The Historical Jesus II

[IanS]

Writing is known when it is preserved. Papyrus is preserved easily in Egypt. That writing done in Judaea has almost all crumbled away. The writing done in Egypt less so.

The vast bulk of ancient Roman bank accounts are, I believe, found in Egypt. Not because there were more banks there than in Italy, but because in Italy papyrus crumbles away. Almost nothing of it has been preserved since ancient times. But in Egypt is has survived in abundance. This differential survival accounts for the pattern of finds.

Sure. And we have agreed that before. There may once have been such writing in Judea. It's possible. But that’s a guess.

What is not a guess, but apparently a “fact”, is that only known place where the writing of the Jesus story has been found, is in Egypt.

That raises the distinct possibility that it was always in Egypt, and not written elsewhere. And that would be very suspicious if the Jesus story was supposed to have taken place in Judea, but only ever written about centuries later in Egypt.

Why was there so much (all?) of the Jesus story written in Egypt?

Why Egypt? What has Egypt to do with the religions of earlier Judea?

Is there some history of people in Egypt at that time writing about religious beliefs as if they (the writers) and the events had actually taken place in some other part of the world at some earlier time?

If the writing itself was produced in Egypt around (say) 4th to 6th century (e.g. for most of the extant gospel remains), then why were people writing this in Egypt? Who was it being written for? Who was paying Egyptian writers to produce accounts of religious beliefs from another far distant land?

It just raises suspicious questions about what was actually going on with the Jesus story such that the only known traces of it were apparently being produced for people in Egypt.

 

[Brainache]

Sure. And we have agreed that before. There may once have been such writing in Judea. It's possible. But that’s a guess.

What is not a guess, but apparently a “fact”, is that only known place where the writing of the Jesus story has been found, is in Egypt.

That raises the distinct possibility that it was always in Egypt, and not written elsewhere. And that would be very suspicious if the Jesus story was supposed to have taken place in Judea, but only ever written about centuries later in Egypt.

Why was there so much (all?) of the Jesus story written in Egypt?

Why Egypt? What has Egypt to do with the religions of earlier Judea?

Is there some history of people in Egypt at that time writing about religious beliefs as if they (the writers) and the events had actually taken place in some other part of the world at some earlier time?

If the writing itself was produced in Egypt around (say) 4th to 6th century (e.g. for most of the extant gospel remains), then why were people writing this in Egypt? Who was it being written for? Who was paying Egyptian writers to produce accounts of religious beliefs from another far distant land?

It just raises suspicious questions about what was actually going on with the Jesus story such that the only known traces of it were apparently being produced for people in Egypt.

It's almost as if you've never heard of Alexandria and its library...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

 

[dejudge]

Writing is known when it is preserved. Papyrus is preserved easily in Egypt. That writing done in Judaea has almost all crumbled away. The writing done in Egypt less so.

Writings have been found preserved in Judea but they do not mention Jesus of Nazareth , Paul and the disciples.

Plus, writings attributed to Jews like Josephus and Philo do not mention Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin and the disciples of Galilee.

Writings that have crumbled away in Judea and Egypt cannot be used as evidence for an historical Jesus.

The vast bulk of ancient Roman bank accounts are, I believe, found in Egypt. Not because there were more banks there than in Italy, but because in Italy papyrus crumbles away. Almost nothing of it has been preserved since ancient times. But in Egypt is has survived in abundance. This differential survival accounts for the pattern of finds.

You believe the vast bulk of ancient Roman bank accounts are found in Egypt?

Can you please tell us the source which supports your belief?

 

[dejudge]

I agree;- those few words in Paul's letter are probably the strongest evidence that any HJ case has.

The evidence from antiquity show that Galatians 1.19 is probably the very weakest evidence for an historical Jesus.

The Canon of the Church, including the Pauline Corpus, is in agreement with their teachings that Jesus was God of God.

In Galatians 4.4 the parents of Jesus are identified as God and a Woman which is in agreement with the teachings of the Church.

Christian writers of antiquity used the Pauline Corpus to argue against an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father] and also claimed James the Apostle was not the brother of Jesus the Lord from heaven.

In fact, Christian writers of antiquity who made references to Galatians 1.19 or James the Apostles, claimed his mother was not the Virgin Mary and that Jesus was the son of a Ghost.

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian who used the Pauline Corpus to argue against an historical Jesus.

Tertullian admitted Jesus Christ was not born of a human seed but was born of a Holy Ghost.

Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ"

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God......... In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.


As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Origen made references to Galatians 1.19 but also admitted his Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost.

Examine Origen's De Principiis

...Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit..

Also, we have no writings attributed to non-Christians where James the Apostle is mentioned or that he was an actual brother of Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, there is no mention of James the Apostle and Jesus the Lord from heaven outside the Apologetic sources.

 

[maximara]

Writings have been found preserved in Judea but they do not mention Jesus of Nazareth , Paul and the disciples.

Plus, writings attributed to Jews like Josephus and Philo do not mention Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin and the disciples of Galilee.

Writings that have crumbled away in Judea and Egypt cannot be used as evidence for an historical Jesus.

True but their absence does raise questions. As I have mentioned there is this pattern of material that the Christians for what ever reason did not preserve:

* On Superstition by Seneca the Younger c40 - c62: covered every cult in Rome and yet the only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is Augustine in the 4th century complained about it; which if it was closer to the 40 date than the 62 doesn't make sense.

* Three of the five books that made up Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE): the volume that covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail at best survives as mangled fragments.

* Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero

* Pliny the Elder's history of Rome from 31 to then present day (sometime before his death in 79) with a volume for each year

* Annals of Tacitus: entire section covering 29-31 CE

* Cassius Dio's Roman History - sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE

I can see one or two works but with nearly every possible reference having issues there is clearly something going on.

 

[dejudge]

Writings have been found preserved in Judea but they do not mention Jesus of Nazareth , Paul and the disciples.

Plus, writings attributed to Jews like Josephus and Philo do not mention Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin and the disciples of Galilee.

Writings that have crumbled away in Judea and Egypt cannot be used as evidence for an historical Jesus.

True but their absence does raise questions.

As I have mentioned there is this pattern of material that the Christians for what ever reason did not preserve:

* On Superstition by Seneca the Younger c40 - c62: covered every cult in Rome and yet the only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is Augustine in the 4th century complained about it; which if it was closer to the 40 date than the 62 doesn't make sense.

I am delighted you mention Seneca and material that Christians did not preserve.

Christians managed to "preserve" letters between Paul and Seneca which have been deduced to be forgeries.

Now in "City of God" 6 attributed to Augustine it is admitted that Seneca wrote nothing of Christians in "Against Superstition"

Seneca was a contemporary of Augustus,Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

"Against Superstition" attributed to Seneca is evidence against Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, the disciples and the Jesus cult of Christians pre 70 CE.

"Against Superstition" is also evidence that Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is indeed a forgery.

We now have multiple Christian writers who have admitted that contemporary writers wrote nothing of Jesus, Paul and the supposed Jesus cult Christians.

1. Origen admitted Celsus wrote nothing of Paul.

2. Eusebius admitted Hierocles knew no contemporary writers who mentioned Jesus.

3. Augustine of Hippo admitted that Seneca wrote nothing of Christians.

4. Cyril of Alexandria showed that Julian did not know of any contemporary writers who mentioned Jesus and Paul.

The evidence from antiquity is overwhelming that there was NO contemporary history of Jesus, Paul, the disciples and Christians up to at least the 5th century.

 

[Brainache]

I am delighted you mention Seneca and material that Christians did not preserve.

Christians managed to "preserve" letters between Paul and Seneca which have been deduced to be forgeries.

Now in "City of God" 6 attributed to Augustine it is admitted that Seneca wrote nothing of Christians in "Against Superstition"

Seneca was a contemporary of Augustus,Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

"Against Superstition" attributed to Seneca is evidence against Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, the disciples and the Jesus cult of Christians pre 70 CE.

"Against Superstition" is also evidence that Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is indeed a forgery.

We now have multiple Christian writers who have admitted that contemporary writers wrote nothing of Jesus, Paul and the supposed Jesus cult Christians.

1. Origen admitted Celsus wrote nothing of Paul.

2. Eusebius admitted Hierocles knew no contemporary writers who mentioned Jesus.

3. Augustine of Hippo admitted that Seneca wrote nothing of Christians.

4. Cyril of Alexandria showed that Julian did not know of any contemporary writers who mentioned Jesus and Paul.

The evidence from antiquity is overwhelming that there was NO contemporary history of Jesus, Paul, the disciples and Christians up to at least the 5th century.

The 5th century now... Wow. What did Constantine convert to in the 4th century? Judaism?

 

[dejudge]

I am delighted you mention Seneca and material that Christians did not preserve.

Christians managed to "preserve" letters between Paul and Seneca which have been deduced to be forgeries.

Now in "City of God" 6 attributed to Augustine it is admitted that Seneca wrote nothing of Christians in "Against Superstition"

Seneca was a contemporary of Augustus,Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

"Against Superstition" attributed to Seneca is evidence against Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, the disciples and the Jesus cult of Christians pre 70 CE.

"Against Superstition" is also evidence that Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is indeed a forgery.

We now have multiple Christian writers who have admitted that contemporary writers wrote nothing of Jesus, Paul and the supposed Jesus cult Christians.

1. Origen admitted Celsus wrote nothing of Paul.

2. Eusebius admitted Hierocles knew no contemporary writers who mentioned Jesus.

3. Augustine of Hippo admitted that Seneca wrote nothing of Christians.

4. Cyril of Alexandria showed that Julian did not know of any contemporary writers who mentioned Jesus and Paul.

The evidence from antiquity is overwhelming that there was NO contemporary history of Jesus, Paul, the disciples and Christians up to at least the 5th century.

The 5th century now... Wow. What did Constantine convert to in the 4th century? Judaism?

"City of God" is a 5th century writing attributed to Augustine of Hippo who mentioned Seneca a contemporary of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

Seneca was supposed to be a contemporary of the Christians of Jesus, and the Christians which should have included Paul.

In the 5th century "City of God" it is claimed that Seneca did not mention the Christians in "Against Superstitions".

Augustine's "City of God" 6.10

Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the sabbaths............. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame.....

Now examine "Against the Galileans" where Julian in the 4th century challenged the Christians to show him that contemporary [1st century] writers mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Seneca was a contemporary of Tiberius and Claudius.

"Against the Galileans"

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters

Examine "Against Hierocles" attributed to the 4th century Eusebius where Hierocles admitted that contemporary [1st century] writers mentioned the history of Apollonius of Tanya but NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

The story of Jesus was written by liars and you admit Paul was a Liar and a con-man.

Eusebius' "Against Hierocles"

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards, --the history of Apollonius was written by Maximus of Aegae, and by Damis the philosopher who lived constantly with him...

The evidence is overwhelming that up to at least the 5th century there was no contemporary [1st century] history of Jesus, and the Jesus cult of Christians.

 

[Brainache]

"City of God" is a 5th century writing attributed to Augustine of Hippo who mentioned Seneca a contemporary of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

Seneca was supposed to be a contemporary of the Christians of Jesus, and the Christians which should have included Paul.

In the 5th century "City of God" it is claimed that Seneca did not mention the Christians in "Against Superstitions".

Augustine's "City of God" 6.10

Now examine "Against the Galileans" where Julian in the 4th century challenged the Christians to show him that contemporary [1st century] writers mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Seneca was a contemporary of Tiberius and Claudius.

"Against the Galileans"

Examine "Against Hierocles" attributed to the 4th century Eusebius where Hierocles admitted that contemporary [1st century] writers mentioned the history of Apollonius of Tanya but NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

The story of Jesus was written by liars and you admit Paul was a Liar and a con-man.

Eusebius' "Against Hierocles"

The evidence is overwhelming that up to at least the 5th century there was no contemporary [1st century] history of Jesus, and the Jesus cult of Christians.

So, to what "vamped up" tales by Peter and Paul was Eusebius referring? Indeed who were the Peter and Paul that he was calling liars?

I don't know why I bother, it will be just more of the same ignorant hogwash from dejudge.

Carry on...

 

[Craig B]

"Now examine "Against the Galileans" where Julian in the 4th century challenged the Christians to show him that contemporary [1st century] writers mentioned Jesus and Paul.

We have no manuscript of Julian, dejudge. So he never wrote anything, according to you.

The evidence is overwhelming that up to at least the 5th century there was no contemporary [1st century] history of Jesus, and the Jesus cult of Christians.

There are no documents prior to the fifth century? Eh? Please explain what you have in mind.

 

[Craig B]

Writings that have crumbled away in Judea and Egypt cannot be used as evidence for an historical Jesus.

That's right dejudge. And ancient writings have crumbled away in Judaea, but some haven't crumbled away in Egypt so the evidence is found more abundantly there. Or is this another thing about manuscripts that you find it hard to grasp?

You believe the vast bulk of ancient Roman bank accounts are found in Egypt?

Can you please tell us the source which supports your belief?

Yes I can.

Nearly all papyri which survive today come from Egypt, although papyrus was in use throughout the ancient world. Papyrus is a perishable, organic material, and its survival through the ages has depended heavily on the climatic conditions found in a few regions of Egypt. Outside of Egypt, rare examples of papyrus have been preserved by the process of carbonization.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/papyrology-collection/where-do-papyri-come

One of the real problems with papyrus was its fragility. Damp destroys it (there are few if any papyrus palimpsests), which is why papyrus manuscripts survive only in Egypt and a few other very dry locations. And while exposure to dry conditions is not as quickly destructive, the papyrus does turn brittle in dry conditions. It would be almost impossible make a standard reference volume, say, on papyrus; it just wouldn't last.

It will be seen that papyrus was used as a writing material for at least three thousand years. It is nearly sure that the earliest Christian writings were on papyrus. As the church grew stronger and richer, the tendency was to write on the more durable parchment.

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/WritingMaterials.html
That's why the earliest extant manuscripts are from the days when the Church had become stronger and richer, dejudge, and next to nothing survives from the first period of its existence.

 

[dejudge]

"City of God" is a 5th century writing attributed to Augustine of Hippo who mentioned Seneca a contemporary of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

Seneca was supposed to be a contemporary of the Christians of Jesus, and the Christians which should have included Paul.

In the 5th century "City of God" it is claimed that Seneca did not mention the Christians in "Against Superstitions".

Augustine's "City of God" 6.10

Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the sabbaths............. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame.....

Now examine "Against the Galileans" where Julian in the 4th century challenged the Christians to show him that contemporary [1st century] writers mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Seneca was a contemporary of Tiberius and Claudius.


"Against the Galileans"

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters

Examine "Against Hierocles" attributed to the 4th century Eusebius where Hierocles admitted that contemporary [1st century] writers mentioned the history of Apollonius of Tanya but NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

The story of Jesus was written by liars and you admit Paul was a Liar and a con-man.

Eusebius' "Against Hierocles"

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards, --the history of Apollonius was written by Maximus of Aegae, and by Damis the philosopher who lived constantly with him...

The evidence is overwhelming that up to at least the 5th century there was no contemporary [1st century] history of Jesus, and the Jesus cult of Christians.

So, to what "vamped up" tales by Peter and Paul was Eusebius referring? Indeed who were the Peter and Paul that he was calling liars?

Please, answer your own questions!! Who were these liars and wizards who vamped the tales of Jesus? Were the characters called Peter and Paul actual contemporaries of the LORD from heaven, the Son of God and a woman?



Was Paul an Herodian and NOT a Jew?? Wasn't Paul a Liar and a Con-man?

Which Paul vamped up the tales of Jesus?

The Pauline Corpus is littered with FAKE Pauls.

Please, don't forget that Hierocles may have believed Romulus, Remus and the Gods of the Romans were figures of history.

I don't know why I bother, it will be just more of the same ignorant hogwash from dejudge.

Carry on...

I am actually exposing the hogwash [fiction and mythology] found in writings of antiquity about Jesus, Paul and the disciples.

Brainache, I will continue to show that the history of Jesus, Paul and the disciples is always the same ignorant hogwash [fiction and mythology] from the 2nd century or later.


I must continue.

Now, "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius is extremely significant.

According to Hierocles the Jesus story is a product of liars and wizards, like Peter and Paul, and NO contemporary writer, no person of high education, wrote of Jesus.

The statement by Hierocles should have been a most fatal error.

Eusebius should have been able quite easily to show that Hierocles was himself a Liar and show that contemporary writers, Governors and Kings, like Pontius Pilate, Philo, Josephus Tacitus, Kings Abgarus wrote about Jesus and Christians.

In Church History attributed to Eusebius the author had letters about Jesus from King Abgarus, Pontius Pilate, Josephus and writings attributed to Philo about Christians.

In "Against Hierocles" Eusebius did NOT present any writings from King Abgarus, Pontius Pilate, Josephus or Philo to show Hierocles was Lying.

1. Church History 1.13--Eusebius showed the supposed contents of a letter from King Abgarus to Jesus.

2. Church History 2.26--- Eusebius showed the supposed contents of writings of Josephus which mentioned Jesus the Christ and James his brother.

3. Church History 2. Eusebius claimed Philo wrote about supposed Christians in Egypt of Mark's Church in Alexandria.

Why didn't Eusebius show the letter of King Abgarus and writings of Josephus and Philo in "Against Hierocles"?

The answer is obvious.

The letters of King Agbarus and the passages from Josephus are forgeries plus Philo did not write about Christians of Mark's Church of Alexandria.

 

[Brainache]

Please, answer your own questions!! Who were these liars and wizards who vamped the tales of Jesus? Were the characters called Peter and Paul actual contemporaries of the LORD from heaven, the Son of God and a woman?



Was Paul an Herodian and NOT a Jew?? Wasn't Paul a Liar and a Con-man?

Which Paul vamped up the tales of Jesus?

The Pauline Corpus is littered with FAKE Pauls.

Please, don't forget that Hierocles may have believed Romulus, Remus and the Gods of the Romans were figures of history.



I am actually exposing the hogwash [fiction and mythology] found in writings of antiquity about Jesus, Paul and the disciples.

Brainache, I will continue to show that the history of Jesus, Paul and the disciples is always the same ignorant hogwash [fiction and mythology] from the 2nd century or later.


I must continue.

Now, "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius is extremely significant.

According to Hierocles the Jesus story is a product of liars and wizards, like Peter and Paul, and NO contemporary writer, no person of high education, wrote of Jesus.

The statement by Hierocles should have been a most fatal error.

Eusebius should have been able quite easily to show that Hierocles was himself a Liar and show that contemporary writers, Governors and Kings, like Pontius Pilate, Philo, Josephus Tacitus, Kings Abgarus wrote about Jesus and Christians.

In Church History attributed to Eusebius the author had letters about Jesus from King Abgarus, Pontius Pilate, Josephus and writings attributed to Philo about Christians.

In "Against Hierocles" Eusebius did NOT present any writings from King Abgarus, Pontius Pilate, Josephus or Philo to show Hierocles was Lying.

1. Church History 1.13--Eusebius showed the supposed contents of a letter from King Abgarus to Jesus.

2. Church History 2.26--- Eusebius showed the supposed contents of writings of Josephus which mentioned Jesus the Christ and James his brother.

3. Church History 2. Eusebius claimed Philo wrote about supposed Christians in Egypt of Mark's Church in Alexandria.

Why didn't Eusebius show the letter of King Abgarus and writings of Josephus and Philo in "Against Hierocles"?

The answer is obvious.

The letters of King Agbarus and the passages from Josephus are forgeries plus Philo did not write about Christians of Mark's Church of Alexandria.

Of course you are free to believe whatever nonsense takes your fancy, but please don't expect me to be convinced by it. Your reasoning leaves much to be desired.

 

[dejudge]

Writings that have crumbled away in Judea and Egypt cannot be used as evidence for an historical Jesus.

That's right dejudge. And ancient writings have crumbled away in Judaea, but some haven't crumbled away in Egypt so the evidence is found more abundantly there.

Writings that have crumbled away in Judea and Egypt cannot be used as evidence for an historical Jesus.

The DSS have not crumbled away. They were found in Judea and some dated to the 1st century by Paleography but they still do not mention Jesus, Paul and the disciples.

You believe the vast bulk of ancient Roman bank accounts are found in Egypt?

Can you please tell us the source which supports your belief?

Yes I can.

You did not show anything about "the vast bulk of ancient Roman bank accounts which were found in Egypt".

http://www.lib.umich.edu/papyrology-collection/where-do-papyri-come http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/WritingMaterials.html

That's why the earliest extant manuscripts are from the days when the Church had become stronger and richer, dejudge, and next to nothing survives from the first period of its existence.

Please, I have no interest in your imaginary manuscripts which have not survived. The DSS survived and they mention nothing of people who worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as a God.

Papyri 46 dated c 175-225 CE survived and it is claimed Jesus was the Lord from heaven and that he was the Son of God and a woman.

Craig B, if Papyri 46 is authentic then the Pauline Jesus would still be the Lord from heaven and his parents would still be God and a Woman.

The Pauline Jesus would be an "authentic" MYTH/FICTION character. The Pauline Jesus was not from earth.

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

Papyri 46 1 Cor.15.47--- ο πρωτος ανθρωπος εκ γης χοικος ο δευτερος ανθρωπος πνευματικος εξ ουρανου

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

Papyri 46 Galatians 4:4---οτε δε ηλθεν το πληρωμα του χρονου εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος τον υιον αυτου γενομενον εκ γυναικος γενομενον υπο νομον

 

[dejudge]

I must continue.

Now, "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius is extremely significant.

According to Hierocles the Jesus story is a product of liars and wizards, like Peter and Paul, and NO contemporary writer, no person of high education, wrote of Jesus.

The statement by Hierocles should have been a most fatal error.

Eusebius should have been able quite easily to show that Hierocles was himself a Liar and show that contemporary writers, Governors and Kings, like Pontius Pilate, Philo, Josephus Tacitus, Kings Abgarus wrote about Jesus and Christians.

In Church History attributed to Eusebius the author had letters about Jesus from King Abgarus, Pontius Pilate, Josephus and writings attributed to Philo about Christians.

In "Against Hierocles" Eusebius did NOT present any writings from King Abgarus, Pontius Pilate, Josephus or Philo to show Hierocles was Lying.

1. Church History 1.13--Eusebius showed the supposed contents of a letter from King Abgarus to Jesus.

2. Church History 2.26--- Eusebius showed the supposed contents of writings of Josephus which mentioned Jesus the Christ and James his brother.

3. Church History 2. Eusebius claimed Philo wrote about supposed Christians in Egypt of Mark's Church in Alexandria.

Why didn't Eusebius show the letter of King Abgarus and writings of Josephus and Philo in "Against Hierocles"?

The answer is obvious.

The letters of King Agbarus and the passages from Josephus are forgeries plus Philo did not write about Christians of Mark's Church of Alexandria.

Of course you are free to believe whatever nonsense takes your fancy, but please don't expect me to be convinced by it. Your reasoning leaves much to be desired.

It is of no relevance whether or not you are convinced plus you have already admitted Paul was a liar and a con-man.

The evidence from antiquity supports the claim that the Pauline writers were indeed liars.

I am presenting the evidence from antiquity which supports the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology/fiction and that the Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER the writings attributed to Celsus.

Young Earth Creationists are not convinced that the Genesis creation is mythology/fiction but Scientists will continue to present the evidence even though YEC far outnumber Scientists-maybe a million to one.

Now that the long and short gMark have been discovered it is an extremely simple matter to compare other writings of the Canon to see which ones match the Corrupted and Remodeled Long gMark.

It is clear that the Gospel in the short gMark was altered in the long gMark.

What is the Gospel in the short gMark?

The Good News the Gospel in the short gMark is that "the Kingdom of God is at hand"

What is the Gospel in the Corrupted Long gMark?

The Good News, the Gospel, is that Jesus is RISEN from the dead and was seen by the disciples.

Now, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are all based on the Gospel of the RESURRECTION of Jesus.

Examine the Pauline Corpus.

1 Cor 15.

If Christ be NOT raised, your faith is vain ye yet in your sins.

The later version of gMark, the Corrupted Gospel, the Good News of the Resurrection was the single most significant teaching of the Pauline writers.

The Gospel of the short gMark PREDATED the Gospel of the Resurrection in the Pauline Corpus.

Not even the disciples were told Jesus was raised from the dead in the short gMark.

 

[Brainache]

It is of no relevance whether or not you are convinced plus you have already admitted Paul was a liar and a con-man.

So stop trying to convince me with this lame-brain rhetoric then.

The evidence from antiquity supports the claim that the Pauline writers were indeed liars.

I am presenting the evidence from antiquity which supports the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology/fiction and that the Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER the writings attributed to Celsus.

Young Earth Creationists are not convinced that the Genesis creation is mythology/fiction but Scientists will continue to present the evidence even though YEC far outnumber Scientists-maybe a million to one.

Now that the long and short gMark have been discovered it is an extremely simple matter to compare other writings of the Canon to see which ones match the Corrupted and Remodeled Long gMark.

It is clear that the Gospel in the short gMark was altered in the long gMark.

What is the Gospel in the short gMark?

The Good News the Gospel in the short gMark is that "the Kingdom of God is at hand"

What is the Gospel in the Corrupted Long gMark?

The Good News, the Gospel, is that Jesus is RISEN from the dead and was seen by the disciples.

Now, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are all based on the Gospel of the RESURRECTION of Jesus.

Examine the Pauline Corpus.

1 Cor 15.



The later version of gMark, the Corrupted Gospel, the Good News of the Resurrection was the single most significant teaching of the Pauline writers.

The Gospel of the short gMark PREDATED the Gospel of the Resurrection in the Pauline Corpus.

Not even the disciples were told Jesus was raised from the dead in the short gMark.

Did it occur to you that gMark and the Pauline corpus might represent different sects within early Christianity? That Paul's risen "Christ Jesus" might have been a minority position? That, like the Ebionites many other early Christians might have seen Jesus as a mortal teacher like other Jewish "Prophets"?

And as for Paul:

New International Version
"Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod."

http://biblehub.com/mark/8-15.htm

I think Paul was Herodian (as well as a Pharisee) and that his version of the Jesus story was in opposition to the main Church that existed at the time in Jerusalem.

 

[dejudge]

It is of no relevance whether or not you are convinced plus you have already admitted Paul was a liar and a con-man.

So stop trying to convince me with this lame-brain rhetoric then.

Again, I am exposing the evidence from antiquity which supports the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology/fiction and the Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

I had no idea whether or not you would have been convinced.

Surely, you still continue to argue that Paul was a Liar, a Con-man and an Herodian even though hardly anyone is convinced.

Did it occur to you that gMark and the Pauline corpus might represent different sects within early Christianity? That Paul's risen "Christ Jesus" might have been a minority position? That, like the Ebionites many other early Christians might have seen Jesus as a mortal teacher like other Jewish "Prophets"?

Your imaginative speculation is of no real value when we are asking for evidence from antiquity

Did it occur to you that there is no evidence from antiquity yo support what you imagine?

There is no evidence from antiquity that anyone actually saw Jesus before the resurrection.

If Papyri 46 is authentic then Only Paul admitted he and OVER five hundred persons was seen of Jesus AFTER he was raised from the dead.

And as for Paul:

http://biblehub.com/mark/8-15.htm

I think Paul was Herodian (as well as a Pharisee) and that his version of the Jesus story was in opposition to the main Church that existed at the time in Jerusalem.

I am not convinced that Paul was an Herodian.

Paul was a Liar based on the existing Papyri and Codices.

Who is convinced that Paul was an Herodian?

 

[Craig B]

The evidence is overwhelming that up to at least the 5th century there was no contemporary [1st century] history of Jesus, and the Jesus cult of Christians.

I am actually exposing the hogwash [fiction and mythology] found in writings of antiquity about Jesus, Paul and the disciples.

Brainache, I will continue to show that the history of Jesus, Paul and the disciples is always the same ignorant hogwash [fiction and mythology] from the 2nd century or later.

Second century, fifth CENTURY! You're still jumping about FROM century to century in post after post. And you HAVE the audacity to accuse other people of "hogwash"; but I think your hogs ARE THE cleanest on the farm because you wash them so MUCH.

 

[IanS]

That's right dejudge. And ancient writings have crumbled away in Judaea, but some haven't crumbled away in Egypt so the evidence is found more abundantly there.

If you say the evidence has "crumbled away in Judea" (you are guessing about that!), how do you know that there ever was any such writing in Judea?

 

[Craig B]

If you say the evidence has "crumbled away in Judea" (you are guessing about that!), how do you know that there ever was any such writing in Judea?

I have already quoted a source indicating that papyrus was used across the Roman Empire.

Nearly all papyri which survive today come from Egypt, although papyrus was in use throughout the ancient world. Papyrus is a perishable, organic material, and its survival through the ages has depended heavily on the climatic conditions found in a few regions of Egypt. Outside of Egypt, rare examples of papyrus have been preserved by the process of carbonization.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/papyrology-collection/where-do-papyri-come
I am not guessing that papyrus has crumbled away in Judaea. I am reasonably inferring that it was used there for casual writings - not for reference books like the DSS, as my sources argue. If Paul wrote letters, papyrus was surely the medium he used.