aa5874

NO, NO, NO!!! You are the one who produce a Jesus story based on IMAGINATION and without a shred of dated evidence.

I am DONE, FINISHED, with imagination based theories about 1st century Christians using Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and the Gospels.

I just SHOWED you the FUNDAMENTAL source for My argument.

They are INDEPENDENTLY DATED SOURCES.

They are DATED by Paleography, an ACCEPTABLE method of dating Ancient manuscripts.

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

What you BELIEVE happened in the 1st century is worthless when you have NO dated sources for your claims.

Philo, Josephus and Pliny did NOT write about Jesus Christ or the Jesus cult of Christians.

The Jesus stories are 2nd century Myth Fables.

Sheshbazzar

Sorry Charlie. I don't have a 'Jesus story' other than that it is an old myth, older than your 2nd century dated documents, one that by the evidence of gJohn had underwent some considerable period of development and inflation.

Good. Then we can expect you to be DONE and FINISHED with presenting us with your imagination based theory about what unknown and unrecorded 1st century religious believers did or did not not believe.


That's it? Then your 'argument' is totally fucked.
Philo did not have to have known or to have mentioned any Jesus cult for one to have existed. Maybe it was so small, or so remotely located that Philo simply never heard of it. Maybe he knew of it or considered it too insignificant, or its beliefs too confused incomprehensible or unidentifiable to assign it any significance.

I have had co-workers with some very strange beliefs that they promoted to everyone who would listen. I have no way of knowing if what they have been preaching will ever eventually grow into an identifiable cult or religious movement. Neither would have Philo of his contemporary religious loonies.

Whoop de Do! They prove NOTHING about what beliefs or what names were used in a minor and obscure 1st century messianic cult.

Quote:

They are DATED by Paleography, an ACCEPTABLE method of dating Ancient manuscripts.

Certainly, and being so dated to the 2nd century and latter. THEY PROVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regarding what any small obscure religious sect may or may not have believed during THE FIRST CENTURY CE.
And the other of that set of shoes, is what YOU believe did not happen during the 1st century is when you have no dated 1st century sources that can establish what you are claiming based upon your imaginations about what is unavailable from the 1st century.
You are attempting to assert a positive statement about beliefs held in the 1st century based upon a LACK of any information or evidence about those beliefs.
Big deal. There are at least a dozen possible reasons why this may be, that have nothing at all to do with a non-existence of a 1st century Jesus cult.
You are using a LACK of information to rationalize jumping to the conclusion you want. That is Confirmation Bias in action.

I agree that they are Myth Fables. But you have utterly failed to PROVE that they originated in the 2nd century and not the 1st.
You are just guessing and trying to peddle your best guess and opinion here as being a documented fact, when in fact it is NOT.

aa5874

You IMAGINE there was an 1st century OBSCURE cult without a shred of evidence. Your position is laughable. You are Guessing.

Again, you have IMMERSED yourself in your OWN imagination without a shred of any evidence. You know ABSOLUTELY Nothing of your maybe/maybe not small obscure religious sect.

You appear to be a perfect example of those who think what they imagine is likely to be right regardless of the actual recovered data.

My argument is based on actual Recovered dated sources and will ONLY be reviewed when NEW ACTUAL DATED RECOVERED Texts are found.

I do NOT accept imagination and speculation. Those days are over.

NO, NO, NO!!! Don't try that. You are one who CONSTANTLY talk about 1st century obscure messianic cult and have NO DATED recovered sources to support you. Please, STOP Guessing.

You have NOTHING but your imagination for the 1st century.

You have NO established 1st century sources.

You Lack any DATED INFORMATION about your Beliefs,

Please, you very well know my argument is that the Jesus story is SECOND CENTURY.

I HAVE 2ND CENTURY DATED SOURCES for my argument.

Where are your DATED 1ST century sources????

You are quite illogical.

The Fact that Philo, Josephus, and Pliny did NOT mention Jesus and the Jesus cult of Christians is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what I expected when Jesus and the Christian cult had NO real existence in the 1st century.

I no longer accept presumptions about the 1st century. My argument is that there were NO 1 st century character called Jesus and NO Jesus cult of Christians until new dated recovered texts can be found.


Again, you are quite illogical. It is you who is GUESSING that there was an OBSCURE 1st century messianic cult WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

You prove NOTHING about any 1st century cult.
You come EMPTY-HANDED and spouting Hot Air about the 1st century.

Who told you that there was a 1st century Obscure cult????

There was a 2nd century Jesus story. I am NOT Guessing.

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

mountainman

In order to establish that your statement above is a product of historical research you should be able to cite Philo's mention of either Jesus and/or "Christians" and/or "Chrestians", but as far as I am aware there is no such direct reference to be found anywhere in Philo. He is silent on this specific matter.

Your statement above is a little ambiguous when read over. Were you trying to make a conditional statement, but left the "IF" out ... as follows ...

mountainman

If you are relying upon palaeographical dating you are certainly not relying upon scientific assessment and you must also be prepared to state the bounds of error or margins allowed for such method of dating in the mass of academic scholarship associated with it.

When you examine the error bounds for the so-called 2nd century papyrii you will find variances as late as the 3rd century. Consequently, in more than one way, if you are stating that There was a 2nd century Jesus story. then you are guessing and favoring the low estimates over the estimates a century - or more - later.

aa5874

What you state is erroneous. My argument is based on recovered DATA which was independently DATED by an ACCEPTABLE method of dating Ancient writings.

The independently recovered DATED Texts ALLOW me to argue that there was a 2nd century Jesus story.

This is standard throughout the world. People use independently dated sources and develop arguments based on the data.

As soon as New Dated sources are recovered then I REVIEW my position. This is a proper and sound methodology.

Please, Guessing is when one has NO Dated sources and argues for a maybe/maybe not 1st century obscure messianic cult.

Sheshbazzar

But you are guessing when you unequivocally claim that there was no 1st century Jesus story.

It is a discredit to Myth Jesus position when you present such an unevidenced, biased, and irrational claim about something which you have no possible way of knowing.

If your argument was solid every Jesus Mythicist would have already been using it and supporting it for centuries.
Which ought to indicate to you that there is something seriously amiss with your reasoning.



.

aa5874

Your statement is illogical. Please, you are the one who is GUESSING about 1st century maybe/maybe not obscure messianic cults.

Please, have you ever been to a court trial??? An Argument can be made that a person did NOT commit a crime if NO evidence is presented.

You presented NO evidence for an obscure 1st century maybe/maybe not messianic cult.

Please, I have no time to waste. I REJECT your imagination story and PRESENT dated sources for a 2nd century Jesus story.

This is standard practice--REJECT imagination and Speculation and ACCEPT Hard Evidence--Independent Recovered Dated Sources.

Please, you are making blatant erroneous statement. I have posted my SOURCES in RED and BOLD.
Please, again, Examine the Dated LIST OF NEW TESTAMENT Papyri. There is NOTHING from the 1st century and before c 70 CE. That is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what I expected since Jesus, the Disciples and Paul had NO real existence before the Fall of the Temple.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Tell that to Galileo. When Galileo argued that the Earth Revolved around the Sun he was placed under house arrest by people who BELIEVE there was a 1st century Messianic cult.

I have HARD EVIDENCE so my argument CANNOT be contradicted.

My argument is that the Jesus story is from the 2nd century.

mountainman

If you were to furnish a 2nd century C14 date then I would regard your argument as possessing some HARD EVIDENCE for its claims. The dating methodology (palaeography) upon which your argument depends does not yield HARD EVIDENCE. Period.

Sheshbazzar

That there is identifiable 2nd century evidence proves nothing at all regarding the situation in the 1st century.

aa's argument is based upon his LACK of information, and upon his IGNORANCE regarding minor religious cults of the 1st century, and is thus flawed.

No reputable scholar accepts such a blatantly and illogical flawed argument.
aa's ridiculously flawed claim regarding Jesus is an embarrassment to all MJers.

'Jesus', or its Hebrew vocalization was a very common name during the 1st century CE.
There were likely dozens, perhaps even hundreds of Jews named 'Jesus' during the early 1st century CE

For aa to claim that there was no one named 'Jesus' during the 1st century flies in the face of tons of evidence.
As to whether there was any 'Jesus Story' in the first century -it remains unknown- with no evidence one way or another, contrary to aa's constant assertions to possess positive knowledge that there was not.

With hundreds of 'Jesus's' living in that time period between the year of 1 and the year 100, it is very likely that someone repeated some gossip or other about one of them at some time.
To assert as aa repeatedly has, that this was an impossibility, is an exercise in an imaginative ignorance.
His assertion is not that any early 'Jesus story' might have been changed, added to, or corrupted, but rather he asserts that there was no person named Jesus that lived during the 1st century.
(which incidentally would also discredit and eliminate the existence of various 'Jesus's' that Josephus or others wrote about.)

It is admitted by most all scholars (except the most extreme of Fundies) that the Jesus as described in the Gospels never existed. So the 'Jesus' we are talking about would be some much lesser individual named 'Jesus' who was NOT fathered by a Ghost, NEVER walked on water, was NOT 'Transfigured' and NEVER levitated off into the clouds.

aa's argument re the 'Jesus' of the first century is a flawed red herring.
HJers DO NOT argue that there was ever any 1st century 'Jesus' whose "Father was a Ghost, or walked on water", rather simply some unknown individual, possibly named Jesus, around whom the Gospel legend accrued.