Toto

You constant invocation of "credibility" is getting tiresome. There is no argument here - just a taunt. Please stop using this term until you can make an argument based on facts and reasons.

No one here cares to read your opinion of what the supposed consensus of experts is.

outhouse

Are you telling me anyone who makes a claim for christianity starting in the second century, is doing so from a stance of education, knowledge, and credibility?

Or is it just opinion, no one really cares to read about? Because its so far fetched?


The facts and reason are beyond many here, but you make it a requirement when I use it.

But to keep you happy we can start with first century multiple attestation, Gmark, Gjohn, Paul. You get beyond that and ill get serious.

Toto

There are people with much more education and knowledge than either you (or I) have who do argue for Christianity starting in the second century. You can respond to their arguments.

Credibility is too subjective to be a criterion.

There is speculation, and then there is detailed, informed speculation. You and a lot of Christian apologists would like to lump every dissenter in with conspiracy theorists. I won't fly here.

No, everyone has to rely on facts and reason.

There is no multiple attestation that can be dated reliably to the first century. If there were, we wouldn't need this thread. It's up to you to do more that mention a few names, with no explanation. If you want to continue with this, explain what you mean. But first of all search the archives for the previous discussion of dating Paul's letters. I get tired of repeating things.

outhouse

That simply isnt true and you know it.


I have a severe dislike of christian apologist, who for the most, dont have anything to do with real biblical criticism in scholarships.

There is only a certain degree they are taken seriously.



Maybe I should rephrase the question. Who is credible that claims a second century origin for christianity?. Its a very very very short list, you should have no trouble posting your sources.

outhouse

Im sorry but your wrong.

Name the credible person/s who state differently.



This will be a very very very short list as well, so you should have no trouble. By the way, bloggers dont count.

Sheshbazzar

No person that states differently is credible because the evidence supporting any such statement is lacking.

All that exists regarding any knowledge of any 'Jesus Christ' or 'Christianity' before 100 CE are unevidenced opinions.

Not one 'authoritative' source has ever been able to provide one piece of credible contemporary evidence for the existence of any 'Jesus Christ' or of 'Christianity' before 100 CE.

Opinions based upon highly mythologized 2nd and 3rd century documents are not positive credible evidence of any otherwise unattested 1st century persons or events.

It ends up being an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy, no matter which position is taken.

No one is presently holding a blade to ones throat demanding a profession of Faith one way or the other.
Why not wait to see what further evidence may turn up, rather than being dogmatically opinionated while yet lacking in any positive evidence or knowledge one way or the other?





.

mountainman

Gotapic?





NO IT IS NOT!!!!!


IT IS JESUS.

IT HAS TO BE JESUS walking with Peter on the sea, see.

Spin and Toto know it is the first mural of Jesus therefore it must be Jesus.

Scholarship is on their side. Some big names.



Wasn't that the god jesus chrest?

mountainman

So did Paul and Seneca exchange letters in the 1st century?

Sheshbazzar

I believe Saul of Tarsus wrote against the practice of gentile circumcision, and of justification by faith around 15 CE.
And I have just as much evidence for that opinion as anyone else does for apostle Paul writing anything in 60 CE.

outhouse

Based on what evidence? why 15 CE?