Kapyong

I am not arguing from personal incredulity at all.

I am arguing from the multiple silences of many writers.


K.

Kapyong

The Gospels did not become generally known to Christians until a long time after 70CE, even if it WAS written then.

This is one of Earl's important arguments, oft-overlooked : the Christian writings from the period 70 - about 140ish fail to mention written Gospels. The epistles, e.g. Hebrews, Barnabas, Ignatius, to Diognetus etc. There are about 2 dozen books in this period which fail to draw on written Gospels.

The evidence suggests the Gospels only became known around 130-150 - Justin Martyr knows of several Gospels, still un-named, and not quite like ours.

Consider Aristides who called "The Gospel" (singular and un-named) newly preached in 138-161.

K.

Kapyong

Actually I agree.
I don't think my list is original enough - it's just a collation of public information, with a small amount of analysis.


K.

mountainman

I am citing the antichristian beliefs as expressed in John.

John wrote that such antichrists deny

(1) "that Jesus is the Christ",
(2) "the Father and the Son", and
(3) would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh."

These are referred to as antichristian beliefs.

Docetic beliefs are related to the antichristian belief (3) above however I do not think that they are necessarily equivalent. The antichristian belief (3) above, it was written, was quite widespread. In effect, there is an admission here, if we are to take John at face value, that there were many people who would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh.".

What does this really mean?

One possibility is that there were many people who refused to believe that Jesus was historical. This refusal to believe that Jesus was incarnated in history is being called "antichristian". At the heart of the christian belief system is a heresiological antichristian curse.


The antithetical argument may also be made. The author of the Gospel of John states that he watched while Jesus walked, and could not see any footprints being made on the earth. He tried to touch Jesus, but could not feel any substance. Most of the Gnostic stories about Jesus present a post-resurrection figure - we may as well call it Zombie Jesus.


Many gnostic stories present a Jesus who was not crucified, in some cases someone who laughs, in other cases someone else (eg: judas) is crucified in the place of Jesus.

The gnostics did not describe a flesh and blood figure.



There is also the possibility that the gnostics treated Jesus like a deified Harry Potter. I see a parallel in modern people who would "not confess Harry Potter came in the flesh.", and people of antiquity with antichristian beliefs who would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh."

Logical

Well, that doesn't make any sense. The page makes a certain side of the debate look better. It has sections called Christian sources (that mentioned Jesus), Jewish sources, Pagan sources, etc. I think it's very relevant to the reader of this topic to also see a list of contemporary sources that do not mention Jesus.

Will Wiley

You are avoiding explaining why they would be expected to. If you let go of your christian assumptions about jesus you may find they would not be expected to

Will Wiley

You are telling us that you yourself are personally incredulous about the silence. Others aren't incredulous. Its your personal incredulity.

You have no standard, not rational way to evaluate it. You feel they should mention jesus.
You belief is based on a feeling you have.

Mandelbrot

First off, Mark according to most scholars was written between 65 - 75 CE but not all people accept that date and some consider late 1st or early 2nd century. Second, why are you stubbornly refusing to see the possibility of a smooth transition rather than an abrupt change? Now since you for some unknown reason think the change happened overnight, what evidence do you have to back that? Please start using your username.

Duvduv

The reason some stick GMark in the second century is because of inferences based on acceptance of the dating of writings of Justin and Irenaeus which are considered academically sacrosanct.
But there are good reasons not to place them in the second century at all. But rather to see them as products of the later emerging Christian state.
That would then place the gospels in the fourth century. And the heresiologists in the fourth and fifth centuries.

Perish the thought!

mountainman

To an investigator, the list represents negative evidence: events which did not happen. The examination of negative evidence is standard and rational procedure in investigations. The dog did not bark in the night. Earl Doherty covers this aspect in a more than adequate fashion when he writes on these, and other "silences".