J-D

Thank you, that's very entertaining.

Sheshbazzar

I got no major gripe with that order as presented, as I have long been arguing that Saul the Pharisee's writings came first.
(the so called 'Passion Narrative' is a non contender, for the reasons explained if you click on it from that link)

And just about everyone, except the most extreme of Fundamentalist, concede that these Pauline writings were 'edited' and added to latter, by Gawd alone knows how many latter pious church 'Pseudo-Paul's'.

Probably been over a year ago now that I estimated that perhaps only 10% of 'Paul's' alleged writings actually came from the original and real Saul of Tarsus.

That Saul was an obscure Jew who left behind a few writings opposing the circumcising of Gentiles based on a good understanding of The Law and the Prophets.
These old Jewish writings laid virtually forgotten until Christian scribes came across them sometime after 150 CE.

That is why Justin Martyr, and the members of his Christian community know nothing about any Paul or Pauline writings.
They had not yet fallen into Christian hands for the redactors and 'Pseudo-Paul's' to get their greasy Greek theological fingerprints all over them.
Saul of Tarsus never was a 'Christian'.

aa5874

It is clear to me that TedM does NOT even understand what an argument is. An argument is developed with the use of Data or facts.

In the resolution of any matter facts or data must FIRST be presented and they cannot be ignored. It is for that very reason witnesses are employed in order to resolve the history of the past.

Each witness may NOT give all the evidence to reconstruct the past but when all the statements from the witnesses are taken into consideration then the past can be EASILY assembled.

It is most absurd and highly illogical for HJers to ignore the actual evidence from the 'witnesses of antiquity' that show Jesus was the product of a Ghost.

If HJers ignore the evidence of Myth then MJers will REJECT any claims for HJ.

The written statements from the witnesses of antiquity MUST, MUST, MUST be taken into consideration without ommissions.

We have hundreds of witness statements from antiquity which have testified that Jesus was indeed was born AFTER his mother was Pregnant by a Ghost and had no human father.

We have a witness claiming to be a contemporary of King Aretas who admitted his Jesus was God's Own Son and never mentioned that Jesus had a human father.

In fact, in the NT, Jesus was God's Begotten Son who did acts that were NOT humanly possible.

God's Begotten Son Walked on water in the NT.

The Son of God was on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple with Satan.

Both NT God and NT Satan are Myths.

It is clear that the NT is a compilation of Myth Fables about Gods, Devils, Angels, Ghosts, Spirits and Jesus the Son of a God.

aa5874

The HJ argument is dead.

HJers, Christians, and Fundamentalists can only talk about their Belief but never of the evidence.

It has been Exposed that there is no actual evidence to support the existence of a character called Jesus of Nazareth.

No author at all of antiquity outside of Apologetics mentioned a man called Jesus of Nazareth--Nobody.

Jesus of Nazareth is ONLY found in the Four Gospels and Acts in the NT and was born AFTER his mother became Pregnant by a Ghost and was also God the Creator that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The HJ argument is done. HJ of Nazareth is an article of faith and 'FAITH' is fully explained in Hebrews.

Hebrews 11:1 KJV There is NO actual hard evidence for HJ of Nazareth in the 1st century--None.

Without any hard and credible evidence the HJ of Nazareth argument went into "suicide" mode.

After having discredited the NT sources HJers returned back to the same NT [historical garbage] filled with discrepancies, contradiction and events that most likely did not happen to assemble their Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman in a most schocking act of desperation claimed the Gospels are among the best attested books of the ancient world but immediately admits he really does NOT know what was originally written in the Gospels and a little later demonstrates the Gospels are sources of fiction.

Effectively, Ehrman vandalises his own writings. Ehrman has written many books and has argued the Gospels are NOT historically reliable.

This is Ehrman in a debate.
The HJ of Nazareth argument cannot be maintained without any hard evidence and without credible sources.

aa5874

This is exactly what I guard against. You are making stuff up WITHOUT a shred of evidence. Please, do NOT make arguments for which you have NO supporting facts.

You are PRESUMING the contents of YOUR own originals for your own real Saul.

I will never give up actual evidence for personal belief.

There is NO actual corroborative evidence from antiquity that there was a character named Saul as reported in Acts.

Do you see what you have done?? You have become an inventor of your own history of Saul and without a shred of actual supporting evidence from antiquity.

That is precisely what I no longer entertain.

I cannot accept imagined stories about Your SAUL that were made up without corroborative evidence from antiquity.

I cannot give up actual dated evidence for your unsupported imaginative stories of Saul.

My ARGUMENT must only be fundamentally based on the hardest existing available evidence.

Presently the hardest available evidence are the recovered dated manuscripts and none of them with stories about Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul are from the 1st century.

There are also writings--non-apologetic and apologetic writings- that are in HARMONY with the recovered dated manuscripts.

The history of the Jesus cult of Christians MUST, MUST, MUST be derived from the witnesses of antiquity and NOT from my imagination.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr represent the history of the Jesus cult of Christians of the 2nd century.

Writings attributed to Theophilus of Antioch, and Athenagors of Athens represent the history of Christians of antiquity.

The NT Canon represents Forgeries, Fraud and Fiction.

The Church and its writers argue against the so-called Heretics and ridicule them as agents of the Devil yet Admit that their Canon contains Forgeries and failed to point out that the short gMark and the Long gMark is the product of fraud and forgeries.

Effectively, the Canon of the Church is a document that has Exposed the Church and its writers as agents of falsehood.

Based on Justin the authors of the Jesus stories were NOT really known, the Pauline writings did NOT exist, and there was no known post-ascension activities of the disciples and Apostles up to 150 CE.

The Jesus cult of Christians originated in the 2nd century based on the recovered dated sources and compatible sources of antiquity.

Sheshbazzar

aa I am only relating what seems to me to be the most logical explanation for why the elaborate 'Pauline' writings with its 'salvation through the Resurrection' theology were unknown to Justin in 150 CE, yet these Pauline writings were apparently well known soon after.

When do you propose the 'Pauline' writings were initially composed? How long do you think it took for them to reach their final and familiar form ?

aa5874

I am only reminding you that you have NOT presented the sources for your claims. I have NO interest in what you believe if you have NO sources.

Please, a logical explanation requires DATA and FACTS--your "logical explanation" was derived from your personal beliefs.

I will give you the dates supplied by Paleographers based on what was recovered and dated. I am no longer accepting assumptions about the Pauline writings.

We have apologetic sources that did NOT acknowledge the Pauline writings up to the mid 2nd centuy so the Pauline letters could have been composed sometime after the mid 2nd century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

When I examine Acts of the Apostles it is a work of fiction so it is completely not necessary for me to presume any character called Saul or Paul did exist as described.

The NT Canon of the Church is a work of fraud, fiction, forgery and deception and No stories of Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul has ever been found and dated to the 1st century.

My argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century is LOCKED to the actual recovered dated evidence.

I cannot reject hard evidence for personal imagination.

Sheshbazzar

aa, I am simply relating what seems to me to be the most logical explanation for why 'Paul' and these 'Pauline epistles' with their elaborate 'salvation through the Resurrection' theology were evidently totally unknown to Justin and his contemporary Christian church circa 150 CE, but were apparently very well known only a short time latter.

When do you propose the Pauline epistle were initially composed? How long do you think it took them to reach their familiar and present form?

When I read these texts it appears to me that someone took a handful of old Jewish writings and liberally stuffed them with a lot of 'Jesus's' and 'Christ our Lord's', and with material cribbed from Platonic theological philosophy stuffed in between the original lines.

I do not assert that this is what happened. Only that upon reading these texts, that is the way it appears to me.
I do not claim to have any material evidence with which to prove or validate this view.
But it is nonetheless my honest opinion, and the only one that I can with a clear conscience present. I do not insist that anyone else need accept it.

The Imperial church was very effective at covering its tracks by seeking out and destroying any writings that opposed them or that might serve as a witness against their claims.
(Justin they made a saint, and 'one of their own', by the time that they realized this respected church Father and Saint's writing contradicted 'official church history' it was too late to do anything about it. _although there were those who wanted Justin to be posthumously branded as a heretic. The church hierarchy however thought it better to ignore the discrepancy than draw any additional attention to a matter that was by then beyond remedy.)

My hope is that some day early manuscripts by the real Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee might yet turn up.
It is possible that some may have already. I do not at all trust the 'Bible and Spade' type of Christian Archaeologists to ever reveal or to turn over any such document to the public and their detractors if it were to fall into their hands. For 'Jesus sake' they would destroy it just like their ancestors did, and for the same reasons.

Then there is also the fact that a huge amount of recovered literary materials still lie stored in various Museum and University archives, as yet unrestored and untranslated. A great amount that simply could not be with the level of technology available at the time they were recovered. This work is yet ongoing.

My view is not dogmatic being that it is open to the view that our present material from the 1st through 2nd centuries is extremely sparse, and that with modern technology and improved access to remote areas, there remains a strong possibility of additional finds, that may yet dwarf that little now presently available.


ETA. Oops! Didn't even realise that those first couple of lines were accidentally aready posted, until I posted this.

I agree with you that Acts of The Apostles is fictional and late, evidently a forgery produced by the Church in an attempt to 'patch' the Epistles and Gospels together.

aa5874

Why would you think such a thing without any actual evidence?? Your "honest opinion is of very little value to me when you admit you have no material evidence


Well, from your own admission the Church was NOT really effective in covering their tracks.

We have the NT, the OT, and many Apologetic writings. The Church left the evidence of the fraud, forgeries and fiction intact.

We have two gospels attributed to the same author in the Canon--one of them must be a forgery.

We have additional verses in the Long gMark--those verse were interpolated and are fictional.

We have gMatthew with more additional details that must have been invented.

We have gLuke with more fabrications and gJohn with more and more fiction.

The Church did NOT cover their tracks at all.

In their Canon it is claimed Jesus was born after Mary was pregnant by a Ghost and that Jesus was God the Creator, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Please, explain how such statements covers the tracks of the Church??

Why do you think the unknown contents of early manuscripts support your position??

So, the untranslated material will confirm what?? You must know that we can only use the evidence that is known. Arguments are normally developed from the present available evidence--not from imaginary evidence that may or may not exist and may or may not help your position.

Please, I did NOT claim Acts of the Apostles was produced by the Church and I did NOT claim Acts of the Apostles was produced to patch the Epistles and Gospels together.

My position is that the author of Acts did NOT mention the Pauline letters to Churches, and did NOT mention the Pauline revealed Gospel--Salvation by the Resurrection.

Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters. Essentially, Acts is NOT a patch between the Gospels and the Pauline letters.

Sheshbazzar

You are looking at it with a literate and critical modern mind.
Most of the people this was sold to were illiterate, unable to read or to compare the texts, and even if they could, were forced to be acquiescent to the official opinions of The Church, or submit themseves to the charge of heresy. It worked quite effectively for over a thousand years. Still does in most Churches.

Even today there are Church going literate Christians that are totally dependent upon what their church tells them to believe, They could care less what discrepancies these texts reveal.
By searching out and destroying the earliest formative writings of Christianity as being 'heretical', they were able to pass off on the gullible that the New Testament writings were always substantially as they presently are. This is one of the principle pillars of Christianities claims. That ' All of Scripture is equally divinely inspired by God the Holy Spirit.' And Christians will swear by that even if contradictions appear.

I have already told you.

We will never know until or unless it is translated.

Whatever. The books do not agree.

Neither seems aware of the content of the other no matter which order you put them in.

If Acts of The Apostles was first, the latter writers of the Epistles should have known that there was no record of Paul writing these amazing letters to the Churches.

It doesn't make sense, but there is not a hell of a lot in the Christian religion that does.

Taking then your view, that the Acts of The Apostles was composed first, They came along latter and wrote in the Pauline Epistles what ever they wanted.

They didn't give a damn what Acts said. They had the control to over rule it, and even as today, they would only hear what they wanted to hear anyway.

And by the time of the Epistles they were starving for elaborate explanations and demanding the incorporation of Platonic religious philosophy.

The writers of the Church gave them what they wanted, without over much regard for what had gone before.

I still suspect that the Pauline Epistles were fashioned by heavily interpolating late found Jewish writings, and not from scratch.