aa5874

The Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are extremely historically problematic.

In Acts it is claimed that Jews by the Thousands accepted the resurrected and ascended Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God AFTER they were Filled with the Holy Ghost.

Without the Holy Ghost there would have NO Jesus cult based on Acts.

The Holy Ghost must come FIRST on the day of Pentecost.

An historical Jesus is RENDERED OBSOLETE in Acts.

Jesus could have done a "Million" Miracles and it would still would NOT have started the Jesus cult.

The Holy Ghost MUST FIRST Come--The Disciples MUST WAIT for the Promise of the Ghost. See Acts 1 and Acts 2.

There was NO Jesus cult of Christians until AFTER the Holy Ghost in Acts.

When the Holy Ghost came to earth, like a mighty rushing wind, the disciples began to Speak in Tongues.

In the Pauline Epistles, Paul claimed he ALSO Spoke in Tongues and more than anyone else.

1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV Incredibly, NO other Apologetic writer or Christian of antiquity wrote that they Spoke in Tongues or was Filled by the Holy Ghost for Hundreds of years.

The Day of Pentecost and Speaking in Tongues would have been the MOST Significant Day and event for the Jesus cult yet outside Acts and the Pauline letters NOTHING at all is mentioned about the Speaking in Tongues by the supposed early writers like Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertulian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, others.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are NOT credible.

It was NOT necessary for the Holy Ghost to come and for the Disciples to speak in tongues to preach the Jesus story.

The NT Canon cannot be used to reconstruct the history of the Jesus cult---the NT including the Pauline letters are a Compilation of Myth Fables.

aa5874

In order to make an argument one MUST have Credible Sources or Data--whether for history or a scientific theory--Credible Sources and Data are Mandatory.

It can be reasonably stated that I had a great, great...................grandfather who lived in the 1st century CE but I can make NO argument about his name, his place of birth, his parents, his religion, his life and how or when he died because I have NO Sources--No DATA.

But, Arguing for an historical Jesus is far worse because those who do ADMIT their DATA is CORRUPTED and known to be UNRELIABLE.

The argument for an HJ is in effect directly based on Perjury--known admitted false information.

It is unheard of and contrary to reason that a witness at any level who is known and confirmed to have presented false or erroneous information about events of the past that are being investigated would be accepted as credible.

It is a consensus that the NT is NOT historically reliable by virtually all Scholars--HJ or MJ.

The NT cannot trusted.

The NT is NOT Compatible with the Recovered Dated Texts.

No recovered Dated Texts MATCHES the NT.

Credible Sources MUST FIRST be located--Sources that MATCH the Recovered DATED Texts.

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Aristides, Arnobius, Minucius Felix and Tatian MATCH the Recovered Dated Texts.

Those writings represent the HISTORY of the Jesus cult, the Jesus story and Christians.

When we examine the same books we find that there is commonality--they are all 2nd century and show that the Jesus story, cult and Christianity were in an early stage of development.

The History of the Church throughout the 1st century as stated by Irenaeus, Ignatius, the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement, Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius are essentially BOGUS.

The books of the Canon are NOT products of the 1st century.

The Jesus story and cult are products of the 2nd century as corroborated by the Recovered Dated Texts.

J-D

I give you dispensation from complying with this requirement.

Sheshbazzar

In a case where positive material and persuasive evidence is lacking and cannot be presented, NO just CONVICTION can be rendered.
Only an unjust or 'kangaroo court' would attempt to CONVICT or find a person guilty based upon a LACK of evidence.

Even a absolutely guilty party may be exonerated when material evidence cannot be produced.
The jury might be fully convinced of the guilt of the accused, yet exonerate based upon a lack of evidence.
To obtain a CONVICTION also requires that the majority of the jury is persuaded of the accused's guilt "Beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt"
This is hardly attainable in the utter ABSENCE of any material and positive Evidence.
That the accused might be so allowed 'walk' is no absolute indication of innocence, or of the jury's persuasions regarding the actual innocence of the accused.


Quite an inane statement aa. As very often it is the very EVIDENCE that turns up during the trial period that ultimately EXONERATES the accused and proves their innocence.
The EVIDENCE, if and when it is produced IS NOT always against the cause of the accused.

What information we have available to us at this present time is insufficient to bring the matter of whether the name 'Jesus Christ' was known in the 1st century CE to any valid trial, much less to render any informed or valid 'VERDICT' regarding the existence or non-existence of any knowledge of a 'Jesus Christ' name or figure during the 1st century CE.
We at this time, still in lacking huge amounts of information regarding the beliefs and practices of these 1st century CE sects, simply DO NOT KNOW.
Depends upon exactly WHAT is being judged.
In this case what is being judged is THE QUESTION: 'Was the name 'Jesus Christ' (or its Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent) at all known or ever used during the 1st century CE?
This QUESTION cannot be answered by a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"

Yes. But it NEVER allows these jurors to come back with a "Guilty" verdict.
Because 'Absence of Evidence' is INSUFFICIENT to establish 'Guilt'.
Or in this case to establish the validity of your accusation that the name or figure of 'Jesus Christ' was unknown in the 1st century CE.
At present, you lack any substantive EVIDENCE that proves this allegation beyond any shadow of doubt.
The latter writings which you cite are no evidence at all in respect to this question.

This FORUM is NOT a duly organized and recognized Court of Law.
We here are neither jurors selected by Prosecution and Defense, nor is any appointed and recognized judge present.
No valid nor binding "verdict" on this subject can be rendered.

ONLY within a forum such as this. Any established and recognized Court of Law, with a sitting Judge well versed in Jurisprudence would toss both your 'argument' and you right out the door.
The more you post, the more you reveal your ignorance of both the Law and of Justice, the proper usage of Legal terms and of Trial Procedure.
You would fail Bar-Exams, and will never stand in the position of ever being a Lawyer, able to ever bring your faulty and asinine "argument" into any validly constituted Court of Law.

While you might be a 'Case', You got NO case. But it is your dime.
Want to put your money where your mouth is?
Hire yourself an Attorney (if you can find one even willing to listen to your 'case' without laughing)
Take it to Court (if you can) and see just how far you can get with this pile of horse shit in any real Court of Law.

As far as I'm concerned, this 'case' is closed, UNLESS and UNTIL it is presented in a Duly Appointed and Authorized Court of Law.

You want to employ Legal jargon, I'm perfectly willing to let the Legal Profession judge your reasoning abilities, or whether you even know what the fuck you are talking about.



.

aa5874

I told you so already-- People are Exonerated when there is Absence of Evidence.

It is totally absurd to assume a person is absolutely guilty without evidence--absolutely absurd.

Again, what a load of BS. A jury is Fully Convinced of a person's guilt WHEN there is evidence.

That is PRECISELY what happens when there is Absence of evidence of Guilt. If you were charged with any crime and there was Absence of Evidence then an Argument can be made that you are NOT gulity and the jury can declare that you are "NOT Guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt".

You seem unaware of the significance of Absence of Evidence.

Again, the accused can be ALLOWED to walk because of Absence of Evidence.

Absence of Evidence ALLOWS an argument to be made for a NOT Guilty verdict.

Again, you seem not to understand what Absence of Evidence signifies.

Very often people are Exonerated by Absence of Evidence.

In the first place, if there is Absence of Evidence it is hardly likely that you would be charged with a crime.

You DON'T know what I know. You have NO evidence and NO Sources for your claims about a possible 1st century Jesus. Where are you sources??

My argument is based on the EXISTING evidence from Recovered DATED Texts and Compatible Sources.. I do NOT expect any evidence from the 1st century and before c 70 CE about Jesus or Paul. I have NOT presumed Jesus and Paul existed in the 1st century.

Jurors give a Verdict BASED on the actual evidence PRESENTED--NOT what they think or imagine should have happened.

Your statement is NOT logical. You cannot show any evidence from the 1st century to contradict my argument that the Jesus cult and story originated in the 2nd century.

I am making an ARGUMENT based on the Existing Evidence---the Recovered Dated Sources and Sources that are in agreement with them.

I have read writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Lucian of Samosata, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Minucius Felix, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Arnobius, Origen, Eusebius, Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Optatus, Ephraim the Syrian, Papias, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Jerome, Rufinus, Sulpitius Severus, and others.

My argument is EXTREMELY Solid and cannot be contradicted by any existing evidence--Jesus, the Disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Some others are making arguments about the existence of Jesus based on Admitted Discredited Sources like the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Well, what are you arguing about??? Your statement has ZERO validity so you are wasting your own time. You knew in advance that all what you say about Jesus and the 1st century on this forum is NOT valid yet you continue.

Why?? Why?? Why??

My Argument is Valid because I use Recovered Dated Texts and Credible Sources. At any level, in or out the courts, Credible Sources MUST be used to reconstruct the past.

[ Your statement has ZERO validity. You don't know what you are talking about.

Your NO Source, No Evidence, No Proof argument about the possible 1st century name of Jesus Christ has NO value.

I no longer accept Presumptions and Assumptions about the 1st century as evidence and NO court accepts Imagination as a credible source.

You were asked to present the Sources to support your claim that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were LATE and Forged and you have NOT yet done so.

Please, I will NOT BE DISTRACTED by your diversions. Please name your source??? What are you arguing about?? Where is your evidence--where is your source???

I am arguing AGAINST those who claim there was an Obscure historical Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century because they have ZERO evidence to support them.

aa5874

The reconstruction of the past MUST be based on Credible sources--Not Admitted Discredited sources filled with Fiction and Implausibilities.

I am arguing Against Ehrman and HJers who used Admitted Sources of Fiction as historical sources.

The very HJ argument MUST show that the NT is NOT to be trusted.

In the NT, Jesus was the Well-known Son of a Ghost, God the Creator, that Walked on Water, Transfigured, Resurrected, Ate Food After the resurrection, then Ascended in a cloud.

Nt Jesus of Nazareth is completely the OPPOSITE to the claim by Ehrman and HJers.

NT Jesus was NON-historical--Non-human--a Myth.

Incredibly, Ehrman uses the very NT sources of Myth for history AFTER admitting they are historically problematic.

In the very first page of the introduction of "Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman claims his Jesus of Nazareth was SCARCELY Known.

However EHRMAN did the Most Absurd thing. He DISPROVED his own claim.

Ehrman DESTROYED his own argument.

Ehrman's Jesus of Nazareth was WELL KNOWN during his supposed lifetime.

At page 70 of "Did Jesus Exist?" claimed the Gospels "provide powerful evidence" for an historical Jesus.

As soon as Ehrman stated that the Gospels can "provide powerful evidence" then it DESTROYED his claim that Jesus was SCARCELY known.

Ehrman's argument has Self-Destruct.

Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" is indeed "worse than bad"

Jesus of Nazareth was NOT Scarcely Known if the Gospels can be considered as history.

The Gospels show Jesus as an Extremely Well-Known character with Thousands of people following him "all over" Galilee.


Mark 1:28 KJVLuke 4:14 KJVMatthew 13:2 KJV John 6:2 KJV

Duvduv

AA always claims "powerful evidence" for some book said to have been written in the 2nd century by a guy named Justin Martyr for which there is no evidence that in fact it WAS written in the second century by him, or that this guy even existed in the 2nd century.
Not much different than the "powerful evidence" of the gospels or the epistles for someone's theory which cannot be empirically proven and is within the framework of pure faith.

J-D

They are exonerated by the absence of evidence.

aa5874

Your statement is hopelessly illogical. I did NOT claim Justin Martyr's writings were historically unreliable.

Ehrman claims the NT is historically problematic and still claimed the Gospels provide powerful evidence for an HJ.

Why can't you even repeat what I write???

Again, I am using the RECOVERED DATED TEXTS and Sources that are in AGREEMENT with them.

What source are you using to support your argument that there was NO Jesus cult of Christians until the 4th or 5th century??

Are you using the propagandist Eusebius???

If you use Eusebius then you are NO different to Ehrman.

Duvduv

YOU didn't claim they were unreliable. YOU claimed they ARE reliable, when you know darn well that there is no way on earth you can prove that text to have been written in the second century by Justin Martyr, James Madison or anyone else. You BELIEVE it to have been written by Justin in the second century.

Recovered shmecovered........You know perfectly well that the discrepancies, anachronisms and contradictions in various texts makes them all highly suspect to have been written before the onset of an authority establishing its own religion. And that wasn't in the 2nd century.

You admit that Irenaeus was not in the 2nd century but you hang on to Justin with all your power to have at least ONE "source" to prove there was "Christianity" in the second century, without which the whole hypothetical sand castle collapses.

Without a second century Justin there is no reason for second century Christianity (even without Paul). You know it and I know it. That's why you hang on to your faith in it for dear life.