aa5874

When one examines the NT Canon and Apologetic sources a pattern will develop.

It will be easily noticed that all sources which claimed Paul was a 1st century evangelist or that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were authors of the Gospels or that Acts of the Apostles was composed before c 68 CE are all sources of fiction or provide information that cannot be reconciled historically.

The author of "Against Heresies" claimed or implied that he was aware that authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote Gospels, that Acts of the Apostles is historically accurate and that the Pauline writer did compose letters to Churches.

But, there is a major problem that cannot be reconciled historically.

Ireneaus claimed Jesus suffered at about 50 years old under Claudius.

It is virtually impossible that Jesus, if he did live, suffered at about 50 years under Claudius when the author of Acts was aware of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and all Pauline letters.

Essentially, the first known writings of antiquity to identify books of the Canon are completely historically unreliable and cannot be reconciled.

Irenaeus, a supposed presbyter and Bishop, did NOT know that it was claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius and that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

This is extremely important--if Jesus was crucified under Claudius then the ENTIRE Canon is historically bogus and if Jesus was crucified under Tiberius then Irenaeus was a blatant liar.

It is clear that the Church and its writers had NO idea when Jesus, the disciples and Paul lived and died--No idea.

The NT Canon are 2nd century Myth Fables--it is NOT history.

If Jesus did live and did actually die then it would have been virtuallyimpossible for the Jesus cult of Christians to have forgotten when Jesus was crucified--almost impossible.

According to the Gospels, Jesus did NOT just vanish, his supposed disciples knew when Jesus was arrested, Peter followed the arrested Jesus to the place of trial under the Sanhedrin and the women SAW where Jesus was buried.

It is claimed a character called Joseph buried the body of Jesus AFTER asking permission from Pilate.

If Jesus did live and was actually buried under Pilate then the supposed disciples of Jesus would have not forgotten that day.

The followers of Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Applewhite would not forget the day of their cult leader deaths as long as the cults continue.

Based on the writings attributed to Irenaeus it was NEVER established when Jesus died up to 180 CE.

Based on the Gospels it was NOT established where Jesus was Crucified.

Incredibly, it is NOT known by the Jesus cult of Christians when Jesus died or where he was crucified even though there were supposed to be witnesses.

In gMark, Jesus was crucified at Golgotha but in gLuke he was Crucified at Calvary.

It is clear that the NT is NOT history and that Apologetic sources that used the NT as an historical source are NOT credible.

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

Sheshbazzar

A much fuller exposition on this subject may be found at; "Dressing the Christian’: The Philosopher’s Mantle as Signifier of Pedagogical and Moral Authority" (page 6)

Imust note however that the point Iwas making was not one regarding Justin's manner of dress, but the fact that he makes no mention of anyone he he associates with.

I wrote NOTHING in my previous post regarding to Eusebius. The subject was the 2nd century CE, and the writings of Justin, not of the 4th century CE, or of Eusebius.

But by Justin's own evidence he was not the first Christian. We have no information on how many Christians there were -before- Justin.
Nor do we know when the first person identified themselves by the name 'Christian', -only that by the The Memoirs of The Apostles that Justin cites, his quite elaborate theological teachings, and his statements about contemporary 'church' practices- that the Christianity Justin describes must have been well established some number of years before he encountered its teachings. That is if we accept that Justin's writing credibly are authentic, and were not latter tampered with nor latter invented, as you wish.

If you wish to present Justin's writings as being credible and untampered witness to what was known and believed in Justin's time aa, it entails that you also accept Justin's witness that the Christian religion was present and operating before his finding of it, and his conversion to it.

mountainman

The full name of Jesus is not present in the earliest Greek JS Story Books, and the JS Story books were edited before widespread publication in the Roman Empire during the 4th century by Christian Emperors.

However these emperors may have called themselves "Chrestians" loosely meaning "The Good Guys", and the term Christians is a later development. This possibility is supported by the evidence associated with the use and historical appearance of the these 2 terms.

The archaeology says the Chrestians preceeded the Christians.

The Christians then tried to back reference themselves.

The 4th and 5th century regime was utterly corrupt.

And we do not know if this most holy Justin Matry Bullshit character wrote Chrestians or Christians unless we have this demonstrated on the manuscripts from antiquity. For example from which century is the earliest Justin Mar Tar manuscript sourced? The 11th?

aa5874

I have been through this already. I have NOT claimed Justin was the first Christian or that the Jesus cult originated in the mid 2nd century.

You must understand that my argument is extremely solid and based on written statements or sources of antiquity.

I have employed the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger to trace the start of the Jesus story and cult sometime around or after 115 CE.

The writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger are considered to have been composed between 75-115 CE and there is NO mention at all of any Jewish Messiah from Nazareth and there is NO mention of any Jesus cult of Jews that worshiped a man as a God.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius, writings between c 75 -115 CE, all claimed Vespasian was the Prophesied Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture.

Also, at around c 115 CE, Pliny the younger in his letter to Trajan, appears to have NO knowledge of any character called Jesus and appears to have NO knowledge of Christians' Beliefs and Tortured two of them to find out the truth..

Pliny lived in Rome and was a Lawyer before going to Bithynia.

Now, Justin claimed there were Jesus cult Christians around the time of Simon Barchocheba c 133 CE in "First Apology XXXI" which is compatible with the Recovered Dated manuscripts and the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century sometime around or after c 115 CE or later which is about 35 years BEFORE Justin wrote "First Apology".

Sheshbazzar

Be careful that you never concede a point aa.

Sheshbazzar

..

aa5874

I had ALREADY stated that the Jesus story was composed around or after c 115 CE.

See post #430 of this very thread [Sept 20].

aa5874

I am arguing that the Jesus story and cult orginated in the 2nd century based on actual recovered dated manuscripts and compatible sources like Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, and Julian the Emperor.

Now, whether or not the writings of Justin Martyr are copies from the 11th century is irrelevant because for you to argue that the 4th century Church fabricated the Jesus story you may have to use manuscripts from the 11th century or later.

Now, if the 4th and 5th century regime were utterly corrupt then perhaps Eusebius wrote Nothing in the 4th century.

Effectively, you are accusing the 4th century Church of inventing the Jesus story WITHOUT any credible or original sources.

Based on your view then perhaps the Jesus story was fabricated in the 11th century or later.

lmbarre

I will.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, but its your short term memory that seems to be...er....a bit short.

Please, Allow me to jog your rapidly slipping memory;

So I repeated what Justin wrote;
And a much fuller exposition on the subject of Justin's manner of 'dress' and 'costume' may be found at; "Dressing the Christian'; The Philosopher’s Mantle as Signifier of Pedagogical and MoraAuthority" (page 6)

No comments on Justin's written mention of his 'manner of 'dress' or 'costume' aa?
Did you notice? It certainly appears that Justin did indeed write something about his manner of 'dress' and his 'costume'.
And that Justin wanted his readers to take note of it.

No comments on any of that volumous information provided in the linked site aa?

No damning comments nor criticisim of Professor A.P. Urbano's credentials or scholastic abilities?

Not even so much as a concession that I provided this material ?

Tut tut aa. bad manners.