The Existence of Jesus Christ

Greetings,

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.

---

Sure,
let's consider the issue of the stages of development of the Christ myth -The Development of the Jesus MythThe Jesus Myth theory can be seen in terms of the various stages that we see in the Christian record -Stage one - spiritual Iesous Christos
* INITIALLY PAUL describes Iesous Christos as a purely spiritual being who exists on a higher plane, but who acts inside every human, perhaps somewhat like what we might now call a "soul" (Christ in you, the hope of Glory.) Paul mentions no earthly Jesus of Nazareth, no miracles, no empty tomb, no speeches, no dates, names, places, nor events - merely a few spiritual references. Paul is religious allegory - our soul (the Christos) is pinned (crucified) to the body (the cross) by the passions of the flesh, and raised back to heaven after we die (we live Christ's death, Christ lives our death.) Clement Alex. later discusses these very themes.Notably Paul, (like all the 1st century writings), show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth,
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt,
* Herod and the massacre of the infants,
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan,
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?),
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus,
* the cleansing of the temple, the trumphal entry,
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus,
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration,
* Peter the rock and "the keys",
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas,
* the empty tomb !!
None of those key events or actors are mentioned even once by 1st century Christian writers.You can see how the early Christians show no knowledge of Gospel stories in overview in my table here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipNONE of the Gospel stories are mentioned until the 2nd century, just like there is NO mention of the Gospels. But, from late 2nd century on, we see an enormous explosion in writings by many Christian authors which explain, and exposit and exegise the Gospels - whole libraries of books endlessly quoting and preaching from the Gospel and debating the finiest minutiae of every detail of every incident in Jesus' life.The argument that these issues were NOT mentioned because they were so well-known does not make sense - these details were even MORE well known in later centuries when we see them repeated endlessly at vast length. Every later writer (who obviously have heard of the Gospel Jesus) quotes and argues from the Gospel stories frequently. The only possible explanation for the total silence of the 1st century Christian writers about the Gospel stories that are the basis for Christianity now, is that they had NEVER HEARD of them.For example there are MANY occasions in Paul where we WOULD EXPECT Paul to mention the live and teaching when the context is entirely appopriate for a mention of Jesus or his teachings -
* 1 Thess 4:9 - Paul tells Christians to "love one another" WITHOUT a mention of Jesus! Even though Jesus supposedly taught exactly that.
* 2 Cor. 6:1 - Paul talks about the the "day of deliverance" (quoting Isaiah 49:8) without the slightest mention of what Jesus had said on this very important topic!
* Rom. 6:2 - Paul talks of Christian baptism - NO MENTION of the baptism in the Jordan.
* Rom. 133 - Paul encourages Paul to trust the authorities - yet those authorities allegedly just crucified his God!
* 1 Cor. 1:7 - Paul talks of the coming of Christ in the future tense - no hint he had recently been.
* Rom. 6:17 - Paul talks of Christian teaching being "handed on to you" - no mention here of Jesus' teachings.
* Gal 2:14 - Paul talks about the Jewish laws and the Gentiles - no mention of what Jesus had allegedly said on these very subjects.See Earl Doherty's list of 200 silences in Paul for a detailed analysis of this problem -
No webpage found at provided URL: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/silintro.htm
(internal URL, pardon me :-)The WAR, phase 1
* ~70CE - the Romans get fed up, the Temple is razed to the ground, Jerusalem is largely destroyed, many Jews killed or dispersed.Stage two - early lettersTHEN OTHER LETTERS began to appear (but before the Gospels arise) - these are either anonymous (Hebrews), forged in Paul's name, or forged in the name of characters from Paul's letters. These early letters mostly date from between the wars, and are in the name of characters in Paul's letters - modern scholars consider all of these letters pseudographs (i.e. not written by the person named as author.)According to modern scholars, the Gospels were written approx. these dates :
* G.Mark : 65-80
* G.Matthew : 80-100
* G.Luke : 80-130
* G.John : 90-120
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
These dates are all deduced from internal evidence (such as references to the destruction of the Temple, relations with the Jews, use of special terms.) What the external evidence shows is a little different - the Gospels do not become clearly known to Christians until early/mid 2nd century.Some scholars (e.g. Herman Detering) argue that the Gospels should be dated to just after the SECOND part of the war - see the Journal of Higher Criticism (not for newbies, top notch scholarly work here) :
Articles You Can Read NowWhatever the actual dates of the Gospels, I will argue from the documentary record and the dates generally agreed by consensus of scholars (if such can be found.)The WAR, phase 2
* 132-135CE - the Romans call up to 10 legions in to squash the widespread massive rebellion - the rest of Jerusalem is destroyed (some say the whole city was reduced to knee-high rubble), the remaining outposts are wiped out (e.g. Masada), Judea is literally wiped from the map, and mostly from the earth. Only AFTER all this destruction, after one or two cataclysms of war with the Romans, nearly a century after the alleged events - only then do we see the Gospel stories become widely known in the Christian record.Stage three - the Gospel appears
* the GOSPEL (of Mark) appears, anonymous (while perhaps written shortly after the first war, Christians writers only began to show knowledge of the Gospels in early-mid 2nd century.)G.Mark is a masterpiece of spiritual literature, synthesizing a grand new version of the heroic son-of-god story so well known to so many cultures through Osiris, Dionysius, Attis, Adonis, Iasius but now cast into a Jewish milieu by melding key elements from the ancient Jewish writings. We know how the religious impulse in humans just loves to find old books to mine for their cherished beliefs - so in those times the Jewish scriptures represented a newly discovered, yet ancient deep and rich spiritual literature to peoples bored with crude Homer and jaded with Rome's silly superstitions. Mark's story was set in the perfect heroic past - not long ago, just before the wars, yet cast in the epic ancient context of the Jewish scriptures. Mark uses the figures mentioned in Paul as the actors in his story - Peter, John, James.G.Mark is a work of literary genius, it creates entire speeches and characters and events from the whole cloth of the Jewish writings AS WELL as elements of Paul's letters - he merges the classic pagan myth with the suffering servant and messianic figures and the Iesous Christos of Paul to craft a new son-of-god who transcends the older figures by expressing the myth with a new sense of depth, by capturing many of the spiritual issues and themes which were important to seekers of the day.
Furthermore, G.Mark is built from the warp of paganism and the weft of Judaism with clear structures of LITERATURE - we see literary structures called chiasms (called after X in Greek) in the form : ABCDC'B'A', we see the classic challenge and response of pagan works, called chriea, amongst many other examples of structure showing its a work of literature. G.Mark may also echo Homer by episodes in which Jesus mimics the actions of Odysseus but is found to be superior in the climax (see Denis McDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark.)See Michael Turton's magnum opus on G.Mark for details about these literary structures :
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMarkmap.htmlG.Mark is a great work of literature - but note that it is not at all clear what the intended GENRE of the document really was in the unknown author's mind. This is still a matter of considerable debate.Stage four - OTHER Gospels appear,
the 2nd century battle for Spiritual vs Literal JesusAfter G.Mark other Gospels appeared - many (dozens) and varied - some later become our accepted four, some are gnostic works, and some are of even other types and quality and authorship. Some are accepted as genuine before before later rejected for doctrinal reasons (e.g. the Gospel of Peter.) Some counts of how many Gospels were produced in the early period run as high as 50.During the formative period we see two totallly opposite poles of belief appear -
1 - the early gnostic and/or esoteric camp - who argue Iesous Christos was a spiritual being, or a phantom, or something not physical and historical (Paul and Paul2, Basilides, Valentinus etc.)
vs
2 - the later literalist who argue that Jesus was "truly" crucified under Pontius Pilate etc. as a historical event - starting with the suspect letters of "Ignatius" probably around the time of Papias.Fierce battles of dogma raged between the two camps over the 2nd century, critics disagreeing with even the core elements of the Christian stories :
* 2 John, Polycarp, mention Christians who did not accept Jesus Christ came "in the flesh",
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom or spritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",We also see a very odd case - church father Minucius Felix explicitly claims Christians do NOT worship a man crucified, ridiculing the whole thing along with the idea that gods could become men. This appears to be a Christian who has heard of the Gospels stories and is EXPLICTLY DENYING they are Christian beliefs. A church father explicitly denying the Gospel stories !
His writing is as clear as mud to a blind man with his eyes closed at midnight during an eclipse, probably why it escaped the church censors :
Felix : "he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"We also see examples of 2nd century Christian writers who discuss Christian beliefs at length but conspicuously FAIL to mention Jesus -
* Mathetes to Diognetus - responded to 'close and careful inquiries' and preaches in Neo-Platonic tones of the Logos, his Son, but no time, place, or identity for this incarnation are provided. The name Jesus never appears.
* Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks - Esoteric Christianity at its finest - neither Christ nor Jesus not Son is mentioned anywhere - the Logos is the emphasis. In Ch.21, Tatian compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote: "Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories".
* Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned, but the Logos is directly equated with the Son of God.
* Theophilus (of Antioch) wrote To Autolycus which does NOT mention Christ, nor Jesus.Such examples are clear and present evidence of 2nd century Christians who do NOT believe the Gospel stories are part of their beliefs, either because they think them new and spurious, or perhaps because they had not even heard the Gospels yet.Stage five - Literalists win the battleBy late 2nd century the battle is all over bar the shouting -
* the Gospels are chosen and named,
* the hierarchy is formed, the literal Gospel Jesus is dogma,
* the Gnostic and esoteric writers are consigned to the flames,
* the shouting continues for a couple of centuries - Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine...The clear pattern to be seen from this chronology is that the original Jesus was a spiritual figure, and the historical Jesus was a later belief that developed after the war(s), when everybody was dead and Jerusalem was in ashes.The evidence of the 2nd century batttles of dogma emphasizes this - even then there were sceptics and critics who denied that Jesus and his actions were physical and historical.Iasion

Greetings,Continuing my argument that Jesus never existed, lets consider the alleged "evidence" for the historical existance of Jesus -Alleged evidence for the existance of JesusApologists frequently cite various ancient authors as evidence for Jesus' existance.However, this evidence has serious issues, with all of it being late, suspect, or irrelevent, as follows -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 call 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.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.SUETONIUS (c.115CE)Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "good") and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was,
* Jesus was never said to have lead the Jews in Rome into trouble during Claudius' time.So, this passage is unlikely to refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all - I am surprised that this obviously un-related passage is cited so often.CLEMENT (late 1st)Clement was a prominant early church father, but :
* he does NOT mention a historical Jesus,
* NOR any mention of the Gospels or their events,
* merely a couple of SAYINGS attributed to Jesus
(along with many specific references to OT scripture and Paul.)So,
Clement is no evidence for a historical Jesus, indeed seems to know nothing about Jesus or the Gospel events.PHLEGON (c.140)Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events.So,
Phlegon is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.THALLUS date unknownWe have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote,
there are NONE of Thallus works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely refered to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a mis-reading.)Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
Richard Carrier Thallus » Internet InfidelsSo,
Thallus is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.So,
Ignatius MAY be a 2nd century reference to a few details about Jesus, but the date is not certain (130s or 170s are possiblities.)QUADRATUS (c.125CE)Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted centuries later.So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.VALENTINUS (c.140CE)In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.JUSTIN MARTYR (c.150CE)Justin wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he quotes "memoirs of the apostles" ("called Gospels")
* these memoirs are NOT yet named for the evangelists,
* these memoirs are DIFFERENT to our modern Gospels,So,Justin quotes un-named proto-Gospels,
but
provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.POLYCARP (c.155CE)Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but
provides no actual 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.TALMUD (3rd C. and later)There 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.MARA BAR SERAPION 3rd century? later?A fragment which says -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.It is NOT at all clear who this is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.GALENLate 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.This is far too late to be evidence.NUMENIUSIn the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"This not any evidnce for Jesus, its 3rd century wishful thinking.SUMMARYSo, whilst that list of alleged citations to a historical Jesus may have looked impressive to those who didn't know the details, in fact they turned out to be very weak indeed - to summarise :* an interpolated or forged passage (JOSEPHUS)* a first century Christian father who mentions NOTHING about a historical Jesus or the Gospel events, merely some sayings (CLEMENT)* a 2nd century passage, at best a late reference to Christian beliefs (TACITUS)* a 2nd century reference to Christians beliefs, not Jesus (PLINY)* a reference to someone else entirely (SUETONIUS)* a made-up reference (THALLUS)* a few tiny details in a suspect, probably forged, 2nd century corpus from (at least) 75 years after the alleged events (IGNATIUS)* a writer of uncertain date from whom we have a SINGLE SENTENCE cited centuries later (QUADRATUS)* a mid 2nd century Gnostic view about an esoteric Jesus (VALENTINUS)* a mid 2nd century work which quotes un-named proto-Gospels called "memoirs of the apostles" (JUSTIN)* a mid 2nd century writer who merely knew some sayings of Jesus (POLYCARP)* a late 2nd century reference to Christians, not Jesus (LUCIAN)* some 3rd century Jewish polemic (TALMUD)None of these references are contemporary, most of them contain no reference to a historical Jesus anyway - and the few that do are all suspect or far too late.Such is the "evidence" for Jesus.Iasion

Greetings all,

quote:

---

My first reference pointed to the list of people who had made reference to Jesus, a list offerred by a skeptic. This was offerred as evidence, which was refuted by my point.

---

No it wasn't.
You made a claim totally at variance with the evidence, and provided no supporting argument at all.
There is a vast body of contemporary evidence for Caesar - none for Jesus.

quote:

---

My second mention was to Nero's recognition of them at 64, a scant 30 years following the historically agreed year that would be Jesus' crucifixion (and resurrection), which year helps aid or debunk the existance of same.

---

Wrong again.
Nothing was recognised in 64CE.
The legend about Nero and the Christians dates to 2nd century, and is found in only ONE source and does not match the external history.

quote:

---

The third reference was to the fact that all the historical followers believed in the fact of the resurrection enough (not just Messiahship) to go to martyrdom.

---

The Heaven's Gate cult believed in the facts of the space-ship enough to go to martyrdom.
Suicide bombers believe in their faith enough to go to martyrdom.
Religious loonies often die for crazy beliefs - so what?

quote:

---

And I listed the writings of Polycarp as well, a contemporary of John, meaning the one who wrote the gospel of John.

---

Wrong.
Polycarp's letter does NOT mention John at all.
Later LEGENDS say he met John.

quote:

---

So then the last paragraph, approximately 5 to 7 percent of my post, gave the evidence of my own transition based on this and the other evidence to belief, which I think counts as evidence. Granting the last six words as "evangelizing", how can you make such a generalization about that post. After all, empirical evidence is what brought me to my present beliefs.

---

No.
You preached several faithful claims, all wrong, not backed by evidenceIasion

Greetings Deut.32.8,

quote:

---

Agree with whom?

---

(Acts)
Oh, I guess I was thinking of Doherty and Price etc.

quote:

---

And would you likewise agree that the - let's call it tension - between Paul and the Jerusalem cult was likewise historical, with Paul insisting on legitimacy despite his dubious backgroung, Gentile mission, and separation from the Jerusalem center?

---

Yes, I do think the tension, the argument, was historical.Its not clear to me exactly what the real origin was - yet it does seem to be based on a split between -
* Jerusalem / Jewish
* elsewhere / gentile.

quote:

---

I understand that, and I have no trouble viewing Christianity as a Pauline invention. What I asked, however, was your views on the Jerusalem cult. I would thing that the historicity of this cult and, given cult dynamics, the historicity of an initial cult leader, would be good candidates for IBE. Conversely, arguing against historicity impresses me as dogma-driven speculation with no redeeming quality, somewhat reminiscent of Christian apologetics.

---

Yes, that is a good point - I think the tension is best seen as historical.In fact, this tension may have been the engine for initial growth -
various seekers are having experiences of the Risen Christ,
different visions lead to different views, which leads to different preaching.Paul claims there are other Christs beign preached, and expends great effort preaching HIS version - so succesfully, it became dogma.So,
in that sense, I would see the founding figure not as Jesus -
but as Paul, and the Jerusalam sect, PREACHING and ARGUING about Jesus.Kirby/Wells: "However, in his latest books, Wells allows that such a complex of tradition as we have in the synoptic gospels could not have developed so quickly (by the end of the first century) without some historical basis; "I just cannot agree.
Myths and legends can develop in days.
How long did it take for The Golden Ass to be written?
Was Lucius real because this book appeared quite quickly?The Gospel legends appeared late 1st century - the legendary development phase reaches right back to the Tanakh, and brackets the Maccabean writings, Philo, the Stoics etc.The idea that the Gospels legends could not have delevoped so "quickly" assumes the conclusion - that Jesus existed in early 1st century.In reality - if Jesus did NOT exist in early 1st century, then there is room for centuries of development.Of course, it IS also possible there was a much earlier historical figure on which Jesus was based, as Wells et al argue.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

Iason

---

Hmm .. still can't get my name right, even after I pointed it out to you.You don't actually READ my posts, do you?

quote:

---

First of all, I reject the idea that someone predisposed already to reject belief in Jesus, but who nonetheless decides to spend their lives studying about Jesus is more impartial than someone that has taken a vow to serve in the ministry.

---

Gee - what a surprise !You claim independent scholars can not be impartial,
and
you claim faithful believers ARE impartial.This is the very epitome of close-minded religious bigoty.I won't be answering any more of randman's preaching.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

But I am more interested in your views concerning the origins of the Jerusalem cult.

---

I think it started as an initiatory cult, focussed on spiritual experiences of something they called "Iesous Christos".

quote:

---

Why would you acknowledge its historicity yet exclude the possibility of a cult leader named Yeshu'a bar Yosef?

---

Pardon?
I do NOT "exclude the possibility" of such a cult leader.
I examined the facts and concluded there was no such leader.OK, back to your earlier passage -

quote:

---

Conversely, arguing against historicity impresses me as dogma-driven speculation with no redeeming quality, somewhat reminiscent of Christian apologetics.

---

Let's see -
I posted pages of detailed evidence and argument,
you ignore the vast majority of it,
then you call my posts "dogma-drive speculation".Gee thanks.
Way to engender polite discourse.

quote:

---

...and then proceed to ignore most of the point.

---

Well pardon me if I missed something.Yes,
I agree a historical cult leader Yeshua is a POSSIBLE candidate.But,
No,
having investigated the evidence, I do not believe there is room for such a figure - he is completely missing from Paul and the other 1st century writings.I consider the most plausible origin is several people competing for prominance in a new Iesous Christos cult (with the cult probably having developed for some time prior.)

quote:

---

This seems less than forthcoming. You may reject 'Q' and an early date for the Passion narrative and the Gospel of Thomas, but many would place these core elements mid-1st century if not earlier.

---

I don't reject such views.But,
why would dating these elements in mid 1st century argue for a historical Jesus?If there was NO historical figure Jesus, then a 1st century date is as useless as a 2nd century date in arguing for such a Jesus.A 1st century dating is only important if we assume there WAS an early 1st century Jesus.

quote:

---

Furthermore, if you acknowledge a real history underlying the tensions between the Jewish and Gentile mission, those tensions come in the context of a relationship. and that would seem to imply areas of commonality as well as disageement. If the Jerusalem cult had nothing close to a Jesus tradition, what was the basis of Paul's relationship with them.

---

Hmmm.
I never said the Jerusalem cult had no Jesus tradition.I think there was a new initiatory cult forming, based especially on the new Logos and son-of-god figures.Compare the foundings of such organisations as the Golden Dawn or Theosophy - ego clashes abound, visions and beliefs compete as disciples vie for who is closest to their gods...So,
your argument here seems to be about there being both :
a) tension, disagreement
and
b) commonality, shared viewsThat the COMMONALITY must have been Yeshua - a historical figure.My answer is -
why?Why does the something in COMMON have to be a historical person?Why can it not be a shared idea, theme, vision, initiation?My argument is that the commonality is they all shared the same initiation in Iesous Christos - the one that climaxed :Awake O sleeper,
and arise from the dead
and the Christos will shine on youThey all shared the same cult, but differed in views - perhaps James was the church leader and Paul was the one with the best "visions".Paul seems to be saying just this when he emphasizes his own spiritual credentials, and dismisses the pillars.There just isn't any place for a historical Jesus in Paul's visit to Jerusalem.

quote:

---

Again, is not the most reasonable inference that there was, indeed, a Torah observant Yeshu'a bar Yosef, later Hellenized and Christianized by Paul and those who followed?

---

No.I don't think so.Where is the human Jesus in Paul?
Or in any 1st century writing?IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 05-30-2005 02:12 AM

Greetings,

quote:

---

That is exactly the point. The apostles and the Christians contemporary with the times believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ so strongly that they happily went to their martyrdom. These were people who knew for a fact with their own eyes.
Nobody dies to support what they know is a myth.

---

Once more you totally fail to grasp the point.The Heaven's gate cult killed themselves because they BELIEVED.Suicide bombers die for what they BELIEVE.Christian martyrs (allegedly) died because they BELIEVED.You claim this BELIEF proves its true.Therefore, your argument claims the Heaven's Gate cult's beliefs were TRUE.Do you get my point yet?Just because someone BELIEVES in something enough to die for it is not proof it is true at all.Iasion

Greetings again,

quote:

---

I agree completely. The claim that Paul never mentions the life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus is particularly egregious and easily refuted, but they cling to it nonetheless.

---

Once more, randman shows he is unable to properly READ my posts or comprehend my argument.I did NOT claim Paul never mentioned the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ.My point is that Paul discusses these events as spiritual things which apparently took place on the astral plane.Yes,
Paul mentions these events.No,
Paul never describes them as earthly events.I do not think randman will ever grasp this distinction, but for lurkers, here is the point :Paul's comments MAY refer to an earthly being,
Paul's comments MAY refer to a spiritual being.There are many comments in Paul which refer to a spiritual Christ (e.g. "Christ in you the hope of glory" cannot be a physical Christ inside us can it?)But NONE of Paul's comments clearly refer to an EARTHLY Jesus.Paul NEVER mentions :
* Mary, Joseph, the birth legends,
* the sermons and teachings of Jesus
* the healings and miracles
* the trial or Pilate
* the empty tomb.This is the point which apologists like randman will never grasp - there is NOTHING in PAUL which is CLEARLY referring to an EARTHLY Jesus - merely vague spiritual comments about the Risen Christ.Suppose you read Paul WITHOUT knowing anything about the Gospels or other Christian writings - what can we learn about the eatthly life of Jesus from Paul?

​

Nothing -
no dates,
no places,
no names or people,
no events such as the trial,
nothing about the empty tomb...To those who are following the thread, I hope you appreciate why I gave up answering randman's preachings - he doesn't read what I write.I claimed "Jesus never existed",
he ranted "its a lie that the majority of scholars say Jesus never existed",
getting what I said totally backwards.I noted "someone wrote the letters of Paul, so we call that person Paul"
he ranted "its false to claim Paul never existed"
getting what I said totally backwards again.I argued "there is nothing in Paul which clearly about an Earthly Jesus"
yet randman STILL doesn't get it - he cannot seem to grasp the distinction between a spiritual being and an earthly one.Consider the famous passage "born of woman".Now,
HOW MANY humans have been "born of woman" ?
i.e. HOW MANY humans were NOT "born of woman".Obviously, every single human being in history was "born of woman".So,
to describve someone as "born of woman" is like saying :
"he breathed air" - its OBVIOUS.So,
the only reason someone would say Christ was "born of woman" would be if this would NOT be a natural conclusion - i.e. Paul cannot be referring to a normal human being.Paul is reffering to a being like found in the Ascension of Isaiah, or someone like Attis, or Osiris - a SPIRITUAL BEING.Iasion

Greetings again,

quote:

---

You're quite correct. My comment was poorly worded and I apologise.

---

Thank you :-)
It is easy to be mis-understood or to accidentally give offense.

quote:

---

At the same time, I've read your evidence more than once in the past, and my intent was certainly not to ignore it. I am simply concerned that this evidence may be reducible to a well researched argument from absence.

---

Well, that's a fair comment - certain absences do form a large part of my case.

quote:

---

And why would you think this? Why would an apparently Torah observant cult, presumably operating within the synagogue structure of the time (i.e., before the malediction/expulsion) choose to call the focus of their experience "Iesous Christos"?

---

Hmmm..
Perhaps calling it a "Torah observant cult" is a bit strong, considering we know very little about it.
Splits from Judaism were hardly un-common in those times - the early Jerusalem cult could have been a sect that had re-interpreted the Torah to suit their new beliefs, wherever they may have sprung (middle-platonism, Philo, Kabalah, Hermeticism ?)In other words, we don't know the state of the Jerusalem cult, so I don't think there is much of an argument to be made from that.To give a specific answer - I do not know why it happened.But consider some other examples -
Why did Mohamed claim the Angel spoke to him?
Why did Joseph Smith claim an angel spoke to him?
(It's interesting - both accounts apparently refer to being "pressed" by a spiritual being - an experience sometimes reported by modern observers who claim to have encountered spiritual beings.)
Why did the Hermetic writings claim to cite a higher being?Have you read he Ascension of Isaiah?
Or the Vision of Arideus? (from Plutarch's On the Dealy of Divine Justice.)
Or the Golden Ass?
These are exmples of contemporary writings which are rooted in experiences of spiritual beings.We can see modern examples in the founding of the Golden Dawn - the various splits, the belief in meeting tha "masters"; or Theosophy - the various founders vying for favour with their "masters"People believe they experience spiritual beings and form new cults as a result.Some specific reasons that I think this model fits better than a historical Jesus :
* no contemporary evidence
* similarity with other pagan God-men stories
* the clear dependance of the Gospels on the OT
* the total lack of any specific evidence that any Christian ever met Jesus
* the spiritual wordings in Paul, and lack of earthly references
* Paul's usage of initiatory language (we speak wisdom among the telioi)
* Paul's mention of travelling to the 3rd heaven
* the many early Christians who denied an earthly Jesus (e.g. in John, Polycarp, Basilides, Bardesanes, Marcion, many Gnostics, Minucius.)

quote:

---

Have you not just said that it's 'POSSIBLE' yet deemed not possible?

---

Ummm..
Yes,
it's POSSIBLE Jesus existed.
No,
I don't believe that he did.

quote:

---

As for being absent from 1st century writings, why would that suggest, much less insure, that "there is no room for such a figure".

---

In Paul's description of his visit to Jerusalem, his actions and comments simply do not allow for a historical Jesus -
* Paul totally fails to mention the Gospel events and places even when he visits Jerusalem - without even mentioing e.g. Calvary - but a believing Christian would be expected to visit the sites etc.
* Paul dismisses the pillars of the Church - he is as much an apostle as them - this could not be true if they had met an earthly Jesus.

quote:

---

Paul's Gentile mission was clearly focused on a myth in progress. As for 2nd Temple Jews, one would hardly expect a literary legacy. What do we have from or about the Galilean, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, Hanina ben Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer, and are these references any less vulnerable to the type of arguments you've raised above?

---

Hmm .. not quite sure what you mean there...I don't think Jesus Christ matches those figures very well.

quote:

---

"Must have been"? And where have I said this. Iasion? I merely point out that an historical Yeshu'a seems to me a more reasonable inference, while ...

---

Whoops, I exaggerated your statement - sorry.

quote:

---

the foundation of this theory of a Jewish initiation cult committed to Kashrut, not particularly excited about fraternizing with non-Jews, yet possessing some Greek-titled Gnostic focus? And what are we to make of the persistent Ebionites and 'Judaizers'? Finally, if you acknowledge the viability of "Q", where in this early tradition do we find evidence of an initiation cult divorced from a human cult leader?

---

Well, firstly, I take the view that Christianity started with much variation in views which merged, rather than a Big Bang model.Ebionites and Judaizers would be some of the variant threads within the cult, I don't see why this would mean a historical Jesus.As for Q - well, what signs of a historical Jesus are in there exactly?

quote:

---

Iasion, at issue is not the absense of a human Jesus in Paul or the absense of 1st century writings. At issue is the probity of that absence given the existence of a Torah-observant Jerusalem sect and a mid-1st century sayings tradition. You have suggested one story to explain what we see. People such as Crossan, Mack and Vermes have offered another. Both are, in my opinion, necessarily speculative, but I continue to feel that yours is more strained, more of an apologetic, i.e., a consequence of your position rather than a basis for it.

---

This a fair and valid criticism of my work.It is true that I did not come to the mythical Jesus view based on what we know of the Jerusalem cult - I formed this view based on the totality of other evidence. The early Jerusalem church is a not something I know much about - I wonder if anyone does. In that sense, my comments are high in speculation I guess.I have appreciated your knowledgable comments and questions, perhaps you would like to expound your ideas a bit more?How do you see the early Jerusalem cult?What do you think Paul believed about Jesus?How about the origins and dating of the Gospels?Why do so many 2nd century Christians not know, or even deny an earthly Jesus?Iasion

Greetings,A quick comment about randman on Paul -I said - "1 Thess 4:9 - Paul tells Christians to "love one another" WITHOUT a mention of Jesus! Even though Jesus supposedly taught exactly that."randman argued :

quote:

---

Wrong, Paul mentions Jesus specifically as commanding this in verse 4:2 and verse 4:9 is part of the instructions "of Jesus Christ."

---

Lets see...
"4:2 For you know what charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus. "Does it say Christ gave these instructions?
No,
It's what PAUL ("we") taught.Does it say instructions "of Jesus Christ"?
No,
it's that vague "through Jesus Christ" again.4:9 specifically says they were taught by God.Yet randman claims a statement several verses away about something else being instructed by Paul is actually proof this was taught by Jesus.Incredible.But randman claims he has been personally told by God he is right.IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 06-04-2005 10:31 AM

Greetings,

quote:

---

Well, this gets back to why would Christ crucified be a stumbling block to the Jews and Gentiles in the way Paul presents it, and others?

---

Because it's a new creed, it had to compete against other beliefs.

quote:

---

If he were able to spin this as simply an esoteric mystery religion, it's hard to see how the pagans would have been offended.

---

Offended?
Who was offended by Paul's mystery religion?

quote:

---

Basically, all the evidence we have suggests that they really believed in the Resurrection

---

So what if they believed?Pagans really believed - does that make them right?
Satanists really believe - does that make them right?
Suicide bombers really believe - does that make them right?

quote:

---

and were killed for that beleif.

---

False.
There is NO solid evidence any early Christian died for their beliefs,
merely later legends.And even if they did - so what?As several here have pointed out to you -
many people die for their religions beliefs - so what?

quote:

---

They deny Jesus' rose from the dead, and present him as an enlightened Rabbi, and they basically would have been fine, for the most part, and not faced such intense persecution

---

Pardon?

quote:

---

Moreover, it's really a strain to place the New Testament date of writing outside of the first century.

---

No strain at all -
Here are the dates from Peter Kirby showing many NT writings may be 2nd century -70-100 - James
80-110 - 1 Peter
80-130 - G.Luke
80-130 - Acts
90-120 - G.John, 1,2,3 John
100-150 - 1,2 Timothy, Titus
100-160 - 2 PeterThat's 4 documents considered 2nd century, and 1/2 dozen possibly 2nd century - according to modern scholars anyway.

quote:

---

Basically, the scoffers want to remove all of the evidence we have, and then deduce from mere imagination what could have been, if we discount, without good reason I might add, the New Testament as historically being written by early Christians.

---

What evidence?The 1st century Christian writers focus on the Risen Christ -a spiritual being met only in visions.None of the NT documents were written by anyone who met any Jesus - I PROVIDED evidence for this for several books - randman ignored it all of course.Let me repeat the current consensus -Modern NT scholars consider that NOT ONE of the NT books were written by anyone who met an historical Jesus of Nazareth.If randman or anyone else thinks otherwise, then produce some evidence, preferably argued from from the sources (I don't mean claims about what most Christian "scholars" believe or quotes from other believers.)Consider what is almost totally MISSING from the 1st century Christian record -* NO Mary & Joseph & the birth stories - NO magi, Herod, Bethlehem, Nazareth
* NO miracles or healings by Jesus - NO Lazarus, Cana, Galilee
* NO Baptism or John the Baptist, NO triumphal entry
* NO sermons or teachings from Jesus
* NO passion, betrayal, Judas
* NO trial, Pilate, cock-crow
* NO empty tomb !Note -
The Gospels may be dated to first century by many, but there is no external reference to the Gospels or their contents (e.g. as mentioned in my list above) in the 1st century.See my table here :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipHow can that be?How come no 1st century Christian writer mention anything about the earthly life of Jesus?But after the Gospels arise in early 2nd century we start to see Christian writers mentioning the details of the life of Jesus more and more...By 3rd century everyone knows the story and repeats it endlessly, over and over, repeatedly, at length, ad nauseum, on and on and on and on about Jesus and every last detail about every last element and issue and event of the Gospel story of his life...But 1st century Christians?
Those who suppsoedly MET Jesus or at least knew his circle -Merely vague spiritual preaching about the Risen Christ.
Nothing EARTHLY,
nothing historical.No dates.
no places,
no names,
no pack drill.Read the letter from James, allegedly from Jesus' own BROTHER !NO mention of Jesus' family at all - NO Mary or Joseph or siblings.
NO mention of the birth stories - NO Bethlehem, Nazareth, Magi, Herod, the flight...
NO mention of teachings Jesus - NO sermon, Lord's prayer, food regulations
NO mention of miracles - NO Lazarus, feeding the multitude, healing the sick...
NO mention of any Gospel event - NO Teaching at the Temple, Temple Cleansing, Triumphal Entry, Temptation, Baptism in Jordan etc, etc...
NO mention of the trial of Jesus - NO Pilate, Sanhedrin, Judas etc...
NO mention of the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the resurrection !!!This letter just could NOT possibly be from someone who met any Jesus - it only even uses his name twice.How could James not know any of this?And its not just a few things left out - its a complete failure to mention ANYTHING about Jesus even when the context CRIES out for it -Chapter 1 talks about resisting temptation - NO mention of the temptation of Jesus !Chapter 2 starts like this in some versions - "do you .. really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?" (a different translation of the phrase which in the Greek goes something like this: "do not with partiality believe in Jesus Christ the glorious").Here is James trying to convince them to believe in Jesus Christ, and he totally fails to even mention he knew Jesus, let alone was his brother - instead all he gives to try and prove Jesus is some preaching about the poor and the rich WITHOUT mentioning anything Jesus said about the poor.James quotes "Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself" - but NOT from Jesus, just "scripture".
James preaches about adultery - NO mention of Jesus' teachings.
James argues that faith without works is useless - when he provides examples, it's from the OT - Abraham, Rahab - NO mention of Jesus.
James reminds people not to curse or speak evil - NO mention of Jesus' teachings on that.
James preaches about suffering and patience - NO mention of Jesus as example, just Job and the prophets.
James talks about the church elders bringing healing and forgiving sins - NO mention of Jesus doing that.
James even invokes Elijah who was a "human being like us" - NO mention of Jesus !The letter of James, like the other NT epistles, shows not the slightest sign of any knowledge of an earthly Jesus.Apologists like randman tend to project their later beliefs back into the early writings - so that mentions of a "crucifixion" are somehow proof of a physical crucifixion, even though there is nothing in the text that ties it to the physical plane at all.Paul boasts he had travelled to the 3rd heaven,
he talks about Christ being IN him, IN us...
he goes on and on about spiritual themes,
he says Christ was crucified by the powers aboveIt's all spiritual talk, higher planes, astral beings and such. There is NOT the slightest sign of this being HISTORICAL - no places, names, dates...But because randman BELIEVES in this physical crucifixion, in his mind these mentions of a spiritual crucifixion must be about a PHYSICAL crucifixion, in fact they are PROOF of a physical resurrection (even when there is nothing physical or historical in the description). Such is the faith of the true believer.Yes,
some of the NT was written by 1st century Christians.No,
no 1st century Christian writing mentions anything clearly about the earthly life of Jesus.No,
no NT writer met any physical Jesus.No,
Jesus was not a physical being.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

The apostles would know whether Jesus actually lived, died, and was resurrected.

---

They WOULD have - if Jesus existed.Can you show any actual evidence?

quote:

---

With their own eyes. They would know. They knew.

---

So YOU say.
Yet you can't produce a single document to prove it.NOT ONE SINGLE Christian document saying something like -
"I, John, met Jesus, I swear I saw him..."
NOT ONE.Nor can you provide ANY external evidence that Jesus existed.

quote:

---

They signed their affidavits in their own blood, as witnesses that Jesus had done these things, including his last few days on Earth.

---

Rubbish.
Do you REALLY believe this nonsense?
Then show us these affidavits signed in blood.

quote:

---

The others died for things they had no way of knowing was false...

---

Just like the early Christians,
NONE of whom mentions ever meeting a Jesus.After all these posts, you cannot come up with ANY EVIDENCE, just faithful statements of belief.I don't think Code-trainer will ever understand this issue, but here it is spelled out again -No early Christian writer shows any EVIDENCE of a historical Jesus,
just evidence of BELIEF in Jesus.The original belief was of a spiritual Iesous Christos.Evidence for the Gospel stories and belief in a historical Jesus of Nazareth dates only to 2nd century.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

Heaven's gate cult, Suicide bombers, these had/have no way of *directly* knowing the falsity of their beliefs.

---

Just like the early Christians.
No matter how many times you are asked, you can't come up with any evidence for your beliefs.SHOW US the evidence that ANY early Christian met Jesus.Not just PREACHING - evidence please.

quote:

---

The apostles,

---

We have no writing from any apostle who met Jesus.
If you claim we do - present your evidence.

quote:

---

to the point of death,

---

False.
We have no hard evidence for ANY apostle's death.
Merely later legends.

quote:

---

insisted they had seen Jesus Christ in his new body,

---

False.
No Christian writer insists they personally "had seen Jesus Christ in his new body"
Merely later legends.

quote:

---

and resurrected from the dead.

---

False.
No Christian writer insists they personally saw the resurrection.

quote:

---

This was based on eyewitness testimony.

---

False.
No Christian document claims to be an eye-witness to Jesus.
(NO, neither G.Luke nor 1 John claims to do so - go READ the actual words.)

quote:

---

If it were not true, they would know it,

---

WHO exactly would know?
Characters in a story?The apostles are as mythical as Jesus.Is Harry Potter real because Harmione didn't deny it?Is James Bond real because Q didn't deny it?Is Lord of the Rings True because Gandalf did not deny it?Wake up and smell the coffee mate...You believe ancient myths and legends,
and when asked for proof,
you say these myths and legends say they are true !Classic Monty Python -Code-trainer : "these ancient myths and legends are the truth !"Sceptic : "prove it"Code-trainer : "sure - these ancient myths and legends say they are the truth !"Sceptic : "haha"Code-trainer :"wait - where are you going, didn't you believe my proof?"

quote:

---

and would not die to prove something they knew was untrue.

---

There is no evidence any Christian died for their beliefs.Even if they did - so what?
Religious people die for their beliefs every day.

quote:

---

There were five hundred of them,

---

Can you name ONE of these 500?
Can you show us ONE of their testimonies?
No.All you have is a CLAIM by one FAITHFUL Christian that 500 other Christians "saw" Jesus just like he did - in a VISION.

quote:

---

and provided eyewitness testimony

---

False.
They provided no testimony at all.
There is NO "eye-witness" testimony to Jesus at all.Cam you provide any such testimony?
We keep asking, you keep failing to do so...Iasion

Greetings,Dear me.
Hold OLD are you?
How stupid do you think we are?I pointed out 4:9 attributes "Love thy neighbour" to God, not Jesus.You bring up a totally UN-RELATED verse that mentions PAUL'S instructions, and uses the phrase "THROUGH Jesus Christ".You then falsely claim this was actually Jesus speaking (it wasn't),
and you falsely claim it refers to 4:9 (it doesn't)Now you claim -

quote:

---

You said "WITHOUT a mention of Jesus", but then show a quote where he did mention "the Lord Jesus."
Case closed buddy. He did mention Jesus so you are wrong here.

---

This is outrageous mis-representation.
Either you are so incompetent you cannot even grasp how wrong you have gone here,
or
you are a total mountebank, a sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal.The verse in question is 4:9
It attributes "Love Thy neighbour" to God.
It does NOT mention Jesus.And
Verse 4:2 does not attribute anything to Jesus,
it bears no relation to berse 4:9,
although it does mention the name Jesus.Randman really believes this un-related 4:2 which attributes nothing to Jesus, somehow shows the Saying in another verse IS attributed to jesus.Ridiculous.Now he thinks he has caught me in some error.
What poppycock.The un-related verse 4:2 DOES mention Jesus in passing -
so what, randman?What on earth do YOU think this has to do with attributing the Saying in verse 4:9 ?Iasion

Greetings,Thanks for youre reply :-)

quote:

---

1) Is your list an exhaustive list of all early First Century historians, so that one can conclude that there are no written mentions of the alleged Jesus other than the Bible?

---

Well, it's exhaustive in that it contains all the writers I could find out about - there may be some minor figures not mentioned (especially those not in English yet.)The list of those who ALLEGEDLY mentioned Jesus is well known - I am quite sure there is no writer who mentioned Jesus who was not been mentioned.Also note .. my list covers much of the 2nd century as well - my dates were 30-180 or so.

quote:

---

2) Given that: there were numerous itinerant rabbis and self-proclaimed messiahs in the early First Century; Palestine was considered to be an insignificant part of the Roman Empire, and; the alleged Jesus spent all but a few days of his life away from Jerusalem or any other power center, would it be surprising that even if he really existed that many contemporary historians would not have thought him important enough to mention?

---

Well, their are dozens of books mentioning THOUSANDS of people - many quite insignificant normal people.Such as the Jewish prophetess Sabbe mentioned by Pausanias - "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]Here we see a minor nobody from Palestine mentioned in a classic work - Jesus must have been even LESS known that this minor prophetess who nobody has ever heard of.If Jesus was so insignificant, so minor, so un-remarkable, so forgetable that he rated less notice than the smallest of nobodies - then he bears no resemblance to the Gospel Jesus at all.Such a nobody can hardly be called the "real Jesus" - he is nothing like the Jesus of Christian belief.Iasion