• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind

Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

1. I've read the argument, and honestly its extremely unconvincing.

2. Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians quotes Acts 11:26 ..... ignatius died 108 AD ... EARLY second Century, 1st Letter of Clement quotes Acts 20:35, Celement died around 101 CE.
You can't be serious. That's not "quoting Acts." Honestly, try reading the letters yourself instead of lifting from a flaky apologist website. This is typical of the misrepresentations/exaggerations that I've come to expect from Apologists.

St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians (Lightfoot translation)

The First Epistle of Clement



Then there is Tertullian and Irenaeus.
Iraneus yes- late 2nd century. But Tertullian? Where? He's late 2nd century/early 3rd century anyway.

3. No, If I'm not mistaken Carrier believes Jesus was a myth who was narratized, a God who was narratized as a human and re-diefied later.
Or you could try watching the video I linked to or read his books as your views of what he is saying miss the mark.

4. That's the point, the awkwardness of it, and spurious Connection, makes it MUCH more likely that the early disciples re-read the OT in the context of Jesus, rather then Write a story of a Mythical God in the context of the OT, the narratives read like a history which is interperated through the OT.
I agree it's entirely possible there was an ordinary man called Jeshua and the gospel writers later made up a lot of the stories lifting key parts from the scriptures to make him "fulfil' prophecies etc. But you are off the mark if you think that Carrier is just saying people "wrote a story of a Mythical God in the context of the OT". There is far more to it and requires an understanding of the Hellenized Jewish philosophical views of the time. For example, what do you know of Philo's writings about the Logos?

5. You have to look at the archaeology of the time, Jerusalem was a temple priesthood ruled city, in the city of Jerusalem the mystery cults were not a big deal, around the area, in parts of galilee, maybe, but not in the city of Jerusalem where CHristianity started.

And actually look at the mystery cults, they don't match Christianity in anymore than a very very very vague way.
The archaeology? How about reading the works of Josephus and Philo for starters? By the way, what do you think the mystery cults actually were?

So far, your arguments aren't very convincing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

You don't even know what the claims were as your response shows you clearly didn't watch the video in the OP.

However I did watch the videos you posted - and I'm still laughing.

Your "Pastor J" dude just parrots from a piece from apologist Gary Habermas in those 5 videos. He claims there are 15 points of evidence in the Tacitus interpolation? Talk about desperate.

By they way, he actually repeats the same things about Tacitus in video 1 and 2.

Did you hear what he had to say about the Josephus interpolations? What a joke.

Gary Habermas seriously believes the Shroud of Turin is 'evidence' for Jesus? Seriously?

Even I could have come up with a better Apologist source. Somehow, I doubt you even bothered watching the videos in your own links.

Carrier is a theological, spiritually-challenged imbecile. There's probably very few historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.

Here are a couple of his asinine summaries of arguments he uses in the first chapter of his book, "Why I am not a Christian":

1. If God existed everyone would know he existed.
2. Not everyone knows God exists.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

1. If God exists he would display all the same characteristics of our fathers and friends.
2. We do not observe God demonstrating all the characteristics of our fathers and friends.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

I hope it’s not necessary to point out just how sophomoric such arguments are since there are clearly premises in these ‘arguments’ which can be rationally denied by any theist.

Unfortunately things go from bad to worse, as the book goes on, as he then decides to appeal to the logical problem of evil as a disproof for the existence of God! This is most curious since early on in the book he highly recommended a book by the atheist philosopher Nicholas Everitt called ‘The Non-existence of God’ but Everitt, in his book, makes it very clear that almost all philosophers have now agreed that the logical problem of evil has been defeated. In fact, Everitt even confesses, of the logical problem of evil, that the argument

“… does not form an explicitly contradictory set; and it would be difficult to find any atheist who thought that they did.” p.230

Carrier fails to inform the reader that the vast majority of atheist philosophers have abandoned the logical form of the argument and he gives no good reasons why it should be adopted. This is hardly surprising as it would mean having to refute Alvin Plantinga’s defeator of the problem and, as I’ve already noted, Carrier does not make a habit of engaging with professional philosophers who are theists. - More in the following link.

An analysis of Richard Carrier’s ‘Why I am not a Christian’ (Parts 1 and 2) | aRemonstrant'sRamblings

But you wolf that cr*p down like a bum on a ham sandwich.

No wonder you're lost.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

No wonder you're lost.

Lost? Where do your clairvoyant powers come from?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Carrier is a theological, spiritually-challenged imbecile. There's probably very few historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.

Here are a couple of his asinine summaries of arguments he uses in the first chapter of his book, "Why I am not a Christian":

1. If God existed everyone would know he existed.
2. Not everyone knows God exists.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

1. If God exists he would display all the same characteristics of our fathers and friends.
2. We do not observe God demonstrating all the characteristics of our fathers and friends.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

I hope it’s not necessary to point out just how sophomoric such arguments are since there are clearly premises in these ‘arguments’ which can be rationally denied by any theist.

Unfortunately things go from bad to worse, as the book goes on, as he then decides to appeal to the logical problem of evil as a disproof for the existence of God! This is most curious since early on in the book he highly recommended a book by the atheist philosopher Nicholas Everitt called ‘The Non-existence of God’ but Everitt, in his book, makes it very clear that almost all philosophers have now agreed that the logical problem of evil has been defeated. In fact, Everitt even confesses, of the logical problem of evil, that the argument

“… does not form an explicitly contradictory set; and it would be difficult to find any atheist who thought that they did.” p.230

Carrier fails to inform the reader that the vast majority of atheist philosophers have abandoned the logical form of the argument and he gives no good reasons why it should be adopted. This is hardly surprising as it would mean having to refute Alvin Plantinga’s defeator of the problem and, as I’ve already noted, Carrier does not make a habit of engaging with professional philosophers who are theists. - More in the following link.

An analysis of Richard Carrier’s ‘Why I am not a Christian’ (Parts 1 and 2) | aRemonstrant'sRamblings

But you wolf that cr*p down like a bum on a ham sandwich.

No wonder you're lost.

So you still can't address the points Carrier makes in the video in the OP? Did you not watch it or did it go over your head?

Is that why you throw around childish insults and blindly parrot someone else who also throws around childish insults and misrepresents what Carrier says in a completely different book? It's certainly fascinating to watch 'true believers' flay wildly about and go on sprees attacking strawmen when their dogma is challenged.

:D
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand". -Bertrand Russell
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

"You're a poopyhead and my friends think so too and my daddy is going to whup you and I'm going to pee in your schoolbag" arguments are not terribly convincing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

So you still can't address the points Carrier makes in the video in the OP? Did you not watch it or did it go over your head?

Is that why you throw around childish insults and blindly parrot someone else who also throws around childish insults and misrepresents what Carrier says in a completely different book? It's certainly fascinating to watch 'true believers' flay wildly about and go on sprees attacking strawmen when their dogma is challenged.

Tell you what - tell me his best 1 arguments that YOU like. Because I've seen his nonsense over the years and frankly I don't see anything from him that makes any sense.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Those who deny the existence of a historical Jesus use very similar tactics to those used by people who deny global warming or evolution. There is an overwhelming consensus in the field that Jesus did exist. If you hitch your tent to the "Jesus didn't exist" wagon, you're joining those who denounce evolution or global warming as someone who renounces the existing overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus in order to latch on to the few fringe voices who say what you want to hear. If you're comfortable with that...go for it.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

You can't be serious. That's not "quoting Acts." Honestly, try reading the letters yourself instead of lifting from a flaky apologist website. This is typical of the misrepresentations/exaggerations that I've come to expect from Apologists.

1. St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians (Lightfoot translation)

The First Epistle of Clement

From letter to the Magnesians
Seeing them that all things have an end, and
these two -- life and death -- are set before us
together, and each man shall go _to his own place;_


From acts
24 Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place[g] in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

Ignatius is citing Acts 1 here.

First Celement.
And ye were all lowly in mind and free from arrogance, yielding
rather than claiming submission, more glad to give than to
receive, and content with the provisions which God supplieth. And
giving heed unto His words, ye laid them up diligently in your
hearts, and His sufferings were before your eyes.



Acts
35 In all this I have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

So we have to options, either Acts is ripping off Ignatious, or Ignatious is Reading Acts, the same With Celement, unless With Celement they are using the same Source.

Iraneus yes- late 2nd century. But Tertullian? Where? He's late 2nd century/early 3rd century anyway.

Tertullian in "against Marcion." You want me to find the quote?

I agree it's entirely possible there was an ordinary man called Jeshua and the gospel writers later made up a lot of the stories lifting key parts from the scriptures to make him "fulfil' prophecies etc. But you are off the mark if you think that Carrier is just saying people "wrote a story of a Mythical God in the context of the OT". There is far more to it and requires an understanding of the Hellenized Jewish philosophical views of the time. For example, what do you know of Philo's writings about the Logos?

I undersand Philo's writing of the Logos being similar to the Jewish "wisdom theology" but really that only applies to Johanian writings, something which doesn't really affect the historical Jesus that much, since that relies mainly on the synoptics.

Philos writings is all over John, but not so much the synoptics.

The man Jesus was the basis of the synoptics, from which parts may have been narratized or read into, or interperated, but the so-called "fulfillment" of prophesies very often doesn't work, because the fullfilment, the NT writers wrote was not the traditional messianic understanding, what they were doing was re-Reading the OT through the lense of Jesus, not making a Jesus using the OT.

The archaeology? How about reading the works of Josephus and Philo for starters? By the way, what do you think the mystery cults actually were?

So far, your arguments aren't very convincing.

The archaeology, showing mystery cults were not really a big thing in Jerusalem.

The mystery cults were dedications to a god in which innitiates went through rituals and so on and got some secret knowledge, much closer to gnosticism than to actual historic 1rst Century Christianity.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

From letter to the Magnesians
Seeing them that all things have an end, and
these two -- life and death -- are set before us
together, and each man shall go _to his own place;_


From acts
24 Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place[g] in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

Ignatius is citing Acts 1 here.

First Celement.
And ye were all lowly in mind and free from arrogance, yielding
rather than claiming submission, more glad to give than to
receive, and content with the provisions which God supplieth. And
giving heed unto His words, ye laid them up diligently in your
hearts, and His sufferings were before your eyes.



Acts
35 In all this I have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

So we have to options, either Acts is ripping off Ignatious, or Ignatious is Reading Acts, the same With Celement, unless With Celement they are using the same Source.



Tertullian in "against Marcion." You want me to find the quote?



I undersand Philo's writing of the Logos being similar to the Jewish "wisdom theology" but really that only applies to Johanian writings, something which doesn't really affect the historical Jesus that much, since that relies mainly on the synoptics.

Philos writings is all over John, but not so much the synoptics.

The man Jesus was the basis of the synoptics, from which parts may have been narratized or read into, or interperated, but the so-called "fulfillment" of prophesies very often doesn't work, because the fullfilment, the NT writers wrote was not the traditional messianic understanding, what they were doing was re-Reading the OT through the lense of Jesus, not making a Jesus using the OT.



The archaeology, showing mystery cults were not really a big thing in Jerusalem.

The mystery cults were dedications to a god in which innitiates went through rituals and so on and got some secret knowledge, much closer to gnosticism than to actual historic 1rst Century Christianity.

Are you serious? You said "Acts ...was quoted by early second Century Church fathers as authoritative, and even Clement in the late 1st Century"

Nothing you've written is evidence for that. Mentioning a similar phrase or even an idea is not "quoting Acts" - especially when the context is different.

And as I have already said, Tertullian wrote in the late 2nd century, not the early 2nd century.

So how is any of this evidence that Acts had to have been written before end of the 1st century?
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

This is the most exhaustive, scholarly, thoroughly documented and well-respected work ever written on miracles - both in Jesus' day and today. Over 100,000 classical references. Modern miracles documented.

I doubt the skeptics will read it because they don't want the truth. They just want to bash religion and Christianity.


Miracles, 2 volumes - The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts

by: Craig S. Keener, Ph.d.


Miracles, 2 volumes | Baker Publishing Group

"Seldom does a book take one's breath away, but Keener's magisterial Miracles is such a book. It is an extremely sophisticated, completely thorough treatment of its subject matter, and, in my opinion, it is now the best text available on the topic. The uniqueness of Keener's treatment lies in his location of the biblical miracles in the trajectory of ongoing, documented miracles in the name of Jesus and his kingdom throughout church history, up to and including the present. From now on, no one who deals with the credibility of biblical miracles can do so responsibly without interacting with this book."--J. P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

"Craig Keener's magisterial two-volume study of miracles is an astounding accomplishment. The book covers far more than the subtitle implies, because Keener places the debate over the biblical miracles in many different contexts, including the philosophical debate over miracles, views of miracles in the ancient world, contemporary evidence for miracles, and the relationship of the issue to science. Although this book is clearly the product of immense learning and a mind at home in many disciplines, it is clearly written and argued and shows good sense throughout."--C. Stephen Evans, University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Baylor University

"Keener dares to accuse prevailing approaches to biblical-historical inquiry of operating according to ethnocentric prejudices and presuppositions, and then dares to make the charges stick with an avalanche of interdisciplinary arguments and evidence. He challenges us to ask--not only as persons of faith, but also as committed academicians--one of the most important questions that we can: Is the natural world a closed system after all? This monumental study combines historical inquiry into late antiquity, philosophical and existential criticism of antisupernaturalism and the legacy of David Hume's epistemological skepticism, and ethnographic study of the phenomenon of the miraculous throughout the Majority World. The result is a book that is important not only for the historical study of Jesus and the New Testament but also for our understanding of our contemporary world beyond the boundaries of our social location and its worldview."--David A. deSilva, Trustees' Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek, Ashland Theological Seminary

Endorsements there from Biola University (private evangelical christial liberal arts college) and Baylor University (private baptist college). Hmmmmm....... Pardon me if I take those with a pinch of salt. Please do let me know when you have sources that are vetted by the unbiased.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Those who deny the existence of a historical Jesus use very similar tactics to those used by people who deny global warming or evolution. There is an overwhelming consensus in the field that Jesus did exist. If you hitch your tent to the "Jesus didn't exist" wagon, you're joining those who denounce evolution or global warming as someone who renounces the existing overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus in order to latch on to the few fringe voices who say what you want to hear. If you're comfortable with that...go for it.

An overwhelming consensus in what field. The field of Christianity???

Even if Jesus were to exist there is zero evidence that he performed the actions he was said to perform. There probably was a dude running round 2000 years ago called Jesus. You may be able to find a dusty record showing that a guy called Jesus was part of some political movement in Roman times, and was maybe crucified. Is there any evidence that this Jesus was the son of god and did miracles XYZ? If you can find overwhelming consensus from an evidence based community on that then you'll find me at my nearest church.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Endorsements there from Biola University (private evangelical christial liberal arts college) and Baylor University (private baptist college). Hmmmmm....... Pardon me if I take those with a pinch of salt. Please do let me know when you have sources that are vetted by the unbiased.

I think you need to deal with the real problem you have - recognizing the truth.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Those who deny the existence of a historical Jesus use very similar tactics to those used by people who deny global warming or evolution. There is an overwhelming consensus in the field that Jesus did exist. If you hitch your tent to the "Jesus didn't exist" wagon, you're joining those who denounce evolution or global warming as someone who renounces the existing overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus in order to latch on to the few fringe voices who say what you want to hear. If you're comfortable with that...go for it.
Very poor analogy. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution and global warming. What evidence is there that there that Jesus was a real man. Even if there was a flesh and blood man called Jesus, what evidence is there of all the wondrous miracles and resurrection etc? The idea that people in the early first century initially believed Jesus was a celestial being like Philo's Logos who 'revealed' himself to people like Paul then later had all sorts of stories told about him to make him human, has existed since the beginning of Christianity.

The consensus of Christian theologians that Jesus was a real man is from religious beliefs and apologetics. The 'consensus' amongst secular historians that the gospel stories were based on a real person is from tradition and culture, not from any real evidence.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Historical evidence of 'miracles' by non-Christian gods :D

Miracles and Historical Method


 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Ten Beautiful Lies About Jesus - David Fitzgerald

 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

What evidence is there that there that Jesus was a real man.

The consensus among historians is that Jesus was a real person. There is a wealth of evidence from writings (Josephus and Tacitus) to anthropological study of the spread of Christianity. The bibliography from this wikipedia entry is probably a good place to start if you want to read up more on the topic: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The entry itself is actually pretty good too, but being wikipedia, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Even if there was a flesh and blood man called Jesus, what evidence is there of all the wondrous miracles and resurrection etc?

That's not what this topic is about. No one here is arguing about whether what he really did is what it is alleged that he did. The discussion is on whether he existed at all. There is much debate about whether he did the miracles that he is purported to have done. There are only a few fringe voices among historians of antiquity who deny that a person called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans did exist and his followers started the movement now known as Christianity.

The idea that people in the early first century initially believed Jesus was a celestial being like Philo's Logos who 'revealed' himself to people like Paul then later had all sorts of stories told about him to make him human, has existed since the beginning of Christianity.

That's simply not true. Christianity began with the person of Jesus and you can trace his mythologizing from there, not the other way around.

The consensus of Christian theologians that Jesus was a real man is from religious beliefs and apologetics. The 'consensus' amongst secular historians that the gospel stories were based on a real person is from tradition and culture, not from any real evidence.

I haven't mentioned theologians. They would not be the best sources. I am referring to historians who study antiquity. The consensus is based on the study of history, which entails the study of: literature, art, cultural movements, politics, anthropology, etc. There is a clear consensus among historians that Jesus was a real person. You can go against them and pick the few dissenting voices on the fringe while ignoring the overwhelming consensus. But don't lie to yourself about what you are doing. You are picking the fringe voices who say what you want to hear over the overwhelming consensus of experts that is telling you otherwise. Look to your right and you'll see the global warming deniers sitting with you in the "listen to fringe voices rather than the expert's consensus" tent. Look to your left and you'll find young earth creationists. Enjoy their company.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Are you serious? You said "Acts ...was quoted by early second Century Church fathers as authoritative, and even Clement in the late 1st Century"

Nothing you've written is evidence for that. Mentioning a similar phrase or even an idea is not "quoting Acts" - especially when the context is different.

And as I have already said, Tertullian wrote in the late 2nd century, not the early 2nd century.

So how is any of this evidence that Acts had to have been written before end of the 1st century?

Again, either they used a common Source, or Celemnt is quoting acts, the same With Ignatius.

Also why did Acts not describe anything that happened in the second Century, or even allude to it?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

The consensus among historians is that Jesus was a real person. There is a wealth of evidence from writings (Josephus and Tacitus) to anthropological study of the spread of Christianity. The bibliography from this wikipedia entry is probably a good place to start if you want to read up more on the topic: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The entry itself is actually pretty good too, but being wikipedia, should be taken with a grain of salt.



That's not what this topic is about. No one here is arguing about whether what he really did is what it is alleged that he did. The discussion is on whether he existed at all. There is much debate about whether he did the miracles that he is purported to have done. There are only a few fringe voices among historians of antiquity who deny that a person called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans did exist and his followers started the movement now known as Christianity.



That's simply not true. Christianity began with the person of Jesus and you can trace his mythologizing from there, not the other way around.



I haven't mentioned theologians. They would not be the best sources. I am referring to historians who study antiquity. The consensus is based on the study of history, which entails the study of: literature, art, cultural movements, politics, anthropology, etc. There is a clear consensus among historians that Jesus was a real person. You can go against them and pick the few dissenting voices on the fringe while ignoring the overwhelming consensus. But don't lie to yourself about what you are doing. You are picking the fringe voices who say what you want to hear over the overwhelming consensus of experts that is telling you otherwise. Look to your right and you'll see the global warming deniers sitting with you in the "listen to fringe voices rather than the expert's consensus" tent. Look to your left and you'll find young earth creationists. Enjoy their company.

That's the problem - there ISN'T a 'wealth of evidence' of a flesh and blood person. If you think Wikipedia is a good source for the historicity of Jesus and you don't understand the issues with Josephus and Tacitus, then you have a lot more to learn. Perhaps you didn't read my initial post. It doesn't really matter to me whether the stories were based on a real flesh and blood person or not. My point is that there really isn't any real evidence that Jesus was a flesh and blood man rather than the spiritual being that Paul describes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Again, either they used a common Source, or Celemnt is quoting acts, the same With Ignatius.

Also why did Acts not describe anything that happened in the second Century, or even allude to it?

Read you own post again. There wasn't any 'quoting' of Acts at all by Clement and Ignatius. Not even close.

Think again about your second question. If someone was wanting to write a letter as if it was written by someone in the first century- why would they reference something in the second century? Do you have any idea of the different sects in early Christianity and how much pious fraud went on, especially in the first few centuries of Christianity?
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Read you own post again. There wasn't any 'quoting' of Acts at all by Clement and Ignatius. Not even close.

Think again about your second question. If someone was wanting to write a letter as if it was written by someone in the first century- why would they reference something in the second century? Do you have any idea of the different sects in early Christianity and how much pious fraud went on, especially in the first few centuries of Christianity?

The point is there is no even "prophesy" nothing alluding to the second Century, very often psudographies claiming to be written earlier do so to make a prophetic point, or an apologetic point, there is no evidence of this in Acts.

The ONLY reason you want to push it to the second Century, is to support you're hypothesis that it used Josephus as a Source.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

The point is there is no even "prophesy" nothing alluding to the second Century, very often psudographies claiming to be written earlier do so to make a prophetic point, or an apologetic point, there is no evidence of this in Acts.

The ONLY reason you want to push it to the second Century, is to support you're hypothesis that it used Josephus as a Source.

No, I'm just trying to get to the facts. Something Apologists who claim 'overwhelming evidence' seem to avoid.

By the way, do you seriously believe Acts was written by someone who travelled with Paul?
 
Back
Top Bottom