Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[stubbornone]

You have no first hand documents. Tell me one document that is first hand? Also no documents we have, date to 50 AD.

The Synoptic Gospels. First hand accounts.

And you clearly did not even read the source I provided you, even as you went running to the mods claiming repressed status.

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Do you see those numbers? Those are the date ranges of the documents discovered, as in there is obviously more than one copy of say .... Colossians.

If you are demanding something, and get it ... it would be rather civil, when claiming that you are driven by evidence, to at least examine the things you demand.

Once again, you obviously lack familiarity with the basics, and I do mean the basics of period history, and yet you are coming in and demanding that we treat your position with respect, even as you make obviously false statements. That does not logically flow. It does not civilly flow.

As I said, the Jesus Myth is nothing but a whacked out conspiracy that rests on deliberate ignorance. It deserves no more respect than the fake moon landing claims that also circulate the internet.

[historia]

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Mithrae, as usual, has beaten me to the punch here. But let me repeat what he said, and maybe offer some further explanation.

What Trypho is saying here is that the Messiah (Greek: Christ) has not yet appeared. It's possible, Trypho suggests, that the Messiah may already have been born. But, if so, even he doesn't yet know that he is the Messiah. Only once Elias anoints him will he, and everyone else, know that he is the Messiah. Since that has yet to happen, Christians are apparently mistaken in claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. They have, in a sense, "invented" a Messiah for themselves.

'Trypho', of course, is not a real person, but rather a literary device, created by Justin Martyr here for his Dialogue, in which he answers Jewish objections to Christianity. Nowhere in the text does Justin suggest that the very existence of Jesus was ever in doubt. Many of the Jewish criticism he attempts to refute in this work take as their basic assumption that Jesus existed.

This is a good example of the perils of quote mining, though.

[Goat]

You have no first hand documents. Tell me one document that is first hand? Also no documents we have, date to 50 AD.

The Synoptic Gospels. First hand accounts.

Please provide evidence that the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts. Show evidence, first of all, that the person who the gospel is attributed to actually wrote it.

And you clearly did not even read the source I provided you, even as you went running to the mods claiming repressed status.

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q

Please provide copies of the Passion Narrative, and "Q" , so we can see what those particular documents actually say about Jesus.

The 'early christian writings' site says this about the Passion narrative

The existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been challenged. The assumption of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been undermined by studies that aim to show that the final three chapters of Mark contain themes developed throughout the Gospel. In The Passion in Mark, Donahue, Robbins, Kelber, Perrin, Dewey, Weeden, and Crossan interpret the passion narrative with the use of "hermeneutical clues" provided in the first thirteen chapters. (p. 153) Kelber states the conclusion to be drawn: "The understanding of Mk 14-16 as a theologically integral part of the Mkan Gospel calls into question the classic form critical thesis concerning an independent and coherent Passion Narrative prior to Mk. Thematically, it is difficult to identify a major non-Mkan thrust or theme in Mk 14-16, let alone extrapolate a coherent pre-Mkan source." (op. cit., p. 157)

It seems your claim is not holding up to scrutiny.

50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians

Yes, those are the surviving letters of Paul. He admits he never saw 'Jesus' in the flesh, but according to the writers of Acts, he saw him in a vision on the road to Damascus... with symptoms that to modern eyes look like heat stroke.

When we look at the claims about Jesus in Paul .. he really doesn't say anything about the early Jesus, except the mantra he got executed and rose from the dead. These are the earliest writings extant that we have about Jesus, and they don't go into any details,.. but just claims about his dying for our sins, and just as few things like He dwells on the death and resurrection, says he calls God 'father', was a descendant of David, and preached about the end of times....also he was in it for the money, since he thought preachers should get paid.

50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Do you see those numbers? Those are the date ranges of the documents discovered, as in there is obviously more than one copy of say .... Colossians.

If you are demanding something, and get it ... it would be rather civil, when claiming that you are driven by evidence, to at least examine the things you demand.

Now, this is a list.. but, since I showed from your very source that even the existence of the Passion Narrative was in doubt, it doesn't seem like you actually read your own source!

How about using that source .. since you are pushing it so greatly, without quoting it by the way, that 'The synoptic Gospels were written by eye witnesses.'

Please.. do some debate, and try to show where your own sources make that claim. Blank links do nothing, since, when I actually go to the first reference, it refutes your claim. Why don't you show where in those links it actually makes a GOOD case for the synoptic gospels being written by the eye witnesses?

[Mithrae]

What evidence to the contrary? In your initial response to Historia, you suggested three factors to consider:
> "blatant forgeries that put him in the extra-biblical record. . . . Why did the early church fathers have to forge writings into extra-biblical sources?"
> "the earliest writings we have, by Paul, do not speak of his earthly life"
> "and the extraordinary claims made pertaining to his life"

It has been pointed out that your first claim is inaccurate at best, since what you're referring to (the Testimonium Flavianum) is a single forgery which was not by an early church father. You have chosen not to acknowledge this correction.

What evidence? The fact that the extra-biblical accounts are far removed from the time of Jesus. They don't agree with the gospel accounts. They were written after the Jesus story was in circulation which because of that fact, we cannot know if the authors are writing from Christian sources. Most that I have seen are vague, at best, and their exact meaning is unclear. It would be best to go through each extra-biblical account one by one and examine them all on the forum.

Secondly, Eusebius was not a church father? Im most assured he was a Bishop. He was part of the early church. I think you may have a different meaning for early. To me 2nd and 3rd century is still early.

But Eusebius was 4th century The patristic period roughly covers the 2nd through 5th centuries from what I've gathered, so 4th century is not an early church father. More importantly you're still neglecting the fact that you alluded to multiple "blatant forgeries," yet there is only one. At best, such inaccuracies in your rhetoric/reasoning will obviously undermine any conclusions you draw. At worst, it's straight out dishonesty.

Your comments about extra-biblical sources are not evidence that Jesus didn't exist; they describe the limits of the evidence that he did exist. That said, as you and others have mentioned the Roman historian Tacitus said a few things about Jesus in the early 2nd century, and since he was obviously hostile towards Christians it would be quite a leap of faith to suppose that he was simply taking Christians' word for it about Jesus. And Josephus' passing reference to the killing of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ has already been discussed in detail, particularly important because as a long-time resident of Jerusalem Josephus is a superb source for that knowledge. Those are the only two non-Christian sources I know of which I consider worth discussing, though there's some comments in the Talmud which are somewhat intriguing.

It's been pointed out that your second claim is likewise inaccurate, since Paul very clearly refers to Jesus as an earthly, historical person on numerous occasion - in fact his reference to James the brother of Jesus has been a major point in discussing Josephus' reference to the same.

The problem with this text, is that we have an already known text of Josephus' that was forged. The reliability of Jesus references is given with doubt. The scholarly community is not one sided on the issue either.

Another fact to mention is that Josephus goes into detail on John the Baptist yet he gives one word to Jesus. Didn't Jesus make much more of a fuss than John the Baptist? Paul speaks naught about John. Only after the time that Josephus wrote, do we see a gospel which speaks of John the Baptist.why is Jesus not referenced with John in Josephus' work? Not to mention the reference to John seems a little Christian. See below.
for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

What Jew speaks like this about baptism?

On reference to James, was James stoned according to the NT? We don't have enough information.

The NT doesn't record the death of James, but in a rather embellished account the 2nd century Jewish-Christian church chronicler Hegesippus relates that James was unjustly killed by the Jewish religious authorities (the "scribes and Pharisees" in his account) shortly before the revolt (which began 67CE). And yes, he mentions stoning Josephus' reference to the unlawful killing by the religious authorities of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ places it just five years before the revolt. It would be an uncanny coincidence - bordering on the miraculous - if that same event occurred twice, and Josephus was referring to the non-Christian one, the one for which we have no evidence. Since this is the only occasion on which Josephus uses the term 'Christ,' I'd say it's all but indisputable that he's talking about the Christ which some of his Roman readers may have heard of through the Christian sect, rather than an otherwise obscure high priest.

We know of an alteration to the text of Josephus in Antiquities book 18, and we also know that this alteration is not associated with anything from book 20. Origen's 3rd century statements that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ is one of the important reasons we know that the TF is not genuine and was altered in the late 3rd or early 4th century, yet he does quote Josephus on the death of James. In fact he uses that same phrase "the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ" verbatim on three occasions, and from memory on one of them specifically references it to the 20th book of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Origen seems to be slightly confused with the account by Hegesippus (he incorrectly says that Josephus associated James' death with the revolt). But ultimately there's no reason to suspect 2nd century tampering with Josephus' work and, as I discussed with Student, such early Christian influence would in fact be more unlikely and any speculative 'original' readings would simply raise more difficulties.

Josephus' comments on John are a little off-topic. But baptism is just a Greek word meaning washing, and the Jews had used various such cleaning rites for centuries before Jesus and John. It's quite possible that John was more famous in his own day than Jesus was - even Acts mentions a group of Jews in Ephesus who'd heard of John but not Jesus - so there's nothing suspicious with Josephus' comments that I can see.

In response you've said you meant merely that "he makes no reference to specifics in the gospels" such as the virgin birth. But saying that Paul comments on Jesus' culture, mother, ancestry and brothers but not a virgin birth is not an argument against Jesus' historicity. You're actually pointing out a very good reason to suppose that the later stories and legends were built around a real man, seriously undermining your third point.

If Jesus was a man, the stories surrounding him are embellished, inaccurate, and unreliable. No one can honestly say that what they read is actually what happened.

No-one but conservative Christians does say that. But the fact that he was a Galilean teacher who wound up getting himself executed is obvious, not least because of the kind of reasoning sometimes called the criterion of embarassment. It's extremely unlikely that any Jew would invent a crucified Messiah; but since that's clearly what Paul and the gospels present, we can infer that Jesus was in fact crucified and Paul's extensive theology (perhaps building on Jesus' disciples own thoughts) sought to explain how this could be. Absent from Mark's gospel but present in Matthew and Luke are Jesus' descent from David, his birth in Bethlehem, and John's hesitation or deference towards baptising Jesus, all of which serve to elevate Jesus and reinforce his messianic credentials. So we can infer that those elements in Mark's story probably were not invented: He really was Jesus of Nazareth, not some Bethlehem-born royal prodigy, and he probably was baptised by John.

If your reasoning peaks with "Paul didn't mention a virgin birth, so he must've met the brother of a man who didn't exist," I can see why you haven't been able to see any evidence for Jesus' existence There are indeed some good points which haven't yet been brought up, but just for a laugh - since you think that Paul counts for nothing - why don't you tell us what you think a good argument should look like?

No, I am just asking questions. It was between me and Historia and somehow you decided to jump in and answer for him. I find it odd that you feel the need to answer for him, but whatever.

I never said any of the such. I told Historia that I hadn't heard a good argument yet, even though know of some. Paul is maybe the best argument, but its not without problems. Paul never met Jesus during his life. He met Jesus on the road to Damascus, which means anything he says about Jesus' earthly life is hearsay and most defintely second hand information. Second hand information is unreliable. We wouldn't use it in a court of law so why use it here? Where did he get his information from? Was the info reliable from an eyewitness? Did he get it from the circulating stories?

On his meeting James, I can't say anything against that.

Historia "jumped in" on a discussion between you and Stubbornone, didn't he? And either you "jumped in" to someone else's reply to the OP, or they jumped into yours, or else you'd still be quietly awaiting a reply from Alwayson. That's how discussion forums work. I think I've made it clear in each of my posts to you that my main concern has been the significant inaccuracies in your reasoning or rhetoric. Of course the same might be said of Stubbornone, but I wouldn't want to steal your fun.

Contrary to Goat's claim, Paul does not say that he never met Jesus in the flesh (not as far as I know at least). We know that he wasn't a disciple of Jesus, but it's very plausible that they'd have been in Jerusalem together during some of the festivals. Even if it were the case that he had somehow managed to never even lay eyes on the man, being so close in time and location would have meant knowing many other people who'd also have had opportunity to know something about the matter. As a self-confessed opponent of the church, it's virtually impossible that Paul would have changed his mind on the matter if Jesus didn't even exist!

Might want to re-read that passage; Trypho is talking about 'Christ.' That's the Greek word for 'Messiah.' Trypho isn't suggesting that Jesus didn't exist; he's arguing that there could be no Christ until Elias (Elijah) anoints and declares him to the world. Jesus' credentials as the Christ, or lack thereof, has always been one of the biggest points of disagreement between Jews and Christians. If you read on a bit you'll see that Justin's response to Trypho has nothing to do with proving Jesus' existence, but rather appeals to Scripture regarding the nature of the new covenant and the one who was to institute it.

Your right. He is making a point that the Messiah has not even come yet. I had a couple beers last night and must have misread it. In any event, I think the only thing we have is the mention of Paul meeting James in Galations 1:19.

I still find none of the NT writings reliable because of all the known blatant forgeries and Iinterpolations that surround them. The lack of first hand accounts other than a couple of Paul's epistles doesn't help. What were left with is unreliable, second and possibly third hand accounts, that cannot be used as evidence for Jesus' existence. Paul may be the only piece we have.

This is why I have such a problem with inaccurate rhetoric; it's so easy to run away with the impression that the early Christians were operating a wholesale forgery and propaganda machine (and in fact I've seen people say precisely that). In the entire New Testament there are only two known alterations which are longer than two sentences, namely the end of Mark and John 8 - and the latter is a thoroughly benign moral tale. I suppose you could mention John 21 also, though that doesn't seem intended to be read as part of the original so can't really be considered a forgery or interpolation (and in fact it provides some interesting evidence that the original was written by a disciple). Off the top of my head I know of only two others which are even a full sentence in length, the trinitarian formula in 1 John 5 and Jesus' bloody sweat in Luke (two sentences I think), though there might be one in Acts also. The one in 1 John 5 seems to have been a very late addition (5th century or later), and I'm not aware of any changes which significantly affect the meaning of the text. Scribal errors and clarifications are more a matter of trivia than cause for alarm.

The pseudepigrapha such as the pastorals are more troubling, but still not a reason to suppose (as some folk seem to do) that unless a work's authenticity can be proven beyond doubt we should assume it be written by anon. In fact the sheer numbers of early Christian pseudepigrapha, including those outside the canon, makes the anonymity of the canonical gospels both surprising and intriguing: Why did the writers themselves not say "This is the gospel written by Matthew the apostle"? Why is one of them attributed to a mere interpretor of Peter, rather than Peter himself as a later non-canonical gospel was? I think a very good case can be made that 'Matthew' wasn't written by the apostle, not least because Papias said that the apostle wrote the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek. But it's quite plausible that Mark wrote Mark; probable that Luke and Acts were written by Luke the companion of Paul; and plausible that the John was indeed written by a follower of Jesus (John 1:14, 19:35 and 1 John 1:1-3; cf John 21:23-24), albeit one who from the outset is openly more interested in theological value than historical facts.

There are plenty of theories going 'round about what the historical Jesus was actually like, and I've often said that these are more or less open to anyone's guess since they depend so much on specific interpretations of Paul, the gospels and early church dynamics.

But as far as I've seen theories that there was no historical Jesus are more or less utter trash, depending on vastly more sceptical approaches to some sources than others, strange and radical reinterpretations of Paul (or sometimes even denial of his existence too!), and a great deal of speculation about interpolations and greek ideology replacing what we can actually say about textual evidence and the movement's origins.

It's been repeated many times - including by new mythicist convert Richard Carrier upon whom the thread is based - that "this is accurately described as a fringe position. I always say that it's just a hypothesis that hasn't had a proper review yet, so I advocate to people don't go running around hitting people over the head saying 'No definitely Jesus didn't exist.' This really hasn't been properly vetted yet." But whatever new twist Carrier thinks he's brought to this two-century-old theory, on the interwebs and on this forum specifically you can scarcely go two months in a row without finding someone who's made the grand discovery that 99% of relevant scholars have simply got it wrong!

In that context folk who maybe aren't very Christian-friendly and who like to think of themselves as keeping an open mind might deserve a little sympathy for declaring themselves undecided, implying that there may be merit to both sides of the question. As you might guess from my screen-name, I myself went through the phase of being intrigued by the pagan syncretist theories, particularly those regarding Mithras. But ultimately, the existence of Jesus is far better supported than we'd have any right to expect from a Galilean teacher; we've actually got two almost neutral primary sources (Paul and Josephus) regarding his brother, to begin with. For comparison Hillel the Elder was among the most important teachers of 1st century Judaism, and arguably second only to Moses and Ezra in its long-term development; yet as far as I've been able to find, there are no known references to him until 100 or more years after his death, and those are from Jewish sources. By contrast the evidence regarding Jesus even surpasses many mainstream Greek and Roman philosophers and teachers (though falling short of the likes of Plato or Aristotle).

So did Jesus exist? In my amateur opinion, I'd guess that we can say that he did with about as much conviction as we can say anything about ancient thinkers and teachers. So far I've only ever met one person willing to throw the bulk of ancient history out the window by applying across the board the kind of scepticism so frequently levelled at Jesus

[stubbornone]

[quote="Goat"]
[quote="stubbornone"]


Please provide evidence that the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts. Show evidence, first of all, that the person who the gospel is attributed to actually wrote it.


[quote]

The source that I provides is a list of such sources, including the synoptic gospels, and you are free to puruse them to your hearts content ... but I would assume that you are already familiar with them, as, like Nickman, you are claiming its evidence that drives you ... and yet your opinion is in stark adversarial conflict with established historiography?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Now, from the other site that I have routinely posted and which evidenced driven atheists apparently have not read ...

"In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

So, congratulations on proving the point that the Jesus Myth is little more than an ardent need to deny the evidence at any cost necessary - hence its status as a conspiracy theory.

The Jesus Myth is a prime example of a n argument from absurdity.

Rather than direct your ire at random Christians on internet sites, I suggest you take up the issue with the various internet organizations of atheism who so prominently feature the Jesus Myth and deliberately miseducate people about the reality of other people's faith.

And we know that spreading misinformation about others is a sure sign of great and logical processes rather than zealotry or emotion ...

Nothing in atheism drives people to believe that in the Jesus, but for some reason, its only atheists who advocate this silly conspiracy theory and indeed feature it prominently in their literature.

Being an atheist reflects poorly on no one, being a Jesus Myther? Once again, why treat a Myther with any more respect than a 9-11 conspiracy nut? Same logical processes ... same demands that we prove everything and they prove nothing.

[Goat]

Please provide evidence that the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts. Show evidence, first of all, that the person who the gospel is attributed to actually wrote it.

The source that I provides is a list of such sources, including the synoptic gospels, and you are free to puruse them to your hearts content ... but I would assume that you are already familiar with them, as, like Nickman, you are claiming its evidence that drives you ... and yet your opinion is in stark adversarial conflict with established historiography?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

.

Ok. Let us look at just one of those synpotic gospels.. and see if it backs up your claim that it was written by an eye witness.

Let's look at Mark.. since that is the one that is the earliest one written, according to that site.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Information on the Gospel of Mark

Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

[Nickman]

You have no first hand documents. Tell me one document that is first hand? Also no documents we have, date to 50 AD.

The Synoptic Gospels. First hand accounts.

And you clearly did not even read the source I provided you, even as you went running to the mods claiming repressed status.

The Synoptics are not first hand accounts. You have copies. How is a copy a first hand account? Also they are written in third person which destroys the idea about them being first hand also entails first person.

Secondly, I did report you to the mods. You probably reported yourself since your posts are available for the mods to see. The main poi t you should take from this is that you were in violation. Don't get mad at me and turn it on me because you broke the rules. Like I said before, I have never "ran ro the mods" for anything.

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Do you see those numbers? Those are the date ranges of the documents discovered, as in there is obviously more than one copy of say .... Colossians.

These dates are not the dates of the manuscripts we have. They are the dates assumed for the original circulation. This is seen by the huge range of time allowed for error. If we had the originals, then a precise date would be given, because they can be dated as such. What you have is assumed date ranges for the originals, yet we don't have any originals.

If you are demanding something, and get it ... it would be rather civil, when claiming that you are driven by evidence, to at least examine the things you demand.

I do examine the evidence and you have not given me any. Your appeal to the amount of text written has no more sway that the mass amounts of texts written about Frodo. Just because we have a lot of texts does not mean something is real.

Once again, you obviously lack familiarity with the basics, and I do mean the basics of period history, and yet you are coming in and demanding that we treat your position with respect, even as you make obviously false statements. That does not logically flow. It does not civilly flow.

I have showed above that you have a lack of knowledge of period dating for texts we have from history.

As I said, the Jesus Myth is nothing but a whacked out conspiracy that rests on deliberate ignorance. It deserves no more respect than the fake moon landing claims that also circulate the internet.

Theres no conspiracy. There are people challenging the traditional view about Jesus by providing the evidence and showing where previously held evidence can be shown wrong.

[stubbornone]

Please provide evidence that the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts. Show evidence, first of all, that the person who the gospel is attributed to actually wrote it.

The source that I provides is a list of such sources, including the synoptic gospels, and you are free to puruse them to your hearts content ... but I would assume that you are already familiar with them, as, like Nickman, you are claiming its evidence that drives you ... and yet your opinion is in stark adversarial conflict with established historiography?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

.

Ok. Let us look at just one of those synpotic gospels.. and see if it backs up your claim that it was written by an eye witness.

Let's look at Mark.. since that is the one that is the earliest one written, according to that site.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Information on the Gospel of Mark

Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

In other words, you just completely and totally skipped everything I presented with the results of a random google search used to fulfill your prejudices and preconceptions

That's why the Jesus Myth deserves tin foil hat status.

Feel free to address any of what I presented.

[Nickman]

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Mithrae, as usual, has beaten me to the punch here. But let me repeat what he said, and maybe offer some further explanation.

What Trypho is saying here is that the Messiah (Greek: Christ) has not yet appeared. It's possible, Trypho suggests, that the Messiah may already have been born. But, if so, even he doesn't yet know that he is the Messiah. Only once Elias anoints him will he, and everyone else, know that he is the Messiah. Since that has yet to happen, Christians are apparently mistaken in claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. They have, in a sense, "invented" a Messiah for themselves.

'Trypho', of course, is not a real person, but rather a literary device, created by Justin Martyr here for his Dialogue, in which he answers Jewish objections to Christianity. Nowhere in the text does Justin suggest that the very existence of Jesus was ever in doubt. Many of the Jewish criticism he attempts to refute in this work take as their basic assumption that Jesus existed.

This is a good example of the perils of quote mining, though.

After more research, I would have to disagree. Although Trypho may or may not be an invention. Trypho makes two points.
Trypho's words, "You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour and have invented some kind of a Christ for yourselves" is really saying that Jesus was the unfounded rumour for on the basis that he existed they invented the idea that he was the Christ!

He states that their Christ is unfounded and invented. Prior he states that if Christ was real and alive as in the real one, then he has not shown himself yet. He follows with denial of Justins Christ by telling him his is unfounded and invented. If there were a Christ that lived such as Jesus, the the conversation would look much different. It would be a specific attack on the man JESUS. It may have had a dialogue that spoke of Jesus being a false Christ. Instead we have a straight denial of that idea, and an attack that he holds belief in an unfounded Christ and one that is invented.

[stubbornone]

The Synoptics are not first hand accounts. You have copies. How is a copy a first hand account? Also they are written in third person which destroys the idea about them being first hand also entails first person.

Maybe you should look up the definition of a first person account. Your literally made up standard makes every 'copy' of an autobiography irrelevant to the evidential record.

Did you notice the part, right up front wherein the criticism of Wells and his followers leads to non-standard definition of judgement that are based solely on excluding evidence. You and Goat are doing a great job of proving why scholars dismiss Jesus Mythers as 'beyond reason'.

Secondly, I did report you to the mods.

I appreciate your honesty, but all that serves to do is prove that you are not here debating ... but are instead personally involved. When you demand evidence, and get a categorized web site listed literally dozens of documents, each with its own academic credenting and evidential support ... and then run to the mods because the 'evidence' is not explained to you personally?

Well, that clearly indicates an emtional attachment rather than an adherence to logic or evidence. It is what happens on every forum, internet and real, when I confront Jesus Mythers. Shown evidence, they stubbornly cling to their prejudices, and eventually lash out.

The Jesus Myth is a conspiracy theory backed by nothing but emotion, there is no sense in even pretending it is anything other than that.