aa5874

Well, please explain why you use gMark 1.1 to argue for a non-historical Jesus when you know that it may NOT be an original and that other Codices of gMark 1.1 are not alike??

You should know that it is the Contents of a Text that matters.

You must Identify Credible sources for History regardless of when they were composed.

Josephus wrote about Alexander the Great hundreds of years after time after Alexander lived but it cannot be ignored simply because the earliest copy of Josephus is from the 15th century.

It is the Credibility of the author that matters.

In order to re-construct the History of Mankind CREDIBLE Sources MUST be employed.

Many ancient Text have been recovered and DATED by C 14 and/or paleography and there is NONE that show a Jesus story or Activities of the disciples and Paul in the 1st century.

Are there any Apologetic Sources that are compatible with the recovered DATED Texts??

That is the question!!

The answer is YES.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus, Athenagors, Tatian, Arnobius, and Minucius Felix do NOT mention any Activities of the Disciples and Paul in the 1st century. They do NOT show any influence by the Pauline letters or the Activities of the disciples mentioned in Acts of the Apostles.

I am using the sources of antiquity that are Compatible with the Recovered Dated Texts and they provide a 2nd century history of the Jesus cult.

It is NOT logical at all that the Church writers that claimed the Jesus cult originated in the 1st century ALSO composed Texts that show the Jesus cult originated 100 years later.

The history of the Jesus cult in the writings of Irenaeus and Justin are NOT Compatible.

The history of the Jesus cult in writings attributed to Irenaeus is NOT Credible and his dating of writings in the NT, authorship, and chronology have been widely rejected by apologetic and non-Apologetic sources, and even Scholars.

Justin Martyr's writings have been corroborated by Apologetic and Non-Apologetic and cannot be found to be NOT Credible.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on the abundance of recovered DATED Texts and CREDIBLE evidence.

Duvduv

AA, when the last time an original copy of the Apology of his client Justin or the Dialogue with Trypho were tested with carbon dating or even paleography (which is very problematic when dating anything)?
Nothing matters to AA, only his opinions and three words: "dated," "compatible," and "recovered." Have I left anything out?

aa5874

Please, tell us what matters to you??

What sources have been recovered, dated and are compatible with your claim that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th or 5th century??

Nothing matters to you--ONLY your imagination.

tanya

What worries me, is this: how can we know that a particular text reflects a copying of an original, faithful to the original ink flowing from the quill of "josephus", or whether there was even such a person.

Addressing Justin Martyr, specifically, I guess I am puzzled, why you feel so confident that writings attributed to him, were, in fact, authored in the early part of the second century, by him, rather than third or fourth century forgeries? I understand your question to Sheshbazzar on this question, you seek a reference from one of the "patristic" authors, proposing such a theory, in order for this notion to be credible, in your eyes. I don't share your enthusiasm for this approach. I prefer to ask, whether or not there exists some evidence to support a living, breathing, working person, named Justin Martyr, alive in the second century, elaborating theology, absent any of the gospels known today?

I look at a guy like Julian, and he sounds, to my way of thinking, like an upstanding, honest kind of leader. He appears to have been someone who sought to eliminate corruption and fraud, and that maybe all hokey nonsense, too, how do I know?

But, on the central issue, of Julian's writings, well, there aren't any. We have nothing. So, we don't really know whether or not he wrote about Justin Martyr, or not. It would be dangerous to my way of thinking, to concoct some fable about the origins of Christianity, making assumptions about who lived when, and who wrote what.... Our big problem, it seems to me, is a lack of reliable information. I don't see any way to resolve this issue. We need to leave the internet, and travel to Syria and Egypt, and start digging, I guess.....Who does cite Justin Martyr, besides Irenaeus? If we regard the latter as fake (I do), then, why shouldn't we also consider Justin unbelievable?

Duvduv

I think I have answered this question of yours at least twice before. I hope one more time will suffice.
I have already said that neither you nor I have demonstrable empirical evidence for our positions. Both of us offer hypotheses, inferences and context.

However, YOU choose to call your references for your hypotheses EVIDENCE/ PROOF, which it cannot be BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE APOLOGY UNLESS YOU TRANSPORTED YOURSELF BACK IN TIME AND GOT A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT. Is it clear to you now?!?

aa5874

Well, how can you know that gMark 1.1 reflects a copying of an original and faithful to the original ink flowing from quill of the author??

You use gMark 1.1 to argue that Jesus was Non-historical when you know that gMark is NOT Credible or historically reliable.

Why???

Again, I can only analyze what is available. I do NOT deal with imagination.

I consider Josephus a Credible source because his writings are ATTESTED by other writers of antiquity and those very writers regarded him as Credible.

Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks Again, I no longer accept or use Imagination as evidence. I will NOT be engaged in a NO Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument about 3rd or 4th century forgery of Justin. I must first see the evidence or a credible source that can support the argument. There is NO such evidence available at this time.

"First Apology" is addressed to Antoninus the Emperor of Rome and the contents of the writings CONTRADICT "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.


It is NOT logical that the writings of Justin Martyr were forged by the Church to Contradict the history of the same Church.

We have the writings of Irenaeus that are compatible with that of Eusebius' "Church History". I expected that if the writings of Justin were manipulated that they would be similar to those of Irenaeus with False attribution of authors of the NT, bogus chronology of time of writing and filled with fiction about the Activities of the disciples and Paul.

Quite remarkably the writings of Justin Martyr are not at all like that of Irenaeus.

Well, Shesbazzar has claimed that Justin was considered a Saint in the Greek Orhodox Catholic Church LONG BEFORE the Roman Catholic did so.

My question to Sheshbazzar is why does he NOT present the Credible Source of antiquity for his claims about Justin and the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church.

Again, Justin was mentioned by Tatian another 2nd century writer.See Tatian's Address to the Greek XVIII

How are you going to know about everybody or anybody from antiquity?? We only have what is presently available. We can only address what has been written.

That is basic. Even in a court trial it is NOT necessary to know everything about all the witnesses only that their statements on the matter are CREDIBLE

Well, what are doing on the Internet??? Shouldn't you be in Syria and Egypt?? People on the internet told you to DIG there??

You don't have to dig up the whole world anymore. Just go on the Internet and read the writings attributed to Justin, Aristides, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tatian, Minucius Felix and Arnobius.

First Apology http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Tom Verenna

I hope you don't mind me cutting in here. Is 'credible' really the word you want to go with? Just because something is attested does not make it 'credible' (and certainly not within the context of what you're arguing). Can you expand more upon your meaning?

Sheshbazzar

Everything has to have c14 or paleographical DATING to satisfy aa's rigorous standards...
... except for writings attributed to 'Justin Martyr'.
Apparently that name is the magical 'Open Sesame! that lets anything pasted with it pass through unchallenged and unquestioned.

Sheshbazzar

But your patron Saint Justin (or whoever actully wrote "The First Apology") DID NOT compose a text that showed that the Jesus cult originated a 100 years latter.
Your patron Saint Justin actually composed a text (IF he was its author) that showed that the Jesus cult originated well over 100 years earlier, in the time of Cyrenius.

But what could Saint Justin possibly know about these things? ...He didn't have aa5874 present to tell him what it was that he believed.

Sheshbazzar

NO.
We have recovered and Dated -some- manuscripts from the 1st century CE that do not mention the Jesus story.
To clearly show that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century and before c 68 CE would require us to recover ALL of the manuscripts that were written before 100 CE.

You are jumping to a totally unwarranted and impossible to verify conclusion.