Sheshbazzar

But strangely this 'not manipulated' 'Justin' has 'The Acts of PILATE' before 165 CE, with its history of "Jesus Christ' and the 1st century Jesus cult to refer us to. One where even Pilate himself becomes a witness to the risen Christ.

( "The Apology letters were written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the Roman Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161 AD." (from Wiki )

How do you explain that aa?



.

aa5874

You do NOT appear Credible. Are you a moderator?? Do you not understand that posts are recorded?? You seem "hell bent" on destroying your credibility. How pathetic!!!

Please examine the very thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander I like it , aa. It is as good as others i have read and it is free on the web!! Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanya Thank you aa5874, for taking the time to develop your ideas, in a systematic summary. Well done. Your effort, industriousness, and credibility are noted, with enthusiasm, here.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog …….. your thread is interesting and I have learned a lot by reading this and your other comments....

Quote:

Originally Posted by stringbean Sweet aa! Put it in a book and I will buy it. Will have to cite some of it in my debates with fundies on other boards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stringbean Great stuff aa!

Quote:

Originally Posted by anathema here i think aa's position is valid. ….

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi ….Agree, well written aa!

PJLazy

I know you're really big on this "I refuse to consider anything but written documentation" kick, but there are a number of issues that you have to get around before your theory is compelling:

1. Who made this Jesus myth up and for what purpose? For control of a religious group that had not yet been created? To have their religious congregation be "saved" by a son of God whom they knew didn't actually exist? To risk being tortured and crucified because they thought a hoax would be fun? None of these concepts are plausible and are almost silly propositions.

2. How were these creators able to spread a Jesus story to the Jews so quickly and with such conviction without any documentary evidence to back it up? Their Jesus would have only lived a little more than 100 years earlier, yet no Jewish elder would have ever heard of the guy. The most important figure in the history of the Abrahamic faith somehow came and went and yet no stories, writings, paintings, or hymns would have existed. I don't know who would actually buy into that. Especially when they could simply flip open their Antiquities of the Jews and see no mention of Jesus (since you claim that the entries referencing Jesus are completely forged). It just doesn't make sense.

3. You run into major problems with when the myth could have been created. You claimed at one point that it was about 100 years after Jesus' supposed death, which I would assume is 130. Even dismissing Josephus, you are still having to deal with Tacitus discussing Jesus' crucifixion about 116 (which supports the idea that Pliny was discussing actual Christians in about 110). If Tacitus was already discussing a Jesus story in Rome in 116, how many years would it have taken for a story to be created, seeded, and then mushroomed to such an extent that Tacitus would have heard about it and found it important enough to write about? You are talking only 75 years after the death of Jesus, making the idea that Jews would buy into a completely created Jesus myth even more difficult to fathom.

4. Finally, the absolute breadth and quickness that these creators would have had to establish a Jesus myth is almost impossible. They would have had to create not only Jesus, but a whole Christian pantheon that would be easily checked out and rejected if false. It leaves you in sticky situations: For instance, was Paul invented at the same time the myth of Jesus was created or later on when Acts was written? How do you reconcile all of the early church leaders and the integration of them into historical settings?

This isn't to say that Jesus had to be the son of God, just that Jesus almost certainly had to have lived and a movement formed around him.

And one other note: Legal systems around the world are built upon presumptions, inferences, and circumstantial evidence. Historiographers, scientists, and anthropologists all use conjecture and supposition. Just because there isn't documentation of a leader of a sect 2,000 years ago in the backwoods of the Roman Empire only proves that there isn't documentation, nothing more. Just like there isn't contemporary documentation of Mohammad, but no one claims he was made up. There are people alive today who have no documentation that their great-grandparents existed. If you want your premise to be taken seriously, you are going to have to say more than just "I refuse to consider undocumented suggestions." It is just not academic to act that way.

aa5874

Well, who made up the MYTHS called Adam and Eve and for what purpose?? Did Adam and Eve actually Exist??

I have ZERO obligation to determine who made up Adam and Eve but to show that the book called Genesis is NOT Credible.

The History of mankind MUST, I repeat MUST come from Credible Sources--Credible Data.

I have NO obligation to fabricate evidence or invent hypothetical sources. My obligation is to LOCATE CREDIBLE Sources of antiquity --Credible Data.

The history of the Jesus cult MUST come from Credible Sources of antiquity.

The history of the Jesus cult can be assembled from Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Arnobius, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Tatian, Celsus in "Against Celsus", and Julian the Emperor.

Now, who was Jesus of Nazareth based on Justin Martyr??? Was he a Man or Myth???

Based on Justin Jesus was a MYTH like the created Adam and Eve, like Jupiter and his Sons of the Greeks and Romans.

First Apology XXI As soon as I LOCATED Credible Sources the history of the Jesus cult can be assembled from the very Credible DATA they provide.

In the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr had NO history of the Jesus cult in the 1st century. Justin's history of the Jesus cult came from supposed PREDICTIONS in Hebrew Scripture and the Memoirs of the Apostles.

1. The people who saw Jesus are the very characters in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

2. The people who preached the Jesus story are the very characters in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

3. The Actions of Jesus are found in supposed Predictions of Hebrew Scripture and the Memoirs of the Apostles.

4. The very Words of Jesus are found in supposed Predictions in Hebrew Scripture and the Memoirs.

Once Hebrew Scripture and the Memoirs are taken away from Justin's writings then we are left with NOTHING--ZERO--NO history of Jesus and the Jesus cult.

Justin had information about Simon Magus and Menander in the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE but had NOTHING--ZERO about the activities of the disciples and Saul/Paul as found in Acts and the Pauline letters.

The DSS and NT Texts have been recovered and DATED by C 14 and/or Paleography and they ALSO show NO Jesus story, NO Activities of the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and BEFORE c 68 CE.

Credible Sources have been Located.

Jesus was a MYTH , like the Myth Adam who was born/created Without Sexual union and has ZERO history outside Hebrew Scripture.

The history of Mankind, even the Jesus cult, MUST be assembled from Credible Sources--Credible data.

Duvduv

Credible is in the eyes of the beholder, isn't it, AA??
Sheshbazzar has already showed that the writings attributed to the 2nd century written by a guy named Justin Martyr are not credible at all, hasn't he??

But you believe they are credible because you want to believe it, or because you have a time machine and have determined without a doubt that the poorly written Apology was written in the 2nd century despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that it was in fact written by anyone in the second century.

aa5874

When did Sheshbazzar do such a thing?? Sheshbazzar is not able at any time to show that Justin Martyr is NOT Credible. The poster has utterly failed to identify any thing that was written by Justin that he must have known was NOT true or most likely false.

Justin Martyr ADMITTED that his Jesus was like the Myth fables of the Greeks.

Justin Martyr ADMITTED that his Jesus was Created or born like ADAM--without sexual union.

Sheshbazzar, just like you, is engaged in a NO Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument.

Sheshbazzar MUST have Credible Sources of antiquity to argue that the Jesus story was known or probably in the 1st century.

What evidence do you have that anything was written about the Jesus story and cult in the 4th or 5th century???

You are engaged in a NO Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument.

I have EXAMINED the claims made by Justin and for the "millionth time" they are COMPATIBLE with the Recovered DEAD SEA SCROLLS and the NT Manuscripts that have been DATED by C 14 and/or Paleography.

The DATED DEAD SEA SCROLLS and NT Manuscripts like Justin Martyr writings SHOW ZERO-NIL-NOTHING--NO Jesus story or Activities of the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and Before c 70 CE.

J-D

That's the way I appear to you. But nobody else perceives things the way you perceive them.Yes, I am, although not for this forum. That's why it says so under my screen-name. But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.I understand how posts are recorded, although again I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.Once again, it only seems that way to you. Nobody else perceives things the way you perceive them.I am familiar with your record both from this thread and from others. Over and over again I have seen other posters who thought they agreed with you about whatever it was you were saying, but as soon as they mentioned what they thought were the points of agreement, you have vehemently repudiated their views, demonstrating that they had not understood you correctly. Right here and now, the post you made that I am responding to, the one in which you said 'You don't seem to understand my argument', was directed at tanya--and now you're quoting tanya's apparent approval as evidence that she does understand, when clearly she doesn't. Obviously all these people saying approving things about your posts think they understand you. But they're mistaken. They don't.

Sheshbazzar

Tell us all about the 'Acts of PONTIUS PILATE' aa.

aa5874

"First Apology" attributed to Justin mentioned the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

First Apology First Apology Next Question.

Iskander

It is not only a question of necessarily understanding everything about something. In imitation of your barren attitude I will say to you: you do not know what I understand

The contribution of aa to this forum is of far greater value than the ever continuing provocative and pedantic contributions of yours will ever be.

Why should anyone bother to answer you is what I really don’t understand and you should welcome this reply with gratitude.
.