This is what what we’ve got so far:
Human behaviour is controlled by beings from an invisible, undetectable spiritual realm. We know this invisible, undetectable spiritual realm exists because of the effect it has on human behaviour (even if dumb old atheists can’t wrap their minds round the fact.)
Circular reasoning, not evidence.
The synoptic gospels rely on an earlier oral tradition. We know there was an earlier oral tradition because the synoptic gospels rely on it.
Circular reasoning, not evidence. (The same applies to Q.)
We know the stories about Jesus are indisputably true because they’re in the gospels that no-one at the time disputed. We know the gospels are indisputably true because they tell us stories about Jesus that at the time no-one disputed.
Circular reasoning, not evidence. There is no corroborative, independent evidence for any of the stories about Jesus. (I’ll get to the indisputable claim soon.)
rejectingjesus, 
Neil There is no corroborative, independent evidence for any of the stories about Jesus.
There is the assumption by people who were not believers that the Jesus story was historically true.
1) Josephus writes about James the brother of Jesus. He writes about Baptist.
2) The Babylonian Talmud writes about Yeshu who fits all the criteria to be a reference to Jesus (Yeshuah).
3) Celsus who writes as though Jesus was an actual man, though not as he is portrayed in the Gospels.
There are references by the church Fathers:
4) The references in the writing of the Church fathers speak of Jesus as a real historical person. See the Didache: “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
See Barnabas 5:1. “For to this end the Lord endured to deliver His flesh unto
corruption, that by the remission of sins we might be cleansed, which
cleansing is through the blood of His sprinkling.”
See 1 Clement 13:1. “most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching forbearance and long-suffering” et al.
LikeLike
I said: There is no corroborative, independent evidence for any of the stories about Jesus.
Don said: There is the assumption by people who were not believers that the Jesus story was historically true.
Me: This says the opposite of what you intend but nonetheless falsely conflates the story of Jesus and mythicism. In any case, I referred to ‘stories about Jesus’. Already you’ve set up a strawman.
Don: 1) Josephus writes about James the brother of Jesus. He writes about Baptist.
Me: And these are ‘stories about Jesus,’ how? In any case, many scholars consider the reference to Jesus’ brother as a later interpolation.
2) The Babylonian Talmud writes about Yeshu who fits all the criteria to be a reference to Jesus (Yeshuah).
The time frame of the various mentions are nowhere near Jesus’ own. It does not therefore fit ‘all the criteria’. It is not your Jesus that’s referred to, let alone any stories about him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
3) Celsus who writes as though Jesus was an actual man, though not as he is portrayed in the Gospels.
Celsus wrote between AD 170-180, long after the gospels appeared. If he wanted to write about gospel Jesus presumably he could have done as he’d have known the gospels. But, as you concede, he doesn’t.
There are references by the church Fathers:
4) The references in the writing of the Church fathers speak of Jesus as a real historical person. See the Didache: “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
The Didache was written between the end of the first century and AD 150. Its writers evidently knew the gospels. The references to them in the Didache rule it out as independent.
See Barnabas 5:1. “For to this end the Lord endured to deliver His flesh unto
corruption, that by the remission of sins we might be cleansed, which
cleansing is through the blood of His sprinkling.”
Written between 70-132, the writer is aware of Paul’s teaching if not the gospels themselves, so again this is not independent. It is a doctrinal statement (and rather an odd one at that) and is not a reference to Jesus the man or any stories about him.
See 1 Clement 13:1. “most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching forbearance and long-suffering” et al.
Written in the late 1st century. Clement had access to the synoptic gospels so again this isn’t independent.
You’ve failed, Don, to provide any external, independent evidence of the various stories of Jesus. Most of those you do, know the gospels and Paul’s teaching and make reference to them. Others are evidently not about your Jesus (the Talmud) or are vague and highly suspect (Josephus).
You seem to be arguing that Jesus was a real person, which I was not here disputing. I made the point that there was no independent, corroborative evidence for any of the stories about him, much like there isn’t for, say, Buddha or Robin Hood. Well done (deliberately?) missing the point again in order to pursue your own agenda.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No. I am reminding you of the corroborative mentions in the early literature.
The primary evidence (primary is coming from people who were there.) is of course the Gospels themselves and the testimony of those who knew Jesus. For example, the disciple whom Jesus loved in the Gospel of John who wrote the book: 21:22 Jesus said to him, “If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” 23 This saying therefore went out among the brothers, that this disciple wouldn’t die. Yet Jesus didn’t say to him that he wouldn’t die, but, “If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these things. We know that his witness is true.
Who was the disciple later wrote in 1st John 1:1That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life 2 (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us.
I think the history we have in the gospels stands the test of authenticity and reliability. Your test of corroboration by disinterested parties who observed Jesus themselves sets a bar far higher than any other person could meet who was unknown beyond a small circle in ancient times. Who remembers or wrote about my grandmother? And that has been only fifty years.
In addition, discrediting the corroboration that is available by taking the minimalist viewpoint without skepticism is disingenuous. But since your standard is designed to insulate you from taking eyewitness accounts seriously, it works for you. But it leaves you lost in the weeds.
You might try doubting your doubt and see where that takes you.
LikeLike
Come on, Don, you’re well aware that no serious scholar regards the fourth gospel (indeed, any of them) as an eye-witness account. None who thinks it was by John the disciple (see the lengthy list of works here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html). This despite the gospel’s quite dishonest claim that it is and your desperate need to believe it to be so.
Likewise, none thinks the letters attributed to John are by the same author as the gospel. You know this.
The Bible cannot be used to corroborate itself. It’s not an independent source of information about Jesus. As we’ve seen, there are next to no external, independent sources that are.
Any historian, researcher or student looks to multiple sources for corroboration or refutation of the data they’re working with. This is not setting the bar unreasonably high; it is how any academic or searcher after the truth works. That you want to protect the gospels from such a process tells us you’re well aware there isn’t any extra-biblical information to be had.
Doubt my doubts? What doubts? That Christianity fails at every point? I don’t doubt this when the evidence is on my side. Or maybe, as you imply in your other sly comment today, it’s the invisible, undetectable demons that inhabit my mind who leave me ‘lost in the weeds’. Your comments would be funny if they weren’t so insulting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am aware that SOME scholars (mostly critical scholars) do not regard the fourth Gospel as written by the Apostle John. And I think they all would be laughed out of the house by 1st century Christian.
That is the greatest enigma of modern critical scholarship. They ignore all the information they have from the first and second centuries such as Papias and Polycarp, men who John, but really virtually everyone else as well to reinvent the wheel. I think it is hubris. History means nothing to them. They have to come at the question from a distance of 2000 years as though they are the only ones who can figure it out. If that isn’t hubris, I don’t know what is.
I don’t want to protect the Gospels from critical research; I want to protect them from igitts. If they would simply credit the intelligence and the proximity of these early men to the scene, I would be kinder. But people like Bart Ehrman and James Tabor are building their own kingdom; they are selling books and becoming YouTube stars and brook no rivals.
As for demons, you must remember Ephesians 6:12 “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Paul was speaking of his clash with the silversmiths in Ephesus. The silversmiths did not “look” like they were influenced by demons, but behind their appearance and what may have seemed like a just complaint in the culture of Ephesus (they were able to work up a crowd on their side), there were dark forces that opposed what God was doing. That is as true today as ever. That is as true on the internet and YouTude as it was in Ephesus.
LikeLike
Context, Don. The writer of Ephesians, who was not Paul, makes no reference to any dispute with the silversmiths of Ephesus. He is speaking generally; whoever he was, he really believed that demons, evil powers and dark principalities swirled around him. He was quite mad in this respect. His world was defined by such fantastic beliefs, which he tried to impress on others. Thank goodness no-one in their right mind believes him today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The bible is bullshit.
If one becomes a self proclaimed bible expert, wherin lies their expertise?
Bullshit.
Bravo! {insert faux hand clap here}
I find it both difficult, and amusing, to know this is the pinnacle of some folks aspirations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil The Didache was written between the end of the first century and AD 150. Its writers evidently knew the gospels. The references to them in the Didache rule it out as independent.
Closer to the turn of the century. The church practices reflect an earlier rather than a later time. But more significantly, the Didache was the instructions of the Apostles for what we call today church discipline. The quotes are pretty much word for word Matthew especially those that come from the Sermon on the Mount.
That means whoever wrote the Didache and those who used it believed they were reading instructions from the Apostles, and of course that these men were representing the instructions of the Lord. They quoted him.
7 Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies and fast for them that persecute you;
8 for what thank is it, if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles the same? But do ye love them that hate you, and ye shall not have an enemy.
9 Abstain thou from fleshly and bodily lusts.
10 If any man give thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect;
11 if a man impress thee to go with him, one mile, go with him twain;
12 if a man take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also;
13 if a man take away from thee that which is thine own, ask it not back, for neither art thou able.
14 To every man that asketh of thee give, and ask not back;
Sound familiar?
LikeLike
And your point is? I said – and you actually quote me saying it – the Didache does not qualfy as independent corroboration of Jesus stories because its writers were well aware of the gospels and used them in the creation of the document.
Thank you for endorsing my point.
You’re not really very good at this, are you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The point was that they looked back to the Apostles AND Jesus not as mythical figures but as real men who spoke with the authority of God.
AND they were not far removed. The Didache was written for communities of Jewish believers.(It sounds more like James than Paul.) It’s theology is quite primitive compared to the theology of the second century and non-Pauline. But there were fewer and fewer communities of Jewish believers around as the church became more and more Gentile. So very early second century is the guess of most scholars.
It is like the fire marshal sifting through the ashes of a fire looking for the cause. The fire is gone, but there is no doubt there was a fire. He didn’t have to be there to see it.
LikeLike
And your point is? (How often do I have to ask this of your ‘musings’?) Is it that Christianity was burnt out by the start of the second century, as per your fire marshal metaphor?
Perhaps you are claiming that the Didache really is independent corroboration of Jesus stories, which is what we’re actually discussing. It would seem not when you concede the Didache is reliant on the gospels and, so you say, the letter of James. So, once again, not independent.
I would sometimes mark essays in which students would tell me everything they knew about children learning to read. I would have to fail them when the essay was meant to be about speech development. This is what you do, Don: fail to address the issue at hand but show off everything you know about some tangential topic.
You’re stuck in a groove objecting to the notion that Jesus didn’t exist but was entirely mythical, which is not what we’re discussing. There’s a case to be made for this position, given how contrived and, yes, mythical the stories about him are, but I repeat, this is not what we’re proposing here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are discussing how authentic the logia of Jesus in the Gospels are. right?
The question is best answered by those who knew him. Yet you consider their testimony unreliable because no one who knew him can provide “independent corroboration.” Now, I read “independent” as corroboration by someone who did not end up being convinced by his words and deeds. Or is not included in the narratives of the Gospels, for there were a lot of people who were not convinced.
The problem is that they were silenced by the overwhelming demonstration of Jesus’ authenticity as the Son of God. So, there is no one who wrote of that generation. No one we are aware of. But that does not mean there were no skeptics and enemies of the authenticity of Jesus. It simply means we have no written objections until the second century. But we do have those.
So, sometimes the testimony of your enemies is the most powerful. And that is what we have in the Babylonian Talmud and Celsus. They are certainly independent. Right? They were aware of Jesus and the claims that were being made about him.
But they had no reply, except complaints such as you make. They are not reasoned, nor are they based on facts or history. They were mere complaints. Yet they testify to the facts they attempt to refute. “Jesus was a sorcerer.” Yes, he did miracles. “He was a blasphemer. Yes. He claimed to be the Son of God. ” Jesus was born of a unclean union or rape.” Yes. He was a man born of woman. “His disciples stole his body from the tomb.” Yes. His body was not there. And so on.
So, if you will not allow his friends to speak, listen to his enemies. They are at least independent. But be as skeptical of them as you are of his friends.
LikeLike
Have you lost track again? We’re discussing all of the stories that appear in the gospels and elsewhere in the Magic Book. You can’t isolate the logia as you do and say ‘these we can be sure are the genuine words of Jesus, the surrounding narrative may be a little more suspect.’
You’re under no obligation to address our ‘complaints’, which are based on our experience of Christianity (almost everyone who comments here is an ex-Christian), the Bible itself and scholarship. Given the paucity of your arguments, your casual dismissal of well-reasoned points and evidence, together with your reliance on cliche and worn out dogma, I’d be more than happy if you didn’t bother responding at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Christ-Jesus Apologetics and Yes-Jesus Apologetics address the historical reality of a god on Earth and a man on Earth respectively. Both use the the same toolbox and source manuscripts (MSS) to argue their case.
John W. Loftus of debunking-christianity.com no longer does active counter Christ-Jesus Apologetics, saying those who reject everything he has said on the topic will never be persuaded by any novel argumentation.
Yes-Jesus Apologetics is of course promoted by Christ-Jesus devotees but also bizarrely promoted by those who are not.
LikeLike
I feel compelled on this blog to counteract, admittedly in a very small way, all the BS Christians put out there about atheism and LGBT+ people. I object too to the emotional blackmail they direct at others – ‘believe in Jesus or go to hell.’ I push back by questioning everything they say and by trying to demonstrate their faith is built on sand, namely the bible and subjective emotional experience.
Do I hope this will change their minds in any way? Yes, I hope but am realistic enough to know it probably isn’t going to. I do know, however, because they’ve told me, that my pushing back against Christian propaganda has helped people already questioning their faith to break away from it.
In my offline real life, I have Christian friends with whom I don’t discuss religion. They have a quiet, unassuming faith that helps them through their lives. They don’t preach at me, so I don’t them. They accept I live with another man – in fact they seem to enjoy spending time with us – and I appreciate their open-mindedness.
It’s different with anyone who comes here and tells me and other commenters that we are demon-infested and really need Jesus. That I have to respond to.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What you wrote about your neighbors is something the evangelicals can’t seem to get through their thick Jeebus thinking … that “evangelizing” doesn’t have to include threats of hell and damnation and/or arguments over the meaning of various scriptures and/or judgement of others’ lifestyles. Rather, a simple show of love and acceptance to those around them can accomplish FAR, FAR more towards what the believers perceive as their end goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person