Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?

[StuartJ]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

[RedEye]

Here is your opportunity to show that what I have stated is false as you claimed:

ref:Brainwashed%20...

My belief that Jesus is a myth starts with these observations:

1) No contemporary secular evidence of his existence. There were plenty of historians around and if Jesus had a fraction of the following which is attributed to him, someone should have noticed and recorded it.

Sure atheists say this all the time. That is what atheism leads people to believe..... But we should be able to determine if this is true or not... So who exactly are you suggesting should have known about Jesus that didnt? Like specifically (names of people)?

Firstly, you made the claim that what I stated was false. Therefore you must have a contemporaneous secular source who attests to the existence of Jesus. Do you? If not, please retract your claim. Secondly, there are numerous contemporary or near-contemporary historians or non-religious writers who we would have expected to record some mention of Jesus but fail to do so. This link explains them all:

http://jesusbirthermovement.tumblr.com/ ... he-1st-and

2) The first person who mentions him (Saul/Paul) barely knows a single personal detail about the alleged life of Jesus. Not one parable and no Jesus as a teacher at all. Jesus performed no miracles according to Paul. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history --- there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.

Well first of all, Paul's Epistles arent a bibliography of Jesus's life... So we need not expect him to mention every detail of Jesus life... He also didnt know the living Jesus, no one argues that...

That is the standard Christian apologetic, but is it credible? No. He had ample opportunity to talk to people who would have known Jesus (including his parents). That he mentions almost nothing about the personal life of Jesus might just be excusable, but no teachings and no miracles ? That is beyond belief. There is a good reason why Paul doesn't do this. It's because his Jesus is a celestial figure and not a human being. How do we know this? Because of Marcionism which featured the Pauline epistles and an edited version of Luke (with the human aspect of Jesus omitted). Marcion rejected Jesus as a Jewish Messiah and had him as a spiritual entity with only the appearance of human form.

But Paul clearly knew the Disciples of Christ...

No, your terminology is incorrect. Paul never talks about disciples. He uses the word "apostle" which has a different meaning. A human Jesus may have had disciples (people who followed him around and were trained by him). A spiritual being can have apostles (including Paul who considered himself the 13th apostle). When Paul had contact with these apostles who you allege (without evidence) had knowledge of a human Jesus, why didn't they pass on some of the teachings and miracles to Paul?

And that said, you are just flat out wrong... Paul does mention historical facts about Jesus, AND miracles Jesus did.

"In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you"~Paul mentioning the trial of Jesus with Pilate.

1 and 2 Timothy are two of the three pastoral epistles and are most likely not authentic according to scholarly consensus. Try again.

The crucifixion is all over Paul's Epistles... Saying Jesus was "hung on a tree",

"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

That is authentic but it says nothing about Jesus being hung on a tree. The crucifixion could be symbolic or have happened in heaven, not on Earth.

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."~Paul mentioning the authorities that crucified Christ

The majority of scholars think that these "rulers of this age" are supernatural powers. Origen and Marcion argued for this position.

Paul also mentions knwoing James, who is Jesus brother "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."~Paul

Yes, that's one of the two or three personal details about Jesus that I will grant you. It's not much is it?

Paul also talks of Jesus being resurrected and revealing himself to Paul, and a list of other people that included the Disciples...

If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, that is a probable later interpolation:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_int ... 15:3-11.29

"During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears"~Hebrews

Hebrews is not an authentic Pauline epistle. Everyone knows that.

And this is just about Paul on Jesus.

And most of it has been refuted. The authentic knowledge about Jesus the human being which Paul displays can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And still you have no teachings and no miracles. How is that possible?

And how do you come to terms with this stuff and the things you said in your point number 2?

In light of my responses, are you now prepared to accept that what I stated in point number 2 is correct and not false as you claimed? Yes or no?

3) The stories about Jesus become ever more elaborate as time goes on. First we have gMark which is relatively concise (no birth narrative and no resurrection). Then gMatthew adds more detail. Then gLuke adds even more detail. This is classical myth-making where the story evolves and new details are tacked on as time passes.

So tell me, you say this is "classic" myth making? How is this different then, then an investigation in a real historical story, where more details might be unraveled as time goes by? How would you differentiate a real historical story from a myth?

I see that you do not contest that this is how myths are created and develop over time. Good. I take it that you retract your claim that what I stated is false?

As to your question, name one historical figure from antiquity for which there are multiple accounts with ever-growing levels of details built on top of the previous accounts. Go ahead. (I can give you plenty of examples of myths which have grown like this).

4) Most of what passes as Jesus stories is lifted straight out of preexisting Jewish and pagan Greco-Roman literature and thought. The material is just reworked and attributed to Jesus. When all of that is stripped away, there is barely anything left that is original in any way.

Where did you get this idea from?

What does that matter? The only thing you need to concern yourself with is whether it is true or not. Here is an example of quotes in the NT lifted straight from Jewish literature:

https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

Ask yourself why it would be necessary to plagiarize from the Septuagint in a story about a real live Jesus.

Here is a video you should watch, can you give a response to it?

Sorry, I draw the line at critiquing other people's videos.

Also, do you have any response to my post # 13? How would you respond to it, and also make sense of your belief that Jesus is a myth?

I don't have much time at the moment but I will be happy to point out your errors at some future date.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 29 by Tart]

What he did, where he went, we even have archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials

Chants "Please don't say this is the Delphi Inscription" over and over again...

It is... That is archaeological evidence supporting one of Paul's trials in the Book of Acts

(note everything you are commenting on is a post that is months old)

And yes... People living in Rome, they even occupied a lot of the Roman Forum, and had no idea what its building were built for...

But whats the point of these post.. Please try not to derail conversations.. Thanks..

I don't see your point about me commenting on months old posts. I do that sometimes. I trawl the site, see something interesting and reply, especially if the person I am talking to is still known to be active on the site.
As for Delphi, I have told you over and over and over again. It mentions Proconsul Gallio. It does NOT speak to the trial of Paul. This is just like saying that the graduation record of Judge Lance Ito from UC Berkeley supports the trial of OJ Simpson. This is something you keep on doing - reading into evidence things that quite obviously are not there.
If I was to grab a copy of your high school yearbook, could I use that to support a claim that you then worked as legal counsel for Microsoft?
As for derailing...how is it derailing to reply directly to something you have said? Are your claims supposed to then exist unchallenged?

[Goose]

...there are numerous contemporary or near-contemporary historians or non-religious writers who we would have expected to record some mention of Jesus but fail to do so. This link explains them all:

Let’s look at the first ten in the list.

1. Philo – granted.

2. Justus of Tiberius – none of his works have survived so we don’t know what he may or may not have said about Jesus. The argument relies upon the commentary of Photius in the 8th century.

3. Plutarch – did not write about first century Judean affairs. In fact, Plutarch doesn’t even mention Christianity at all, let alone it’s founder Jesus, in his writings. I guess Christianity didn‘t exist in the first century either.

4. Pliny the Elder – did not write about the affairs of first century Judea.

5. Seneca the elder – died in 39 AD so the timeline here is quite thin to say the least. But regardless Seneca’s historical work is lost. It was apparently a Roman history anyway so once again we have no reason to think he would have reported on the affairs of first century Judea.

6. Seneca the Younger – did not write historical works let alone anything relating to the affairs of first century Judea.

7. Damis – grasping at straws here. It’s also ironic Damis’ silence on Jesus is appealed to since some scholars dispute the existence of Damis himself. All we know of Damis is what comes to us from Philostratus writing over a hundred years later. In any case, Damis didn’t report on the affairs of first century Judea. If he wrote anything at all it was about Apollonius of Tyana.

8. Apollonius of Tyana – Well this is another interesting example to use as a source that did not mention Jesus. The first source to mention Apollonius in any detail is Philostratus writing over a hundred years after Apollonius.

9. Lucius Flavius Philostratus - didn’t write about first century Judea.

10. Juvenal – was a poet. Did not write about, you guessed it, the affairs of first century Judea.

Do we see a trend yet?

The list goes on to cite numerous authors who either:

1. did not write about the affairs of first century Judea at all or;
2. if they might have written about the affairs of first century Judea their works are no longer extant.

The article itself quotes Richard Carrier as saying:

�And though several historians wrote on Judaean affairs in the early 1st century (not just Josephus and Tacitus, but several others no longer extant), none apparently mentioned Jesus (see the Secular Web library on Historicity).� – Richard Carrier.

Once again we are back to the fact I mentioned earlier. The only sources we have that wrote much at all about first century Judea are Philo, Tacitus, and Josephus. The last two of which mention Jesus.

Worth mentioning in regards to the above link is painfully obvious double standard being employed. In the first ten people listed the article appeals to two people, Damis and Apollonius, as sources who did not mention Jesus. The irony of course is that the existence of these two characters is just as questionable if not more so than that of Jesus. Two characters from history that have less and weaker evidence for their existence than Jesus himself. Damis and Apollonius existed, but Jesus on the other hand...

That is the standard Christian apologetic, but is it credible? No. He had ample opportunity to talk to people who would have known Jesus (including his parents).

Why isn’t it credible to say Paul was writing letters and not a biography so we have no reason to expect him to write every detail about Jesus? You don’t likewise expect Cicero to write every detail about Caesar’s life when Cicero mentions Caesar in a letter to Atticus do you? Of course not. Why not though?

That he mentions almost nothing about the personal life of Jesus might just be excusable, but no teachings and no miracles ?

Communion (1 Corinthians 11:23) and Jesus' resurrection (numerous citations in Paul's letters).

There is a good reason why Paul doesn't do this. It's because his Jesus is a celestial figure and not a human being.

�who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh� – Romans 1.

How do we know this? Because of Marcionism which featured the Pauline epistles and an edited version of Luke (with the human aspect of Jesus omitted). Marcion rejected Jesus as a Jewish Messiah and had him as a spiritual entity with only the appearance of human form.

You know because of Marcion? Okay what about the other church fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius who knew Paul and his letters and affirmed Jesus’ historicity? That gives us more evidence for Jesus if you can appeal to Marcion’s interpretation.

Paul never talks about disciples. He uses the word "apostle" which has a different meaning.

�18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.� – Galatians 1.

Cephas - Peter - and James, the Lord’s brother.

�1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem... 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship� – Galatians 2

Peter, James, and John.

Paul also mentions knwoing James, who is Jesus brother "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."~Paul

Yes, that's one of the two or three personal details about Jesus that I will grant you. It's not much is it?

It doesn’t need to be much. That detail alone, one you concede, is enough to sink the whole Jesus-myther position.

If Jesus had a brother how can you then go on to argue Jesus did not exist?

As to your question, name one historical figure from antiquity for which there are multiple accounts with ever-growing levels of details built on top of the previous accounts. Go ahead. (I can give you plenty of examples of myths which have grown like this).

Alexander the Great.

https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

Ask yourself why it would be necessary to plagiarize from the Septuagint in a story about a real live Jesus.

First off, that link lists numerous passages that are direct quotes from the OT where the Gospel author directly attributes the passage in question to the prophets. So these verses in particular can’t be argued as a case of “plagiarism.� For example, the very first one regarding Matthew 1:23 is a direct quote from Isaiah 7:14 and is attributed by Matthew to the prophet (Matthew 1:22). You need to narrow the list down to instances that support the idea, “The material is just reworked and attributed to Jesus.� Then we can look at whether that is the case or not.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 29 by Tart]

What he did, where he went, we even have archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials

Chants "Please don't say this is the Delphi Inscription" over and over again...

It is... That is archaeological evidence supporting one of Paul's trials in the Book of Acts

(note everything you are commenting on is a post that is months old)

And yes... People living in Rome, they even occupied a lot of the Roman Forum, and had no idea what its building were built for...

But whats the point of these post.. Please try not to derail conversations.. Thanks..

I don't see your point about me commenting on months old posts. I do that sometimes. I trawl the site, see something interesting and reply, especially if the person I am talking to is still known to be active on the site.
As for Delphi, I have told you over and over and over again. It mentions Proconsul Gallio. It does NOT speak to the trial of Paul. This is just like saying that the graduation record of Judge Lance Ito from UC Berkeley supports the trial of OJ Simpson. This is something you keep on doing - reading into evidence things that quite obviously are not there.
If I was to grab a copy of your high school yearbook, could I use that to support a claim that you then worked as legal counsel for Microsoft?
As for derailing...how is it derailing to reply directly to something you have said? Are your claims supposed to then exist unchallenged?

You are the one who keeps bringing this particular piece of evidence up, saying again and again its not evidence... Which it is.. Perhaps it is not direct evidence, but "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion."

This help establish the historicity of the Book of Acts... That why Wikipedia is quoted saying:

"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 63 by Tart]

This help establish the historicity of the Book of Acts... That why Wikipedia is quoted saying:

"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

The only commonality between Acts of the Apostles and Delphi is the mention of a one Proconsul Gallio.
Delphi does NOT do as you say it does "archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials", because Delphi does NOT mention the trial of Paul.
Again, if I take your high school yearbook, find mention of you, can I say that your high school yearbook is archaeological evidence supporting your work as legal counsel for Microsoft, as mentioned in a biography of you written by a friend (pretending for sake of argument that that is your job)?
What Delphi does is support the existence of Proconsul Gallio. What it does NOT do, to say again, is support the trial of Paul.
If you want to say we have archaeological evidence for the existence of Gallio, fine. I will not disagree with that. But why do you persist in saying Delphi does what it in fact does not do?
Your high school yearbook would help me establish the years where you couldn't have worked for Microsoft as legal counsel, since it would mention which years you were in school, but it wouldn't support the claim that you worked on the famous anti-trust case in 1998 because it wouldn't mention it.
All Delphi can do with regards to Paul is establish when and where Gallio was.

You are the one who keeps bringing this particular piece of evidence up

Au contraire, I have never once in my life mentioned Delphi or talked about it without you mentioning it first, sir. Think about it...why would I the atheist, mention it first?

[Tart]

Here is your opportunity to show that what I have stated is false as you claimed:

ref:Brainwashed%20...

My belief that Jesus is a myth starts with these observations:

1) No contemporary secular evidence of his existence. There were plenty of historians around and if Jesus had a fraction of the following which is attributed to him, someone should have noticed and recorded it.

Sure atheists say this all the time. That is what atheism leads people to believe..... But we should be able to determine if this is true or not... So who exactly are you suggesting should have known about Jesus that didnt? Like specifically (names of people)?

Firstly, you made the claim that what I stated was false. Therefore you must have a contemporaneous secular source who attests to the existence of Jesus. Do you? If not, please retract your claim. Secondly, there are numerous contemporary or near-contemporary historians or non-religious writers who we would have expected to record some mention of Jesus but fail to do so. This link explains them all:

http://jesusbirthermovement.tumblr.com/ ... he-1st-and

2) The first person who mentions him (Saul/Paul) barely knows a single personal detail about the alleged life of Jesus. Not one parable and no Jesus as a teacher at all. Jesus performed no miracles according to Paul. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history --- there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.

Well first of all, Paul's Epistles arent a bibliography of Jesus's life... So we need not expect him to mention every detail of Jesus life... He also didnt know the living Jesus, no one argues that...

That is the standard Christian apologetic, but is it credible? No. He had ample opportunity to talk to people who would have known Jesus (including his parents). That he mentions almost nothing about the personal life of Jesus might just be excusable, but no teachings and no miracles ? That is beyond belief. There is a good reason why Paul doesn't do this. It's because his Jesus is a celestial figure and not a human being. How do we know this? Because of Marcionism which featured the Pauline epistles and an edited version of Luke (with the human aspect of Jesus omitted). Marcion rejected Jesus as a Jewish Messiah and had him as a spiritual entity with only the appearance of human form.

But Paul clearly knew the Disciples of Christ...

No, your terminology is incorrect. Paul never talks about disciples. He uses the word "apostle" which has a different meaning. A human Jesus may have had disciples (people who followed him around and were trained by him). A spiritual being can have apostles (including Paul who considered himself the 13th apostle). When Paul had contact with these apostles who you allege (without evidence) had knowledge of a human Jesus, why didn't they pass on some of the teachings and miracles to Paul?

And that said, you are just flat out wrong... Paul does mention historical facts about Jesus, AND miracles Jesus did.

"In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you"~Paul mentioning the trial of Jesus with Pilate.

1 and 2 Timothy are two of the three pastoral epistles and are most likely not authentic according to scholarly consensus. Try again.

The crucifixion is all over Paul's Epistles... Saying Jesus was "hung on a tree",

"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

That is authentic but it says nothing about Jesus being hung on a tree. The crucifixion could be symbolic or have happened in heaven, not on Earth.

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."~Paul mentioning the authorities that crucified Christ

The majority of scholars think that these "rulers of this age" are supernatural powers. Origen and Marcion argued for this position.

Paul also mentions knwoing James, who is Jesus brother "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."~Paul

Yes, that's one of the two or three personal details about Jesus that I will grant you. It's not much is it?

Paul also talks of Jesus being resurrected and revealing himself to Paul, and a list of other people that included the Disciples...

If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, that is a probable later interpolation:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_int ... 15:3-11.29

"During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears"~Hebrews

Hebrews is not an authentic Pauline epistle. Everyone knows that.

And this is just about Paul on Jesus.

And most of it has been refuted. The authentic knowledge about Jesus the human being which Paul displays can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And still you have no teachings and no miracles. How is that possible?

And how do you come to terms with this stuff and the things you said in your point number 2?

In light of my responses, are you now prepared to accept that what I stated in point number 2 is correct and not false as you claimed? Yes or no?

3) The stories about Jesus become ever more elaborate as time goes on. First we have gMark which is relatively concise (no birth narrative and no resurrection). Then gMatthew adds more detail. Then gLuke adds even more detail. This is classical myth-making where the story evolves and new details are tacked on as time passes.

So tell me, you say this is "classic" myth making? How is this different then, then an investigation in a real historical story, where more details might be unraveled as time goes by? How would you differentiate a real historical story from a myth?

I see that you do not contest that this is how myths are created and develop over time. Good. I take it that you retract your claim that what I stated is false?

As to your question, name one historical figure from antiquity for which there are multiple accounts with ever-growing levels of details built on top of the previous accounts. Go ahead. (I can give you plenty of examples of myths which have grown like this).

4) Most of what passes as Jesus stories is lifted straight out of preexisting Jewish and pagan Greco-Roman literature and thought. The material is just reworked and attributed to Jesus. When all of that is stripped away, there is barely anything left that is original in any way.

Where did you get this idea from?

What does that matter? The only thing you need to concern yourself with is whether it is true or not. Here is an example of quotes in the NT lifted straight from Jewish literature:

https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

Ask yourself why it would be necessary to plagiarize from the Septuagint in a story about a real live Jesus.

Here is a video you should watch, can you give a response to it?

Sorry, I draw the line at critiquing other people's videos.

Also, do you have any response to my post # 13? How would you respond to it, and also make sense of your belief that Jesus is a myth?

I don't have much time at the moment but I will be happy to point out your errors at some future date.

Well, thats fine but Jesus is the Truth... So... Ya...

[NervyGuy]

Sometimes people just dont know people... I live in Denver... Do i know John Elway? Or Von Miller? Shoot, i dont even know the people living three houses down... How is it unreasonable that someone might not know Jesus? People dont know people all the time...

So you think that Jesus was unremarkable in his own lifetime. Even Gamaliel's student and a probable member of the Sanhedrin like Paul wouldn't have noticed some false messiah stirring up trouble, creating a following, and being crucified by the Roman authority, at the Sanhedrin's request. (I assume you disbelieve in Jesus' miracles. Obviously, Paul would have noticed a miracle-doer in his city.)

OK. It's not a big deal to me that Paul didn't know Jesus. In fact, it's a pillar of my Historical Jesus (HJ) Theory. I was just curious how you saw it. You think that two men, of roughly the same age, both fiercely religious, living in the same city, experiencing the same events... never encounter one another at the temple or anywhere else. OK.

And certainly, Paul not knowing Jesus isnt relevant to Christianity being true... It is something you created.. It is like saying "If Christianity is true, Paul should have known Jesus".... But the reality is the opposite, if Christianity is true, Paul didnt know Jesus...

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about. What does any of this have to do with "Christianity being true?" (Whatever that means.)

Are you thinking that Christianity would be false if Jesus were not an historical person as portrayed in the gospels? If so, I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. Adam and Eve have become metaphorical and there are still lots of Christians around. Heck, the whole books of Genesis and Exodus are accepted by many Christians as metaphorical.

Why can't Christianity survive with a metaphorical Jesus?

There is nothing to suggest Paul didnt know about the tomb...

Of course there is: His silence about it.

Maybe the tomb of Jesus isn't important to you, but for many or most Christians it is the central physical focus of all Christianity. How many Christian pilgrams go to Jerusalem and neglect to visit the (purported) tomb?

None, I'd guess.

And yet Paul never mentions it, seems oblivious to it.

Actually, Paul mentions some historical things, and leave out some...

I don't know of anything which would tie his Jesus to the Gospel Jesus. Do you?

Remember that the gospels were written AFTER Paul. That was Mark's genius. He took Paul's ancient godman and placed him only 50 years earlier as an historical person. If you think of it like that, the whole thing may make better sense to you. Paul didn't know anything about a 30 CE Jesus because Mark hadn't yet created him. That seems the most reasonable explanation.

Do you have a source for these claims? "Paul didnt know where Jesus Tomb was, that he didnt visit the site, that it was lost to its followers"
Any source is fine. I want to know what led you to believe that.

That's like asking if I have a source that Paul didn't know where Atlantis was. How could there be a source for that? Historians were going around writing that Paul didn't know where Atlantis was??

I think Paul didn't know the location of Atlantis or of Jesus' tomb because he never said anything about knowing their locations.

And in the case of Jesus' tomb, of course, Paul would have written extensively about it. Anyone who knows human nature knows that.

Additionally, Paul tells us that he learned about Jesus from no man, but got his knowledge spiritually. If someone had told him the location of Jesus' tomb, Paul wouldn't have denied learning about Jesus from other men, would he?

(And FYI, i sure im wrong soemtimes, i do generalize people as "atheists" often, which im wrong about sometimes... However, i do want to point out that this is common in atheism... "Though they think they are wise...."

I'm sorry. I've just got no idea what you are talking about. You think that atheists are arrogant?

OK, but what on earth does such a belief have to do with our discussion of the historical Jesus?

[NervyGuy]

It’s only after the fact it was pointed out that your statement is false that you shifted to arguing Paul says nothing about a Jesus who lived contemporaneously with him.

Forgive me for thinking that you would be able to follow my argument without some extra help. Sometimes I make assumptions about the abilities of my debate partners.[/quote]Save the patronizing rhetoric for someone else. I’m following what your argument says. Don’t act like a blatant shifting of the goal posts didn’t just happen because you intended to convey something that I failed to understand. In other words, don’t shift the blame onto me for your error.

Everyone knows that Paul spoke about a man resurrected. Yes? I assumed I didn't have to review all that with you.

Yes Paul spoke of Jesus’ resurrection.

So the question is not whether Paul believed a man named Jesus ever lived, in the history of the world. Obviously he believed something like that. The question is whether Paul believed that The Gospel Jesus ever lived.

Yes?

Sure. You mean the Jesus who that Paul thought was the Son of God, who died, and rose again. That Jesus right?

Can we agree to the issue under contention here?

Sure.

We already know Paul lived at the time of Jesus.

We assume that... some of us. Because we've never looked hard at the question.

It’s not an assumption. It’s a logical inference from the historical record. Do you have something that falsifies that inference?

But Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul. That's what I'm trying to argue with you.

Well go ahead and make that argument then. Before you do, can you settle the implied contradiction here?

Paul lived at the same time as Jesus. Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul.

You go ahead and concede for me that your original statement is false and then we can look at the validity of your other questions and arguments here.

False. Oh my goodness.

If you've come here to posture, rather than enter a good-faith debate, we may not get very far with this question.

But maybe that is your intent?

It’s not posturing. If you want to have a good faith debate then go ahead and demonstrate your willingness to do just that by conceding you were mistaken when you asserted:

�But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world – says nothing about that physical life.�[/quote]

[Tart]

[Replying to post 63 by Tart]

This help establish the historicity of the Book of Acts... That why Wikipedia is quoted saying:

"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

The only commonality between Acts of the Apostles and Delphi is the mention of a one Proconsul Gallio.
Delphi does NOT do as you say it does "archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials", because Delphi does NOT mention the trial of Paul.
Again, if I take your high school yearbook, find mention of you, can I say that your high school yearbook is archaeological evidence supporting your work as legal counsel for Microsoft, as mentioned in a biography of you written by a friend (pretending for sake of argument that that is your job)?
What Delphi does is support the existence of Proconsul Gallio. What it does NOT do, to say again, is support the trial of Paul.
If you want to say we have archaeological evidence for the existence of Gallio, fine. I will not disagree with that. But why do you persist in saying Delphi does what it in fact does not do?
Your high school yearbook would help me establish the years where you couldn't have worked for Microsoft as legal counsel, since it would mention which years you were in school, but it wouldn't support the claim that you worked on the famous anti-trust case in 1998 because it wouldn't mention it.
All Delphi can do with regards to Paul is establish when and where Gallio was.

You are the one who keeps bringing this particular piece of evidence up

Au contraire, I have never once in my life mentioned Delphi or talked about it without you mentioning it first, sir. Think about it...why would I the atheist, mention it first?

Ok here is a quote from a reference other then myself...
"The reference to proconsul Gallio in the inscription provides an important marker for developing a chronology of the life of Apostle Paul by relating it to the trial of Paul in Achaea mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:12-17)."

[NervyGuy]

Save the patronizing rhetoric for someone else.

Save your posturing for someone else. Then I won't have to waste my time condescending to you, and we can actually talk about the issue itself.

I’m following what your argument says. Don’t act like a blatant shifting of the goal posts didn’t just happen because you intended to convey something that I failed to understand. In other words, don’t shift the blame onto me for your error.

Since it was your error, I have no choice but to point out that it was your error. I'm sorry. I'm a rationalist.

Sure. You mean the Jesus who that Paul thought was the Son of God, who died, and rose again. That Jesus right?

Ummm...Yes. What other Jesus would it be? It was the ancient Jesus whom Paul claimed not to have learned about from other men, but from something like 'spirit visits'.

Why would Paul not have learned about Jesus from other men if A) he didn't know Jesus in Jerusalem and B) he considered Jesus his lord and savior?

He even claims to have visited with 'the disciples' in Jerusalem. Yet he says he didn't learn about Jesus from them. Don't you find that curious?

It’s not an assumption. It’s a logical inference from the historical record. Do you have something that falsifies that inference?

Yes. Paul's silence about a contemporary Jesus, among a whole bunch of other stuff.

Well go ahead and make that argument then. Before you do, can you settle the implied contradiction here?..... Paul lived at the same time as Jesus. Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul.

I don't know. I assume it comes from some confusion you've suffered in reading these messages, but I'm not sure. Are you the one who thinks that Paul both lived and didn't live at the same time as Jesus? Or is it someone else who thinks that?

It’s not posturing. If you want to have a good faith debate then go ahead and demonstrate your willingness to do just that by conceding you were mistaken when you asserted: �But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world – says nothing about that physical life.�

I was mistaken to think that you were ready to follow an advanced discussion of the Historical Jesus.

But now I am adjusting myself to you.

And I was forgetful... about the hostility many Christians feel against anyone who questions the historicity of Jesus.

So forgive me and let's move on?