There is no way of determining it was written in the 2nd century, but the new 4th century regime sure did have the means, opportunity and motive to produce the new religion and a slew of apologetics thanks to good old Eusebius.

dejuror wrote:

duvduv wrote:Dejuror, I think that the argument that no Jesus religion existed before Constantine is pretty powerful, but it is absolutely true that traditional polemical Jewish sources make not even a smidgen of a hint of "Jewish Christians". It is unsubstantiated fantasy that they did exist at anytime.

What is the powerful evidence that no Jesus religion existed before Constantine?

Presently I am arguing that the Jesus story and cult was developed in the 2nd century based on the fact that manuscripts with stories of Jesus have been found and dated to the 2nd century or later.

Yes, a Jesus-orientated cult or two (or more) was/were probably starting in the 2nd century; based on what we know about texts associated with Marcionism or aligned with it ie. cults separate from and different to Marcionism.

But those cults are unlikely to have been prominent or consistent enough to be called religions.

dejuror wrote:Papyri 75 and 46 [parts of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus] have been dated to the 2nd-3rd century long before Constantine.

These may only reflect cults though, and maybe opposing cults eg. a Jewish-Messianic cult based on the gospels, and a separate Gnostic-Messianic cult based on the Pauline texts; or variations thereof.

dejuror wrote:In addition, writings attributed to Celsus c 175-180 CE, a non-apologetic source, did mention a character called Jesus and he appeared to be familiar with the stories of Jesus and Jesus cult Christians.

Writings attribute to Celsus, and quite a few others, are the result of adversarial writings - those adversarial writings may as well be literary devices to promote of favor the writers beliefs. There were so many pagan and messianic cults and issues around them in the 2nd century*. Conventional views that we know about Celsus, etc from these writings ought to be challenged.

* Roman Mithracism was developed in the 1st century and flourished until the 4th. Egyptian cults were growing in the Greco-Roman Empire through the 1st-3rd centuries..

Christianity was quite obviously more than a single cult, hence Constantine's intervention. The earliest depictions of "Christ," if one wishes to call them that, are philosophical, as a teacher. There is nothing in these alleged early Christian images about an earthly life, or death or resurrection, or anything that distinguishes them from pagan depictions of the same themes. Constantine created this new religion out of these different cults. That much is historically obvious. Christian crucifixion iconography, for example, didn't arrive until the fourth century. And crucifixion iconography is not a Christian invention.

Anyway, it cannot be proven that the text attributed to Celsus was written by a non-apologetic source, as opposed to it having been written to APPEAR to be so especially in light of what Jews may have thought about "Jesus" after the onset of the official religion. It is clear who had the original negative take on the new Christ via Toldot Yeshu, and what that implies for what is said by a mere Roman pagan.Especially since the setup allowed the new Church to offer a work to "refute" Celsus allegedly some 70 years later. In any event, it was the new regime that had the MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to set up a new system to be adopted as an official religion.

duvduv wrote:Anyway, it cannot be proven that the text attributed to Celsus was written by a non-apologetic source, as opposed to it having been written to APPEAR to be so especially in light of what Jews may have thought about "Jesus" after the onset of the official religion. It is clear who had the original negative take on the new Christ via Toldot Yeshu, and what that implies for what is said by a mere Roman pagan.Especially since the setup allowed the new Church to offer a work to "refute" Celsus allegedly some 70 years later. In any event, it was the new regime that had the MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to set up a new system to be adopted as an official religion.

Or at least a civic cult, as opposed to a mystery cult.

duvduv wrote:There is no way of determining it was written in the 2nd century, but the new 4th century regime sure did have the means, opportunity and motive to produce the new religion and a slew of apologetics thanks to good old Eusebius.

The evidence from antiquity shows that the Jesus story was manipulated and corrupted by Jesus cult Christians.

How are you going to determine what was written in the 4th century?

Are you are a paleographer?

Paleography has been used to date ancient HAND-WRITTEN texts.

C-14 is used to date BLANK pieces of material on which ancient texts were written.

Once you reject paleography then you have NO means of determining what you are attempting to argue.

Based on Paleography and archaeological findings the Jesus story and cult most likely PREDATED the 4th century.

Papyri 75 and 46 are dated to the 2nd century or later and there is archaeological evidence from the Dura-Europas Church that there was a cult of Christians BEFORE the 4th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church

In any event, there is NO known evidence that the Jesus cult of Christians existed in the 1st century before c 70 CE or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

dejuror wrote:

Owdhat wrote:May be because they wouldn't be very distinguishable from Jewish churches

Jews were worshiping a known dead man as a God in Jewish Churches??

There is no evidence at all that Jews worshiped men as Gods.

They weren't worshiping him as a god, they were Jews following his very Jewish teaching, the god bit didn't come until later, yes?

Paleography and Carbon dating are not exact sciences, and a span of 100 to 200 years makes all the difference, as does analyzing ink itself. However, what is often ignored is CONTEXT, and that needs to be considered as well.

duvduv wrote:Anyway, it cannot be proven that the text attributed to Celsus was written by a non-apologetic source, as opposed to it having been written to APPEAR to be so especially in light of what Jews may have thought about "Jesus" after the onset of the official religion. It is clear who had the original negative take on the new Christ via Toldot Yeshu, and what that implies for what is said by a mere Roman pagan.Especially since the setup allowed the new Church to offer a work to "refute" Celsus allegedly some 70 years later. In any event, it was the new regime that had the MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to set up a new system to be adopted as an official religion.

You cannot prove that Eusebius wrote "Church History" .

You cannot prove the writings attributed to Eusebius were written by an apologetic source

You cannot prove that there was a "set up" which "allowed the new Church to offer a work to "refute" Celsus allegedly some 70 years later".

There is simply no known evidence which can show that the Jesus story and cult was initiated by the Romans in the 4th century.

Owdhat wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Owdhat wrote:May be because they wouldn't be very distinguishable from Jewish churches

Jews were worshiping a known dead man as a God in Jewish Churches??

There is no evidence at all that Jews worshiped men as Gods.

They weren't worshiping him as a god, they were Jews following his very Jewish teaching, the god bit didn't come until later, yes?

What bizarre nonsense!!!

Have you forgotten about the supposed Jew called Paul??

The Pauline writer was supposed to be a CONTEMPORARY of the resurrected Jesus.

Jesus was supposed to be ALIVE when Paul and OVER 500 persons were SEEN of him.


A Pauline writer admitted his Jesus was from HEAVEN, God's OWN Son, Equal to God and was God Creator.

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

2. 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

3. Romans 8:3--- For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

4. Philippians2.5-61. ----Christ Jesus:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

5. 1 Corinthians 15:15--- Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

The Pauline Corpus has destroyed your fallacies as soon as you argue that Pauline writings are EARLY and that Paul preached about Jesus since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

The HJ argument is a farce.

Again Dejuror, you are not examining the overall historical context and limitations of certain methods where inevitable human bias cannot be eliminated.

Owdhat wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Owdhat wrote:May be because they wouldn't be very distinguishable from Jewish churches

Jews were worshiping a known dead man as a God in Jewish Churches??

There is no evidence at all that Jews worshiped men as Gods.

They weren't worshiping him as a god, they were Jews following his very Jewish teaching, the god bit didn't come until later, yes?

John 14:28, If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I... 31but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father

Jesus says here that he is not god.

iskander wrote:

Jesus says here that he is not god.

gJohn says here that Jesus was God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus says here that he and the Father are one.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

In gJohn Jesus is GOD from the beginning.

duvduv wrote:Again Dejuror, you are not examining the overall historical context and limitations of certain methods where inevitable human bias cannot be eliminated.

If human bias cannot be eliminated and there are limitations of certain methods then your own bias and other limitations will also have a negative effect on your argument.

You fail to understand that Paleography is used UNIVERSALLY to date ALL ancient writings--not just the ancient writings associated with the Church.

When an ancient writing is found it MUST first be dated by Paleography whether or not it mentions Christ or Romulus.

dejuror wrote:

iskander wrote:

Jesus says here that he is not god.

gJohn says here that Jesus was God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus says here that he and the Father are one.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

In gJohn Jesus is GOD from the beginning.

John is a late development in the Jesus saga , and John 1 is a prologue, a doctrinal declaration. An addition, a manipulation, an afterthought . It is worthless .

John 10:30 says:
25Jesus answered, ‘I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; 26but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. 29What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.* 30The Father and I are one.’

Jesus uses 'father' instead of god, Jesus is a holy man. and he says he is speaking for god, " the father and I are one"---prophets always claimed to speak for god. In our time the Pope also claims to speak for god ; that is what being infallible means

In mark 10:18 he denies he is god,
18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone

iskander wrote:
John is a late development in the Jesus saga , and John 1; is a prologue, a doctrinal declaration. An addition, a manipulation, an afterthought . It is worthless .

Why are you telling me John is a late development while you use the same late development to argue that Jesus was not God?

Your argument is void of ALL logic or reason.

Based on your statement we must reject what Suetonius wrote about the Caesars if an earlier writer did not mention them.

iskander wrote:In mark 10:18 he denies he is god,
18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone

In Mark Jesus admits he is the Son of God AFTER he transfigured and walked on water.

gMark's Jesus is some kind of God/Ghost or non-human entity.

1. Mark 3:11---- And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.

2. Mark 5:7---- And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

3. Mark 15:39--- And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

4. Mark 14----Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

dejuror wrote:

iskander wrote:
John is a late development in the Jesus saga , and John 1; is a prologue, a doctrinal declaration. An addition, a manipulation, an afterthought . It is worthless .

Why are you telling me John is a late development while you use the same late development to argue that Jesus was not God?

Your argument is void of ALL logic or reason.

Based on your statement we must reject what Suetonius wrote about the Caesars if an earlier writer did not mention them.

iskander wrote:In mark 10:18 he denies he is god,
18Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone

In Mark Jesus admits he is the Son of God AFTER he transfigured and walked on water.

gMark's Jesus is some kind of God/Ghost or non-human entity.

1. Mark 3:11---- And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.

2. Mark 5:7---- And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

3. Mark 15:39--- And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

4. Mark 14----Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

That it is a late development explains the bombastic prologue which is alien to the story
John is a late development , and yet the words attributed to Jesus clearly show that he is not claiming to be god

In the earliest gospel of Mark, Jesus makes a very positive and clear statement: he affirms that he is not god.

In 3:11 , the spirit says whatever , It is not important, because these are not the words of Jesus. 5:7, and 15:39 are for the same reason worthless.
Also, son of god, is never is used to mean that god is the father of another god in the OT , and there is no indication in the NT that the listeners understood that expression differently.

The Transfiguration
Mark 9
2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one* on earth could bleach them. 4And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings,* one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’ 6He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. 7Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved;* listen to him!’ 8Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.


In the transfiguration episode Jesus does not say he is god. In 2 kings 1 heavenly fire comes down on a mountain- top and carries Elijah to heaven. This is the model for the transfiguration story. Moses, Elijah and Jesus are together and a voice says Jesus is the last prophet -- my beloved son--and the one to speak from now on for god. Mohamed could have based his claim to be the last prophet to perfect religion on this passage : Mohamed, Jesus, Moses and only Mohamed remains to speak for god

PS. the son of man is not god

The son of God is a God in Jewish, Roman/Greek mythology.

Jesus was a Ghost/God/man in the NT.

Jesus was God of God, born of a Ghost and a Transfiguring water walker.

A transfiguring water walker is NOT human.

Jesus does not say he was born or had a human father in gMark.

.