER Antiquities of the Jews or after c 92 CE.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul were invented some time in the 2nd century or later just like the recovered dated manuscripts show.

Can't you understand that people can see the fear in you?? You are worried that people will see the evidence of MYTHOLOGY.

You appear to have NO interest in any evidence that can show stories about Jesus, the disciples and Paul were Myth Fables like those of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

Is this a Bribe??

TedM it is all over for the HJ argument. ALL over.

I have BURIED the HJ argument ONCE and FOR ALL.

It will NEVER return on BC&H.

It is Finished.

John 19:30 KJV Just GIVE up on the Ghost story.