Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

What big lies.

I have answered your questions.

I have laid out the evidence.

Is is not an accepted historical fact that the Jewish Temple of their God fell c 70 CE?

Did I not show you the list of the dated NT manuscripts that have been recovered and that none of them are dated to c 70 CE?

You seem to have some hidden agenda because of the quantity of open remorseless fallacies that you post.

You still haven't answered.

Do you think that if an HJ existed that necessarily we would have earlier manuscripts?

Do you think only having later copies of texts is somehow unusual for Ancient History?

It is normal for just about everybody in Ancient times who wasn't some kind of King or something.

Please, you still need to describe: Who, what where, when and why. You say these texts were "faked" in the 2nd century, that is not enough.

The HJ scenario has tons of details and references and Scholarly arguments about Authors, texts and contexts etc.

You have a list of Texts, and... nothing else. This is insufficient to overturn the HJ corpus.

Try again.

 

[dejudge]

You still haven't answered.

Another big lie.

I answered your questions repeatedly.

Do you think that if an HJ existed that necessarily we would have earlier manuscripts?

Your question makes very little sense. You are arguing that the supposed Paul wrote letters during his own life time pre 70 CE.

Was Paul a King?

Do you think if Romulus, the Myth founder of Rome, existed that necessarily we would have earlier manuscripts?

Do you think if Adam and Eve in Genesis existed that necessarily we would have earlier manuscripts?

Do you think only having later copies of texts is somehow unusual for Ancient History?

It is normal for just about everybody in Ancient times who wasn't some kind of King or something.

So, please explain why you are arguing for ealy Pauline writings about HJ?

Paul was not a King.

Your HJ wasn't a King. Your HJ was a little known crucified criminal.

It would be normal based on your own statement to have late writings about your HJ.

Plus, Jesus in the manuscripts was the Son of a Ghost.

Would you expect early writings of the Son of a Ghost?

Please, you still need to describe: Who, what where, when and why. You say these texts were "faked" in the 2nd century, that is not enough.

More lies.

I only need to show the evidence. Please, Examine the evidence.

The HJ scenario has tons of details and references and Scholarly arguments about Authors, texts and contexts etc.

We know the history of the Quest for an HJ. It has been an established known failure with multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ. A third attempt was initiated a mere 30 years ago which proves that there never was or no actual known evidence for an HJ in the history of mankind has been found.

You have a list of Texts, and... nothing else. This is insufficient to overturn the HJ corpus.

Try again.

I have a list of the evidence of myth Jesus.

My list of the evidence for Myth Jesus is REGISTERED and is well documented.

What have you got?

Your HJ is even worse than a Myth.

Your HJ is unknown.

Your HJ is nothing.

The HJ argument is a known dead end argument.

 

[Brainache]

Another big lie.

I answered your questions repeatedly.



Your question makes very little sense. You are arguing that the supposed Paul wrote letters during his own life time pre 70 CE.

Was Paul a King?

Do you think if Romulus, the Myth founder of Rome, existed that necessarily we would have earlier manuscripts?

Do you think if Adam and Eve in Genesis existed that necessarily we would have earlier manuscripts?



So, please explain why you are arguing for ealy Pauline writings about HJ?

Paul was not a King.

Your HJ wasn't a King. Your HJ was a little known crucified criminal.

It would be normal based on your own statement to have late writings about your HJ.

Plus, Jesus in the manuscripts was the Son of a Ghost.

Would you expect early writings of the Son of a Ghost?



More lies.

I only need to show the evidence. Please, Examine the evidence.



We know the history of the Quest for an HJ. It has been an established known failure with multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ. A third attempt was initiated a mere 30 years ago which proves that there never was or no actual known evidence for an HJ in the history of mankind has been found.



I have a list of the evidence of myth Jesus.

My list of the evidence for Myth Jesus is REGISTERED and is well documented.

What have you got?

Your HJ is even worse than a Myth.

Your HJ is unknown.

Your HJ is nothing.

The HJ argument is a known dead end argument.

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

I can see that you deliberately misunderstood every one of my points.

Bizarre debating tactic you have there.

Try again.

 

[dejudge]

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You are one who FLESHED out the Son of a Ghost like the author of gJohn FLESHED out the Logos.

Tell us how you did it.

I can only show the evidence from antiquity.

I can only show what is found and dated.

This is the evidence that is in the Codex Sinauticus.

Can you put some FLESH to this Ghost story?


Sinaiticus Matthew 1

18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: After his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

Repeated Lies.

1. The Temple of the Jewish God fell c 70 CE.

2. Stories of Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God born of a Ghost, the disciples and Paul are recovered and dated to the 2nd century or later.

I can see that you deliberately misunderstood every one of my points.

Bizarre debating tactic you have there.

Try again.

I have merely exposed that the HJ argument is an established dead end argument with multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ which proves that there was never any known actual evidence for an HJ for at least 1800 years and up to today.

 

[Brainache]

You are one who FLESHED out the Son of a Ghost like the author of gJohn FLESHED out the Logos.

Tell us how you did it.

I can only show the evidence from antiquity.

I can only show what is found and dated.

This is the evidence that is in the Codex Sinauticus.

Can you put some FLESH to this Ghost story?

By reading and understanding the arguments of qualified Historians.

How did you come up with your patently absurd ideas? Please do tell, I am actually curious, because you are the only person in the world arguing the case that you do.

What crazed miasma of confusion is responsible for this intellectual travesty you call a "MJ Theory"?

...
Repeated Lies.

1. The Temple of the Jewish God fell c 70 CE.

2. Stories of Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God born of a Ghost, the disciples and Paul are recovered and dated to the 2nd century or later.

So what?

Where are the earliest manuscripts of Aristotle or Pythagoras?

Do you understand what this question means?

I have merely exposed that the HJ argument is an established dead end argument with multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ which proves that there was never any known actual evidence for an HJ for at least 1800 years and up to today.

You have done no such thing. You have repeated a load of ignorant rubbish.

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

So, just to continue from yesterday a bit,

I live in Spain, where saints were manufactured from thin air back in the day, so this is nothing new or surprising or even implausible.

That's what keeps the 40 in my 60-40. Very little happens in what we solidly infer about the earliest Christian developments (not a lot at the critical time before 100 CE) that would be unamiguously different if Paul just made it all up from thin air, or to be precise, from a guilty "rehabilitation" of the James Gang, whose actual beliefs and teachings we never hear from them..

It is straightforward that after a culture of quality-woo took hold, then it became possible to grow a secondary "cult of the saint" with no historical saint. The parallelism you drew between the Gospel tradition and hagiography was fine, I think, pace Belz....

But I also think that the hagiography tradition helps keep the 60 in my 60-40. I am about as confident about Perpetua as I am about Paul, ~ 85-15, and for similar reasons, a first-person writing in a realistic voice, recounting a series of events from a "supernaturally enriched perspective," to be sure, but not incidents that I think were necessarily invented. Compare Thecla, the habitually naked virgin, who is befirended by female animals (and God strikes the ones who don't befirend her with lighttning)... give me a foggy break.

And, of course, Perpetua is the Saint Paul of her fellow inmates. Did they exist? I can't be more confident of them than I am of my only source for them, but I can muster better than 60-40 for Saturus, of whom she dreams or sees in a vision (and has earthly experience of as well).

On another point arising, I am a little slower than Craig. You asked about a candidate HJ.

"born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

which I take to be from Origen's Against Celsus, I.28

It seems to me, without regard to source, that you have omitted what I would need to judge whether or not this is part of the biography of an HJ who counts. What is the relationship between this fellow and the later church? Did he ever meet Dunker John, for example? Did he have any thoughts about Jewish ethics and morals? (It sounds as if he just might have an opinion about divorce.) Did he attract students? How did he die? and so forth.

That said, Origen doesn't seem to think this snippet is so terrible for his own view. The chapter continues (and concludes),

Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.

Hmm. I am confident that Origen was committed to an HJ who counts, and he's confident he can harmonize what you quoted with what he believes.

So, yeah, Jesuses with that backstory make their due contribution to my 60% favoring of the grand disjunction that is my "HJ who counts."

 

[dejudge]

Hmm. I am confident that Origen was committed to an HJ who counts, and he's confident he can harmonize what you quoted with what he believes.

So, yeah, Jesuses with that backstory make their due contribution to my 60% favoring of the grand disjunction that is my "HJ who counts."

In writings attributed to Origen, his HJ was the Son of God born of a Ghost. In fact, it is shown that Origen anticipated that people who did NOT believe his HJ was born of a Ghost would invent lies.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost...

Origen's Preface to De Principiis[/u]

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..

 

[Brainache]

In writings attributed to Origen, his HJ was the Son of God born of a Ghost. In fact, it is shown that Origen anticipated that people who did NOT believe his HJ was born of a Ghost would invent lies.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

Origen's Preface to De Principiis[/u]

So, now you think Origen had first hand knowledge of what went on in bed between Mary and Joseph and The Holy Ghost?

What was this, some Ancient Swingers Party?

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

 

[Gaspode]

Please keep the discussion civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[dejudge]

So, now you think Origen had first hand knowledge of what went on in bed between Mary and Joseph and The Holy Ghost?

So, now you think Scholars in the 21st century had more first hand knowledge of what went on in the 2nd or third century than Origen who supposedly LIVED in the 3rd century himself?

Origen should have been a 3rd century primary witness of the teachings and beliefs of the Jesus cult.

Origen himself should have been a Christian and should have taught the doctrines of the Church.

The Historical Jesus in the 3rd century was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Origen should have had first hand knowledge of what the Church taught about THEIR HJ.

Their HJ was God according to Origen.

Origen's Commentary on John 2

“ He was in the beginning with God.” By his three foregoing propositions the Evangelist has made us acquainted with three orders, and he now sums up the three in one, saying, “This (Logos) was in the beginning with God.” In the first premiss we learned where the Logos was: He was in the beginning; then we learned with whom He was, with God; and then who He was, that He was God.

 

[Brainache]

So, now you think Scholars in the 21st century had more first hand knowledge of what went on in the 2nd or third century than Origen who supposedly LIVED in the 3rd century himself?
...

No. I'm saying that 21st century Scholars have a better knowledge of what went on in 1st century Jerusalem, than 3rd Century Origen did.

We have better libraries and stuff than he did.

He was also talking about the Jesus of Faith, not the HJ, so:

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

 

[dejudge]

So, now you think Scholars in the 21st century had more first hand knowledge of what went on in the 2nd or third century than Origen who supposedly LIVED in the 3rd century himself?

No. I'm saying that 21st century Scholars have a better knowledge of what went on in 1st century Jerusalem, than 3rd Century Origen did.

We have better libraries and stuff than he did.

What a ridiculous argument. You very well know Scholars use writings attributed to Origen to argue that James the Just was the brother of their HJ.

He was also talking about the Jesus of Faith, not the HJ..

Origen's Historical Jesus was claimed to be the actual Son of the God of the Jews born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Based on Origen, any other HJ would be a Lie.

In fact, Origen expected people to INVENT their own falshoods when they refused to accept his HJ.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

You must have suffered from temporary amnesia.

Let me lay out the evidence once more.

1. The Jewish Temple of God fell c 70 CE.

2. Manuscripts of the Jesus story and cult were found and dated to the 2nd century or later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

Do not forget that The Dead Sea Scrolls were found and dated to a period including the 1st century and nothing is mentioned of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.

The actual existing dated evidence supports the position that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

 

[Brainache]

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

 

[pakeha]

pakeha

So, just to continue from yesterday a bit,

That's what keeps the 40 in my 60-40. Very little happens in what we solidly infer about the earliest Christian developments (not a lot at the critical time before 100 CE) that would be unamiguously different if Paul just made it all up from thin air, or to be precise, from a guilty "rehabilitation" of the James Gang, whose actual beliefs and teachings we never hear from them..

It is straightforward that after a culture of quality-woo took hold, then it became possible to grow a secondary "cult of the saint" with no historical saint. The parallelism you drew between the Gospel tradition and hagiography was fine, I think, pace Belz....

But I also think that the hagiography tradition helps keep the 60 in my 60-40. I am about as confident about Perpetua as I am about Paul, ~ 85-15, and for similar reasons, a first-person writing in a realistic voice, recounting a series of events from a "supernaturally enriched perspective," to be sure, but not incidents that I think were necessarily invented. Compare Thecla, the habitually naked virgin, who is befirended by female animals (and God strikes the ones who don't befirend her with lighttning)... give me a foggy break.

And, of course, Perpetua is the Saint Paul of her fellow inmates. Did they exist? I can't be more confident of them than I am of my only source for them, but I can muster better than 60-40 for Saturus, of whom she dreams or sees in a vision (and has earthly experience of as well).

On another point arising, I am a little slower than Craig. You asked about a candidate HJ.


which I take to be from Origen's Against Celsus, I.28

It seems to me, without regard to source, that you have omitted what I would need to judge whether or not this is part of the biography of an HJ who counts. What is the relationship between this fellow and the later church? Did he ever meet Dunker John, for example? Did he have any thoughts about Jewish ethics and morals? (It sounds as if he just might have an opinion about divorce.) Did he attract students? How did he die? and so forth.

That said, Origen doesn't seem to think this snippet is so terrible for his own view. The chapter continues (and concludes),


Hmm. I am confident that Origen was committed to an HJ who counts, and he's confident he can harmonize what you quoted with what he believes.

So, yeah, Jesuses with that backstory make their due contribution to my 60% favoring of the grand disjunction that is my "HJ who counts."

Thanks for an interesting read, eight bits.
Yes, I knew how Origen concluded that chapter, which was why I offered that particular candidate.
All the best.

ETA
I've been reading up on the historicity of Perpetua.
According to wiki, there are dating issues.
"The date of their martyrdom is traditionally given as 203 AD. The Severan Persecution of 202-203, was the first calculated attempt through edict to suppress Christianity across the empire.[12] Thus, the martyrdom may have occurred in the aftermath of Septimus Severus’s decrees of 202 that forbade conversion to Judaism and Christianity.[13] The association of the martyrdom with a birthday festival of the Emperor Geta, however, might seem to place it after 209, when Geta was made "Augustus" (having held the junior title Caesar since 198 when his elder brother had been made "Augustus"), though before 211, when he was assassinated. The Acta notes that the martyrdom occurred in the year when Minucius Timinianus was proconsul in the Roman province of Africa, but as Timinianus is not otherwise attested in history, this information does not clarify the date. The Golden Legend, however, places the martyrdom in 256, under the emperors Valerian and Gallienus.[14]"

Here's a link to one scholar's take of Perpetua:
http://books.google.es/books?id=6fy...1#v=onepage&q=historicity of Perpetua&f=false

This book is now on my wish list.

Anyway, my own tendency is to disbelieve hagiography, like that of the NT, til there's evidence to suggest it has any basis in reality.

 

[dejudge]

Still waiting for your evidence dejudge. Or a fleshed out version of your scenario.

You still haven't told us: Who, what, where, when, or why.

Will you ever?

I showed you the evidence.

1. The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

2. Manuscripts of the Jesus story and cult were recovered and dated to the 2nd century or later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

Who?

The authors of the Jesus stories.

What?

The stories of Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, born of a Ghost.

Where?

Manuscripts mostly found in Egypt and other places.

When?

The 2nd century or later writings.

Why?

To explain the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple of God.

 

[Brainache]

I showed you the evidence.

1. The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

Several years after the presence of Christians was reported in Rome.

2. Manuscripts of the Jesus story and cult were recovered and dated to the 2nd century or later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

So what? This is actually a very high level of evidence compared to most Ancient people who weren't Kings. This doesn't help you at all.

Who?

The authors of the Jesus stories.

Not an answer. Who in Egypt in the 2nd century could fake all of the Apocrypha, letters, conflicting Gospels and Histories? Who could do such a thing? Just saying "The person who did it", is not an answer.

What?

The stories of Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, born of a Ghost.

All of them? Plus the letters of Paul, Clement, Hegesippus, Irenaeus etc etc? All of it? Preposterous. Especially without some corroborating evidence, which you don't have.

Where?

Manuscripts mostly found in Egypt and other places.

Because Egypt is dry, unlike most other places.

When?

The 2nd century or later writings.

Ridiculous. The contents prove you wrong.

Why?

To explain the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple of God.

Do you seriously think this pathetic attempt at reasoning is going to overturn the Historical Corpus on Jesus?

Good luck with that. It will certainly be the slimmest volume on the History shelf...

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Hagiography is a genre, not a coherent body of work by a single hand, just as "gospel" is a genre. Acceptance of a natural basis for Jesus in Mark does not commit me to a natural basis for chatty baby Isa in the Koran, anymore than a historical Perpetua commits me to a historical Brigid (obviously an Irish goddess, an example of the reverse euhemerization that one of our colleagues strives to apply backwards to the case of Jesus).

The Golden Legend dates from 1000 years after Perpetua's prison diary. This diminishes my concern about its dating of the ancient events. Without entering into the controversy about whether Tertullian (d.. ~ 220's) is the anonymous editor of the diary, he mentions Perpetua in his acknowledged work, De Anima, and shows what seems to be familiarity with the contents of the document that concerns us (at LV)

How is it that the most heroic martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow-martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam?

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-22.htm

Tertullian lived and wrote from Carthage - he is then, a useful contemporary of Perpetua. These are the pillars of my confidence in an early Third Century date, without concern about whether Carthage's local-law-for-life sucked up to a rising Geta earlier than some other flunkies.

We also have something very interesting, even that short bit improves upon the original. "Only her fellow martyrs there," in "Paradise," is not a close paraphrase, but a pious interpretation. What she saw was that everyone in a place she climbed to, by way of a ladder bristling with weapons, was dressed in white. Tertullian is still faithful to his source, Perpetua promptly talked over the vision with her brother, who had counseled her to seek a vision. They agreed that what she saw was a reference to their impending martyrdom. But still.

What is at stake here is that you have a truly excellent idea: to use the parallelism between hagiography and the gospel movement. I sense a missed opportunity, then, for you simply to walk away with blanket default disbelief, rather than to adopt the actually effective response to uncertainty, to judge "this is more likely than that, IMO" on the basis of the available evidence.

 

[dejudge]

1. The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

Several years after the presence of Christians was reported in Rome.

What absurdity. You use an 11th century copy which shows sign of manipulation of the very word "ChrEstians".

You also know that you cannot assume Christians mean followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

You have Nothing--No actual pre 70 CE writings about Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus cult and Saul/Paul

2. Manuscripts of the Jesus story and cult were recovered and dated to the 2nd century or later.

So what? This is actually a very high level of evidence compared to most Ancient people who weren't Kings. This doesn't help you at all.

Your statement is absurd.

If the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later we would not recover any manuscripts pre 70 CE.

That is exactly what has happened.

The recovery of manuscripts which are dated to the 2nd century or later fully supports my argument.

You have nothing but an argument of the dead--an argument of SILENCE.

Who? The authors of the Jesus stories.

Not an answer. Who in Egypt in the 2nd century could fake all of the Apocrypha, letters, conflicting Gospels and Histories? Who could do such a thing? Just saying "The person who did it", is not an answer.

Your response is absurd. It lacks logic.

I can only show the documented evidence. I do not invent and cannot invent names of authors of the stories of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman claimed the supposed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write them.

What?

The stories of Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, born of a Ghost.

All of them? Plus the letters of Paul, Clement, Hegesippus, Irenaeus etc etc? All of it? Preposterous. Especially without some corroborating evidence, which you don't have.

What absurdities you post!! You display a lack of knowledge of the contents of writings of antiquity.

In the writings attributed to Paul it is claimed Jesus, the Son of God was a Spirit.

In writings attributed to Irenaeus it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

There are no writings under the name Clement.

Hegesippus is really an unknown author.

Where?

Manuscripts mostly found in Egypt and other places.

Because Egypt is dry, unlike most other places.

What nonsense.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Judea--not Egypt.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus, the Jesus cult or Saul/Paul

When?

The 2nd century or later writings.

Ridiculous. The contents prove you wrong.

Again, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

In the recovered 2nd century or later writings it is specifically stated that Jesus was the Son of God, born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, that he was the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel and then ascended in a cloud.

The contents of the 2nd cetury or later writings actually support a Myth Jesus.

Please, just go and get familiar with the contents of the actual dated recovered manuscripts and Codices.

Why?

To explain the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple of God.

Do you seriously think this pathetic attempt at reasoning is going to overturn the Historical Corpus on Jesus?

What absurdity you post. You have exposed the utter weakness of the HJ argument

You seem to have forgotten that there is an ON-GOING SEARCH for an HJ after multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable HJ since the 18th century.

Your HJ has no known Corpus

Your HJ argument is in a pathetic state. This is the Third attempt to find an HJ.

Good luck with that. It will certainly be the slimmest volume on the History shelf...

You have no idea, no idea at all, of the massive volumes of evidence that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

Hundreds of manuscripts and Codices have been found and dated to the 2nd century or later.

In fact, Your HJ does not even have a slim volume. There is NOTHING for Your HJ on the shelf of history.

After hundreds of years, since the 18th century, No manuscript or Codex has been found dated pre 70 CE with the name Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus, a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

You have NO luck. Keep QUESTING.

You have confirmed the HJ argument is a failed dead end argument with no established evidence in the history of mankind.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha

Hagiography is a genre, not a coherent body of work by a single hand, just as "gospel" is a genre. Acceptance of a natural basis for Jesus in Mark does not commit me to a natural basis for chatty baby Isa in the Koran, anymore than a historical Perpetua commits me to a historical Brigid (obviously an Irish goddess, an example of the reverse euhemerization that one of our colleagues strives to apply backwards to the case of Jesus).

The Golden Legend dates from 1000 years after Perpetua's prison diary. This diminishes my concern about its dating of the ancient events. Without entering into the controversy about whether Tertullian (d.. ~ 220's) is the anonymous editor of the diary, he mentions Perpetua in his acknowledged work, De Anima, and shows what seems to be familiarity with the contents of the document that concerns us (at LV)

How is it that the most heroic martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow-martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam?

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-22.htm

Tertullian lived and wrote from Carthage - he is then, a useful contemporary of Perpetua. These are the pillars of my confidence in an early Third Century date, without concern about whether Carthage's local-law-for-life sucked up to a rising Geta earlier than some other flunkies.

We also have something very interesting, even that short bit improves upon the original. "Only her fellow martyrs there," in "Paradise," is not a close paraphrase, but a pious interpretation. What she saw was that everyone in a place she climbed to, by way of a ladder bristling with weapons, was dressed in white. Tertullian is still faithful to his source, Perpetua promptly talked over the vision with her brother, who had counseled her to seek a vision. They agreed that what she saw was a reference to their impending martyrdom. But still.

What is at stake here is that you have a truly excellent idea: to use the parallelism between hagiography and the gospel movement. I sense a missed opportunity, then, for you simply to walk away with blanket default disbelief, rather than to adopt the actually effective response to uncertainty, to judge "this is more likely than that, IMO" on the basis of the available evidence.

I found an interesting thesis on the role of Tertullian in the composition of the Pasio this afternoon.

A sampling of the contents:
"Scholars have often failed to grasp the connection between Perpetua‘s prophecy and the narrator's Montanist prologue.Brent Shaw primarily divides the Passio Perpetuae along theological lines.
Shaw considers the narrator‘s heavy theological envoy to be in direct opposition to Perpetua‘s account. This interpretation is in part due to the different writing styles employed by the narrator and by Perpetua. According to Shaw, Perpetua‘s account exhibits all the innocence of a daily journal, completely devoid of religious proselytism.
A close look at the Passio will disprove this point of view. Perpetua‘s account bears a theological message equal to that of the narrator. Although the narrator is the one who identifies himself as the Montanist with his introduction, Perpetua shows all the signs of being one as well. Her ability to interpret divine prophecy, her authoritative status among fellow Christians, and her radical attitudes toward traditional family life all demonstrate a Montanist background."
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11102009-114651/unrestricted/Poche_Thesis.pdf

The paper is almost 70 pages long, so my quotation is just a mere taste of the author's work. But, unless I've misunderstood him, it's a defense of Perpetua as an example of martyrdom in the age when Montanism was not as yet a heresy.


"Hagiography is a genre, not a coherent body of work by a single hand, just as "gospel" is a genre."
Of course. I myself see much to identify as hagiography in the gospels.


"I sense a missed opportunity, then, for you simply to walk away with blanket default disbelief, rather than to adopt the actually effective response to uncertainty, to judge "this is more likely than that, IMO" on the basis of the available evidence."
Hmm.
It that's what I've conveyed then I failed to communicate my thoughts on this subject. I'm simply waiting for an explanation which is confirmed by outside sources to leave off thinking that the gospels represent our earliest Christian hagiography, or even an example of 'the Greek novella meets meets messianic literature', that is, a hybrid or new literary genre.

It's why I anticipate significant finds from that library from the Villa De Papyri. It's from just the right time and it's owner was interested, deeply interested in philosophy.

 

[Brainache]

What absurdity. You use an 11th century copy which shows sign of manipulation of the very word "ChrEstians".

You also know that you cannot assume Christians mean followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

You have Nothing--No actual pre 70 CE writings about Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus cult and Saul/Paul








Your statement is absurd.

If the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later we would not recover any manuscripts pre 70 CE.

That is exactly what has happened.

The recovery of manuscripts which are dated to the 2nd century or later fully supports my argument.

You have nothing but an argument of the dead--an argument of SILENCE.







Your response is absurd. It lacks logic.

I can only show the documented evidence. I do not invent and cannot invent names of authors of the stories of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman claimed the supposed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write them.







What absurdities you post!! You display a lack of knowledge of the contents of writings of antiquity.

In the writings attributed to Paul it is claimed Jesus, the Son of God was a Spirit.

In writings attributed to Irenaeus it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

There are no writings under the name Clement.

Hegesippus is really an unknown author.







What nonsense.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Judea--not Egypt.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus, the Jesus cult or Saul/Paul







Again, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

In the recovered 2nd century or later writings it is specifically stated that Jesus was the Son of God, born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, that he was the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel and then ascended in a cloud.

The contents of the 2nd cetury or later writings actually support a Myth Jesus.

Please, just go and get familiar with the contents of the actual dated recovered manuscripts and Codices.







What absurdity you post. You have exposed the utter weakness of the HJ argument

You seem to have forgotten that there is an ON-GOING SEARCH for an HJ after multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable HJ since the 18th century.

Your HJ has no known Corpus

Your HJ argument is in a pathetic state. This is the Third attempt to find an HJ.




You have no idea, no idea at all, of the massive volumes of evidence that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

Hundreds of manuscripts and Codices have been found and dated to the 2nd century or later.

In fact, Your HJ does not even have a slim volume. There is NOTHING for Your HJ on the shelf of history.

After hundreds of years, since the 18th century, No manuscript or Codex has been found dated pre 70 CE with the name Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus, a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

You have NO luck. Keep QUESTING.

You have confirmed the HJ argument is a failed dead end argument with no established evidence in the history of mankind.

You are 100% wrong.

These arguments you produce just don't work at all.

Why bother?

ETA: Just so it isn't a total waste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_(chronicler)

Saint Hegesippus (Ἅγιος Ἡγήσιππος) (c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD[1]), was a Christian chronicler of the early Church who may have been a Jewish convert[2] and certainly wrote against heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion. The date of Hegesippus is insecurely fixed by the statement of Eusebius that the death and apotheosis of Antinous (130) occurred in Hegesippus' lifetime,[3] and that he came to Rome under Pope St. Anicetus and wrote in the time of Pope St. Eleuterus (Bishop of Rome, ca 174-189).
Hegesippus' works are now entirely lost, save eight passages concerning Church history quoted by Eusebius,[4] who tells us that he wrote Hypomnemata (Ὑπομνήματα; "Memoirs" or "Memoranda"[5]) in five books, in the simplest style concerning the tradition of the Apostolic preaching. Through Eusebius Hegesippus was also known to Jerome,[6] who is responsible for the idea that Hegesippus "wrote a history of all ecclesiastical events from the passion of our Lord down to his own period... in five volumes", which has established the Hypomnemata as a Church history.[7] St. Hegesippus appealed principally to tradition as embodied in the teaching which had been handed down through the succession of bishops, thus providing for Eusebius information about the earliest bishops that otherwise would have been lost.

Someone else invented by your Hoaxers?

Ridiculous.