ChandraRama

Council of Nicea and the Nicean creed itself is a testimony to the fact the christians of various persuasions existed at the time.

mountainman

The council of Nicaea was called by Constantine on account
of certain words of Arius; and the Nicaean creed is a testiment
to the fact that christianity legally commenced with an exclusion
clause, for those who say "there was a time when he was not",
such as Arius et al.

The inference that christians existed prior to Constantine is
supported by literature created in the time of Constantine
which purports to research the scanty records of the past.

The inference that christians existed prior to Constantine is
not supported by any literature independent of Eusebius and
Constantine, or any archeological evidence, neither are there
any carbon dating results which conclusively provide the dating
of papyrus fragments related to the NT prior to Constantine.

The inference that there were christians prior to Constantine,
that the religion was not new and strange to the empire in
the fourth century, is resistable.



Pete Brown

Gamera

First in time first in right. The gospel of Thomas is probably late. Most of the other written references used to construct an historical Jesus other than the historical Jesus of the NT are based on (a) chronologically later material, or (b) analogous material unrelated to Jesus, such as documentation of other "messiahs" of the time.

Here I think Paul is crucial. We know Paul is writing about 55 CE. The texts we have say he knew John, James and Peter. We know the texts claim that they approved of the gospel he was preaching (not his theology put the gospel). We have examples of his gospel preaching. The Jesus preached by Paul appears to be consistent with the Jesus portrayed in the gospels (indeed a strong case can and has been made that Paul influenced that portrayal -- mostly by Paul's destractors, like Wilson and Crossan).

Thus Paul's portrayal is closest in time to Jesus and without more should be privileged as the historical Jesus.

Malachi151

How the hell can Paul be a source for a historical Jesus when Paul plainly states that he never saw Jesus?

aa5874

The Christian Bible potrays Jesus as a God who is alive right now and knows the hearts of men, sitting on the right hand of God in heaven.

If it can be shown that Jesus did not do any miracles then his historicity is in doubt, every thing written about Jesus, in the Christian Bible, must be taken seriously and the veracity carefully examined.

Mark3 :11-12 (KJV) states, 'And unclean spirits when they saw him (Jesus), fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known'.

Today, we know that sickness is not a result of spirits, the author of Mark is in error, no medical problem exhibits 'spirits' that can talk, much less recognise the so called Son of a God.

In Mark 7:25-26, For a certain woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him (Jesus), and came and fell at his feet:.... and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. MK 7:29, 'And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

Again, there is no known medical problem that is caused by a devil, there is no medical term known as 'unclean spirit'. The author of Mark may have practised or believed in 'witchcraft'.

Mark9:17 .....' Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit'. Mark 9-25-26, .......'Thou dumb and deaf spirit ....come out of him...And the spirit cried and rent him sore....' There is no known speech impediment that is caused by a 'spirit', Jesus is fictitious.

One cannot separate the historic Jesus from his miraculous powers, because his miracles verify his authenticity, his power, his divinity.

If one was to say that Pete Rose played professional football in the NFL and was the Hesiman trophy winner for three consecutive years, would anyone think that he was refering to Pete Rose, the baseball player. Pete Rose, the NFL player, is niether historic nor mythical, it is fabrication. So too is the Jesus in the Christian Bible fabricated.

Malachi151

I agree pretty much with the poster above.

What would constitute evidence of HJ #2?

Does HJ have to have been crucified in order to qualify as HJ?

Does he have to have been killed because of his activitied in order to qualify as HJ?

What do we have to find evidence of in order to confirm an HJ?

Also, what if the Josephus quotes were 100% authentic, would that qualify as proof of HJ?

Geetarmoore

I've read Paul's portrayal of Jesus. I can not determine that Paul is talking about a particular person who has ever lived on the earth at any specific point.

Paul's 'historic' Jesus doesn't exist. His jesus lacks historical location and time.

Using the fictional account of Acts to get to an historical Jesus doesn't cut it in my opinion.

Geetarmoore

This has often been my argument. If the historical Jesus didn't say the things that the Gospels said he did, and if he didn't do the things that the Gospels say he did, and if he didn't travel to the places that the Gospels say he did, then - who is this history about?

Good post.

jjramsey

See here.

andrewcriddle

Paul may well have never met the historical Jesus, but I don't think he plainly states this.

Andrew Criddle