Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Dancefortwo]

Oh fuck.  Here we go again.

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

Yes, but the issue is not really even about Tacitus.  The issue in question is did some unknown jesus lover insert words into Tacitus' text because they were embarrassed by their godboy's absence from history.

No one is blaming Tacitus.  But xtians were famed liars.

It doesn't bother me either way.  Even if Tacitus was writing about Christians in 110 it still isn't a contemporary source.   Tacitus wrote about Germanic people seeing Hercules before a battle prayer.    

“They tell how Hercules appeared among them, and on the eve of battle they hymn the first of all brave men.”

I'm pretty certain the word "Hercules" wasn't inserted into the text.  The important part is that Tacitis didn't witness Hercules magical appearance nor did he witness the Jesus crucifixion.   He's just relaying rumors he'd heard, that's the important part.

[Minimalist]

There is a desperation among jesus freaks which transcends such reasoning.

Tacitus also ascribed "miracles" to emperor Vespasian. 

But the bigger concern I have is that NO ONE knows about that passage in Tacitus prior to the 5th century when a bastardized version of it appears in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus.  Even that is not what we have later and Severus does not cite Tacitus as his source.

[Free]

Oh fuck.  Here we go again.

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

[Dancefortwo]

Oh fuck.  Here we go again.

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

Paul never met Jesus and didn't write about him until almost 20 years later.   Paul didn't meet Jesus anymore than Joan of Arc met Catherine of Alexandria from the 4th century.....which she claims to have spoken with in a "vision".    


"Roman" history.  Mmmm-kay,  provide the evidence.  Make sure it's contemporary Roman records though.   I'm not looking for something dedades later. I'm looking for contemporary accounts.   

Thanks.

[Bucky Ball]

Oh fuck.  Here we go again.

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

You can't prove the letters existed "before the Bible". The canon of the NT was mutable, and not established for a long time.
The Pauline literature was not all written by Paul, and some of the letters are combo jobs, and some are forgeries.
But then you're not exactly an expert on the Pauline literature.
They don't have "contemporary" records of anything. Your "extra-biblical" *trick* is embarassing, even for you.
EVERY SINGLE text in the Bible was written "before there was a Bible". Seriously ... you are losing it.
Jesus, (if he existed) took a long time to be recognized as the "Christ" ... a title not a name. 
You don't know squat about when and how that happened. 
There was no peasant named "Christ", and there is no record of Pilate putting him to death. 
Why is it you're so desperate to make up shit about this ?
If it were actually as simple-minded as you seem to think it is, there would be no discussion about it.

[Dancefortwo]

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

You can't prove the letters existed "before the Bible". The canon of the NT was mutable, and not established for a long time.
They don't have "contemporary" records of anything. Your "extra-biblical" *trick* is embarassing, even for you.
EVERY SING:E text in the Bible was written "before there was a Bible". Seriously ... you are losing it.
Jesus, (if he existed) took a long time to be recognized as the "Christ" ... a title not a name. 
You don't know squat about when and how that happened. 
There was no peasant named "Christ", and there is no record of Pilate putting him to death. 
Why is it you're so desperate to make up shit about this ?
If it were actually as simple-minded as you seem to think it is, there would be no discussion about it.

Well, I'm very curious about Free's contemporary historical record of Jesus being crucified. 

Anyway, I think it's very funny that Paul meets the son of a god  (in a hallucination)  but it takes him another 17 years or so to write about it.      Or how about Jesus' friends and followers.  A god is walking around on Earth talking to his friends who finally become convinced he's god because he comes back to life after being killed and this god wants them to relay an extremely important, vital message to the world but it takes them 40 to 70 years before they even begin to write it down.    I'm a practical gal who lives in the real world and this just doesn't add up.

[Bucky Ball]

The first time anyone said that there even was a collection of letters of a "Paul" was 150 years after he *supposedly* wrote them.
There is a Latin document (165-185 CE) called the Muratorian Canon, a list of Christian writings. Thirteen Pauline letters appeared in the list.
There are a number of theories proposed by scholars about how these came about, and no firm concensus. The theories are fairly complicated, but it was not until (according to one major theory) late in the 1st Century that verious communities looked for and started sharing latters which were written to individual churches. Just like Deuteronomy just happened to be "found" during a temple remodeling, there are no firm dates or archaeology to prove what's in the Pauline literature is actually from whom they say it is, and the fact that some known letters are included we know he didn't write, makes then all suspect, as far as I'm concerned.

[Cheerful Charlie]

One of the earliest Christina writers was Papias, whose books have not survived, except for a few quoted fragments. Whose meanings are vague and controversial. Google Papias for more.

[Chas]

Oh fuck.  Here we go again.

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Not really.  It is writings by a Roman of hearsay information, without corroboration, without evidence.
That does not qualify as credible history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

[Dancefortwo]

The first time anyone said that there even was a collection of letters of a "Paul" was 150 years after he *supposedly* wrote them.
There is a Latin document (165-185 CE) called the Muratorian Canon, a list of Christian writings. Thirteen Pauline letters appeared in the list.
There are a number of theories proposed by scholars about how these came about, and no firm concensus. The theories are fairly complicated, but it was not until (according to one major theory) late in the 1st Century that verious communities looked for and started sharing latters which were written to individual churches. Just like Deuteronomy just happened to be "found" during a temple remodeling, there are no firm dates or archaeology to prove what's in the Pauline literature is actually from whom they say it is, and the fact that some known letters are included we know he didn't write, makes then all suspect, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure that's true, Bucky,  but the vast majority of scholars date the earliest writings of Paul's epistles to 50 AD.  Giving these dates the benefit of the doubt, even 50 AD still leaves almost 20 years before Paul writes anything about the son of god walking around the planet.  I donno, I live in reality.  If the son of fuckin god is here on earth talking to people and has an important message for all humanity (and rmember,  these people are totally convinced he's the son of god because he came back from the dead) I'd think this god would make sure his followers were writing it down immediately so it could be accurate and souls would quickly be saved from burning in eternal hell.  

But nooOOOOOooo.  Instead these followers diddle around for decades and rely on oral stories before anything is put on a piece of second grade papyrus paper which crumbles easily and has to be copied over and over again.   Either this god is amazingly stupid or the fairy stories evolved and eventually became embellished enough for anonymous people to finally write them down.   

I think it was our wonderful Aliza who said, "Jesus: the Paul Bunyon of 1st century AD." Or something similar to that.  LOLOL

[Bucky Ball]

The first time anyone said that there even was a collection of letters of a "Paul" was 150 years after he *supposedly* wrote them.
There is a Latin document (165-185 CE) called the Muratorian Canon, a list of Christian writings. Thirteen Pauline letters appeared in the list.
There are a number of theories proposed by scholars about how these came about, and no firm concensus. The theories are fairly complicated, but it was not until (according to one major theory) late in the 1st Century that verious communities looked for and started sharing latters which were written to individual churches. Just like Deuteronomy just happened to be "found" during a temple remodeling, there are no firm dates or archaeology to prove what's in the Pauline literature is actually from whom they say it is, and the fact that some known letters are included we know he didn't write, makes then all suspect, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure that's true, Bucky,  but the vast majority of scholars date the earliest writings of Paul's epistles to 50 AD.  Giving these dates the benefit of the doubt, even 50 AD still leaves almost 20 years before Paul writes anything about the son of god walking around the planet.  I donno, I live in reality.  If the son of fuckin god is here on earth talking to people and has an important message for all humanity (and rmember,  these people are totally convinced he's the son of god because he came back from the dead) I'd think this god would make sure his followers were writing it down immediately so it could be accurate and souls would quickly be saved from burning in eternal hell.  

But nooOOOOOooo.  Instead these followers diddle around for decades and rely on oral stories before anything is put on a piece of second grade papyrus paper which crumbles easily and has to be copied over and over again.   Either this god is amazingly stupid or the fairy stories evolved and eventually became embellished enough for anonymous people to finally write them down.   

I think it was our wonderful Aliza who said, "Jesus: the Paul Bunyon of 1st century AD." Or something similar to that.  LOLOL

Paul was a Jew. A "son of god" (and there were many) simply meant the person was righteous. Generals, prophets, other leaders ... etc were "sons of god". It didn't mean then, what it means now. There were many early Christianities, (see Ehrman book of the same name). It took decades to centuries for orthodoxy to develop. Also related, and somewhat interesting, (as it ws so different than we assume it always meant), is the topic of "divine beings" in hebrew culture. Many PhD diisertaions have been written on the topic. The "heavenly host" consisted of many divine beings, (but that didn't mean they were gods, AND it also didn't mean in ANY WAY, that the divine beings had ANY had "equivalent" status in Hebrew culture as "the Father", ie Yahweh. Jesus in any Hebrew culture (the original) could not have been a *junior* Yahweh. He still could have been a "son of god", and a "divine being", yet in NO way, would that have made him a god, or equivalent to God. There was one Yahweh god. Even if Jesus was a divine son, for Jews, that would not make him an equal being ... until non-Jew (later) Christians turned him into part of a trinity.

[Free]

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Not really.  It is writings by a Roman of hearsay information, without corroboration, without evidence.
That does not qualify as credible history.

It qualifies for every qualified notable historian.

And their opinion is the majority, and it certainly trumps the armchair critics such as yourself.

[Dancefortwo]

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Not really.  It is writings by a Roman of hearsay information, without corroboration, without evidence.
That does not qualify as credible history.

It qualifies for every qualified notable historian.

And their opinion is the majority, and it certainly trumps the armchair critics such as yourself.

Well, it's not a contemporary  account.  I'm looking for contemporary evidence.   Tacitus was born after Jesus died so he's not contemporary to the life of Jesus.  The only historian who was writing at the same time as Jesus was Philo of Alexandria and he didn't take any note of him.  Philo's brother, Alexander the Alabrach,  frequently resided in Jerusalem.   Alexander donated the silver and gold that was plated on the gates of the Second Temple in Jerusalem,  the very Temple Jesus went to.    Philo went to visit the Temple  4 or 5 years after Jesus died but doesn't seem to hear any stories about zombies walking in the streets or oral accounts that Jesus was the messiah the Jews have been waiting for for so long.     Not that I don't think peasant Jesus was'nt a real person but his fame, according to the bible, was known "as far as Syria".  Well, that's a bunch of later written,  exaggerated, manipulated stories to shoehorn peasant Jesus into the messiah role.  

Speaking of which, I always wondered why John the Baptist baptized Jesus.  Wasn't Jesus supposed to be sinless?  Why would Jesus need baptizing?

[Brian Shanahan]

Now all you need to do is find a plausible original source to support your theory.

After that, you will need historical evidence to support the plausible original source.

That's how this works.

Actually, "how it works" is that the claimant has to provide the evidence.

And if the claim is "Jesus was a myth," then evidence needs to be provided to support that position.

It's a claim. Period.

To support that claim you would need to find a plausible origin, and historical evidence to support that origin. Then you create a hypothesis, and with more evidence you can graduate it to a realistic and plausible theory.

Currently my position on the HJ issue is that it's a plausible theory and that it provides a good argument supporting the probability of an actual human being.

Therefore, since the MJ position makes the claim of Jesus being a wholesale myth, it needs to follow the historical method and demonstrate a plausible theory to adequately compete with the HJ position.

That's exactly how to properly and professionally cast sufficient doubt upon the HJ position; you create another plausible theory based upon actual evidence.

Let me give you an example:

1. Which came first, the letters of Paul, or the Gospels? Dunno, have you any evidence for when they were written. Or better yet have you any access to original manuscripts.

2. Internal biblical evidence indicates Paul's letters preceded the Gospels. The claim is not evidence.  Also the bible has been heavily edited, redacted and rewritten on numerous occasions over the last 1700 years since its first edition.

3. Paul mentions Jesus at the Last Supper. Did the Gospels quote from the works of Paul in regards to the Last Supper? Is there any mention of the last supper in documents outside the bible.  If two parts of the same book make the same claim, you have to consider that a single claim and not two separate claims.

4. Since we have the evidence listed above in 1, 2, and 3, does it not show that Paul may very well be the origin of the Christian religion? A) 1-3 don't constitute evidence, B) you are asserting.

5. Paul makes the claim of him creating a Gospel  and also complains about worshippers wasting time on genealogies. This demonstrates the first and earliest mention of a written Gospel which includes genealogies, which is what we see in the current Gospels. No evidence of a Pauline gospel and of course the writer of one partisan group is going to complain about the writings of other partisan groups. How are you going to keep fleecing the gullible without denouncing your competition?  Your second sentence is bare assertion and has no evidential value.

6. Paul's works mention Pilate, therefore we have a connection from Paul about his Jesus and Pilate. The works of Harry Turtledove mention historical characters throughout.  That still doesn't make them anything other than the fictions he writes.  Mentioning historical figures is no good, especially when (like the bible) you mention those figures doing ahistorical and historically impossible stuff.

7. Paul was a Roman, and all of Tacitus' sources indicate a Roman origin. Tacitus also mentions in the same sentence of a "mischievous superstition" breaking out in Judea concerning the execution of Christ.  If the bible stories are true, Saul was a Hellenised Jew, not a Roman.  He held Roman citizenship according to the mythology, but to call him a Roman in ethnicity as you do is just plain wrong.  And Tacitus doesn't mention christians, he metions a group called "chrestianos" which was later changed to "christianos" by a catholic monk.  He makes no mention of a crucifiction just mentions that Nero blamed a cult group following an unnamed holy man for the fire of Rome.  You cannot honestly and legitimately extrapolate from that to the existence of Jesus or early christianity.  I would also like to point out that all Roman histories of the time period were either destroyed in total or had the chapter for the relevant years destroyed by the medieval church, including Tacitus' own.  Tell me why would the church destroy direct evidence of the time when Jesus was supposedly active and strutting his stuff?

8. To the Roman's the existence of Christ is a Jewish myth. Tacitus had a curious habit of making tongue-in-cheek comments in a humorous way, so his mentioning of the execution of a mythical creature may very well have been another if his attempts at infusing some humor into his works, and refers to the result of it all as being mischievous superstition.  How do you know the passage is authentic, and if so how can you link it to a putative Jewish wandering holy man inventing a whole new religion?  You cannot, so again bare unevidenced assertion.

See how this works? That's how you create a working hypothesis from actual historical records in an effort to present an alternative plausible view of the origins of Christinaity.

And from there you keep working at it until it gains credulity. It takes the MJ position and elevates its credibility by merely using the available evidence for HJ and instead uses the same evidence to dispute a HJ. 

Denying that evidence exists is just stupid when you can use the same evidence to support a credible alternative view.

Everything I said from 1 to 8 above are things supported by actual historical evidence.

That's how history works.

And my answers in red don't even come to the most basic problem you have.  Which one of the four distinct authors of the "Pauline" epistles is the real Paul?  And how can you guarantee that any of the epistles even remotely resemble the original writings.  Remember the two oldest bibles we have both post-date the Council of Nicaea in 325CE and are much different in content, meaning and tone from pretty much every version of the bible used currently.

[Bucky Ball]

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Not really.  It is writings by a Roman of hearsay information, without corroboration, without evidence.
That does not qualify as credible history.

It qualifies for every qualified notable historian.

And their opinion is the majority, and it certainly trumps the armchair critics such as yourself.

So your response basically is that those who agree with you are "noteable" and those that don't are "airmchair critics". 
That's hardly an argument. Are you sure you're an historian ?
The ONLY reason the Romans even heard of this guy, is because the cult was big enough to mention.
That means they heard of Jesus, because Jesus had believers.
There is no other reason why a Roman would have heard of yet another crucified trouble-maker from the provinces.
You know how many cults with "x" number of believers there are ?
Does that make the cult's central figure real ... the number of believers ?

[Minimalist]

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

Yeah...just like Vespasian's "miracles" in Egypt.  BTW, both Tacitus and Suetonius repeat that story so I guess that it makes twice as likely to have happened as your jesus bullshit, right.

Free, you're back to your old tricks.  You insist that in order to be a "credible" historian they must agree with you. Who fucking died and made you pope?

[Free]

Not really.  It is writings by a Roman of hearsay information, without corroboration, without evidence.
That does not qualify as credible history.

It qualifies for every qualified notable historian.

And their opinion is the majority, and it certainly trumps the armchair critics such as yourself.

Well, it's not a contemporary  account.  I'm looking for contemporary evidence.   Tacitus was born after Jesus died so he's not contemporary to the life of Jesus.  The only historian who was writing at the same time as Jesus was Philo of Alexandria and he didn't take any note of him.  Philo's brother, Alexander the Alabrach,  frequently resided in Jerusalem.   Alexander donated the silver and gold that was plated on the gates of the Second Temple in Jerusalem,  the very Temple Jesus went to.    Philo went to visit the Temple  4 or 5 years after Jesus died but doesn't seem to hear any stories about zombies walking in the streets or oral accounts that Jesus was the messiah the Jews have been waiting for for so long.     Not that I don't think peasant Jesus was'nt a real person but his fame, according to the bible, was known "as far as Syria".  Well, that's a bunch of later written,  exaggerated, manipulated stories to shoehorn peasant Jesus into the messiah role.  

Speaking of which, I always wondered why John the Baptist baptized Jesus.  Wasn't Jesus supposed to be sinless?  Why would Jesus need baptizing?

History is always written after the fact. Both historians Tacitus and Josephus were as near contemporary as you can get, as both were born within a couple decades of the purported execution of Jesus. 

And why do you people keep thinking Philo of Alexandria was expected to write anything about a man living a thousand klms away? Do you somehow think there was mass communication that would allow for Philo to even hear about him, or even if he did that this Jew would somehow find this Jesus fellow interesting enough to write about? Completely unreasonable argument considering the circumstances and the era.

[Free]

Actually, "how it works" is that the claimant has to provide the evidence.

And if the claim is "Jesus was a myth," then evidence needs to be provided to support that position.

It's a claim. Period.

To support that claim you would need to find a plausible origin, and historical evidence to support that origin. Then you create a hypothesis, and with more evidence you can graduate it to a realistic and plausible theory.

Currently my position on the HJ issue is that it's a plausible theory and that it provides a good argument supporting the probability of an actual human being.

Therefore, since the MJ position makes the claim of Jesus being a wholesale myth, it needs to follow the historical method and demonstrate a plausible theory to adequately compete with the HJ position.

That's exactly how to properly and professionally cast sufficient doubt upon the HJ position; you create another plausible theory based upon actual evidence.

Let me give you an example:

1. Which came first, the letters of Paul, or the Gospels? Dunno, have you any evidence for when they were written. Or better yet have you any access to original manuscripts.

2. Internal biblical evidence indicates Paul's letters preceded the Gospels. The claim is not evidence.  Also the bible has been heavily edited, redacted and rewritten on numerous occasions over the last 1700 years since its first edition.

3. Paul mentions Jesus at the Last Supper. Did the Gospels quote from the works of Paul in regards to the Last Supper? Is there any mention of the last supper in documents outside the bible.  If two parts of the same book make the same claim, you have to consider that a single claim and not two separate claims.

4. Since we have the evidence listed above in 1, 2, and 3, does it not show that Paul may very well be the origin of the Christian religion? A) 1-3 don't constitute evidence, B) you are asserting.

5. Paul makes the claim of him creating a Gospel  and also complains about worshippers wasting time on genealogies. This demonstrates the first and earliest mention of a written Gospel which includes genealogies, which is what we see in the current Gospels. No evidence of a Pauline gospel and of course the writer of one partisan group is going to complain about the writings of other partisan groups. How are you going to keep fleecing the gullible without denouncing your competition?  Your second sentence is bare assertion and has no evidential value.

6. Paul's works mention Pilate, therefore we have a connection from Paul about his Jesus and Pilate. The works of Harry Turtledove mention historical characters throughout.  That still doesn't make them anything other than the fictions he writes.  Mentioning historical figures is no good, especially when (like the bible) you mention those figures doing ahistorical and historically impossible stuff.

7. Paul was a Roman, and all of Tacitus' sources indicate a Roman origin. Tacitus also mentions in the same sentence of a "mischievous superstition" breaking out in Judea concerning the execution of Christ.  If the bible stories are true, Saul was a Hellenised Jew, not a Roman.  He held Roman citizenship according to the mythology, but to call him a Roman in ethnicity as you do is just plain wrong.  And Tacitus doesn't mention christians, he metions a group called "chrestianos" which was later changed to "christianos" by a catholic monk.  He makes no mention of a crucifiction just mentions that Nero blamed a cult group following an unnamed holy man for the fire of Rome.  You cannot honestly and legitimately extrapolate from that to the existence of Jesus or early christianity.  I would also like to point out that all Roman histories of the time period were either destroyed in total or had the chapter for the relevant years destroyed by the medieval church, including Tacitus' own.  Tell me why would the church destroy direct evidence of the time when Jesus was supposedly active and strutting his stuff?

8. To the Roman's the existence of Christ is a Jewish myth. Tacitus had a curious habit of making tongue-in-cheek comments in a humorous way, so his mentioning of the execution of a mythical creature may very well have been another if his attempts at infusing some humor into his works, and refers to the result of it all as being mischievous superstition.  How do you know the passage is authentic, and if so how can you link it to a putative Jewish wandering holy man inventing a whole new religion?  You cannot, so again bare unevidenced assertion.

See how this works? That's how you create a working hypothesis from actual historical records in an effort to present an alternative plausible view of the origins of Christinaity.

And from there you keep working at it until it gains credulity. It takes the MJ position and elevates its credibility by merely using the available evidence for HJ and instead uses the same evidence to dispute a HJ. 

Denying that evidence exists is just stupid when you can use the same evidence to support a credible alternative view.

Everything I said from 1 to 8 above are things supported by actual historical evidence.

That's how history works.

And my answers in red don't even come to the most basic problem you have.  Which one of the four distinct authors of the "Pauline" epistles is the real Paul?  And how can you guarantee that any of the epistles even remotely resemble the original writings.  Remember the two oldest bibles we have both post-date the Council of Nicaea in 325CE and are much different in content, meaning and tone from pretty much every version of the bible used currently.

All I see here is a wall of text full of assumptions.

Now prove with evidence that every one of your assumptions listed above are warranted.

[Free]

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

Paul never met Jesus and didn't write about him until almost 20 years later.   Paul didn't meet Jesus anymore than Joan of Arc met Catherine of Alexandria from the 4th century.....which she claims to have spoken with in a "vision".    


"Roman" history.  Mmmm-kay,  provide the evidence.  Make sure it's contemporary Roman records though.   I'm not looking for something dedades later. I'm looking for contemporary accounts.   

Thanks.

I suppose using your logic that at sometime in the future just because people of the era who never met George Washington that we should therefore assume he didn't exist? How about all the Caesars? How about Tacitus? Josephus? Socrates? Plato? Khan?

Tacitus also wrote about the Caesars, many who died before he was born, so should we assume they didn't exist because he never met them?

Your argument is meaningless.

[Dancefortwo]

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

Paul never met Jesus and didn't write about him until almost 20 years later.   Paul didn't meet Jesus anymore than Joan of Arc met Catherine of Alexandria from the 4th century.....which she claims to have spoken with in a "vision".    


"Roman" history.  Mmmm-kay,  provide the evidence.  Make sure it's contemporary Roman records though.   I'm not looking for something dedades later. I'm looking for contemporary accounts.   

Thanks.

I suppose using your logic that at sometime in the future just because people of the era who never met George Washington we should therefore assume he didn't exist? How about all the Caesars? How about Tacitus? Josephus? Socrates? Plato? Khan?

Tacitus also wrote about the Caesars, many who died before he was born, so should we assume they didn't exist because he never met them?

Your argument is meaningless.

We have contemporary evidence of George Washington. We have his written words which were commented on by his contemporaries while he was alive.  We have hundreds of contemporary documents of George Washington.  However, if 40 years after George died people started claiming he was the son of a god, had a virgin birth, defied the physics of the universe, walked across the Patomic without a boat and came back to life after death and those stories were based on almost two generations of storytelling by illiterate peasants,  you bet your sweet Aunt Martha's underwear I'd want comtemporary, unbiased, incontrovertible evidence of George and his miracles.

[Free]

LOLOL.      I'm sorry, Min.  


Well, I should have said, contemporary, extra biblical sources.  Tacitus wrote his works around 110 AD when Christians and their stories were already circulating so I would expect that he might write about Christians.  He didn't actually witness the crucifixion though.  I'm looking for contemporary witnesses and contemporary records.   The Romans were crucifying people right and left so there's probably no record of a peasant named Jesus.   It's also very doubtful the Romans allowed family and friends to get physically up close enough to the crucified victims on the hill of Golgotha to hear what they were saying while they were dying - so the Biblical account has a heavy fantasy flair to it.

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

You can't prove the letters existed "before the Bible". The canon of the NT was mutable, and not established for a long time.
The Pauline literature was not all written by Paul, and some of the letters are combo jobs, and some are forgeries.
But then you're not exactly an expert on the Pauline literature.
They don't have "contemporary" records of anything. Your "extra-biblical" *trick* is embarassing, even for you.
EVERY SINGLE text in the Bible was written "before there was a Bible". Seriously ... you are losing it.
Jesus, (if he existed) took a long time to be recognized as the "Christ" ... a title not a name. 
You don't know squat about when and how that happened. 
There was no peasant named "Christ", and there is no record of Pilate putting him to death. 
Why is it you're so desperate to make up shit about this ?
If it were actually as simple-minded as you seem to think it is, there would be no discussion about it.

Since the letters exist and the evidence within them indicates a pre-existence to the bible, then the burden of proof is on you who is making the claim that they didn't. Also, since we have the mention of Paul's letter by in First Epistle of Clement dated near the end of the 1st century, we have a chain of evidence that demonstrates pre-existing the NT and the bible as we know it today, or even knew it before the 3rd century.

Period.

[Bucky Ball]

They have a historical record of peasant named Christ being crucified by one of their Romans, Pilate.

That's "Roman" history, not Christian history.

Also, the letters of Paul existed before the bible, therefore they were extra biblical sources written by a contemporary in the first place.

You can't prove the letters existed "before the Bible". The canon of the NT was mutable, and not established for a long time.
The Pauline literature was not all written by Paul, and some of the letters are combo jobs, and some are forgeries.
But then you're not exactly an expert on the Pauline literature.
They don't have "contemporary" records of anything. Your "extra-biblical" *trick* is embarassing, even for you.
EVERY SINGLE text in the Bible was written "before there was a Bible". Seriously ... you are losing it.
Jesus, (if he existed) took a long time to be recognized as the "Christ" ... a title not a name. 
You don't know squat about when and how that happened. 
There was no peasant named "Christ", and there is no record of Pilate putting him to death. 
Why is it you're so desperate to make up shit about this ?
If it were actually as simple-minded as you seem to think it is, there would be no discussion about it.

Since the letters exist and the evidence within them indicates a pre-existence to the bible, then the burden of proof is on you who is making the claim that they didn't. Also, since we have the mention of Paul's letter by in First Epistle of Clement dated near the end of the 1st century, we have a chain of evidence that demonstrates pre-existing the NT and the bible as we know it today, or even knew it before the 3rd century.

Period.

You're so hilarious. 
Always you and the "period". You stomp your little feet. LOL.
Your argument is 100 % circular. 
Harry Potter novels exist, and the evidence within them indicates they are true, then the burden bla bla bla. See how that works. 
Your pre-existing the Bible bullshit is meaningless, as EVERY text in the Bible (the canon of which took centuries to establish), is no argument at all, and in fact demonstrates your utter ignorance of the canon and the process by which it was formed. A letter mentioned by Clement at the end of the 1st Century is not incongruent with what I said. It's not a "chain of evidence". All it demonstrates is that one guy knew about a letter. Your assumptions that they're all telling the truth has no foundation. These are the same people that said 500 people rose with Jesus on Easter and walked arund Jerusalem.
Yeah, just as I thought. You got nothing. 

Period.

[Bucky Ball]

It qualifies for every qualified notable historian.

And their opinion is the majority, and it certainly trumps the armchair critics such as yourself.

Well, it's not a contemporary  account.  I'm looking for contemporary evidence.   Tacitus was born after Jesus died so he's not contemporary to the life of Jesus.  The only historian who was writing at the same time as Jesus was Philo of Alexandria and he didn't take any note of him.  Philo's brother, Alexander the Alabrach,  frequently resided in Jerusalem.   Alexander donated the silver and gold that was plated on the gates of the Second Temple in Jerusalem,  the very Temple Jesus went to.    Philo went to visit the Temple  4 or 5 years after Jesus died but doesn't seem to hear any stories about zombies walking in the streets or oral accounts that Jesus was the messiah the Jews have been waiting for for so long.     Not that I don't think peasant Jesus was'nt a real person but his fame, according to the bible, was known "as far as Syria".  Well, that's a bunch of later written,  exaggerated, manipulated stories to shoehorn peasant Jesus into the messiah role.  

Speaking of which, I always wondered why John the Baptist baptized Jesus.  Wasn't Jesus supposed to be sinless?  Why would Jesus need baptizing?

History is always written after the fact. Both historians Tacitus and Josephus were as near contemporary as you can get, as both were born within a couple decades of the purported execution of Jesus. 

And why do you people keep thinking Philo of Alexandria was expected to write anything about a man living a thousand klms away? Do you somehow think there was mass communication that would allow for Philo to even hear about him, or even if he did that this Jew would somehow find this Jesus fellow interesting enough to write about? Completely unreasonable argument considering the circumstances and the era.

One would have expected he write something. His brother lived in Jerusalem, and Philo was a leader of the Jews in Alexandria. 
Your ignorance of these facts is rather troubling. 

"In Legatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius), Philo describes his diplomatic mission to Gaius Caligula, one of the few events in his life which is known specifically. He relates that he was carrying a petition describing the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews and asking the emperor to secure their rights. Philo gives a description of their sufferings, more detailed than Josephus's, to characterize the Alexandrian Greeks as the aggressors in the civil strife that had left many Jews and Greeks dead.
Philo lived in an era of increasing ethnic tension in Alexandria, exacerbated by the new strictures of imperial rule. Some expatriate Hellenes (Greeks) in Alexandria condemned the Jews for a supposed alliance with Rome, even as Rome was seeking to suppress Jewish nationalism in the Roman province of Judea.[13] In Against Flaccus, Philo describes the situation of the Jews in Egypt, writing that they numbered not less than a million and inhabited two of the five districts in Alexandria. He recounts the abuses of the prefect Aulus Avilius Flaccus, who he says retaliated against the Jews when they refused to worship Caligula as a god.[16] Daniel Schwartz surmises that given this tense background it may have been politically convenient for Philo to favor abstract monotheism instead of overt pro-Judeanism.[13]
Philo considers Caligula's plan to erect a statue of himself in the Second Temple to be a provocation, asking, "Are you making war upon us, because you anticipate that we will not endure such indignity, but that we will fight on behalf of our laws, and die in defence of our national customs? For you cannot possibly have been ignorant of what was likely to result from your attempt to introduce these innovations respecting our temple." In his entire presentation, he implicitly supports the Jewish commitment to rebel against the emperor rather than allow such sacrilege to take place.[17] "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo#Politics

[Dancefortwo]

And why do you people keep thinking Philo of Alexandria was expected to write anything about a man living a thousand klms away?

He traveled to Jerusalem 4 or 5 years after Jesus died to see the silver and gold his brother (who worked in Jerusalem) had donated for the Second Temple gates.  The gospels claim Jesus was famous but apparently Philo, traveling to the very place where Jesus came back from the dead, didn't hear much about this guy.

[Bucky Ball]

And why do you people keep thinking Philo of Alexandria was expected to write anything about a man living a thousand klms away?

He traveled to Jerusalem 4 or 5 years after Jesus died to see the silver and gold his brother (who worked in Jerusalem)  had donated for the Second Temple gates.  The gospels claim Jesus was famous but apparently Philo, traveling to the very place where Jesus came back from the dead, didn't hear much about this guy.

Hw was involved with Rome in a number of issues with respect to the Jews in Jerusalem. 
If in fact, a Roman had executed a Jew who was said to be the "King of the Jews", one would expect he would have mentioned it.