Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

...This simply does not follow. That whoever wrote in Ignatius' name quotes Ephesians 6 means that Ephesians had been written by the time that author quoted it. That whoever wrote it specifically mentions Paul as having visited and counseled the church in Ephesus means that he had heard of someone named Paul who had done that.

Once you admit Ephesians was a forgery then Paul could not have been the author. The name Paul could not have been found on the Epistle and further the Ephesians Church would have known nothing of a Pauline letter.

How did Ignatius end up with forgeries in the name Paul?

Even if Paul did exist he did not have to write Epistles as is shown in Acts of the Apostles!!

The TF mentions Jesus called Christ but Josephus did not write it.

Who put Paul's name on the Epistle to the Ephesians? And when did they do it? The TF was inserted hundreds of years after Josephus was dead.


Again for the "millionth" time this is my position on the start of the Jesus story and cult of Christian based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

After the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE a story was circulated that the Jewish Temple fell because the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

Aristides in his Apology makes mention of the story c 117-138 when writing to Hadrian.

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

....you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.'

For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision. For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him..

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Lactantius, Eusebius and others repeated the same claim that it was the Jews who killed Jesus and some indicate that it was for that very reason the Temple was destroyed.

The physical recovered NT manuscripts, and Codices do not show of any story of Jesus or cult in the 1st century.

Stories of Jesus of Jesus in the Gospels and Pauline writings have been found but no earlier than than the 2nd century.

My theory cannot go outside the evidence from antiquity.

My theory MUST always be compatible with the present available evidence.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century and the ENTIRE NT is a product of 2nd century or later writings.

As soon as new evidence is found I will review my position.

If you have no new evidence then I am afraid you will not be able to impress me.

I cannot accept your speculation any longer.

Who in antiquity wrote about your Jesus the rabbi and messianic pretender ? I need evidence, I need sources!!!

The sources which clearly state Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator are sources of mythology--not history.

 

[Craig B]

Again for the "millionth" time

Not yet, but we're getting there!

... My theory MUST always be compatible with the present available evidence ... The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century and the ENTIRE NT is a product of 2nd century or later writings.

My, my.

... Who in antiquity wrote about your Jesus the rabbi and messianic pretender ? I need evidence, I need sources!!!

I can see that. Looks urgent too.

 

[Belz...]

Who in antiquity wrote about your Jesus the rabbi and messianic pretender ? I need evidence, I need sources!!!

Speaking of sources, would you mind citing your sources for this:

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century and the ENTIRE NT is a product of 2nd century or later writings.

?

 

[TimCallahan]

That is like saying it is impossible for the Donation of Constantine to have been written hundreds of years after Constantine was dead.

I have no idea where or how you came up with this ludicrous assertion.

You seem to have forgotten that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or at the age of Fifty years.

Would it not be impossible for Paul to preach Christ Crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was crucified c 50 CE?

We've already been over this. You still seem to think that Irenaeus' view is sacrosanct and that he couldn't have gotten this wrong. However, you, who complain that others don't supply sources to back arguments, have yet to supply any basis for an assumption that Irenaeus, writing ca. CE 180 - the same man who asserted that their had to be, exactly and only, four canonical gospels because there were four cardinal points on the compass and four seasons - managed to pinpoint the age of Jesus (whom you think was entirely mythical) at the time of his death.

Now, even if Justin mentioned 2 Thessalonians, which he did not, it would not really prove that Pauline writings were already composed since 2 Thessalonians is NOT a Pauline writing. It is a Forgery or falsely attributed to Paul.

Okay, let's go over this once again. If Justin quoted material from 2 Thessalonians, it means that the document from which he quoted was around at the time he wrote, i.e. by the middle of the second century. Thus, an epistle you assert wasn't written until after 180 was actually around at least 30 years before.

That there are Deutero-Pauline epistles, i.e. letters falsely written in his name for the sake of gaining authority, indicates that when they were written there already was a corpus of writings attributed to Paul and that Paul - whether a real person or someone made up - was accorded some degree of authority. Those letters generally accorded the status of being genuinely Pauline do have a commonality of style and an apocalyptic outlook. Thus, it is likely that they existed as a corpus of writings before the Deutero-Pauline epistles were written. So, if we can date Ephesians, for example as having been written by the middle of the second century, then Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians and Romans, among afew others, were likely to have been written before that time.

Maybe it was Justin, Ignatius, or Irenaus--Not Paul-- who is the REAL author of 2 Thessalonians.

Or maybe it was written by reptiloid extraterrestrials from the planet Xenu as part of a lot to massively delude the earthlings and make them more susceptible to later manipulation and eventual conquest. If you assert that Justin was dishonest and forged letters in the name of Paul, then the burden of proof that he did so is on you.

Consider what we know of forgeries and interpolations. Those Christian copyists who made such interpolations were not terribly clever. Their work is rather clumsy. For example the TF is clearly intrusive. Remove it and the chapter written in the Antiquities into which it was inserted flows smoothly and naturally. Likewise, in the middle of 1 Corinthians, when the author is talking about speaking in tongues there is a sudden and jarring discursive mini-tirade, in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, in which the author tells women to shut-up in church and not even to dare to ask questions. After these two verses, the narrative returns to a discussion of speaking in tongues, and how it is to be managed. Remove verses 34 and 35, and the narrative flows smoothly. They were clearly inserted.

Another aspect of verses or documents falsely written or doctored is that they try too hard. I already noted the claim of the author of the Gospel of John to being one of Jesus' disciples as an example of this. Here it is again (Jn. 21:24:

This is the disciple who testifies to these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

Compare this excessive claim with Paul's mention of the church (i.e. body of believers) in Jerusalem in Galatians and 1 Corinthians. We don't have something like, "And there is indeed as congregation of followers of if Christ Jesus in Jerusalem, and what I write is true." So, if Paul's reference to the congregation in Jerusalem - showing that Jerusalem still existed when the letters were written - is a forgery, it, in comparison to the others, was remarkably slick.While this is a possibility, the fact that the other forgeries and interpolations were done so crudely - written as they were to convince uncritical audiences eager to to accept them as true - then we have to ask why such a slick forgery was made. Ee would have to impute to the alleged forger not only an uncommon subtlety, but as well and intent to fool later generations, both of which were =highly improbable.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (mega-snip) . . . Stories of Jesus of Jesus in the Gospels and Pauline writings have been found but no earlier than than the 2nd century.

My theory cannot go outside the evidence from antiquity.

My theory MUST always be compatible with the present available evidence.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century and the ENTIRE NT is a product of 2nd century or later writings.

As soon as new evidence is found I will review my position.

If you have no new evidence then I am afraid you will not be able to impress me.

I cannot accept your speculation any longer.

Who in antiquity wrote about your Jesus the rabbi and messianic pretender ? I need evidence, I need sources!!!
The sources which clearly state Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator are sources of mythology--not history.

Once again, I will not answer our questions until you answer mine, which I posed quite a bit before posting my take on the origins and development of Christianity and quite a bit earlier than you posted your questions. I've asked these questions of you repeatedly. So far, you've said noting except to assert - again, with out much of anything in the way of proof - that the whole corpus of Christian writings was fabricated in the second century.

You have not clarified whether this cult originated among Hellenized Jews of the Disapora or whether it originated among Gentiles.

You have not given any reason why a cult existing outside of Judea would go out of its way to link its Christ with a mythical or real) Jew named Jesus, or why the gospels would go out of their way to claim this person to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecies.

You have not posted what you see as a tentative timeline for the early development of the Christian religion in the second century.

Until you answer these questions, I refuse to answer your questions regarding my take on the origins and development of nascent Christianity.

 

[dejudge]

....Okay, let's go over this once again. If Justin quoted material from 2 Thessalonians, it means that the document from which he quoted was around at the time he wrote, i.e. by the middle of the second century. Thus, an epistle you assert wasn't written until after 180 was actually around at least 30 years before.

Again, I have not claimed that Justin quoted material from 2 Thessalonians. My position is that Justin quoted the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Septuagint.

In First Apology Justin specifically claimed that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches in his time.

I cannot accept your speculation and imagination any more.

Justin's First Apology

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

Justin also attributed the spread of Christianity all over the world to Illiterates--NOT Paul.

[Justin's First Apology

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God

That there are Deutero-Pauline epistles, i.e. letters falsely written in his name for the sake of gaining authority, indicates that when they were written there already was a corpus of writings attributed to Paul and that Paul - whether a real person or someone made up - was accorded some degree of authority.

You are merely making assumptions about Paul for which you have no evidence.

I invite you to examine Acts of the Apostles regarded as a work of fiction or highly questionable.


It mentions a character called Saul/Paul but you will notice it does not state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches or pastorals.

Up to c 62 CE or the time of Festus procurator of Judea there was no body of Pauline writings even in the NT itself.


Now, would you please specifically indicate which passage in the writings of Justin that was quoted from 2 Thessalonians because we may be able to find out where Justin got the passage?

Justin was extremely meticulous and almost always named his sources.

What passage are you referring to in Justin's writings that was taken from 2 Thessalonians--book, chapter, verse??

 

[IanS]

Indeed. And yet even in their lies there might be ways to discern some truth, and sometimes, as with history, you want to know how the lie started out.

Well anything "might" be true. What value is there in saying that?

If it's thought that amongst all their constant lies about Jesus, there may be some element of truth, then the test for that is that you must show some genuine credible independent evidence which suggests those few remaining elements did indeed describe a human Jesus ... it always comes back to actual genuine evidence ... that's what was discovered with the advent of science, and its why science is now used instead of the earlier fatally flawed assumptions of philosophy and theology (neither of which have ever successfully discovered or explained any real event).

So (thousandth time, almost literally here !!!!) .... what is this claimed evidence of Jesus as a real human who was written about in the bible?

 

[Brainache]

Well anything "might" be true. What value is there in saying that?

If it's thought that amongst all their constant lies about Jesus, there may be some element of truth, then the test for that is that you must show some genuine credible independent evidence which suggests those few remaining elements did indeed describe a human Jesus ... it always comes back to actual genuine evidence ... that's what was discovered with the advent of science, and its why science is now used instead of the earlier fatally flawed assumptions of philosophy and theology (neither of which have ever successfully discovered or explained any real event).

So (thousandth time, almost literally here !!!!) .... what is this claimed evidence of Jesus as a real human who was written about in the bible?

Tell me great Sage, by which Science did you divine the Mythical Jesus?

Scrying?

 

[jhunter1163]

You still seem to think that Irenaeus' view is sacrosanct....

But yet he doesn't accept that Irenaeus was a hearer of Polycarp, even though Irenaeus specifically states he was. Dejudge doesn't accept that Polycarp exists because it's inconvenient, to say the least, for his "narrative"* to have some second-century guy quoting all these "forged" works which allegedly were written in the fourth century.

* - I put "narrative" in scare quotes because dejudge really doesn't have one, except to say "nuh-uh!"

 

[TimCallahan]

Again, I have not claimed that Justin quoted material from 2 Thessalonians. My position is that Justin quoted the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Septuagint.

You did specifically suggest that Justin could have been the author of 2 Thessalonians:

Originally Posted by dejudge
Maybe it was Justin, Ignatius, or Irenaus--Not Paul-- who is the REAL author of 2 Thessalonians.
However, once again, I suspect we are talking past one another.

In First Apology Justin specifically claimed that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches in his time.

I cannot accept your speculation and imagination any more.
Justin's First Apology

Justin also attributed the spread of Christianity all over the world to Illiterates--NOT Paul.

[Justin's First Apology

So Justin is suddenly an ultimate authority, even though his assertion that illiterate disciples spread the gospel is patently absurd? Nonsense.

Concerning the hilited area: Where, oh where, did you ever get the idea that I or anyone else posting on this thread really gives a damn what you can or cannot accept? Stop wasting my time with pointless pronouncements such as this.

You are merely making assumptions about Paul for which you have no evidence.

Actually, I've given you evidence. You have rejected it out of hand. There's really nothing more to be said.

I invite you to examine Acts of the Apostles regarded as a work of fiction or highly questionable.

It mentions a character called Saul/Paul but you will notice it does not state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches or pastorals.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You are asserting that a highly questionable work of fiction - your own words - is authoritative because it seems to support your opinions. Did I miss anything?

Up to c 62 CE or the time of Festus procurator of Judea there was no body of Pauline writings even in the NT itself.

Which an is absolutely pointless fact, since Paul would have been writing his letters ca. 50 - 62, and there was no Christian canon at that time, since, as we both agree, none of the gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in CE 70. I can't imagine why you even brought this up.

Now, would you please specifically indicate which passage in the writings of Justin that was quoted from 2 Thessalonians because we may be able to find out where Justin got the passage?

Justin was extremely meticulous and almost always named his sources.

What passage are you referring to in Justin's writings that was taken from 2 Thessalonians--book, chapter, verse??

I've already done that. Wikipedia has already done that. You don't listen, and you don't respond.

Again, further response from me in any detail regarding what I assert to be true or any defense of my position on my part is contingent on you responding to the specific questions I've asked regarding what you see as the timeline and nature of the origin of Christian belief. You've seen those specific questions already, so I will not reiterate them. You've seen them. You haven't responded. From now on, it's tit for tat.

 

[JaysonR]

I invite you to examine Acts of the Apostles regarded as a work of fiction or highly questionable.

It mentions a character called Saul/Paul but you will notice it does not state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches or pastorals.

You just told me that Acts is clearly fake, and then told me to trust what Acts does and does not say Paul did and didn't do.

I'm sure your response will tell me that you didn't say that, that I shouldn't claim what you write if I can't write down what you wrote, then go on to dismiss my point ignorantly and pedantically, and then go on to re-post the same material you have repeated over and over without engaging in a single instance of critical discussion.

 

[dejudge]

Once again, I will not answer our questions until you answer mine, which I posed quite a bit before posting my take on the origins and development of Christianity and quite a bit earlier than you posted your questions. I've asked these questions of you repeatedly. So far, you've said noting except to assert - again, with out much of anything in the way of proof - that the whole corpus of Christian writings was fabricated in the second century.

You have not clarified whether this cult originated among Hellenized Jews of the Disapora or whether it originated among Gentiles.

You have not given any reason why a cult existing outside of Judea would go out of its way to link its Christ with a mythical or real) Jew named Jesus, or why the gospels would go out of their way to claim this person to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecies.

You have not posted what you see as a tentative timeline for the early development of the Christian religion in the second century.

Until you answer these questions, I refuse to answer your questions regarding my take on the origins and development of nascent Christianity.

You will still not be able to answer any of my questions after I answer all your questions repeatedly.

Again, I answer all your questions

My position is that the Jesus story and cult began sometime in the 2nd century around or after c 115 CE and before 133 CE or before the time of Simon Barchochebas.

Based on Justin Jews were persecuting Christians in the time of Simon Barchchebas--See Justin's Dilaogue with Trypho.

For the entire 1st century, there is no evidence at all of any cult in Judea who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God or started of any new religion in Galilee or Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, and Pliny the younger.

All NT manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus that have been recovered and dated are from the 2nd century or later.

The first arguments against the Jesus story and cult do not contain any arguments against Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus in Celsus "True Discourse" based on Origen.

Also, in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Justin Martyr did not mention Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus when he argued that the Christ had already come.

The stories of Jesus of Nazareth that have been recovered and dated to 2nd century and later show Jesus as a Myth.


What other questions do you have?

 

[Belz...]

If it's thought that amongst all their constant lies about Jesus, there may be some element of truth, then the test for that is that you must show some genuine credible independent evidence which suggests those few remaining elements did indeed describe a human Jesus ...

I believe we've been through this more than once, Ian. Your pretending to not be aware of past posts is getting tiresome.

 

[JaysonR]

My position is that the Jesus story and cult began sometime in the 2nd century around or after c 115 CE and before 133 CE or before the time of Simon Barchochebas.

How did this happen: walk me through how you see this occurring; a timeline of events.

Here's some questions:

1. How did the idea first come about?
2. Was it the idea of a single individual to do this, a council, or was it some random entertainment which ended up being picked up by others as real?
3. Who were the first Jesus followers? Gentilian Jews outside of Judea, non-Jew Gentiles outside of Judea, or some other answer?
4. Where were the first groups of Jesus followers? Which part of the Mediterranean had the first followers?
5. Which text came first?
6. Were all texts accepted by all followers of Jesus, or were they scattered in their acceptance of which texts they considered to be worthy of veneration?
7. Did every group have all gospel texts, or did any group use only one or two gospel texts for their belief and veneration of their mythical savior?

Anything along these lines....

 

[dejudge]

How did this happen: walk me through how you see this occurring; a timeline of events.

Here's some questions:

1. How did the idea first come about?
2. Was it the idea of a single individual to do this, a council, or was it some random entertainment which ended up being picked up by others as real?
3. Who were the first Jesus followers? Gentilian Jews outside of Judea, non-Jew Gentiles outside of Judea, or some other answer?
4. Where were the first groups of Jesus followers? Which part of the Mediterranean had the first followers?
5. Which text came first?
6. Were all texts accepted by all followers of Jesus, or were they scattered in their acceptance of which texts they considered to be worthy of veneration?
7. Did every group have all gospel texts, or did any group use only one or two gospel texts for their belief and veneration of their mythical savior?

Anything along these lines....

Please read my previous posts.

Again I repeat, after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE a story was propagated that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

I have already presented 10 Apologetic writers who claimed that the Jews killed Jesus the Son of God and that was the reason for the Fall of the Temple.

1. The author of Acts.

2. A Pauline writer.

3. Aristides.

4. Justin Martyr.

5. Irenaeus.

6. Tetullian.

7. Hippolytus.

8. Origen.

9. Lactantius

10. Eusebius.

The story was changed as is evident in the NT.

In the short gMark, The Jews delivered up Jesus, the Son of God to be killed but he resurrected on the THIRD day.

The story was later changed to include a birth narrative, a post resurrection visit, the GREAT COMMISSION, and the Ascension.

From the short gMark to the Pauline Corpus there were many changes in the story. Eventually Jesus became God Creator who was sacrificied by God for the Salvation of mankind.

The story of Jesus appears to have originated in Egypt since virtually all early manuscripts with the Jesus story was found in Egypt.

We would expect to find early manuscripts of the Jewish religion in Judea and that is exactly what has happened with the DEAD SEA SCROLLS.

We would expect to find early manuscripts of the Jesus story in Judea if it originated there. That is exactly what did NOT happen

The early manuscripts of the Jesus cult were found in EGYPT the same place where the Septugint originated.

The Jesus character was a product of so-called prophecies found in the Septuagint.

 

[Craig B]

So (thousandth time, almost literally here !!!!) .... what is this claimed evidence of Jesus as a real human who was written about in the bible?

I wrote about this, indicating that the "Bible" is not a single source. That various principles of analysis are applied to, for example, the Gospel texts, those of "multiple attestation" and "embarrassment" and others among them. You have not addressed this at all, and iirc refused to read what I wrote. Do you wish to discuss these issues, or do you intend to keep going on and on like this interminably, you and like-minded posters here?

ETA See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism#New_Testament_authenticity_and_the_historical_Jesus

 

[Craig B]

Please read my previous posts.

Done it. Here you're repeating yourself. I'm going to take a ride on one of your hobby horses I've ignored till now. Here we go. Ready?

We would expect to find early manuscripts of the Jesus story in Judea if it originated there. That is exactly what did NOT happen The early manuscripts of the Jesus cult were found in EGYPT the same place where the Septugint originated.

We would expect to find most of the early papyrus manuscripts in Egypt no matter what. Why? Because the exceptionally dry climate preserves them better there. Even casual writings like personal letters and bank account details have been found in abundance.

A wealth of papyrus documents from the Graeco-Roman era have come to light on the daily lives of ancient people in Egypt, including their love letters and marriage contracts, tax and bank accounts, commodity lists, birth records, divorce cases, temple offerings, and most other conceivable types of memoranda, whether personal, financial, or religious. Since the 1890s, masses of papyrus writings in Greek, Coptic, demotic, and Arabic have been unearthed in Graeco-Roman settlements in the Fayum near the Nile delta. In terms of sheer quantity, these documentary papyri have been accumulating much faster than the best scholarly efforts to keep pace.

http://www.athenapub.com/egypap1.htm. This huge abundance isn't found in Judaea or any other part of the Ancient Near East. In Mesopotamia in times prior to the Graeco-Roman period a different writing format was employed - clay tablets; and these are often found preserved by fire. Also graffiti inscribed on broken pottery, the cheap notepaper equivalent of those days. But preserved parchment or papyrus is quite rare, accounting for the delight expressed by scholars when DSS turned up.

So this point you make is nonsense, and the conclusion about LXX you draw from it is unwarranted.

And I still don't think you've given us evidence for your bizarre opinion that the entirety of NT and the whole early Christian corpus is a mere fiction falsified by unknown forgers either in the late second or early fourth centuries. You do realise that is in practical terms impossible? Maybe you don't. The MJ people perceive the scriptures as simply an undifferentiated pack of lies with no definable characteristics except this mendacity, and things like that can be forged as easily as old banknotes I imagine. What a strange intellectual world you all live in!

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge,
Thank you for your response:

The questions I asked are highlighted in Yellow.The answers you provided are colored Blue.
My responses and further questions are colored Green.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How did the idea first come about?
Dejudge
The story of Jesus appears to have originated in Egypt since virtually all early manuscripts with the Jesus story was found in Egypt.

The early manuscripts of the Jesus cult were found in EGYPT the same place where the Septugint originated.

The Jesus character was a product of so-called prophecies found in the Septuagint.


Jayson
OK, so the idea started in Egypt and was based on the Septuagint.

How, specifically, did that happen do you think?
How was this accomplished?
How come it was accomplished?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Was it the idea of a single individual to do this, a council, or was it some random entertainment which ended up being picked up by others as real?
Jayson
I am unclear on what your answer is for this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Who were the first Jesus followers? Gentilian Jews outside of Judea, non-Jew Gentiles outside of Judea, or some other answer?
Jayson
Do you think that the originator or originators in Egypt was/were Egyptian, Jew/Jews in Egypt, Gentile Jew/Jews in Egypt, Gentile/Gentiles in Egypt, or something else?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where were the first groups of Jesus followers? Which part of the Mediterranean had the first followers?
Jayson
I gather from your comment about Egypt that you hold that the first followers were in Egypt.
Is this correct for me to understand of your position?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which text came first?
Dejudge
In the short gMark, The Jews delivered up Jesus, the Son of God to be killed but he resurrected on the THIRD day.

The story was later changed to include a birth narrative, a post resurrection visit, the GREAT COMMISSION, and the Ascension.

From the short gMark to the Pauline Corpus there were many changes in the story. Eventually Jesus became God Creator who was sacrificied by God for the Salvation of mankind.

Jayson
Is it your position that Mark, out of all texts (not just Orthodox canon), was the very first text?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Were all texts accepted by all followers of Jesus, or were they scattered in their acceptance of which texts they considered to be worthy of veneration?
Jayson
I am unclear on what your answer is for this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did every group have all gospel texts, or did any group use only one or two gospel texts for their belief and veneration of their mythical savior?
Jayson
I am unclear on what your answer is for this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your time.

 

[dejudge]

We would expect to find most of the early papyrus manuscripts in Egypt no matter what. Why? Because the exceptionally dry climate preserves them better there. Even casual writings like personal letters and bank account details have been found in abundance..

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Judea with scrolls of the 1st century and even Before the Common Era yet we have nothing about Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul.


Jewish writings, artifacts and manuscripts have been found in Judea where they were expected but nothing of the supposed Jewish cult called Christianity.

Egyptian writings, artifacts and manuscripts have been found in Egypt where they were expected.

Roman writings, artifacts and manuscripts been found in Rome where it was expected.

It is not really a problem with the climate but a problem with the history of the Jesus cult.

The history of the Jesus cult is bogus because we cannot find any writings, artifacts and manuscripts where it was expected and none in the time period that was expected.

 

[Craig B]

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Judea with scrolls of the 1st century and even Before the Common Era yet we have nothing about Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul.
Jewish writings, artifacts and manuscripts have been found in Judea where they were expected but nothing of the supposed Jewish cult called Christianity.

If so, how can you then tell us that the early manuscripts of the Jesus cult were found in Egypt, if it's only a "supposed" cult? Or that they derive from the Septuagint? What are these manuscripts then, that you refer to, and who wrote these texts?

You have not responded to my point about relative abundance of manuscripts, either by agreement or denial. I invite you to do so now.