Originally Posted by spin

Maybe if you started arguing with the intent of showing what's most plausible instead of trying to say argue just to make your view right you'd learn something.

Originally Posted by dog-on

HJ is actually more of a completely made-up character than even GJ, imo...

Where's the (proverbial) beef?

Originally Posted by renassault

I think what I quoted said something to that effect, maybe I was mistaken.

Originally Posted by renassault

You seem to need Stop putting your name at end of every post so that I don't have to delete it all the time 101 classes.

Originally Posted by renassault

Three independent witnesses, one of whom is from 20-30 years after Christ's Resurrection is enough.

Originally Posted by renassault

Would you be willing to claim the same about the multitude of people who have only been hinted at in other writings, many of whom are historians: for example if you look through Josephus' list in his Against Apion, I think many of those aren't known through any other sources, or just as little sources as those about Christ, Jason of Cyrene comes to mind. His famous work which was shortened into 1-2 Maccabees surely would have provided a multitude of historical references according to your theory. The only source that would have had a reason to mention Christ is the Talmud and someone like Josephus; no one like Josephus existed and the Talmud wasn't written until 200 AD because of the perception that the oral teaching (which until then was deemed as necessary to remain oral) would disappear and was thus written down.

I can give you a very good analogy: Even though Plutarch was a very famous author, he is neither mentioned nor hinted at by contemporary authors. Does this mean Plutarch and his works never existed? By your theory it must.

Originally Posted by spin

You're saying things that you cannot substantiate. You don't know when the texts were written. You don't know the relationship between them. Assuming independence is going beyond the evidence, which seems to contradict you anyway. Basic history -- if you can't cope with 101s -- requires vetting sources, not assuming what you need to show.


spin

Originally Posted by renassault

Nobody disputes seriously that:

1 Thessalonians was written in 50-51
Galatians was written c.54
1 Corinthians was written c.55
2 Corinthians was written c.57
Romans was written c.57
Philippians was written c.57/61
Philemon was written c.61

Not to mention that nobody believes Colossians was written long after 70, whether by Paul or not. Galatians 3:13, and 4:4 show that Paul believed in a historical Jesus. Also the statements about Christ's brothers are such strong evidence that even Wells has a hard time getting around them.

There is no doubt independence between Josephus, Paul's letters, and the Talmud. That you would doubt that means you haven't really read anything about them. Not to mention that your 'evidence that contradicts this' is nonexistent in what you've posted.

Originally Posted by dog-on

I dispute pretty much everything written above...

Originally Posted by renassault

I guess I should have said, instead of "nobody", people who knew enough to sleep comfortably with rejecting the above

Originally Posted by dog-on

k, I'll play...


Give me the first historical references to each of these works?