The Barrier

That the gospel writers didnt name themselves is irrelevant. There is enough attribution to the authors by other sources that it is not seriously contended as who wrote it. Though that is irrelevant as well, since the documents were written.
There is also enough evidence of the time frame of when they were written, evidence of them being well distributed in the 1st-2nd century, and even critics of Christianity do not write in disputing the accounts.That they were fictional stories is merely your opinion, which is not surprising since you "already had the answer and therefore anything that seems to contradict it is wrong". Well, you at least know how to cut and paste well. Unfortunately, the RationalWiki is not very rational and is wrong (or irrelevant) on much of what they say.

quote:

---

All of the writers were born after the Crucifixion and could not have been eyewitnesses to Jesus

---

is BS. It's rather a stretch of a claim. Besides, if supposedly, they don't know who wrote the gospels (your charge of them being anonymous), how could they know when the writers we're born. Most scholars do not agree that they we're born after the Crucifixion (which by the way was a historical event that is not seriously disputed). And there is plenty of textual evidence to suggest the writers we're (or at least claimed) to be eyewitnesses.

quote:

---

Moreover in many cases our oldest copies of their works are centuries after they were supposedly written, allowing ample time for copyists to "improve" them.

---

With the number of ancient copies of the gospels being in the thousands, some less than extant within 100 years of the events they report, and with textual criticism being able to compare the numerous copies, what changes we're introduced are easy to identify. We know generally what the originals said.Josephus - though the Testimonium Flavianum portion is somewhat debated, the "Jamesian Reference" is not generally disputed and is recognized by most serious textual scholars. You're whole argument is against the former, .... and so what.Tacitus - a entry rather full of equivocation. That the name Tacitus wrote could have been spelled differently (or changed in copy) is not a big deal since both spellings of the name were not uncommon. The supposed evidence of tampering and the 'missing Annals' are all from the same reference. Frankly, that the phrase might be an interpolation is what is without evidence, and not a charge that is seriously taken by scholars, since if it was an interpolation, the context and flow of the rest of Tacitus passage would make no sense. The supposed missing annals is irrelevant, as they would not pertain to the passage Tacitus is writing about anyways. That there is disagreement between Tacitus and the apocryphal books is also irrelevant, as Christians rejected those books at that time.Pliny - please! That when he wrote about "Christians" it could have meant somebody other than the group associated with "Christ" at that time? Like whom? What other group would this passage make sense in referring to? Modern scholars do not take this charge seriously. Umm, no, that is not the sum of "all the available 'independent' evidence' It rather is just the evidence that is restricted to a particular time period. You seem to want to ignore all the evidence in history after a particular point (which is voluminous) just because you think it is too 'old'.Frankly, I would love to see you apply the same amount of hyper-skepticism you hold to any other non-Christian historical accounts. By your standard, we could not know anything about ancient history.

Who? When? Well how about you provide that evidence? No the crucifixion of this character is not an accepted historical event. There is absolutely no historical evidence. The bible cannot be evidence for itself. It is obvious that non of the writers of the bible stories were eyewitnesses. Mark, the first gospel, was written by someone not even familiar wth Palestinian geography. Luke tells us he is not an eyewitness and he makes the same blunders on geography that Mark does. Primarily because Luke uses 50% of Mark's text. Matthew uses 90%, though he does fix some of the geographic blunders. If by copies you mean tiny fragments.Josephus - Even if the James reference is legitimate it is not proof of a historical jesus. Just that 60 years after the supposed execution people believed there was.Pliny - No one disagrees he was talking about some sect of Christians. Not proof of a historical jesus. Simply proof that a group called Christians existed. We have no idea what their beliefs were and just because they existed does not mean jesus did. So using this logic you agree that John Frum was a real person. Also, the Heaven's Gate Aliens must be real too. Because after a certain point there can not be any original evidence. If people started writing now claiming they believed Ned Ludd was real, that is evidence for him?You claim there is legitimate historical evidence for jesus. Present it. You seem to accept that there is no contemporary evidence, present what you have. Like who? Maybe people already have. Other ancient mythical figures don't have followers fucking up the world and making my life more difficult like this jesus figure.

I'd call it a conclusion having considered the evidence but if you have any evidence you regard as conclusive why not educate me? There's nothing you've presented so far that is anything more than extremely weak simply for the existance of the main character let alone his antics, is that all you have? I'm fairly keen to see real, contemporaneous evidence from people that were actually there and witnessed the things that are claimed. That's the normal way of knowing that things are true. Accounts many decades later by anonymous people made from hearsay are not normally regarded as good evidence. That's a bit silly isn't it? But never mind, all we're discussing here is the evidence that Jesus actually existed. If it helps you, I think it more likely than not that someone called Jesus did exist, but that's just a guess - the evidence barely supports me.

Frankly it makes no sense to argue this with you. Yes we were talking about Paul and you made a comment that it doesn't say he had contact with the first disciples. I showed where it did but then that doesn't count as it wasn't in Paul's epistles but in Acts.You obviously have little or no knowledge of what is in the Bible and just want to argue your atheistic position. Not really helpful.

Acts was written decades after the death of Paul. It is not history. It does not have anything to corroborate it. You can not use it to claim Paul said he met apostles or that he spoke of a historical Jesus. Paul never speaks of a historical Jesus. It doesn't matter what it says in Acts. We have no idea who wrote Acts or when it was written. I clearly stated that I was talking about Paul's writings. You are arguing a strawman. Paul mentions nothing about the historical Jesus. I have extensive knowledge of your bible. I have read it numerous times. I am quite knowledgeable of Christian history. I have worked at archaeological digs in Israel. Do not presume what I have knowledge of. The historicity of the jesus character has nothing to do with atheism. If you cannot have a civil debate without insult and using fallacies and lies maybe you should not try to debate.Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling

As I'm sure you know the writer of Acts is the same author as as the Gospel of Luke. In the Gospel of Luke he says this as an opener to Chap 1.

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

He is writing as an eye witness but is reporting previous material which he compiles into an account of what happened. As you notice he makes the claim that the accounts originally eyewitnesses. Obviously this isn't sufficient evidence for you to accept what it is he writes. That may not have come from Paul's writings but it is clear that whoever it was that compiled the accounts traveled with Paul and would have intimate knowledge of Paul's teachings and experience.How can you say that Paul never spoke about a historical Jesus. It is in everything he wrote. I'll repeat what I quoted earlier.

quote:

---

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born

---

He can hardly have Christ dying if he wasn't referring to Him as a historical figure.Paul doesn't mention meeting the apostles but that isn't the point of any of his letters. The epistles are all written to specific churches about specific issues and for encouragement. What strawman? OK, I apologize, it was just that some of things you said caused me to think otherwise. Well, maybe so, but to argue that Jesus never existed is really without any real merit. Certainly the main source of information is the Bible, but the NT is not an account by one individual but many, with no motivation for making it up, in most cases just the opposite in fact. Also the narrative of the NT is consistent with other historical events.Certainly none of this proves anything and we can accept the NT accounts as historical or not. However, IMHO there is no explanation for the rise of the early church other than for what it is that the NT writers have compiled and recorded for us.

Acts and Luke are irrelevant to this conversation. We are discussing Pauls writings. They date to at least 30 years after Paul and may actually date to 60 years after Paul. That you cannot tell us who wrote them or when just validates their irrelevance. That's it? No Bethlehem, no Nazareth, no moneychangers, nothing from the Gospels? Read some Philo you will see that this crucifixion was on a spiritual plane. Nothing he writes here puts it into a historical context. Paul never uses anything from the gospels to support his arguments. Never. We are discussing what Paul wrote and you keep bringing up Acts. Acts is irrelevant and not the conversation. I could say the same of you. You might want to try reading the bible completely and in context instead of as a collection of pithy verses. Your faith is the only reason you state this, because there is no historical evidence. And the only author we can kind of identify is Paul. The rest are anonymous of unknown provenance. All the other gospels copy Mark. We know Mark and Luke were ignorant of Palestine. We know the gospels were ignorant of Judaism. We have no reason to believe they are based on anything factual. There is no corroboration. You cannot use them to corroborate each other. There was no early rise. It was a minor mystery cult for hundreds of years after Paul founded his sect.