arnoldo

The other point is to drive a wedge between the autographs of what later became the NT writings from the first century towards the second century and beyond. The fact is there were no written accounts of a HJ/MJ during 1 B.C and before and an explosion of written account beginning in 1 A.D. onwards. To be fair, there are a few MJ'ers who accept that some of the written accounts of what became the gospels/epistles were written sometime during 1 A.D.

ApostateAbe

Yes, but the reason they advance forward the dates of the earliest Christian writings is to put more time between the history and written accounts, which is ultimately to satisfy the view that the written accounts are minimally historical. If they could get away with moving the dates of the writings all the way to the fourth century CE and onward, then they would. And, indeed, some do! It just takes a helluva lot more forgery, interpolation, and bizarre interpretation.

aa5874

So, are you claiming that the birth of Jesus as described in Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.34-35 where Jesus is the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin without a human father was the common method of conception of humans in antiquity?

Now, why did not Jesus believers also worship Saul/Paul, Peter, Barnabas, James, John, Luke, Mark, as a Gods and asked them to forgive the sins of mankind and abolish the Laws of God including circumcision?

Based on the Canon, Saul/Paul and Peter out-performed Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost. They both preached in excess of 25 years, and were beaten, jailed, stoned and eventually executed.

Saul/Paul and Peter were not deified.

But, the very Acts will destroy HJ, it will show that it was totally unacceptable for Jesus believers to worship a man as a God or that Jesus believers should be worshiped as Gods.

Acts 14.11-15 It must be clear now that Jesus was considered be a God and NOT just human to have been worshiped by Paul and Barnabas as a God.


Now, that that you have proposed that some-one being the offspring of a deity is not equal to being non-historical, please NOW begin to present your historical sources of antiquity for the human Jesus, the entity described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, without a human father, who walked on water [the disciples saw him], cursed a tree to kill it [the disciple saw the tree dead], transfigured [the disciples saw Jesus face shine like the sun], raised from the dead [the disciples saw Jesus when they hiding in a house] and ascended through the clouds [the disciples saw Jesus going through a cloud].

Begin your case NOW.

Present your historical sources of antiquity for your man Jesus NOW or else the HJ will remain a most SENSELESS proposition.

mountainman

Based on the C14 evidence (which itself suggests the 4th century), and lack of any other earlier "hard evidence".

Plain and simple forgery is all it takes, and interpolations into Josephus and a host of other sources. What Ammianus calls the "plain and simple religion of the christians" may have originated with plain and simple forgery by people in a position of absolute power.

Toto

What explosion? There are no Christian documents that can be dated to the first half of the first century.

Are you referring to the idea that gospels written after 70 CE (possibly much later) refer to events that might have happened in 2 BCE or 6 CE?

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

The gospel of Matthew and Luke contain information about the conception and birth of Jesus but it is intersting to note the very significant differences which affect the veracity of the two gospels and the historicity of the Jesus character.

According to the author of Matthew when Jesus was about to be born the Magi came to Herod to find out the place of his birth. The Magis went to look for the baby Jesus with the promise to tell Herod where he was found.

When the Magis found the baby Jesus they never returned to Herod. Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus then fled to Egypt and Herod, not knowing where and who was the baby Jesus, killed all the children of a certain age.

But, it is most signifcant to note that the Matthean story requires that Joseph, and Mary and the baby Jesus are unknown to Herod. The Matthean baby Jesus must not be registered or known to be born anywhere under the jurisdiction of Herod.

And further it is even better that Mary and Joseph do not even tell Jews that it was because of Jesus why all their children were killed.

The Matthean birth story requires completely secrecy about Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus until Herod is dead.

Mt 2:13 - Now, if the Matthean birth story was true or reasonably true, then it must be expected that the author of gLuke would have presented a similar birth story and would have mentioned the Magi, and the complete secrecy of the birth.

But, the author of gLuke wrote a completely different story.

The Matthean story was not really true. There was no secrecy at all. Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus was not hiding.

There was a census at the time Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus were registered.

Everyone in the vicinity of his birth knew Jesus was born, there was a choir of angels entertaining the shepherds and gave them the news about the birth of Jesus and the shepherds did tell people on the very night that Jesus as born.

Luke 2.10-14 Now, the author of gLuke claimed he did some kind of research and that he used witnesses or written information for his Jesus story.

And now after his research, the Matthean birth story is fundamentally false.

There was no secrecy at all.

It was a big celebration.

The angels told the shepherds where the baby Jesus was and how he was dressed. The shepherds went to see the baby Jesus.

Where did gMatthew's birth story of secrecy come from?

Where did gLuke birth story of celebration come from?

It must be from their imagination.

The author of John discarded both birth stories.

The authors of the Jesus story have major problems. Their history of baby Jesus is uncertain and fundamentally contradictory.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

arnoldo

You raise two points

1. Within the orthodox jewish orthodox community a human claiming to be equal with God would be blasphemous the penalty of which would be death.

2. Outside of the jewish community there existed people who would consider worshiping men as god(s).

Isn't this what traditional historians (who aren't from the minimalist school of thought) explain how a jewish sect eventually became what is today known as Christianity?

arnoldo

Your right, I failed to specify that christian writings began in the first century.
There is a hypothesis that some of these writings were based on earlier oral accounts or even an early written document known as the Q document.
No.

aa5874

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee.

Philippians 3.5 From Philo and Josephus we learn that Jews do not worship men as Gods.

From Acts 14, which I just showed you, Saul/Paul and Barnabas were vehemently opposed to themselves being worshiped as Gods. They were preaching against such practices.

You must see by now that the traditional HJers need to provide some historical source from antiquity to show that Jesus was known to be a man but was still worshiped as a God contrary to their own beliefs and teachings.

You are still in your proposal or suggestion stage, you NOW need to get into your evidence stage.

I understand that you are suggesting or proposing that non-Jewish people may have worshiped Jesus as a God knowing fully well he was only a man .

Well, what credible external historical source of antiquity shows that is the case?

Now, when we use the Jesus story, the disciples and Peter, assumed to be Jews, had abandoned Jesus when he was arrested. The deification of HJ was even more doubtful when he failed to resurrect.

You surely must understand that MJ is about what has been recorded about Jesus. Just like we know from Homer that Achilles was the offsspring of a sea-goddess, we know that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Now, please ask your traditional historians for historical sources for the man who was deified by non-Jews after he was crucified for blasphemy by Jews.

arnoldo

The gospels are more alike than different. . .


Relationship between synoptic gospels.png

. . . and part of the birth narrative in Matthew is verified in part by secular history.