The Bible Fraud

[Badger]

Well, they're not independent of the Gospels, since they're extractions from the Gospels.

You're missing the point. Mark, Q, M and L are independent of strands of tradition, arguing that reports of Jesus's miracles appeared quite early and from different "directions" so to speak.

 

Both of them are after the fact. Do you have any contemporary (at the same time frame) as Jesus, and is not proto-Gospel/Gospel/Christian material that can confirm his existence? No, you don't.

And now what?

[Ouroboros]

Whatever... it's just going in circles.

[Badger]

I'm only wondering why the evidence must be contemporary. Actually, I think the case is fairly strong even without any outside sources.

[centauri]

Really? What sources? Earlier than the Gospels, and attesting to Jesus doing miracles? You mean the other Gospels which weren't picked by the Church?

 

I believe we have had this discussion already. Well, these sources are Q, M and L traditions.

 

And as pointed out earlier, those are not sources independent of the cult.

You've repeatedly attempted to portray cult traditions as "independent" sources.

You haven't established that no borrowing occurred between Christian traditions or that no embellishments transpired.

You want "Jesus", whoever that actually was, to be acknowledged as a historical figure, and evidenced as factual by cult tradition.

There's a huge gap between a cult leader that might have been known as "Jesus" existing, and establishing the specific character "Jesus of Nazareth" as a factual person.

There isn't any contemporary validation for this specific person outside of cult tradition.

The fact that the details of the traditions in many cases contradict each other is completely irrelevant to you.

HanSolo is right, this thread like the others, is just going around in circles.

If you want a cult figure called "Jesus" to be historical then that's fine.

You can assign him a whole array of characteristics and accomplishments.

He can be anything historical that makes you happy.

 

The question I always ask is why Philo from Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus, did not write about Jesus at all? He was into the idea of reforming Judaism. He was into the idea of Logos as the origin of creation. He wrote religious/philosophical material that was saved by no other than the early Christians. But he wrote his books and explorations into faith before Paul, and during the time of Jesus, and he mention Jesus this many times: 0 (zero). I wonder why?

That is of course interesting, but there is nothing unusual. Let me quote great passage from Gerd Theissen Historical Jesus (93-04)

 

1.1. Ancient sources are silet about many people whose historicity cannot be doubted

[*]John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus (Antt. 18, 116-19) and in Mandaean texts, but not by Philo, Paul and in rabbinic writings.

[*]Paul of Tarsus is attested by authentic letters but is not mentioned either in Josephus or in other non-Christian authors.

[*]The Teacher of Righteousness is known only from the Qumran writings, and there is no account of him in the ancient reports on the Essenes which have come down to us (Josephus, Philo, Pliny the Elder)

[*]Rabbi Hillel, the founder of the school of Hillelites, is never mentioned by Josephus, although Josephus is an avowed Pharisee

[*]Bar Kochba, the messianic leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 132-5, is passed over in silence by Dio Cassius in his account of this revolt.

 

There's nothing unusual in not finding Jesus mentioned by contemporary writers?

"Jesus" wasn't an ordinary human, at least not according to cult advertising.

He was the most important being to have ever lived.

When did John the Baptist, Paul of Tarsus, The Teacher of Righteousness, Rabbi Hillel, or Bar Kochba rise from the dead and appear to over 500 people at the same time?

When did each of these individual people do more things than Jesus did, including raising the dead, feeding masses of people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, heal multiple infirmities, cast out demons, create havoc in the Temple, and have the Romans acknowledge them as the Son of God?

Cult tradition, which you seem to regard as bona-fide accurate history, states that Jesus of Nazareth was very famous throughout the region during his lifetime, and did so many things that there aren't enough books in the world to contain all of them.

According to cult history, Jesus was a virtual beehive of activity, and yet it only shows up in cult traditions and cult writings of that time.

[Neon Genesis]

When Mark reports miracle(s), Q reports miracle(s), "M" reports miracle(s), and "L" reporst miracle(s) we do have three independent sources reporting Jesus' miracles. Then we may add John. But I'm not sure how independent it is of the Synoptic Gospels.

And we have seven separate Harry Potter books that record Harry as performing Wingardium Levioasa, but that doesn't mean the magic in Harry Potter is historical fact.

[Badger]

Nor I was saying Jesus' miracles were "historical fact." I said Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles.

[Guest Marty]

OK, so you said the NT is a historical source for jesus. Give me an extra biblical source for jesus to corroborate something in the NT. Since jesus worked lots of wonders, healed the sick, raised the dead, there should be lots written about him. Show me how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity.

That Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles is attested by multiple independent sources. These sources are earlier than our Gospels.

 

Are you going to list these sources?

 

EDIT** I posted before reading the rest of the thread, just read on...***

[Guest Marty]

I remember reading in Eherman's jesus Interrupted, that the NT has more textual differences in the manuscripts we have than there are actual words in the NT. So even if I throw you a bone and consider the NT as a historical source for the purposes of this discussion, it is a terrible source of information from the get go, and unreliable on those grounds alone.

I haven't read the book, but I know Eherman is an expert in the field of textual criticism. I'm not going to argue against his claim about the number of textual differences we have. I'm well aware of this. However, I disagree with your conclusion that NT text is unreliable. That's not true. According to Bruce Metzger, a late veteran of the field and Eherman's teacher, there is over 90% agreement among the manuscripts. "None of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine." (Ben Witherington, Misanalyzing Text Criticism)

 

How can there be 90% agreement in a text that has more textual differences than actual words in the text?

 

What other books or references that have this many inconsistencies do you still consider reliable?

[Guest]

Really? What sources? Earlier than the Gospels, and attesting to Jesus doing miracles? You mean the other Gospels which weren't picked by the Church?

I believe we have had this discussion already. Well, these sources are Q, M and L traditions.

 

 

Oh, I thought we were talking about contemporary historical records independent of xtainity, not more religious documents. This is just more circular reasoning. I'm done here. PM me if you're gonna post some real information.

[Guest]

1.2 The mentions of Jesus in ancient historians allay doubt about his historicity.

 

The notices about Jesus are independent of one another. Three authors from different backgrounds utilize information about Jesus independently: a Jewish aristocrat and historial, a Syrian philosopher, and a Roman statesman and historian.

All three know of the execution of Jesus, but in different ways. Tacitus puts the responsibility on Pontius Pilate, Mara bar Sarapion on the Jewish people, and the Testimonium Flavianum (probably) on a co-operation between the Jewish aristocracy and the Roman governor. The execution was offensive for any worship of Jesus. As a "scandal" it cannot have been inveted (cf. 1 Cor 1:18ff.)

 

I may be mistaken, but my understanding of these sources is that they only prove there was a sect called christians at that time and that they believed jesus was the son of god and resurrected, etc. These do not speak directly to the existence of such a character, only to the existence of people who claim to follow him.

 

EXACTLY!!! I want proof that jesus existed, not that he had followers 2,000 years ago. That I will agree on...

[Guest]

I may be mistaken, but my understanding of these sources is that they only prove there was a sect called christians at that time and that they believed jesus was the son of god and resurrected, etc. These do not speak directly to the existence of such a character, only to the existence of people who claim to follow him.

Our sources indicates that authors of those texts took Jesus' historicity for granted. Josephus refers to Jesus incidentally two times, and Tacitus mentions one Christus who was a Jew, exectued as a criminal under Pontius Pilate, and was the author of a new religion movement which comes from Judea; its adherets are called Christians after him.

 

Actually, the name mentioned was a common name at the time. As a xtian, you should know that "Christ" is the Greek form of "Messiah", which means the anointed, and it is not a personal name.

 

And if you read the text, the description of the execution is nothing like what is told in the gosepels...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3]

 

It seems a group of people were executed for setting fire to Rome...which gospel verse was that in again?

 

Yet this is by no means an accepted proof. It is disputed as well, some reasons are:

 

1. No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero, however the Tacitus text itself demonstrates that it may be a good resource for Christians to refer to since the text derides Christians and Christianity thus proving it to be free of later tampering by Christians.[7][citation needed]

 

2. The passage also apparently mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect, an apparent mistake also made in translations of a passage by Josephus.[8][citation needed](However, Josephus wrote in Greek and never used the term.) It should be noted that after Herod Agrippa's death in AD 44, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, Claudius gave procurators control over Judea.[9][10] This was made possible when he augmented the role of procurators so that they had magisterial power.[11][12] Tacitus, who rose through the magisterial ranks[13][14] to become consul and then proconsul had a precise knowledge of significance of the terms involved and knew when Judea began to be administered by procurators. It is therefore problematical that he would use "procurator" instead of "prefect" to describe the governor of Judea prior to the changes that he tells us Claudius brought in.

 

3. The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principle manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[18].

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[19] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[20] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[21]

[Guest]

Do you have a copy of any of them?

Copy of what? Q, M and L traditions? I guess you know what they are. "Q" refers to the matrial which Matthew and Luke share, but which is not found in Mark. "M" and "L" traditions refers to the special material of Matthew and Luke.

Well, then you should realize that Q, M, and L are not separate sources to Mark, Luke, Matthew to support the claims.

 

Wasn't the question if there is any artifacts outside of the Gospels to support the story about Jesus? Well, then Q, M, and L are out of the question, since they're just sub-sets of the Gospels.

 

 

 

Yes Han, that was the question. I really can't believe Badger is posting the sources of the gospel accounts to prove the gospel accounts are true, yet he felt the need to explain circular reasoning to me earlier! LOL!

[Guest]

Well, they're not independent of the Gospels, since they're extractions from the Gospels.

You're missing the point. Mark, Q, M and L are independent of strands of tradition, arguing that reports of Jesus's miracles appeared quite early and from different "directions" so to speak.

 

Both of them are after the fact. Do you have any contemporary (at the same time frame) as Jesus, and is not proto-Gospel/Gospel/Christian material that can confirm his existence? No, you don't.

And now what?

 

You are missing the point. They may be strands of tradition (they are NOT independent of the gospels), but they are NOT evidence of anything other than the gospels had sources they drew on.

 

And now what? Now we end this conversation since you were not able to show any extra-biblical anything that mentions jesus as a real live person. Thanks for playing!

[Badger]

How can there be 90% agreement in a text that has more textual differences than actual words in the text?

Because the number of NT manuscripts is overwhelming. Around 5,300 Greek manuscripts alone, plus 10,000 copies of Latin Vulgates and 9,300 other versions. Furthermor, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from quotations from church fathers.

[Badger]

Oh, I thought we were talking about contemporary historical records independent of xtainity, not more religious documents. This is just more circular reasoning. I'm done here. PM me if you're gonna post some real information.

It is not circular reasoning, but a method used by secular scholars. "The criterion of multiple attestation is a major player in the 'Historical Jesus' world and is used, amongst others, by Sanders, Meier, Ludemann and Crossan as a method which helps to discern the authenticity of a passage." (Quest for the Historical Jesus: Criteria of Multiple Attestation)

 

I wonder how fast you forgot what you asked. It was not contemporary historical records independent of Christianity. Let me quote your text, "Give me an extra biblical source for jesus to corroborate something in the NT. Since jesus worked lots of wonders, healed the sick, raised the dead, there should be lots written about him. Show me how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity." And I did both of these.

[Badger]

Actually, the name mentioned was a common name at the time. As a xtian, you should know that "Christ" is the Greek form of "Messiah", which means the anointed, and it is not a personal name.

Tacitus uses Christus as a personal name. No big deal. In fact, it may be as Robert Van Voorst (2000, 44) suggests that Tacitus is correcting misunderstading of the crowd saying "the founder of the name" is Christus, not the common name Chrestus. So what the Tacitus says is that this man is the founder (originator) of the movement that bears his name. That's very important hint.

 

And if you read the text, the description of the execution is nothing like what is told in the gosepels...

Tacitus describes the execution as supplicio adfectus erat which means "inflic the death penalty upon." (Van Voorst 2000, 47) He is talking about execution, but doesn't mention crucifixion explicitly. However, Tacitus says Christus' execution happened "in the reing of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate."

 

1. No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution.

This is classical argument from silence.

 

2 The passage also apparently mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect.

Or Tacitus is not mistaken, but anachronizing on purpose. "Tacitus simply retrojected the title of procurator... back onto Pilate, who was actually prefect at that earlier period."(Crossan 1999, 9) It is possible that Tacitus has made use of the procurator title that was more common in his own time. Futhermore, as Craig Evans notes, "This 'error' should not be taken as evidence that Tacitus' information is faulty. A similar looseness in terminology is seen in other authors." (2004, 389)

 

3. The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principle manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[18].

I'm wondering what's the point. "Due to the paucity of manuscripts, we cannot be sure about the reading Chrestianoi; but on the whole, it is much more likely than Christianoi," says Van Voorst. (2000, 44) Simply copyist error.

 

Crossan, J. D. The birth of Christianity. (1999)

Evans, C. A. The Historical Jesus. (2004)

Van Voorst, R. E. Jesus outside the New Testament. (2000)

[Badger]

Yes Han, that was the question. I really can't believe Badger is posting the sources of the gospel accounts to prove the gospel accounts are true, yet he felt the need to explain circular reasoning to me earlier! LOL!

I was not using the sources of the Gospel accounts to prove the Gospel accounts are true. This is either misunderstanding or intentional straw man. My original statement was following: "that Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles is attested by multiple independent sources. These sources are earlier than our Gospels." (post 85) Mark, Q, M and L are independent of each other and therefore independent sources. You asked me to show "how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity" (post 83) and I did that using a method used by scholars.

[Badger]

You are missing the point. They may be strands of tradition (they are NOT independent of the gospels), but they are NOT evidence of anything other than the gospels had sources they drew on.

They are independent of each other and report Jesus' miracles. That's enough. "A passage is more likely to go back to Jesus if it has been preserved in two or more sources which are independent of each other." (Sanders & Davies 1989, 323; from Quest for the Historical Jesus) For further reading I recommend Christopher's The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry. He concludes, "The miracle stories of Jesus originated very early, contained reports not likely to have been created by early Christians, and cohere well with the rest of what we know about Jesus and his ministry. The best explanation for this evidence is that Jesus was known during his life as a miracle worker."

 

And now what? Now we end this conversation since you were not able to show any extra-biblical anything that mentions jesus as a real live person. Thanks for playing!

I was able to show two extra-biblical sources for historical Jesus - Jopsehus and Tacitus. Of course you start crying they are not contemporary sources. That's true, they aren't but it doesn't really matter. On the other hand, you haven't been able to show any convincing argument why passages of Josephus and Tacitus can't be regard as historical evidence for Jesus.

[Guest]

Yes Han, that was the question. I really can't believe Badger is posting the sources of the gospel accounts to prove the gospel accounts are true, yet he felt the need to explain circular reasoning to me earlier! LOL!

I was not using the sources of the Gospel accounts to prove the Gospel accounts are true. This is either misunderstanding or intentional straw man. My original statement was following: "that Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles is attested by multiple independent sources. These sources are earlier than our Gospels." (post 85) Mark, Q, M and L are independent of each other and therefore independent sources. You asked me to show "how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity" (post 83) and I did that using a method used by scholars.

 

OK, one last time then...could you direct me to something extra-biblical and contemporary to jesus that will corroborate anything about him? Last time I asked you gave me the sources documents for the gospels. In post #88 to be exact.

 

(HanSolo @ May 20 2009, 05:40 PM)

Really? What sources? Earlier than the Gospels, and attesting to Jesus doing miracles? You mean the other Gospels which weren't picked by the Church?

(Badger)

I believe we have had this discussion already. Well, these sources are Q, M and L traditions.

 

Nobody created a strawman, you said it yourself.

But if you don't deliver this time, I really am done...

[Badger]

OK, one last time then...could you direct me to something extra-biblical and contemporary to jesus that will corroborate anything about him? Last time I asked you gave me the sources documents for the gospels. In post #88 to be exact.

In the post 88 I answered to HanSolo. Anyway, there is no source that meet your criterion. In fact, not even the Gospels are contemporary to Jesus.

 

Dang! Is Jesus now proved to be fictional? Nah, only in the mind of Jesus Mythers.

 

(HanSolo @ May 20 2009, 05:40 PM)

Really? What sources? Earlier than the Gospels, and attesting to Jesus doing miracles? You mean the other Gospels which weren't picked by the Church?

(Badger)

I believe we have had this discussion already. Well, these sources are Q, M and L traditions.

 

Nobody created a strawman, you said it yourself.

But if you don't deliver this time, I really am done...

A straw man argument is one that

misrepresents a position

in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it. (

Straw Man Fallacy

)

Can't you see the difference between these two

• that Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles is attested by multiple independent sources.
  
• I really can't believe Badger is posting the sources of the gospel accounts to prove the gospel accounts are true.
  

First one is the original claim I made. Last one is blatant misrepresentation of it. Therefore, that's a straw man.

[Skankboy]

I believe they are contending that the gospel sources are equivalent to the gospels themselves and cannot be considered independant sources.

 

That's my take anyways.

[Badger]

Perhaps but it's still a straw man. What matter right now is that those sources are independent of each other and reports Jesus doing miracles.

 

I hope this helps

 

 

Q document is Double Tradition. "M" tradition is Unique to Matthew . "L" tradition is Unique to Luke. Then we have Mark (and John).

[Guest]

OK, one last time then...could you direct me to something extra-biblical and contemporary to jesus that will corroborate anything about him? Last time I asked you gave me the sources documents for the gospels. In post #88 to be exact.

In the post 88 I answered to HanSolo. Anyway, there is no source that meet your criterion. In fact, not even the Gospels are contemporary to Jesus.

 

Dang! Is Jesus now proved to be fictional? Nah, only in the mind of Jesus Mythers.

 

In post 88 you were talking with Han, but I believe I asked you for references before that. You never answered my request, but answered hans, which was the very same request. Still doesn't change the fact that what you are posting does not prove anything other than the gospels had sources they drew from.

 

Does this prove jesus fictional? No, you can not prove a negative. But there is just as much convincing evidence of jesus as there is of Mythras or Frank the flying invisible unicorn. Until I see some convincing evidence that the jesus myth was based on a real person, I will continue to assert that he is nothing more than a myth, the same as frank the invisible flying pink unicorn is also a myth.

 

A straw man argument is one that

misrepresents a position

in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it. (

Straw Man Fallacy

)

Can't you see the difference between these two

• that Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles is attested by multiple independent sources.
  
• I really can't believe Badger is posting the sources of the gospel accounts to prove the gospel accounts are true.
  

First one is the original claim I made. Last one is blatant misrepresentation of it. Therefore, that's a straw man.

 

I am aware of what a straw-man is. You accused me of setting up a straw-man argument, and so I merely posted your own words to show you I was not. I was challenging your assertion that sources for the gospels can be viewed as independent sources of verification for the gospels. They can not be. That is no straw-man argument; you made that point, don't try and go back on it now.

 

You keep speaking of these independent sources, but all you have actually listed are the sources for the gospels themselves, or non-contemporary historians that mention xtians, or something similar.. Where is the independent evidence of jesus' miracles? Or of jesus? Of the dead being raised and walking around Jerusalem? Or an eclipse that lasted 3 hours? How about the slaughter of the innocents? There is lots of stuff in the bible we would expect to find elsewhere if it had actually happened, but we do not.

[Badger]

In post 88 you were talking with Han, but I believe I asked you for references before that. You never answered my request, but answered hans, which was the very same request. Still doesn't change the fact that what you are posting does not prove anything other than the gospels had sources they drew from.

I have already answered your question (post 85). You asked me to show "how the claims about Jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity," and I did. You haven't yet presented any argument against what I said, other than a straw men.

 

Does this prove jesus fictional? No, you can not prove a negative. But there is just as much convincing evidence of jesus as there is of Mythras or Frank the flying invisible unicorn. Until I see some convincing evidence that the jesus myth was based on a real person, I will continue to assert that he is nothing more than a myth, the same as frank the invisible flying pink unicorn is also a myth.

The reason why you reject Jesus as myth is that we have no contemporary evidence (outside the Bible) for him. Don't you realize that using this principle you must, for the sake of consistency, regard Alexander the Great, Rabban Gamaliel, Apollonius of Tyana, just to name some, as myth as well? Do you?

 

I am aware of what a straw-man is. You accused me of setting up a straw-man argument, and so I merely posted your own words to show you I was not. I was challenging your assertion that sources for the gospels can be viewed as independent sources of verification for the gospels. They can not be. That is no straw-man argument; you made that point, don't try and go back on it now.

Only problem is that I have not said Gospels' sources can be viewed as independent sources of verification for the Gospels. This is your straw men.

 

Let see the passage you quoted

(HanSolo @ May 20 2009, 05:40 PM)

Really? What sources? Earlier than the Gospels, and

attesting to Jesus doing miracles

? You mean the other Gospels which weren't picked by the Church?

(Badger)

I believe we have had this discussion already. Well, these sources are Q, M and L traditions.

Here we are talking about sources, earlier than the Gospels, attesting not Gospels but Jesus doing miracles.

 

You keep speaking of these independent sources, but all you have actually listed are the sources for the gospels themselves, or non-contemporary historians that mention xtians, or something similar.. Where is the independent evidence of jesus' miracles? Or of jesus? Of the dead being raised and walking around Jerusalem? Or an eclipse that lasted 3 hours? How about the slaughter of the innocents? There is lots of stuff in the bible we would expect to find elsewhere if it had actually happened, but we do not.

I have already answered these questions.

[Evolution_beyond]

The reason why you reject Jesus as myth is that we have no contemporary evidence (outside the Bible) for him. Don't you realize that using this principle you must, for the sake of consistency, regard Alexander the Great, Rabban Gamaliel, Apollonius of Tyana, just to name some, as myth as well? Do you?

 

Erm, didn't Alexander the Great found a city? And invade most of the Near/Middle East?

 

How can you possibly argue that someone whose actions left very real archaeological evidence has the same evidence (or lack of it) for their existence as someone who we only know about because other people wrote about them?