Amaleq13

I only offered one but you haven't explained what the problem is with it. You just assumed your conclusion so as to ignore it. That means it is still your problem.

But you don't treat all of that information as though it were fiction (eg the relationship between authors). That is a great way to continue to hold your beliefs but a poor way to convince others that they should share them.

I can't pardon it because it appears to have no basis except to allow you to retain your beliefs.

Keep the faith., Padre.

aa5874

Based on Justin Martyr there were Jesus believers as early as the time of Simon Barcochebas, about 100 years after the supposed ascension of Jesus of the NT.

Now, if it assumed Jesus was a mere human, it would have been very unlikely that he would have followers who worshipped him as a God asking him to forgive their sins while the Jewish Temple and Mosaic traditional Laws were still observed.

Jesus would have been called probably a prophet just like any of the prophets of Hebrew scriptures but not the son of God with the ability to forgive sins.

But in order for Jesus to have been worshipped as a God, the son of the god of the Jews, he must have been introduced at the very first instance as a God, never as just a man.

In order to present Jesus as a God/man, born without sexual union, from conceptio to ascension and to expect people to believe, the story of such a God/man should be written as far as possible from the supposed events, and even better, well away from the region where the supposed God/man was living on earth.

Based on the writings of Philo and Josephus, it would seem that such was the case up to or around 93 CE, there are no indications whatsoever of a God/man or a story of a God/man, born of a virgin without sexual union who was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and ascended to heaven.

According to Justin Martyr there were writings called gospels or memoirs of the Apostles and in those memoirs Jesus was presented as born of a virgin and ascended to heaven.

It would then appear to me that Jesus believers originated sometime no earlier than the very of the end of the 1st century or sometime after the writings of Josephus and before the second Jewish war with Simon Barcochebas.

Amaleq13

First, as you've been told before, there is no good reason to think this was something being preached from the beginning. It appears to be a later development. Second, while it is an idea unlikely to obtain much support from very many Jews unless they are already open to non-traditional beliefs, that does not necessarily apply to a population like the gentile "god-fearers" who were interested in Judaism but not ready to completely commit to all the requirements.

False. It is the reverse that is more likely to obtain belief (ie great man becomes deity over time). And, as you oddly point out, that is what the evidence suggests.

aa5874

You have no reason to think it was the reverse. You have no facts at all. Nothing.


You have no credible information whatsoever to support your claim. You are just making speculations from your imagination.

Justin Martyr supports the claim that the memoirs of the apostles called gospels and the Revelation by John predated Acts of the apostles and the Pauline letters.

How do you intend to prove that your position is true? You cannot even attempted to do such a thing.


Again, you cannot even dare to furnish any evidence that Jesus was just a man and then afterwards was believed to be a God.

If Jesus was a just a man, he may have been called a prophet just like all the prophets of old, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and others.

There is no evidence whatsoever where a prophet of Jewish origin was later worshipped as a God and was asked to forgive the sins of the Jews while practising the Jewish tradition of the Mosaic Laws and the Temple was still standing.

Clivedurdle

AA, I posted elsewhere that the Jews in Palestine were not a majority, and in fact were probably not that representative of the Judaisms around the med and ane - Alexandria - that Greek city - had a far larger Jewish population and no local temple.

Remember Judaism didn't have a temple until Herod rebuilt it and restarted sacrifices, but at the same time the Greek religions were moving away from sacrifice.

It is far more likely that there was a Jewish cult of annointers admixed with neo-pythagorean gnostic ides - sound very Alexandrian and Persian - out of which a yahweh messiah annointing cult emerged. Later on these ideas got personified and a huge editing process happened to pre existing documents, with new joining documents.

Sometimes solutions can be too simple and ignore the realities.

mountainman

The simple solution of the history of christianity assumes a Jewish origin of the new testament canonical books because of the lovely unevidenced and non-corroborated story traced out within this utter fabrication. This simple "Jewish Origin" inference ignores the reality of the utter destruction of the Hellenistic civilisation by the followers of the new testament canon which was prepared in the Greek language for the edification of those who falsely believed in Plato, Pythagoras and the Hellenistic Logos.

Amaleq13

Of course I do because I've read the Christian Bible but this is just another attempt by you to dodge your intellectual responsibility to defend your assertion with supporting evidence.

You made the claim but you can't support it (again) so you try to shift the burden to someone else (again). As transparent a tactic as it is logically flawed.

You wouldn't know credible if it bit you in the ass but Paul's letters, the Gospels, and, IIRC, even your beloved "church writers" all indicate worshipping Jesus as God was a late development.

But this is just more of the same shameful dodging of your intellectual responsibilities.

No, he doesn't.

This is easy. No wonder you prefer to just make assertions without supporting them!!

My position is that your assertion is false. You've done nothing to support it.
So, as it stands, that assertion appears to have no basis in logic or evidence. Do your job and support your claims or stop making them.

It is all right there in the Christian Bible. Paul didn't preach that Jesus should be worshipped as God. The Synoptic Gospels don't claim that Jesus was God. Only John can be understood to make that claim.

The evidence simply does not support you and neither does logic.

I suspect this is because you are only selectively attentive to the evidence and wholly unfamiliar with logic.

aa5874

How can you prove your assertion is true?

Clivedurdle

Compare with my post 56 above that starts its lists with Greek and Jew! Philo was a xian!:devil1:

Amaleq13

There is no need to support my rejection with anything since you provide no credible or logical support for the assertion. You've got nothing but your faith.

You still don't understand that proving a negative is not the most logical approach?