Toto

Solitary man: if you wish to pursue the question of the faults of Christianity, feel free to start a thread in GRD. (Is the fault of Christianity that it is . . . Christian?)

Otherwise, your dissection and analysis of the phrase "honest enough to admit it," and your attempt to turn it into a broad charge of dishonesty against the entire scholarly guild, leaves me with a headache. I have read quite a few honest Christian historians who admit the problems with Josephus and Tacitus. I have not read any honest Chrsitian historians who claim that either Josephus or Tacitus are clear or unequivocal evidence of a historical Jesus. Have you?

Solitary Man

I didn't ask the question, Fenton Mulley did.

Why are you changing the subject?

Yellum Notnef

I totally agree Pete. I just wanted to hear what Solitaryman thought the faults were.

Solitary Man

Since Toto refuses to split your digression, let me know when you start a new thread in GRD.

angelo

So this thread has now become the faults of christianity. Where does one start? How about from Jesus himself ? A fault lies in whether he existed at all. All we have are the writings of a probable schizophrenic Paul. Then you have very questionable gospels written by who knows who, who were writing hearsay. Not one of Jesus's disciples was literate enough to write anything down, the man himself never wrote anything down either. But the greatest fault is telling people in the 21st century to believe that this Jesus was raised from the dead 2-3 days after he was executed.

Solitary Man

I quoted the above since apparently angelo atheist either is incapable of reading or merely refuses to do so. This is not a thread about the faults of Christianity. I asked a moderator to split out the digression, but you know Toto...

Amaleq13

Nobody though two posts were worth a split but provided an excellent opportunity to start a fresh thread.

Solitary Man

Things must be different these days. I remember when Toto split out a new thread based on one post. But whatever.

Didymus

Obscured from his contemporaries by his propensity for rural venues; obscured from Mark and Matthew by the fog of time and the frailty of human memory, and obscured from the hearers of Paul, Mark and Matthew by wishful thinking on the part of those Hellenized Jews who dreamed of a messiah all their own.

There is insufficient evidence for us to determine whether the human Jesus was anything like the Jesus of the Gospels. Or whether the stories are based on one man or a multiplicity of wandering preachers.

Didymus

mountainman

Including the Acts of Thomas, where the author has Jesus Christ
appearing to the Apostle Thomas (also known as Judas) in a dream
and commanding the recalcitrant apostle to abide by the agreed
casting of lots, which all the disciples engaged in for the dominion
and conversion of the nations, and his lot, which fell to India.

But because the author has the apostle Thomas point blank
refusing the "military-like" command of the Jesus Christ character,
the Jesus Christ character sells his "disciple-slave" Thomas, as
a slave to a travelling Indan merchant at the local markets.

According to this "Acts", it may be that archaeologists should
be on the look out for a BILL-OF-SALE, which the text specifies,
was made out in the name of Jesus Christ, the SELLER, of his
rightful slave, Judas Thomas.

What happens if we find this bill of sale?
Will it prove the existence of the SLAVE-BOSS JESUS?
Of course it will, right?

Authors of Acts and Gospels are primary evidence!
Right? Get real.


There is the question whether the non canonical genre
was written as a reaction, and an anti-christian polemic,
to the authority and ineptitude of the canonical fabrication
lavishly and first published in ancient history sometime
around 331 CE (Constantine Bible times 50).

There is a broad range of literature to explain.
AFAIK no theory of ancient history provides any
explanation for the entire package, without being
entirely vague about the authors, and the centuries
of authorship. (IS'nt it unbelievable how people can
believe the historical integrity of such a mass of
totally unexplained bullshit?).

However, if we examine the single and simple
possibility that Christianity did not enter the
world until Constantine entered Rome, a new
pattern for the extant evidence might be understood.

When at the end of the day everyone is simply
sick and tired and weary of repeating "there is
no evidence for the historical jesus", do you
think that someone will follow through with the
straightforward consequential implication?

The lad JC is a fourth century docetic fiction.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown