Unraveling the Jesus myth

[The Duke of Vandals]

So, yeah... New to your site and didn't catch that a debate topic has to be explicitly specified. So here it is:

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.

By the by, I'm The Duke of Vandals and I look forward to your responses.

--------------------------------------------------

Sources:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

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

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

http://www.bibleorigins.net/

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/

http://www.christianorigins.com/

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

[Confused]

what exactly are you wishing to debate???

[The Duke of Vandals]

I am explaining why the gospel Jesus never existed. It's a myth.

[Confused]

I am explaining why the gospel Jesus never existed. It's a myth.

You need to set specific critieria for debate on your original post. Otherwise many of us are going to debate on many other things your post implicates. Just edit and add specific debate topic so we all stay on the same thread.

[McCulloch]

Welcome Duke

Please take the time to read our rules.
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.
Also have a look at Tips on starting a debate topic.

As it stands, your post is more of a dissertation than a debate question. Perhaps you could edit it and add questions or perhaps break it down into multiple debate threads.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Methinks I've corrected the issue. Please see above.

[Metacrock]

So, yeah... New to your site and didn't catch that a debate topic has to be explicitly specified. So here it is:

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

No, sorry, not true. Jo never does this. He mentions the same Jesus of Naz twice, once when he speaks of his borther and once in the famous Tf. Now if he does speak of other guys named "Jesus" who did the same kind so of things,how do you know it's not the same guy?

could you show us where where one of these passages s located?


the idea that Jesus ilved a hundred years before he was suppossed to have has no backing whatsoever and basically comes from wishful thinking that the Qumran "teacher of reightousness" would be Jesus of Naz so it would destory christaintiy.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

what does that have to do with it?

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Certainly not inconcieveable, very understandable. you are judging by modern standards. They did not have mass communications. No tv, no radio, no tex messaging, no email, no teleraph. Some one had to get on a horse and spend a month or two crossing the desert to get news from jerusalem to Alexandria. Or they could use a ship, but even that took weeks.

Philo was upper class intellectual and most of the time that Jesus was doing his thing Philo was not even Alexandria but living in Rome and other parts of sotuern med.

He would have had no interest in Jesus anyway becuase Philo was concerned with philosophy, he did not care about Jewish religion in the sense of reforms and religiouis zealots. He would have seen Jesus in the way we see televangelists. Jesus would hvae been unworhty of his time.

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

travel time and lack of mass communications, and the socially unacceptable nature of Jesus would have meant he was off limits to most commentators. They were not newmen. they were witting for a highly selective group of the top 1% of society who could read and afford books. They were only concerned with upperclass people and philsophers and peopel who addressed the Senate.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

No it's not. SEveral histoirans mention Jesus from first and second century.


* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)

* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)

* Galen (various writings, c.150)

* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).


* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)

* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

*Lucian (Second century)

*Numenius (Second cent.)

*Galerius (Second Cent.)

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

sorry, you have it all wrong here. There is devistating evidence of this fact. And it's the same kind of evidence that establishes the synopitic problem and the existence of Q. If you try to unseat textual criticism as a valid method you lose most of the critical theory that is used to disprove inerrency. The very arguments you make now depend upon this method so you are cutting your throught.

It is not based upon what the text states explicitly but how ti states it. by identifying an ealry reading they know that part of the exist existed before the version that chnaging the wording.

example:

In canoncial Gospels Jesus tells the lepper "go and sin no more"

IN the diatesseron he tells him "go and sin no more, and obey the law." So the textual critic says "obey the law" is more Jewish than just saying go and sin no more, so this is a form the reading that was copied form an older ms than the one that says just "go and sin no more."

by using this method they have found that there was a pre Markan version of the redaction that was circualted in writting as early as AD 50. this is not a fundamentalist idea. it's found by major liberal scholars and agreed to by crosson and Helmutt Koester.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

That's not an example from textaul criticism. It's over simplification. they do not just base it on what is said directly but on upon the content, the form the way it's said and its' comparision with other manuscripts.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce.

(1)I bet you cannot tell me what evidence leads critics to place it in AD 70?

(2)New evidence shows that Matt was written before 70. So Mark has to be written even ealier.


http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04 ... 6op041.htm




(3)there is more than one version of mark. The version used by LUke is not the same as that used of Mat. So the final form in which we find Mark wa from AD 70, probably, but there were ealrier versions.

(4) the argument is for a "Pre Mark" redaction. Mark was not the fist, we kno this. Obviously he wasn't, q was before Mark and so Thomas may have been. The Gospel of the savior there were other Gospels befoer Mark and a reaction of the Gospel before.

Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

that argument is invalid because it naively assumes that the final canoical form of Mark is the original form. It si not and I just demonstrated that. Mreover, there's a pre Markan redaction that includes the empty tomb. So that evolutionary miracles idea is wrong headed.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers.

totally unfounded assertion, show some evidence.

Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

that is a total lie, it was told by ;Doherty and he got it totally wrong. The Gospels are used by 1 Clement in AD 94 the oldest extra bibical work we have. They are clealry known to Paul, or at least a saying source of Pre Mrkan origin was that's demonstrated many times.

http://www.doxa.ws/Myth/Paul_Jesus.html






IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing

.


Athenagoras was not early in the second century almost all scholars palce it near the end. There were several documents way before that one that mention Jesus as flesh and blood:

1 Clemenet (95 AD)

Papias (110 AD)

Ignatious (110AD)

Polycarp (120 AD)


and others.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

That s the lie stated by Earl Doherty and is totally unsubstantated.


34 lost Gospels recovered in whole or in part demonstrate that Jesus was protrayed as flesh and blood in the first century. there is no record of any source that states otherwise before the major gnostic works of late second thorugh fourth century.


http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind2.html

[Metacrock]

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

beging the qeuestion. How do you know they dont' come back without disrpoving every claimed case? Documented examples in modern time prove that they do sometimes come back.


How do you know it's impossible just because it's outside of your sample of data?

the evidence is from the community as a whole. The community of first believers were the eye witnesses and they told the oral tradition and did the redactions, and the circualtion of the pre makran redaction, AD 50 was only 18 years latter, plenty of witnesses still in the community.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

why is that not evidence? Peter was an eye witness and he died for his bleief. Why would he die for a lie? IF he knew it was wrong why would he die for it?

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

simpley false. First the community itself is the witness and that is solid. It's the people of Bethany who were the 500 and many who were on penticost.

secondly, many of the Apsltels and ealry witnesses are know to us to have existed the evidence is good for their fate:

(1) Peter attested by clmenet of Rome who was a witness to his death and knew other witnesses.

(2) james' death is chonronicaled by Josephus

(3) the dauhters of philip acted as chruch historians and recorded the eaths of several Apostles.

(4) Polycarp and Papias both knew Elder John and Ariston and maybe the Apostle John, but both of them were eye witnesses (Aristion and Elder John).

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

Clement of Rome is much better evdience. Clementine Homolies aer know to be flase. Clement was there at the time and writting in AD 95.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

this is a bait and switch has nothing to do with Jesus exsiting as a real peson in history. so the mther stance is groundless. The JEsus of the Gsopels is well supported, I just just got through showing you that. But evne if the Gospels do embellish, the existed itself of Jesus the guy who calmed to be Messiah is solid.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.

you are totally misguded. Nazerath is proven beyond question to have existed and been inhabited in Jesus' time. It's been excavated four times by modern archeaologists and they all agree that's the ase. the lattest was in 1996. There is even a profject to restore the city to it's first century form.


http://www.doxa.ws/Nazareth.html




By the by, I'm The Duke of Vandals and I look forward to your responses.

--------------------------------------------------

Sources:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


Doherty's site, filled with lies totally bias

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


Non authoritative chagnes from day to day. depends upon who edited it last.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

http://www.bibleorigins.net/


totally biased unshcoalrly

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/

http://www.christianorigins.com/

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm


Not a good schoalry source. see the Jospheus Homepage which the best Jo source on the net. He proves the TF could not be a fake.

http://jesusneverexisted.com/


biased myther site filled with lies.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html[/quote]


totally biased and unshchoalrly.

your sources are putrid. they are not fair minded or shcoalry. look at the record you are missing the major evidence because you use mythers for your sources and mythers lie. I can prove it. Look at the thread on the Orpheus crcifix.

[Goose]

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

I don't think there's too many credible scholars or historians that believe Jesus didn't exist like Doherty. Even your own source wikipedia, which isn't exactly Christian friendly, says the Jesus-myth is a minority position

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

"Currently, the position that Jesus never existed is a minority position among scholars and Doherty's arguments have not made a very strong impression on the consensus among the Western scholars."

I'm always curious as to why sceptics are so quick to dismiss the gospels as poor sources. Either written too late, filled with myths, or constructed to propagate a God-man myth.

Most of the NT was in circulation during the lifetime of many of the witnesses (unless you use very Liberal dating which is of course what the sceptic does). If they were lies, someone would have said something or written something substantial to counter the Jesus Christ movement. So counter testimony could have been given by the reported eyewitnesses or others in the know.

Why would the disciples and followers of Christ mythify a man and story that would put them in harms way. The Jews were very strong monotheists. So they would've been ticked at anyone perverting the Jewish concept of God. The Romans wanted their subjects worshipping the gods of the ancestors, not Jesus. Why would the disciples perpetuate a lie that would put themselves in a position of persecution. For what reason? Money?- no. Power ?- the Christian Church had no power yet, there wasn't even a Christian church in these times. Why would Paul, who openly persecuted Christians and was even involved in Stephen's death, suddenly convert and be subject to the same persecution himself? It makes no sense if one looks at it logically. The sceptics only hope is some incredible conspiracy theory.

Psst... man never actually went to the moon, the CIA had JFK assassinated, The Royal family had Princess Diana murdered

[The Duke of Vandals]

Regarding the many Jesuses:

Josephus mentions over a DOZEN individuals baring the name Jesus. The one you hinted at (who may have been the "teacher of righteousness" the essenes talked about) was Jesus Ben Pandira (or Pantera) who we know lived during the troubled time of Alexander Jannaus. After prophesizing doom & gloom and generally making trouble for those in authority he was hung from a tree on the eve of passover. Sound familiar? He wasn't hundreds of years before Jesus (that's a straw man, by the way). He died somewhere between 79 and 88 bce.

There was Jesus ben Ananias who was arrested & beaten by Romans for alleged prophecies about the end of the world. Living in the sixth decade of the first century he was in an excellent place to influence early Christian myth makers as was the rebellious Jesus ben Saphat who led an uprising in Galilee.

Also, nearly all of the alleged life events of Jesus are seen in earlier myths and legends, establishing the back story for Christianity.

As for Philo?

I can't help but notice your reply leaves out the fact Philo was a contemporary of the early Essenes who are now considered some of the first Christians. You're also shooting yourself in the foot. Apologists will often claim that the early religion was spreading like wildfire during the time after Jesus' death and the writing of the first gospels. If that's true, then a scholar of Judaism who's hanging out with believers SHOULD be mentioning this Jesus guy.

If Philo heard about Jesus, but couldn't be bothered to believe the story / write about it in the first century, why should we believe it now in the 21st?

And while there wasn't mass communication there was widespread travel and literacy as well as a claim by Christians of one of the most spectacular events in history. The assertion that no one left town to go write about the coming of the godman simply doesn't hold water. We also have one paragraph in the gospel which alleges multiple individuals being raised from the dead. This is the kind of thing that gets written down & talked about and I don't mean decades after the fact.

The historians you mentioned fall into one of two different categories: individuals who have their knowledge handed to them second-hand and individuals who have a doctrinal axe to grind. Nearly all of the ones you listed are in the second century, fully a hundred years after the fact. Where are the FIRST century accounts from the individuals who were there? Evidence of Christians does not evidence the gospel Jesus any more than evidence of Flat-earthists evidences a non-spherical planet.

As for when the gospels were written, I'm afraid you haven't addressed my point. I pointed out the pitfall of using "internal evidence" to date the gospels. You're rebuttal? Pointing to internal evidence.

HOW a thing is written and WHAT it says doesn't answer conclusively WHEN it was written... especially when we know the authors had a doctrinal axe to grind.

Your rebuttal still dictates that my statement about New York was written before 9/11, which it very clearly wasn't. Nor does the link you posted save the Christian argument. We know that the Christian myths were around before the gospels. The burden you're under is to prove they were in CHRISTIAN consciousness before 70 ad. A Talamudic tale that COULD have been from the sermon on the mount doesn't do that for you.

that argument is invalid because it naively assumes that the final canoical form of Mark is the original form. It si not and I just demonstrated that. Mreover, there's a pre Markan redaction that includes the empty tomb. So that evolutionary miracles idea is wrong headed.

So, you're admitting that there were multiple versions of Mark which don't match one another, don't mention the virgin birth and this is somehow a problem for me? I fail to see how that is. Also, calling Clement and Paul in as "evidence" of extra-biblical claims is hardly a valid point as these individuals clearly had doctrinal axes to grind. They aren't impartial third parties. They're individuals looking to start a religion. If we go by the actual evidence we have of them, we can see that they invented details and were ignorant of others. Paul, for example, never demonstrates knowledge of the alleged virgin birth.

As for Athenagoras, I know there are individuals claiming a flesh & blood Jesus before him. I gave him as an example of someone who clearly didn't buy into that account. Also, all of the sources you listed are early Christians with a doctrinal axe to grind who are living in the early 2nd century; over seventy years after the alleged events.

And I really suggest you NOT bring up the non-cannonic gospels. The 4 in the NT have enough contradictions in them as they are.