The Existence of Jesus Christ

Greetings Namesdan,

quote:

---

Accounts made by Tacitus, a Roman historian. Another by Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor of Bithynia. Josephus, a Jewish historian. The Babylonian Talmud. Lucian of Salmosata, a Greek satirist.

---

Well, namesdan,
these sources do not stand up to scrutiny -TACITUS (c.112CE)Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to acknowledge anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot TerbesarIn short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)But,
its COULD be actual evidence for Jesus. late, corrupt, but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.TALMUD (3rd C. and laterThere are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are variant and quite different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)So,
the Talmud contains later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories,
but
the Talmud contains NO evidence for a historical Jesus.LUCIAN (c.170CE)Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus.In short,
these sources are endlessly repeated by Christians as evidence for the existance of Jesus - yet they are no real evidence at all.Iasion

Greetings all,Regarding evidence for the existance of Jesus - a well-known list of early writers from Remsberg is much bandied about by sceptics.This list names a large number of early writers who lived about the time of Jesus, but who failed to mention him.Some of the names on the list do not belong, because they just could not be expected to have mentioned Jesus. The Remsberg list is also without dates and subjects and places, and is unclear in identifying some authors.So, I have updated and improved this list, taking it up to the mid 2nd century. Some of the writers listed need more details.How Likely was a mention of Jesus?The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus.Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in a work include :
* a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)
* a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,
* a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many subjects and people,I have thus classified these writers into broad categories -
* writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5),
* writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3),
* writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5),
* writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0)I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated.As well as -
* writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus.Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing.
But,
when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues against historicity.The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to the issues at hand.This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures who are not specially related to the subject.Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people.I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and I have rated such writers as 0.5.Summary of Results

​

The results of my current classifications is:

​

1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)

​

3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.)

​

31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.

​

(20 writers who could not be expected to.
6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)
You can see the results presented chronologically with colour and font size here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipWRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUSPHILOPhilo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUSSENECALucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4PLUTARCHPlutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy -
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipIf Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4JUSTUSJustus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUSDAMISDamis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2APOLLONIUSSee Damis.PLINY THE ELDERGaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CEPliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events.Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2JUVENALDecimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century.Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2MARTIALMarcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
* Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
* virgin's blood,
* Roman funerary practices,
* the way accused men look in court,
* Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
* anointing the body with oil,
* Molorchus the good shepherd,
* Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
* the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues.He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2PETRONIUSPetronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE.Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
** a CRUCIFIXION !
** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
* gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
* writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
* books such as the Iliad,
* Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
* people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
* female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
* baths, shipwrecks, meals...This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus.Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2PAUSANIASPausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2EPICTETUSEpictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to :
* the early Christians,
or
* the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2AELIUS ARISTIDESAelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus.Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2FRONTOMarcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century.According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2PERSIUSAulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1DIO CHRYSOSTOMDio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1AULUS GELLIUSAulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1LUCIUS APULEIUSLucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1MARCUS AURELIUSMarcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1MUSONIUS RUFUSC. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1HIEROCLESHierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1MAXIMUS of TYRECassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1ARRIANArrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5APPIANAppian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5THEON of SMYRNATheon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them.Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that.The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5QUINTILIANMarcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century.One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUSLucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5LUCANMarcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century.In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
* mentions an event from 56CE,
* refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
* refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
* refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5STATIUSPublius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5HERO of ALEXANDRIAHero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5GEMINUSGeminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5ALBINUSAlbinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5ARISTOCLESAristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5APOLLODORUSApollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5HEPHAESTIONHephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5SEXTUS EMPIRICUSSextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUSJOSEPHUSMuch has been said about Josephus, but not here.Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.TACITUSCornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.NUMENIUSIn the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.SUETONIUSGaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.PHLEGONPhlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.THALLUSThallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUSDion Prusaeus
Paterculus
Ptolemy
Valerius Maximus
Pomponius Mela
Quintus Curtus Rufus
Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Babrius
Silius Italicus
Marcus Manilius
Cleomedes
Dioscorides
Sextus Julius Frontinus
Nicomachus of Gerasa
Menelaus of Alexandria
Menodotus of Nicomedia
Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus
Valerius Flaccus

Greetings randman,

quote:

---

I'd just like to point out that excluding the New Testament, a priori, as historically unreliable or some such is not good scholarship, but mere bias.

---

I agree.
Who do you think did this?Scholars examine and evaluate the NT on its merits, like any ancient writings.Such evaluation reveals the NT to be not very reliable as history, but better understood as religious literature.

quote:

---

The simple fact is the writers of the New Testament probably all experienced Jesus ministry,

---

No,
it is not a simple fact at all,
it is merely the story that you, and other Christians, believe.According to scholars,
NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who met any Jesus -
Paul never met Jesus,
the writer who forged the Pastorals never met Jesus,
the writer of the Petrine letters never met Jesus,
the writer of James never met Jesus,
the writer of Jude never met Jesus,
the writer of Acts never met Jesus,
the writer of Revelation never met Jesus,
the writer of G.Mark never met Jesus,
the writer of G.Matthew never met Jesus,
the writer of G.Luke never met Jesus,
the writer of G.John never met Jesus,

quote:

---

or at a minimum, some like Paul, undoubtedly heard and spoke with others that had met and walked with Jesus, and incidentally, Paul had relatives that converted to "the way" while he was still persecuting the Church, and considering he studied in Jerusalem at the time, there is no doubt he would have been aware of Jesus' earthly ministry, even if absent during His arrest and crucifixion.

---

Thats IF you believe the stories that the story itself tells.
The point is - we don't BELIEVE your stories.

quote:

---

If you are going to say there is not enough evidence for Jesus, why not go all the way and claim there is no evidence either for Paul or any of the apostles?

---

Well, someone wrote the letters of Paul, we call that person "Paul".
Peter and James probably or possibly existed, most of the rest are probably mythical.

quote:

---

At some point, one has to accept history.

---

Hang on!
You seem to be saying we should accept your stories are true, just because, well just because you say so, apparently.The NT is religious literature - if YOU believe its true, that's your business.
But,
if you want others to believe you, you'll have to convince them with evidence and argument.Do, you accept the Iliad as history?
Or the Golden Ass of Apuleis?
Or the story of Isis and Osiris?Why would you expect us to "accept" your religious myths as history?

quote:

---

You can differ with the idea that Jesus is the Messiah and think that somehow the miracles and Resurrection did not happen, if you want, but to actually go as far to suggest there never even was a Jesus is just not good scholarship.

---

Why?
What is your argument?

quote:

---

As far as religious concerns, I think that realizing Jesus actually did rise from the dead and is the Messiah takes getting a personal revelation, to a degree, from God (the Father), and those that seek the truth and really want to know, will receive.

---

i.e. Jesus is a religious experience, not related to facts or evidence.

quote:

---

But on the topic of good scholarship, claiming Jesus is a myth is tantamount to rejecting the entire New Testament as having any historical validity and ignoring the evidence of the growth in the early Church, the accounts we do have, etc,...

---

Indeed, most of the NT is legends, not history.
The growth and early history of the church is perfectly explained by a religious BELIEF in Jesus Christ, without there ever being a historical Jesus.

quote:

---

In terms of why some writers may not mention Jesus, well, probably the same reason some want to deny he ever even lived. Some folks just really don't like even the idea of Jesus Christ, Christianity, etc,...

---

Pardon?
Are you saying all those ancient writers DELIBERATELY ignored Jesus because they didn't like him or what he had to say?
Thats like saying ancient writers only wrote about their allies and friends and supporters.
Nonsense - writers frequently wrote SPECIFICALLY to criticise or ridicule opponents.Hitler would be one of the most DISLIKED person one could imagine recently - do we see him ignored by writers and historians?
No way - exactly the opposite.

quote:

---

By the way, one strong piece of evidence for the gospel accounts of Jesus' sayings being accurate and dated for the time he lived is the use in the gospels of the term "son of man."

---

Pardon?
So a contemporary term was used in the Gospel, and that proves its true?Nonsense - thats like saying Gone with the Wind is true just because it uses old slang of the day.Iasion

Poor guy,
one of the most famous persons in history,
yet so often mis-spelled, even with 2 mistakes in 6 short letters.Iasion

Greetings randman,Thanks for your replies.

quote:

---

Prove that most scholars think the writers of the New Testament never met Jesus, etc,...

---

Prove?
Nothing is proved in history - thats for mathematics.I claimed that "according to scholars", no NT writer met any Jesus.
I meant modern experts such as - Brown, Fitzmyer, Nineham, Helms ...I never said "most scholars", it's not about numbers, but quality of argument.There are many arguments AGAINST the NT writings being by eye-witnesses, here are some -G.MarkRaymond Brown, the foremost NT scholar of the day argues, G.Mark was not written by anyone who knew Jesus (haven't got a copy here right now.)
Randal Helms points out G.Mark shows poor knowledge of local geography, Nineham also, arguing the author had never been to Palestine.
Nineham argues that G.Mark was written in Rome because it was intended for a gentile audience who expected persecution.
D.J.Harrington argues that G.Mark was written in Rome and not by Mark.It is a consensus of most contemporary scholars that G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who had never been in Palestine.G.MatthewPeter Kirby : "It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus."Herman N. Ridderbos writes : "This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship."Francis Write Beare notes : "But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus."Nearly all scholars accept that G.Matthew is dependent on G.Mark and thus not by any eye-witness.JamesKmmel presents 5 arguments why this letter is NOT thought to be written by James, but someone unknown who never met Jesus (see Peter Kirby's for the details) one being that the letter was only accepted late.Schnelle argues that James is not authentic - "Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter."1 PeterW. G. Kmmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way."
Paul J. Achtemeier argues that the lack of personal details show this letter was not written by anyone who knew Jesus.
Schnelle argues it was not by an apostle.I will not continue at length for every book.The facts are clear -
many scholars argue the NT writings were NOT written by eye-witnesses to Jesus.If you wish to argue they WERE - then YOU produce some evidence and argument that one of these works WAS written by an eye-witness.

quote:

---

The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you.

---

So you claim.
But yet you still provide no evidence to back up your claims.

quote:

---

By the way, I gave you some real textual evidence concerning the use in the gospels of the term "son of man." That term was not used at later dates, nor even well understood in all liklihood. The idea that Jesus' saying there was fabricated has not a shred of evidence for it, but the idea that Jesus really did use that saying is well attested to, textually and otherwise.

---

Pardon?
You made some vague claims that some scholar whose name you can't remember, made some claims about the term "son of man" proving Jesus was real - what exactly is your argument here?

quote:

---

OK, so now you believe most scholars do not even think the apostle Paul existed, eh?

---

Dear me.
Did you not even READ what I wrote?
I said nothing like that - in fact I said the opposite.
Please take the time to actually read and consider what I actually write.

quote:

---

Ridiculous. Sorry, but most scholars do accept they existed. There is some debate, quite vigorous, on the total reliability of their writings and some scholars reject certain books, but lately the whole pseudographia claims are beginning to unravel, but tell me something, how do you know what most scholars think?

---

You seem to have a real issue with "most scholars" - a term I never even used.I have read some of the current scholarship, and I quoted several scholars to support my claims.But
where is YOUR evidence?
How come you can't cite a SINGLE SCHOLAR who agrees with you?Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

The skeptics would have us believe that Christianity spread, based on a lie,

---

False.
No-one called it a lie.
Please pay attention.Is Shakespear a lie?
Is Gone WIth The Wind a lie?
Is the Iliad a lie?No.Does that mean they are TRUE history?
No.

quote:

---

a pure myth (maybe Jesus never even existed)

---

Just like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Osiris, Isis, Hercules, Odysseus, LaoTzu, Krishna...

quote:

---

and without any written documents (no letters of the New Testament),

---

Pardon?
What exactly are you saying?
I don't think you even grasp my point.

quote:

---

and one here even claiming Paul was a fabrication too,

---

No I didn't.
You can't even read properly - sad.
I said : "Well, someone wrote the letters of Paul, we call that person "Paul"."
The exact opposite of what you claim I said.

quote:

---

and yet the new "cult" was so strong and prevalent that Nero blamed them for the fire in Rome?

---

Well,
present your EVIDENCE for this event, let's see if it stands up to scrutiny.

quote:

---

Considering Christianity had provable spread to Rome within 30 years, and such that there was a significant presence there,

---

Provably?
Pardon?
One claim in one document, that is not supportined by any external evidence and which contradicts what evidence we do have - not proof at all.

quote:

---

why would anyone claim that members of the early Church had never even met Jesus,

---

Because the documents show no signs of being written by an eye-witness, but show much evidence of being religious literature based on the OT and expanded by later legends.

quote:

---

and why would people doubt that the gospels and New Testament were largely written during that time?

---

Because the evidence shows that the writing of the NT works continued as late as perhaps 150CE.
Because the evidence shows no Christian knew the Gospel stories until early 2nd century.

quote:

---

I have offerred some textual evidence, and no one has responded to that evidence, and now you request, despite no response to that evidence, that I offer something new, when the unsubtantiated claim was made by someone from your perspective.

---

You made a claim that carries no weight as far as I can see.
Please explain why YOU think the use of the term "son of man" is evidence that Jesus existed?
I just cannot figure out your point there.

quote:

---

Sorry, but you go first. Please list whom you consider to be most New Testament scholars that think Jesus never existed, or Paul never existed, or some of other wild, unfounded claims put forward.

---

If YOU claim Jesus existed - produce your evidence.
If YOU claim most scholars believe Jesus existed - produce your evidence.So far, all you have done is preach your beliefs.

quote:

---

As far as my own reading, I have read, attended lectures, etc,..from a wide range of biblical scholars, attended seminary, etc,

---

In other words, you are a faithful believer, who follows eveything other faithful believers tell you.But somehow, you can't produce any actual evidnce to back up your claims?

quote:

---

Why would later writers fabricating the sayings of Jesus use the confusing term "the son of man" since it's usage had passed, and it has always been a term poorly understood outside of Jesus immediate time and culture?

---

Why would the writer of Gone With the Wind use old terms and slang unless it was all TRUE?Why would the movie Gladiator use accurate titles for the day unless it was all TRUE?Seriously, randman, why on earth do you think the use of a certain term makes the book true history?According to your argument, thats makes most historical fiction and myths true.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

You don't consider my comments on the use of the term "the son of man" in the gospels as "real content"?

---

Nope.
You presented no content.You claimed that some scholar you can't name,
made an argument you can't quite remember,
that somehow argued the term "son-of-man"
proves Jesus existed.Where is the content?
What is the argument exactly?As I pointed out - the mere use of a contemporary term in a document means nothing.Iasion(I won't bother to keep pointing out randman's error about what I said about Paul, but I hope he tries to read for comprehension in future.)

Greetings,

quote:

---

Not so much upsets, but it's clearly wrong. Show me one authoritative source that most historians think Jesus never existed? You cannot do it because it's a lie.

---

No-one here ever claimed "most historians think Jesus never existed"
You seem unable to even comprehend what people write.

quote:

---

Tell me what evidence you would accept that would support that claim? Would you accept for example, a reference in the encyclopedia to what "most scholars" believe?

---

In other words, after all these posts,
you are UNABLE to produce any evidence for your claims,
you are UNABLE to cite a single scholar who agrees with you
(even though you claim the majority agree.)You entire argument seems to be :
" most scholars agree with ME ! "I am sure readers will understand why I am losing interest here,
perhaps if randman produces some evidence I will continue.Iasion

Greetings Deut.32.BThanks for your comments and questions :-)

quote:

---

Iasion, I'd be curious to hear your views of the Jerusalem church. Specifically, if you view it as fictive, what was the purpose of the elaborative fiction. Conversely, if you view it as historical, would you suggest why the default inference would not be that it evolved around some charismatic cult leader - or, if you accept this as a reasonable inference, why we should not accept Yeshu'a as that leaders name. Thanks.

---

Well,
I would agree that Acts is mostly mythical,
and that the Twelve probably did not exist.But, I'd say Paul existed, and almost certainly James and Peter too.I see the first Jesus as originally inspired by the dying and rising son of god figure, re-interpreted as the Son-Of-God mediator figure - the being that stood between God and Man. I note the prominance of the layered neo-platonic universe model in this period - such as the Hermetic books or the forming Kaballah or the later schemes of the Gnostics.So, in this sense Iesous Christos was a real being - a spiritual entity who lived on a higher plane, the being one met in an out-of-body experience when initiated into the cult.I would compare the initiation scene in the Transformations :
"I saw the sun shining at midnight, I stood amongst the gods and worshipped them"
with Paul's experience :
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise ... and he heard things that cannot told, which man may not utter..."These are initiatory revelations from an out-of-body experience.Now compare 1 John :
"That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life 1:2(and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 1:4 And we write these things to you, that our joy may be fulfilled. "This was written by a man who just had a revelatory experince with filled him with great joy that he wanted to share with others - a feeling not un-common in such situations.So,
I think there was a new religious ideology growing in Paul's time around the related concepts of the Logos (e.g. as being developed by Philo) and the idea of the mediating son-of-God.The leaders of the forming "Jerusalem church" were those who had ben through the Iesous Christos experience - Paul goes on and on about spiritual matters, rarely mentioning the earthly Jesus, visiting Jerusalem without any interest in Gospel places and events, explicitly claiming to be as good as apostle as James and Peter, and as having "seen" Jesus just as they did - in a vision.The early Christian writings all show focus on the spiritual risen Christ, with no mention of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth - there is no clear sign even of BELIEF in an earthly Jesus of Nazareth until 2nd century.The real founder of Christianity was Paul who from his visions, crafted a grand analogy -
Cross = physical body
Christos = immortal soul
Crucixifion = (the limitations of) physical lifeConsider how Clement explains it -
' "For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes waxen," according to Plato; since "each pleasure and pain nails to the body the soul" of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from the passions.
...
For if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope 'So,
in sum, I see no room for a human leader Jesus - there is no sign of such a person in the early Christian writings. Not Paul, James, Peter, Jude, Acts, Rev, Didakhe, Clement, nor Hebrews shows any clear sign of a human leader Jesus - just beliefs about a spiritual being, the Risen Christ.Later,
the masterpiece of literature we now call the Gospel of Mark was produced anonymously. It recast the pagan god-man story into a Jewish milieu by crafting the story of Jesus from parts of the Tanakh such as the Elijah cycle (have you read Michael Turton's Commentary on Mark? its a modern online masterpiece.)Finally,
after two wars, the desctruction of Jerusalem, the razing of the Temple, the dispersal of the Jews and the complete erasing of Judea from the map - a CENTURY after the alleged events - THEN some people started saying Jesus was real.The argument about a physical/historical Jesus raged for almost a century with Christians arguing AGAINST a physical, historical Jesus -
2 John warns of those who don't "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".
Marcion denied Jesus was a real man.
Polycarp mentions those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh.
Basilides denied Jesus was physical.
Bardesanes denied Jesus was physical.
Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion are Christian beliefs.
Celsus claimed the Gospels were myths, and that Jesus was a "shadow"
Hegesippus reports sects that did not believe in the resurrection.
Sadducees, doubted the resurrection (according to Tertullian.)By 3rd century it was all over bar the shouting -
Jesus was historical and physical, on pain of death for dis-belief.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

OK, I am going to google an encyclopedia, but probably drop discussing things with you guys since it is quire obvious you have absolutely no interest in truth. For example, I explained the issue with the "son of man" in it's usage, and yet rather than try to answer that issue, you guys run from it and make up total BS.

---

You made a vague claim that proved nothing.
You then dismiss critique as "BS".
You seem unable to debate like an adult.

quote:

---

I have now shown a source that states that most scholars think Jesus actually lived.

---

Once again, you seem unable to understand what is written.
I never claimed anything different, but you seem unable to grasp what is argued. Of course we all know it is currently a minority view - doh.When I argue "Jesus never existed",
you rave in reply - "it's a lie to say most scholars claim Jesus never existed".Please randman, take the time to try and read and comprehend what my argument is.So far we have seen you get the totally opposite idea of what I argue -
I NEVER claimed Paul did not exist - you got that totally backwards,
I NEVER claimed "most scholars argue Jesus never existed" - you got that backwards too.Furthermore,
its becoming clear you have no books to refer to, you own no commentaries, have no scholarly reference works, no library close by, and have never heard of Peter Kirby's site - after dozens of posts and numerous requests for evidence - all you can come up with is an irrelevent quote from WIKI ?

quote:

---

I have now shown a source that states that most scholars think Jesus actually lived.
Can you guys now back up your claims that most scholars claim Jesus never in fact existed?

---

Try learning how to read for comprehension.
No-one made that claim.
I dare you - quote where anyone claimed "most scholars claim Jesus never in fact existed"Honestly, I feel like I'm in a Monty Python skit with you - you just don't seem able to grasp what is being argued. You seem to get so worked up when you post that you don't bother to properly read what is written, instead you emotively preach your beliefs and insult those who disagree with you. That's not debate, that school-ground arguing. When you present some real evidence, perhaps you will receive some respect - as it is, you come across like a rude child.Iasion

Greetings,OK randman, I will spell it out for you -I claim -(1) Jesus never existed
I acknowledge this is a minority view, I never said otherwise. Some scholars do agree with this view, and it has been argued for centuries.I also claim -(2) no NT document was written by an eye-witness to Jesus

​

(2a)I also argue this is a consensus of the modern mainstream, and for evidence I quoted numerous scholars who specifically argued just that.I argue it is a consensus because I see that the vast majority of recent scholars I see mentioned on Peter Kirby's or in commentaries such as the New Jerome or Brown say that the various NT writings were not written by anyone who knew Jesus.The only people who I see claiming the books to be by eye-witnesse are faithful Christians (whether they also call themselves scholars or not.)Your argument seems to be that the majority must be right, in which case I claim victory in point 2 - the majority of mainstream scholars do argue that the NT books were not written by eye-witnesses.So, randman, if YOU claim some NT works were written by eye-witnesses, then present your argument, cite your scholars, build your case.Feel free to start with any single NT book - can you show it was by an eye-witness?I look forward to hearing your argument.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

By the way, one reason for the tone of some of my comments is I am a serious person interested in real discussion,

---

Hmmm..
Is calling people ignorant, and using words like "bullshit" what you mean?

quote:

---

and it is disheartening to have spend pages upon pages on something which should not even be debated.

---

You think these things "should not" be debated?
Why?
Because they contradict your religious views?Essentially what you seem to be saying is -
"my views are fixed, I believe they are true, I will not discus them and do not want anybody else to be able to discuss them - I want everybody else to accept my religious views are true without question"Well, of course, we don't accept your religious views.
Just as you reject the Qur'an.

quote:

---

There's no real debate as to what most scholars believe on this. The vast majority accept that Jesus the man really did live.

---

This vast majority you speak of is largely made up of faithful Christian believers.
I want to SEE your NUMBERS please randman.You so often say the numbers are on your side - well, I want to see your numbers - you must have all the figures right at your fingertips to be so confident.Tell us -
HOW MANY scholars believe Jesus was historical?
HOW MANY do not?Furthermore, how many of those who believe in a historical Jesus are faithful Christians?
Of course we have to exclude those "scholars" - anyone who has taken a VOW to BELIEVE in Jesus as a God can obviously not be trusted to give a fair opinion on his existance.So randman, tell us the numbers you so often invoke as support -
HOW MANY non-Christian scholars believe Jesus existed?
HOW MANY non-Christian scholars believe Jesus never existed?I look forward to seeing and evaluating your figures on this matter, as they will be quite instructive I would think.Of course for best results, we would sample scholars equally from all faiths - Hindu, Jewish, Jain, Buddhist, Pagan, Animist, Muslim, Asatru, The Nations.Now we all know you don't really have any figureas, but if you did have those figures just discussed, I think we can be pretty confident it would be not be a large majority in favour of Jesus. (Do you believe Lao Tzu was real, randman? Buddha Gautama? Krishna? Thor? Odysseus? Osiris? Kwan Yin?)I trust you begin to see the point - claiming the numbers are on your side may make you feel better, but its not much of an argument, even if right. Not long ago everyone agreed the world was the centre of the universe, and that the world was created 6000 years ago by divine fiat - we know better now.If you wish to stand on others laurels and go no further than claim "the majority agree with me", then ok - go ahead - but the debate, (such as it is) is then over - and no-one learns anything.You say you are a serious person looking for real debate - well, did you expect everyone would agree with you and that you would set the agenda for all discusion?If you are so serious, and your claims are so rock solid, it SHOULD BE EASY for you to prove -1) Jesus existed
or
2) a NT book was by an eye-witnessBut you have to marshall an argument, cite some books, list some names, refer to some dates - anything more than quoting some other believer that agrees with you.Because, to be frank, thats the standard model we get from believers -
1) preaching of the believers beliefs,
2) a quote of a another believer who belives what the poster believes
3) attack, swear, insult, ridiculeSo, please randman,
please feel free to present your arguments.Iasion

Greetings,While randman prepares the list of non-Christian scholars who believe (or not) that Jesus existed, I thought readers may be interested in a list of historical authors who argued Jesus did not exist (dating from when the church started to lose its grip on power) :C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus — A Myth
Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus ChristThis shows that the argument about Jesus being a myth has been around for quite a while.More recent works include :Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle
HTTP 429Robert Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of ManAlvin Boyd Kuhn's Who is This King of Glory?.
Who is thisTimothy Freke and Peter Gandy - The Jesus Mysteries
Sabbatarian.comJesus Never Existed:
Welcome to Enlightenment! — Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth HumphreysYes, it's a minority view, but it's growing, and I think it's true, as do many others.When I started looking into this maybe 7 years ago - it was a fringe idea, few supporters, little exposure, a few books, 1 or 2 web sites - now it's grown a great deal to many books web sites and fora discussing this idea.An idea whose time has come.Jesus was a myth.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

No, I think the thread can be debated, but debating over facts that are universally acknowledged

---

You just can't help yourself can you?It most certainly is NOT a "fact, universally admitted", that Jesus existed.I named several scholars who do not accept this, proving such a "universal" claim wrong.It is merely a BELIEF, albeit held by many.(If you are trying to get me to agree that it is a universally agreed fact that the majority of scholars agree Jesus existed, then yes, of course I do - so what?)

quote:

---

is not helpful in the debate, and I specifically mentioned the fact of what most scholars believe, namely that Jesus existed. The fact most scholars believe Jesus existed does not make it true, but how can we proceed very far, if even something like this, which you know to be true, namely that most scholars believe Jesus existed, is not quickly acknowledged.

---

Pardon?
You mis-understood me, and ranted about straw-men for several posts - I NEVER claimed what you said I did, instead YOU got all worked up about whether "most scholars claimed Jesus exist" - of course they do, we all know its a majority view, which I said previously - once again you don't seem to have READ what I posted.But as I noted - the vast majority of these people you call "scholars" are in fact FAITHFUL Christians who have taken a VOW of BELIEF.You can not seriously expect as to consider a person who has taken a VOW of BELIEF to give a non-biased opinion on whether Jesus existed?Of course the vast majority of people believe Jesus existed - because their parents and their priest did too - because their priests and the priests before them all believed - right back to when NOT believing meant risking your life.For over a millenium the church made SURE that everyone BELIEVED - if you didn't (at least) CLAIM to believe, it meant perhaps being BURNED ALIVE !Do you think the majority of people (claimed to) believe in Jesus when the Inquisition raged?
I'd guess about 99.99 percent - does that make it true?

quote:

---

If so, what about the non-Christian scholar who nevertheless feels he or she wants to spend their lives studying the New Testament? Are they any less biased, more biased, or what?

---

A scholar who is driven by seeking knowledge is credible.
A person who has an a priori vow of belief is NOT credible on that subject.When it comes to the Qur'an I treat Mulsim claims with a grain of salt.
When it comes to the book of Mormon, I am suspicious of what a Mormon claims.
When it comes to the origin of Freemasonry, I would not automatically believe a Mason.

quote:

---

As you can see, it is easy to cast suspicions on people's motives.

---

Pardon?
Are you claiming that all non believers have an axe to grind?Do you believe non-believers about whether Krishna existed?
Do you believe non-believers about whether Osiris existed?
Do you believe non-believers about whether Hercules existed?What exactly is your point?My point is clear -
a person who has take a VOW of BELIEF in Jesus, a person whose religion REQUIRES him to believe, a person SURROUNDED by others who also BELIEVE and reinforce that BELIEF - such a person cannot possibly be considered impartial when considering whether Jesus existed.How can you possibly expect us to accept such obviouslty biased testimony?Do you belief what Muslims say about Mohamed?
Do you believe pagans who say they turn into a wolf?
Do you believe what Jim Jones followers said about him?So,
why would you expect us to take the word of FAITHFUL believers that your FAITHFUL BELIEFS are true.

quote:

---

I think you are grossly misreading my posts, or maybe just misrepresenting them. I am not claiming we should not consider the arguments that Jesus never existed, or whatever else you are suggesting. I am claiming that agreed-upon facts, by everyone, should be admitted to early so we don't waste pages on pages going over them.

---

What agreed-upon facts?
I agreed several times its a minority view, I never claimed otherwise, even though you ranted that I did.You also misunderstood what I said about Paul (and don't even seem to realise it yet),
and you claim it is I who is misunderstanding?
What a laugh.

quote:

---

I am merely trying to correct what I thought was a false appeal to scholars by you. You admitted that your view was the minority view, and I thought we could move on, but apparently not based on your last post.

---

Pardon?
What "false appeal to scholars" ?
It is becoming increasingly hard to understand your point.YOU made a fuss about the majority of scholars was on your side - but you think I am making some false appeal to scholars? Bizarre.When YOU challenged my claim that "the scholarly consensus is that no NT writing was by an eye-witness", I cited SCHOLARS to prove my point (of course, you ignored the evidence, once again.)But when you are challenged to come up with scholarly support for your views - the best you can manage is some proffessor you can't remember and a disputed quote from wikipedia? You really should get a job with Monty Python.

quote:

---

If you want to discuss specifics of why you think Jesus did not exist, or a late date for the New Testament, make your argument, and I will be glad to join in.

---

I posted pages and pages of detailed specifics - you ignored all of it, such as -I posted numerous evidence of scholars who argued NT writings were not by eye-witnesses - you ignored it.I posted a lengthy list of authors who did not mention Jesus - you said nothing.I posted refutations of the so-called "evdience" for Jesus - you said nothing.I posted a detailed exposition of the early church - you ignored it.I invited you to present some scholarly evidence for your claims - you didn't.

quote:

---

Iason....

---

You can't even get my name right, you obviously never check your work at all, do you?Let me once more lay it out clearly and simply :1) Jesus never existed (a minority view, yes)

​

2) no NT writing is by an eye-wtness to Jesus (a modern consenus)Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

Either he's not reading the same Pauline letters as the rest of us, or he's created a mythical Paul. If you're going to talk about what Paul wrote, at least be accurate about it. If you want to say, you think Paul didn't really write of Christ's death, reserruction, or other facets of his life, but were added later, well say that, but Paul's letters do in fact give us the most critical details of his life, namely that he was crucified, buried and rose again.

---

Ah, the eternal argument about Paul.Paul certainly writes about Christ's death, and crucifixion, and resurrection, yes.Paul does NOT say anything about Jesus' life as a person at all.Paul does not mention :
* Mary, Joseph, the birth stories, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Magi
* the baptism, the sermons, the triumphal entry,
* the miracles, raising and healings by Jesus
* the trial, Pilate, Judas, Gethsemane, Calvary,
* the empty tomb !
* the teachings of JesusPaul writes only about a spiritual being - the Risen Christ, who was crucified by the astral powers in the lower heavens.
Paul says he has met Jesus like the others did - i.e. they all met Jesus in visions.
Paul visits Jerusalem and shows no intertest in the Gospel places or events,
and he rebuffs James and Peter - he is just as good as them.
No sign of a historical Jesus there at all.What makes YOU think Paul refers to an earthly Jesus?I suggest you read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, then we can talk about Paul.Iasion