• 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

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?

I believe it was written by the same person who wrote Luke, whether or not he travelled With Paul I don'nt know, there are differences in explinations of events from Pauls letters to Acts ... I don't know if that's just hindsight, apologetic or what. But I DO believe it was written in the first Century, in the 80s.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

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.

There is a lot of evidence. I just provided you with a list containing well over 100 resources to get you started.

When Paul preached, he spoke of the death and resurrection of Jesus. When he preached for Jewish audiences his claim was that Jesus was the Christ. He never preached about a spiritual being, he preached about a person who had been crucified and had risen from the dead.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

I haven't seen this particular lecture. He's got many more on the same topic online if anyone is interested. He also debates with William Lane Craig on the Resurrection of Jesus.

Craig also debates Richard M. Price, who also speaks on the historicity of the Bible quite a bit.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

There is a lot of evidence. I just provided you with a list containing well over 100 resources to get you started.

When Paul preached, he spoke of the death and resurrection of Jesus. When he preached for Jewish audiences his claim was that Jesus was the Christ. He never preached about a spiritual being, he preached about a person who had been crucified and had risen from the dead.

No, there isn't "a lot of evidence". You provided a link to a Wikipedia page. If that's the level you are at, you have a lot to learn about the so-called 'evidence'. You also have a lot to learn about the philosophical worldviews of Hellenised Jews in the 1st century if you think Paul actually referred to a flesh and blood Jesus.

A good place to start is the video in the OP. Or read the works of Richard Carrier, Robert M Price, Earl Doherty etc. I don't mean to be insulting, but you don't seem to be aware of what the discussion is even about.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

I believe it was written by the same person who wrote Luke, whether or not he travelled With Paul I don'nt know, there are differences in explinations of events from Pauls letters to Acts ... I don't know if that's just hindsight, apologetic or what. But I DO believe it was written in the first Century, in the 80s.

Yes it's clear that you 'believe' Acts was written in the 1st century, but why do you believe it? There is more evidence it was written in the second century than the first. It also wasn't referenced by early church fathers until at least 170AD despite the Apologist claims of Clement and Ignatius quoting it. You only have to read their letters yourself to see they didn't.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

No, there isn't a lot of evidence. You provided a link to a Wikipedia page. If that's the level you are at, you have a lot to learn about the so-called 'evidence'. You also have a lot to learn about the philosophical worldviews of Hellenised Jews in the 1st century if you think Paul actually referred to a flesh and blood Jesus.

A good place to start is the video in the OP. Or read the works of Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Earl Doherty etc. You don't seem to be aware of what the discussion is even about.

Robert Price Things paul is actually Simon Magnus, he also thinks 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is an inerpolation (With NO textual evidence, only because he needs it to fit his theory) .... There's a reason he isn't really taken seriously in biblical scholarship.

First of all, where is the evidence that paul was heavilly Hellenized, he clearly knew about greek philosophy, but he didn't really take ideas from Philo or Plato or Aristotle, he consistantly quoted the old testament, he was fully escatalogical, he was fully messianic, he did talk about a transformed body. But it was still a visable and tangable body. Greek thought was not escatological, escatology was what Paul was all about.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Yes it's clear that you 'believe' Acts was written in the 1st century, but why do you believe it? There is more evidence it was written in the second century than the first. It also wasn't referenced by early church fathers until at least 170AD despite the Apologist claims of Clement and Ignatius quoting it. You only have to read their letters yourself to see they didn't.

The Church fathers didn't Write that much before 170AD .... those 2 letterse are quoting Acts ... OR they are both quoting a common Source, either way it pushes Acts earlier.

Acts doesn't show ANY signs of being written later as it doesn't allude to anything that happens later. It has first hand knowledge of various political events at the time, some in Josephus, some not. it has evidence of eye witness testimony.

What is the evidence it was written in the second Century?

The fact is for you to push it that late you have to assume SO MUCH, not only about Acts but also about Pauls letters, and why? To fit a nonsense theory that Acts copied Josephus, a theory that has major problems anyway.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

No, there isn't a lot of evidence. You provided a link to a Wikipedia page.

Sure, but I was pointing you to the bibliography. It contains over a hundred references to useful literature on the topic.

If that's the level you are at, you have a lot to learn about the so-called 'evidence'.

Ad hominem

You also have a lot to learn about the philosophical worldviews of Hellenised Jews in the 1st century if you think Paul actually referred to a flesh and blood Jesus.

So, your argument here is that I must not know anything about the topic if I don't agree with your opinion. This, despite the fact that your opinion is a minority opinion held by only a few fringe voices among the professional community who, themselves recognize that their opinion is not widely held among experts.

If we accepted this bizarre argument that everyone who disagrees with this fringe position lacks historical perspective, we'd have to come to the conclusion that pretty much every expert in the field past and present from NT Wright and Francois Bovon to Karl Barth and John Crossan lack(ed) historical perspective.

This argument is clearly nonsensical. Accepting this argument would mean that the only people with proper historical perspective are the few fringe voices who agree with your view. Everyone else, whether researching at Harvard (like Bovon) or Oxford (like Wright) clearly lacks historical perspective.

It's pointless to discuss this with you when you don't know what the debate even is.

Ad hominem


Don't mistake an unwillingness to engage in debate with an inability to.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Robert Price Things paul is actually Simon Magnus,
No, that is a misrepresentation. Price presents an argument that some of the stories about Paul were a "sanitised version" of Simon Magus.

he also thinks 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is an inerpolation (With NO textual evidence, only because he needs it to fit his theory) .... There's a reason he isn't really taken seriously in biblical scholarship.
Again, that's a misrepresentation of Price's work. You can find his presentation of the arguments for and against it being an interpolation here:

Apocryphal Apparitions

First of all, where is the evidence that paul was heavilly Hellenized, he clearly knew about greek philosophy, but he didn't really take ideas from Philo or Plato or Aristotle, he consistantly quoted the old testament, he was fully escatalogical, he was fully messianic, he did talk about a transformed body. But it was still a visable and tangable body. Greek thought was not escatological, escatology was what Paul was all about.
You misrepresent what I wrote, but I'm not sure you would find many scholars who would say that Paul wasn't a Hellenised Jew.

But here's what some Jewish scholars think about Paul being Hellinistic:

SAUL OF TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Sure, but I was pointing you to the bibliography. It contains over a hundred references to useful literature on the topic.



Ad hominem



So, your argument here is that I must not know anything about the topic if I don't agree with your opinion. This, despite the fact that your opinion is a minority opinion held by only a few fringe voices among the professional community who, themselves recognize that their opinion is not widely held among experts.

If we accepted this bizarre argument that everyone who disagrees with this fringe position lacks historical perspective, we'd have to come to the conclusion that pretty much every expert in the field past and present from NT Wright and Francois Bovon to Karl Barth and John Crossan lack(ed) historical perspective.

This argument is clearly nonsensical. Accepting this argument would mean that the only people with proper historical perspective are the few fringe voices who agree with your view. Everyone else, whether researching at Harvard (like Bovon) or Oxford (like Wright) clearly lacks historical perspective.



Ad hominem


Don't mistake an unwillingness to engage in debate with an inability to.


No ad hominem, your posts just keep showing you don't know enough about the topic to discuss it in any meaningful way because you don't know what the arguments are. Linking to a Wikipedia page that clearly states the "neutrality of this article is disputed" is just laziness. Try watching the video in the OP for a starting point to discuss some of the points Carrier makes. Or don't - if you are unwilling to engage in discussing the issues. Not sure why you are even bothering to waste your time posting on this thread if you can't be bothered to watch the video in the OP - which is what the thread is about.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

The Church fathers didn't Write that much before 170AD .... those 2 letterse are quoting Acts ... OR they are both quoting a common Source, either way it pushes Acts earlier.
No. They weren't quoting Acts. Even your own posts claiming 'quotes' show they weren't - not even close. It's not hard to read the actual letters themselves. I provided you with links.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

No ad hominem, you just keep showing you don't know enough about the topic to discuss it. Try watching the video in the OP for starting point and discuss some of the points Carrier makes. Or don't - if you don't want to engage.

I don't have an interest in engaging that debate.

I do have an interest in pointing out where you are positioning yourself. You are positioning yourself on the side of the few voices on the fringe who say what you like and against the overwhelming consensus opinion supported by historians at every top institution from Harvard and Oxford on down. You're in the same situation as global warming deniers and young earth creationists.

In a bizarre turn of events, now you also claim anyone who doesn't see things your way must not know anything about the philosophical worldviews of hellenized Jews in the first century. Nevermind the fact that the person who wrote the definitive work on the topic (see, "The New Testament and the People of God" by NT Wright) disagrees with your view.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

No. They weren't quoting Acts. Even your own posts claiming 'quotes' show they weren't - not even close. It's not hard to read the actual letters themselves. I provided you with links.

So then its a funny coincidence that they were saying the exact same thing ....
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

I don't have an interest in engaging that debate.

I do have an interest in pointing out where you are positioning yourself. You are positioning yourself on the side of the few voices on the fringe who say what you like and against the overwhelming consensus opinion supported by historians at every top institution from Harvard and Oxford on down. You're in the same situation as global warming deniers and young earth creationists.

In a bizarre turn of events, now you also claim anyone who doesn't see things your way must not know anything about the philosophical worldviews of hellenized Jews in the first century. Nevermind the fact that the person who wrote the definitive work on the topic (see, "The New Testament and the People of God" by NT Wright) disagrees with your view.

I get it that you can't be bothered to even learn what the arguments are. You appear to just want to shut down any discussion that challenges the mainstream views with your "Wikipedia informed" comments. No-one is disputing these are not mainstream views. The whole point is to question the basis of the mainstream views.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

So then its a funny coincidence that they were saying the exact same thing ....

How on earth can you seriously claim were they saying the exact same thing when they were clearly very different? :wow:
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

I don't have an interest in engaging that debate.
That's obvious.
I do have an interest in pointing out where you are positioning yourself. You are positioning yourself on the side of the few voices on the fringe who say what you like and against the overwhelming consensus opinion supported by historians at every top institution from Harvard and Oxford on down. You're in the same situation as global warming deniers and young earth creationists.
So you think the views of mainstream Christian biblical historians are comparable to the views of mainstream scientists? Really?

In a bizarre turn of events, now you also claim anyone who doesn't see things your way must not know anything about the philosophical worldviews of hellenized Jews in the first century.
No, I said you didn't know much about the philosophical worldviews of hellenized Jews in the first century. Plenty of biblical historians do.

Nevermind the fact that the person who wrote the definitive work on the topic (see, "The New Testament and the People of God" by NT Wright) disagrees with your view.
But you're not NT Wright. And who said he wrote the 'definitive work on the topic"? There are plenty of better Christian theologians than NT Wright who would disagree with Carrier. Did you choose Wright because you read his name on that Wikipedia page? It's interesting that you ignored any of the comments about the Christian theological bias of 'mainstream' biblical historians even on your Wikipedia page.

Even Bart Erhman, who is now agnostic, doesn't agree with Carrier and I've read most of Erhman's books (not just the layman's popular ones) and respect his views, but he is still coming from a cultural/religious background where he grew up believing that Jesus was an historical flesh and blood person. It's hard to shake that and look at the evidence (or lack thereof) without that bias. I also had that bias for many years.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

That's obvious.
So you think the views of mainstream Christian biblical historians are comparable to the views of mainstream scientists? Really?

In as much as they are the consensus opinions of the experts on the topic in question, yes.

No, I said you didn't know much about the philosophical worldviews of hellenized Jews in the first century. Plenty of biblical historians do.

Then contrary to your previous statement about not resorting to ad hominem, that's exactly what you are doing.

See, if your position is that knowledge of the worldviews of hellenized jews invariably leads to an understanding that the Jesus Paul spoke of was not a physical being, that would not be an ad hominem argument. Thus I showed that plenty of people with a solid understanding of the worldviews of hellenized jews (inasmuch as any understanding we can have about the distant past can be "solid") believe that Paul was talking about a physical person.

But if you were just pretending to know things about me and saying "you don't know anything!". Well, then that's just an ad hominem. Not much I can say about that but just roll my eyes.

who said he wrote the 'definitive work on the topic"? There are plenty of better Christian theologians than NT Wright who would disagree with Carrier.

Better is a subjective term. But I'll give you that there are others who are on the same level he is. But none of them have written a book on the topic yet.

Did you choose Wright because you read his name on that Wikipedia page? It's interesting that you ignored any of the comments about the Christian theological bias of 'mainstream' biblical historians even on your Wikipedia page.

I'm not sure what your obsession with wikipedia is. I gave you the link so you could use the bibliography. I've only skimmed the actual article and specifically said to take it with a grain of salt.

I used Wright as an example because he's the one who wrote the most widely recognized work on the topic of first century Judaism. More importantly, he wrote it in order to lay the foundation for his opus on Paul, in which guess what? He portrays Paul as preaching about Jesus being a physical person.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

So you think the views of mainstream Christian biblical historians are comparable to the views of mainstream scientists? Really?

Actually, I re-read this and realize I read your statement too quickly the first time. So, I'll give a more nuanced answer now that I realize you added several adjectives ("Christian" and "biblical") to make my point less valid.

No, I think the consensus among historians of antiquity is comparable to the consensus of mainstream scientists. It isn't only Christian biblical historians who hold this view. It is historians of all faiths at all of the world's top institutions whether they specialize in biblical history or antiquity in general. It is THAT consensus I am referring to which is comparable to the consensus among scientists.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

In as much as they are the consensus opinions of the experts on the topic in question, yes.
You can't see that Christian theologians and biblical historians who are motivated and biased by their religious belief in Jesus and Christianity cannot seriously be compared to scientists who base their opinions on evolution on evidence? Really? Do you realise that many of these religious 'experts' (like NT Wright) seriously believe that the resurrection was real? These 'experts' believe Jesus was the Son of God who performed miracles and died and rose again. On what evidence? The Bible.

Then contrary to your previous statement about not resorting to ad hominem, that's exactly what you are doing.
Nope, I'm still just saying your posts show you don't know much about the worldviews of Hellenized Jews in the first century and you haven't brought up any of the points in the video in the OP so you don't seem to be aware of what the arguments are. How is that an ad hominem? It's an observation of the lack of arguments in your posts about the topic in the OP.

See, if your position is that knowledge of the worldviews of hellenized jews invariably leads to an understanding that the Jesus Paul spoke of was not a physical being, that would not be an ad hominem argument. Thus I showed that plenty of people with a solid understanding of the worldviews of hellenized jews (inasmuch as any understanding we can have
You 'showed' nothing other than dropping the names of some Christian apologist theologians from a Wiki page. Jewish, secular, or at least academically honest Christian scholars who understand the worldviews of Hellenised Jews in the first century would understand why Paul may not have been referring to a flesh and blood person.

But if you were just pretending to know things about me and saying "you don't know anything!". Well, then that's just an ad hominem. Not much I can say about that but just roll my eyes.
Well if all you've got is claims like "there is overwhelming evidence!" "Josephus and Tacitus!" and some names of some Christian theologians from a Wikipedia page and a claim that the consensus of Christian historians on the historicity of Jesus is comparable to the consensus of mainstream scientists on evolution.... perhaps you could actually watch the video in the OP so you would know what the arguments actually are - instead of just accusing me of being no better than a young earth creationist or climate science denier and rolling your eyes? :D

Better is a subjective term.
The guy seriously believes Jesus performed the miracles as written in the gospels and that the resurrection really happened - basically.....because the Bible says so. Pardon me for not blindly accepting his 'expert' opinion on historical evidence.

But I'll give you that there are others who are on the same level he is. But none of them have written a book on the topic yet.
Are you serious? :notlook:

I'm not sure what your obsession with wikipedia is. I gave you the link so you could use the bibliography. I've only skimmed the actual article and specifically said to take it with a grain of salt.
You are the one whose only source has been a Wikipedia page. Are you saying now that you didn't even really read the page?
And why would you assume I would need a Wikipedia page for a bibliography? Oh wait... you think I'd never heard of Josephus or Tacitus before you came along to 'educate' me? :ssst:

I used Wright as an example because he's the one who wrote the most widely recognized work on the topic of first century Judaism.
You're actually serious. Where did you read that? On the back cover of his book on Amazon?

More importantly, he wrote it in order to lay the foundation for his opus on Paul, in which guess what? He portrays Paul as preaching about Jesus being a physical person.
Guess what? He's a Christian theologian who believes Jesus was the Son of God, performed miracles and died and rose from the dead.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

You are the one whose only source has been a Wikipedia page. Are you saying now that you didn't even really read the page?

I referred you to the bibliography on the page, not the page itself. I said the information on the page looks good too but take it with a grain of salt.

It seems you find it necessary to twist people's words in order to debate against them. You need to change what I said about historians so that I am only referring to Christian biblical historians, when in fact my statement has been about historians of antiquity in general (regardless of faith). You need to twist the link I gave so that it appears I was recommending a wikipedia entry when in fact I was referring you to its bibliography. In referring to Wright's works you find yourself needing to reduce his arguments to "because the bible says so", when in fact that's not his argument at all.

And why would you assume I would need a Wikipedia page for a bibliography? Oh wait... you think I'd never heard of Josephus or Tacitus before you came along to educate me with a Wikipedia page? :ssst:

Because it seems you were unaware of the fact that there is a clear consensus among all historians, religious or secular, that Jesus was a real person. The very guy on the video you link to admits his opinion is a minority opinion fighting for legitimacy, the best I've ever heard him claim is that his claims are "starting to gain more credibility" (meaning that as of now, such claims are still widely considered to lack credibility), but you seem unaware of this.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

It seems you find it necessary to twist people's words in order to debate against them. .
I could point out that that is what you have done in pretty much every one of your posts in this thread, including this last post of yours. And still, you have yet to present any actual argument against the points that Carrier makes in the video in the OP (or the other links I provided). You have yet to show that you even know what the arguments are.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

Rome: An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names Iēsous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother.

The text as a whole is a narrative of the author’s return journey from Parthia to Rome that occurred in 31 AD, recorded in a highly rhetorical style of four sheets of parchment. He describes many different episodes taking place during his trip, like a a violent sandstorm in Mesopotamia and visit to a temple in Melitta (modern day Mdina, in Malta).

The part of the text that really caught M. Perrucci’s attention is an episode taking place in the city of Sebaste (near modern day Nablus, in the West Bank). The author first describes the arrival of a great leader in the town with a group of disciples and followers, causing many of the lower class people from neighbouring villages to gather around them. According to Velleius, that great man’s name was Iēsous de Nazarenus, a Greco-Latin translation of Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua haNotzri.

Upon entering town, Jesus would have visited the house of a woman named Elisheba, who had just given birth to a stillborn child. Jesus picked up the dead child and uttered a prayer in Aramaic to the heavens, which unfortunately the author describes as “immensus”, meaning incomprehensible. To the crowd’s surprise and amazement, the baby came back to life almost immediately, crying and squirming like a healthy newborn.

Many tests and analysis have been realized over the last weeks to determine the authenticity of the manuscript. The composition of the parchment and ink, the literary style and handwriting have all been carefully scrutinized and were considered to be entirely legitimate. The dating analysis also revealed that the sheepskin parchment on which the text is written, does indeed date from the 1st century of this era, more precisely from between 20-45 AD.

Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

Rome: An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names Iēsous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother.

The text as a whole is a narrative of the author’s return journey from Parthia to Rome that occurred in 31 AD, recorded in a highly rhetorical style of four sheets of parchment. He describes many different episodes taking place during his trip, like a a violent sandstorm in Mesopotamia and visit to a temple in Melitta (modern day Mdina, in Malta).

The part of the text that really caught M. Perrucci’s attention is an episode taking place in the city of Sebaste (near modern day Nablus, in the West Bank). The author first describes the arrival of a great leader in the town with a group of disciples and followers, causing many of the lower class people from neighbouring villages to gather around them. According to Velleius, that great man’s name was Iēsous de Nazarenus, a Greco-Latin translation of Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua haNotzri.

Upon entering town, Jesus would have visited the house of a woman named Elisheba, who had just given birth to a stillborn child. Jesus picked up the dead child and uttered a prayer in Aramaic to the heavens, which unfortunately the author describes as “immensus”, meaning incomprehensible. To the crowd’s surprise and amazement, the baby came back to life almost immediately, crying and squirming like a healthy newborn.

Many tests and analysis have been realized over the last weeks to determine the authenticity of the manuscript. The composition of the parchment and ink, the literary style and handwriting have all been carefully scrutinized and were considered to be entirely legitimate. The dating analysis also revealed that the sheepskin parchment on which the text is written, does indeed date from the 1st century of this era, more precisely from between 20-45 AD.

Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

This would be the first direct connection with original documentation of an eye witness other than those of the disciples. An interesting find. I wonder what else is buried in the archives of the Vatican?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

This would be the first direct connection with original documentation of an eye witness other than those of the disciples. An interesting find. I wonder what else is buried in the archives of the Vatican?

Very interesting, it will be good to hear the consensus when the manuscript is cross checked.

Maybe as much benefit will be afforded to the heretical gospels.
 
Back
Top Bottom