historical Jesus also a myth?

[Imran Siddiqui]

How efficient the catholic church was with destroying scriptures that didn´t fit into its version of the "right teachings" you can see with the Nag Hammadi library ... some of the gnostic texts it contained were lost for 1.5 millenia ... due to the fact that gnosticism was declared a heresy ... its followers persecuted and its scriptures burned.
So how couldn´t it be possible that the "truth" about Jesus was in one of those scriptures burned or destroyed in the jewish uprising against the roman rule (for example in a small parish of messianic jews in Jerusalem, which wasn´t spread around christian parishes in the roman empire, because it was missing all those wonders and signs of Jesus = Messiah ... and therefore was unfit for propaganda in order to gain new followers for jesus)

You do realize that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Gnosticism tended to downplay the physical-ness of Jesus, in fact treat the material as dirty and lesser (ironically this view has re-emerged among some flavors of Christian thinking). Their texts were more about the spirit being good and the body being bad - it was all about wonders and signs and less about the man of Jesus. Some went even farther and claimed Jesus wasn't human at all, but the spirit was made to look human.

[Imran Siddiqui]

AFAIK Josephus only writes that about christians which, according to their faith, follow a Messiah who was executed by Herodes.

Which to me sounds more like one of the christians told him about their faith ... and not like Josephus having direct informations that there really has been a Jesus (for example by seeing Jesus himself ... or at least reading roman accounts about the execution of a Yeshua)

I like to apply Occam's Razor here, or I think what works better is the Climate Change Conspiracy Theory - the idea that some vast conspiracy was created that duped so many seems implausible. At the time Josephus was writing, there were still some folks who were around who witness Jesus or early Christian communities - they'd likely speak up and voice their oppositions if what was being said was incorrect.

[Sava]

I like to apply Occam's Razor here, or I think what works better is the Climate Change Conspiracy Theory - the idea that some vast conspiracy was created that duped so many seems implausible. At the time Josephus was writing, there were still some folks who were around who witness Jesus or early Christian communities - they'd likely speak up and voice their oppositions if what was being said was incorrect.

So you're relying on a thought experiment based purely on your own assumptions about what you think people nearly 2,000 would or wouldn't have done?

dafuq? is that your final answer?

pro-tip: mentioning Occam's Razor is never good for an argument

[Ben Kenobi]

Because he has a clear motive to make up things in order to gain followers.

Jesus didn't write the Gospels.

Which is why it would be valuable if you would have non christian evidence about Yeshua

Why? You accept that when Greeks 400 years after Alexander write about Alexander that this is a reliable historical source.

I don't see you challenging Plutarch's Lives as 'Greek propaganda' intended to spread Hellenism.

like, for example, a letter by some Jew who told his relatives that he listened to a preacher named Yeshua ... or that he saw Yeshuas triumphant entry into jerusalem.

Again, you don't apply this criterion to Alexander. Why the difference?

Considering the descriptions of Jesus entrance into Jerusalem, there should have been lots of people who would have taken notice of this event

This is an argument from silence. Plenty of important events were not recorded or their documentation has not survived. This does not mean we cannot argue that it didn't happen.

You're also arguing that because we lack corroborating documentation that we should assume that the source we do have is wrong. History does not work this way. There is no evidence that what you said is correct.

... not only christians but also unconvinced Jews and also romans who were faithful to the roman pantheon.

Again, this is an argument from silence.

But a propaganda scripture which is aimed at gaining followers for the christian faith (or rather followers for the jewish sect that has christ as Messiah ... which, after all, are the origins of Christianity) would contain such passages as well ... no matter whether it is the truth or not.

Is it true? Then I don't see why his genealogy or riding a donkey at Passover or debating with the Sanhedrin should give us the slightest pause into it's historical accuracy. It is not written that the disciples did everything right. The Gospels are a very sober account.

Isn´t this the problem with the whole bible?

Well, that's my point. The Gospels stand or fall as a unit. You can't go and say that Jesus believes that helping the poor is a commandment, but turn around and say that Miracles are an interpolation by crazy fanatics.

Especially since the gospels disagree on more than one account (for example on the genealogy of Jesus)

They do not actually disagree on this point. There are a number of possibilities. Genealogies can trace different ancestors, and the most common interpretation is one is for Joseph and one is for Mary.

the presence of absence of a virgin birth (I´d assume that a virgin birth would be such an extraordinary feat that every gospel would mention it) or the exact date of last supper and crucifixion.

The virgin birth is not something that there is disagreement on in the Gospels. The exact date, is also not something explicitly stated in the Gospels, but they are consistent as to what date of the week of Passover he died on the Cross.

Especially as the church later when it gained power (i.e. from Constantine on) was very busy in burning scriptures that contradicted the things it considered to be the "right teaching"

Again. I ask the question I asked at the start of the thread. Who preserved Plutarch's lives from the 1st century through to the 10th century?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you're relying on a thought experiment based purely on your own assumptions about what you think people nearly 2,000 would or wouldn't have done?

Why not?

Ancient records are ridiculously difficult to verify or ascertain. Much of historical study for things that old are done by conjecture or thought experiments (whether or not to trust biased documents, etc).

[Sava]

The Gospels stand or fall as a unit.

You're going to admit defeat so easily?

[Sava]

Why not?

Do you need me to explain why that's stupid?

Really?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're relying on a thought experiment based purely on your own assumptions about what you think people nearly 2,000 would or wouldn't have done?

dafuq? is that your final answer?

pro-tip: mentioning Occam's Razor is never good for an argument

Oddly enough, Sava has mastered the use of arguing without philosophy.

[Proteus_MST]

You do realize that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Gnosticism tended to downplay the physical-ness of Jesus, in fact treat the material as dirty and lesser (ironically this view has re-emerged among some flavors of Christian thinking). Their texts were more about the spirit being good and the body being bad - it was all about wonders and signs and less about the man of Jesus. Some went even farther and claimed Jesus wasn't human at all, but the spirit was made to look human.

I only use the gnostic library to illustrate how efficient the catholic church was with making scriptures vanish (hadn´t those gnostics at Nag Hammadi hidden their scriptures and hadn´t they been kept hidden till a time where the church had less influence on society, the scriptures might have been lost forever).

If we take Matthews 10 and 15 as representing the "real Jesus" (who came for the Jews and was rather unwilling to help non jews) I would assume that scriptures about the "real Jesus" would most likely have been found within parishes of messianic jews in Judaea (and not among paulinist christians, who abandoned parts of the mosaic laws (circumcision and so on) in order to be more attractive for non jews)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I tend to think that people believe ancient history is much more sourced that it actually is. For example what we know of Socrates comes from two biased sources - Plato and Xenophon. In addition he's named by Aristophenes later on.

This tends to create issues in this discussion. Historians tend to look at the evidence for a historical Jesus and say, yes, some rabbi existed in history. Though what exactly he did or did not do is up for debate. IIRC, there are more copies of New Testament manuscripts than any other historical source, by a long ways.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're going to admit defeat so easily?

If I argued that certain parts of the Gospel (including the resurrection), were not true, that would be admitting defeat. I'm blocking out Cockney's arguments contra the historical Jesus and Proteus' arguments stripping out miracles and the resurrection.

Yes, Jesus was an actual man. Yes, he did live, he did preach he did heal the sick and feed the 5000, and he did die and resurrect from the dead.

[Ben Kenobi]

I tend to think that people believe ancient history is much more sourced that it actually is. For example what we know of Socrates comes from two biased sources - Plato and Xenophon. In addition he's named by Aristophenes later on.

This tends to create issues in this discussion. Historians tend to look at the evidence for a historical Jesus and say, yes, some rabbi existed in history. Though what exactly he did or did not do is up for debate. IIRC, there are more copies of New Testament manuscripts than any other historical source, by a long ways

I already listed the example of Plutarch's Lives. This is not an obscure book and is one of the best attested ancient works. Compared with the Gospels, the Gospels and the New Testament has complete manuscripts back to 320 AD, which is a full 7 hundred years earlier than the extant manuscripts of Plutarch's Lives.

And that's not even getting into the fact that Plutarch's lives were written 400 years after Alexander. The Gospels were written 50 years after Christ.

There's really no comparison.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I only use the gnostic library to illustrate how efficient the catholic church was with making scriptures vanish (hadn´t those gnostics at Nag Hammadi hidden their scriptures and hadn´t they been kept hidden till a time where the church had less influence on society, the scriptures might have been lost forever).

If we take Matthews 10 and 15 as representing the "real Jesus" (who came for the Jews and was rather unwilling to help non jews) I would assume that scriptures about the "real Jesus" would most likely have been found within parishes of messianic jews in Judaea (and not among paulinist christians, who abandoned parts of the mosaic laws (circumcision and so on) in order to be more attractive for non jews)

There was, of course, a reason that the church catholic (there was no "Catholic Church, per se, at the time) was able to suppress those Scriptures, of course. They were distinctly minority viewpoints.

(In addition, recall that after the Gentile woman in Matthew 15 responds to Jesus, he indicates that she has great faith and was given what she desired. FWIW, Gnosticism was at the polar opposite of Messianic Jews in their views of the body, as Gnostics were heavily influenced by Platonism; so I reiterate that this line of argument is self-defeating at best)

[Ben Kenobi]

There was, of course, a reason that the church catholic (there was no "Catholic Church, per se, at the time) was able to suppress those Scriptures, of course. They were distinctly minority viewpoints.

Just as there were no popes before Constantine?

You need to read up more on the history of the Church.

[Sava]

If I argued that certain parts of the Gospel (including the resurrection), were not true, that would be admitting defeat. I'm blocking out Cockney's arguments contra the historical Jesus and Proteus' arguments stripping out miracles and the resurrection.

Yes, Jesus was an actual man. Yes, he did live, he did preach he did heal the sick and feed the 5000, and he did die and resurrect from the dead.

All humanity is descended from two people?