Duvduv

Of course AA doesn't believe that baloney from the First Apology written long after the events.

Everyone knows there were no Christians around at the time of Bar Kochba. Even AA knows that. He is just working on a contingency fee basis as the lawyer of the author of the Apology.

Sheshbazzar

Evidently at this point, even aa5874 doesn't know what it is that aa5874 believes.
As demostrated by his failure to answer this very simple yes or no question;
I am not asking you what I believe aa. As you say my beliefs are irrelevant to your beliefs.

So why are you afraid to state whether YOU believe Justin's report as given in First Apology?

Duvduv

Bingo, bullseye, on target, Shesh.......!!

aa5874

The history of mankind at any level MUST be assembled from credible sources--not Imagination and unsubstantiated speculation.

Some posters Imagine that there were stories of Jesus in the 1st century using Unknown manuscripts that were supposedly lost and rotted to dust and have no way of knowing their contents.

Another argues that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th or 5th century but utterly fails to present any actual evidence.

My argument is based on ACTUAL DATA.

My argument is based on Recovered DATA.

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on ACTUAL recovered Dated manuscripts and Compatible sources.

We have Jewish writers that cover the ENTIRE 1st century and they made ZERO reference to a character called Jesus of Nazareth.

We have Roman writers that cover the ENTIRE 1st century and they have made no known reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Based on Jewish and Roman writers Jesus of Nazareth was completely UNKNOWN in the 1st century.

Not even the Pauline writers mentioned Jesus of Nazareth or a place called Nazareth.

Not even the Pauline writers claimed they personally saw Jesus of Nazareth and interacted with him.

1. According to the History of the Church Paul wrote letters DIRECTLY to at least Seven Churches and Preached Jesus crucified and resurrected "all over" the Roman Empire and in Major cities before the death of Nero.

2. According to the History of the Church Paul was AWARE that gLuke was ALREADY composed before the death of Nero.

3. According to the History of the Church gMatthew was the First Jesus story to be composed and was written before gLuke and Before the death of Nero.

4. According to the History of the Church the Jesus cult had ALREADY started Before the Fall of the Temple and the death of Nero.

No credible source of antiquity has corroborated the History of the Church.

No recovered DATED manuscript has confirmed the History of the Church.

There is ZERO corroboration for Jesus of Nazareth , the Jesus stories, the Jesus cult and Paul in the 1st century.

Credible sources of antiquity has corroborated the Big Black Hole for the Jesus cult and Paul in the 1st century as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius confirm Justin's Big Black Hole for the Jesus cult and Paul in the 1st century.

MY ARGUMENT is that The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century--NOT the 1st or 4th century.

Duvduv

AA, you are not working in a laboratory (although that might be your day job). You are examining texts whose original manuscripts are not usually available and cannot be conclusively confirmed as to origin, especially in time.

ALL YOU ARE DOING is what the rest of us are doing - MAKING AN ATTEMPT OBSERVING AND INTERPRETING AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND MAKING APPROXIMATIONS AND LOGICAL INFERENCES FROM THAT INFORMATION.
You cannot simply wish your way into knowing something, i.e. the provenance and dating of the Justin Apology!!

aa5874

No, No, No!!! You are NOT doing what I am doing. You have NO--NIL-NONE--ZERO sources for your Imaginative Speculations about the start of the Jesus story and cult in the 4th or 5th century.

You CANNOT Name the sources that supplied your Evidence.

What are you using to argue that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th or 5th century??

Do you have a laboratory??

Did you examine original texts??

Do you have any DATED manuscripts??

What did you INTERPRET??

Where is the DATA that you interpreted??

You have NOTHING but your "DREAMS".

You have the weakest of weak arguments--you seem to believe history is assembled from what you imagine.

I USE ACTUAL DATA. I USE WRITTEN STATEMENTS from antiquity.

I USE RECOVERED DATED MANUSCRIPTS.

I USE PHILO.

I USE JOSEPHUS.

I USE TACITUS.

I USE SUETONIUS.

I USE JUSTIN.

I USE ARISTIDES.

I USE THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH.

I USE MUNICIUS FELIX.

I USE LUCIAN.

I USE ARNOBIUS

I USE ATHENAGORAS.

I USE CASSIUS DIO.

1 USE JULIAN

aa5874

The history of mankind MUST be assembled from Credible Sources--Not from the NT Canon.

The NT Canon as found in Codices is a compilation of Myth Fables.

Now, in writings attributed to Justin Martyr, it is claimed Jesus was SECOND to God.

First Apology XIV This passage is a clear indication that Justin Martyr did NOT have any knowledge of gJohn 1 or was Not taught that Jesus was God or equal to God.

In gJohn 1 Jesus was God.

And to confirm that Justin did NOT have any knowledge of gJohn 1 the author made reference to PLATO to support his claim that Jesus was Second to God.

First Apology LX The Memoirs of the Apostles used in the Churches in the time of Justin was NOT the Four Canonised Gospels.

If gJohn 1 was written since before the 2nd century and was circulated in the Roman Empire and Taught in the Churches then we would expect Justin to ALSO claim Jesus was equal to God and that Jesus and God were ONE and the same.

Justin used Plato--Not John 1--and claimed Jesus was Second to God.

Up to the mid 2nd century, John 1 was NOT known by Justin.

Now, again, Justin Martyr is CORROBORATED by Hippolytus.

In "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus, it is claimed that the Heresy that Jesus and God were One and the Same was FIRST introduced by Callistus.

Refutation Against All Heresies 9.7 According to the History of the Church 6.21.1 Callistus was bishop around c 217-222 CE.

gJohn was UNKNOWN up to the time of Justin and the Heresy that Jesus and God was One and the same was FIRST introduced in the Church by Callistus c 217-222 CE based on Hippolytus.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on Recovered dated manuscripts and compatible sources.

aa5874

The argument for an historical Jesus is horribly weak and without any credible support from antiquity.

The Jesus cult of Christians did NOT accept Human Sacrifice for Remission of Sins and called Human Sacrifice MURDER.


1. Clement's Exhortation to the Heathen 32. Minucius Felix's "Octavius" 3. Theophilus' To Autolycus 3 4. Athenagoras' Plea for the Christians 5. Arnobius' Against the Heathen 6.1 If Jesus did exist he could only have been human and there is is simply no credible evidence whatsoever that the Jesus cult accepted human Sacrifice and no evidence whatsoever that in the 1st century, since c 37 CE, that there was a Jesus cult of Jews that practised Human Sacrifice for remission of Sins.

The Jesus story is a 2nd century Myth Fable and the Jesus cult originated around that time.

aa5874

According to Carrier, "Did Jesus Exist?"--The Historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth, is a failure of facts and logic.

Carrier appears to be correct. Ehrman did display a lack of basic understanding of logic.

Examine page 231 of Did Jesus Exist?

Ehrman claimed that it was true that Jesus was portrayed as the Son of God but that does NOT mean he was God.

Ehrman continues and states that for us the son of a cat is a cat but because the Gospels were not written in the 21st century the son of a God Jesus was not a God.

Please, if Jesus was a God and the Son of a God what would he be called??

Is it not the Son of a God??

Ehrman is illogical.

Jesus in the Gospels was Fathered by a Holy Ghost of God and was identified as the Son of God yet Ehrman absurdly asserts that Jesus was human.

How absurd!!!

Please, examine page 231 of Did Jesus Exist?

Ehrman claims the first three Gospels do not declare Jesus is God.

Ehrman is wrong. If Jesus was considered a God and the Son of a God without a human father then he would be called the Son of a God and that is exactly what we find in the Gospels.

Jesus is identified as the Son of God in the first three Gospels.

1. Matthew 16:16 KJV2. Matthew 27:43 KJV3. Mark 14.4. Mark 15:39 KJV5. Luke 1:32 KJV Even the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God's Own Son.

6. Romans 8:3 KJV The NT is a compilation of 2nd century or later Myth Fables of a competing cult and the Jesus story and cult originated around that time.

aa5874

The HJ argument is completely flawed, irrelevant and baseless--there is NO evidence for Jesus of Nazareth outside the Bible and Apologetic sources.

If the Pauline writings are the earliest source for Jesus then Jesus of Nazareth was an invention.

The Pauline Jesus was a Revelation from God.

Jesus is either a Revelation or a Son of a Ghost that walked on water.

1. No supposed contemporary of Jesus claimed that they met him.

2. The Jesus cult did NOT carry out human Sacrifice.

3. Jesus of Nazareth played NO role in the start of the Jesus cult.

4. If a Ghost did not come on the day Pentecost then the disciples had NO power to preach the Good News of the resurrection--See gLuke 24 and Acts 1-2.

5. The resurrected Jesus of Nazareth must NOT be on earth--Jesus of Nazareth MUST vanish from the face of the earth BEFORE the Gospel of the resurrection is preached.

6. No story of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul have been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

7. Up to the mid third century, Apologetic sources admitted that Jews had ZERO knowledge of the advent of Jesus called Christ.

8.There is ZERO evidence that Jews would have worshiped a man as a God based on Philo.

9. Non-apologetic writers of antiquity wrote Nothing about a character called Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.

10. Virtually all apologetic sources for hundreds of years Published and documented in the Roman Empire that Jesus of Nazareth was Fathered by the Ghost.