youngalexander

Geez boney, I'm beginning to warm to you - along with the climate.

aa5874

I would expect that after making such a declaration that you would have pointed out what Josephus had written about Jesus the Christ, his thousands of followers or his teachings in the first century.

I would add that your statement is in fact baseless without supporting evidence.

Amaleq13

He shouldn't have to explicit remind anyone here that, at the very least, the short reference in Josephus is accepted as genuine by the vast majority of scholars.

aa5874

I have already pointed out that from extant extra-biblical writings of the 1st century, the historicity of Jesus the Christ, his thousands of followers or his teachings cannot be confimed. There are no mention of heresies, anecdotes, miraculous events, rumors, or even persecutions of Jesus the Christ, his thousands of followers and teachings in the 1st century from extra-biblical sources.

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is unknown from an exra-biblical point of view.

Now, the NT places Jesus the Christ, his teachings and his thousands of followers in the 1st century. The books called Matthew, Luke, Mark, John and the Pauline Epistles all try to establish a 1st century historicity.

To see if Paul can establish the historicity of Jesus the Christ , I will go to 2 Corinthians 12:1-3, "It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

I knew a man in Christ about fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth."

From those passages in Corinthians, the author called Paul cannot help with the historicity of Jesus the Christ, he appears to be clueless, confused. Paul cannot tell if Jesus the Christ was a 'phantom' or real. I will discard him.

I am now left with the books called the Gospels, and to examine the historicity of Jesus the Christ, I will use events as written in these writings.

The books called Matthew and Luke claimed Jesus the Christ was physically born, however these births occured years apart.These two books have Jesus the Christ, as a child, living in two different countries simultaneously. And to augment confusion and non-historicity, these 2 books also have totally different genealogies.

Now, I cannot proceed any further, all other events appear to be anecdotal or hearsay with serious chronological and geographical problems. I would have expected the birth, the genealogy and place of residence to be confirmed at least among biblical circles. I will discard them.

However, this event, written by all authors of the Gospels, confirms the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ. All the authors of the Gospels claimed Jesus the Christ died, all of the authors claimed he was buried, yet, all the authors claimed there was no body at the place of burial, while under guard by soldiers, when visited by his followers.

So, if we review, Jesus the Christ, his teachings and his thousands of followers cannot be accounted for in the first century by extra-biblical sources.

Also,the birth, genealogy and body of Jesus the Christ cannot be accounted for by biblical sources in the first century.

I rest my case, the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ stands. Jesus the Christ was fabricated.

spin

I may agree with everything you said preceding this final brief paragraph. I may even agree with the first sentence I quote, but the second doesn't follow from anything you've said. Non-history has nothing necessarily to do with fabrication.

Imagine say that the population of Palestine in the 1st century was 500,000, of which one can only vaguely show historicity for say 500 people. That means 499,500 people fit the catergory of non-history. You cannot claim that those 499,500 must have been fabricated.

Errors in a narrative don't necessarily mean that the narrative is bogus. People make mistakes frequently enough, especially those who are not trained to research, and don't have sufficient literary support for, the task of writing their history.

I agree that Jesus is not historical, but I can't agree that he was fabricated, even though he might have been. You would be going beyond the evidence.


spin

aa5874

The word 'fabricate' has several meanings. So, I can say that Jesus the Christ was constructed, made up (fabricated) by someone, whether to deceive or not is a matter of further investigation.

Toto

Chili diversion

spamandham

It seems to me you are overlooking the single greatest bit of evidence against an HJ, which is so simple. Anyone not steeped in Christian religious indoctrination, who is familiar with Homer and the ancient Jewish scriptures (to include the books of Enoch) upon reading the NT, would simply not take the historicity of such a man seriously.

There isn't any credible evidence such a man ever existed, and he sounds like a fictional (not just mythical or legendary) character later confused to be historical. The only reason HJ is the default position among historians, is because past Western historians were Christians who simply assumed that to be the case.

How can people seriously argue that a character so intricately intertwined with obvious fantasy was nonetheless historical in spite of nothing outside the works of fantasy to support it?

How would this be any different from people 2000 years from now arguing about the historical Harry Potter, simply because Harry Potterism is a predominant religion then?

If it looks like fantasy,
and walks on water like fantasy,
it's fantasy.

EarlOfLade

But that is only relevant for the English/German version of what you call Santa Claus. Where I come from, it's called "julenisse" and the word "jul" has a counterpart in English, "Yule" or christmas.

Julenisse is a mythical figure

Chili

And we have St. Nicholas on December 6 to foreshadow Epiphany. I don't think that this guy ever existed but it makes it more believable if he did. In fact, the way we celebrate it has nothing to do with his legend.

We do this on Dec. 6 to keep Christmas 2 days of darkness as if the sun stopped and so no presents at Christmas and everybody stays home on account of that.