Radorth

Close, but no cigar, and a bit after 120. I have already allowed that the Gospels were written much later than we believe, so I do not think this one works either. Given the fact of the persecutions, with Romans and Jews alike friendly to apostates, there ought to be a fragment somewhere.

I'd go with "we had that, but we think the Christians burned our library."

Rad

Radorth

I doubt it, but I said "essentially historical" anyway. Now you are asking if I believe every word.

Rad

Iasion

Greetings Radorth,

You said :

Indeed Aristides did -

Aristides in the 120s refers to the Gospels as only being preached for a short time :
"... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them".

We also see :[*] No references to the Gospels before then[*] No quotes from the Gospels before then


What on earth are you talking about?


Indeed,
numerous doubters ARE on record :

The Sadducees were especially doubtful of the resurrection (according to Tertullian), as well as un-named others :

“Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.”


Basilides denied the reurrection of the flesh :

"The resurrection of the flesh [Basilides] strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies"


Simon and Cleobius, according to The Acts of Paul, denied the resurrection of the flesh :

“For there were certain men come to Corinth, Simon and Cleobius, saying: There is no resurrection of the flesh..."


The 2nd century is full of arguments such as this, showing many skeptics doubted the resurrection really happened or would happen. You seem totally unaware of the background, Radorth.

You're raving again.


QuentinJ

NOGO

That's Radorth's style. I am begining to get used to it. Pretty soon we will all be ignoring these priceless statements and simply continue.

Kosh

Why do you doubt that Muhamed was taken up in to heaven?

In the first post of this thread, you stated:

It's clear that you are arguing that Xianity must be true because of a lack of dissenting documentation.

If Islam can make the same claims, then why don't you accord them the same level consideration? It seems to me that you have a double standard for evaluating the truth of a religion. Could this perhaps be a bias due to your upbringing in a nation dominated by the Xian religion?

Clearly there is stuff made up in the Muslim faith WRT to the origins of the religion. And yet we have no early dissenting documenation to counter those claims. That doesn't stop you from rejecting the claims. Why is the same not true for Xianity? Why can it not be true for the mythical Jesus hypothesis? If one claim is an unchallenged lie, why are not all claims treated as unchallenged lies?

CX

A)Why is the initial presumption "safe"

B)If someone did write such in the period in question, who would go to the trouble of preserving it?