Iasion

That would be 4th century.

Constantine's Bible included an NT that was ALMOST like our modern version.

Finally in 367 CE we have a list of the NT which is exactly like ours.


Iasion

Solitary Man

I thing Kongfuzi would be a better parallel than Laozi.

Edit: Saw you already remarked on that. Would like to discuss further on that issue.

mountainman

This position is changing and there are a
number of positions out there now in which
Paul of Tarsus is a fictive fabrication.

The documents attributed to him once totalled
fourteen (was it?) and now we are down to less
than a handful. One by one scholarship has
agreed these documents of this "Paul" are
nothing but pious forgeries.

Paul IMO was written 312-324 CE, from Rome.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Ben C Smith

You are referring, of course, to the complete NT as a whole. The complete NT in it parts is attested by the early third century.

Ben.

aa5874

Well, first of all, your position on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth has no direct bearing on other figures of history, even if you think, in error, that some other person did or did not exist, this error does not disqualify you from examining the evidence for Jesus and forming an opinion.

All you really need is evidence or information to support your position and to show it is reasonable to hold such a position. If you claim Jesus was a person of history, then it is reasonable that you provide some credible information or evidence of his history or else it is reasonable to consider Jesus as non-historical.

If I use gMatthew's version of Jesus Christ, I could use any version in the NT, it can be shown quickly that is reasonable to consider Jesus Christ as non-historical.

Let's look at Jesus, according to gMatthew, from one point, for the time being.
1. Jesus was born when Herod the Great was King of Judaea.

Now, this gospel does not give the actual date, and where are we going to get this date from? We are going to have go to some credible historians or writers whose writings can be trusted or is reliable. So if there were no trustworthy historians or writers, the information in gMatthew would have been useless. We wouldn't be able to deduce that Matthew's Jesus was born around 6CE, without relying on historians like Josephus who wrote about Herod the Great.

So, this is the position effectively, whatever gMatthew said about Jesus, we would look for corroboration from some credible independant source.

According to gMatthew, Jesus was believed to the Son of the God of the Jews, the Christ, could do miracles and raised the dead, he had thousands of followers, and preached in the synagogues, he called the spiritual leaders vipers and devils and beat up people in the temple with a whip and made a claim he would be resurrected if he was killed.

Surely some credible, and trustworthy historian or writer would have written about this Jesus.

These historians wrote about Herod the Great, the sons of Herod, Pilate, the Temple of Jerusalem, Galilee, John the Baptist, Herodias, Tiberius, Julius Caesar, Vespasian, Titus, Claudius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Alexander the great, Nero, Felix, Festus, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the chief priests, the Essenes, King Aretas, Damascus, and they all forgot Jesus of Nazareth, all the historians forgot about Jesus, except the forgerer in Josephus.

I tried to get corroboration of gMatthew's Jesus, all I found were forgeries. I think that it is reasonable to consider gMatthew's Jesus as non-historical since nobody appears to know him or wrote a word about him, not even a rumour.

It is strange that an historian wrote about John the Baptist and forgot about Jesus, the son of a god and the Messiah, they probably never even heard of him.

mountainman

Your Pre-Nicene attestations to the NT are either via Eusebius,
or by association of certain texts coupled with a paleographic
dating assessment certificate. You have no dated copies of
the NT before the King Constantine's Bible which are dated by
any other means than those mentioned above.

Of course, you are certainly free to conjecture, and of
course every man and his dog has done so for centuries,
that Constantine actually "inherited" earlier christian
literature.

But I'd like to be sure about that.
It seems important to me to be sure
that we have not been hoodwinked
by a clever mafia boss, his Roman
army, and a bunch of old wives tales.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

schilling.klaus

paleography is one circular fraudulent pseudo-science,


Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

Why should anyone accept that this claim is true and/or that on this point you know what you are talking about?

Jeffrey

schilling.klaus

<edit>

Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

What I am and what I reputedly do, let alone what YK "knows", is not at issue. What's at issue is your claim about paleography.

So I ask again: what should anyone accept that your claim about paleography is true and/or that with respect to that field, you know what you are talking about?

Jeffrey