Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?

[jcr4runner]

Early Christianity had a whole bunch of different factions. They were divided into two groups: gnostics and literalists. The literalists believed the story of Jesus was literally true. They condemned the gnostics because the gnostics didn't. Jesus supposedly died between 30 and 35. There is no evidence of the existence of Christianity before the letters of Paul, written around 50. The original Christians knew there was no Jesus. So, the movement didn't initially grow because people believed there really was a Jesus who died and rose from the dead. [/b]

Your idea is that the Gnostics were a competing faction with Christians in the first and second centuries. This is true. I have read the writings of the Church fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian on this topic. Gnosticism was a world religion prior to Christ. The threat of Gnosticism was around from the beginning, but unlike the four Christian Gospels the Gnostic Gospels didn't begin to appear until one to three hundred years later.

The problem with your argument is that you claim that prior to 50 AD there is no evidence of Jesus in the form of written testimony. However, there is no evidence either for your claim that "the original Christians knew there was no Jesus." Using your own argument, if there are no extant Christian (or Gnostic/pseudo-Christian) writings prior to Paul, then how can you make this claim?

Paul in his Epistles refers to his "Gospel" and includes many points that are corroborated by the later written histories of the four Gospels.

If the original Christians were Gnostics, then you would expect to find wide disparities between the four Christian Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. But both agree with each other.

There are only two logical possibilities accepted by either liberals or conservatives. Here they are respectively:

1. (The liberal view) - Paul's Gospel and the later Gospel histories both came from an independent common source.

2. (The conservative view) - Paul took his Gospel from the orally preached Gospels of Peter (Mark was actually Peter's scribe) and Matthew. According to the first century Church fathers Papias and Polycarp (who was a student of the Apostle John) Paul's Gospel later became known as the Gospel of Luke, since Luke was Paul's scribe. The Gospel of John was written last.

This is also how we can know that the early pagan historians' references to Christ are based on independent records and research. If these were compiled solely from the written testimony of Christians, then we would expect to find only history that is found in the New Testament. If they were based on hearsay from Christians we would also expect to find some corruption or disagreeing accounts.

For instance, Nero's persecution is alluded to in the New Testament, but he is never named. So this is a pagan record, not a Christian invention.

Also, as I posted elsewhere, the basic facts about Jesus' life listed by Paul, the writers of the four Gospels, and the pagan testimony are in agreement.

Freke and Doherty's theory is based solely on conjecture not history. Even liberals who deny the deity of Christ, know that they are not credible historians.

Earl Doherty makes a huge assumption popular among the 19th century critics that the Gospels were not written in the first century. Most scholars now admit that they were.

He then goes on to state that none of the Gospel story appears in the Epistles.

Here is just a brief summary of the “non-narrative” evidence from Paul's Epistles that also appear the Gospel stories. Those points also attested to by non-Christian writers are marked with an asterisk.

The following is from Luke Timothy Johnson’s book, The Real Jesus:

1. Jesus was a real human person (Paul, Hebrews)*
2. Jesus was a Jew (Paul, Hebrews)*
3. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews)
4. Jesus was a descendant of David (Paul)
5. Jesus mission' was to the Jews (Paul)*
6. Jesus was a teacher (Paul, James)*
7. Jesus was tested (Hebrews)
8. Jesus prayed using the word ABBA (Paul)
9. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death (Hebrews)
10. Jesus Suffered (Paul, Hebrews, Peter)
11. Jesus interpreted his last meal with reference to his death
(Paul -- mentioned also in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus)*
12. Jesus underwent a trial (Paul)*
13. Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (Paul)*
14. Jesus death involved the Jews (Paul)*
15. Jesus was crucified (Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter)*
16. Jesus was buried (Paul)
17. Jesus appeared to witesses after death (Paul)

So it is clear to see that the most vital elements of the Gospel story appear in the Epistles.

In “The Jesus Puzzle,” Doherty then goes on to write that:

The Gospel Jesus and his story is equally missing from the non-Christian record of the time.

Ironically, what follows is the list of pagan historians who do mention Jesus. He brushes this off by claiming that they must be forgeries.

The problem is that historians do not universally consider these passages to be forgeries. In addition, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian and Celsus refer to Christ and Christians sometimes in negative terms. This is hardly the strategy for a Christian forger who is trying to gain credibility for his movement.

[jcr4runner]

It occurs to me that if Nero put Christians to death because they believed in a literal Jesus, the sovereign of the universe, then your entire argument falls apart.

There is no evidence that Tacitus has been interpolated.

Tacitus was so negative about Christians that not only is this passage credible, but he was not useful for contemporary Christian apologists. A Christian interpolation has positive things about Christians or Christ that the writer could not have said. So we do know what a Christian interpolation looks like and we know that it doesn't look like Tacitus.

What evidence (besides repeated denials) do you have to prove that Nero didn't persecute Christians?

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus described the event:

"And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Nero’s scapegoats were the perfect choice because it temporarily relieved pressure of the various rumors going around Rome. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Iudaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual." - Tacitus, Annales, xv.44

The Roman Tertullian (in a fragment quoted in Eusebius) writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence."

Eusebius, the 4th century historian, also tells us that Mark was Peter's interpreter and traveled with him to Rome in 60 A.D. During the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, the Roman authorities used a copy of Mark's Gospel as evidence to implicate the Christians as the cause of a large fire which had burned much of the city. On a papyrus scroll appeared the title: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." In the ensuing period, Christians were persecuted as scapegoats. Evidently the title of Mark's Gospel was construed as treasonous.

[jcr4runner]

According to Freke and Gandy:

“It is a completely remarkable fact … that Paul says nothing at all about the historical Jesus! He is concerned only with the crucified and resurrected Christ, whose importance is entirely mythical …. Paul’s Christ, like the Pagan’s Osiris-Dionysus, is a timeless mythical figure.” (p. 151, emphasis added).

Yet in three of Paul’s undisputed letters, Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Romans, we find Jesus Christ as a real historical person. These are Epistles that even the most extreme liberals admit that he wrote.

Here are some quick facts from those letters that also appear in the written Gospels:

1. Jesus was born a Jew (Gal. 4:4).

2. Jesus had brothers, one named James, who was alive at Paul's writing (Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 9:5)

3. Jesus was a teacher to Jews (Rom. 15:8; 1 Cor. 7:11; 9:14).

4. Jesus had 12 disciples (1 Cor. 15:5)

5. Jesus held a last supper with his disciples (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

6. Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23).

7. Jesus was crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).

[AMbomb]

It's difficult to take you seriously. Your whole tactic is to deny what historians have believed for centuries and cling to what some oddball skeptics have written in the last few years.

There are no less than seven New Testament passges condemning Gnosticism. The Apostles could not have been Gnostics.

Gnostic views of the Godhead were opposed by Paul in his writings, by Peter in his second epistle, by the Apostle John in his writings, and by the Church Fathers and apologists.

The Apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).

It’s worth noting here that the word translated as “science,” or as “knowledge” in some translations, is the Greek word gnosis. Paul is warning his young disciple Timothy against the error of Gnosticism. Likewise, the letter to the Colossians also deals with Gnosticism.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind (Colossians 2:18).

Peter’s second epistle also warns against heresies. Many scholars believe he is referring specifically to the teachings of Gnosticism.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

John’s writings were written in part to counter the Gnostic error that supposed that Christ came in spirit form only, but not in human flesh.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands (1 John 1:1).

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2).

John further condemns the “mystery religions” that had corrupted first century Jews represented by the harlot in the book of Revelation.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (Revelation 17:3,4).

Around 180 A.D., the Christian apologist, Irenaeus, wrote his great polemic, Against Heresies: The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called, dealing with Gnostic heresies. Irenaeus makes 1,819 references to New Testament scriptures.

At about the same time, Tertullian quoted the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, 1 John and the book of Revelation in arguing against Marcion the Gnostic heretic and quotes from the New Testament 7,258 times.

I didn't say all the apostles were gnostics. I only said Paul was. There's a whole chapter in The Jesus Mysteries in which the evidence that Paul was a gnostic is layed out. Gnostic sages of the early 2nd century called him "the Great Apostle." Many gnostic groups identify him as their founding father. Some gnostics even called themselves Paulicians. Paul frequently used terms and phrases from the pagan mysteries, like pneuma (spirit), gnosis (diving knowledge), doxa (glory), sophia (wisdom) and teleloi (the initiated). He advised his followers to "earnestly seek the greater charismata." The word charismata derives from the mystery term makarismos, which refers to the blessed nature of one who has seen the mysteries. He even called himself a "Steward of the Mysteries of God". And there's more. By the way, the letters to Timothy are forgeries.

[jcr4runner]

You are not thinking critically. The fact that Paul used common Greek words that the Gnostics also used does not make him a Gnostic. He does not describe anywhere the Gnostic belief that the physical world is evil. Further, the Gnostics did not think Jesus never existed. They only denied his human and physical attributes.

Of course, I don't believe the New Testament contains forgeries. That was a popular belief 100 years ago, but older texts found since that time, such as the Rylands fragement, show that the New Testament has remained remarkably unchanged.

1 Timothy refutes your argument. But other Pauline letters you ignore refute it also. We don't need the Pauline books that liberals doubt such as 1 Timothy to show that Paul was not a Gnostic. Taking only books that are universally attributed to Paul, we can show this.

What about the anti-Gnostic statements in Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, in which human attributes are imputed to Jesus? Since the Gnostics believed that Jesus was a spirit being only he could not have been born, could not have had physical brothers, and could not have been crucified. Since he had no physical body, how could any of these things occur?

What also doesn't fit is the idea that the Gnostics thought of Jesus as a myth. They believed that Jesus actually apeared, but he was God in the form of a man, rather than fully God and fully man -- as orthodox Christians believed.

Paul could not have been a Gnostic. In Galatians, he describes his theologicaal training as a Pharrisee, a sect of Judaism that had definite beliefs about the resurrection from the dead that contadicts Gnostic philosophy.

In any case, claiming that Paul was a Gnostic doesn't support the thesis that Jesus did not exist. Gnostics did not claim he never existed.

[AMbomb]

You are not thinking critically. The fact that Paul used common Greek words that the Gnostics also used does not make him a Gnostic. He does not describe anywhere the Gnostic belief that the physical world is evil. Further, the Gnostics did not think Jesus never existed. They only denied his human and physical attributes.

Of course, I don't believe the New Testament contains forgeries. That was a popular belief 100 years ago, but older texts found since that time, such as the Rylands fragement, show that the New Testament has remained remarkably unchanged.

1 Timothy refutes your argument. But other Pauline letters you ignore refute it also. We don't need the Pauline books that liberals doubt such as 1 Timothy to show that Paul was not a Gnostic. Taking only books that are universally attributed to Paul, we can show this.

What about the anti-Gnostic statements in Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, in which human attributes are imputed to Jesus? Since the Gnostics believed that Jesus was a spirit being only he could not have been born, could not have had physical brothers, and could not have been crucified. Since he had no physical body, how could any of these things occur?

What also doesn't fit is the idea that the Gnostics thought of Jesus as a myth. They believed that Jesus actually apeared, but he was God in the form of a man, rather than fully God and fully man -- as orthodox Christians believed.

Paul could not have been a Gnostic. In Galatians, he describes his theologicaal training as a Pharrisee, a sect of Judaism that had definite beliefs about the resurrection from the dead that contadicts Gnostic philosophy.

In any case, claiming that Paul was a Gnostic doesn't support the thesis that Jesus did not exist. Gnostics did not claim he never existed.

What about the fact that he referred to himself as a Steward of the Mysteries of God? And what about the favorable language in which gnostics wrote of him? Would they have done that if he was an anti-gnostic literalist? The gnostics did know that Jesus didn't exist, though, just like the followers of other mystery religions knew their godmen didn't exist. Remember the story of Jesus was originally just an allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally.

[AMbomb]

There were actually ten persecutions of Christians under ten Emperors.

1. Nero (Roman emperor AD 54–68), persecution stirred up in AD 64. In this persecution was the Apostle Paul killed and the apostle Peter crucified in Rome. This first persecution ceased under Vespasian (reigned AD 69–79).

2. Domitian (Roman emperor AD 81–96).

3. Trajan (Roman emperor AD 98–117). Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch suffered in this persecution.

4. Marcus Aurelius, his other name being Antoninus Verus (Roman emperor AD 161–180). Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and the Christian martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, two cities in France, were martyred in this persecution.

5. Septimius Severus (Roman emperor AD 193–211). This persecution extended to northern Africa, which was a Roman province.

6. Maximinus, Gaius Julius Verus (Roman emperor AD 235–238).

7. Decius (Roman emperor AD 249–251). In this persecution was Fabian martyred; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, forced into exile; and Origen imprisoned and tortured.

8. Valerian (Roman emperor AD 253–260).

9. Aurelian (Roman emperor AD 270–275).

10. Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, reigned AD 284–305) and Maximian (reigned AD 285–305) governed as emperors together. Diocletian began his furious persecution against the Christians in 303.

Not according to The Jesus Mysteries.

[AMbomb]

Early Christianity had a whole bunch of different factions. They were divided into two groups: gnostics and literalists. The literalists believed the story of Jesus was literally true. They condemned the gnostics because the gnostics didn't. Jesus supposedly died between 30 and 35. There is no evidence of the existence of Christianity before the letters of Paul, written around 50. The original Christians knew there was no Jesus. So, the movement didn't initially grow because people believed there really was a Jesus who died and rose from the dead. [/b]

Your idea is that the Gnostics were a competing faction with Christians in the first and second centuries. This is true. I have read the writings of the Church fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian on this topic. Gnosticism was a world religion prior to Christ. The threat of Gnosticism was around from the beginning, but unlike the four Christian Gospels the Gnostic Gospels didn't begin to appear until one to three hundred years later.

The problem with your argument is that you claim that prior to 50 AD there is no evidence of Jesus in the form of written testimony. However, there is no evidence either for your claim that "the original Christians knew there was no Jesus." Using your own argument, if there are no extant Christian (or Gnostic/pseudo-Christian) writings prior to Paul, then how can you make this claim?

Paul in his Epistles refers to his "Gospel" and includes many points that are corroborated by the later written histories of the four Gospels.

If the original Christians were Gnostics, then you would expect to find wide disparities between the four Christian Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. But both agree with each other.

There are only two logical possibilities accepted by either liberals or conservatives. Here they are respectively:

1. (The liberal view) - Paul's Gospel and the later Gospel histories both came from an independent common source.

2. (The conservative view) - Paul took his Gospel from the orally preached Gospels of Peter (Mark was actually Peter's scribe) and Matthew. According to the first century Church fathers Papias and Polycarp (who was a student of the Apostle John) Paul's Gospel later became known as the Gospel of Luke, since Luke was Paul's scribe. The Gospel of John was written last.

This is also how we can know that the early pagan historians' references to Christ are based on independent records and research. If these were compiled solely from the written testimony of Christians, then we would expect to find only history that is found in the New Testament. If they were based on hearsay from Christians we would also expect to find some corruption or disagreeing accounts.

For instance, Nero's persecution is alluded to in the New Testament, but he is never named. So this is a pagan record, not a Christian invention.

Also, as I posted elsewhere, the basic facts about Jesus' life listed by Paul, the writers of the four Gospels, and the pagan testimony are in agreement.

Freke and Doherty's theory is based solely on conjecture not history. Even liberals who deny the deity of Christ, know that they are not credible historians.

Earl Doherty makes a huge assumption popular among the 19th century critics that the Gospels were not written in the first century. Most scholars now admit that they were.

He then goes on to state that none of the Gospel story appears in the Epistles.

Here is just a brief summary of the “non-narrative” evidence from Paul's Epistles that also appear the Gospel stories. Those points also attested to by non-Christian writers are marked with an asterisk.

The following is from Luke Timothy Johnson’s book, The Real Jesus:

1. Jesus was a real human person (Paul, Hebrews)*
2. Jesus was a Jew (Paul, Hebrews)*
3. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews)
4. Jesus was a descendant of David (Paul)
5. Jesus mission' was to the Jews (Paul)*
6. Jesus was a teacher (Paul, James)*
7. Jesus was tested (Hebrews)
8. Jesus prayed using the word ABBA (Paul)
9. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death (Hebrews)
10. Jesus Suffered (Paul, Hebrews, Peter)
11. Jesus interpreted his last meal with reference to his death
(Paul -- mentioned also in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus)*
12. Jesus underwent a trial (Paul)*
13. Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (Paul)*
14. Jesus death involved the Jews (Paul)*
15. Jesus was crucified (Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter)*
16. Jesus was buried (Paul)
17. Jesus appeared to witesses after death (Paul)

So it is clear to see that the most vital elements of the Gospel story appear in the Epistles.

In “The Jesus Puzzle,” Doherty then goes on to write that:

The Gospel Jesus and his story is equally missing from the non-Christian record of the time.

Ironically, what follows is the list of pagan historians who do mention Jesus. He brushes this off by claiming that they must be forgeries.

The problem is that historians do not universally consider these passages to be forgeries. In addition, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian and Celsus refer to Christ and Christians sometimes in negative terms. This is hardly the strategy for a Christian forger who is trying to gain credibility for his movement.

If there really was a Jesus, why didn't anyone write about him until 15 to 20 years after he died? If 500 people had witnessed him walking around after he'd been executed, wouldn't somebody have written something about it right after it happened?

[jcr4runner]

1 Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul's letters written about 50 A.D.

The letters of Paul are easy to date because we have the order of Paul's journeys recorded in Acts and the historical events surrounding them. It's possible to synchronize the dates of the letters to the three missionary journeys of Paul within a year or two after his visits.

The Gospels are harder to date. Liberals used to try to put all the Gospels in the mid second century. But then the Rylands fragment was discovered, which some think is from the late first cetnury or at the latest the early second century. Although it is just a scrap of papaer, it shows that the Gospel of John existed far earlier than liberals suppose.

It's impossible to say that the Gospels were not written earlier than the dates I've given below. We can know for a fact that the second century dates are wrong. Some have hypothesized a "Q" Gospel that existed prior to Mark. I don't accept this idea, because it is unprovable. The Jews had a thriving oral tradition, so it is more likely that the "Gospel" was a spoken eyewitness account of Jesus' Apostles for many years prior to it being written. But most Old Testament books were like that and even more so.

So let's say that John was the last Gospel written -- about 90 A.D. -- that would be the latest date. In order for the Rylands fragment to exist in the earrly second century, it would have to have circulated for a few decades. It is then not a stretch to say that the three synoptic Gospels were written in the following order:

Mark by the early 60s
Matthew in the mid-60s
Luke (using Matthew and Mark as sources) a few years later

There are also several late first century documents that quote extensively from the New Testament, such as the Didache. While these are not closer to the fact, they show that the New Testament had proliferated many years prior to the dates proposed by those who tried to put them in the second century.

Let's face it, if you don't accept the existence of Jesus from the testimony of these documents, then you would have to doubt the existence of most figures from ancient times.

Most ancient figures have no extant texts for at least several centuries after their deaths.

In the Rylands fragment we have an existing text that is closer to Jesus than any other person from this time period.

[jcr4runner]

What about the fact that he referred to himself as a Steward of the Mysteries of God? And what about the favorable language in which gnostics wrote of him? Would they have done that if he was an anti-gnostic literalist? The gnostics did know that Jesus didn't exist, though, just like the followers of other mystery religions knew their godmen didn't exist. Remember the story of Jesus was originally just an allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally.

The word "mystery" appears twenty eight times in the New Testament. The Greek word "musterion," translated "mystery" did not mean something that is obscure or incomprehensible; rather it meant a truth given and revealed only to a select few that was unknown until it was revealed.

Now the Gnostics also taught that there are special secrets that God only gives to a select few. Only those initiated into the group learned the secrets and after initiation the mystery was revealed. But the difference in the Christian conception of the word is that these are mysteries made known to the whole world.

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Romans 16:25-26).

The chief use of the word "mysteries" in the New Testament was by Paul. He used the term "mystery" to refer to some operation or plan of God that had not hitherto been revealed. It is never used to carry the idea of a secret to be withheld, but of one to be published in time.

For example look at 1 Thess. 4:13-18 which reveals the coming resurrection of the Body of Christ. It reveals to us the basic event, but not all the details.

Paul says, "by the Scriptures ... the mystery is made known to all nations."

The biblical idea of a "mystery" is something made known to all nations! A mystery is any truth that God has revealed for all to understand. This is the exact opposite of Gnosticism which teaches "secret knowledge" made known only to a few.

In fact, you will find that every time the word "mystery" is used in the New Testament, the writer is speaking of a mystery revealed.

See this article for more:

http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-intro.htm

[AMbomb]

1 Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul's letters written about 50 A.D.

The letters of Paul are easy to date because we have the order of Paul's journeys recorded in Acts and the historical events surrounding them. It's possible to synchronize the dates of the letters to the three missionary journeys of Paul within a year or two after his visits.

The Gospels are harder to date. Liberals used to try to put all the Gospels in the mid second century. But then the Rylands fragment was discovered, which some think is from the late first cetnury or at the latest the early second century. Although it is just a scrap of papaer, it shows that the Gospel of John existed far earlier than liberals suppose.

It's impossible to say that the Gospels were not written earlier than the dates I've given below. We can know for a fact that the second century dates are wrong. Some have hypothesized a "Q" Gospel that existed prior to Mark. I don't accept this idea, because it is unprovable. The Jews had a thriving oral tradition, so it is more likely that the "Gospel" was a spoken eyewitness account of Jesus' Apostles for many years prior to it being written. But most Old Testament books were like that and even more so.

So let's say that John was the last Gospel written -- about 90 A.D. -- that would be the latest date. In order for the Rylands fragment to exist in the earrly second century, it would have to have circulated for a few decades. It is then not a stretch to say that the three synoptic Gospels were written in the following order:

Mark by the early 60s
Matthew in the mid-60s
Luke (using Matthew and Mark as sources) a few years later

There are also several late first century documents that quote extensively from the New Testament, such as the Didache. While these are not closer to the fact, they show that the New Testament had proliferated many years prior to the dates proposed by those who tried to put them in the second century.

Let's face it, if you don't accept the existence of Jesus from the testimony of these documents, then you would have to doubt the existence of most figures from ancient times.

Most ancient figures have no extant texts for at least several centuries after their deaths.

In the Rylands fragment we have an existing text that is closer to Jesus than any other person from this time period.

Most ancient figures weren't supposedly seen walking around after they'd been executed! One would think that that would be a sufficiently out of the ordinary occurrence to prompt somebody to write about it right away. :lol:

[AMbomb]

What about the fact that he referred to himself as a Steward of the Mysteries of God? And what about the favorable language in which gnostics wrote of him? Would they have done that if he was an anti-gnostic literalist? The gnostics did know that Jesus didn't exist, though, just like the followers of other mystery religions knew their godmen didn't exist. Remember the story of Jesus was originally just an allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally.

The word "mystery" appears twenty eight times in the New Testament. The Greek word "musterion," translated "mystery" did not mean something that is obscure or incomprehensible; rather it meant a truth given and revealed only to a select few that was unknown until it was revealed.

Now the Gnostics also taught that there are special secrets that God only gives to a select few. Only those initiated into the group learned the secrets and after initiation the mystery was revealed. But the difference in the Christian conception of the word is that these are mysteries made known to the whole world.

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Romans 16:25-26).

The chief use of the word "mysteries" in the New Testament was by Paul. He used the term "mystery" to refer to some operation or plan of God that had not hitherto been revealed. It is never used to carry the idea of a secret to be withheld, but of one to be published in time.

For example look at 1 Thess. 4:13-18 which reveals the coming resurrection of the Body of Christ. It reveals to us the basic event, but not all the details.

Paul says, "by the Scriptures ... the mystery is made known to all nations."

The biblical idea of a "mystery" is something made known to all nations! A mystery is any truth that God has revealed for all to understand. This is the exact opposite of Gnosticism which teaches "secret knowledge" made known only to a few.

In fact, you will find that every time the word "mystery" is used in the New Testament, the writer is speaking of a mystery revealed.

See this article for more:

http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-intro.htm

Steward of the Mysteries of God was the technical name for a priest in the mysteries of Serapis. And what about the favorable language in which the gnostics wrote of him? What about his claim to have ascended to the third heaven? The gnostics believed in 7 heavens. How many do you believe in?

[revrosado]

Assume means literally to take up to heaven.
You are using assume as in suppose, or "supposing God".

You are PRE-suming that God does not exist.

Presume means to declare something BEFORE or WITHOUT considering ALL the available factors.

I rather summate God. I gather from all available data, science, and reasonable elements that God does indeed exist.

The difference is that I see a photograph and summate there to be a photographer. You see a photograph and you believe it to be reality.

This question is the selfsame issue being debated right now among the leading physicists, cosmologists, et al.

If my communication is difficult for you than how can you await God to show himself to you - if He did, would you comprehend His manifestation? You cannot see beyond the veil. You say you want evidence. How can you want evidence of God? Evidence is to bring to one's sight - e - video. God is Spirit. He is not a physical entity. Physical things are subject to the laws of thermodynamics - hence change and time. God is eternal. He is outside our reality. You cannot e-video anything about God. God is beyond your basic standard of proof.

God must be reasoned! And for this reasoning one must possess vast knowledge of many areas of science and mathematics. That is as close you can ever get to e-video of God. Your proof is available but unfortunately you are ill-equipped to summate as yet.

If my words are too difficult to understand - then forget about seeking evidence of God - you need to have faith. You do not qualify to reason God - so have faith! If you lack faith then one is hardly tracking in spiritual IQ meter.

You assume you can comprehend the evidence of God if it were.

[AMbomb]

Assume means literally to take up to heaven.
You are using assume as in suppose, or "supposing God".

You are PRE-suming that God does not exist.

Presume means to declare something BEFORE or WITHOUT considering ALL the available factors.

I rather summate God. I gather from all available data, science, and reasonable elements that God does indeed exist.

The difference is that I see a photograph and summate there to be a photographer. You see a photograph and you believe it to be reality.

This question is the selfsame issue being debated right now among the leading physicists, cosmologists, et al.

If my communication is difficult for you than how can you await God to show himself to you - if He did, would you comprehend His manifestation? You cannot see beyond the veil. You say you want evidence. How can you want evidence of God? Evidence is to bring to one's sight - e - video. God is Spirit. He is not a physical entity. Physical things are subject to the laws of thermodynamics - hence change and time. God is eternal. He is outside our reality. You cannot e-video anything about God. God is beyond your basic standard of proof.

God must be reasoned! And for this reasoning one must possess vast knowledge of many areas of science and mathematics. That is as close you can ever get to e-video of God. Your proof is available but unfortunately you are ill-equipped to summate as yet.

If my words are too difficult to understand - then forget about seeking evidence of God - you need to have faith. You do not qualify to reason God - so have faith! If you lack faith then one is hardly tracking in spiritual IQ meter.

You assume you can comprehend the evidence of God if it were.

This message is on the wrong thread. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.

[revrosado]

The question of the Historicity of Jesus has long been established - both in this thread and on this planet.

It only continues in the light of ignorance of the saliency of Jesus Christ.

The bottom line is this: We shall all come before Jesus on that final day and final hour - then you shall have your history lesson and all the other lessons in one standing.

You play poker?