aa5874

Well, tell me where the dated recovered texts show otherwise??

Please, you are just talking without giving much thought to what you are saying. You need to take a time out and get yourself together. You are incoherent at this point.

Sheshbazzar

There are no known dated recovered NT texts from the 1st century.
And dated texts from the 2nd century prove NOTHING regarding the prior existence or non-existence of any 1st century mentions of 'Jesus' <sic>

Please. You are abusing this Forum in an attempt to spread a lot of ERRONEOUS and ill thought out, IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL MISINFORMATION.

The simple fact is that you don't know, and cannot evidence what these various small Hellenistic Jewish sects may or may not have believed or have practiced during the 1st and early 2nd centuries CE before the orthodoxy burned and destroyed them and their writings.
Either it was not written down, (perhaps being those closely guarded 'Mysteries of the Kingdom' strictly reserved for oral transmission only to qualified, 'baptized', and ritually ecclesiastically confirmed initiates.)
Or what was put down in writing by these early apocalyptic messianic sects has not survived, or simply has not yet been found.
That such early writings are not presently available is NO indication that these early apocalyptic messianic 'Christ' 'Jesus' believing sects did not exist.
They had to have existed for 'christianity' to have ever came into being.

You do not know what religious terms or names the various Meshak'eem, Chrestanoi or 'Chrestos' leaders or their followers may have employed in their religious proselytizing or in their ritual meetings and communal meals. (You do not even know what peculiar 'holy' terms and Names are employed by TODAYS exclusive messianic sects.)

Marcion, and whatever it was that he actually taught, seems to have been a real pain in the ass to the emerging christian orthodoxy.
We don't have a single surviving writing by Marcion or his disciples , but that fact does not logically entail that Marcion and his followers never existed.
No more than your ill thought out 'deduction' and conclusion that the name and gospel of Jesus was unknown in the 1st century simply because 1st century documents have not yet been found.
This lack of 1st century NT manuscript evidence, is not in itself sufficient evidence on which to conclude that the Shl'eek'eem and the Am'oo'neem reachab'eem of the 1st century had no knowledge of, beliefs, nor any religious practices centered around the promotion of a particular NAME of a certain legendary 1st century wandering Prophet and Teacher.

[Of course the significance of the Hebrew portion of this will likely fly right over your head given your total ignorance of the applications and meanings of these Hebrew idioms. -and notably lazy unwillingness to seek out any new knowledge that does not, or cannot be conformed to your present ignorance based opinions.]

In fact given the content of the DSS documents, it is a virtual slam-dunk that legends regarding the shadowy 'Teacher of Righteousness' would have been propagated and have became widespread among these various early apocalyptic Messianic groups.
The Name of this legendary anointed ('christened') Messianic ONE was lifted directly from the TaNaKa texts, and some time latter was replaced by the more popular 'civilized' and now more familiar Hellenized forms.




.

aa5874

Again, WHY DO PRESUME that there may be 1st century mentions of Jesus???

What are you RAMBLING about??? Please, you have NOTHING.

Your PRESUMPTIONS are WORTHLESS.

Please, unless you can provided DATED recovered sources from the 1st century then you are BLOWING HOT AIR.

Jesus, the disciples and PAUL had NO real existence in the 1st century BASED on the actual DATED RECOVERED Texts.

Sheshbazzar

This name in its original Hebrew form is prominently employed and displayed in the TaNaKa's sayings and prophetic utterances.
Far more than what appears to your eye in those weak and foreign 'translations' that Hebrew language ignorant people like yourself choose to depend upon.

The expected messiah of that time would have to have bourn that ONE particular name announced and supported by the Hebrew texts of The Torah and The Prophets. That would be the Hebrew name that he would have had to have been given to be 'in fulfillment of that which was written.

It is absolutely certain that this Scripturally prophecied name (now corrupted and mispronounced as 'Jesus') was well known and taught about among Hebrew literate 1st century CE TaNaKa believing Jews.

Whether this individual was ever born in the flesh or not (and I believe that he never was.) Hebrew speaking teachers of the First century would have naturally been referring to this expected Messianic individual (real, incarnate, or not) by that particular name prophesied in the Hebrew TaNaKa Scriptures.

I say you have nothing other than an ERRONEOUS and downright stupid argument based upon that great BIG BLACK HOLE of your profound ignorance of the language, traditions, and culture of the people among whom these texts were composed.

And yours are uneducated, irrational, illogical, and ignorantly stupid.

Please. Until you learn to read and understand the Hebrew texts on which this name 'Jesus' <sic> was based and prophecied you will only continue to demonstrate that you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

That you make such an ignorance based statement only indicates that you don't know shit from Shinola about the teachings and traditions of the religion of the Hebrews upon which the given name "Jesus" was written and prophecied of from the inception of The Torah, Ketuvim, and Neveim.




.

aa5874

Dated sources please. I no longer accept what you claim.


Please, point out the recovered DATED texts that mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century if there is NOT a Big Black hole???

Please point out the presumptions in the recovered DATED Texts.

Please, I no longer accept presumptions about Jesus, the disciples and Paul. You must provide DATED sources--NOT hot air.

Again, I do not accept your unsupported claims. Please present dated sources. I won't be sucked into your imagination and speculation.

I need Dated sources--DATED sources. No more assumptions and speculation.

Those days are OVER.

aa5874

It MUST not ever be forgotten that it is HJers who are ON A QUEST for an Historical Jesus. They are the ones WHO are claiming their Jesus can be found in OTHER sources outside the NT.

HJ, based on Ehrman, was a Scarcely known preacher man from Nazareth.

Where can such a Jesus be found???

Does anyone have a clue??

Only God knows!!!

But God does NOT EXIST!!!

The HJ argument is not going anywhere.

"Mythicists will ALWAYS revel in the historical problems posed by the Gospels"

See Bart Ehrman in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" page 179