Duvduv

I didn't say the STORIES originated in the 4th century, I said that the paleography cannot rule out that the fragments are from the fourth century because the analysis is not done in objective laboratory conditions. In fact stories floating around attributed to "Jesus" include stories attributed back to the first century BCE to Yeshu ben Pandera.

aa5874

I think it needs to be stated again that any Text recovered and dated to the 2nd century does NOT mean that there must be an original of such text and that the original must be dated sometime earlier and well outside the range of the recovered text.

For example, we have recovered texts of the Pauline writings with a 95% chance of being composed between c150-250 CE this DATA clearly shows that both copies and original could be composed WITHIN the same date range of 100 years [ c150-250 CE].

The authors of the Pauline writings were NOT living during the time of King Aretas c 37-41 but NO earlier than the time of the Emperor Antoninus c 138-161 CE

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

My argument is that the Pauline writings are NON-historical based on the actual recovered dated texts.

Grog

Duvduv, are there contemporary sources dating the ben pandera story to first century BCE? I thought all the sources mentioning this were from a later era...? Thanks...

Grog

This is true, but why do you rule out the possibility that the original composition could fall out of the range of dates of the copies we have?

Earlier dates are assigned based on the internal content of the documents themselves (notably there is no apparent awareness of the fall of Jerusalem 66-70AD). [Acts is often used to justify dates for Paul, but I do agree that Acts is whole fiction, so throwing out dates based on Acts, further weakens firm dates for Paul's writings.]

Based on the internal content of the documents, I tentatively accept an early origin (mid-first century) for the "authentic" Pauline writings (whether 4, 6, or 7, doesn't really matter to me). I say tentative (and everything SHOULD be held tentatively) because I don't think the evidence or arguments are strong enough to be firm on this point. I do find your argument persuasive with the caveats I have noted in previous posts.

There is nothing wrong with holding views that are tentative. I know this bothers you a great deal, but we should always be willing to change our views to align with new evidence. Otherwise, we are being irrational.

aa5874

Please, again you are dealing with IMAGINATION.

You imagine there may be evidence that support your speculation.

My argument is NOT based on speculation.

I state WITHOUT fear of contradiction based on the RECOVERED DATED Texts that Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The Canon is a Compilation of 2nd century or later Myth Fables and Fiction stories that was Believed by the Greeks and Romans the very people who Believed in Multiple Myth Fables about Gods and Sons of God.

No actual dated 1st century Texts has been recovered that showed the Jews ever worshiped a Jew called Jesus as a God before the Fall of the Temple and claimed he abolished the Laws of their own God for atonement of Sins.

Duvduv

The information about Yeshu ben Pandera is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. The events occurred during the period of the rule of Jannaeus and his successor the queen Shlomzion (Alexandra) around 60 BCE. He was never accused of being a false messiah but only of practicing witchcraft (kishuf) and deceiving the public.

aa5874

Again, again, I NO longer accept arguments from Imagination. If we allow arguments from Imagination we will WASTE all of our time.

CLOSE your eyes--Imagine anything---now imagine the opposite. Imagination gets us nowhere.

This is BC&H. My argument will be REVIEWED when NEW dated Texts are recovered.

Again and again, there is NO--ZERO--NIL date of authorship in the Pauline writings themselves.

It is WHOLLY absurd to date a writing by OMISSION alone because you open a Can of Worms.

The Pauline writings do NOT mention King Herod the Great who died before 4 BCE

Again, you PRESENT No actual credible evidence for your position and AGREE that I am right but refuse to TENTATIVELY accept the RIGHT position.

This is most remarkable!!!

Why, Why, Why??????

It is IRRATIONAL to hold to a position for which you have NO credible evidence and especially AFTER you admit that there is none.

The Pauline writings are being QUESTIONED so it is MOST absurd to use them as a corroborative source.

Please, please, tentatively holding to views which are known and admitted to be TENUOUS is Irrational.

aa5874

I am just an ordinary poster, an AMATEUR, and I have searched for sources that mentioned Paul and the Pauline letters and have found that Paul and the Pauline writings are most questionable.

Virtually all Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul or the Pauline writings are sources of fiction, forgeries and bogus information.

One of the supposed earliest source to mention a Pauline letters is an ANONYMOUS letter attributed to Clement of Rome.

But, I was shocked to discover that the very Church did NOT even know when Clement was Bishop of Rome.

It is claimed that the ANONYMOUS letter was composed sometime around c 95 CE when there was a Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth.

Writings attributed to Tertullian, Optatus and Augustine place Clement as bishop of Rome long before c 95 CE and as early as c 70 CE.

We have NO credible sources nor DATED sources to corroborate Paul and the Pauline writings in the 1st century.

See "Against the Donatist"--Clement was 2nd bishop AFTER Peter.

See "Letter 53" by Augustine--Clement was 2nd Bishop After Peter.

See "Prescription Against the Heretics"--Cement was FIRST bishop After Peter.

Based on Apologetic sources the Pauline writings cannot be dated in the 1st century because the Anonymous letter itself is NOT securely dated.

No reasonable argument can be made for early Pauline letters.