Roland

Brianrein, You quote Will Durant as saying the following:

No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh.

Where does Paul ever state that these men knew Jesus in the flesh (apart from the James, Brother of the Lord comment)?

Thanks

Solitary Man

u can google xtalk2.

aa5874

But, JFK is a known undisputed figure of history and it is a known fact that he was shot and assassinated on the 22nd November 1963 in Dallas Texas.
Conspiracy theories of the assassination, whether he was shot by seven men or shot seventy times, do not alter the fact that JFK lived and was shot.

On the other hand, all there is about Jesus are conspiracy theories.

All the unknown authors of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles failed to give the exact date of the death and crucifixion of Jesus. These authors all failed to give the date of his resurrection and ascension.

Some Christians claim as the truth that he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, others that he only seemed real, but was a phantom.

And there are Christians and non-Christians that believe he was just human and never ascended to heaven, and was born at three different times, even Irenaeus believed Jesus was over 50 years old when he died.

But these are all conspiracy theories with no evidence at all, and based on Irenaeus ,even magicians believed that they were Jesus Christ.

Another very popular conspiracy theory, among scholars (HJers), is that Jesus was an itinerant preacher even though the early christian writers have rejected all conspiracies, almost 2000 years ago, that fail to uphold the TRUTH that Jesus was the actual son of a God, without an earthly father, that went to heaven through the clouds.

I find no similarities between JFK and Jesus, the former is a figure history, the latter is a figure of conspiracy theories fot the last 1800 years, at least.

Toto

Are you referring to these posts?

Mini-synpotic (1)

Mini-Synoptic (2)

Re: The Mini-Synoptic (3)

I don't see anything that supports your assertion.

patcleaver

80% of people in the US are Christians. Practically all Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is historical as an article of faith. Almost certainly, most historians in the US are Christians. Thus, it is no mystery why most historians in the US believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Prejudices are beliefs that are not based on the weight of the evidence. Religious beliefs are prejudices.

Practically all historians and archeologists who have specialized in such fields as Christian history or Jewish history or Bible history or Christian archeology or Jewish archeology or Bible archeology are interested in the field because of their deeply held religious prejudices.

Expert opinions are invalid if the expert is prejudiced in favor of the opinion. Any expert opinions in favor of prejudices held by the expert should be disregarded as evidence.

However, facts and arguments that prejudiced experts present may be considered in the same way that facts and arguments presented by anyone else may be considered.

The expert opinion of Christian historians especially those who specialize in early Christian history, that Jesus of Nazareth is an historical person, should be disregarded.

So-called Christian scholars or Bible Scholars are simply not historians. Their options about history are not evidence of anything historical. On the other hand, facts and arguments that they present may be considered in the same way that facts and arguments of anyone else may be considered.

Toto

Some posts that were veering too far off topic into mudslinging have been split off here and locked.

Minimalist

You're probably right.

patcleaver

Its just fiction - there were no churches. Were the great churches of Paul merely house churches with a dozen or so members? All that Paul was able to establish after about 35 years of preaching was a few house churches? At that rate Christianity must have been one of the slowest growing religions ever invented. A house church would not have been sufficient for the "great multitude of Chrestians" in Rome at the time of Nero. Paul's gentile followers would not have been allowed in a synagogue. Where was the Christian Church in Rome?

Its not just the churches that are missing, some of the cities that Paul mentioned never existed.

patcleaver

Strange, not only does Paul not even mention that Peter, James or John met Jesus Christ but he braggs, that he is made an apostle “not through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Paul infers that he met Jesus and they did not.

Solitary Man

You've never read Paul, have you?