The Historical Jesus II

[maximara]

What were you addressing when you penned this remarkable eulogy?

Eulogy - A speech or piece of writing that praises someone or something highly, typically someone who has just died. (Oxford)

When did Carrier die?

'I do not think that word means what you think it means.'

Again how about actually addressing the points, hmm?

 

[maximara]

As it stands today, December 31 2014, the argument for an historical Jesus is still illogically derived and unevidenced. Those who argue for an HJ are unable to present a credible historical source of antiquity which can place Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pontius Pilate and therefore resort to logically fallacious arguments.

Dejudge has that right.

Now, the mere fact, that ALL Christian writers of antiquity who mentioned the birth of Jesus declared that he was born of a Ghost means that there most likely was NO known established historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

No they don't. Paul expressly states Jesus was born of a human father at least twice in his writings.

Also we must be careful not to read definitions that were not part of the terms being used at that time but they have acquired since then:

"when Peter confessed Jesus as “the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” it’s unlikely that this meant, “the Anointed One, who is also the divine Son of God.” Rather, this confession simply used two more or less synonymous terms for “God’s chosen king and redeemer.”" - Was Jesus Divine? Early Christian Perspectives

It can ONLY be argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost if there is NO historical data to contradict the fiction.''

No you can argue a lot of things with what little we have.

The Gospel Jesus could have been a composite person,

A minor preacher that Paul and his followers latched on to even though his actual role in founding their cult was nil ala the Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson Cargo Cults

A person inspired by an already existing Jesus myth who stepped into the role.

The thing is the evidence for any of those is iffy at best

How was it possible for the authors of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts, the Pauline Corpus, ePeter, eJude, eJohn, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen to argue that Jesus was God, the Son of God or born of a Ghost with KNOWN historical data which CONTRADICTED them?

People will believe what they want to believe. For example, homeopathy medicine was talking rubbish even by the standards of the 19th century it become popular (the more you dilute something the stronger it gets...SAY WHAT?!?) and despite proof that any effects it have are placebo based people still believe that it works.

As I mentioned a long time ago there was an effort in 1957 to show John Frum didn't exist and it was a complete failure (Lal, Brij V.; Kate Fortune (2000) The Pacific Islands: an encyclopedia; University of Hawaii Press; ISBN: 978-0824822651; Pg 303)

By that time the John Frum story had largely settled into the form we know today: a white serviceman appeared to the village Elders in the late 1930s.

So you had the cult saying their leader's appearance was an event within living memory. Also if you look at that time frame it is roughly the same as that between Jesus supposed ministry (some time between 29-36 CE) and the 55-63 CE dates generally presented for Paul's seven letters.

But, and this is important, we have actual evidence before this attempt was made that part of the John Frum cult had held that the appearance was in the 1910s. But in the 7 some years between that letter documenting this and the 1957 attempt to show he had not even existed that version of John Frum had totally disappeared from oral tradition.

 

[dejudge]

As it stands today, December 31 2014, the argument for an historical Jesus is still illogically derived and unevidenced. Those who argue for an HJ are unable to present a credible historical source of antiquity which can place Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pontius Pilate and therefore resort to logically fallacious arguments.

Dejudge has that right.

Maximara, The heavenly Jesus crucified in the sub-lunar is WRONG.

Jesus of the NT was the Transfiguring Sea water walker, the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator from the beginning who was KILLED or caused to be killed by the Jews.

Now, the mere fact, that ALL Christian writers of antiquity who mentioned the birth of Jesus declared that he was born of a Ghost means that there most likely was NO known established historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

No they don't. Paul expressly states Jesus was born of a human father at least twice in his writings.

Maximara, you got that wrong. In fact, You write fiction

The Parents of Jesus was specifically identified as God and a Woman in the Pauline Corpus.

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was the LORD from heaven and was made a SPIRIT.

1 Corinthians 15:47--- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Galatians 4:4 ---But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law


1 Corinthians 15:45 ---And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


Plus, Christian writings of antiquity which made references to the Pauline Corpus also argue that Jesus was God of God WITHOUT a human father.

The existing manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus do NOT support the HERESY that Jesus was born with all human parents.

Also we must be careful not to read definitions that were not part of the terms being used at that time but they have acquired since then:

"when Peter confessed Jesus as “the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” it’s unlikely that this meant, “the Anointed One, who is also the divine Son of God.” Rather, this confession simply used two more or less synonymous terms for “God’s chosen king and redeemer.”" - Was Jesus Divine? Early Christian Perspectives

Your statement is void of logic. The Canonised gMatthew is in agreement with the teachings of the Church that Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and that Jesus was God of God.

Christian writers of antiquity who made references to gMatthew also agreed that gMatthew's Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

It can ONLY be argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost if there is NO historical data to contradict the fiction.''

No you can argue a lot of things with what little we have.

Maximara, you got that wrong.

You cannot make arguments WITHOUT the supporting data.

Making a lot of NOISE without the supporting data is not really an argument.

You have forgotten that imaginative baseless speculation is not an argument.

The Gospel Jesus could have been a composite person,

A minor preacher that Paul and his followers latched on to even though his actual role in founding their cult was nil ala the Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson Cargo Cults

A person inspired by an already existing Jesus myth who stepped into the role.

The thing is the evidence for any of those is iffy at best..

Maximara, you don't really know what you are talking about.

Your "IFFY" speculative scenarios are really worthless when we are asking for actual EVIDENCE from antiquity.

How was it possible for the authors of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts, the Pauline Corpus, ePeter, eJude, eJohn, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen to argue that Jesus was God, the Son of God or born of a Ghost with KNOWN historical data which CONTRADICTED them?

People will believe what they want to believe. For example, homeopathy medicine was talking rubbish even by the standards of the 19th century it become popular (the more you dilute something the stronger it gets...SAY WHAT?!?) and despite proof that any effects it have are placebo based people still believe that it works.

Why do you believe your imaginary manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus were composed c 50-60 CE?

If your Pauline writer was a Heretic who preached and taught that Jesus was NEVER on earth, was NOT Killed by the Jews and was crucified in the Sub-lunar then NONE of the existing Pauline Corpus are authentic.

 

[davefoc]

Question: is the thread still running an assumption that all Christian groups were aware of all Christian groups and that there was only one consecutive lineage of Christianity?

This is one of those frustrating mysteries about all this. There are clues that suggest that what we are looking at is different groups of people founding some form of Christianity and in some mostly unknown way the ideas of these people got conglomerated by later groups. This seems particularly true of Paul's writings and the Gospels. I know that some have disagreed but it feels to me like the Gospel writers didn't know of Paul and it was the writer of Acts that decided it would be a good idea to put together the Pauline sect's ideas with the Gospels. And if there are different groups founding Christianity at almost the earliest times what was the original seed that got all these groups going on this?

One possibility, is that the theory about Christianity springing up in the God Fearer groups is correct and what happened was that a rumor spread through the God Fearer groups about a risen messiah and that different God Fearer groups created their own risen Christ mythology based on the simple rumors and the various sects evolved separately. It looks to me like the Gospels were a later phenomena after Christianity had sprung up in different places. Mark was created in one of those places and then spread to other Christian groups. Mark served both as inspiration for the young Christian religion and as literary inspiration for authors from other sects to write their own Jesus fiction.

I said frustrating because it feels like there are enough clues to make some reasoned guesses about what went on here but I can never find enough evidence to support any particular idea over another. It all just seems unknowable to me.

It seems like there is more evidence to make reasoned guesses about the origin of the Old Testament than there is evidence to make reasoned guesses about the origin of Christianity even though the Old Testament is much older.

 

[Craig B]

Eulogy - A speech or piece of writing that praises someone or something highly, typically someone who has just died. (Oxford)

When did Carrier die?

'I do not think that word means what you think it means.'

I do think it means what I think it means.The word eulogy "typically" is used for a funeral oration, yes. But it is correct to use it in other contexts too. From the Free Dictionary

n. pl. eu·lo·gies
1. A laudatory speech or written tribute, especially one praising someone who has died.
2. High praise or commendation.

Again how about actually addressing the points, hmm?

How about making a point other than "Carrier says ... "

 

[dejudge]

This is one of those frustrating mysteries about all this. There are clues that suggest that what we are looking at is different groups of people founding some form of Christianity and in some mostly unknown way the ideas of these people got conglomerated by later groups. This seems particularly true of Paul's writings and the Gospels. I know that some have disagreed but it feels to me like the Gospel writers didn't know of Paul and it was the writer of Acts that decided it would be a good idea to put together the Pauline sect's ideas with the Gospels. And if there are different groups founding Christianity at almost the earliest times what was the original seed that got all these groups going on this?

There is nothing at all frustrating.

We have existing evidence from antiquity.

Don't we have the writings attributed to Justin Martyr where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus where MULTIPLE Christians sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Now, based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity it is an extremely simple matter to logically deduce that the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus were from a LATER Christian Sect.

Please, please, please, do NOT frustrate yourself!!!

Is it not argued in "Against Heresies" that the Gospels and teachings of Jesus composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John PREDATED those of the so-called HERETICS?

Well, well, well, why are you frustrated?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write any of the Canonised Gospels and none of the Gospels were composed BEFORE c 70 CE.

The author of "Against Heresies" introduced FAKE authors of the Gospel to [falsely] place the Jesus cult BEFORE those of the so-called Heretics.

And did NOT the author of "Against Heresies" argue that a SINGLE character called Paul wrote 12 letters to Churches and Pastorals to Timothy and Titus?

Well, well, well, why are you frustrated?

The author of "Against Heresies" introduced a FAKE character called Paul as the author of ALL the Pauline Corpus to [falsely] give PRIMACY to the teachings of Paul.

The Pauline Corpus is really a compilation of MULTIPLE writers POSING as ONE character called Paul.

And, not only are the authors Faked in "Against Heresies" but the chronology and contents of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus were manipulated.

We can logically deduce that "Against Heresies" introduced FAKE authors and manipulated the chronology and contents of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus because there was NO actual evidence that the Jesus cult of Christians predated the so-called Christian Heretics.

The Canonised Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are products of a cult of Christians from the 2nd century or later or AFTER the so-called Christian Heretics.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are LATE MUTILATED versions of Christianity.

And, in addition, the Pauline Corpus is a LATE invention of Christianity produced AFTER gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

The evidence from antiquity is cast "in stone". The evidence can no longer be altered or manipulated.

The stories and teachings of the so-called HERETICAL cults PREDATED the writings of the FAKE authors of the Canonised Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

 

[maximara]

There is nothing at all frustrating.

We have existing evidence from antiquity.

Don't we have the writings attributed to Justin Martyr where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus where MULTIPLE Christians sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Now, based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity it is an extremely simple matter to logically deduce that the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus were from a LATER Christian Sect.

Not really as they could have come from a relatively obscure Christian Sect.

Is it not argued in "Against Heresies" that the Gospels and teachings of Jesus composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John PREDATED those of the so-called HERETICS?

[snip]

And did NOT the author of "Against Heresies" argue that a SINGLE character called Paul wrote 12 letters to Churches and Pastorals to Timothy and Titus?

That same author also said that these same Gospels showed that Jesus was at least 46 years old when he was Crucified and in Demonstrations expressly stated that Jesus was crucified under Herod "king of the Jews" (ie Herod Agrippa I) during the reign of Claudius Caesar putting the Crucifixion 42-44 CE.

This same author also tried to claim Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea during this time; in reality there was no need for a governor during Herod Agrippa I's reign as the region returned to the client state status it had during the time of Herod the Great.

We must remember that Irenaeus like ALL Christians of the time is writing propaganda and so some care in taking what he is telling you as fact must be made. In terms of logic his reasoning in Book II Chapter 22 for a 46+ if not 50+ old Jesus at time of crucifixion is sound but it falls apart when you compare it with actual history. His argument as to why there are only four Gospels is a bunch of mystical claptrap.

Historically, Irenaeus is writing rubbish both there and in Demonstrations.

 

[dejudge]

There is nothing at all frustrating.

We have existing evidence from antiquity.

Don't we have the writings attributed to Justin Martyr where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus where MULTIPLE Christians sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Don't we have "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen where MULTIPLE Christian sects were IDENTIFIED?

Now, based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity it is an extremely simple matter to logically deduce that the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus were from a LATER Christian Sect.

Not really as they could have come from a relatively obscure Christian Sect.

Your imaginative speculation is really useless when we are dealing with the existing evidence of antiquity.

You have ZERO evidence of a relatively obscure Christian sect who worshiped a heavenly Jesus who was crucified in the sub-lunar and have ZERO evidence there was a Christian sect who worshiped a man named Jesus as a God since c 50-60 CE.

Is it not argued in "Against Heresies" that the Gospels and teachings of Jesus composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John PREDATED those of the so-called HERETICS?

[snip]

And did NOT the author of "Against Heresies" argue that a SINGLE character called Paul wrote 12 letters to Churches and Pastorals to Timothy and Titus?

That same author also said that these same Gospels showed that Jesus was at least 46 years old when he was Crucified and in Demonstrations expressly stated that Jesus was crucified under Herod "king of the Jews" (ie Herod Agrippa I) during the reign of Claudius Caesar putting the Crucifixion 42-44 CE.

Maximara, you got that wrong and your statement is void of logic. In "Demonstrations" the time period for the crucifixion of Jesus cannot be determine to be 42-44 CE when the author made irrenconcilable claims.


Irenaeus'"Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching"

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified...

Pontius Pilate was NOT a governor under Claudius Caesar.

Pilate was governor under Tiberius c27-37 CE and Claudius Caesar was Emperor c 41-54 CE.

Pontius Pilate as Governor and Claudius Caesar could NOT have COME TOGETHER c 42-44 CE to condemn Jesus to be crucified.

Plus, in the 2000 word argument of "Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus was crucified when he was an OLD Man and about 50 years old it is implied or argued that Jesus was crucified around 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius.

The 15th year of Tiberius is c 29 CE.

Jesus was crucified c 49 CE in "Against Heresies" 2.22.


Against Heresies" 2.22

...they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.
For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years..

We must remember that Irenaeus like ALL Christians of the time is writing propaganda and so some care in taking what he is telling you as fact must be made. In terms of logic his reasoning in Book II Chapter 22 for a 46+ if not 50+ old Jesus at time of crucifixion is sound but it falls apart when you compare it with actual history. His argument as to why there are only four Gospels is a bunch of mystical claptrap.

You discredit the arguments of Irenaeus as claptrap but still turn around and make your own illogically derived arguments using the very IRRECONCILABLE claptrap of Irenaeus.

You admit Irenaeus is writing propaganda but still turn around and use the very same propagangda to argue Jesus was crucified c 42-44 CE when writings attributed to Irenaeus place the crucifixion around 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius.

Why are you attempting to harmonise the claptrap and propaganda in "Against Heresies"?

Historically, Irenaeus is writing rubbish both there and in Demonstrations.

I am extremely delighted that you admit Irenaeus is writing rubbish.

You are using the same WRITTEN rubbish to claim that Jesus was crucified c42-44 CE when no such rubbish is in the writings attributed to Irenaeus.

Look at the RUBBISH in Demonstration ONE more time.

Irenaeus'"Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching"

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified...

That piece of RUBBISH did NOT and could NOT have happened as described c42-44 CE.

The author of "Against Heresies" introduced RUBBISH [fake authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus] in order to [falsely] claim that the Gospels and Pauline Corpus predated the stories and teachings of the so-called Heretics.

It was the HERETICS who PREDATED the Gospels, Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Simon Magus, Menander, the Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians and the Marcionites PREDATED the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Craig B]

... the Marcionites PREDATED the Pauline Corpus.

Then this can't be true. Because Paul came later. If he existed at all! So in your opinion Marcion never knew anything of Paul.

Marcion was convinced that among the early apostolic leaders only Paul understood the significance of Jesus Christ as the messenger of the Supreme God. He accepted as authoritative these 10 Epistles:

Galatians, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Romans, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, Ephesians (which Marcion called Laodiceans), Colossians, Philemon, Philippians

which he called the Apostolikon. These became for him the source, the guarantee, and the norm of true doctrine.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml

 

[dejudge]

dejudge
... the Marcionites PREDATED the Pauline Corpus.

Then this can't be true. Because Paul came later. If he existed at all! So in your opinion Marcion never knew anything of Paul. http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml

Again, you present illogically derived opinion based on IMAGINARY manuscripts.

No actual manuscripts of Marcion has ever been found and No actual manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus have been dated BEFORE Marcion.

It was the same people who invented FAKE authors for the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus who also claimed Marcion knew of the Pauline Corpus.

Incredibly, the supposed first writing "Against Heresies" to mention the authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus got everything wrong [ALL Fake authors, bogus chronology and manipulated contents].

And even worse, in "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian it was admitted that Tertullian was really using an ANONYMOUS writing which he attributed to Marcion.

"Tertullian's Against Marcion 4

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel...

It would appear that you will NEVER EVER find any ancient manuscript actually written by Marcion.

According to Hippolytus, Marcion USED the teachings of EMPEDOCLES--Not Paul.

Hippolytus Refutation Against All Heresies 7

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.

But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum....

"Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is RUBBISH.

"Against Heresies" INTRODUCED ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus to [falsely] claim that the teachings of the Church of Lyons predated the so-called Heretics.

 

[Craig B]

No actual manuscripts of Marcion has ever been found and No actual manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus have been dated BEFORE Marcion.

Or after Marcion either, if he never existed, because his manuscripts have not survived. This is your manuscript thing. I even wrote a parody of it, suggesting that Julian never existed because his work is known only through a hostile commentary by Tertullian. I meant it as a joke, but you have now given us this in all seriousness in the case of Marcion.

It was the same people who invented FAKE authors for the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus who also claimed Marcion knew of the Pauline Corpus.

Which "same" people?

Incredibly, the supposed first writing "Against Heresies" to mention the authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus got everything wrong [ALL Fake authors, bogus chronology and manipulated contents].

But were they also hoaxers who were off THEIR nut as a result OF auditory hallucinations?

 

[dejudge]

No actual manuscripts of Marcion has ever been found and No actual manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus have been dated BEFORE Marcion.

Or after Marcion either, if he never existed, because his manuscripts have not survived. This is your manuscript thing. I even wrote a parody of it, suggesting that Julian never existed because his work is known only through a hostile commentary by Tertullian. I meant it as a joke, but you have now given us this in all seriousness in the case of Marcion.

I already know that you write a lot of jokes.

Now, get serious!!

Tell us of all the IMAGINARY manuscripts that you have dated to c 50-60 CE?

We need to get the Papyrus or Codex number!!!

Papyri 46 is dated c175-225 CE.

Please, stop joking and present your [IMAGINARY] Papyrus or Codex.

It was the same people who invented FAKE authors for the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus who also claimed Marcion knew of the Pauline Corpus.

Which "same" people?

You don't know the people? You know your Auditory Hallucinator and IMAGINARY collection of manuscripts dated to c 50-60 CE.

Irenaeus was supposedly a Presbyter and Bishop of the Catholic Church [the UNIVERSAL Church]

It was the Catholic Church [the UNIVERSAL Church] who INVENTED the FAKE authors for the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

Irenaeus "Against Heresies" 3.3.2

.........we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome ............................


For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The UNIVERSAL CHURCH of ROME was initiated in the 4th century--NOT since the time of Nero c 54-69 CE.

The Church of Rome had NO authority until the 4th century.

It was the Catholic [UNIVERSAL] Church of ROME who INVENTED the Fake authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Craig B]

I already know that you write a lot of jokes.

Now, get serious!!

Tell us of all the IMAGINARY manuscripts that you have dated to c 50-60 CE?

We need to get the Papyrus or Codex number!!!

Papyri 46 is dated c175-225 CE.

Please, stop joking and present your [IMAGINARY] Papyrus or Codex.

Well, dejudge, I think that does it. Finally I admit that you will never be able to grasp the difference between the date of composition of a text, and the palaeographic estimate of the date of a manuscript. That is a pity. A great pity.

The UNIVERSAL CHURCH of ROME was initiated in the 4th century--NOT since the time of Nero c 54-69 CE.

The Church of Rome had NO authority until the 4th century.

It was the Catholic [UNIVERSAL] Church of ROME who INVENTED the Fake authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

So now the gospels and Paul were invented in the fourth century, even though we have manuscripts and notices of these works before that time. All these delusions make me very sad.

 

[dejudge]

I already know that you write a lot of jokes.

Now, get serious!!

Tell us of all the IMAGINARY manuscripts that you have dated to c 50-60 CE?

We need to get the Papyrus or Codex number!!!

Papyri 46 is dated c175-225 CE.

Please, stop joking and present your [IMAGINARY] Papyrus or Codex.

Well, dejudge, I think that does it. Finally I admit that you will never be able to grasp the difference between the date of composition of a text, and the palaeographic estimate of the date of a manuscript. That is a pity. A great pity.

What a pity!! What a great pity!! You still cannot present your IMAGINARY manuscripts dated to c 50-60 CE.

What is the number of your IMAGINARY Papyri or Codex?

Where was your IMAGINARY Papyri or Codex found?

You think that existing manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE because ONE single letter mentions Aretas when you have admitted the letters under the name of Paul are NOT from a unitary source.

What a pity!!!

You don't know what an original letter under the name of Paul would look like.

You don't know if there are any original letters in Papyri 46.

The UNIVERSAL CHURCH of ROME was initiated in the 4th century--NOT since the time of Nero c 54-69 CE.

The Church of Rome had NO authority until the 4th century.

It was the Catholic [UNIVERSAL] Church of ROME who INVENTED the Fake authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

So now the gospels and Paul were invented in the fourth century, even though we have manuscripts and notices of these works before that time. All these delusions make me very sad.

Again, you write more fiction and more jokes. I never claimed the Catholic Church [the Universal Church] of Rome invented the Gospels and Paul.

Why must you constantly write fiction in virtually every post?

The Catholic Church INVENTED the FAKE pre 70 CE authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

It was the Catholic Church of Rome [the Universal Church of Rome] who put out the propaganda that characters called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul wrote the Gospels or letters to Churches BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

None of the EXISTING Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John state that they were written before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

None of the EXISTING letters under the name of Paul state that they were written since 60 CE.

Even in Acts of the Apostles, there is NO claim whatsoever that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches since 50-60 CE.

 

[dejudge]

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are extremely significant because they show that Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Corpus and even the Catholic Epistles were UNKNOWN and also show that the Gospels were NOT yet attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

If one examines the NT Canon the FOUR Gospels are almost always first then followed by Acts of the Apostles, The Epistles and Last the Revelation of John.

Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are compiled in 22 books.

So of the 27 books of the NT Justin Martyr did NOT know 22 books of the Existing Canon.

But it gets even worse Justin Martyr did NOT know that Four Gospels were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Essentially, Justin Martyr, a Christian writer supposedly in the mid 2 century, only knew or acknowledged ONE single book in the NT Canon--the Apocalypse of John.

Amazingly, Justin Martyr did NOT identify any Gospels according Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, did NOT identify Acts of the Apostles and did NOT identify any Epistle of Paul, James, Jude, Peter and to the Hebrews.

Justin Martyr a Christian writer identified ONLY the Apocalypse of the supposed Apostle John.

Justin Martyr goes from the Memoirs of the Apostles to Revelation.

Justin Martyr does NOT know 26 books of the NT Canon.

How is it possible that Justin did NOT identify 26 of the 27 books of the NT Canon and made ZERO references to the NAMED authors?

The answer is extremely easy--a piece of cake.

The Four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the 21 epistles in the NT Canon were NOT yet invented in the time of Justin.

This will be confirmed in writings attributed to Celsus in Origen's "Against Celsus".

According to Origen, Celsus [a Skeptic of antiquity] wrote AGAINST Christianity in a book called "True Discourse".

"True Discourse" is believed to have been written c 175-180 CE.

Now examine the quotes from "True Discourse" according to Origen.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

1. No Gospel is identified by Celsus as according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

2. No Epistle is identified by Celsus under the names of Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude.

3.There are No accounts of the Apostles by Celsus which is mentioned in Acts.

Writings attributed to Christians and Skeptics in the 2nd century knew NOTHING of the Four NAMED Gospels, Nothing of Acts of the Apostles, and NOTHING of the 21 Epistles in the existing NT Canon.

But, this is found in Celsus' "True Discourse"--Christians of antiquity had CORRUPTED the Gospel in order to answer objections.

Origen's "Against Celsus"

27. [Celsus' Jewish critic]: The Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodeled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

The NT CANON is a MANY-FOLD corrupted version of the Gospel.

The NT Canon is a REMODELED product.

The NT Canon is WITHOUT the original integrity.

The NT Canon is historical RUBBISH.

Examine the historical RUBBISH in "Against Heresies" where the Gospel was CORRUPTED and REMODELED.

The authors of "Against Heresies" CORRUPTED and REMODELED the Gospel to answer objections by the so-called Heretics.

.....He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

 

[dejudge]

The claims by Celsus that Christians CORRUPTED and REMODELED the Gospel in "True Discourse" based on Origen's "Against Celsus" is confirmed.


Origen's "Against Celsus"

27. [Celsus' Jewish critic]: The Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodeled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

The very Catholic Church of Rome CORRUPTED and REMODELED the Gospel in their OWN Canon.

Examine gMark of NT Canon in the Sinaiticus Codex.

Examine the 16th chapter of gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex.

The 16th chapter of gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex ENDS at the 8th Verse.

1. There are NO post-resurrection visits by Jesus AFTER he was raised from the dead.

2. There is NO commission by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel.

Now examine the CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of gMark in the Alexandrinus Codex.

12 additional verses of the 16th chapter were inserted in the CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of gMark in the Alexandrinus Codex.

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

Sinaiticus gMark 16.8 και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημειου ειχεν γαρ αυτας τρομος και εκστασις και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ

Alexandrinus gMark 16.8 . και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημειου ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος και εκστασις και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ

Examine the CORRUPTED and REMODELED additional 12 verses in the Alexandrinus Codex.

The INTEGRITY of the ORIGINAL gMark has been altered.


Alexandrinus Codex gMark

9. αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη αφ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια⟧

10. εκεινη πορευθεισα απηγγειλεν τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις πενθουσιν και κλαιουσιν⟧

11. κακεινοι ακουσαντες οτι ζη και εθεαθη υπ αυτης ηπιστησαν

12. μετα δε ταυτα δυσιν εξ αυτων περιπατουσιν εφανερωθη εν ετερα μορφη πορευομενοις εις αγρον

13. κακεινοι απελθοντες απηγγειλαν τοις λοιποις ουδε εκεινοις επιστευσαν

14. υστερον δε ανακειμενοις αυτοις τοις ενδεκα εφανερωθη και ωνειδισεν την απιστειαν αυτων και σκληροκαρδιαν οτι τοις θεασαμενοις αυτον εγηγερμενον εκ νεκρων ουκ επιστευσαν

15. και ειπεν αυτοις πορευθεντες εις τον κοσμον απαντα κηρυξατε το ευαγγελιον παση τη κτισει

16. ο πιστευσας και βαπτισθεις σωθησεται ο δε απιστησας κατακριθησεται

17. σημεια δε τοις πιστευσασιν παρακολουθησει ταυτα εν τω ονοματι μου δαιμονια εκβαλουσιν γλωσσαις λαλησουσιν καιναις

18. οφεις αρουσιν καν θανασιμον τι πιωσιν ου μη αυτους βλαψη επι αρρωστους χειρας επιθησουσιν και καλως εξουσιν

19. ο μεν ουν κυριος ⸆ μετα το λαλησαι αυτοις ανελημφθη εις τον ουρανον και εκαθισεν εκ δεξιων του θεου

20. εκεινοι δε εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν πανταχου του κυριου συνεργουντος και τον λογον βεβαιουντος δια των επακολουθουντων σημειων

We now know what was CORRUPTED and REMODELED in gMark of the Alexandrinus Codex.

The CORRUPTED and REMODELED gMark is "CAST in STONE".

We can now see EXACTLY and PRECISELY which writings of the NT Canon were based on the CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel.

The FOUR named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are CORRUPTED and REMODELED versions of the original Jesus story.

1. gMatthew is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel [it contains post-resurrection visits and the commission to preach the Gospel].

2. gLuke is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel [it contains post-resurrection visits and the commission to preach the Gospel]

3. gJohn is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel[it contains post-resurrection visits and that Peter should "feed the sheep".

4. Acts of the Apostles contains a CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of the resurrection narrative and the Gospel.

5. The Pauline Corpus is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of the post-resurrection narrative and the Gospel.

6. The Long gMark is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of the short gMark.

The VERSION of the Gospel in the short gMark PREDATED the CORRUPTED and REMODELED version in the long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

The Catholic Church of Rome CORRUPTED the INTEGRITY of the Gospel and REMODELED the short gMark --three-fold, four fold and many fold degree.

 

[maximara]

Well, dejudge, I think that does it. Finally I admit that you will never be able to grasp the difference between the date of composition of a text, and the palaeographic estimate of the date of a manuscript. That is a pity. A great pity

I grasp it but to play Devil's Advocate for moment we must also acknowledge the key limitation of palaeographic dating: a 50 year range under the best of conditions with a seventy or eighty years being a more realistic "rule of thumb" (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24.)

And this is when we have an actual manuscript in front of us.

Of course this all assumes there are no temporal markers in the manuscript which Paul gives us for the low end. But what is setting the high end of the range?

 

[Craig B]

I grasp it but to play Devil's Advocate for moment we must also acknowledge the key limitation of palaeographic dating: a 50 year range under the best of conditions with a seventy or eighty years being a more realistic "rule of thumb"

Yes, I am very much mindful of that, which is why I always use expressions like "palaeographic estimate" and similar. Obviously it is extremely difficult to date manuscripts within limits closer than the length of the career of the scribe who penned them. And in practice the margin of error is significantly wider than that.

 

[Craig B]

The claims by Celsus that Christians CORRUPTED and REMODELED the Gospel in "True Discourse" based on Origen's "Against Celsus" is confirmed.

Yes it is.

The 16th chapter of gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex ENDS at the 8th Verse.

1. There are NO post-resurrection visits by Jesus AFTER he was raised from the dead.

Therefore Sinaiticus gMark is correct ABOUT THE resurrection. It didn't happen.

2. There is NO commission by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel.

Well done! I am HAPPY and delighted THAT you are admitting that there was an original Jesus STORY, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

The INTEGRITY of the ORIGINAL gMark has been altered.

We can now see EXACTLY and PRECISELY which writings of the NT Canon were based on the CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel.

The FOUR named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are CORRUPTED and REMODELED versions of the original Jesus story.

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

1. gMatthew is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel [it contains post-resurrection visits and the commission to preach the Gospel].

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

2. gLuke is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel [it contains post-resurrection visits and the commission to preach the Gospel]

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

3. gJohn is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED Gospel[it contains post-resurrection visits and that Peter should "feed the sheep".

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

4. Acts of the Apostles contains a CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of the resurrection narrative and the Gospel.

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

5. The Pauline Corpus is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of the post-resurrection narrative and the Gospel.

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

6. The Long gMark is a CORRUPTED and REMODELED version of the short gMark.

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

The VERSION of the Gospel in the short gMark PREDATED the CORRUPTED and REMODELED version in the long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church.

The Catholic Church of Rome CORRUPTED the INTEGRITY of the Gospel and REMODELED the short gMark --three-fold, four fold and many fold degree.

You are admitting that there was an original Jesus story, more accurate and less corrupt, later remodelled by the Church. All these admissions illustrate a less corrupt historical CORE OF the Gospel material, and therefore a historical JESUS.

 

[dejudge]

I grasp it but to play Devil's Advocate for moment we must also acknowledge the key limitation of palaeographic dating: a 50 year range under the best of conditions with a seventy or eighty years being a more realistic "rule of thumb" (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24.)

And this is when we have an actual manuscript in front of us.

Of course this all assumes there are no temporal markers in the manuscript which Paul gives us for the low end. But what is setting the high end of the range?

Please, identify the "Gregory-Aland" number for the IMAGINARY Pauline Corpus that is being dated to 50-60 CE?

Please tell us where the c 50-60 CE IMAGINARY manuscript was found?

Please, tell us the Provenance of the IMAGINARY c 50-60 CE Pauline Corpus?

Please tell us WHO actually examined the contents of the IMAGINARY manuscript and managed to date it within 10 years c 50-60 CE.


The Papyri and Codices with the Pauline Corpus have been ASSIGNED a number based on the Gregory-Aland numbering system.

All Papyri and Codices with the Pauline Corpus in the Gregory-Aland numbering system are dated c 175-225 or later.

The baseless propaganda that the Pauline Corpus was composed within a 10 year range c50-60 CE must have originated with Christians or the Church in order to answer objections.

May I remind you that NOT even the author of Acts claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches up to c 62 CE although he mentioned Paul over 100 times.

Please, stop the propaganda, stop the hoax, stop the jokes and present the IMAGINARY c 50-60 CE manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus.

No Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE by Paul in the very NT itself.