bacht

I assume you reject the 2nd C apologist literature as later invention?

mountainman

The christian ecclesiastical history was - lock, stock and barrel - tendered by Eusebius under the Boss. I do not think it unreasonable to request independent corroboration from epigraphy and other archaeological evidence (and C14). I have searched for such to no avail. See that reference to the actual archaeology above.


Best wishes


Pete

Doug Shaver

I agree that the evidence for Jesus' historicity isn't as good as most people think it is. The evidence for when and where Christianity originated is another matter entirely.

aa5874

But, isn't the cannonisation of the the four Gospels an indication that there were already Jesus believers or at least written information about a character called Jesus already known to Eusebius.

If Eusebius with the collusion of Constantine did wholly fabricate Jesus, I would expect one single cohesive Jesus story in the cannon. I would expect one single birth date for Jesus, one single genealogy of Joseph, one single crucifixion story, one single resurrection story, and a single visitation story of the tomb.

The four different versions of Jesus, although fundamentally the same stories, indicate to me that these stories were already known and were used by Jesus believers but were later claimed by Eusebius to belong to the Church from since the 1st century.

I cannot find, and the historians might confirm, any religion starting from "whole cloth" where there are multiple versions of the history of their gods in the same cannon or bible.

The little we know about the so-called heretics seems to indicate that whenever a religion is started, there is, in general, a single written story about their god, even Marcion, it is claimed, only used Luke or parts of it to develop his phantom.

The multiple Jesus stories as found cannonised in the NT are indications that Jesus stories preceeded Eusebius. I find it unlikely that Eusebius would written four Jesus stories and then cannonised them with apparent contradictions and errors.

cogitans

Three words: burden of proof.

aa5874

Well, tell me what is the proof that Achilles did not exist?

It is very easy, isn't it?

He was the son of a sea goddess, no credible source corroborated any events about him and Achilles behaved like a god.

Achilles did not exist. Just one sentence.

Well, Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, no credible source have corroborated any events about him and Jesus acted lik a God.

Jesus did not exist. Just a few words.

I should have said NOTHING. One word.

The evidence for NOTHING is really NOTHING.

It is the easiest case to prove, just say JESUS was NOTHING and you will see that those who believe Jesus existed have NOTHING on him, too.

Just like you. You have NOTHING to prove Jesus did exist

cogitans

First of all, as an atheist who doesn't believe in the Resurrection, I couldn't care less whether Jesus existed. The scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of historicity, and I find no reason to dispute it, nor do I have a particular motive to affirm it.

I simply believe that people should recognize their burden of proof, which you haven't met.

aa5874

If you don't care whether Jesus existed why are you asking me to prove he did not?

I have already proved it. There is NOTHING on Jesus.

What is the proof that Unicorns do not exist? There is NOTHING on Unicorns.

How many times must I say it? NOTHING is the proof of NON-EXISTENCE.

There is NOTHING on Apollo, too.

cogitans

You've been told at least twice by me what the problem is with your original assertion.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unicorns are highly unlikely to exist, but seeing as you probably haven't looked in all the possible places for one, they still might exist, however ridiculous the odds.

I'm more inclined to believe professional historians than I am to believe you, frankly. One hardly has to be sympathetic towards the truth claims of Christianity to find statements like "Jesus, the twelve and Paul of the NT are fiction" to be absolutely laughable. I would be much more likely to agree if you said something like "The New Testament contains both historical realities and fictional absurdities". Since the NT claims to only contain the former, that should still tell you what I think of it without having to go to absurd lengths.

aa5874

Well, if my assertion is so weak, and problematic, you can destroy it, easily.

Destroy my assertion, if you can.

You have it wrong. Don't repeat everything you read without first analysing the statement.

The correct statement should be: "Absence of evidence is not ALWAYS evidence of absence.".

And whenever you have found a Unicorn, I will admit defeat.

I think there may be some professional historians who also believe that they are going to heaven to be with the Father of Jesus. You believe them?

And you cannot defeat my assertion by saying it's laughable because I can say just you are laughable and we won't get anywhere with the discussion.

Just tell me what the professional historians said about the existence of Jesus of the NT that made you believe them.