Doug Shaver

No, it does not. The evidence shows that some people believed Jesus was divinely conceived.

No, it does not. The evidence shows that somebody told a story about him to that effect.

No, it does not. The evidence shows that some early Christians believed that those things happened.

No, it does not. The evidence shows that the first Christians we know about believed that Jesus was a god.

aa5874

Your post is not very logical.

You don't even know when the story of the divine conception was written or what was the original story.

Was the conception story written by the author first and then believed or rejected afterwards?

The information from the divine conception as witnessed by Mary is certainly fiction or mythical legendary tales, as written by the authors of the NT.


You don't even know if Jesus lived. The aurthor could have just made a fictitious character.

But in any event, the information from the transfiguration of Jesus as witnessed by Peter, James and John is just fiction, as described by the authors of the NT.


You don't even know when the resurrection and ascension stories were written, if they were first written and then believed afterwards. You don't even know what was originally believed about the resurrection and ascension stories if they were actually rejected.

The information from the resurrection and ascension stories, for sure, indicate fiction or mythical legendary tales as written by the authors of the NT.


You do not even know what the first Christians believe. You do not know the first Christians. You do not know when the Gospels were written. You do not even know if the authors of the NT were Christians, no-one really knows who wrote the Gospels.

All that is known is that the information that Jesus was a God is false or legendary tales, as described by the authors of the NT.

andrewcriddle

Hi Doug

Even if the actual works of the church's adversaries did not survive, summaries with refutations by orthodox writers might well do so.

To some extent this is what we actually find in writers such as Irenaeus.

We are now able (thanks to the Nag Hammadi discoveries) to compare the actual writings of groups such as Sethian Gnostics with the accounts in orthodox writers. Although we now have as a result a much better understanding of these groups, the accounts by orthodox writers seem by and large to have preserved the central elements of their opponents teaching.

Although the accounts by orthodox writers of groups they considered heretical are biased hostile and incomplete, it does seem that the broad outlines of the significant alternatives to orthodoxy were preserved by the orthodox heresiologists.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But, the Nag Hammadi discoveries have NOT helped us in anyway with the group called followers of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus himself.

The modus operandi of the so-called orthodox have been confirmed, that is, incorporate or blend facts about other groups of antiquity with erroneous and mis-leading information about Jesus of Nazareth.

Doug Shaver

Yes, at least some of them. I'm not sure how we'd justify supposing that they all were.

I think it would depend on a lot of things, starting with what we're going to call a "significant alternative to orthodoxy." Is significance going to be measured by number of adherents, number of published documents advocating it, how long it lasted before orthodoxy managed to squelch it, how many orthodox apologists responded in writing? There are an awful lot of relevant variables that we just don't know much about.

GakuseiDon

It's not just in Jesus's life, but in the life of everyone and everything. Paul doesn't give any description of the resurrected Jesus that he supposedly saw. Beyond that, we have few details of anyone associated with earliest Christianity, including Paul, James, Peter, etc. Why?

It seems that people just weren't interested in including such details. Have a look at the Earlychristianwritings website. Why is it so hard to date most of those writings? It is because few historical details are given. We can see this pattern in writings extending beyond the first few centuries, even when Gospel details were well established.

So, to concentrate on Jesus would be a strawman. Why do we have few historical details about ANYTHING in early Christian writings? It is because that is simply how they wrote in that time. For example, the same question was asked about Plutarch's writings:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-04-32.html

"Plutarch rarely adverts directly to the contemporary world... his writings are notable not for their engagement with issues of contemporary currency but for their avoidance of them... the Lives strategically aim for an immemorial rather than a time-specific feel"

I think that how they wrote in those times is simply not taken into consideration. From our own perspective, writing details about Jesus Christ should have been the most important thing in their lives. But our thinking is two thousand years on. It is fairly clear that they didn't worry about such things.

aa5874

I find your post to be mis-leading and erroneous, writers of antiquity, except for the unknown authors of the NT, did give many details of figures of history.

Suetonius in the Twelve Caesars gave enormous amounts of personal information about the Caesars .

This is Suetonius on Tiberius who was supposed to be contemporary of Jesus.

The Life of Tiberius 68 Now, let's look at the unknown authors description of Jesus a supposed contemporary of Tiberius.

Matthew 17.1-2 It is indeed a travesty to try to place the unknown authors of the NT with writers like Suetonius.

GakuseiDon

No, they didn't. Find me the details of the Caesars based on Christian writings , for example. List them for me, aa. Or were the Caesars regarded as non-historical by Christians? WHY didn't they write about the Caesars, IYO? Why is it so difficult to date Christian writings, IYO?

aa5874

You are not making any sense.

I have just given you a detailed description of Tiberius by Suetonius and you still tell me that writers of antiquities were not interested in details of historic figures.

The evidence contradicts you.

GakuseiDon

I asked for information about any historical figures in Christian writings. I didn't say that the writers of aniquities weren't interested in details in historic figures, merely that there are MANY examples where historical details were the chief concern. For example, please tell me when Tertullian's "Ad nationes" was written.

The fact is, no-one included much in the way of historical detail. Even the historians.