Chris Weimer

That's it. You're officially a Christian in disguise. <edit>

Toto

Not necessarily. In both of these cases, the religion did not start with a charsimatic public individual. We have less reason to assume that the movement would be noticed or would leave any artifacts than we do if we assume that the events in the gospels actually happened.

Under the second assumption, "Christianity" per se might not have existed until the second century, and would have had a very low key start.

Under scenario two, you might expect some evidence of Christians in the early second century, which is when you find the references in Tacitus and Suetonius to an obscure cult.

Mainstream Christians who think that the gospels or Acts are history might expect to find clear evidence of Christianity in the first century. More skeptical historians might assume that Christianity got itself together in the second century and wrote a glorious first century history for itself. I don't know why you think that you have to push the origins of Christianity all the way to the fourth century.

Steven Avery

Since you don't accept the historicity of Jesus you probably look at the whole NT with those glasses. So that was not my question.

Do you have any difficultly with the Herodians and Pharisees aligning against a man perceived to be a threat, e.g. to ask him a trick question ? That was the actual claim here of historical incredulity. Please try to answer to point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto The gospels and the secular history from the time somehow omit to describe the "trouble" that Jesus stirred up which would have led to him being such a threat to religious and civil authorities

Really ? As an example, the triumphal entry, the people saying Hosanna to Jesus, perceiving Him to be the Messiah, while the Temple officials were not far away, would not be trouble in Temple City ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto And I know about fatigue in the gospels

Yes, I do too, at Gethsemane. What else do you "know" ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mountainman

In order of expectation:

1) C14 citation on a papyrus fragment that has been deemed
by the paleographical tradition to be from the prenice epoch.
There are supposedly plently of these, and the C14 sample
technology of today does not need a great deal of material,
and some of the fragments contain "blank spaces". To date,
AFAIK there is not one unambiguously prenicene C14 citation
on a NT-related papyrus fragment, ms or binding.

2) Inscriptions - Probably related to a burial site, tombstone,
perhaps a sarcophagus, perhaps etched writings on an ossary,
or some private papers of an individual mentioning "christianity"
that are independent of the "Eusebian derived tradition".

3) Archeological relics - the small cross is not found before
the fourth century (AFAIK), but perhaps someone identified the
importance of this symbol (and actually used it) before Helena.

mountainman

Thanks for this explanation. I can see through this how it might
be expected that any historical artefacts (and of course writings)
could have been delayed to the second century, or perhaps
even the third.

I am very skeptical of
the origins in earlier centuries.

spin

Given the nature of the tradition, one wouldn't be able to rule out oodles of glosses, would one?

The Herodians appear to be an invention. It's a Latin term. Who else other than Mark (and Matt through fatigue) knew of the term?? Jerusalem, the scene of the second reference in Mark to Herodians is (note that I specify the second reference in Mark, because otherwise you'll try to be pedantic as ever and blush and whimper and scream that Mark uses Herodians in Galilee as well), was under the rule of Rome at the time and had been for a few decades. The last Herodian ruler, Archelaus, was so popular there was a local movement to get rid of him. From that time until Agrippa I, supporters of the Herodian family were superfluous. The notion of Pharisees and Herod supporters conspiring to kill Jesus is not an inspiring historical concept.

Now why would you think that the people from Jerusalem would greet a healer from Galilee as the Jewish messiah? Where is the objective correlative which makes the belief of the people in Jesus as the messiah claimed in the triumphal entry credible? That belief is totally unaccounted for.

Gethsemane is another great piece of literature, though certainly not historical. Jesus goes off to pray while his three companions fall asleep. Who was there to record what Jesus prayed? Obviously no-one. This isn't history. If Jesus went to Gethsemane and he prayed away from his disciples who slept though he wanted them to remain awake, then there was no way for a historical report to have reached us.

I can't respond for Toto here, but I think anyone knows that your apologetics aren't much use even to you.


spin

Amaleq13

Nice try at shifting the burden but you have the responsibility to defend your assertions.

Can you explain how identifying the story of Jesus' magical conception as a myth eliminates possibility 3 or was that an assertion you simply cannot support?

aa5874

Can you give me the name of a real person who was actually born through the Holy Ghost and a female human being?

If you cannot, then you must accept that no known person has ever been known to have done or carried out events on earth without a physical body.
That is a physical impossibility.

Jesus the Christ could not have been born, according to the explanation given in the NT. The virgin birth is a biological impossibilty.
Jesus the Christ is a physical and biological impossibility.

It follows logically that the character called Jesus the Christ did not exist as a real person. His existence is false.
It follows, logically that statements of his baptism are false.
It follows logically that statements of his temptation are false.
It follows logically that statements of the miraculous events are false.
It follows logically that statements of his trial are false.
It follows logically that statements of his crucifixion are false.
It follows logically that statements of his burial are false.
It follows logically that statements of his resurrection are false.
It follows logically that statements of his ascension are false.

Mary asked an angel, a fictional character, to explain the conception in Luke 1:34-35, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'.

The biological and physical impossibility is confirmed in Matthew1:8, "Now, the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

These two statements, as written in Matthew and Luke, are fallacies, the authors of Mark, John and others of NT consistently and fundamentally maintain the fallacies. There are no other credible extra-biblical accounts of the Birth of Jesus the Christ.

The birth of Jesus the Christ, as maintained by the authors of the NT, is a biological and a physical impossisbility. It is impossile for Jesus the Christ to have lived, based on the reports in the NT.
Everything said about Jesus the Christ in the NT is false.

If you can prove that Jesus the Christ lived as the son of a ghost, I will review my position.

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless, without merit whatsoever.

spin

You provided no reasoning for you to be able to establish this as an entailment, therefore your statement is pure bullsh*t. I know you don't understand the problem, but it's called saying more than your evidence allows. You have a number of issues which throw doubt on the figure of Jesus. Those issues are not sufficient for you to conclude categorically: It follows logically that the character called Jesus the Christ did not exist as a real person. His existence is false.

The statement as you have articulated it actually has no logic to it. It is a logical blunder. How long must people hold your hand over this issue? You don't help yourself or anyone else by the incessant repetition. You seem intent not get it any better. Do you think you can get your thoughts any better on the subject than Bertrand Russell who was an agnostic on the subject, albeit a militant agnostic?


spin

Toto

Of course not, but there are many real people who have beed "said" to have been born of a god and a female human being - Alexander the Great, for instance.