No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

If that is what you believe, then the mythical aspect of his early life would also include a mythical hometown called Nazareth. Surprise! There is no evidence that such a place did exist.:biglaugh:

... and a Nazorean Essene sect did exist on Mt. Carmel? And Jesus was there too?

It's like someone is just taking random words and trying to make a sentence in an attempt to offer a sensationalist re-writing of history.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's so adorable when someone tries to be a positivist but doesn't know how.

 

[fallingblood]

yet nothing points to pre 70ce

The story of Jesus points to pre 70 C.E.

well its my understanding they didnt have a clue where he was from and yeshua has zero historicity before he was known to be a traveling teacher. Why did they create the theology and that exact story that surrounds him, who knows.

but many things are attributed to him that just are not correct and or mistaken and theres proof for that in contradicting scripture. So if there was a real story that had historicity but that book didnt make the cut and was lost, we will never know the truth, will we?

Since his story grew after his death, there is no way to know if nazereth grew with the rest of the content.

Actually, one can be fairly certain what are the earliest parts of the Jesus story. Let's assume for a second that no one really had a clue where Jesus was from. Where is the most logical place to put as his hometown then? Bethlehem. That is where the Messiah was expected to come from. Why put Jesus in some hamlet that no one knows about? The only logical reason is because that is where he was from.

When we see the Gospels agreeing on something like this, Jesus being raised in Nazareth, much more credibility. One of the reasons is because it was seen as problem some to early Christians. Matthew and Luke both jump through hoops in order to get Jesus to Bethlehem to be born. Matthew even puts Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem. John tells us that the opposition to Jesus attacked Jesus because he was from Nazareth, and not the expected Bethlehem. John then has to defend that. More so, John also tells us that there was doubt about Jesus as supposedly, nothing good could come from Nazareth. It definitely was not the type of town one would place the Messiah if they had a choice.

Simply, if Nazareth didn't exist, Jesus would not have been placed there. If people didn't know where Jesus was from, they would not have placed him there. The most logical place for his upbringing, if people were just making it up, was Bethlehem. There would be no reason to put him in Nazareth, especially when it is so problem some.

thast a good point

But

if they didnt know but some joe blow heard thast where he was from, they may have ran with it.

Why though? If we assume for a second that Nazareth did not exist, the earliest Christians then would have naturally thought he was born and raised somewhere else. The most likely candidate is Bethlehem, where the Messiah was expected to come from. This idea was so strong that Luke and Matthew jump through hoops just to make it so, and John defends the notion that Jesus was not born there.

Now why would the earliest Christians, on the notion of Joe Blow here, change their minds and put Jesus being born in some hamlet of a place, that causes multiple problems? If the city did not exist until later on, how would they even come up with the idea? Because naturally, the story of Jesus would have spread, and his birth place would have been mentioned a little. And if it was going to be made up, it definitely would not have been placed in Nazareth. It most likely would have been in Bethlehem.

And really, we do have pre-70 C.E. evidence for Nazareth. Mark, who was writing in 70 C.E., or maybe even sooner, states that Jesus was from Nazareth as well. It is highly unlikely that Mark would have created such a story, as it serves him no purpose.

i dont think they were interested in to many facts or the different books might not contradict each other so much. That would have been saved for the ascention, walking on water ect ect ect.

The thing is though, different books have a tendency to contradict each other since perspectives are different. I have read many biographies on Harry Houdini, and I can't tell you how many contradictions are even in those accounts. It is no surprise to see contradictions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is no surprise to see contradictions.

In fact, if there were no contradictions, its historicity would be even more doubtful because it would have all come from a single source.

The contradictions allow the historical data to be compared and analyzed.

 

[Tellurian]

fb

The story of Jesus points to pre 70 C.E.

The gospel story timelines use the early first century because that was a time when John the Baptist existed (whose existence is verified by the works of Flavius Josephus), and it was a time of many miracle workers and alleged messiahs who existed across Palestine, and it was a time when the Roman soldier Pantera was stationed in the area before he and his legion were transferred to Gaul.

Actually, one can be fairly certain what are the earliest parts of the Jesus story. Let's assume for a second that no one really had a clue where Jesus was from. Where is the most logical place to put as his hometown then? Bethlehem. That is where the Messiah was expected to come from. Why put Jesus in some hamlet that no one knows about? The only logical reason is because that is where he was from.

The problem originated with the term Notzri. Some people were not sure whether it meant the Jesus character was supposed to be a Nazorean or a Nazarene. Those who rejected both those interpretations decided it meant he came from Nazareth, but since the gospel stories were being written in the mid to late second century the writers did not realize that the village of Nazareth had not existed in the early first century when the Jesus character they were created was supposed to have existed. Their Jesus character could not have been identified as coming from Bethlehem because he was based on the Isu Chrestos character in Marcion's Euangelion who had supposedly done his teaching if the area of the Galilee.

When we see the Gospels agreeing on something like this, Jesus being raised in Nazareth, much more credibility.

The gospels only "agree" on that because the gospel stories began with the Euangelion of 140 CE, which was modified and changed into the gospel called Luke, and then the gospels of Mark and Matthew were basically just copies of Luke, and later Irenaeus wrote the gospel called John to try to "correct" some of the misrepresentations in the previous gospels.

Matthew and Luke both jump through hoops in order to get Jesus to Bethlehem to be born. Matthew even puts Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem.

The story of him being born in Bethlehem was created in order to make it look like he was fulfilling OT prophesies. The Jews of Judea had rejected the Isu Chrestos character and this was one way of making it look like he was supposedly one of them. The birth story also made the Isu Chrestos character appear to be more human and less of a phantom character. Many of the other parts of the biblical Jesus story were created to make it look like he had fulfilled many prophesies and in that way make him look more legitimate than many of the other alleged "messiahs" and miracle workers of the first century.

And really, we do have pre-70 C.E. evidence for Nazareth. Mark, who was writing in 70 C.E., or maybe even sooner, states that Jesus was from Nazareth as well. It is highly unlikely that Mark would have created such a story, as it serves him no purpose.

The gospel called Mark wasn't written until the mid to late second century, and it was merely a copy of the gospel called Luke, which had come from Marcion's Euangelion, which was written about 140 CE and placed Isu Chrestos in the area of the Galilee.

 

[fallingblood]

In spite of what you say above, Jesus himself was never RAISED in Bethlehem. One's hometown is where one is raised, not merely born. Jesus never spent any time there. The Gospels have it that he was raised in Nazareth, his hometown, until he was 12, after which there is an 18 year void in the scriptures as to his whereabouts. The Essene, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu accounts of his travels contain more information than his own Christian sources do.

Did I say Jesus was raised in Bethlehem? No. You completely missed the point.

More so, the Essenes never wrote a single thing about Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus in the writings we have of the Essenes. As for Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu accounts, none of them should be considered accurate as they have no evidence supporting them. They were written centuries after the fact, and really give us no real reason to accept them as historically accurate.

They may give information about his early years, but that information is dubious at best. There is no reason to believe that they are historically accurate.

"]It does not mention Jesus because he is an invention of St. Paul. There was no 'Jesus'. There was, however, a Yeshua, and Yeshua was a mystical Essene of the Nazorean sect at Mt. Carmel:

There is just so many things wrong with this. First, there is no evidence, at all, that Paul invented Jesus. In fact, we are told that there were other people, during the time of Paul, who were also teaching about Jesus, and in manners that Paul had problems with. More so, Paul states that he met the brother of Jesus, James. The fact that James was the brother of Jesus is supported by Josephus, who also states such. So no, Paul did not invent Jesus.

Jesus and Yeshua are the same person. Yeshua was his Aramaic name. When transliterated into Greek, it came out to about Jesus. So they are the same person.

As for the Essene of the Nazorean sect at Mt. Carmel. All I can say is blah. Really, it just looks like a jumbling of thought. The only thing I could find about this on the internet is one guy supporting the idea. He also supports the idea that the Essenes are still around, which simply is bunk.

'Yeshua bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Jesus. No one during Yeshua's life (prior to 30 CE) ever uttered the name, "Jesus." The letter "j" wasn't in the English language until the seventeenth century, so even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until after that time.'

So what? Yes, Yeshua was the Aramaic name for Jesus. We are not Aramaic. Jesus is just fine. And the difference in the name certainly doesn't support your ideas.

Because he was God in the flesh? That might be one good reason, but additionally, he was God come to save mankind by shedding his blood and re-opening the Gates of Paradise which Adam and Eve's Original Sin had closed to all mankind, that's why. None of those you mention were the Messiah. They were prophets, not divine, as Jesus was, so the importance of Jesus is far greater. As for your 'so what?' attitude, bear in mind that we are speaking here about God himself being born to man in the flesh. If that were really true, there would be far more accounts of his life on a daily basis than what we actually have, which is a concocted passion play. The Biblical footnote to his missing 12 years is a joke. As I stated, the East has comparatively far more information on Yeshua (Issa; Yuz Asaf) for those missing years than do Christian sources.

Jesus is not God. That is a statement of faith, not fact. And either way, his life was not important until his ministry began. No one even seemed to be aware of him until that time anyway. So why should people have wasted time documenting his early life if it did add anything?

And again, you have to place this in historical context. There is no reason to assume anyone recorded anything about his early life. That simply was not the norm. If we look at other supposed Messiahs during that time, they also never had anything about their early life being reported.

As for there having to be more about the early life of Jesus if he was God, well then obviously, by your logic, he was not God.

As for the sources from the East, they are bunk. There are no reasons to assume they are historically credible. To even think so is wishful thinking, and is definitely not based off of sound research.

Just to repeat, there is no reason to assume we would have anything about the early life of Jesus. It simply wasn't important. It was common to write about the early life of a person (as seen in the OT, and other sources from that time). And Jesus did not become important until his ministry began. And for the first Christians (Paul sticks out as we have his writings. He also mentions virtually nothing about the early life of Jesus and little about the Earthly Jesus at all), it was the death and resurrection of Jesus that was important. So again, no reason to write about the early life of Jesus.

If such a child were born to us today, throngs would follow him 24/7. Christians would not treat such a personage so casually. Remember, Jesus is a divine being; he is God. That he was ignored during his early life, and that an additional 18 years are completely missing is further indication that he is a total myth, along with his mythical 'Nazareth'. If the shoe fits....

We are not talking about today are we though? You can't retroject our current time into the first century and think that means anything. We are living in very different times.

More so, there were no Christians during the time that Jesus was living anyway, so again, your argument fails. As for Jews, there were a handful of Messiahs and religious leaders that they could have followed at that time. Jesus was not that unique.

And no, Jesus is not God. That is a statement of faith, not fact.

That he is ignored for his early life is what should be expected. That is what we see with all of the great individuals in the OT, as well with most other great figures around that time period. Simply, you don't understand the time period, and need to do more research. Because the idea that the missing years of Jesus suggests he didn't exist simply is asinine. Especially when we consider that the earliest Christians didn't care much about the life of Jesus at all. Look at Paul, his interest was with the risen Jesus, the Jesus post-resurrection.

As for the "mythical" Nazareth, you again simply have done shoddy research.

We shall have to leave that issue for another thread, but suffice it to say that the stories sprung up all through the East and corroborate each other. The Biblical account is no more 'historically founded' than any other, especially in light of the fact that no record exists of Jesus's life for an entire 18 years. This smacks of fantasy. Or, let me put it this way: why is it that the West has virtually no record of his life, when the East does, and the time frame from the East matches perfectly, from his age of about 12 to that of 30 years of age.

Many of the stories from the East contradict each other greatly. They can't agree even when Jesus came to India, or what not. Some say that he did during those 18 years. Others state that he survived the crucifixion and went there. They are not credible in anyway. Especially since we have no reason to believe that Jesus went to India.

As for those missing 18 years, I've already explained that. It only smacks of fantasy if you haven't done any research of that time period. Which obviously, you haven't. Because if you did, you would see that many historical figures, from that time period, are missing large chunks of their lives. It wasn't uncommon at all.

You are correct. Jesus was not an Essene. Yeshua was. Once again:

THERE WAS NO JESUS!

The name 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshu' or 'Yashua' mean 'savior'

The name 'Jesus' has no meaning whatsoever

That is asinine. Yeshua and Jesus are the same person. You claiming otherwise just shows your ignorance on the subject. Jesus is just a different name for the same person of Yeshua. The name change being because of a language change. We see this with many various figures, cities, etc. Names change with language changes. That is not uncommon. And really, you're being hypocritical. You claim that the East of records of Jesus, yet none of those stories use the name Jesus. They use various other names. Why? Because those are the equivalent, in their language, to Jesus, or Yeshua.

And now, Yeshua was not an Essene. There is no evidence of that.

 

[fallingblood]

If that is what you believe, then the mythical aspect of his early life would also include a mythical hometown called Nazareth. Surprise! There is no evidence that such a place did exist.:biglaugh:

You didn't read what I wrote did you. Nazareth is not mythical in anyway. And yes, there is evidence that it existed. You simply just close your eyes when you see it. Ignoring the evidence is not the same as there being no evidence.

You really need to just do some actually research. You're conspiracy theories simply are ridiculous. There is no mythical aspect of his early life. There is no stories that are credible about his early life.

 

[fallingblood]

Please re-read the information again. You are not understanding the content of what is being said here.

I read the information. It didn't support your idea. And really, it was ridiculous anyway.

 

[fallingblood]

Excuse me, but the doctrine of the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood are part of the mysteries, as first expounded in Mithraic mystery rites, and by Jesus in several places in the Gospels. These are mystical in character, not orthodox. Actually, they are pagan. The reason you do not understand this is because, as I said, there was no 'Jesus'. Yeshua. a mystical Essene, did not teach the doctrines of virgin birth, bodily resurrection, or the eating and drinking of flesh and blood, nor the shedding of blood for sin remission. That came from Mithraism, and from Judaic temple practices. All of these pagan doctrines were overwritten over those of Yeshua by St. Paul as a device to lure thousands of Mithraic pagans by promising them eternal life, something Mithra had already promised to them. The Catholic Church did much the same trick in converting millions of indigenous Indios in Mexico by simply 'adopting' their goddess of fertility, Tonantzin, and transforming her into the Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Virgin Mary). The Indios simply followed where their deity went. If you look closely at the robes she is wearing, you will see Indio symbols.

Your lack of research is just dumbfounding. No one drank the blood of Jesus or ate his flesh. It was symbolic. As for Mithraic tradition, that was developed after Jesus died. So it has nothing to do with here. And really, if you did any research, at all, you would see that they do have a background in Judaism. It was symbolic of the Passover meal. It was not pagan. And yes, they are orthodox as the church accepted them.

Yeshua was not an Essene. You have never shown that to be true, and if you did any research on the Essenes, you would see that they clearly are not the same. Yeshua was not an Essene. We can know this by comparing his actions and the actions of Essenes. They don't line up, and that is why virtually all scholars disregard the idea.

And yes, there was a Jesus. Jesus and Yeshua are the same person. The only difference is the language the name was written.

St. Paul did not invent the communion supper. From what we hear from him, it was already in practice when he commented on it. And again, the Mithraic mystery did not exist until later on. You need to do research. And the Christians never ate flesh or drank blood. Again, it was symbolic, going back to Passover. Much of it was based on Judaism, where Paul and Jesus were both apart.

The crux of the matter is that Yeshua and his Essenes practiced Eastern meditation, yoga, and breathing exercises. In the East, the life-force is considered to be the breath, not the blood, as the false story of Jesus has it. That the life force is the blood comes to Christianity from PAGAN sources. What fits the story I am giving to you is that Yeshua and his sect were healers. Where did they learn this? From the Therapeutae of Greece and Egypt, which were Buddhist Theravadist sects sent to the West from India.

Read what Josephus has to say about Essenes. Even better, read the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you did, you would see that everything you said is bunk. Essenes did not practice Eastern meditation and such. You would know this if you read the Dead Sea Scrolls, which they wrote, or Josephus, who speaks about them.

And the life force is never said to be the blood of Jesus. Maybe you want to read the Bible and actually form a logical argument.

The key to the whole story of the Romanized 'Jesus' is St. Paul and his doctrines. His hometown was Tarsus, where pirates from the East spread the Mithraic religion. St. Paul was steeped in the mystery religions. What he did was a stroke of genius. He synthesized three crucial elements to launch modern Christianity: first, he used Jewish history as a backdrop to lend credibility and authenticity. Then he wove in the Gnostic idea of the descending godhead come down from above to teach mankind. Finally, he imported the idea of a dying and resurrected god-man from the mystery religions to complete the picture.

Again, the Mithraic religion only came about after the fact. St. Paul was a Pharisee. He states this himself. He was a Jew, and always a Jew. There is no suggestion he was part of a mystery cult. To even suggest such shows that you haven't read anything by Paul. More so, Christianity didn't even exist until after Paul's death. Paul was still working under Judaism. He was still a Jew. The early Jesus movement was still under Judaism. Christianity didn't appear until after the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E., and even then, it was a slow process from Judaism to Christianity. Many even remained Jews.

As for the connection with the dying-rising god man. That is just laughable. And truly shows your lack of research. /

 

[fallingblood]

fb



The gospel story timelines use the early first century because that was a time when John the Baptist existed (whose existence is verified by the works of Flavius Josephus), and it was a time of many miracle workers and alleged messiahs who existed across Palestine, and it was a time when the Roman soldier Pantera was stationed in the area before he and his legion were transferred to Gaul.

Flavius Josephus also verifies the existence of Jesus, in two separate sections. As for a time of being many miracle workers and such, you can find that in a number of different time periods both before and after the first century. So really, why the first century and not the third?

As for Pantera, what does he have to do with anything?

As for John the Baptist, he would have been better left out of the Gospels. In fact, his baptizing Jesus is an embarrassing story. So much so that the Gospel writers all try to explain it away in one way or another. And again, Josephus also verifies that Jesus existed.

The problem originated with the term Notzri. Some people were not sure whether it meant the Jesus character was supposed to be a Nazorean or a Nazarene. Those who rejected both those interpretations decided it meant he came from Nazareth, but since the gospel stories were being written in the mid to late second century the writers did not realize that the village of Nazareth had not existed in the early first century when the Jesus character they were created was supposed to have existed. Their Jesus character could not have been identified as coming from Bethlehem because he was based on the Isu Chrestos character in Marcion's Euangelion who had supposedly done his teaching if the area of the Galilee.

Let's start with the time period in which the Gospels were being written. Mark was written around 70 C.E. which still is in the first century. And we have no reason to assume he made up the Jesus story as Paul, writing decades earlier, also states that Jesus existed.

Even John, the last Gospel, was written in the first century. People living in 70 C.E., would have the ability to know if Nazareth had existed only a little over thirty years earlier. That is well within the normal time span of an individual in the first century.

As for Jesus being based on Marcion's Euangelion, no. Paul wrote about Jesus a full century before hand. All of the canonical Gospels were written decades before hand. So your statement here simply does not fit with known facts. Also, it doesn't make sense. Why would having been from Bethlehem have kept someone from teaching in Galilee? There is no reason for that assumption.

Finally, as for the confusion with the term Notzri, anyone familiar with Judaism would not have made such a confusion. Jesus in no way resembled a Nazarene. And since Jesus is specially said to have come from Nazareth, and that is why he was called a Nazarene, there is no reason to doubt that.

The gospels only "agree" on that because the gospel stories began with the Euangelion of 140 CE, which was modified and changed into the gospel called Luke, and then the gospels of Mark and Matthew were basically just copies of Luke, and later Irenaeus wrote the gospel called John to try to "correct" some of the misrepresentations in the previous gospels.

You haven't done any credible research. The first Gospel was Mark, written around 70 C.E. Most scholars agree on this. Then Matthew and Luke used Mark, and the Q Gospel as sources. Again, most scholars agree on this. And then, John wrote his Gospel. All of this was done with in the first century. In fact, the earliest Gospel fragment we have comes from around 125 C.E. And that was from the Gospel of John. So no, Irenaeus could have not have written the Gospel of John after 140 C.E. if we have direct evidence of it existing in 125 C.E.

More so, we have textual evidence presented in early church writings of the Gospels. Your time frame simply is not credible, and doesn't agree with the facts.

The story of him being born in Bethlehem was created in order to make it look like he was fulfilling OT prophesies. The Jews of Judea had rejected the Isu Chrestos character and this was one way of making it look like he was supposedly one of them. The birth story also made the Isu Chrestos character appear to be more human and less of a phantom character. Many of the other parts of the biblical Jesus story were created to make it look like he had fulfilled many prophesies and in that way make him look more legitimate than many of the other alleged "messiahs" and miracle workers of the first century.

Actually, if you understood Messianic expectation in the first century, and then compared it to Jesus, Jesus greatly fails. I do agree that later authors searched the Bible in order to try to make Jesus more credible.

The gospel called Mark wasn't written until the mid to late second century, and it was merely a copy of the gospel called Luke, which had come from Marcion's Euangelion, which was written about 140 CE and placed Isu Chrestos in the area of the Galilee.

There is no evidence for that. Mark, as agreed upon by most scholars, was written around 70 C.E. There is no evidence it was based off of Luke. Your research just lacks in all places.

 

[outhouse]

we know the bible has false statements regarding the jesus/yeshua charactor.

we have made up theology and no one discounts this. So I persoanlly need more then scripture.



Im reaching now,,,,,, what if they placed him in a small obscure village because then no one could challenge any of his early history theology built. I mean the child jesus is made up theology, so why would not the town they placed him in not be made up as well.

fact is, they didnt know anything about jesus pre 30 years old. bethelhem is made up, his childhood is made up, yet im supposed to fall for his location of pre 30 history the authors are guessing on.


All im saying is I need more then what we have to make any statements with certainty

 

[Tellurian]

fallingblood

Flavius Josephus also verifies the existence of Jesus, in two separate sections.

I am somewhat surprised to learn how much you do NOT know about biblical scholarship. The Jesus passages in the works of Josephus have been determined to be redacted forgeries added sometime around the beginning of the 4th century, more than 200 years AFTER Josephus had died. The main suspect for adding those passages is Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius the LIAR because in his works he advocated lying in order to help promote the cause of Christianity.

As for Pantera, what does he have to do with anything?

When the writers of the gospel stories were creating the biblical Jesus character they used several different real persons as the bases for the fictional biblical Jesus they were creating. One of the real persons used to help create the fictional Jesus was Yeshu ben Pantera, aka Jesus son of Panther, whose story is found in the works of the Greek historian Celsus and in the Talmud, particularly section Sanhedrin 43a.

As for John the Baptist, he would have been better left out of the Gospels

John the Baptist was included because he was a REAL person, and associating the fictional biblical Jesus with John made it look like the Jesus character had been real also. Plus, John still had a following after his death and the gospel story made it look like the fictional Jesus had become John's successor.

Let's start with the time period in which the Gospels were being written. Mark was written around 70 C.E.

There is absolutely NO evidence that the gospel called Mark was written in the first century. It is only speculation and "belief" of many Christians who simply want to believe it was written in the first century.

Even John, the last Gospel, was written in the first century.

There is absolutely NO evidence that the gospel called John was written in the first century. Again, it is only speculation and the "belief" of many Christians who simply want to believe it was written in the first century.

As for Jesus being based on Marcion's Euangelion, no. Paul wrote about Jesus a full century before hand.

The oldest evidence of any letters of Saul/Paul comes from where? It comes from the New Testament created by Marcion. Why would Marcion have included ten letters from Saul/Paul that disagreed with the Isu Chrestos in his Euangelion? Obviously the letters of Saul/Paul in Marcion's bible would have agreed with the other statements about Isu Chrestos, or else the letters would not have been included. We know today that some of the letters that supposedly came from Saul/Paul are actually forgeries because they were written after Saul/Paul had supposedly died, and they have a completely different writing style and a contradictory message.

In fact, the earliest Gospel fragment we have comes from around 125 C.E. And that was from the Gospel of John. So no, Irenaeus could have not have written the Gospel of John after 140 C.E. if we have direct evidence of it existing in 125 C.E.

I assume you are referring to the Ryland papyrus P52. Dating it to early second century is only based on the "style" of the writing, whereas the paleographic evidence places its origin in the second half of the second century. The small fragment comes from a codex and not from a scroll. which would also indicate it came from the later half of the second century at the earliest. Again, this is just another example of some Christians simply wanting to believe it comes from an earlier time.

Mark, as agreed upon by most scholars, was written around 70 C.E.

That is merely speculation and belief, and it is not based on any evidence.

 

[Quagmire]

fallingblood



I am somewhat surprised to learn how much you do NOT know about biblical scholarship.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

The Jesus passages in the works of Josephus have been determined to be redacted forgeries added sometime around the beginning of the 4th century, more than 200 years AFTER Josephus had died.

Mostly by non-scholar sand sensationalists.

The main suspect for adding those passages is Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius the LIAR because in his works he advocated lying in order to help promote the cause of Christianity.

This is basically an uniformed rumor that's been floating around (mostly around the internet) for quite a while now. Any inspection beyond the very surface is pretty quick to reveal that the Eusebius origin theory doesn't hold up.

Even if you accept the idea that the Testimonium Flavianum is an outright forgery (which goes against most of modern scholarship), the Eusebius origin theory still doesn't make any sense once you take a moment to consider the circumstances involved.

When the writers of the gospel stories were creating the biblical Jesus character they used several different real persons as the bases for the fictional biblical Jesus they were creating. One of the real persons used to help create the fictional Jesus was Yeshu ben Pantera, aka Jesus son of Panther, whose story is found in the works of the Greek historian Celsus and in the Talmud, particularly section Sanhedrin 43a.



John the Baptist was included because he was a REAL person, and associating the fictional biblical Jesus with John made it look like the Jesus character had been real also. Plus, John still had a following after his death and the gospel story made it look like the fictional Jesus had become John's successor.



There is absolutely NO evidence that the gospel called Mark was written in the first century. It is only speculation and "belief" of many Christians who simply want to believe it was written in the first century.



There is absolutely NO evidence that the gospel called John was written in the first century. Again, it is only speculation and the "belief" of many Christians who simply want to believe it was written in the first century.



The oldest evidence of any letters of Saul/Paul comes from where? It comes from the New Testament created by Marcion. Why would Marcion have included ten letters from Saul/Paul that disagreed with the Isu Chrestos in his Euangelion? Obviously the letters of Saul/Paul in Marcion's bible would have agreed with the other statements about Isu Chrestos, or else the letters would not have been included. We know today that some of the letters that supposedly came from Saul/Paul are actually forgeries because they were written after Saul/Paul had supposedly died, and they have a completely different writing style and a contradictory message.



I assume you are referring to the Ryland papyrus P52. Dating it to early second century is only based on the "style" of the writing, whereas the paleographic evidence places its origin in the second half of the second century. The small fragment comes from a codex and not from a scroll. which would also indicate it came from the later half of the second century at the earliest. Again, this is just another example of some Christians simply wanting to believe it comes from an earlier time.



That is merely speculation and belief, and it is not based on any evidence.

LOL! OK, I can see where you're getting your "information" from now.

Hopefully some of the people in here who actually know what they're talking about can clear some of this up for you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hopefully some of the people in here who actually know what they're talking about can clear some of this up for you.

No.


..........

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your research just lacks in all places.

That's a bit generous.

It's obviously not his research. He's just spamming some crappy book.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is absolutely NO evidence that the gospel called Mark was written in the first century.

There is evidence, however, that Mark came out of some alien's ear. It was delivered to us inside a meteorite but dug out of the Antarctic ice in the fourth century by Umpa-Lumpas. Willie Nelson used it in his weed and he farted out papyrus leaflets that were then used as pornography by Sicilian monks.

Captain Jack Sparrow sailed on the original Gospel of Mark, which is really the Gospel of the Nutless Monkey who is immortal for some inexplicable reason.

Billy Bob Thorton, who was a fat kid who thought that his Superman underwear could make him fly, jumped off of his roof and did a header right into the sidewalk. That's why he's so ugly.

Some students of the enormous black widow in the Lord of the Rings trilogy found the manuscripts in the dunghole of a sand spider. King James translated it and that's what we use today.

 

[Quagmire]

No.


..........

Oh please.

Does this help?

[youtube]RfHnzYEHAow[/youtube]
The Impossible Dream-Man of La Mancha - YouTube

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Tertullian will be on the Republican ticket this year.

At this rate, he has a fighting chance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh please.

Does this help?

[youtube]RfHnzYEHAow[/youtube]
The Impossible Dream-Man of La Mancha - YouTube

haha, no.

I prescribe 10 Willie Nelson youtube videos. On repeat for 72 hours.

That just might clear his head.

 

[Tellurian]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...hus-jesus.html

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

Mostly by non-scholar sand sensationalists.

The Bible - Its Evolution, Contradictions and Inconsistencies - Page 8

This is basically an uniformed rumor that's been floating around (mostly around the internet) for quite a while now. Any inspection beyond the very surface is pretty quick to reveal that the Eusebius origin theory doesn't hold up.

Even if you accept the idea that the Testimonium Flavianum is an outright forgery (which goes against most of modern scholarship), the Eusebius origin theory still doesn't make any sense once you take a moment to consider the circumstances involved.

Eusebius was the first to mention the existence of the reference to Jesus in the works of Josephus. Eusebius also stated the following:

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood
as a medium for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived;"

--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324 CE)
PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel,
The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.