J-D

Nope. Never.

aa5874

Well, I hear an echo.

Duvduv, these are your OWN WORDS from another thread. You will tell us what was going on in the 2nd century and going into the 3rd.

Duvduv, there all types of stories about someone or something called Jesus in the 2nd century.

ECHOES from Duvduv.

Duvduv

There might have been oral stories circulating around just like there are oral stories circulating around about Johnny Appleseed or Daniel Boone. They didn't present any coherent sect with texts, scriptures, etc. So what?

aa5874

Well, you are NOT Credible. You have been arguing with me but you also have made similar claims in this very forum.

You have ALREADY admitted that in your Opinion:

1. Epistles were in production in the 2nd-3rd century.

2. the Gospels were written in the 3rd century or later.

3. You ACCEPT Justin had written in the 2nd century.

Examine your OWN OPINION from your own Thread.

It is extremely disturbing that you have already admitted that you ACCEPT Justin Martyr as a 2nd century writer but still argue against your own Opinion.

Something has gone radically wrong with your posts.

I can no longer accept you as reasonable or credible and now have great difficulty in responding to your posts.

Duvduv

Excuse me......if a person continues to examine an issue and comes to new conclusions is that A SIN?? Must he be frozen despite analysis in a single position like you?
I have examined this issue since posting then and have changed my mind. Is that prohibited?

aa5874

In order to re-construct the past or develop a theory CREDIBLE sources, Credible Witnesses, Credible Data Must FIRST be located and employed.

The DSS and NT manuscripts have been recovered and Dated by Paleography and/or C14 and there is NO Jesus story and Pauline letters from the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

That is EXACTLY what I predicted and Expected.

I expect that any Texts dated to the 1st century like the DSS will not ever show or mention any character called Jesus of Nazareth or Paul of Tarsus the Roman or of the Tribe of Benjamin.

I do NOT accept Acts of the Apostles and Pauline writings as Credible historical sources for the Jesus story and cult because they are NOT Compatible with the Recovered DATED Texts like the DSS and the NT manuscripts.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are a Pack of Lies with respect to the history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Not one of the authors of Acts and the Pauline letters who were supposed to be contemporaries of Jesus ever claimed they SAW an actual human Jesus at any time.

The author of Acts claimed it was a GHOST, like a "hurricane or a tornado" [a mighty rushing wind] that gave the disciples the POWER to preach the Jesus story.

Without the GHOST, the disciples would be POWERLESS. See Acts 2

I cannot accept Acts of the Apostles as a Credible historical source.

The Pauline writings are NO better because Paul made claims that MUST or Most likely was KNOWN to be false--the author claimed he WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus, and that the resurrected Jesus gave him information about the Last Supper.

1. Jesus could NOT have resurrected if he was already dead.

2. If Jesus was seen ALIVE by Paul then Jesus did NOT die for the Sins of Mankind.

3. If Jesus was NOT human he still could NOT have resurrected.

The Pauline writings are NOT Credible--Paul could NOT have been a Witness to a Non-historical event.

Now, the most significant gospel is the Short gMark.

The Short gMark shows no sign that the character Jesus was supposed to be killed as a Sacrifice for the atonement of Sins.

Three times in gMark, it is claimed Jesus Taught his disciples he would be killed and resurrect but NOT one time did the character claimed he was a Sacrifice for the Atonement of Sins--NOTHING.

In effect, the Short gMark contradicts all of the NT except Revelation by John.

In the Short gMark, it is claimed Jesus preached the Good News that the Kingdom of God was at hand. See Mark 1.15.

The short gMark story is about the supposed near coming of the Kingdom of God AFTER the desolation of abomination, after the destruction of Jerusalem and earthquakes.

The book called Revelation is compatible with the Short gMark.

Revelation is about the coming of the Kingdom of God--See Revelation 21.1-2.

The Short gMark Jesus is UNKNOWN as Messiah and Son of God to the Jews which is completely compatible with the writings of Philo and Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

The Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the writings of Suetonius and Tacitus or AFTER c 115 CE.

tanya

But, then, is not our question to you, following your own, well written argument, above:

Where is the "original" of Justin?

Here's the link you provided yesterday:
I don't object to your submitting quotes from Justin. I object to your regard for our most reliable source of Justin's written text as being somehow superior to our most reliable source, indeed our only source, of Tacitus. In my opinion, our scant understanding of the ideas and writings of both these two authors, depends on trust of the output of a medieval scribe working in a monastery. But, what was his source material?

I wonder what the author of that quote meant, when he or she (do they admit females to Calvin College?) wrote Why does he/she refer to the manuscript as "defective"? If I write that J-D's manuscript is defective, could that not imply that I possess another version, which is different from the one he has presented? On the other hand, if the goats ate the other half of Mohammed's Quran, then what we have is "defective", because we are missing half. Ditto for the old joke about Moses falling and dropping five of the fifteen commandments during the descent. But how does one ascertain the original quantity, absent an example sequestered away somewhere?

In my opinion, Sheshbazzar's criticism here, is focused, and proper. I understand aa5874's contention, that Shesh writes without furnishing evidence, but, in my view, Sheshbazzar's logic is right on target. Thanks to both of you, and Duvduv and J-D, too, for an informative, and provocative thread.....Well done aa5874.

aa5874

You don't seem understand my argument.

Where is the original gMark that contains the passage "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God??

Where are the orginals of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus??

We have HAND WRITTEN Copies of virtually all sources of antiquity. We won't even be able to recognise an original because all writings were copied by Hand and we don't know the Handwriting of virtually all writers of antiquity.

It is far easier to determine the fundamental Credibility of a source by reading and analyzing it.

It is the Contents of the writings attributed to writers of antiquity that MUST be first read and analyzed to find out if they are Credible or not.

Virtually all the writings we have of antiquity are COPIES. Even today, books are re-printed and revised. The only difference is that Before the Printing Press all "re-printing" and revisions were HAND WRITTEN.

If anyone wanted a copy of any texts in antiquity it had to be COPIED by Hand so it would still be extremely difficult to determine which Hand Written Texts is the original.

There will always be differences of opinion but no-one has been able to show that the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are NOT Credible.

No-one has been able to show that the writings attributed to Justin were manipulated by the 4th century Roman Church writers.

As early as the 2nd century, Tatian mentioned Justin Martyr.

The writing called "Church History" attributed to Eusebius makes it a rather simple exercise to determine the sources of antiquity that were most likely to have been manipulated or the sources that were used to assemble "Church History".

"Church History" is attributed to a Bishop of the Roman Church--Eusebius the Bishop of Caesarea supposedly of the 4th century.

The supposed Eusebius used "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus as his Primary and fundamental "historical" source of the early Jesus cult in the 1st century.

Eusebius did NOT, I repeat did NOT, use writings attributed to Justin Martyr for the 1st century "history" of the Jesus cult.

It was the REVEVRSE.

Eusebius used Justin to corroborate the existence of TWO Heretics, Simon Magus and Menander in the 1st century.

That is all from the 1st century from Justin Martyr in "Church History"

Church History 2.13--Eusebius claimed Justin in "First Apology" wrote about Simon Magus, a Magician.

Church History 3.26-- Eusebius claimed Justin in the same "First Apology" wrote about Menander a follower of Simon Magus.

Justin Martyr had NOTHING of the 1st century history of the Jesus cult.

Surely if the writings of Justin were manipulated by an Apologetic Scribe in the 14th century then we would expect them to look like "Against Heresies" of Irenaeus or the "Apology" of Tertullian.

Surely we would expect an Apologetic manipulator to include the post ascension "history" of the Jesus cult in the writings attributed to Justin.

Now, this is EXTREMELY Significant and must NOT be forgotten.

Virtually EVERYTHING about the supposed post-ascension 1st century Jesus cult found in "Church History" and "Against Heresies" have been Rejected and Contradicted, not only by Scholars but by Apologetic Sources themselves--Even Eusebius did NOT agree with "Against Heresies" in all matters.

Remarkably, the ENTIRE post-ascension history of the Jesus cult is MISSING from the writings of Justin Martyr.

Astonishingly, Justin Martyr ONLY knew the post ascension history of Heretics of Simon Magus and Menander.

And, the Recovered DATED Texts CORROBORATE Justin Martyr.

No Jesus story, No Acts of the Apostles, No Pauline letters have been recovered for the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

A most obvious explanation is that Justin Martyr's writings were NOT manipulated.

A most obvious explanation is that the writings of Justin Martyr REFLECT the history of the Jesus cult--there was NO Jesus story or cult in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Sheshbazzar

And equally obviously there are those who disagree with your unprovable claim regarding a lack of any earlier knowledge of the name "Jesus Christ", and have repeatedly pointed out to you in what ways your reasoning is flawed.

That the oldest manuscripts yet located date only back to the 2nd century cannot be logically extended as being any positive evidence or rightly employed as a proof to a conclusion that there never were any earlier manuscripts than these.
-Even if such mis-usage does fit your personal pet theories and convictions.

You CREDIBLE witness (if one is inclined to believe that he is such) 'Justin Martyr' his self tells you that there was a known Gospel writing, "The Memoirs of The Apostles" about "Jesus Christ" existent in his day that traced directly back to the original Apostles of 'Jesus Christ'. (it was their 'memoirs' of "Jesus Christ" and his 'cult'.)
On the one hand you are claiming Justin is a CREDIBLE source, while on the other you are denying the validity of what he reports, thus perjuring the very testimony of your own selected witness.

Justin makes no claim to have ever been present in the 1st century or before c 70 CE. Even if he was alive and present with us today and able to talk to us directly, even he could not from any personal experience or knowledge tell us whether the name "Jesus Christ" was known in the 1st century.
But undoubtedly, like any other Christian believer, he would by his faith, and by his convictions, and with his testimony, support the premise that the "Jesus Christ" he believed in had lived, was crucified, and rose from the dead in the time of the governance of PONTIUS PILATE in the 1st century CE

Regarding the Desolation of Jerusalem Justin writes in his First Apology;
Given this testimony by your own 'CREDIBLE witness' regarding the history of "Jesus Christ" and the 'cult' of "Jesus Christ", I very much doubt that you would persuade him that the name of "Jesus Christ", and his 'cult', including the Apostles, did not live in the 1st century.
Or that these events which he believed and proclaimed to all to have taken place under the governance of PONTIUS PILATE, did not.
Wonderful. Justin Martyr tells you what it is that he believes regarding the order, the timing, and the provenance of 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' -also citing 'The Acts of PONTIUS PILATE' as substantiating his 'history',

....and you say 'Justin's' writings were NOT manipulated??? ^^

If as you say; 'the writings of Justin Martyr REFLECT the history of the Jesus cult', Why are you rejecting what he tells you about the history of that cult?
Why do you not accept the testimony of your own chosen CREDIBLE witness. One who lived much closer to this time and to the beliefs of this time than yourself?

But you accept 'Justin Martyr's' writing referring us to 'The Acts of PONTIUS PILATE' as NOT manipulated?
And thus by the 'CREDIBLE' and unmanipulated writing of 'Justin Martyr, that 'The Acts of PONTIUS PILATE' and its account of Pilate and "Jesus Christ" is a CREDIBLE and genuine historical source dating to before 165 CE?
Your CREDIBLE witness 'Justin' did.
Now tell us how CREDIBLE 'The Acts of PONTIUS PILATE' is, and when it was written and by whom.





.

J-D

Nobody understands your argument.