Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[eider]

What the fuck are you up to?

On the 23 June *you* wrote:

...Are you telling me that there were Roman forces all over Galilee which was ruled by a Jewish Tetrarch?  Wrong again...

...Are you telling me that there is a better deposition than G-Mark, once the additions and fiddles have been redacted?

You can't blame the fucked up quote function for this one.
[/quote]

OK.......  let me repeat myself:-
Paul never wrote a sentence about anything that Jesus did, apart from that last supper event.
Galilee was ruled by a Jewish Tetrarch who used his own folks, and although Romans holidayed in and observed in the Galilee it was Herod Antipas's place.
G-Mark is (imo) the most accurate account if you strip out the additions, fiddles and hyperbole.

That's what I'm up to. 
Was that reasonably clear for you?

[eider]

Dude here is the cold hard truth.

All historians can actually say about Jesus can be summed up in the following.

"There was a Jesus whom many considered to be a Christ. He was crucified at the hand of Pontius Pilate circa CE 33." 

Period. End of discussion. that's all folks!

OK, if that's what you think. 
But I don't think it happened quite that way, is all.

What historians have you been reading?  I haven't read a historian who presented the subject of historical Jesus quite like you do. 

[eider]

Guess what, ... you get to PROVE your claim about the Northern Kingdom Jews. Since you -- :
a. have proven yourself to be totally incapable of even beginning to discuss this subject,
b. and have at no point offered even one shred of evidence for anything you *claim*, your assertions are all dismissed.  

You are are 100 % newbie here. I am here, and on the previous board (TTA) for about 10 years, from the time I was in graduate school
at an Ivy League program, getting a PhD in Ancient Semitic Languages and Cultures, (as many here know, who were with me on that journey).
I know more about the Ancient Near East than you could possibly dream of.
What ? You read one paper-back. LOL

So, yeah, Mr. Ignorant, you are not exactly the one who gets to lecture me about "competent research" ... you don't even know what that involves ... you and your Presentism, and ignorant "rip-off" bullshit. LOLOL

So I've touched a nerve somewhere, methinks. 
I think I've debated you before, long long ago in a foreign forum far far away.  Maybe yes, maybe no, but you wrote in a similar way.

The only way you can show me how wonderful your academic qualification is is to 'do it'. 
When people call out their magnificence I know that they are noise...... just saying.
And I bet you will be ranting some more after this....... bet yer!

[eider]

Actually I don't. You have nothing to offer here.
You are a scholar of nothing, who didn't even know about Presentism.

As you know nothing about the subjects at hand, the *point* went over your head.
If you ever go read Deuteronomy, you will read about a *higher* Deity giving to Yahweh Israel,
*not* the entire universe. You see ignorant one, the Jews didn't even know about galaxies, much less "universes",
and never thought in those terms. That's why I mentioned it. It proves what you inferred about a "God of the Universe" to be ignorant and totally off-base.

LOL. More Presentism. The Jews did not think of the priests as "quislings". You don't even know where that term came from.
BTW, I will say or comment on any fucking thing I want. You don't tell me to do anything. How long have you been here spouting your shit ? Two weeks ? LMAO.

See above. LOL
In your ignorant biased presentist *opinion* it was a money-go-round. You gave supported that with no references, nor have you proven THE JEWS thought that.
Your opinions are dismissed. No one cares what you think about ancient cultures and practices, judged from today's standards. How ignorant can you get ?

A what ? A "deposition" ? LOLOLOL Do you even know what THAT word means ? A fucking deposition... in what lawyers office ? LOL.

Prove it. Prove any of that happened. You have no evidence. At all. If you have studied it, you should be able to offer ONE reference. You've offered nothing. At all. period.

I think I've got a fair picture of you now.

I don't think that you know that much about the subject of historical Jesus, Bucky Ball.  All you can do is throw insults, foul language and strange responses to my posts.  

I won't answer your stuff 'line by line' so I'll take a single point and answer that, to show how little you have studied all this.

 A what ? A "deposition" ? LOLOLOL Do you even know what THAT word means ? A fucking deposition... in what lawyers office ? LOL.

OK? So if I remove the junk out of that rant I end up with 

 A "deposition" ? LOLOLOL Do you even know what THAT word means ?

Yes...... I know depositions very well, they are Sworn Statements or Declarations of truth, and the authors of the gospels were all declaring their truths......  look....... let me teach you more about this... Here is the very beginning of just one of them. Here we go:-

The Gospel According to St. Luke
{1:1} Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, {1:2} Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 

......... and so we know that the authors of the gospels were writing depositions. Now, before you start ranting about what a lot of rubbish these gospels were, I need to explain to you that a Deposition is a deposition whether it contains truth or outright lies.  Nevertheless, the gospels were depositions.

Now..... have learned something from all this?

If you want I could tell you more about enemies of Christianity acknowledging that they believed a real Jesus did exist, with real friends.  Anyway....... I'm always here to help you if you wish.

[eider]

Oh yes you did.  You even suggested that I am Christian. 

I did not.
You MISINTERPRETED what I said about "Christian propaganda".
The Christian propaganda "about" a subject in no way infers you are a Christian.
You did buy the propaganda about Judaism.
Is English your first language ?
Have you ever debated anyone before ?

Deism is the same shit as theism.
A non-intervening deity (which there is not a shred of evidence for) is no different that a theist deity.
What we *observe* is the SAME universe we would expect to see, if there were no deities.
(I actually don't think you even know what deism is).

You have provided NOT ONE piece of evidence concerning ANY of you assertions.
You *claim* to have studied the period. I highly doubt it. You are not conversant either with the scholarship OR even the popular writers.
You can't reference even ONE work. Your assertions are worthless.
What, exactly, is a "money-go-round", what are you talking about, how much are the priests taking, and how do you know all this, exactly ?
Tell us when historically the temple priesthood began, what their take was of the sacrifices, and how you know what you think you know. Then tell us how the temple priesthood around the turn of the millennium differed from the traditional priesthood, and how that difference mad it a "money-go-round", then compare and contrast that with the surrounding cultures, and how it differed from them. Take your time.  
Let's see your references ? Either that is answered next, ... or I'll waste no more time on you.

Oh Wow! I didn't expect three rants in a row! 
I didn't read the one above. 
Let's just proceed one point at a time, eh?
My post about depositions is the one for now. I will answer other stuff at one point per post.

[eider]

Guess what, ... you get to PROVE your claim about the Northern Kingdom Jews. Since you -- :

Not to interject into what has become a two-way pissing contest but the alleged orthodoxy of Galilean jews is open to serious question.  For the most part Galilee was an area rebuilt by Antipas in the Roman style after the revolts of 4 BC.  As Josephus recounts, when he led his army north in 67 the cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris closed their gates to him, told him to "get the fuck out of here," and invited in Roman garrisons.

I doubt those people spent a lot of time in the fucking temple.

Yes........ to all.
Although Sepphoris/Zippori and Tiberius were big holiday and entertainment centres for Romans I don't think Antipas let Romans run his province for him..... he would have had his own officers. 

Galileans seem to have been a rebellious people and it seems that where they could avoid a hundred mile trek to the Great Temple with rip-off services from the local people and all the dirty dealings within....... then they would. I've often wondered about Luke's mention of Pilate mixing Galilean blood with their sacrifices, and I also wonder about people like Saul receiving contracts to deal with Northerners......

[eider]

Philippians 2:5:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Woops.

(Oh wait. Never mind. He was talking about a "different" Jebus).  
LOL

Yep..... like I said, Paul never wrote a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did (apart from that last supper). 
Your offering about tells us nothing about what Jesus said or did.

Anyway, at least you're looking, so you're learning.

[eider]

apart from tsome last meal.

Carrier notes that some sort of communal meal was a staple feature of other mystery cult religions of the time.

OK, but that wasn't hard for Carrier to figure out.
Communal meals are a staple feature among every culture, group, cult and people.......   as they are with ours, yes?

[eider]

Just like the modern day nuts, who spend little to no time in all sorts of public institutions...but have oh so many opinions about how they should be run, and how people should behave in them.  

Temple sucks, everything's over-priced, the shamans are con artists, and the other patrons are insufficiently committed to sparkle motion.  This is a running theme in the ot and in rabbinic sources.  They've made god angry again, about whatever god is getting angry about at the present moment.  It's very much an expression of a rural and urban cultural divide.  In the post exile community, the story became that the sinful urbanites were cleansed from the land - so..say hello to the new boss!

More than a few peasants must have wondered who these pretty babylonian fucks thought they were - and it begins all over again.

Yes..... and that was background for John the Baptist's actions and words, and not long after of Jesus's demonstrations in the Temple.

[eider]

Great post, Jim.  I wish I could have LIKED it twice.

That scholarly consensus is mainly concerned with maintaining the viability of some asshole named jesus actually walking around.  Where it breaks down is that all of them seem to see a different guy behind the curtain.

True. And so, when folks rage for or against an historical Jesus and shout the names of 'peer-reviewed-scholars' to prove everything, and others shout the names of 'peer-reviewed-scholars' to gainsay them....... there is a vacuum.

If anybody wants to research HJ they have the gospels, early 1st century Palestine, the geography, any archaeology and any other few comments about him from that time.    Leaning on one scholar's or another's opinion might help slightly, but not absolutely.

It's almost as if they made the whole fucking thing up!

What? Christianity? Of course they blooming did!  There's not much of value for an HJ researcher after the gospels, and maybe a few verses in Acts.

[Free]

Dude here is the cold hard truth.

All historians can actually say about Jesus can be summed up in the following.

"There was a Jesus whom many considered to be a Christ. He was crucified at the hand of Pontius Pilate circa CE 33." 

Period. End of discussion. that's all folks!

OK, if that's what you think. But I don't think it happened quite that way, is all. What historians have you been reading?  I haven't read a historian who presented the subject of historical Jesus quite like you do. 

Despite I no longer practice, you are speaking to an historian. It's in my profile.

My position here and elsewhere has always been to apply the historical methodology of argument to the best explanation. The best explanation as to why we have the gospels, letters, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger etc. is that a man named Jesus, regarded as a Christ by many, was crucified by Pilate circa CE 33. That is the only common denominator that can be cross referenced between all historical data. Everything else can be taken with a grain of salt, and/or dismissed wholesale, therefore I suggest you refrain from using the Gospels as though they represent actual history, since the only thing common in them with exterior sources is the crucifixion of this Jesus.

Ancient history can never be proven conclusively. It all comes down to what each of us accepts as being the closest approximation of the truth based upon available evidence.

You will notice varying opinions here, and disagreements en masse.

[Bucky Ball]

Philippians 2:5:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Woops.

(Oh wait. Never mind. He was talking about a "different" Jebus).  
LOL

Yep..... like I said, Paul never wrote a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did (apart from that last supper). 
Your offering about tells us nothing about what Jesus said or did.

Anyway, at least you're looking, so you're learning.

You have nothing to offer.
You're lying.
You said "Paul never wrote a sentence about anything that Jesus did, apart from that last supper event."
My quote was from Paul, and he wrote about what Jesus did.
Is English your first language ?

[Bucky Ball]

... bla bla bla ...

STILL, not one quote, not one reference.
No substantive discussion.
Nothing but unsupported opinions.
Nothing but empty ignorant assertions.

I know what gospels are. The are proclamations of BELIEF, (not facts). Beliefs are not facts.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline...ion/story/

You can't possibly be trying to tell us that proclamations of beliefs are somehow informative of the facts or history.
LMAO. You probably need to look up the definition of "circular" and "circular argument". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Using the gospels as proof of what's in them, is THE DEFINITION of circular.

The Gospel According to St. Luke
{1:1} Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, {1:2} Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

...... and so we know that the authors of the gospels were writing depositions. Now, before you start ranting about what a lot of rubbish these gospels were, I need to explain to you that a Deposition is a deposition whether it contains truth or outright lies. Nevertheless, the gospels were depositions.
Now..... have learned something from all this?

Nope. We know nothing of the sort. All we know is that THEY CLAIMED to be writing the truth. A claim is not evidence. People lie in depositions all the time. (Nothing but more unsupported assertions and opinions). No references, no scholarly support. You HAVE bought the propaganda, and this is the proof.

That's not how debate works. Have you ever debated before ?
Just because a gospel writer asserts they're telling the truth, doesn't mean they are. You need EXTERNAL supporting evidence. You have none. You have posted none.
People believe all kinds of crazy shit. It is well known in NT scholarship that NONE of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses. Have you taken Bible 101 ?
It's hilarious here, in a thread about the "historical Jesus" you're so out of touch, you actually use the gospels as evidence of something. LOL

So if you're consistent, then you must also buy the claims that the Angel Gabriel dictated the Quran to Mohammed in the cave ? Was that also a "deposition" ?
Here's the history of "depositions". Maybe you could learn something. "Depositions by written interrogatories first appeared around the mid-15th century as a procedure for discovery, factfinding, and evidence preservation in suits in equity in English courts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition...h%20courts.
You can find NOT ONE New Testament SCHOLAR who says that "depositions" were a part of ancient Near Eastern literature in any of its many forms, including the gospels. None.
The gospels themselves say they are the "good news". That's bias, right there. Opinion.

The gospels conflict in important ways. Of course the gospels "claim" to be writing the truth. You have no evidence they were, and the 200 gospels were all different. So which ones are true, and which ones aren't ? As I said, you swallowed the propaganda. You are actually so naïve that you think they are telling the truth. You also have no evidence that the authors considered what they were doing as "DEPOSITIONS", a modern legal concept (more presentism), ... how about an academic or scholarly reference for that ... or did you just make it up ? What other authors at the time wrote "depositions", and were all the many gospels in all their variations "depositions" also ? LOLOLOL

There were many liars in the early church. Pious Fraud was a way of life.
https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/01/2...deception/
https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

There was purposeful deception in the early church. They were liars, and they admitted it.
They thought there was nothing wrong with lying if the lie promoted what various leaders thought was good. Even Paul admitted to lying.
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

St. Jerome said Paul was a liar. "I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles. (Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus).
"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

Eusebius, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith: "Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith." – Clement (quoted by M. Smith) , "Clement of Alexandria", p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople, is another:
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ... "For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_hoaxes
Every single one of these hoaxers insisted (wrote "depositions"), they were telling the truth.

We really don't get this sort of "rank beginner" here, much anymore.

You are dismissed. Buh bye.

[Minimalist]

Carrier notes that some sort of communal meal was a staple feature of other mystery cult religions of the time.

OK, but that wasn't hard for Carrier to figure out.
Communal meals are a staple feature among every culture, group, cult and people.......   as they are with ours, yes?

I submit there is a difference between this, as Carrier writes,

All mystery religions had an initiation ritual in which the congregant symbol-
ically reenacts what the god endured (1ike Christian baptism: Rom. 6.3-4;
Col. 2. 12), thus sharing in the salvation the god had achieved (Gal. 3.27;
1 Cor. 12.13), and all involve a ritual meal that unites initiated members in
communion with one another and their god (I Cor. 1 1 .23-28). All of these
features are fundamental to Christianity, yet equally fundamental to all the
mystery cults that were extremely popular in the very era that Christianity
arose.79 The coincidence of all of these features together lining up this way
is simply too improbable to propose as just an accident. 

OTHoJ, pg 99

and family gatherings where Americans stuff their faces and celebrate putting one over on the Indians!

[Free]

Just like the modern day nuts, who spend little to no time in all sorts of public institutions...but have oh so many opinions about how they should be run, and how people should behave in them.  

Temple sucks, everything's over-priced, the shamans are con artists, and the other patrons are insufficiently committed to sparkle motion.  This is a running theme in the ot and in rabbinic sources.  They've made god angry again, about whatever god is getting angry about at the present moment.  It's very much an expression of a rural and urban cultural divide.  In the post exile community, the story became that the sinful urbanites were cleansed from the land - so..say hello to the new boss!

More than a few peasants must have wondered who these pretty babylonian fucks thought they were - and it begins all over again.

Yes..... and that was background for John the Baptist's actions and words, and not long after of Jesus's demonstrations in the Temple.

^^^ This is why they are justified in suspecting you to to be a Christian.

[Minimalist]

We have only one actual historical discussion of John the Baptist, that of Josephus in Antiquities Book XVIII.

This is it, in total:

[18.116] Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist.

[18.117] For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.

[18.118] Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best  to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.

[18.119] Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure with him.

Now historians generally do not dispute Josephus' account here because it shows no signs of being infected by later xhristard horseshit.  If a xhristard was going to interpolate or concoct the story it would have mirrored what is written in their silly gospels, not the above!

[Thingymebob]

Never trust a Brit who comes into an atheist forum and makes no mention of bacon and eggs. 
Just saying.

Carry on folks.

[Inkubus]

Never trust a Brit who comes into an atheist forum and makes no mention of bacon and eggs. 
Just saying.

Carry on folks.

Dude, this esoteric humor of your's is becoming rather tedious. Tone it down a bit or better yet; fuck off with it, it doesn't belong in this thread.

Just saying.

[jimhabegger]

Yesterday I read "The Christ Myth and the Christian Goddess" by Robert Price, and now I'm reading "The Quest of the Mythical Jesus." At this point it's looking to me like grasping at straws, even more than people trying to prove that Jesus existed.

(edited to add the following)

From "The Quest of the Mythical Jesus":

"I now think Bultmann’s argument runs afoul of Ockham’s Razor, since it posits redundant explanations. If you recognize the recurrence of the pagan savior myth in the Christian proclamation, then no need remains to suggest an initial “Big Bang” (Burton L. Mack) of an Easter Morning Experience of the First Disciples."

 That reminds me of a proof I saw once that 2 = 0, where one step is dividing both sides of the equation by an expression which, according to the initial conditions, equals zero. Or a magician diverting attention with one hand from what he's doing with the other.

[Bucky Ball]

Yesterday I read "The Christ Myth and the Christian Goddess" by Robert Price, and now I'm reading "The Quest of the Mythical Jesus." At this point it's looking to me like grasping at straws, even more than people trying to prove that Jesus existed.

(edited to add the following)

From "The Quest of the Mythical Jesus":

"I now think Bultmann’s argument runs afoul of Ockham’s Razor, since it posits redundant explanations. If you recognize the recurrence of the pagan savior myth in the Christian proclamation, then no need remains to suggest an initial “Big Bang” (Burton L. Mack) of an Easter Morning Experience of the First Disciples."

 That reminds me of a proof I saw once that 2 = 0, where one step is dividing both sides of the equation by an expression which, according to the initial conditions, equals zero. Or a magician diverting attention with one hand from what he's doing with the other.

If you go back and find WL Craig's debate with Bart Ehrman about the (Bayesian) probability of the resurrection, Craig does exactly that.
He does a little trick and talks very fast, hoping you won't notice he's dividing by zero. I pointed that out once to Dr. E., and he said he knew there was something wrong with it, but it happened pretty fast.

[Minimalist]

Math is not the xhristard's long suit.  1+1+1 = 3, not 1!

[jerry mcmasters]

Never trust a Brit who comes into an atheist forum and makes no mention of bacon and eggs. 
Just saying.

Carry on folks.

Dude, this esoteric humor of your's is becoming rather tedious. Tone it down a bit or better yet; fuck off with it, it doesn't belong in this thread.

Just saying.

Just a joke that may not have landed.  None of us are professional comedians, fella, lighten up.

[eider]

Despite I no longer practice, you are speaking to an historian. It's in my profile.

Historian....... excellent. I am most impressed. 
What kind? 
How did you qualify, and with focus upon which times and places?
If your focus was upon Early first century Palestinian provinces and Jesus then you are most a valuable member....I need to know about what you gathered.... 

My position here and elsewhere has always been to apply the historical methodology of argument to the best explanation. The best explanation as to why we have the gospels, letters, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger etc. is that a man named Jesus, regarded as a Christ by many, was crucified by Pilate circa CE 33. That is the only common denominator that can be cross referenced between all historical data.

....between most historical researchers. I think that's about right. 
So there is a general consensus of opinion by folks using 'historical methodology' that Jesus was a real person..... is that what you are saying?
Do you agree with the 'common denominator?'

Everything else can be taken with a grain of salt, and/or dismissed wholesale, therefore I suggest you refrain from using the Gospels as though they represent actual history, since the only thing common in them with exterior sources is the crucifixion of this Jesus.

Absolutely!  I don't use G's John, Matthew or Luke as statements of fact for various reasons, although they all contain fragments of value within, but G-Mark (with Christian 'bits' removed) tells a short clear account of what happened, and looks to me like a Statement written by another to put the record straight, in fact I'm amazed that Christianity left it in!

Ancient history can never be proven conclusively. It all comes down to what each of us accepts as being the closest approximation of the truth based upon available evidence.

Yes. Absolutely!  Recent events, even car accidents are judged by  what is 'accepted as being the closest approximation of the truth based upon available evidence'.  But there is a massive thread here about Historical Jesus so this subject is more interesting than you suggest, methinks.

You will notice varying opinions here, and disagreements en masse.

So, an average spread of viewpoints..... very good. Interesting.

[eider]

You have nothing to offer.
You're lying.
You said "Paul never wrote a sentence about anything that Jesus did, apart from that last supper event."
My quote was from Paul, and he wrote about what Jesus did.
Is English your first language ?

Indeed.....Paul never wrote anything about Jesus, what he did, where he went, what he said.

So I don't bother to read Paul's letters if I want to learn anything about Jesus. 

I'm getting used to your insults.........   they make me smile 

[eider]

... bla bla bla ...

STILL, not one quote, not one reference.
No substantive discussion.
Nothing but unsupported opinions.
Nothing but empty ignorant assertions.  

I know what gospels are. The are proclamations of BELIEF, (not facts). Beliefs are not facts.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline...ion/story/

You can't possibly be trying to tell us that proclamations of beliefs are somehow informative of the facts or history.
LMAO. You probably need to look up the definition of "circular" and "circular argument". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Using the gospels as proof of what's in them, is THE DEFINITION of circular.

I didn't write 'bla bla bla....'  so that's just your idea of a quotation, is it?
Getting to know you.............  

The Gospel According to St. Luke
{1:1} Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, {1:2} Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

...... and so we know that the authors of the gospels were writing depositions. Now, before you start ranting about what a lot of rubbish these gospels were, I need to explain to you that a Deposition is a deposition whether it contains truth or outright lies.  Nevertheless, the gospels were depositions.
Now..... have learned something from all this?

Nope. We know nothing of the sort. All we know is that THEY CLAIMED to be writing the truth. A claim is not evidence. People lie in depositions all the time. (Nothing but more unsupported assertions and opinions). No references, no scholarly support. You HAVE bought the propaganda, and this is the proof. [/quote]

Stop you right there, since you clearly don't understand what a deposition is.
A deposition is a written statement about something. 
I've read many depositions in my life which were untrue, or inaccurate. 

You just didn't know what a deposition is. You've learned something, I hope.