Yes, you are quite right, it should be : "Prove the MJ is correct"
Thanks for the correction.
Brainache
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Ricardo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus jesus
- Status
Yes, you are quite right, it should be : "Prove the MJ is correct"
Thanks for the correction.
Brainache
The existing evidence supports the non-historical argument.
This is a partial list.
1. Jesus was described as a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending the Son of a Ghost and God Creator in the NT and Church writings.
2. All events surrounding Jesus are either fiction or implausible.
3. All the authors of the NT Jesus stories are unknown and associated with forgeries or false attribution.
4. No supposed non-apologetic contemporary writer mentioned any character called Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Christ.
5. The only 1st century non-apologetic which mentions Jesus the Christ is a forgery- Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3
6. None of the supposed apostles of Jesus are found in any 1st century non-apologetic writings.
7. The character called Saul/Paul a supposed contemporary of Aretas, only heard a voice of Jesus after he resurrected and ascended in a cloud.
8. The start of Jesus cult did not require an historical Jesus. In Acts of the Apostles, the Jesus cult of Christians started with the belief the son of the Ghost had already resurrected and ascended in a cloud.
9. Jews do not worship men as Gods--In writings attributed to Philo, a contemporary of Pilate, it is stated that the Jews refused to worship the Emperor Gaius as a God. See "On Embassy to Gaius"
10. There was no Jewish Messiah known as Jesus of Nazareth in any Jewish writing.
11. It is completely implausible that Jews would call Jesus a Jewish Messiah after his death. The Jews were not looking in graveyards for their Messianic rulers.
12. Jesus cult writers admitted their Jesus story was no different to those of the fables of the Greeks. See Justin's First Apology.
The Jesus character is without historical evidence in and out the NT.
This is a partial list.
1. Jesus was described as a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending the Son of a Ghost and God Creator in the NT and Church writings.
2. All events surrounding Jesus are either fiction or implausible.
3. All the authors of the NT Jesus stories are unknown and associated with forgeries or false attribution.
4. No supposed non-apologetic contemporary writer mentioned any character called Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Christ.
5. The only 1st century non-apologetic which mentions Jesus the Christ is a forgery- Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3
6. None of the supposed apostles of Jesus are found in any 1st century non-apologetic writings.
7. The character called Saul/Paul a supposed contemporary of Aretas, only heard a voice of Jesus after he resurrected and ascended in a cloud.
8. The start of Jesus cult did not require an historical Jesus. In Acts of the Apostles, the Jesus cult of Christians started with the belief the son of the Ghost had already resurrected and ascended in a cloud.
9. Jews do not worship men as Gods--In writings attributed to Philo, a contemporary of Pilate, it is stated that the Jews refused to worship the Emperor Gaius as a God. See "On Embassy to Gaius"
10. There was no Jewish Messiah known as Jesus of Nazareth in any Jewish writing.
11. It is completely implausible that Jews would call Jesus a Jewish Messiah after his death. The Jews were not looking in graveyards for their Messianic rulers.
12. Jesus cult writers admitted their Jesus story was no different to those of the fables of the Greeks. See Justin's First Apology.
The Jesus character is without historical evidence in and out the NT.
Hurt feelings? Ha you are funny.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12. Please familiarise yourself with the Membership Agreement to which you agreed on joining the forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know that Nick Terry is an "expert historian", is he? Or that he has made a specialisation of looking at the historical records of Christianity & Jesus? I gather that he does have at least an undergraduate degree in history. But that does not make you a “historian”. Normally, you'd only be properly described as a “historian” if you are employed full-time as a university lecturer in a history dept.
I do remember in past HJ threads here where he posted quite a bit about the methods used in ancient history. But we don't really need to know all about the details of those methods, even though on the face of it I have to say that it all looked terribly weak and unscientific to me (as a scientist ... or retired scientist if you prefer) ... it did not seem to me to be very robust or reliable at all.
But the reason why we do not need to know in detail about those methods, whether anyone regards them as sound or not, is that none of it has produced any genuine evidence of a real Jesus.
On the other hand what we have learned from modern science is that the biblical stories of Jesus cannot be true, because they all centre directly or indirectly around unsustainable claims of numerous miracles & the supernatural. In biblical times people did not know that science disproved such stories. In fact, most people in the world did not realise that until as recently as only about 100 years ago, Christians today still apparently refuse to believe the science.
Biblical scholars and HJ believers on the internet (on forums like this) also apparently refuse to accept the findings of science when it comes to Jesus. Because, just for example, they insist that whilst we now know that all the constant miracle stories cannot be true, they still insist that some facts about a real true human Jesus can be found in the biblical writing. But science has long since shown, and law courts in all democratic nations now accept, that when your source is as discredited as that, i.e. where every significant thing it has ever claimed or that can be checked about Jesus is shown to be untrue fabrication, then that source is simply too untrustworthy by far to be credible as a source of genuine true evidence.
The biblical writing is simply not credible as a source of any historical fact. And certainly not about it's 2000 year old uneducated beliefs in miracles and the supernatural powers of "the Christ".
The subject is in dire need of something far more credible than the bible as evidence. But unfortunately, despite 2000 years of frantic religious searching and amazing religious claims (again all completely untrue religious fabrication), nothing at all has been found for Jesus.
Nothing that is, except for a vast mass of evidence against the bible stories of Jesus. There is plenty of that! Ie plenty of evidence to show that all known stories are almost certainly mere superstitious religious myth-making. But what there is not, is any genuine evidence of a real human Jesus ever known to anyone.
Last edited:
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
"Prove the MJ is correct"
No, that's still backwards.
The positive claim is that Jesus existed, so the burden of proof is on Jesus believers to show he existed.
Believers : "a historical Jesus did exist".
Sceptic : "I don't think he did".
So if you wish to claim the alleged historical Jesus existed, then it's up to you to demonstrate that with evidence, but twisting the words around doesn't fix that - else I could ask you : "prove the mythical faerie theory is correct".
By now everyone here knows fairly well :
While the majority of the mainstream simply believe in Jesus because the majority of the mainstream believe in Jesus.
The pattern on forums like this is clear - over the last twenty years I have seen quite a few persons with such a default belief in Jesus who have come to doubt Jesus existed as a result of discussing and studying the evidence for themselves, and realising just how surprisingly bad it really is. (And how disappointed at being mislead about it.)
But I have never seen a sceptic turned around into a believer.
History too - only a handful of centuries back a Jesus denier risked being burned at the stake. The first modern books doubting the historical Jesus appeared about two centuries back. The last few decades has allowed an explosion of information to reach the public, including good information about Christian history; as well as a whole new bunch of scholars and books arguing against a historical Jesus.
Now we've reached the stage where a UK poll can find 40% think Jesus was not a real person. (c.f. USA: 7%)
Kapyong
No, that's still backwards.
The positive claim is that Jesus existed, so the burden of proof is on Jesus believers to show he existed.
Believers : "a historical Jesus did exist".
Sceptic : "I don't think he did".
So if you wish to claim the alleged historical Jesus existed, then it's up to you to demonstrate that with evidence, but twisting the words around doesn't fix that - else I could ask you : "prove the mythical faerie theory is correct".
By now everyone here knows fairly well :
- what the evidence is,
- and how weak it is.
While the majority of the mainstream simply believe in Jesus because the majority of the mainstream believe in Jesus.
The pattern on forums like this is clear - over the last twenty years I have seen quite a few persons with such a default belief in Jesus who have come to doubt Jesus existed as a result of discussing and studying the evidence for themselves, and realising just how surprisingly bad it really is. (And how disappointed at being mislead about it.)
But I have never seen a sceptic turned around into a believer.
History too - only a handful of centuries back a Jesus denier risked being burned at the stake. The first modern books doubting the historical Jesus appeared about two centuries back. The last few decades has allowed an explosion of information to reach the public, including good information about Christian history; as well as a whole new bunch of scholars and books arguing against a historical Jesus.
Now we've reached the stage where a UK poll can find 40% think Jesus was not a real person. (c.f. USA: 7%)
Kapyong
Excellent post
I don't think that is right. The HJ is the prevailing paradigm whether or not you agree with it. The MJ crowd want to challenge that consensus, so it is up to them to prove their case.
Also, since when have historical questions been solved by opinion polls?
Garbage
I don't think any sceptics here are remotely interested in your decision that we now start all over again from the beginning. We are definitely not going to waste more time doing any such thing.
And nor should any of us waste even more time by reading your various links to old threads with posts from your "expert historian". If you have some genuine evidence of Jesus then please stop prevaricating and just tell us what that evidence is?
And by the way, just to be clear - do I recall from your previous posts in other HJ threads that you are a believing Christian? And before you say that's not relevant to ask anyone that here ... it certainly is very relevant, because believing Christians would normally find it very hard ever to admit that Jesus might be no more than just a mythical figure, and that what they had believed for so long to be excellent evidence is in fact no genuine honest evidence at all ... it's very hard for the faithful to admit anything like that.
And please note – if you are a Christian, then I am not criticizing you for that … I am just pointing out that you would in that case be almost certain to have an enormous degree of preconceived bias on an issue like this
Last edited:
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 453
That's me.
I have been an atheist since high school but accepted HJ as a dude who preached and ticked off the Roman's and got nailed. Until I ran across MJ on the JREF.
I went from HJ believer to agnostic to doubt HJ existed. I have read widely on the topic since. Erhman went a long way to convincing me that MJ position is correct. His scholarly and popular works all illustrate how bad the biblical evidence really is. Forgeries and corruption of texts were standard practice of Xians as discussed by Bart.
His DJE is bad. Very bad. If a top notch scholar cannot tackle the Doherty thesis head on and refute it then Avalos is correct and biblical studies need to end.
I am still waiting for a HJ scholar to refute the Doherty thesis convincingly. I think I will have a long wait.
From the crappy evidence available agnosticism should be the default position at the very least.
Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
And you have evidence that this is the case? Because that is a big claim requiring big evidence.
To be clear, I am an atheist. I am not claiming any magic jebus or any such.
My claim is simple that there were so many rabid apocalyptic rabbis wandering around in that time and place (and we have solid evidence for a bunch of them) that it is entirely plausible, or indeed quite likely that the jesus of the bible is a mish-mash of one or more of them. Further enhanced by the gospel authors, who are still anonymous, making up a bucket of imaginary crap to butch up their guy in subsequent centuries. Marcion and such didn't buy that bucket of crap so inevitably, there were schisms and blood letting and so forth, as was the custom in that time.
Now, to be fair, neither side of this discussion can prove it either way. Not me, not you, not anyone. Maybe in some distant future, but I will be long dead by then so it wont matter to me.
See, people tend to forget how mad the levant was back then. There mad rabbi's aplenty. One or more of those would be sufficient to kick off christianity. Then the anonymous gospel authors try to organise it all into some sort of coherence. And FAILED dismally. None of the gospels agree with each other. That is a big fail.
Then along comes Saul/Paul or whoever and hijacks the entire edifice for personal power, and there we currently are.
Seems plausible, but FFS, I ultimately dont really give a rats.
That hasn't stopped some members hurling epithets willy nilly.
So do I believe any of that? No. but I believe it to be a plausible origin given all I have read.
But fundamentally, neither you nor I can pony up evidence either way.
And it really does not matter to me. The only thing that matters to me is how extraordinarily easy the HJ deniers get triggered. I am not claiming a HJ, I am merely claiming that there was a likely origin for the myth.
What fascinates me about this thread is how easily some anti-theists get all bent out of shape at the suggestion that there might have been a mad bloke in the Levant 2,000 years ago. There are tons of them.
I don't have a problem there, we have tons of those wingnuts to this very day. Why would it be different long ago? Folks believed all manner of absolute rubbish.
Nevertheless, one poster classes me as a theist. Why? Not because I believe in any wonky made up god, but merely because I will not submit to his will.
And that is just a different religion.
i was just thinking, i missed abbadon saying how much it doesn't matter to him. its been a steady contribution
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
Then your thinking is mistaken.
The positive claimant is the one who claims someone / something existed.
The positive claim is yours : "Jesus existed".
Please don't change the subject to 'prevailing paradigm'.
The positive claim is yours : "that Jesus existed".
It is up to you to convince us with evidence.
So far, you have all failed here.
The positive claim that Adam & Eve existed used to be the consensus - so what? That was wrong.
The positive claim that Noah and the flood existed used to be the consensus - so what? That was wrong.
The positive claim that Moses existed used to be the consensus - so what? That was wrong too.
Consensus means nothing.
What ?
YOU brought up consensus, I never mentioned opinion polls at all ! I have produced a great deal of EVIDENCE which you mostly ignored.
The positive claim is yours :
"a historical Jesus existed."
That claim is clearly failing - both here and in the wider community - where Jesus believe is fading.
Kapyong
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
Kapyong said:
I most certainly do !
That is - WE most certainly do - right there in the Christian writings themselves. I studied it carefully.
Why haven't you studied them yourself before making your claims, eh?
If I cite the evidence will you consider it ?
Or just ignore it as usual ?
Here is a dated list of references to the word 'gospel' showing clearly how it originally meant simply something like 'our teachings', but eventually came to mean the written Gospel books about Jesus.
We can clearly see that the early writers had NO KNOWLEDGE of the Gospels at all - they use the word NOT to mean written books about Jesus, and they do NOT mention any of the alleged historical events there-in.
This is clear and present evidence that the written Gospel books about Jesus were unknown to the wider Christian community until mid 2nd century - Justin and Aristides, maybe the dubious Ignatius, or the Epistle of the Apostles.
I look forward to your detailed considered response, abaddon.
Paul, 50-60CE, 60+ references
e.g. 1 Corinthians : 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel--not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn't be made void.
1 Clement, 90-100CE, 2 references
Ch. 42 The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.
Ch. 47 Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?
1 Peter, 80-110CE, 3 references :
1:12 To them it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced to you through those who preached the Gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent out from heaven; which things angels desire to look into.
4:6 For to this end was the Gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live as to God in the spirit.
4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God. If it begins first with us, what will happen to those who don't obey the Gospel of God?
Revelation, 90-95CE, 1 reference :
14:6 I saw an angel flying in mid heaven, having an eternal Gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ, c.100CE?, 2 refereneces :
Then Bartholomew said to him: "How (is it that) [he] was designated in the Gospel 'Man' and 'Son of Man'? To which of them, then, is this Son related?"
These are the things the blessed Savior said, and he disappeared from them. Then all the disciples were in great, ineffable joy in the spirit from that day on. And his disciples began to preach the Gospel of God, the eternal, imperishable Spirit.
1 Timothy, 100-150CE, 1 reference :
1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully, 1:9 as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and insubordinate, ... and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; 1:11 according to the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
2 Timothy, 100-150CE, 3 references :
1:8 Therefore don't be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner; but endure hardship for the Gospel according to the power of God,
1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.
2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my Gospel, 2:9 in which I suffer hardship to the point of chains as a criminal. But God's word isn't chained.
Acts, 80-130, 7 references :
e.g. 8:25 They therefore, when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the Gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.
Barnabas, 80-120CE, 3 references :
But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
...
To these He gave authority to preach the Gospel, being twelve in number, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.
...
And again, the prophet saith, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the humble: He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to announce the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompense; to comfort all that mourn."
The Didache, 50-120CE, 4 references :
Ch. 8 Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever..
Ch. 11 But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.
Ch.15 Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in
the Gospel of our Lord.
The Preaching of Peter, 100-150CE :
I chose out you twelve, judging you to be disciples worthy of me, whom the Lord willed, and thinking you faithful apostles; sending you unto the world to preach the Gospel to men throughout the world,
2 Clement, 130-160CE, 1 reference :
For the Lord saith in the Gospel, "If ye have not kept that which was small, who will commit to you the great? For I say unto you, that he that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much."
The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE , 1 reference :
1 The book which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.
The Gospel of Mary, 120-180CE, 3 references :
4:37 Go then and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom.
5:1 But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?
9:9 That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the Gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.
Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE, 1 reference :
And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the Gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.
Ignatius to Eph,, 130-160CE, 1 reference :
Ch. 12 : Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.
Ignatius to Phil., 130-160CE, 6 references :
Ch. 5 : But your prayer to God shall make me perfect, that I may attain to that portion which through mercy has been allotted me, while I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church. And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him; in whom also believing, they were saved, through union to Jesus Christ, being holy men, worthy of love and admiration, having had witness borne to them by Jesus Christ, and being reckoned along with in the Gospel of the common hope.
...
Ch.8 : When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity;
...
Ch. 9 : But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality. All these things are good together, if ye believe in love.
Ignatius to Smyr., 130-160CE, 2 references :
Ch. 5 : Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured.
Ch. 7 : It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.
Polycarp to the Philippians, 110-140CE, 1 reference :
Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord [have alike taught us].
Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE, 1 reference :
Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :
Ch. 10 : "This is what we are amazed at," said Trypho, "but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them."
...
Ch. 12 : The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh.
...
Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'
Justin Martyr's On The Resurrection, 150-160CE, 1 reference :
Ch. 10 : Considering, therefore, even such arguments as are suited to this world, and finding that, even according to them, it is not impossible that the flesh be regenerated; and seeing that, besides all these proofs, the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh,
The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 150-160CE, 4 references :
For almost all the events that happened previously [to this one], took place that the Lord might show us from above a martyrdom becoming the Gospel.
...
Wherefore, brethren, we do not commend those who give themselves up [to suffering], seeing the Gospel does not teach so to do.
...
He was not merely an illustrious teacher, but also a pre-eminent martyr, whose martyrdom all desire to imitate, as having been altogether consistent with the Gospel of Christ.
...
We wish you, brethren, all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ;
Fragments from Theodotus, 150-180CE, 2 references :
He cited as a proof to all, how, when the angels give glad tidings to the barren, they introduce souls before conception. And in the Gospel "the babe leapt" as a living thing.
Anti-Montanist (from Eusebius H.E.), 193CE, 2 references :
Eusebius H.E. Ch. 16:2 - A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them, first intimates that he had contended with them in oral controversies. He commences his work in this manner:
"Having for a very long and sufficient time, O beloved Avircius Marcellus, been urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy of those who are called after Miltiades, I have hesitated till the present time, not through lack of ability to refute the falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and apprehension that I might seem to some to be making additions to the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New Testament, which it is impossible for one who has chosen to live according to the Gospel, either to increase or to diminish."
The Acts of Paul, 150-200CE, 2 references :
40 But Thecla yearned after Paul and sought him, sending about in all places; and it was told her that he was at Myra. And she took young men and maids, and girded herself, and sewed her mantle into a cloak after the fashion of a man, and departed into Myra, and found Paul speaking the word of God, and went to him. But he when he saw her and the people that were with her was amazed, thinking in himself: Hath some other temptation come upon her? But she perceived it, and said to him: I have received the washing, 0 Paul; for he that hath worked together with thee in the Gospel hath worked with me also unto my baptizing.
...
34 If, then, ye receive any other doctrine, GOD SHALL BE WITNESS AGAINST YOU;
AND let no man trouble me, 35 for I bear these bonds that I may win Christ, and I therefore bear his marks in my body that I may attain unto the resurrection of the dead. And whoso receiveth (abideth in) the rule which he hath received by the blessed prophets and the holy Gospel, shall receive a recompense from the Lord,
The Acts of Peter and Paul, 150-200CE, 1 reference :
And having gone forth from Baias, they went to Gaitas, and there he taught tim word of God. And he stayed there three days in the house of Erasmus, whom Peter sent from Rome to teach the Gospel of God.
The Apocalypse of Peter, c. 200CE, 1 reference :
Declare unto us what are the signs of thy coming and of the end of the world, that we may perceive and mark the time of thy coming and instruct them that come after us, unto whom we preach the word of thy Gospel, and whom we set over (in) thy church, that they when they hear it may take heed to themselves and mark the time of thy coming.
The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE, 1 reference :
And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.
The Muratorian Canon, 170-200CE, 3 references :
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke.
...
The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John's, one of the disciples.
...
And so to the faith of believers there is no discord even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels.
The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :
What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.
The evidence is crystal clear :
The early Christian writers showed no knowledge of the written Gospel books about Jesus, or their historical stories there-in, until mid 2nd century.
Even as late as 200AD or so, some Christian writers still show no knowledge of the written Gospels or their contents.
Kapyong
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
What about the Virgin Birth ?
One of the most popular stories about Jesus from the Gospels - well, two of the Gospels anyway, as G.Mark and G.John don't mention it at all.
Let's have a look by decade (according to standard dating) to see when Christian writers start mentioning :
50s (7) :
Thessalonians, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
60s (1):
Hebrews (?)
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
70s :
(G.Mark written.)
(First war with the Romans, Temple destroyed.)
80s (3) :
(G.Luke and G.Matthew written.)
Colossians, 1 John, James.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
90s (5) :
(G.John written.)
Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Revelation.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
100s (2) :
Didakhe, Jude.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
110s (1) :
(115-7 Minor Kitos war with the Romans)
Barnabas.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
120s (5) :
2 John, 3 John, Apocalypse of Peter, Secret James, Preaching of Peter.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
130s (7) :
(132-5 Bar Kochbar major war with the Romans - Jerusalem, Judea, and the Jews are razed, erased and expelled.)
2 Peter, Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp to Phillipians.
Papias possibly mentions origins of two Gospel-like writings, otherwise -
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
140s (3) :
Mathetes to Diognetus, Epistle of the Apostles, 2 Clement.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
150s (3) :
Ptolemy, Dialogue of the Saviour, Martyrdom of Polycarp.
Justin Martyr - first to have Gospels in hand to quote from.
138-161 :
Aristides mentions a single written un-named Gospel.
Nearly 3 dozen Christian books before anyone mentions the Virgin Birth, over a century after the alleged event - after that it gets repeated ad-nauseum so that almost every person on the planet would have heard of it now.
Kapyong
One of the most popular stories about Jesus from the Gospels - well, two of the Gospels anyway, as G.Mark and G.John don't mention it at all.
Let's have a look by decade (according to standard dating) to see when Christian writers start mentioning :
- the written Gospel books about Jesus
- the Virgin Birth
50s (7) :
Thessalonians, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
60s (1):
Hebrews (?)
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
70s :
(G.Mark written.)
(First war with the Romans, Temple destroyed.)
80s (3) :
(G.Luke and G.Matthew written.)
Colossians, 1 John, James.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
90s (5) :
(G.John written.)
Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Revelation.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
100s (2) :
Didakhe, Jude.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
110s (1) :
(115-7 Minor Kitos war with the Romans)
Barnabas.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
120s (5) :
2 John, 3 John, Apocalypse of Peter, Secret James, Preaching of Peter.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
130s (7) :
(132-5 Bar Kochbar major war with the Romans - Jerusalem, Judea, and the Jews are razed, erased and expelled.)
2 Peter, Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp to Phillipians.
Papias possibly mentions origins of two Gospel-like writings, otherwise -
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
140s (3) :
Mathetes to Diognetus, Epistle of the Apostles, 2 Clement.
No mention of the Virgin Birth (nor any historical detail.)
No mention of written Gospels.
150s (3) :
Ptolemy, Dialogue of the Saviour, Martyrdom of Polycarp.
Justin Martyr - first to have Gospels in hand to quote from.
138-161 :
Aristides mentions a single written un-named Gospel.
Nearly 3 dozen Christian books before anyone mentions the Virgin Birth, over a century after the alleged event - after that it gets repeated ad-nauseum so that almost every person on the planet would have heard of it now.
Kapyong
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Ah, the Burden of Proof detour.
Not to take sides in this debate -- that is, I do have an opinion on this, but having nothing substantive to add, I'll keep that opinion to myself -- but merely to observe that BoP is the Godwin in these parts. Give a thread, any thread at all, even a Community thread on cute kittens, long enough, here at ISF, and sure enough we'll find ourselves discussing BoP. That's the ISF equivalent of Godwin.
Not to take sides in this debate -- that is, I do have an opinion on this, but having nothing substantive to add, I'll keep that opinion to myself -- but merely to observe that BoP is the Godwin in these parts. Give a thread, any thread at all, even a Community thread on cute kittens, long enough, here at ISF, and sure enough we'll find ourselves discussing BoP. That's the ISF equivalent of Godwin.
When did HJers prove their case? What historical evidence did they use?
It is already known that there is no historical evidence at all to prove that there was an HJ.
The supposed consensus has proven nothing with respect to their Bible Jesus.
The stories of Jesus Christ called Gospels must have preceded the so-called Paul and the Epistles.
Christian Bible Gospels and Acts place Jesus on earth in the time of Pilate and after trial was crucified, buried, resurrected, ascended and then appear to Saul/Paul the persecutors.
In the Epistles, the author called Paul claimed he persecuted the very faith which he now preached and was a witness to the resurrected Jesus.
In Acts, the author claimed Saul/Paul was a persecutor of believers and converted after hearing the voice of the ascended Jesus long after there were thousands of believers in the Gospel.
There is simply no historical evidence whatsoever to show Saul/Paul actually lived in the time of Aretas and wrote Epistles to any Church or anyone anywhere.
There is no evidence whatsoever, [none, zero] that any Epistle in the NT was written since 50 CE
Writings attributed to Aristides, Justin, Celsus and Arnobius are evidence that Saul/Paul was completely unknown as an early evangelist and wrote nothing to any Church.
Not even the author of Acts, the fabricator of the Saul/Paul character, knew anything about Epistles to Churches from Saul/Paul although he claimed to have travelled with him around the Roman Empire.
Any apologetic writing in antiquity which mentions Saul/Paul are associated directly with fiction, forgeries or false attribution.
The so-called Pauline Epistles are anti-Marcionite writings invented no earlier than the late 2nd century.
Last edited:
No. The Jesus we have evidence for, which is the Jesus the Christians claim exists (note they claim he still exists) is definitely 100% "mythical".
If you want people to believe a different Jesus existed you need to provide the evidence for your claim.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
You really seem to have difficulty reading.
It's a strawman, and you don't even realise why. Who cares what is in the stupid book? It is irrelevant.
Here is why.
The entirety of my position is this. There were a crapton of religious apocalyptic nutbars wandering the levant preaching nonsense two thousand years ago. Many of them developed followings. One or more of those nutbars may have provided some inspiration for the Bumper Book of Bollocks called the bible.
That's it. No extraordinay claims.
As to your sea of irrelevant quotes, why is it that you left out the references in Matthew, Mark and John? You can go look them up if you want, dispute them if you want and it will not make the slightest bit of difference. No matter which way you try to manipulate your magic book it makes not the slightest difference. The area was awash with religious loons with bands of followers any or all of which could serve as inspiration for the anonymous religious loons that actually wrote the idiotic tome.
But by all means continue with the rants against whatever mad ideas you decide to conjour up and pretend that I wrote.
It amuses me to see faux atheists get all hot and bothered about a topic that should be a matter of indifference to them. It is certainly a matter of indifference to me.
- Status