Mountain Man

That there is an alleged consensus among "schollars" and a shifting of the burden of proof are your main arguments. You have provided no proof what so ever as to the existence of the biblical jesus. You've danced around quite a bit and carefully avoided the main argument by claiming the "mythicists" haven't made their case......but the one thing you've not done is prove this jesus existed. You have proven other people think, or thought, he existed, but that's useless info designed to derail the argument.

Mountain Man

If you claim a jesus existed, prove it. :huh:

Emp-JohnIV

Did Jesus Exist? Unknown, so lets look for evidence to support this claim.

Jesus was a very common name during the time period, so yes some one named Jesus existed.


Did Jesus Christ Exist? Unknown, evidence look up.

Many people called them self 'Christ' during the time period according to my research, it is probable that at least a couple of them were named Jesus. Jesus Christ probably existed.


Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth exist? Repeat process.

Considering that mention of or ruins of 'Nazareth' have never been found (to my knowledge) the existence of the city is unknown, and the odds of a Christ named Jesus coming from any particular city (that may not of even existed) are quite low. Jesus Christ of Nazareth probably did not exist.


Did the Jesus of the bible exist? Evidence?

The book of Mark (the other gospels being based on an enlarged version of Mark) and the writings of Paul. Some would also say the writings of Josephus, but this can be disregarded because the first mention was the most bold faced piece of forgery I know of. (next to this time a friend of mine tried to give me a ink jet 10 dollar bill that wasn't printed on the other side)
The latter reference lacked definition to support any detail other then a person named Jesus.

When was Mark written? The earliest possible year would have been 70AD, but a more likely year would have been 150AD. Considering that the first mention of any gospels is not until 180AD.

How credible is a book written >2 and <7 generations after the events described with in it? What language was Mark first written in? Greek, which seems to be a problem for a story about a man who spoke Aramaic. Do we even have a copy of Mark from before 300 years after it was written? Remember books were hand written and changes are made.

For good measure lets assume that Paul existed and that his Epistles are not forgers. What do they tells us? They make mention of a Jesus, but no miracles, no life story, no mention of a man who was the Christ. Conclusion all evidence for the Christ in the bible was written over 100 years after the events they described. And based on the sole writings from the era the works we attribute to Paul. Who admits to having never met Jesus and basis his writings on a vision he had.

Mountain Man

Why is that so hard for so many to understand? Why can't they just admit that there is no evidence and claim they believe on faith alone? No one's tried to stop them from doing that.

Iasion

Greetings,

Few scholars would agree.

Possible references to Gospels start early 2nd century.

Clear references to written but still anonymous Gospels occur in mid 2nd century :

The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.

This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives NO NAMES.


Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - NO NAME given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.


Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - NO NAMES given.


The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAMES given.



The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAME given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAMES given.


But,
not until the 180s does anyone NAME the four Gospels (Irenaeus.)


There seems to be 3 stages visible :
1. Gospel means the CHristian message (1st century, early 2nd)
2. Gospels are written but un-named (mid 2nd)
3. Gospels are named (late 2nd)


Iasion

Emp-JohnIV

Nitpick. I may have made an error because I didn't search for references to the gospels in other semi Christan writing. And even so you have only pushed General Christian writing back at most 20 years from my latest estimating. Still well over 100 years leaving my original conclusion valid.

My turn to nitpick, those could have been references to any of dozens of non cannon gospels forged during the second century, some of which don't even exist today.

Since my last post I have learned of other early writings that may make reference to early Christian gospel. I need to do more research. But I should point out a total lack of pre-second century text. Despite the fact the at any given time Jerusalem had no less then 20 historians, no one for the Actual Time of Jesus makes any mention of him.

Amaleq13

Do you have the text handy? I would like to read that.

RUmike

Could you name and give info about the 20+ historians who lived during the time of Jesus and whose writings we still have?

Emp-JohnIV

I am not a Scholar and can't provide much information about the writers on this list.

Emp-JohnIV

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

If you want a link to source.

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...ally_live.html

The origional link I posted in this thread.