Sheshbazzar

That is not at all the point of this disputation. To suggest it is, indicates you are either not grasping what is being presented, or you are countering with a straw-man argument.

I do not claim that the Pauline writer(s) do predate the Jebus story.
(at least not in anything near the present corrupted form that may still possess some small remnants of some earlier non-'christian' writings)

I think you are quite aware that I place the origination and creation of the Jebus/Joshua material within the 'sayings' and midrashim of the BCE .
Thus there is no way in my position, that these hokey 'Pauline Epistles' or Acts could predate the Jebus story.

aa5874

So it is you who have NOT made your position clear. You must ADMIT that Jesus of the NT was NOT a real living person.

Please, the authors of the Gospels did claim that their Jesus story was DERIVED from the Words of the Prophets and the OT is also BOLTED to the NT Jesus stories in the Canonised Bible.

It is remarkable EASY to locate Isaiah 7.14, Psalms 22, Isaiah 6, Daniel 9, Zechariah, Daniel 7 and other passages from the OT that was used to INVENT the Jesus story.

Sheshbazzar

I have made that position very clear in hundreds of posts in this Forum.
It would hardly qualify as any admission on my part, when that is the position that I have been publicly advocating for years.
Anyone who doubts it might take a gander here
Yup. yer barking up the wrong tree. I haven't argued otherwise in years.
Ya don't say!
Really aa, you don't even recognize those of us here that actually share most of your views.



.

Toto

The Greek word translated here means "abortion" or "miscarriage."

There have been several discussions on these boards as to what exactly Paul (or whoever put those words into his mouth) meant. If you search for "abortion" or "ektrwma" or "ektroma" you will find them.

There is no critical consensus as to what Paul really meant here. But the term describes Paul, not his encounter.

aa5874

Again, it is because people here have NOT made themselves very clear.

It is your view that the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Jesus story was known and that the Epstles were composed NO earlier than the 2nd century or later???

Make yourself clear!!!

Sheshbazzar

Yes.
Justin Martyr's evident lack of any knowledge of 'Paul' or of any 'Pauline Epistles', or of 'Paul's' Christian doctrines in the mid-second century CE makes it quite evident that these (as we have them) were of a latter manufacture.
Any references to these that profess to be written earlier, can in the main be written off as latter interpolations, -or possibly certain early genuine verses or turns of phrase that were latter adapted to the production of the fabricated Pauline corpus, along with these earlier writings being 'adjusted'.

aa5874

Very good!!!

Now, once the Pauline Epistles were written AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr as the DATED Texts also suggest then it is an extremely simple matter to IDENTIFY sources of antiquity that are historically bogus.

All sources that claimed Paul existed in the 1st century, wrote letters before c 70 CE and met the Apostles Peter and James are fiction.

This includes writings of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and others.

Sheshbazzar

Well, it would not necessarily entail that these never wrote anything, -or that everything they ever wrote was fiction,- only that the latter church heavily 'fudged' and 'edited' what they did write.
After all, if you are going to accept that Justin Martyr was writing his accounts in the mid-second century, you will have a hard time defending a premise that these other writers wrote nothing.
What we now read in Eusebius, because of the church, we cannot assume nor trust to have actually been written by the hand of Eusebius.
Same with other early authors who may, or may not have actually existed. Some are simply 'paper cut-out 'saints', created and set up to serve the agendas of the latter Orthodox church. Usually these become readily evident upon examination, by the sheer stupidity and shallowness of the claims being made for them.



.

aa5874

Well, it would NOT necessarily mean that they never wrote anything. It may mean that they were actually written at a time when the named authors did NOT live.
I only accept writings that are compatible with the DATED Texts. I am not arguing that ALL the others wrote nothing. I am arguing that others wrote FICTION -- NOT historical accounts.

You don't seem to have a hard time making your claims so I really don't understand why you think I am going to have a hard time.

You are aware that authors may NOT have existed so did NOT write anything.

You are aware that ALL the authors of the NT were most likely FAKE so they wrote NOTHING in the Canon.

It is most remarkable that people who have NO evidence whatsoever for their claims do NOT have or get a hard time when they post their absurdities that the Pauline writings were early when NOT even the Church of Rome can tell us when Paul lived.

Sheshbazzar

Possibly. But highly unlikely to be applicable to all, as I allowed for.
You may be arguing it, but as you admit that these writings may have been edited and altered, you have no demonstrable or dependable way of determining what -parts- of their writings were original, from what parts were latter additions, Or what parts were records of actual persons and events, from those parts that are fictional and/or latter additions.
You have no demonstrable, dependable, and consistent method of determining what -parts- of these early Christian writings ARE genuine historical accounts. And no solid basis on which to declare the whole to be fiction.
What you choose not to accept as historical, is simply not enough to prove that a particular portion is not historical, particularly in those huge sections of 'historical' data that contain no 'miracles' nor obvious anachronisms.
It is simply not enough for you to brand these sections or their authors as being 'fictional' when you cannot provide any evidence at all that they, or these parts of their records are in fact, fictional.

You can certainly make such overboard claims, but why should anyone with any reasoning abilities at all buy into them?
If you wish to postulate that Justin Martyr was the only Christian religious writer before Nicaea, no one can stop you, but damn few will believe you.
Yes? I said as much in my previous post, some likely didn't, being only 'paper cut-out saints'.
That fact doesn't do anything to validate your offhand dismissal of everything written by early Christian authors (other than JM) as being fiction.
The authors were not whom the Christian Church claimed them to be. So what? Most of these authors wrote anonymously and never claimed to be whom the latter church claimed them to be, or their writings to be what the church claimed them to be.
There were real authors of these texts, so they were hardly FAKE authors. They simply were not whom -others- said they were.
Yes it is remarkable. And almost NEVER happens on this Forum.
-You yourself are noteworthy for daily raising the most strident of objections at their absurdities. No?

But it is no more remarkable than an individual that has the hubris to declare virtually any early Christian writing 'fictional' without providing any evidence that ALL of its historical content is fictional.
The evidence has been contaminated, that does not mean that it never existed.

I like to agree with you when your arguments are rational, and make sense, but see no point in agreeing with extreme and unsupportable rhetoric.