The Historical Jesus II

[Brainache]

Right and things like John Frum and Ned Ludd show it is quite plausible Jesus didn't exist in any meaningful way.

As I have pointed out before there is this region between Carrier's minimal historical Jesus and minimal mythical Jesus where you have a flesh and blood Jesus (ie NOT "mythical") but also have "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense".

I have presented several hypothetical Jesuses that fall into this region as well presented the Jesuses of other writers that also fall into this region:

1) In the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword. Right place right time...and that is it. No preaching, no followers, no crucifixion, nothing but some nut doing the 1st century equivalent of suicide by cop.

2) Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles whose teachings are time shifted so he is before Paul. (John Robertson actually came up with a variant of this in 1900 with this Jesus being inspired by Paul's writings rather then teachings)

3) You could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of Jewish wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50.

These three would not fit my idea of an HJ, because they aren't associated with John The Baptist or James The Just. Remember Paul didn't found the movement, he joined it when James was in charge, so I wouldn't count these three examples.

4) The idea expressed by Remsberg that there was a Jesus but his following wasn't an identifiable movement until Paul and later the writers of the Gospels got a hold of it also fails Carrier's criteria: "Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

That is pretty much the HJ as I understand it. I don't think he was called a god in his lifetime, just another Prophet of the Messianic school of second temple Judaism. Just like (if not identical with) the Teacher Of Righteousness.

5) G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) on with its mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher who was not executed fails point 2 (they are not the same Jesus) so by Carrier's criteria is NOT a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" (This does explain Carrier's classification of this work as 'ahistoricitical')

I don't see why anyone would leave out the execution of Jesus. I understand that the whole "Trial by Pilate" and the big spectacle crucifixion were later embellishments to the story, but I see no reason to deny the idea that a Messiah claimant likely got nailed up by the Romans.

6) Dan Barker's "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (2006 Losing Faith in Faith pg 372) would also fail Carrier's criteria as Baker's first century personality need not be named "Jesus" or if he was his movement was not identifiable until much later.

We must remember Paul is writing some 15 to 20 years after he had his vision. The churches he is writing to would be ones he either founded or believers in some other 'christ' that he turned to his way of thinking.

Except that there is this guy called "James, the Lord's brother" who is bossing Peter, Paul and the members of the congregations around from his seat in Jerusalem.

Sure you can use the out of Jesus being in his time an obscure nobody that just happened to get noticed by somebody who was really aggressive in promoting them (or any movements they inspired) decades later to the point they got noticed by history but that argument is no less hypothetical then the above.

I think you are missing the point that the Jesus that Paul was promoting was at odds with the original Jesus movement. Paul's Jesus was for Gentiles, James' Jesus was for Jews. Paul was telling people to ignore the Jewish Law, James was telling people that to break the least law was the same as breaking them all... Paul taught that faith was everything, James taught that faith without works of the Law was useless.

Paul wasn't promoting the movement, he was hijacking it.

You could argue the same is true of Robin Hood, King Arthur, John Frum, Ned Ludd, and many others and in terms of plausibilities the argument is a step up form the sci-fi idea that Jesus was actually a spaceman and his miracles were super science but at the end of the day it just comes off as an attempt to salvage what is a very weak position.

However weak the evidence is for HJ, it isn't as weak as the evidence for Carrier's ethereal sub-lunar Jesus, which is non-existent.

 

[Brainache]

It makes perfect if you READ the 10 pages Carrier spends on the matter. Perhaps doing that might be a good idea.

Well it appears that the "Brothers of the Lord" did have a high status in the movement, so it is both familial and "Cultic", just like the members of Muhammad's family in the early days of Islam.

Also, given that part of Jesus' claim to Messiah-hood is being a descendant of David, presumably his brothers were also descendants of David...

 

[Craig B]

It makes perfect if you READ the 10 pages Carrier spends on the matter. Perhaps doing that might be a good idea.

Are Carrier's ideas so ineffable that your profane hands do not presume to set down the essence of his reasoning in a post on this thread?

 

[maximara]

These three would not fit my idea of an HJ, because they aren't associated with John The Baptist or James The Just. Remember Paul didn't found the movement, he joined it when James was in charge, so I wouldn't count these three examples.

I don't know if "found" is the right word. There were many groups already looking for a messiah going all the way back to at least 4 BCE if not earlier.

Remember that Paul himself does NOT mention John The Baptist...that comes totally from the Gospels and Acts. Sure Paul talks about baptism (1 Cor. 1:17) but that was a variant of Tvilah which predated Dunker John by centuries.

The connection between Jesus and Dunker John could just be the belief that the founder was connected to a famous man ala Robin Hood and King Richard I and King John.

As for James The Just again everything we have regarding his role in the movement is from writings that are NOT Paul's.

I don't see why anyone would leave out the execution of Jesus. I understand that the whole "Trial by Pilate" and the big spectacle crucifixion were later embellishments to the story, but I see no reason to deny the idea that a Messiah claimant likely got nailed up by the Romans.

It is not so much a denial but that it is not needed. In fact it wasn't until the 1980s when the remains of people crucified that we got some real insight into how it was actual done. Reexamination of those remains has suggested that nails generally weren't used to secure the victim directly but instead to secure a plaque or plate to prevent the victim from pulling his feet free and speeding up his death by asphyxiation - "There is ample literary and artistic evidence for the use of ropes rather than nails to secure the condemned to the cross".

More over certainly a founder who had warranted a punishment reserved for rebellious slaves and insurrectionists would be well known as would how to deal with his followers. This makes Pliny's letter even weirder as he says "I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent." and he regularly corresponded with Tacitus who supposedly knew enough about Christianity to write the movement's founder had been put to death by Pontius Pilate (one would assume for some high crime).

In fact the only reference to a crucifixion that is not Christian for the 1st through early 2nd century period is the highly questionable passage by Josephus. Pliny makes no mention of it and neither does Tacitus or Suetonius.

Except that there is this guy called "James, the Lord's brother" who is bossing Peter, Paul and the members of the congregations around from his seat in Jerusalem.

WHERE in Paul's writings is this? Remember Acts is a historical fiction and cannot be trusted as relating actual history any more then FDR American Badass! can.

However weak the evidence is for HJ, it isn't as weak as the evidence for Carrier's ethereal sub-lunar Jesus, which is non-existent.

Actually given what we have the evidence for a ethereal sub-lunar Jesus is strong then for a preacher that no one in his lifetime considered important and no non believer even notices until perhaps some 60 years later.

Well it appears that the "Brothers of the Lord" did have a high status in the movement, so it is both familial and "Cultic", just like the members of Muhammad's family in the early days of Islam.

Also, given that part of Jesus' claim to Messiah-hood is being a descendant of David, presumably his brothers were also descendants of David...

Assumption on assumptions. "there is no evidence anywhere (even outside of Paul) that the brothers of Jesus were deemed as a collective whole to be the highest ranking apostles." More over "Since all baptized Christians were the brothers of the Lord, and all Christians knew this, Paul would need to be specific when using this phrase of of actual biological kin. Indeed, such a distinction would probably become standard practice (such as saying 'brothers of the Lord in the flesh')."

Carrier references 1 Car 1.12 and 3.22 and note what these passages say in context:

For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.

So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours.

 

[maximara]

Are Carrier's ideas so ineffable that your profane hands do not presume to set down the essence of his reasoning in a post on this thread?

And we get one of Craig B non sequiturs. I have summed up the 10 some pages and still get the show me nonsense. If you are going to argue a peer reviewed scholarly published work at least show you have actually read it. It has NOTHING to do with ineffability but the ability to argue points without doing a mammoth text dump and possibly violating copyright.

 

[Craig B]

I WHERE in Paul's writings is this? Remember Acts is a historical fiction and cannot be trusted as relating actual history any more then FDR American Badass! can.

Why not? It is not trustworthy, but it is not necessarily written as fiction. I don't necessarily accept these statements of yours. Is this from Carrier too? Does that make it unchallengeable?

Actually given what we have the evidence for a ethereal sub-lunar Jesus is strong then for a preacher that no one in his lifetime considered important and no non believer even notices until perhaps some 60 years later.

Please think about what you are writing there. An obscure preacher is less probable than an ethereal sub lunar Jesus, not noticed for sixty years?

But neither does anyone notice the stories about the ethereal Jesus for the same sixty years. And when people do start talking about him, they locate him on earth, and attribute human characteristics to him. Like "flesh" and descent from the seed of David.

 

[Craig B]

And we get one of Craig B non sequiturs. I have summed up the 10 some pages and still get the show me nonsense. If you are going to argue a peer reviewed scholarly published work at least show you have actually read it. It has NOTHING to do with ineffability but the ability to argue points without doing a mammoth text dump and possibly violating copyright.

I am arguing my own opinion, based on my understanding. You are at least as capable of doing that as I am. If Carrier wants to participate in this discussion, he's welcome.

 

[Craig B]

I WHERE in Paul's writings is this? Remember Acts is a historical fiction and cannot be trusted as relating actual history any more then FDR American Badass! can.

You want a bossy James from Paul's writings? OK.

Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles) 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

 

[Brainache]

You want a bossy James from Paul's writings? OK.

Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles) 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

There are also other references to James that are not from Paul, or Acts:

...In a third century letter pseudographically ascribed[3] to the second century Clement of Rome, James was called the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere".[4] But like the rest of the early Christians, information about his life is scarce and ambiguous. In the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Jesus names James his successor: "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, "Where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into existence.'"[5] Apart from a handful of references in the synoptic Gospels, the main sources for his life are the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline epistles, Eusebius and St. Jerome who also quote the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus and Epiphanus.[6] The Epistle of James in the New Testament is traditionally attributed to him, and he is a principal author of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. In the extant lists of Hippolytus of Rome,[7] Dorotheus of Tyre, the Chronicon Paschale, and Dimitry of Rostov, he is the first of the Seventy Apostles, though some sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia,[8] state that "these lists are unfortunately worthless".

Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, writing about James, says, "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

That's just wikipedia, but it has footnotes. Basically all of the early Church chroniclers acknowledge James as the leader of the movement after Jesus' death.

 

[Brainache]

...
As for James The Just again everything we have regarding his role in the movement is from writings that are NOT Paul's.

CraigB covered it, but that really is an extraordinary thing to say, given the number of times the relevant Pauline epistles have been quoted in this thread.

It is not so much a denial but that it is not needed. In fact it wasn't until the 1980s when the remains of people crucified that we got some real insight into how it was actual done. Reexamination of those remains has suggested that nails generally weren't used to secure the victim directly but instead to secure a plaque or plate to prevent the victim from pulling his feet free and speeding up his death by asphyxiation - "There is ample literary and artistic evidence for the use of ropes rather than nails to secure the condemned to the cross".

They have actually found a heel bone with a nail still embedded in it, so I'm not sure what this is about.

More over certainly a founder who had warranted a punishment reserved for rebellious slaves and insurrectionists would be well known as would how to deal with his followers. This makes Pliny's letter even weirder as he says "I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent." and he regularly corresponded with Tacitus who supposedly knew enough about Christianity to write the movement's founder had been put to death by Pontius Pilate (one would assume for some high crime).

Pliny was writing nearly 100 years after the execution of Jesus, what's your point?

In fact the only reference to a crucifixion that is not Christian for the 1st through early 2nd century period is the highly questionable passage by Josephus. Pliny makes no mention of it and neither does Tacitus or Suetonius.

But we know that crucifixion was the Roman punishment for sedition. We know from Paul that it was believed that Jesus was "of the seed of David". We know that anyone in Roman Palestine claiming to be the "King of The Jews" would be guilty of sedition. What's the problem here? I'm not claiming that he resurrected from the dead.

Actually given what we have the evidence for a ethereal sub-lunar Jesus is strong then for a preacher that no one in his lifetime considered important and no non believer even notices until perhaps some 60 years later.

Except that what you have is a pre-existent Jewish belief in a coming Messiah who would be a descendant of King David, not an ethereal spirit being. There is no Jewish tradition of a ghost-Messiah.

Assumption on assumptions. "there is no evidence anywhere (even outside of Paul) that the brothers of Jesus were deemed as a collective whole to be the highest ranking apostles." More over "Since all baptized Christians were the brothers of the Lord, and all Christians knew this, Paul would need to be specific when using this phrase of of actual biological kin. Indeed, such a distinction would probably become standard practice (such as saying 'brothers of the Lord in the flesh')."

Using that logic, if they weren't brothers of the lord in the flesh, they should have been called "Brothers of the Lord in the spirit"...

Carrier references 1 Car 1.12 and 3.22 and note what these passages say in context:

For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name...

In that passage Paul is calling his congregation "my Brothers", not "The Lord's Brothers". "The Lord's brothers" were named as such separately from the "Apostles" and "Cephas", so being a "Brother of the Lord" was not the same as being any old follower of "The Lord".

 

[IanS]

You want a bossy James from Paul's writings? OK.

There is nothing at all in your quoted passages that has James "bossing" anyone around, nor Paul bowing to any assumed authority of "James" or any "pillars".

You brought those same passages up before making that same claim months ago, and I had to point out to you then that it did not support your claim of Paul being "bossed around" by James.

Though what any of that has to do with any evidence of a human Jesus known to any of these people, can only be in your imagination. That's what we are discussing in this thread, evidence of Jesus. And there is certainly none in your quotes. And if anything in those quotes, it is Paul who makes clear that he accepts no other authority except for himself and the Lord God that he believes in.

 

[Brainache]

There is nothing at all in your quoted passages that has James "bossing" anyone around, nor Paul bowing to any assumed authority of "James" or any "pillars".

You brought those same passages up before making that same claim months ago, and I had to point out to you then that it did not support your claim of Paul being "bossed around" by James.

Though what any of that has to do with any evidence of a human Jesus known to any of these people, can only be in your imagination. That's what we are discussing in this thread, evidence of Jesus. And there is certainly none in your quotes. And if anything in those quotes, it is Paul who makes clear that he accepts no other authority except for himself and the Lord God that he believes in.

James sent people from Jerusalem to spy out who was or wasn't circumcised amongst Paul's "flock". Paul goes to Jerusalem to get approval from James to preach to the Gentiles. Peter starts eating kosher again out fear of these people from James and gets told off by Paul for it... But you say none of that shows James is bossing around people in Paul's group... Right...

Paul says he doesn't accept the authority of those "Pillars" of the church. He says they mean nothing to him, even though they were Apostles before him. He does a big song and dance about how he deserves to be called an apostle too, not because he met Jesus in the flesh like those other guys, but because he had a "vision"... Paul doesn't want to acknowledge their authority, but it sure looks like everyone else did, or why else would he need to say anything about them at all?

All of this is evidence that Paul didn't start the Jesus movement, but he was a newcomer who was in conflict with the existing leadership - James the Lord's brother.

 

[dejudge]

Paul says he doesn't accept the authority of those "Pillars" of the church. He says they mean nothing to him, even though they were Apostles before him. He does a big song and dance about how he deserves to be called an apostle too, not because he met Jesus in the flesh like those other guys, but because he had a "vision"... Paul doesn't want to acknowledge their authority, but it sure looks like everyone else did, or why else would he need to say anything about them at all?

The Pauline Corpus is not historically credible. We have no contemporary manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus and the apostles called Paul, James and Cephas are completely unknown in non-apologetic sources.

People of antiquity who made references to the Pauline Corpus claimed the Pauline Jesus was the product of a Ghost, God from heaven or God from the beginning.

All of this is evidence that Paul didn't start the Jesus movement, but he was a newcomer who was in conflict with the existing leadership - James the Lord's brother.

The fact that there were people called Christians does not mean Jesus must have existed.

It is documented in Christian writings that there were people called Christians who believed Jesus was NOT born but came DOWN from heaven.

In order to argue that there was an actual human Jesus you will have to provide credible contemporary evidence from antiquity since it is known that many Christian writings are forgeries, false attribution and riddled with fiction and falsehood.

There is no credible evidence and no contemporary evidence for Jesus, Paul, Peter and James.

Please, stop wasting time.

People here already know you will not be able to present any credible contemporary for an historical Jesus.

Paul was a liar and con-man and the Gospels and Pauline Corpus are all riddled with fiction, falsehood, forgeries and false attribution in manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

Please, we cannot go over your same fallacious arguments.

Everybody here knows what the NT says about Jesus.

Everybody here knows the NT is not credible.

It is time to face reality.

The HJ argument is dead.

 

[Peregrinus]

wow!

"I am OBLIGATED to SHOW EXACTLY what Christians of antiquity claimed about their Jesus."

Then, roughly 2,000 years of historicity, internecine wrangling, "holy" wars, tele-vangelicals, scholarship & feral dogs await your every word . . . . . NOT!

Cynicism aside, your claim, even if honestly meant, is a load of dingos' kidneys.

 

[Craig B]

"I am OBLIGATED to SHOW EXACTLY what Christians of antiquity claimed about their Jesus."

Then, roughly 2,000 years of historicity, internecine wrangling, "holy" wars, tele-vangelicals, scholarship & feral dogs await your every word . . . . . NOT!

Cynicism aside, your claim, even if honestly meant, is a load of dingos' kidneys.

Peregrinus, I'm sorry; I'm not following this. Can you clarify please?

 

[Brainache]

The Pauline Corpus is not historically credible. We have no contemporary manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus and the apostles called Paul, James and Cephas are completely unknown in non-apologetic sources.

People of antiquity who made references to the Pauline Corpus claimed the Pauline Jesus was the product of a Ghost, God from heaven or God from the beginning.




The fact that there were people called Christians does not mean Jesus must have existed.

It is documented in Christian writings that there were people called Christians who believed Jesus was NOT born but came DOWN from heaven.

In order to argue that there was an actual human Jesus you will have to provide credible contemporary evidence from antiquity since it is known that many Christian writings are forgeries, false attribution and riddled with fiction and falsehood.

There is no credible evidence and no contemporary evidence for Jesus, Paul, Peter and James.

Please, stop wasting time.

People here already know you will not be able to present any credible contemporary for an historical Jesus.

Paul was a liar and con-man and the Gospels and Pauline Corpus are all riddled with fiction, falsehood, forgeries and false attribution in manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

Please, we cannot go over your same fallacious arguments.

Everybody here knows what the NT says about Jesus.

Everybody here knows the NT is not credible.

It is time to face reality.

The HJ argument is dead.

This idiotic drivel doesn't get more convincing through repetition.

I suggest you take a real life History course and see just how worthless these arguments are for yourself, because no matter how many people point it out to you here, it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline Corpus is not historically credible. We have no contemporary manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus and the apostles called Paul, James and Cephas are completely unknown in non-apologetic sources.

People of antiquity who made references to the Pauline Corpus claimed the Pauline Jesus was the product of a Ghost, God from heaven or God from the beginning.

The fact that there were people called Christians does not mean Jesus must have existed.

It is documented in Christian writings that there were people called Christians who believed Jesus was NOT born but came DOWN from heaven.

In order to argue that there was an actual human Jesus you will have to provide credible contemporary evidence from antiquity since it is known that many Christian writings are forgeries, false attribution and riddled with fiction and falsehood.

There is no credible evidence and no contemporary evidence for Jesus, Paul, Peter and James.

Please, stop wasting time.

People here already know you will not be able to present any credible contemporary for an historical Jesus.

Paul was a liar and con-man and the Gospels and Pauline Corpus are all riddled with fiction, falsehood, forgeries and false attribution in manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

Please, we cannot go over your same fallacious arguments.

Everybody here knows what the NT says about Jesus.

Everybody here knows the NT is not credible.

It is time to face reality.

The HJ argument is dead.

This idiotic drivel doesn't get more convincing through repetition.

I suggest you take a real life History course and see just how worthless these arguments are for yourself, because no matter how many people point it out to you here, it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

It is time that your nonsense is stopped.

We are LOOKING for credible evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus.

You have ALREADY admitted Paul was a Liar and Conman so you are just wasting time.

The Pauline Corpus is NOT historically credible and we don't have any contemporary manuscripts.

The Pauline writers admitted their Jesus was the Lord from heaven and that the resurrected Son of God was revealed AFTER a bloodless fleshless conference.

Christian writers of antiquity have also DENIED that James the Apostle was the brother of the Lord from heaven.

Please, please, please!!!!

People here ALREADY know that the existing Pauline Corpus is completely useless since it is also manipulated with multiple UNKNOWN authors.

Please, there is NOTHING else left.

We have gone over the NT "a million" times for "a MILLION" years.

The HJ argument is done--it is finished due to lack of credible contemporary evidence.

 

[Brainache]

It is time that your nonsense is stopped.

We are LOOKING for credible evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus.

You have ALREADY admitted Paul was a Liar and Conman so you are just wasting time.

The Pauline Corpus is NOT historically credible and we don't have any contemporary manuscripts.

The Pauline writers admitted their Jesus was the Lord from heaven and that the resurrected Son of God was revealed AFTER a bloodless fleshless conference.

Christian writers of antiquity have also DENIED that James the Apostle was the brother of the Lord from heaven.

Please, please, please!!!!

People here ALREADY know that the existing Pauline Corpus is completely useless since it is also manipulated with multiple UNKNOWN authors.

Please, there is NOTHING else left.

We have gone over the NT "a million" times for "a MILLION" years.

The HJ argument is done--it is finished due to lack of credible contemporary evidence.

This is what a History lecture looks like:



You are doing it wrong...

 

[dejudge]

This is what a History lecture looks like:



You are doing it wrong...

There is no evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth on YOU-TUBE.

You have no idea how history is done.

You have no idea what historical data looks like.

We have no contemporary manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus so as soon as you admitted that Paul was a Liar and Conman then the Pauline Corpus was reduced to historical RUBBLE--IRRECONCILABLE GARBAGE.

Please, please, please stop your nonsense.

The NT and Pauline Corpus stories of Jesus are historically worthless.

 

[Brainache]

There is no evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth on YOU-TUBE.

You have no idea how history is done.

You have no idea what historical data looks like.

We have no contemporary manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus so as soon as you admitted that Paul was a Liar and Conman then the Pauline Corpus was reduced to historical RUBBLE--IRRECONCILABLE GARBAGE.

Please, please, please stop your nonsense.

The NT and Pauline Corpus stories of Jesus are historically worthless.

Nope, still not any more convincing. Just the usual nonsense. Where do you get your authority to make such pronouncements?