The Historical Jesus III

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's you who haven't read the story. After Gamaliel defended them (so goes the story) were they convicted of blasphemy and imprisoned or killed? No they were beaten and released. Why were they treated with such leniency? Because (so goes the story) Gamaliel had reminded the Sanhedrin that such people might be "of God".

You have exposed your own fallaccies. You have trapped yourself.

The story in Acts 5 does not state that the disciples were messianic.

The story in Acts 5 shows that the disciples were arrested because they preached about JESUS the Christ, the Son of God and counsel was taken to kill them..

Acts 5
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said , We ought to obey God rather than men.

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

You obviously did not read or did not understand what you read.

It is the Jesus character that is regarded as the Messiah in Acts--NOT the Apostles.
 
Last edited:
...Well Carrier suggests in some circles 'some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory.' (Element 5 pp. 73-81) pointing to Daniel 9.2; 9.24-27 cf. 12.1-13 and several other works to back this claim up.

Your statement is void of logic.

A Messianic ruler MUST FIRST BEGIN TO RULE to be considered the prophesied Messianic ruler.


maximara said:
This brings up several of the points Carrier gives us that blows holes in dejudge position:

Element 2. When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.

Assumptions are worthless at this time. Please state when Christianity began and provide the evidence.

Element 2 has imploded due to lack of evidence.


maximara said:
Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.

Up to this day the Jews still expect their Messianic ruler.

Element 3 (a) is of no real value.

When the Mormon religion began Jews had been long expecting a messiah.

maximara said:
(b) If these enemies were spiritual powers the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature.

Up to this very day Jews still expect a PHYSICAL Jewish Messianic ruler.

Please tell us how human beings would know when the "spiritual" messiah won the "spiritual" battle with "spiritual" enemies?

Element 3 (b) makes no sense to human beings.

maximara said:
(c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)

Jewish messianic expectations are still among the Jews up to this very day but no-one you listed has claimed to be the Jewish Messianic ruler.

Element 3(c) does not help your argument at all.

maximara said:
Element 4. (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah.

You have ZERO evidence that Jews were claiming to be the Messianic ruler in the early 1st century.

No existing manuscripts of the DSS, Philo or Josephus support such a claim.

Element 4 is unevidenced.

maximara said:
Element 5. Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)

Again, one MUST FIRST BEGIN TO RULE before you can be considered the Messianic Ruler.

If one is KILLED BEFORE becoming the Messianic ruler then it is obvious one was NOT.

Element 5 is useless.

maximara said:
Element 8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.

The writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius do state that Jews expected their prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler around c 70 CE.

You obviously cannot present a shred of evidence to support your claims in element 8.

maximara said:
Element 9. The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)

It is a complete waste of time to tell me about MISSING evidence. I cannot examine MISSING TEXTS.

Element 9 is useless.


maximara said:
So we have a fairly diverse religion with each sect using various "scriptures" some of which we don't have or that differ from the versions we do have to determine when the messiah would supposedly come with his death signaling the beginning of the End Time which would culminate in a Jewish victory.

So you have what amounted to a build in initial failure mechanic for these cults: 'ok the first time was a disaster with our messiah getting a serious case of dead but the final battle is going to be a winner' :boggled:

Your un-evidenced post is of no real historical value.

We know the EXISTING evidence from antiquity.

The Jesus story and cult was FABRICATED AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple, the writings of Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius or AFTER c 110 CE.

In other words, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are historical garbage.
 
Last edited:
Your statement is void of logic.

A Messianic ruler MUST FIRST BEGIN TO RULE to be considered the prophesied Messianic ruler.

Go back and READ what was posted:

Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.

LEADER NOT ruler (on Earth). The ruling was in "God’s supernatural kingdom". Deal with what actual points are presented not your imagined nonsense. :mad:
 
You have exposed your own fallaccies. You have trapped yourself.

The story in Acts 5 does not state that the disciples were messianic.

The story in Acts 5 shows that the disciples were arrested because they preached about JESUS the Christ, the Son of God and counsel was taken to kill them..

Acts 5

You obviously did not read or did not understand what you read.

It is the Jesus character that is regarded as the Messiah in Acts--NOT the Apostles.
The disciples were part of a Messianic movement. The followers of the earlier rebels evidently made similar claims, and Gamaliel suggests the Jesus people might be "of God". You know this and are engaged in absurd nit picking because the essence of your argument - that there were no such movements at the time - has been exploded, and the reeking detritus to which it has been reduced has been swept into the dustbin of delusions and egregious errors.
 
Go back and READ what was posted:

Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.

LEADER NOT ruler (on Earth). The ruling was in "God’s supernatural kingdom". Deal with what actual points are presented not your imagined nonsense. :mad:

Again, your un-evidenced claims are worthless.

Please, tell us when Christianity began and identify the source.

When the Mormon religion began the Jews had been long expecting a messiah.
 
The disciples were part of a Messianic movement. The followers of the earlier rebels evidently made similar claims, and Gamaliel suggests the Jesus people might be "of God". You know this and are engaged in absurd nit picking because the essence of your argument - that there were no such movements at the time - has been exploded, and the reeking detritus to which it has been reduced has been swept into the dustbin of delusions and egregious errors.

You have been trapped by your own fallacies. "Of God" is not a messianic claim.

Jews and Christians considered themselves "of God".

You should have first read the Acts 5 before you posted your absurdities.

In the myth/fiction ghost stories of Acts 5 there is no claim that the apostles were messianic.

The disciples were considered to be blasphemers since they preached about a character called Jesus the CHRIST the Son of God as the Prince and Saviour for the remission of sins of the Jews.

Examine Acts 5.40

.....and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus and let them go.

The very Acts chapter 5 has exposed your consistent fallacious argument.

It was Jesus the CHRIST who was considered to be messianic in the Ghost stories of Acts of the Apostles.


Acts 5.42
And daily in the Temple and in EVERY house they cease NOT to TEACH and PREACH Jesus the CHRIST.
 
Last edited:
In the myth/fiction ghost stories of Acts 5 there is no claim that the apostles were messianic.

The disciples were considered to be blasphemers since they preached about a character called Jesus the CHRIST the Son of God as the Prince and Saviour for the remission of sins of the Jews.
I think we can call the disciples of a Christ who go round preaching about him, members of a Messianic movement. If you say that people "of God" who are disciples of a "Christ" are not a messianic movement you are spouting gibberish. Again.
 
I think we can call the disciples of a Christ who go round preaching about him, members of a Messianic movement. If you say that people "of God" who are disciples of a "Christ" are not a messianic movement you are spouting gibberish. Again.

I have merely exposed your fallacious claim that the disciples were considered messianic by Gamaliel in Acts 5 because it is claimed they were "Of God"

The term "Of God" does not mean messianic.

Jews and Christians of antiquity consider that they are "Of God"

You are known to be an inventor of baseless and fallacious arguments derived from your own imagination.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY states that Jesus was the CHRIST--NOT the disciples.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY stated that the disciples were BEATEN and commanded NOT to mention the name of Jesus the supposed Messiah.
 
Last edited:
I have merely exposed your fallacious claim that the disciples were considered messianic by Gamaliel in Acts 5 because it is claimed they were "Of God"

The term "Of God" does not mean messianic.

Jews and Christians of antiquity consider that they are "Of God"

You are known to be an inventor of baseless and fallacious arguments.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY states that Jesus was the CHRIST--NOT the disciples.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY stated that the disciples were BEATEN and commanded NOT to mention the name of Jesus the supposed Messiah.
And the outcome of this command was what, may I ask? Acts 5:42
And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
That's a messianic movement if ever there was one!

What they were told (according to the account in Acts 5) was: don't preach about a messiah. We can see why, because such ideas were associated with rebellions like the rebellion of Judas of Galilee.

But did they pay attention to this command? No. The very next verse, which you omit for obvious reasons; it completely refutes your argument and reduces it to vapour; tells us they continued to preach about the Messiah (Christ).
 
Even Josephus had a divine revelation (either during the siege at Yodfat/Jotapata in 67CE, of which Josephus was allegedly the only survivor; or while imprisoned shortly after); and he later made a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the "prediction" came true (Vespasian was made emperor in 69), he was released by Vespasian, who considered Josephus's 'gift of prophecy' to be divine.

There's circularity there.
 
Last edited:
And the outcome of this command was what, may I ask? Acts 5:42 That's a messianic movement if ever there was one!

You stated specifically that "Of God" is a "messianic designation".


Your statement is a well established fallacy and consistently quite illogical..


The term "Of God" is not a messianic designation

Jews and Christians are considered people "OF GOD".

The "CHRIST" is considered a messianic designation.

In the Ghost stories of Acts 5 it was Jesus CHRIST who had the messianic designation NOT the disciples.
 
Even Josephus had a divine revelation (either during the siege at Yodfat/Jotapata in 67CE, of which Josephus was allegedly the only survivor; or while imprisoned shortly after); and he later made a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the "prediction" came true (Vespasian was made emperor in 69), he was released by Vespasian, who considered Josephus's 'gift of prophecy' to be divine.

There's circularity there.

Josephus had the "divine" revelation after he was captured.

When Josephus and the Jews were Fighting Against and Killing the Romans he expected a Jewish Messianic ruler--NOT Vespasian.

Essentially, Josephus had a very convenient "divine" revelation AFTER the JEWS were defeated.

If the Jews had defeated the Romans Josephus himself may have been chosen the prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler,.

It must be noted that Simon Barcocheba was considered a Messianic ruler when he defeated the Romans around c 133 CE.
 
Even Josephus had a divine revelation (either during the siege at Yodfat/Jotapata in 67CE, of which Josephus was allegedly the only survivor; or while imprisoned shortly after); and he later made a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the "prediction" came true (Vespasian was made emperor in 69), he was released by Vespasian, who considered Josephus's 'gift of prophecy' to be divine.

There's circularity there.

I've heard goofier. I was looking from podcasts regarding the Christ Myth and one of the defenders of the historical Jesus stated that the only evidence we have Josephus himself existed is his writings...which our oldest copies are centuries after Josephus lived and died.

This is one of the main reasons I don't buy into the 'Paul didn't existed either' argument; it tends to lead to this kind of Joseph Wheless meets Fomenko level of ad hod conspiracy where centuries of the past were manufactured which in turn makes the Christ Myth theory as a whole come off as being from tin foil hat land.

The other main reason is by Occam's razor there is no need to even consider Paul didn't exist. We know that at best only seven of the epistles there were credited to Paul were actually the product of one writer and NONE those writings have a "smoking gun" that Jesus existed as a human being. In fact, they go on about a Jesus in visions with constant claims of NOT getting information from earthly sources.

Paul could not have been the only Christian writing letters to fellow believers and yet we only have three authors from the 1st century: Clement I, Ignatius, and Paul himself.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are:

Background Elements to Christianity

Element 1. The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)

Element 2. When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. (p. 66)
Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.
(b) If these enemies were spiritual powers the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature.
(c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)

Element 4. (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah.
(b) Christianity’s emergence at this time was therefore no accident. It was part of the zeitgeist.
(c) Christianity’s long-term success may have been simply a product of natural selection. (pp. 67-73)

Element 5. Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)

Element 6. The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with the “Jesus/Joshua Rising” figure in Zechariah 3 and 6. (pp. 81-83)

Element 7. (a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the messianic fervour of the age.
(b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)

Element 8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.
(b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)

Element 9. The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)

Element 10. Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah. (pp. 92-96)

Element 11: The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.
Element 12: From as early as we can ascertain, Christians belioeved they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism.
Element 13: Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly one in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning (see Element 14)

Element 14: Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myths and allegory, which symbolised a more secret doctrine that was usually rooted in a more esoteric astral or metaphysical theology.

Element 15: Christianity began as a charismatic cult which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities. They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices).
Element 16: The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth.
Element 17: The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures.
Element 18: Jesus Christ was regarded as having fulfilled by his death (and thereby replacing) the two greatest Jewish religious sacrifices - Yom Kippur and Passover.

Element 19: The apostle Paul is the earliest known Christian writer, yet he did not know a living Jesus.

Element 20: The earliest known Christians proselytized Gentiles bu required them to convert to Judaism.

Element 21: Paul and other NT authors attest that there were many rival Christian sects and factions teaching different gospels throughout the 1st century.

Element 22: We have no credible or explicit record of what happened within the Christian movement between 64 and 95 CE (or possibly even as late as 110 CE), and the leadership of the Christian church had been catastrophically decimated by the beginning of that period.

(cont)
 
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are: (...) (cont)

Background to Christianity - The Context

Element 23: The Romans annexed Judea to the imperial province of Syria in 6 CE bringing the center of the holy land under direct control of the Roman government, ending sovereignity over Jerusalem and the temple of the Most High God, along with most of the Holy Land that had been promised by God to the Jews.

Element 24: (a) Owing to their vastly greater resources ( in minerals, money and manpower) and superior technical ability (in the training, equipping and supplying of their armies) the Romans were effectively invincible and could never be expelled from Judea by force or diplomacy.

Element 25: The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of factionalising among Jewish sects.

Element 26: For many Jews in the early first century (in accord with the previous element) the Jewish elite became the scapegoats for God's failed promises (in accord with elements 23 and 24): the reason God withheld their fulfilment (and instead allowed the Romans to rule) was imagined to be the Jewish elite's failure to keep God's commandments and govern justly (already a common theme throughout the OT, e.g. Jeremiah 23 and 25, the latter being the very prophecy whose 'mystery' is decoded in Daniel to produce the timetable that was now indicating the messiah would arrive in the early first century: Element 7).

Element 27: (a) The temple at Jerusalem most the central focus of most Jewish messianic hope (as, for the Samaritans, was Mount Gerizim), which entailed that as long as the 'corrupt' Jewish elite controlled it, God would continue Israel's 'punishment' (in accord with Elements 25 and 26), and as long as the Romans remained in power, the would maintain the corrupt Jewish elite's control of the temple. Accordingly (b) Jewish religious violence often aimed at seizing physical control of the temple and it's personnel.

Element 28: A spiritual solution to the physical conundrum to the Jews would have been a natural and easy thing to conceive at the time.

Element 29: [W]hat are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them.

Element 30: Early-first century Judea was at the nexus of countless influences, not only from dozens of innovating and interacting Jewish sects (Element 2, and 33), but also pagan religions and philosophies.

Element 31: Incarnate sons (or daughters) of a god who died and then rose from their deaths to become living gods granting salvation to their worshipers were a common and peculiar feature of pagan religion when Christianity arose, so much so that influence from paganism is the only plausible explanation for how a Jewish sect such as Christianity came to adopt the idea.

Element 32: By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extent Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotelianism) influenced Christian teachings.

Element 33: In addition to its pagan influences, Christianity was also (obviously) influenced by several Jewish sects (see, in general, Elements 1-5), and can be understood only in this context too.

Element 34: Popular cosmology at the dawn of the Common Era in the Middle East held that the universe was geocentric and spherical and divided into many layers (see Chapter3, Section 1), with the first layer of 'heaven' often called the 'firmament' (being the foundation holding up all the others) and consisting of all the air beneath the earth and the moon (or sometimes the same term only meant the topmost part of this: the sphere travelled by the moon).

Element 35: Popular cosmology of the time also held that the sub-heaven, the firmament, was a region of corruption and change and decay, while the heavens above were pure, incorruptible and changeless.

Element 36: Because of this division between the perfect unchanging heavens and the corrupted sub-lunar world, most religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between those worlds, so God need no descend and mingle with corruption.

Element 37: The lowest heaven, the firmament, the region of corruption and change was popularly thought to be teeming with invisible spirits (pneuma or psychai) and demons (daimones, or daimonia), throughout the whole space, who controlled the elements and powers of the universe there, meddle in the affairs of man, and do battle with one another.

Element 38: (a) In this same popular cosmology, the heavens, including the firmament, were not empty expanses but filled with all manner of things, including palaces and gardens, and it was possible to be buried there.

Element 39: (a) In this cosmology there were also two Adams: one perfect celestial version, of which the earthly version (who fathered the human race) is just a copy.

Element 40: [T]he Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God called the Logos, who was God's true high priest in heaven, was also not a novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews; and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT (discussed in Element 6), and therefore some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus--because Paul's contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zech. 6.12 in just such as way.

Element 41: The 'Son of Man' (an apocalyptic title Jesus is given in the Gospels) was another being foreseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe, overthrowing all demonic power, and in a text that we know the first Christians used as scripture (1 Enoch).

Element 42: There is a parallel tradition of a perfect and eternal celestial High Priest named Melchizidek, which means in Hebrew 'Righteous King'. We have already seen that a celestial Jesus was already called Righteous and King by some pre-Christian Jews.

Element 43: (a) Voluntary human sacrifice was widely regarded (by both pagans and Jews) as the most powerful salvation and atonement magic available.

Element 44: In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.

Element 45: A popular version of this phenomenom in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.

Element 46: Ancient literature also proliferated a variety of model 'hero' narratives, some of which the Gospel Jesus conforms to as well; and one of these hero-types was widely revered among pagans: the pre-Christian narratives of the life and death of Socrates and Aesop.

Element 47: Another model hero narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus conforms, is the apotheosis, or 'ascension to godhood' tale, and of these the one to which the Gospels (and Acts) most conform is that of the Roman national hero Romulus.

Element 48: Finally, the most ubiquitous model 'hero' narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the fable of the 'divine king', what I call the Rank-Raglan hero-type.
 
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are
I really think that's an abuse of the thread. I know you are obsessed with transmitting the message of your Teacher to us benighted folk; but this time you're not even interpreting his words or basing any argument on them, but simply regurgitating screeds of Holy Text.

You could simply have given us a link, so that those persons who think such an exercise would repay the time and effort could look up these giant lists themselves.
 
Paul could not have been the only Christian writing letters to fellow believers and yet we only have three authors from the 1st century: Clement I, Ignatius, and Paul himself.

Again, your claim is fallacious and known to be baseless.

The earliest hand written texts about Jesus, the Son of God and the Lord from heaven were NOT written in the 1st century.

The earliest stories of Jesus are Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] which are dated around 175-225 CE.

The Pauline Corpus is NOT the product of ONE person but of a Group of persons.

It must be noted that the author of Hebrews was ALSO a part of the Group.

Papyri 46 do contain the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Group under the name of Paul wrote 14 Epistles sometime AFTER Celsus' True Discourse".
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are:

Background Elements to Christianity

Element 1. The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)

Please, provide the evidence for your claims instead of "hiding" behind Carrier.

There is ZERO evidence that Jews were worshiping a man as a God or Jesus the Lord from heaven in the time of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, vespasian to Trajan..

All existing stories of Jesus are dated to the 2nd century or later.
 
Last edited:
Again, your claim is fallacious and known to be baseless.

The earliest hand written texts about Jesus, the Son of God and the Lord from heaven were NOT written in the 1st century.

The earliest stories of Jesus are Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] which are dated around 175-225 CE.
Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?
 
I really think that's an abuse of the thread. I know you are obsessed with transmitting the message of your Teacher to us benighted folk; but this time you're not even interpreting his words or basing any argument on them, but simply regurgitating screeds of Holy Text.

You could simply have given us a link, so that those persons who think such an exercise would repay the time and effort could look up these giant lists themselves.

It is NOT abuse of the thread, Craig.

The only refutation to date regarding Carrier's PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work you have provided is the same drivel the apologists have been peddling for over 100 years: the NT and questionable third party sources.

Carrier is not "my" teacher or guru or whatever little derogatory term you can come up with. He is the one person who has finally produced a PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work on the Christ Myth theory ie through the accepted channels of scholarship rather then the self published stuff that is more likely to filled with nonsense then anything useful.

I suspect you and dejudge haven't actually read the book and don't have actual rebuttals to any of Carrier's points other the same nonsense we have been hearing since this thread began.

Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?

The scary thing is dejudge my not be pretending. He may honestly believe that date of composition = the earliest extant manuscript. I grant you the idea is insane and results in nonsense like Fomenko's New Chronology which the moment you sit down and actually think about it you realize is off the wall frothing at the mouth start raving bonkers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom