mountainman

ADDENDUM:

The finger points to Constantine. The question is how to allow the evidence to speak for itself inside the minds of rational men and women. It may not be the Boss but of all the Roman emperors, considering the archaeological evidence and especially the C14 citations which have only emerged in the last X years (note to someone: what does x equal?) the figure of Constantine the Great stands out head and shoulders over the competition. No evidence presented to me satisfies for an unabiguous citation for the existence of the christian new testament before the epoch of Constantine. Ladies and gentlemen (of the fraud squad) go figure. If the history of the fiction of the new testament was adequately "buried" immediately after the death of Constantine, whatever military assisted initiative he had set in plave would have been perpetuated. Hence he lineage of christian emperors for the remainder of the fourth century (except Julian - who simply told what he witness), and their censors such as Cyril of Alexandria. Check and compare his dealings of Julian and Nestorius and Origen and Arius.


Best wishes


Pete

bacht

Which Jesus do you mean, the prophet of Galilee in the Gospels, or the mystical Son in the early epistles?

What about the pre-70 C.E. group of believers in Judea mentioned in Galations and 1 Corinthians?

What about late 2nd Temple apocalyticism/eschatology? If Jews were writing books like Enoch and the Qumram War Scroll why couldn't they dream up a Christ Messiah?

thanks (newbie)

Jeffrey Gibson

Ah yes, Pete! Another internet found citation of a book you haven't read and have no idea of what it actually argues.

For a description of contents and two reviews of the work -- which does NOT support your conspiracy theory -- go here.

But perhaps you'd like to write Dungan to see what he has to say about your implied claim that he does support your thesis.

He may be reached at dldungan at utk.edu

Anyone want to speculate what excuse Pete will use for not doing so? How about what way Pete is going to misread what the reviews of Duncan say?

Jeffrey

aa5874

May I repeat, the Jesus of the NT has no ROOTS in Judaism, unless you believe in MAGIC.


Jesus of the NT is the product of the MUTILATION of Jewish Scrpture.

Let us start quickly at the ROOT of the character called Jesus, and you will see that it was the MUTILATION of Isaiah 7.14.

According to Justin Martyr the Jewish teachers were teaching that Isaiah 7.14 referred to Hezekiah. Even Josephus made commemtaries on the book of Isaiah and mentioned Hezekiah, never Jesus of the NT.

Jesus of the NT has NO roots in Judaism.

Jeffrey Gibson

You'd repeat your claim even if no one gave you permission. So why bother to ask? And if you really are asking, then the answer is no, you may not.

In any case, I wonder why it is you think that you are in any way, let alone sufficiently, knowledgeable about 1st century Palestinian Judaism to speak with any degree of authority about what is and what is not possibly rooted there.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Jeffrey the OP is "Jesus, the twelve and Paul of the NT are fiction". Someone remarked that the job was probably pulled by one of the Roman emperors. Please either pay attention or stay on topic. Which Roman emperor is your favorite in this race Jeffrey? You know how I'd bet, and in this instance it the case of one picture tells 1,000 words. Where is the finger pointing?

Let's see what is behind that glossy front cover ...
The author is doing OK until this point. Now he starts to trot out Eusebius pre-nicene literary profiles (such as Marcion, who has about as much historicity as does Papias) as the basis for his conjecturing.

Textual criticism of the inner relationships of the text of the new testament without one skerrick of external evidence by which the chronology being conjectured. We trust Eusebius and all the cards he plays all the way down that lonely untrodden path of confabulation.

This is great research!

Thanks.

Are you opening a book Jeffrey? If so, may I also speculate?

Best wishes,


Pete

bacht

I would agree that the Christ of the earliest believers came from a new interpretation of scripture. Maybe there was some Hellenistic influence, is that what you mean? (I'm coming from the MJ position, so no Nazarene on the scene imo)

Ben C Smith

You did not pull that cover photo out in answer to the question of which emperor. You pulled it out when Doug Shaver asked what evidence.

Ben.

mountainman

Accordingly I tendered a graphic image of Constantine Bible. It was not the Trajanus Bible, it was not the Marcus Aurelius Bible, neither the Aurelian nor the Diocletian Bible. Let the evidence speak for itself. What do the C14 citations tell us Ben? The evidence is in plain view.

BTW, do you happen to know the story of Constantines Three Hands? Anyone? Has anyone written about this? Philosopher Jay do you play poker?


Best wishes


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

And the implication of your pointing, Pete, to a book titled Constantine's Bible was that that book supported your "no Christianity and no NT before Constantine" thesis.

As did anyone else notice the irony of Pete issuing an adjuration against not staying on topic!

Jeffrey