Mandelbrot

In a sense we sure can. Although in general you can't prove a negative and generally the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, when evidence is absent that should be widely available, that is an absence of evidence and an extremely strong indication of his absence from history.

Logical

The idea that the earthly Jesus story was invented seems implausible because it's hard to imagine the process of one generation believing in a celestial Jesus to a generation believing in an earthly one.

Mandelbrot

You are aware that this is an argument from incredulity aren't you?

Diogenes the Cynic

I would at least need some clear, unambiguous evidence that anyone in the first century thought that Jesus never walked the earth.

mountainman

If you take this line of reasoning how do you discount the possibility that many elements of the Jesus story were not modified by well known events in the 3rd century, such as the rise of the Persian Holy Man Mani, the spread of his apostles and the growth of his churches (monasteries) in the Roman Empire, the canon of Manichaean Books, and epistles of Mani to his Apostles, the public crucifixion of Mani, the persecution and death of his apostles and their followers, by the Persians and then the Romans (in the east under Diocletian).

If as you say the HJ did not become historically significant until Constantine what guarantee can one make over what was and was not imported into the Jesus story from events in the 3rd century for example. Also check the recent discussion of the "Historia Augusta"

mountainman

The Letters of John report such explicit and even widespread antichristian belief, but were the Letters of John authored in the 1st century?

aa5874

You appear to be desperate now that it has been EXPOSED that Jews BELIEVED God had supernatural Sons as found in Job.

It is CORROBORATED in Genesis that the Sons of God were NOT believed to be sons of men.

Genesis 6:4 KJV Jesus was a Myth character and this is evident in the earliest gMark Jesus story. Jesus of Nazareth has NO history in Nazareth and did NOTHING there and all he did OUTSIDE Nazareth is Fiction or implausible.

What!!! Bait and Switch!!!
HJers have been claiming that Jesus was CALLED Christ in Aniquities of the Jews 20.9.1. Surely Jesus can't be an OBSCURE Christ in Judea if Josephus wrote about him.

The people of Judea MUST have KNOWN Jesus was CALLED Christ if Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT a forgery.

Jesus would have been CALLED Christ when he was ALIVE.

There is NO such thing as a Posthumous Christ in Jewish tradition. The Jews do NOT look in Graves for their Christ.

Again, HJers claim that the Lord Jesus Christ in Galatians is THEIR Jesus so it is a BAIT and Switch argument to claim Jesus was Obscure.

The HJ argument is like claiming that Superman was really an Embellished Clark Kent.

Mandelbrot

There is Paul but quite a few people refuse to see that. Jesus simply was not historicized until the gospels. For example, the first mention we have outside the gospels of Jesus' parents is by Irenaeus in 107. Wonder why that is if he were historical. Tell me, why is there no veneration of any Christian site or any Christian relics until well after the 2nd century if there really was a historical Jesus? Of course, as all HJ believers, these obvious questions will just be hand waved away.

mountainman

As a fact or a factal?

You know what a factal is Mandelbrot?






Veneration had to wait for the first pilgrims to the "New and Strange Holy Land", pilgrim.


Yes, it appears to be so at present. They are experienced in directing traffic to and from the pulpit, and hand waving.

spin

Jeez, we're getting trivial here. Vanilla doesn't compare with chocolate.