Toto

OK - so you quotemined bacht and took some words out of context so you could misinterpret them.

There is, in fact, only Christian literature to work with. The few references to Christianity or Christ in non-Christian literature are not substantial enough to "work with" in any academic sense, even if the texts had been transmitted with any accuracy. Saying that there is only Christian literature to work with does not deny the existence of the pagan and Jewish sources listed above.

Everyone recognizes this. But you have set up this straw man of mythicists who deny the very existence of non-Christian sources. There are no such people in this debate, if they exist anywhere else.

bacht

Okay you win, but you've lost credibility with me by arguing a tiny point of negligible importance. You seem to be trying to 'expose' whatever nefarious motives are behind my (relatively noncontroversial) comments here. Are you suggesting that I should be looking more closely at the authors you cited? What exactly do they have to tell us about Christian origins?

For the record, I started this journey as a faithful Evangelical over thirty years ago. I've spent most of this time trying to follow recent HJ developments, mainstream people like Vermes and Sanders. As a true believer the challenge has been to open my mind to new ways of looking at the Biblical record, from Genesis to Revelation, without the filter of church teaching and emotional baggage.

I won't say outright that Catholic christianity is a 'big lie' but it does have some of the characteristics (btw Nazi references are a surefire way to shut down meaningful discussion). If you want to natter on about emotional bias I suggest a little self-examination is in order. Attacking your antagonist's motives is a poor substitute for calm discussion of the facts and arguments.

If you want to talk about material ignored by internet chatter then go ahead. Let's get into the apocrypha or rabbinic texts, and of course any pagan literature worth considering. My knowledge of these is limited, but some of the ideas are very interesting, and tend to lead away from the orthodox HJ story.

Chaucer

Not nefariousness in your case. Merely sloppiness; imprecision. I don't question your motives after the honorable role you played in the Anti-semitism in Biblical Analysis thread.

Thanks,

Chaucer