stephan huller

Roger

The poster is obviously taking issue with the idea that Jesus was historical enough to have made a splash

aa5874

Once the Pauline writings are considered early, that is , Before the Fall of the Temple and it is claimed "Paul" actual preached JESUS the Messiah all over the Roman Empire in Major Cities, like Rome, as the End of the Law, that Jesus had a name above every name in the Roman Empire, even above the Deified Emperors of Rome and that EVERY person, including the Deified Emperors of Rome should bow before the name of Jesus and call him LORD then we would expect writers of that period to write about the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus was the Most Significant character in the Roman Empire if it is considered that Paul was early.

The Pauline Jesus had extreme significant theological and political implications for both Jews, and all people in the Roman Empire.

One cannot be even sure when the four Canonised Gospels were written but Paul placed himself in the time of King Aretas, somewhere around 37 -40 CE.

It must NOT be forgotten that Paul implied that he traveled and preached about Jesus the Messiah all over the Roman Empire for at least 17-20 years.

Examine some of the things Paul wrote and PREACHED all over the Roman Empire in Major cities about Jesus the Messiah for at least 17-20 years.

Philippians 2 Now, Philo wrote about the Mad Man Carrabbas and Josephus wrote about the declared Mad Man Jesus the Son of Ananus but how come nobody wrote about the MADDEST Man of the 1st century, "Paul" the Pharisee and his Jesus.

If "Paul" did live, then his Jesus would have been the CRAZIEST idea ever put forward by a Jew.

"Paul" and his Jesus would have been the "talk of the town" and the whole Empire.

Justus of Galilee should have written about Jesus of Galilee if "Paul" the Pharisee did claim Jesus a Jew of Galilee was the most significant character in the Entire Roman Empire, even in heaven and under the earth.

avi

I agree with you, and further, I cannot imagine a Jewish rabbi, no matter how obscure, who successfully raised even, simply, ONE person from the dead, and cured only ONE person's blindness with his spittle, and eliminated epilepsy, in only one child, by simply waving his hands, about, in the air, as if a magician performing in front of an audience, but then, went unnoticed by the Alexandrian Jewish community.

The fact that no contemporary author described JC's exploits is not best explained by invoking failure to survive for "the vast quantity of second century texts."

That does not mean that I disagree with Roger's point about terrible destruction of huge quantities of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century texts. I am sure that they were nearly all destroyed. I don't doubt that at all. And, Roger is correct, some of those texts may well have mentioned JC. We can't really prove or disprove that idea, can we?

But notwithstanding the terrible destruction of important evidence, there remains, among the very few documents still hanging around, not a single peep about JC, where we would expect at least someone to have made a comment or two about those purported, miraculous escapades of JC.

avi

TedM

Thanks you for your thoughts. Not sure I disagree. First time, I think. But then, I don't really know much about Justus.

Minimalist

Because you are making an assumption that the underlying story is true. The issue in the HJ/MJ argument is that HJ seems to have made no mark on history during his 'time.' He got big ( but never as big as the Beatles ) later on.

jgoodguy

Could be, but how many current Charismatic or Pentecostal miracle make it into mainline news.

stephan huller

I don't know why the mythicists always argue that because Jesus wasn't human that the whole gospel narrative is false. The Exodus narrative is ultimately the story of divine presence and involvement in a critic event in human history. The gospel narrative can be seen in the same wayt

Toto

I have a google alert set for Benny Hinn, and I get quite a bit, such as this.