charles

I am not an expert on Greek by any means but I speak a little Polish. In English the specific word 'Christian' can take the form of a noun or an adjective but I am not we can presume that is true for other languages. It isn't true in Polish - there are two different words.

aa5874

But, you talk as though DATA is not needed for BOTH historiography and algebra.

DATA is the FUNDAMENTAL CONCRETE ELEMENT to resolve any matter.

The fundamental DATA supplied by the Church and aplogetic sources tend to show that Galatians was MOST likely non-historical.

The writer to Galatians placed himself AFTER the resurrection of Jesus.

The story about the resurrected Jesus is TOTAL fiction.


But, I don't even know what book you are talking about. And you could be right about Mel Tari's "Like a mighty wind" and be wrong about the Jesus story.

You simply cannot assume that there is a baby in the BATH water.

Where did you get the idea that BATH water has a REAL baby inside?

Well, once the DATA shows that Acts and the Pauline writings were propaganda then the theory that Jesus was just a story is well supported.

But, why are you telling me not to "fall into the apologist trap of what "the Jews would or would not do" when you are right now telling me what "the Jews WOULD HAVE done when the Temple was destroyed."?

By the way I used to believe Jesus was a REAL God/man. But now I think he was a REAL MYTH.


Generally it is people who believe Jesus existed who are Christians. You believe Jesus was REAL. How come you are not a Christian?

Historiography NEEDS DATA like any other field in order to make a determination about the historicity of any matter.

The DATA supplied by apologetic sources of Jesus is compatible with the DATA for MYTH.

Jesus was the offspring of a Ghost (of God) and Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess.

Homer supplied the DATA for the MYTH Achilles and the Church supplied the DATA for the MYTH Jesus, offspring of a Ghost (of God).

I am not arguing that there is NO history for Christianity. My argument has been that the history as presented by the Church historian appears to be fraudulent.

The history of Christians,( Jesus believers) presented by Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Tatian and Aristides seems more credible.


But, is it not YOU and the fundamentalist that believe JESUS did EXIST?

Some one may believe that YOU are a Christian anytime you say you believe Jesus was really REAL.

Don't you believe that Jesus was REALLY REAL? Fundamentalist believe so.

Well, just prove that I am wrong and then you won't have to get UPSET.

And, all I am doing is presenting my case that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were all fictitious 1st century characters before the Fall of the Temple USING the DATA supplied by the Church writers and the authors of the NT.

Once it is acknowledged that historiography NEEDS DATA like ALgebra or any field of Science then I cannot back off when the the DATA reveals that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were fictitious 1st century characters.

But, all you are doing is to BLAST me. You are not dealing with the OP. It is YOU who want to push me away because I don't agree with you.

And, just by you posting here shows that I have no ability at all to push any one away.

And further, I have only developed a theory that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were fictitious characters using DATA from antiquity. What you believe is ENTIRELY your business.

If you want to believe, like fundamentalist, that Jesus was REALLY REAL just supply the EVIDENCE from antiquity not from your imagination like the fundies.

I wont back away from people who propagate the same beliefs as fundamentalist when they are promoting the same refrain that Jesus was REALLY REAL.

But, you are NOT dealing with the OP. You are just trying to BLAST ME because I disagree with you.

But, have you stopped to think that what you have written may have revealed the state of your mind? You are no longer dealing with the OP.

What has gone wrong?

Well, instead of ranting and raving just state what I have missed.

Have it ever crossed your mind that you might have missed something? People miss things all the time.

What did you miss?

So what you ask?

Well, my theory is still good. Jesus, the disciples and Paul were fictitious characters before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c70 CE.

I MUST have missed some of the others. I remember at least one more. The Lord's brother. Put him on the fiction list.

Davka

I's a misconception of post-diaspora Jewish tradition, but not of ancient Jewish tradition. At the time that the Jesus stories take place, there were dozens of competing schools of Judaism, including some pretty far-out ones by today's standards. Various "messiahs" had been declared for at least a century, with all sorts of convoluted explanations as to how they could be the messiah and still not fulfill the prophecies - kind of like Schneerson today. Christianity was originally just another Jewish sect.

It was not until it became a majority Gentile religion that it lost its Jewish roots and was warped beyond the pale.

aa5874

Not even the Church writers could present any Jews who were Jesus believers outside the NT Canon.

There is no external evidence or Jewish sources of antiquity that there was a Messiah called Jesus who was worshiped as a God with ability to REMIT the sins of the Jews contrary to the Laws of the very God of the Jews as delivered by Moses.

"In Dialogue with Trypho" by Justin Martyr, Trypho the Jew did not mention any Jew who believed Jesus was a Messiah or mentioned that Jews in Galilee knew of Jesus.

And, in the Jesus story, Jesus was a blasphemer who was eventually crucified on behalf of the Jews. There is no evidence that Jews would have worshiped a blasphemer as a God before the Fall of the Temple.

The Jesus story appears to have been started outside of Judea and very long after the story should have actually began.

It must be noted that the early "Christians" (Jesus believers) mentioned outside the NT were non-Jews like Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others.

storytime

From all that I have read there was never an ancient belief in a Christ figure (an idol) among the Jewish people that was tolerated due to Law being the end-all word for Jewish tradition. Those Jews who thought to invent such traitorous acts were killed as commandment standard policy and procedure. Disciples of Jesus were guilty of blasphemy according to the standard of Law, and Jesus the Jew guilty of making himself equal to G-d. Christianity was never "just another Jewish sect". It was never a sect of Judaism at all. However, the non-Jews who invented the story successfully fooled most everyone into thinking it was so. Jews however never claimed it as a legitimate story but argued against the events of the story as told. Jews themselves had no evidence of a Jew named Jesus, not of his life, his execution, or his many miracles. Just as Rome had nothing to record about Jesus due to the character being fiction from whatever mouths and hands that wrote it. Nothing of the story is true, and the supernatural character in hero form came out of Gentile imagination. Jews never claimed Christianity as a Jewish sect. That would have also been a blasphemous declaration.

spamandham

There never has been an objective arbiter of what is or is not Jewish, and orthodox Judaism as we know it certainly did not exist in the 1st century. Jewish beliefs were very diverse in this time period (they still are), and the fact that the differing sects went around calling eachother heretics and killing eachother doesn't imply that one of them was 'pure', it's just ordinary sectarianism like what we see in Islam today.

aa5874

But, there are the writings of Philo and Josephus so the fundamentals of Jewish belief can be deduced.

A Messianic ruler was an extremely significant expected figure in Jewish tradition and the absurd stories by the Pauline writers that there was a Jewish Messiah who was worshiped as a God and was EQUAL to God who had the ability to REMIT the sins of ALL Jews before the Fall of the Temple is FUNDAMENTALLY non-historical.

The Pauline JESUS Christ is Utter fiction.

No source, Jewish or non-Jewish, can account for the Pauline resurrected Messiah named Jesus who could REMIT the SINS of Jews BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.