Why are claims of church apologists deemed to be legitimate evidence of Jewish Christians when ancient writings in the Talmud and midrashim don't mention even q hint of such sects?

Mike S wrote:The writings attributed to Hegesippus are of no historical value, dejuror?

I doubt any scholar would agree with you. Every bit of information garnered goes toward solving the larger puzzle.

From Eusebius: “He also states some particulars from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and from the Syriac, and particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he himself was a convert from the Hebrews. Other matters he also records, as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews. And not only he, but Irenaeas also, and the whole body of the ancients called the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom, comprehending every virtue. Also in discoursing on the books called apocryphal, he relates that some were forged in his day, by some of the heretics.

Scholars have already argued that Jesus is a figure of mythology and all the Pauline Corpus are forgeries.

You seem to have no idea that the majority of Scholars who assume the writings attributed to Hegesippus are of historical value are in fact Christians and Fundamentalists who worship Jesus as THEIR Lord and Savior.

Visit any University with a Chapel and you will see Christian and Fundamentalists Scholars praying to THEIR Jesus Christ to get ETERNAL life and remission of Sins.

Christians and Fundamentalists MUST say Jesus Christ existed and that "history" of Jesus and the Jesus cult is TRUE.

Again, you seem to have no idea that writings attributed to Irenaeus are established sources of fiction, forgery, false attribution, historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions and events which did not and could not have happened.

In Against Heresies 2.22 attributed to Irenaeus it is claimed Jesus was crucified as an Old man at least 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius.

The argument that Jesus was crucified no earlier than c 49-50 CE in "Against Heresies" destroys "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

How in the world can a writing which claims or implies Jesus was crucified around c 49-50 CE be a credible historical source for the "history" of the Jesus cult of Christians?

It is clear that writings attributed to Eusebius and Irenaus are contradictory and established sources of myth/fiction.

Mike S wrote:Peter Kirby has a fine piece on Hegesippus, called Chasing Hegesippus:

http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html

If you actually read what Peter Kirby wrote then you would have not have said it was a "fine piece on Hegesippus".

Nothing about Hegesippus is corroborated by any accepted historical sources of antiquity.

Peter Kirby relied on known established sources of mythology and fiction for the history of Hegesippus.

dejuror wrote:There is no evidence of Jewish Christians who worshiped a character called Jesus Christ as their Lord, Savior and Messiah?

Mike S wrote:Even though you’re obviously shifting the goal posts away from the unsubstantiated claim that Christianity was created after the year 70 by way of the fiction that the Jews killed Jesus, I doubt there’s a member here who’s not aware that even if your grand assertions are disproved a dozen or more times, and more categorically than two plus two making four, you’ll still simply repeat them again at the first opportunity, each time with some new semantic twists of course.

You claimed there were Jewish Christians but cannot present a single accepted historical source of antiquity who mentioned that Jews worshiped a character called Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.



I ACTUALLY presented the writings of ANTIQUITY which claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus.

1. Acts of the Apostles---the Jews Killed Jesus.

2. The Pauline Corpus -- the Jews Killed Jesus.

3. Writings attributed to Aristides---the Jews Killed Jesus.

4. Writings attributed to Justin Martyr---the Jews Killed Jesus.

5. Writings attributed to Irenaeus ---the Jews Killed Jesus.

6. Writings attributed to Tertullian ---the Jews Killed Jesus.

7. Writings attributed to Origen---the Jews Killed Jesus.

8. Writings attributed to Lactantius---the Jews Killed Jesus.

9. Writings attributed to Hippolytus---the Jews Killed Jesus.

10. Writings attributed to Chrysostom---the Jews Killed Jesus.

Christian writings for hundreds of years do state the Jews KILLED Jesus.

ALL Writings about Jesus called the Christ are FROM the 2nd century or later or AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70.

ALL writings which mention the Ebionites are FROM the 2nd century or later or AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70.

ALL existing evidence support my argument that the Jesus story and cult started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and NO earlier than the 2nd century.

Mike S wrote:You’ve yourself in the past called on Bart Erhman in support of various claims, so who better for me to quote

I have made references to writings of Bart Ehrman in order to show that his arguments for an HJ of Nazareth are logically fallacious.

Bart Ehrman openly contradicts his own findings.

Bart Ehrman admits publicly that the NT is riddled with historical problems, contradictions, discrepancies, forgeries or false attribution but still claim the NT is one of the best attested books of the ancient world.

dejuror wrote:The Jews are still waiting for the advent of their prophesied CHRIST [Messiah] up to this very day?

Mike S wrote:I admire their patience.

The Jews are evidence that the writings about Jesus the Christ attributed to Hegesippus have NO historical value.

Jesus the Christ and the disciples in writings attributed to Hegesippus NEVER had any real existence.

The author under the name Hegesippus could NOT have been a witness to actual Apostles of Jesus the Christ in the 1st century.

The writings of Philo, Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls do not corroborate a single thing about Hegesippus, Jesus Christ and the disciples.

Hegesippus is an UNKNOWN uncorroborated fiction writer.

Why again mention the same ten ‘the Jews Killed Jesus’ references/names, dejuror?

The citations signify little, as abundantly explained previously - non sequitur. And insofar Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Hippolytus, and Chrysostom were all acquainted with the canonical gospels, what else would you expect but for them to subscribe to sentiments already expressed therein.

All writings about Jesus originated after 70 AD?

The Early Christian Writings Site readily shows that isn’t true. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140, whereas Paul’s epistles are said to hail from 50 to 65, and of course there are many more writings with starting dates before 70.

Writings of this nature, subject as they are to a process of constant revision/recension, also aren’t usually contrived from scratch. Amusing how most scholars pick 50 AD as the earliest date, apparently on some unquestioning assumption that the canonical gospels similarly came into being around then: mustn’t contradict or interfere with that!

Alas, you’ve yet to present evidence “that the Jesus story and cult started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and NO earlier than the 2nd century.”


You now mention problems to do with Irenaeus’ writings. Please exemplify some of the worst ones for us, other than the age discrepancy one discussed following. I presume that by the same token (whatever that might be), you feel likewise about the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, if not also Origen, Lantantius, Hippolytus, and Chrysostom?

In Against Heresies 2.22 attributed to Irenaeus it is claimed Jesus was crucified as an Old man at least 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius?

I don’t know; does fifty years qualify as ‘old man’?

The canonical gospels abound in contradictions, as we all know: the synoptic gospels suggest that Jesus’ ministry lasted but one year, all of it in or near Galilee. Yet, in the Gospel of John it lasted much longer, at least for three or four passovers, with much time passed in Judea and Jerusalem. Irenaeus - the first writer to mention the four gospels, selection of which most likely wasn’t agreed upon till some years later – worsening the confusion, asserts that the ministry lasted about twenty years.

Irenaeus’ argument, in the main predicated on John. 8. 56, 57, isn’t as idiotic as it might seem: “Thou art not yet forty years old.”

“It is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and he whom they beheld, was not a mere phantom, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and in accordance with that fact, they said to him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?’”

Note too the literalization: ‘an actual being of flesh and blood’.

The argument that Jesus was crucified no earlier than c 49-50 CE in "Against Heresies" destroys "Church History" attributed to Eusebius?

Not at all - We can’t have Jesus crucified later than 36 AD, the year Pontius Pilate was removed from his office and in lieu of five extant gospels (not to ignore Tacitus) telling us that Jesus’ death occurred under his administration. Just a matter of altering Jesus’ date of birth.


Scholars have already argued that Jesus is a figure of mythology and all of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries?

Scholars pursue innumerable arguments (preferably some novel one that will sell books?)

You’ll explain to us in what way Paul’s letters are forgeries, and as to who did the forging?


Peter Kirby relied on known established sources of mythology and fiction for the history of Hegesippus?

Eusebius never existed? Mere fiction? – The same for Jerome?

The significance of Hegesippus, where I’m concerned anyway, resides in the fact that he only spoke of the Gospel of the Hebrews, and was completely silent concerning the four canonical gospels. Hegesippus’ history may well have been written as late as 185 AD, after Eleutherus’ accession, Bishop of Rome. In other words, during the very infancy of our four gospels, productions which lacked any real traction for another couple of decades.

We’re only going around in circles – time to move on to some other topic.

Why not check out Part 5/21 of Jewish Believers in Jesus, duvduv.

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/jewbelje.pdf

Mike S wrote:Why again mention the same ten ‘the Jews Killed Jesus’ references/names, dejuror?

Why have you mentioned Hegesippus?

Mike S wrote:
The citations signify little, as abundantly explained previously - non sequitur. And insofar Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Hippolytus, and Chrysostom were all acquainted with the canonical gospels, what else would you expect but for them to subscribe to sentiments already expressed therein.

Your citations from supposed writings of Hegesippus signify little as previously explained.

Hegesippus is acquainted with the Canonical Gospels.

Mike S wrote:All writings about Jesus originated after 70 AD?

The Early Christian Writings Site readily shows that isn’t true. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140, whereas Paul’s epistles are said to hail from 50 to 65, and of course there are many more writings with starting dates before 70.

The Early Christian writings site isn't true. Those dates are ASSUMPTIONS. There are no ACTUAL manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus dated to 50-65 CE.

Which manuscript of the Pauline Corpus is dated to c 50-65 CE?

There is no claim in the NT that any writing was composed c 50-65 CE.

It is virtually impossible to date any manuscript by Paleography or C-14 within a 15 year range C 50-65 CE.

The Early Christian writings site is basically worthless as a credible source for the dating writings of antiquity.

The earliest existing manuscripts of stories of Jesus are dated NO earlier than the 2nd century.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Mike S wrote:Alas, you’ve yet to present evidence “that the Jesus story and cult started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and NO earlier than the 2nd century.”

Your statement is simply fallacious.

You are yet to present a manuscript with stories of Jesus dated before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

I HAVE ALREADY presented at least 10 writings of antiquity which claimed the Jews Killed Jesus and ALL those claims are found in writings dated to the 2nd century or later.

There is no existing manuscript with stories of Jesus BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.


[quote"'Mike S"] You now mention problems to do with Irenaeus’ writings. Please exemplify some of the worst ones for us, other than the age discrepancy one discussed following. I presume that by the same token (whatever that might be), you feel likewise about the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, if not also Origen, Lantantius, Hippolytus, and Chrysostom? [/QUOTE]

Why didn't you mention the problems with Hegesippus?

You seem not to have realised that "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus destroyed the claims in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus and that letters were written c 50-65 CE.

If Jesus was crucified c 49-50 CE then Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus cannot be historical.

Irenaeus was supposed to be a presbyter and bishop of the Church.

Mike S wrote:In Against Heresies 2.22 attributed to Irenaeus it is claimed Jesus was crucified as an Old man at least 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius?

I don’t know; does fifty years qualify as ‘old man’?

You seem to have little knowledge of "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Irenaeus, a presbyter and Bishop of the Church ARGUED that Jesus was CRUCIFIED at least 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius.

See Against Heresies 2.22.

Mike S wrote:The canonical gospels abound in contradictions, as we all know: the synoptic gospels suggest that Jesus’ ministry lasted but one year, all of it in or near Galilee. Yet, in the Gospel of John it lasted much longer, at least for three or four passovers, with much time passed in Judea and Jerusalem. Irenaeus - the first writer to mention the four gospels, selection of which most likely wasn’t agreed upon till some years later – worsening the confusion, asserts that the ministry lasted about twenty years.

There are no manuscripts of the Jesus story dated BEFORE c 70 CE regardless of the contradictions and confusion.

You cannot and will NEVER EVER find any actual manuscript with stories of Jesus from Nazareth dated before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Mike S wrote:The significance of Hegesippus, where I’m concerned anyway, resides in the fact that he only spoke of the Gospel of the Hebrews, and was completely silent concerning the four canonical gospels. Hegesippus’ history may well have been written as late as 185 AD, after Eleutherus’ accession, Bishop of Rome. In other words, during the very infancy of our four gospels, productions which lacked any real traction for another couple of decades.

We’re only going around in circles – time to move on to some other topic.

You are ONLY going around in circles.

You cannot and will NEVER present any actual manuscript with stories of Jesus dated BEFORE c 70 CE.

The Jesus story and cult was initiated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

People who believed the TEMPLE FELL because the Jews KILLED the CHRIST were called Christians.

Mike S wrote:All writings about Jesus originated after 70 AD?

The Early Christian Writings Site readily shows that isn’t true. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140, whereas Paul’s epistles are said to hail from 50 to 65, and of course there are many more writings with starting dates before 70.

This is simply repeating the dogma of the Biblical Historians as if it were true. The CW site has simply gathered together all the dogma of Biblical Scholarship. And if you don't like the term dogma, feel free to replace it with the term hypotheses. But please don't confuse it with the term "historical truth".

Please provide the evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140 CE.

Alas, you’ve yet to present evidence “that the Jesus story and cult started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and NO earlier than the 2nd century.”

Alas you have yet to present evidence of some category that the Jesus story and cult is any earlier.

You now mention problems to do with Irenaeus’ writings. Please exemplify some of the worst ones for us, other than the age discrepancy one discussed following.

Please feel free to make a comment on the subject here:
Was Irenaeus fabricated in the 4th century?
What are the Greek and Latin sources and how old are they?
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 49723.html

You’ll explain to us in what way Paul’s letters are forgeries, and as to who did the forging?

And you will explain to us in what way just some of Paul's letters are to be accepted as genuine while others have been rejected as not written by Paul. And while you are at it, perhaps you could cite evidence outside the biblical sources that support the historicity of Paul.

The significance of Hegesippus, where I’m concerned anyway, resides in the fact that he only spoke of the Gospel of the Hebrews, and was completely silent concerning the four canonical gospels.

A problem of significance is that a manuscript of the Gospel of the Hebrews, like Q, has never been discovered.

Hegesippus’ history may well have been written as late as 185 AD, after Eleutherus’ accession, Bishop of Rome.

Do you really have any reliance upon the Lists of Bishops furnished by Eusebius when there is no archaeology for any Christian churches? Are you one of the IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST analysts?

"One kind of account in pagan historiography Pagan historiography could help Eusebius
considerably. That was the history of philosophical schools - such as we find in
Diogenes Laertius.

****
(1) the idea of succession was equally important in philosophical schools and
and in Eusebius' notion of Christianity. The bishops were the diadochoi
of the Apostles, just as the scholarchai were the diadochoi of
Plato, Zeno, and Epicurus.

(2) Like any philosophical school, Christianity
had its orthodoxy and its deviationists.

(3) Historians of philosophy in Greece used antiquarian methods and quoted documents
much more frequently and thoroughly than than their colleagues, the political historians.

The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano
Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)
Volume Fifty-Four
University of California Press, 1990

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus has utterly reduced the entire NT Canon to historical garbage.

The Church in the time of the supposed Irenaeus [a presbyter and bishop] TAUGHT that Jesus was crucified when he was an OLD man at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

The supposed Irenaeus did NOT rely only on the so-called Gospel of John but claimed it was the other Apostles themselves who told the elders of Asia the very same thing that Jesus died when he was an Old man.

Against Heresies 2.22

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.

Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.

There could not have been any established historical data for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is evidence that Christian writings about Jesus and Paul are monstrous fables.

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus has utterly reduced the entire NT Canon to historical garbage, dejuror?

Whoever suggested that the NT represented historical truth?

Concerning Jesus’ age etc, you’re right in saying that Irenaeus didn’t only rely on the Gospel of John - which is why I previously said ‘in the main’ - but relies also on the testimony of 'all the elders in Asia', who are supposed to have known John (and some the other apostles as well).

By the way, despite you disparaging comments to the contrary, we do have some extant fragments of Against Heresies dated at 250 AD:

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 (P. Oxy. 405 or P. Oxy. III 405) is a fragment from a copy ca. 200 AD [1] of Irenaeus' work Against Heresies, composed in AD 180. It includes a quote from Matthew 3:16-17, and was the earliest witness to the text of the New Testament when it was discovered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POxy_405


And, again contrary to claims you made earlier, we do have some extant material for the Gospel of the Hebrews:

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011 ... us-papyri/


I asked you to exemplify some of the many problems you have concerning Irenaeus writings, only for you to carry on some more about Jesus’ age, or Hegesippus.

I originally only raised Hegesippus in connection with the Ebionites, and only in a minor way at that. It’s you only who’s since blown his importance, merely as a means of avoiding answering questions, out of all proportion.

And now we see Pete Brown, another poster keen to exploit for whatever reasons, and however ludicrously, the many gaps in our knowledge about Christianity’s early years, jump in to offer his fine support!


Ah, of course, what else, shoot the messenger: “the Early Christian Site shows it isn’t true. Those dates are ASSUMPTIONS. There are no ACTUAL manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus dated to 50-65 CE.”

And, so, because we don’t have any ‘actual’ Paul manuscripts, presumably original and complete ones, because we do, surprisingly enough, have a number of extant third century fragments, you, in some surreal, self-serving fashion, right alongside buddy Pete apparently, have decided that all the scholarly dating work to date, centuries worth in fact, including that naturally demonstrated on the Early Christian Writings Site, is simply meaningless, of no account.

I’m surprised you’d insult my intelligence and that of every reader in such a blatant way, as well as that of every bona fide historian laboring under the delusion that one used every bit of available information at one’s disposal, including such as a manuscript might provide internally.


The earliest existing manuscripts of stories of Jesus are dated NO earlier than the 2nd century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 57)


Sorry, dejuror, I’m leaving it there. Our exchange, or heap of excruciatingly repetitive, non sequitur rubbish rather, doesn’t even begin to resemble a rational debate and I refuse to waste more time.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Mike S wrote:All writings about Jesus originated after 70 AD?

The Early Christian Writings Site readily shows that isn’t true. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140, whereas Paul’s epistles are said to hail from 50 to 65, and of course there are many more writings with starting dates before 70.

This is simply repeating the dogma of the Biblical Historians as if it were true. The CW site has simply gathered together all the dogma of Biblical Scholarship. And if you don't like the term dogma, feel free to replace it with the term hypotheses. But please don't confuse it with the term "historical truth".

Please provide the evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140 CE.

Alas, you’ve yet to present evidence “that the Jesus story and cult started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and NO earlier than the 2nd century.”

Alas you have yet to present evidence of some category that the Jesus story and cult is any earlier.

You now mention problems to do with Irenaeus’ writings. Please exemplify some of the worst ones for us, other than the age discrepancy one discussed following.

Please feel free to make a comment on the subject here:
Was Irenaeus fabricated in the 4th century?
What are the Greek and Latin sources and how old are they?
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 49723.html

You’ll explain to us in what way Paul’s letters are forgeries, and as to who did the forging?

And you will explain to us in what way just some of Paul's letters are to be accepted as genuine while others have been rejected as not written by Paul. And while you are at it, perhaps you could cite evidence outside the biblical sources that support the historicity of Paul.

The significance of Hegesippus, where I’m concerned anyway, resides in the fact that he only spoke of the Gospel of the Hebrews, and was completely silent concerning the four canonical gospels.

A problem of significance is that a manuscript of the Gospel of the Hebrews, like Q, has never been discovered.

Hegesippus’ history may well have been written as late as 185 AD, after Eleutherus’ accession, Bishop of Rome.

Do you really have any reliance upon the Lists of Bishops furnished by Eusebius when there is no archaeology for any Christian churches? Are you one of the IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST analysts?

"One kind of account in pagan historiography Pagan historiography could help Eusebius
considerably. That was the history of philosophical schools - such as we find in
Diogenes Laertius.

****
(1) the idea of succession was equally important in philosophical schools and
and in Eusebius' notion of Christianity. The bishops were the diadochoi
of the Apostles, just as the scholarchai were the diadochoi of
Plato, Zeno, and Epicurus.

(2) Like any philosophical school, Christianity
had its orthodoxy and its deviationists.

(3) Historians of philosophy in Greece used antiquarian methods and quoted documents
much more frequently and thoroughly than than their colleagues, the political historians.

The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano
Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)
Volume Fifty-Four
University of California Press, 1990

Please substantiate your assertion that the Early Christian Writers Site, “has simply gathered together all the dogma of Biblical Scholarship.”

Provide ‘evidence’ that the Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140 CE?

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

If you disagree with the analysis/evidence presented, internally derived or otherwise, please present your own reasoning/substantiation accordingly.

I’ve yet to present evidence that the Jesus story/cult began prior to 70 AD?

It was dejuror who first claimed that the tale began subsequent to that date. I may have offered some evidence to the contrary, but the onus primarily remains with him - a handful of quotes about Jews killing Jesus doesn’t even begin to cut it.

You ask whether Irenaeus was fabricated in the fourth century?

Irenaeus, seemingly first raised by dejuror as mere distraction, is merely one of a number of early fathers. What, in your opinion, is his particular relevance to what’s being discussed here?

Paul’s epistles were first raised by dejuror. Nor do I need you to explain to me the situation in respect of writings travelling under that rubric, particularly since I’ve for some years now studied in some depth the nature of their creation/provenance.

Do I place reliance upon the Lists of Bishops furnished by Eusebius, when there is no archaeology for any Christian churches? Am I one of the IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST analysts?

Again, please explain how these questions are relevant to what’s being discussed.

How does it go? - Someone mentions the name Hegesippus: you instantly rush into Internet search mode: discover inter alia that he’s supposed to have provided Eusebius with some list of bishops: and bingo, why not dump something to that effect indiscriminately into your post. I explained only days ago that Eusebius’ assertions must be handled with great care.

Mike S wrote:And, so, because we don’t have any ‘actual’ Paul manuscripts, presumably original and complete ones, because we do, surprisingly enough, have a number of extant third century fragments, you, in some surreal, self-serving fashion, right alongside buddy Pete apparently, have decided that all the scholarly dating work to date, centuries worth in fact, including that naturally demonstrated on the Early Christian Writings Site, is simply meaningless, of no account.

Centuries worth of "scholarly dating work"? Between the 4th and 17th century the scholars may have been mindful of the heresy laws and between the 17th and the 19th century the blasphemy laws which protected the church organisation from even the smallest amounts of rational scepticism. At the very beginning of all this scholarship stands our dear "Eusebius".

"Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself the merit of
having invented ecclesiastical history. This merit cannot be disputed.

I’m surprised you’d insult my intelligence and that of every reader in such a blatant way, as well as that of every bona fide historian laboring under the delusion that one used every bit of available information at one’s disposal, including such as a manuscript might provide internally.

One of the core criteria of the historical method is that any given manuscript may be forged or corrupt. An author writing a fictional account might provide a great deal of internal evidence about a fictional character. Have a look at the "Historia Augusta" dedicated to, among others, Constantine. The "HA" is a mockumentary. The evaluation of the integrity of the "analysis of the internal evidence" is generally that it is unreliable as an historical source.

Also, for example Thomas Brodie writes that Jesus and Paul were not historical figures because the NT writings may be economically explained as the products of a literary school which data-mined the Greek LXX for substance of the Greek NT.

Finally, every bona fide historian misrepresents the dichotomy between ancient historians and Biblical historians. They are two different breeds, and do not employ the same standards of evidence or methods. The Biblical Historians live often INSIDE an industry. Momigliano refers to them as the "insiders" and to the ancient historians as the "outsiders".

Do you reject the proposition that the Christian church, since its political appearance 325 CE and until this very day, may be analysed as an organisation managing a (now lost) monopoly on the belief business, and as such as industry? This church industry may be suffering from confirmation bias.

Surely its findings, dogma and hypotheses (as represented at ECW) are amenable to questioning.

Please stop proselytizing, or parading wordy either well-known or self-evident wisdom.

One would almost think that you’re the first person in the world to discover that Eusebius might at times have been less than honest - absurd! Scholars have had to deal with it since the early eighteenth century.

If you feel that strongly about it, start a new thread, offer up concrete examples.

Do I “reject the proposition that the Christian church, since its political appearance 325 CE and until this very day, may be analysed as an organisation managing a (now lost) monopoly on the belief business, and as such as industry? This church industry may be suffering from confirmation bias.”

The Church became a political animal way before 325. Start a new thread!

Mike S wrote:

And, so, because we don’t have any ‘actual’ Paul manuscripts, presumably original and complete ones, because we do, surprisingly enough, have a number of extant third century fragments, you, in some surreal, self-serving fashion, right alongside buddy Pete apparently, have decided that all the scholarly dating work to date, centuries worth in fact, including that naturally demonstrated on the Early Christian Writings Site, is simply meaningless, of no account.

And that ridiculous kind of attitude, Mike S, sums up the sort of worthless tendentious woo that I've found in 99.9% of all the mythers I've encountered so far. That is why such virtual dishonesty has finally left me with no patience at all for the blatant myther fraud being practiced on the Internet public.

I'm surprised, Mike S, after seeing the tactics of DeJuror for what they are, that it hasn't already occurred to you that this sort of dishonesty cannot be decoupled from the entire myther racket throughout the web. These kinds of "methods" are merely taken to their logical -- or illogical -- conclusion by posters like DeJuror. You see them more blatantly when practiced by a DeJuror type, yes. But there are still unscrupulous and misleading tactics being adopted less blatantly by other mythers throughout the web. The more you read up on the professional scholarship, the more you'll see that swallowing any of the mythers' ignorant anachronistic woo just makes one a sucker. The myther game is hooey, their whole party line.

Some day you'll see that -- as I eventually did, and as rJD (an early poster in this thread) eventually did during the now lost exchanges on the old Richard Dawkins forum.

Stein

Stein wrote:
And that ridiculous kind of attitude, Mike S, sums up the sort of worthless tendentious woo that I've found in 99.9% of all the mythers I've encountered so far.

lol ... such generalization ... and hypocrisy.

Stein wrote: ... such virtual dishonesty has finally left me with no patience at all for the blatant myther fraud being practiced on the Internet public.

lol ... more generalization ...

Stein wrote: ... after seeing the tactics of DeJuror for what they are, that it hasn't already occurred to you that this sort of dishonesty cannot be decoupled from the entire myther racket throughout the web. These kinds of "methods" are merely taken to their logical -- or illogical -- conclusion by posters like DeJuror. You see them more blatantly when practiced by a DeJuror type, yes. But there are still unscrupulous and misleading tactics being adopted less blatantly by other mythers throughout the web.

more lol ---

Stein wrote:
The more you read up on the professional scholarship, the more you'll see that swallowing any of the mythers' ignorant anachronistic woo just makes one a sucker. The myther game is hooey, their whole party line.

The woo is in the theologically wrapped narratives.

Mike S wrote:The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus has utterly reduced the entire NT Canon to historical garbage, dejuror?

Whoever suggested that the NT represented historical truth?

You imply that the NT represents historical truth when you claimed there were EARLY JEWISH CHRISTIANS.

You imply that the NT represents historical truth when you make references to "authentic" Pauline letters as being composed c 50-65 CE.

The Entire NT represents historical garbage with respect to the supposed Jesus Christ , the disciples/apostles including Paul and James and early Jewish Christians.

All accepted historical sources of antiquity have not acknowledge a single Jew who worshiped a character called Jesus of Nazareth as THEIR LORD and SAVIOR for Remission of Sins.

The Entire NT is BLASPHEMY to the Jews.

There is NO history or tradition of Jews to worship MEN as Gods.

It is documented in accepted historical sources that the JEWS had a mental concept of God.


Tacitus' Histories 5

the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.

call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.

They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay

They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples.

Up to the writings of Tacitus' Histories' c115 CE there was no such thing as a Jewish Christian.

Up to the writings of Tacitus' Histories c 115 CE the Jewish CHRIST had not yet come.

I don’t want to disappoint, friend Stein, but I’m alas very much one of the heathen disbelievers. Still, the best lies are those of omission, and I’ve seen a fair few of those of late.

The historian’s problem, Stein, lies in the fact that none of the most reliable sources of information, right up to the year 325 in fact, speaking here of those writings and commentaries especially written in connection with the gospels and church history etc, have been allowed to see the light of future ages, having been either lost or intentionally destroyed – a situation which obviously opens the door to all sorts of unsatisfactory theories.

The second century alone saw more than fifty such books, by more than twenty authors, including include among others the Commentaries of Basilides, the Apologies of Quadratus and Aristides, the writings of Valentinus, the period’s best known gnostic theologian, most of Justin Martyr’s, those of Marcion, except such as found in the references/citations of his adversaries, those of Papias, Peregrinus, Montanus, Tatian, Dionysius of Corinth, Marcus and Apelles, another Gnostic leader, and so forth. Most of these works simply shared the common fate of second century heretic writings, none of which, not in their original form anyway, have been allowed to come down to us.

Hegesippus for example, said to be the church's first chronicler, is supposed to have written, “in five books, the plain tradition of the apostolic doctrine, in a most simple style of composition…”

It’s clear that Eusebius, the next historian a 140 odd years later, possessed a copy of Hegesippus’ history, yet he was careful to pass on no more but a few minor items of comparatively little historical value; nothing of importance about the history of the progress of the church, the prevailing doctrines, about the Jewish versus Gentile Christians controversies, or of the history of gospels and NT books which Hegesippus found in circulation.

Mike S wrote:?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 57)


Sorry, dejuror, I’m leaving it there. Our exchange, or heap of excruciatingly repetitive, non sequitur rubbish rather, doesn’t even begin to resemble a rational debate and I refuse to waste more time.

You must leave with your "heap of excruciatingly repetitive, non sequitur rubbish". You REPEAT christian CLAIMS as historical truth.

Consensus is worthless as evidence.

You can NEVER EVER identify the manuscripts with letters under the name of Paul dated c 50-57 CE.

Papyri 46 is the earliest existing manuscripts and the letters are dated by Paleography to the 2nd century or later.

Your Pauline letters dated c 50-57 CE are IMAGINARY have have never ever been found anywhere.

Early Pauline writings are products of Chinese Whispers and the myth/fiction writing called Acts of the Apostles.

Mike S wrote:.......Hegesippus for example, said to be the church's first chronicler, is supposed to have written, “in five books, the plain tradition of the apostolic doctrine, in a most simple style of composition…”

It’s clear that Eusebius, the next historian a 140 odd years later, possessed a copy of Hegesippus’ history, yet he was careful to pass on no more but a few minor items of comparatively little historical value; nothing of importance about the history of the progress of the church, the prevailing doctrines, about the Jewish versus Gentile Christians controversies, or of the history of gospels and NT books which Hegesippus found in circulation.

Mike S wrote:
Whoever suggested that the NT represented historical truth?

Incredibly, Mike S cannot remember whoever suggested that the NT represented historical truth.

RealityRules wrote:

Stein wrote: ... such virtual dishonesty has finally left me with no patience at all for the blatant myther fraud being practiced on the Internet public.

lol ... more generalization ...

Stein appears concerned over the " the blatant myther fraud being practiced on the Internet public" and yet appears unconcerned over the blatant historical fraud being practiced on the public by the Church Industry for more than sixteen centuries.

When will Stein (and others) acknowledge the fraud, dishonesty and utterly corrupt history of the church industry?

dejuror wrote:

Consensus is worthless as evidence.

Tell that to those on the inside of the HJ consensus. The Pope and the Biblical Historians have an "Insider Consensus" about the HJ. In the past they have used heresy and blasphemy laws to protect this consensus (and their "HJ Belief Industry"). Alas the good old days are gone. People can now laugh at the concept of Jesus and the HJ and no longer be imprisoned and/or executed. People can consider the Myth argument without being considered "Holocaust Deniers" or "Blatant Frauds". Oh wait. We're not quite there. Yet.

My argument is based directly on the EXISTING manuscripts.

The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult was initiated in the 2nd century.

Christian writers of antiquity have claimed their Jesus story predated the so-called heretics and introduced forgeries or falsely atrributed writings.

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus put forward the notion that the Jesus of Nazareth story and cult was in existence since the time of Pilate but FORGOT that the very same writing was also claiming or implying Jesus was crucified c 49-50 CE.

In addition, the claims in "Against Heresies" have been REJECTED.

1. The claim in "Against Heresies" that the Gospels were composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John has been REJECTED by Scholars.

2. The claim in "Against Heresies" that a SINGLE person alone composed all the letters in the Pauline Corpus has been REJECTED by Scholars.

3. The argument in "Against Heresies" that Jesus was crucified when he was an Old man c 49-50 CE has been REJECTED by Christians.

"Against Heresies" is evidence that Christian writers FABRICATED forgeries or falsely attributed Gospels and letters to Churches in order to argue that THEIR Jesus of Nazareth story was known and composed since the time of Pilate or before the time of Nero.

The forgeries and false attribution in "Against Heresies" have been EXPOSED.

Christian writers of antiquity were FORCED to INVENT their BOGUS history of THEIR Jesus and cult because there NEVER EVER was any Jesus story and cult BEFORE the so-called HERETICS.

The so-called HERETICS PREDATED the Jesus story and cult.

1. The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult had NO existence in the writings attributed to Philo.

2. The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult had NO existence in the Dead Sea Scroll

3. The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult had NO existence up to the writings attributed to Josephus.

4. The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult had NO existence up to the writings attributed to Pliny the Elder.

5. The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult had NO existence up to the writings attributed to Tacitus.

6. The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult had NO existence up to the writings attributed to Suetonius.

7. The Jesus of Nazareth story and cult had NO existence up to the writings attributed to Pliny the younger.

8. Christians writers of antiquity used the very same REJECTED forgeries and false attribution found in "Against Heresies".

9. Christian writers of antiquity put forward a most RIDICULOUS falsehood that THEIR Jesus was BORN of a Ghost since the time of King Herod.

10. Christian writers of antiquity put forward another LIE that THEIR Jesus was GOD Creator from the beginning.

The ENTIRE Jesus of Nazareth story and cult in the NT is historically bogus and ALWAYS was.

All writings about Jesus of Nazareth and cult are FOUND ONLY in the myth/fiction fables of Christian manuscripts and Codices dated NO earlier than the 2nd century.