The Missing Man

[melodious]

I'm sure it has been hashed out dozens of times on other threads, but I would like to "resurrect" the topic once again with a helpful outline as an introduction. Here I shall present an excerpt of the conclusive points out of chapter 7, "The Missing Man" from Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's erudite thesis entitled "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?":-s

It is my belief that if you can prove that Jesus is not a historical person, you pretty well have the fundamentalist/literalist carnalizing, fetishizing, feverish Christians by the ... you get the picture.

Like countless scholars who have made this quest before us, we have found that looking for a historical Jesus is futile. It is astonishing that we have no substantial evidence for the historical existence of a man who is said to have been the one and only incarnation of God throughout all history. But the fact is we do not. So, what have we got?

• > A few mentions of "Christians" and followers of someone called Crestus among all the extensive histories of the Romans
  
  > Some fake passages in Josephus among all the substantial histories of the Jews
  
  > A handful of passages from among the vast literature of the Talmud, which tell us that a man called Yeshu existed and had five disciples called "Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, and Toadah"
  
  > Four anonymous gospels that do not even agree on the facts of Jesus' birth and death
  
  > A gospel attributed to Mark written somewhere between 70 and 135 CE, which is not even meant to be an eyewitness account and certainly isn't from its ignorance of Palestinian geography and the fact that it misquotes Hebrew scripture
  
  > Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke, which are independently based on Mark and give entirely contradictory genealogies
  
  > A gospel attributed to John, which was written some time after the other three and certainly not by the disciple John
  
  > The names of 12 disciples for whom there is no historical evidence
  
  > The Acts of the Apostles, which reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Hebrew Old Testament, contradicts Paul's letters, and was not written until the second half of the second century
  
  > A selection of forged letters attributed to Peter, James, John, and Paul
  
  > A few genuine letters by Paul, which do not speak of a historical Jesus at all, but only of a mystical dying and resurrecting Christ
  
  > A lot of evidence which suggests that the New Testament is not a history of actual events, but a history of the evolution of Christian mythology

Maybe (if we realy want to believe it), something of this could (perhaps) be evidence of a historical Jesus. This cannot be ruled out. But the evidence that suggests that Jesus is a mythical figure is so compelling that we will need something far more substantial than any of this to undermine it.
- Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy from The Jesus Mysteries

Question for debate: Is Jesus a historical person or is he a mythical figure of a dying and resurrecting godman like Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, Attis, Serapis, Tammuz, Krishna, Prometheus, Mithra, etc.?

[Cathar1950]

Does anyone else see the irony of a debate between a Jewish Agnostic and an Atheist regarding the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Don't any of the true believers in Jesus Christ have anything to say, any evidence that their god-man was real?

The atheist is taking the position that the man Jesus existed while the other is taken the position that the man didn't. Of course I think both positions are position that are possible as Lotan admits he doesn't know and I am sure Goat would agree. I am not sure that an out right.
I mean both would admit they don't know.
There just isn't enough information to say with any certainty that either position is right or wrong as we have little information that doesn't go back to later communities of believers and those that collected the writing while eliminating others that didn't take the proto-orthodox position.
Granted we have recovered lost writings that have shed some light on the situation but even the writings at best date back as far as the ones we have had.
Early on there was a variety of positions or schools.
I think most of us that have posed agree that if the man did exist he was not half god and half man and not fully god and fully human.
Was Augustus the "son of god" and savior of the world?

[Lotan]

You keep on making claims…

So do you.

Here are my claims…
A) The testimonium is incidental to the argument for Jesus’ historicity at best.
B) Expert opinion argues for it’s (partial) authenticity…
C) The Antiquities 20 reference is "…considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars."
D) You might think it’s bunk, I honestly don’t know.
E) Not everyone agrees that it’s "the exact same phrase" anyway, and even if it was, how many ways are there to say 'Brother of the one called Christ'?

…however, you can't back those claims up with anything but Excuses.

Here are my "Excuses"…

A) While the TF might be interesting, the strongest evidence for HJ comes from Paul. If Josephus does in fact mention Jesus then that is positive evidence for an HJ. If both references are counterfeit, that is NOT evidence against an HJ – at best you would then have an argument from silence.

B) This "Excuse" comes from the apologetics website of Christopher Price. He says…

"A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus."

Now, maybe you don’t think that’s true because of an ad hom bias against apologists (and who could blame you?) so Price includes the opinions of liberal Christians, Atheists, and Jews, as well…

"Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249)."

"According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91)."

In case you don’t trust that (since Price is a Christian, he may have invented those quotes), here’s the same "Excuse" from a more secular source…

"The consensus in 2004 is that the passage is mainly genuine, but has suffered corruption, whether deliberate or accidental. Some apologists maintain that only some of the section are interpolations. However a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers." – from here.

Instead of complaining so much, why don’t you just post your counterevidence? Please show us all that expert opinion does not favor the authenticity of the Josephus passages. Go ahead, don’t be shy…

C) This "Excuse" comes from Wikipedia, but I’m sure that I could find another source, if you think it’s the work of apologist interpolators. As with the last "Excuse", all you have to do is provide some evidence that it’s not considered authentic by almost all experts. That should be easy enough, so please show us the evidence. (Don’t make excuses!)

D) This "Excuse" is a bit tricky because it relies on my own personal opinion - read my (virtual) lips – I don’t know.

Josephus might have mentioned Jesus, he might not have. I don’t know, and neither do you. Nobody knows. There are arguments, and counterarguments, and no position is conclusive. Therefore Josephus is worthless as evidence for/against an HJ. I’ve been saying that since Post 17, and yet you still expect me to defend it? It’s not even on-topic. Oy veh!

E) Here we have what you describe as "the exact same phrase" from Antiquities 20 and Matthew 1:16…

tou legomenou Christou - Josephus
ho legomenos Christos – Matthew

Incredibly, they are [strike]exactly the same[/strike] similar!

You haven’t answered my question BTW, so I’ll just ask again (not holding my breath waiting for an answer) - how many ways are there to say 'Brother of the one called Christ' in koine? There must be thousands, for this amazing similarity to be significant.

Mine might not be correct, but you have not shown your excuses to be reasonable at all.

And you are now the arbiter of reason?
What you like to call "excuses", a less biased observer might call scholarly arguments. I’ve posted two of them – One from L. Michael White, and one from Stuart Robertson. They are in response to your lament…

One question that I have asked that repeated gets brushed aside is why didn't Orgein use it, when he was discussing how Josephus showed part of the scriptures to be true when talking about John the Baptist just several paragraphs before?

…where you imply that this question doesn’t get addressed. The examples I provided are merely to show you that it has been addressed, that’s all. Your opinion of these arguments means nothing to me.

I know you swallowed the irrational explanations of the christian apologists...

Like Paula Fredrikson? Jeff Lowder? How about Richard Dawkins? If you’re referring to the two scholarly arguments just mentioned, be assured that I have no opinion about their merits or lack of – I only posted them to show that they exist.

…but you still have not come up with any evidence for the TF existing before the 4th century, just excuses why you can't show it did.

Like a broken record. Please try to understand – I am not trying to show that the TF existed before the 4th century. I’ve already said "I DON’T KNOW" more times than I can count. Can you comprehend that?

In case you have forgotten, here’s the debate question for this thread…

Is Jesus a historical person or is he a mythical figure of a dying and resurrecting godman like Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, Attis, Serapis, Tammuz, Krishna, Prometheus, Mithra, etc.?

(No mention of Josephus, you’ll notice.)

My position is that Jesus was an historical figure. (as I’ve already stated.)
That position is not based on the writings of Josephus. (as I’ve already stated.)
I don’t know if Josephus mentioned Jesus or not. (as I’ve already stated.)
If he didn't, that doesn't rule out an historical Jesus. (as I've already stated.)

If you want to talk about Josephus, why don’t you start another thread, and find someone who’s interested in that subject – I’m not.

[Lotan]

I think we can all agree that Acts is of little help and Paul is questionable and tells us little.

I would argue that Paul tells us enough to establish Jesus’ human existence.

Of the 13 letters attribute to Paul only 7 seem to be genuine and we can not say for certain there was a Paul or that he wrote the 7.

We know that it was common enough to attribute forgeries to other people. Odd if the forgers sought to attribute their works to someone who didn’t exist. Is there any positive evidence that Paul didn’t exist either, or just ‘conspiracy theories’?

We even suspect some of Paul’s writings may suffer from editing including James Peter and the 500 witnesses.

Could you expand on this? I realize that Paul’s letters may have been doctored here and there, but it sounds like you’re talking about the kerygma. My understanding is that Paul received it and modified it himself.

I have read theories that Jesus was a title and there were any number of possible historical persons behind the myths including John the Baptist, the Egyptian and Judas the Galilean.

How about Jesus was a time-traveling reptile from Mars? There are theories, and there are theories – they are not all equal. The best ones are those that account for the evidence the most.

…Lotan admits he doesn't know…

Lotan admits that he doesn’t know whether Josephus mentioned Jesus or not. Lotan is quite certain that there was an historical Jesus.

There just isn't enough information to say with any certainty that either position is right or wrong as we have little information that doesn't go back to later communities of believers and those that collected the writing while eliminating others that didn't take the proto-orthodox position.

There is enough information if one doesn’t dismiss Paul out of hand. There is no reason that I can see not to take him at his word, especially when that word is embarrassing to him. An HJ is the simplest explanation.

[Lotan]

Does anyone else see the irony of a debate between a Jewish Agnostic and an Atheist regarding the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

Is irony the opposite of wrinkly? I don’t think it’s ironic at all. As I told melodious, "It’s an historical question, not a religious one."

Don't any of the true believers in Jesus Christ have anything to say, any evidence that their god-man was real?

Please, don’t encourage them.

[Goat]

You keep on making claims…

So do you.

Here are my claims…
A) The testimonium is incidental to the argument for Jesus’ historicity at best.
B) Expert opinion argues for it’s (partial) authenticity…
C) The Antiquities 20 reference is "…considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars."
D) You might think it’s bunk, I honestly don’t know.
E) Not everyone agrees that it’s "the exact same phrase" anyway, and even if it was, how many ways are there to say 'Brother of the one called Christ'?

…however, you can't back those claims up with anything but Excuses.

Here are my "Excuses"…

A) While the TF might be interesting, the strongest evidence for HJ comes from Paul. If Josephus does in fact mention Jesus then that is positive evidence for an HJ. If both references are counterfeit, that is NOT evidence against an HJ – at best you would then have an argument from silence.

B) This "Excuse" comes from the apologetics website of Christopher Price. He says…

"A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus."

Now, maybe you don’t think that’s true because of an ad hom bias against apologists (and who could blame you?) so Price includes the opinions of liberal Christians, Atheists, and Jews, as well…

"Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249)."

"According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91)."

In case you don’t trust that (since Price is a Christian, he may have invented those quotes), here’s the same "Excuse" from a more secular source…

"The consensus in 2004 is that the passage is mainly genuine, but has suffered corruption, whether deliberate or accidental. Some apologists maintain that only some of the section are interpolations. However a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers." – from here.

Instead of complaining so much, why don’t you just post your counterevidence? Please show us all that expert opinion does not favor the authenticity of the Josephus passages. Go ahead, don’t be shy…

C) This "Excuse" comes from Wikipedia, but I’m sure that I could find another source, if you think it’s the work of apologist interpolators. As with the last "Excuse", all you have to do is provide some evidence that it’s not considered authentic by almost all experts. That should be easy enough, so please show us the evidence. (Don’t make excuses!)

D) This "Excuse" is a bit tricky because it relies on my own personal opinion - read my (virtual) lips – I don’t know.

Josephus might have mentioned Jesus, he might not have. I don’t know, and neither do you. Nobody knows. There are arguments, and counterarguments, and no position is conclusive. Therefore Josephus is worthless as evidence for/against an HJ. I’ve been saying that since Post 17, and yet you still expect me to defend it? It’s not even on-topic. Oy veh!

E) Here we have what you describe as "the exact same phrase" from Antiquities 20 and Matthew 1:16…

tou legomenou Christou - Josephus
ho legomenos Christos – Matthew

Incredibly, they are [strike]exactly the same[/strike] similar!

You haven’t answered my question BTW, so I’ll just ask again (not holding my breath waiting for an answer) - how many ways are there to say 'Brother of the one called Christ' in koine? There must be thousands, for this amazing similarity to be significant.

Mine might not be correct, but you have not shown your excuses to be reasonable at all.

And you are now the arbiter of reason?
What you like to call "excuses", a less biased observer might call scholarly arguments. I’ve posted two of them – One from L. Michael White, and one from Stuart Robertson. They are in response to your lament…

One question that I have asked that repeated gets brushed aside is why didn't Orgein use it, when he was discussing how Josephus showed part of the scriptures to be true when talking about John the Baptist just several paragraphs before?

…where you imply that this question doesn’t get addressed. The examples I provided are merely to show you that it has been addressed, that’s all. Your opinion of these arguments means nothing to me.

I know you swallowed the irrational explanations of the christian apologists...

Like Paula Fredrikson? Jeff Lowder? How about Richard Dawkins? If you’re referring to the two scholarly arguments just mentioned, be assured that I have no opinion about their merits or lack of – I only posted them to show that they exist.

…but you still have not come up with any evidence for the TF existing before the 4th century, just excuses why you can't show it did.

Like a broken record. Please try to understand – I am not trying to show that the TF existed before the 4th century. I’ve already said "I DON’T KNOW" more times than I can count. Can you comprehend that?

In case you have forgotten, here’s the debate question for this thread…

Is Jesus a historical person or is he a mythical figure of a dying and resurrecting godman like Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, Attis, Serapis, Tammuz, Krishna, Prometheus, Mithra, etc.?

(No mention of Josephus, you’ll notice.)

My position is that Jesus was an historical figure. (as I’ve already stated.)
That position is not based on the writings of Josephus. (as I’ve already stated.)
I don’t know if Josephus mentioned Jesus or not. (as I’ve already stated.)
If he didn't, that doesn't rule out an historical Jesus. (as I've already stated.)

If you want to talk about Josephus, why don’t you start another thread, and find someone who’s interested in that subject – I’m not.

Whoopie, you didn't answer my objections at all , ever about Josephus, but you DID use the logical fallacy of 'arguement by popularity'. Let's disregard that though, and just ignore Josephus, since you aren't bothering to read what I wrote, and answer my objections to both Antiquities 20 and Antiquities 18. However, you
did not answer my point that Josephus very carefully avoided the concept of the
Jewish Messiah, and the term 'Christ' would have had no meaning to his audience without knowledge of anointment (or wetter as Christ is literally in Latin).

All your sources other than that from before the second century (since you are insisting that Josephus is incidental, and I agree, because he is just to far away in time and location to be a source about a historical Jesus anyway), is the Christian writings. These writings have been modified and filtered through hundreds of years of bias and redacting.

Now, since the Gospels were written after the Jewish revolt, and decades later, that leaves the letters from Paul.

Paul never met the fleshly Jesus. The Christian story (I accept it might be pure fiction) is that he had a vision. There is a lot of rhetoric from him, but no indication of a real person. The only information imparted is
"He was born of woman", "he was of the line of King David" , and he 'Died but then appeard to Cephus and the 12'

Now, all those have pure elements of myth.. the expected Messiah from the line of David, the appocolyptic dying and rising etc etc. Just bare bones claims that sound like it comes from Jewish expectations, or at least some of the appocylptic style jews expectations.

[Cathar1950]

I think we can all agree that Acts is of little help and Paul is questionable and tells us little.

I would argue that Paul tells us enough to establish Jesus’ human existence.

The letter might indicate the human existence of Jesus but we can’t be sure of Paul or validity of the letters. What if Jesus was a title such as Savior?

There are no copies or even pieces of his letter before the 3rd century well after the battle between the proto-orthodox and Marcion that raged for centuries. Given unacceptable writings were destroyed by law along with those that had them after the church had the favor of Constantine we can’t say what was lost or what was edited by the Orthodox Church beginning in the fourth century. It is not an argument from silence when there is nothing but propaganda left.
I found it interesting that Josephus writes about Jesus where he is suppose to tell us about Judas the Galilean. But I am getting ahead of myself I often get ahead of myself even if I am behind everyone else.

Of the 13 letters attribute to Paul only 7 seem to be genuine and we can not say for certain there was a Paul or that he wrote the 7.

We know that it was common enough to attribute forgeries to other people. Odd if the forgers sought to attribute their works to someone who didn’t exist. Is there any positive evidence that Paul didn’t exist either, or just ‘conspiracy theories’?

There are ‘conspiracy theories’ and there are possibilities. Are you saying there was no ‘conspiracy� to control what was deemed acceptable and not acceptable writings?

We even suspect some of Paul’s writings may suffer from editing including James Peter and the 500 witnesses.

Could you expand on this? I realize that Paul’s letters may have been doctored here and there, but it sounds like you’re talking about the kerygma. My understanding is that Paul received it and modified it himself.

That is one theory.
Ijust moved and all my books are still in boxes. I don’t want to put them up until I get the carpet in so I am forced to use what I have read on the internet.
Robert price has a little article that does explain some of the problems.
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

Apocryphal Apparitions:
1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation
Robert M. Price

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations."4 Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that
the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.5

Versus Galatians
THE phrase "in which terms we preached to you the gospel" in 1 Cor. 15:1 must be remembered in what follows. The list of appearances is not simply some interesting or important lore Paul passed down somewhere along the line during his association with the Corinthians. This is ostensibly the Pauline gospel itself, the Pauline preaching in Corinth. "Behind the word 'gospel' in St. Paul we cannot assume a formula, but only the very preaching of salvation" (Dibelius).16
Again, v. 2 makes clear that what follows is not just a helpful piece of apologetics but rather the saving message itself. The phrases "if you hold it fast" and "unless you believed in vain" are not antithetical parallels. Rather, the latter means "unless this gospel is false," as the subsequent argument (vv. 14, 17) shows.
The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition.17 That Paul should have delivered the following tradition poses little problem; but that he had first been the recipient of it from earlier tradents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable for Pauline authorship. Let us not seek to avoid facing the force of the contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from earlier tradents and the protestation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive it from man." If the historical Paul is speaking in either passage, he is not speaking in both.

I have read theories that Jesus was a title and there were any number of possible historical persons behind the myths including John the Baptist, the Egyptian and Judas the Galilean.

How about Jesus was a time-traveling reptile from Mars? There are theories, and there are theories – they are not all equal. The best ones are those that account for the evidence the most. .

What evidence?
I like the “time-traveling reptile from Mars� but that is a little silly because we all know he was Ea or even one of his sons.
Judas the Galilean had brothers with similar names and sons or grandsons with the names of Simon and Jacob or James which were killed by Herod about the time one of the James was killed and Peter arrested in Acts. It is very possible the gospels are a garbled history. Mark creates a saga and Luke and Matthew follow his lead not knowing much more then the author of Mark.

…Lotan admits he doesn't know…

Lotan admits that he doesn’t know whether Josephus mentioned Jesus or not. Lotan is quite certain that there was an historical Jesus.

I wish I had Lotan’s certainty. I bet many apologists agree.
It is fun that we can both talk about you in the third person.

There just isn't enough information to say with any certainty that either position is right or wrong as we have little information that doesn't go back to later communities of believers and those that collected the writing while eliminating others that didn't take the proto-orthodox position.

There is enough information if one doesn’t dismiss Paul out of hand. There is no reason that I can see not to take him at his word, especially when that word is embarrassing to him. An HJ is the simplest explanation.

When Paul says he takes some by deceit and is always protesting he isn’t lying, I don’t think it is asking to much to be skeptical of Paul’s accounts. Given the orthodox changes this just adds fuel to the fire. My personal bias is that the HJ existed but I have my lingering doubts and can’t see any real reason why we should take it for granted as the evidence doesn’t seem to support a HJ. Looking at the gospels and Paul it is hard to see any traces of an HJ as he is buried din myth and raised in dogma and doctrine.

[Cathar1950]

Does anyone else see the irony of a debate between a Jewish Agnostic and an Atheist regarding the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Don't any of the true believers in Jesus Christ have anything to say, any evidence that their god-man was real?

I think you need to get in on this a little more Mac.
Lotan is getting a little feisty but it is fun even without the Bible-Believers getting in on it.
It almost seems like a sane debate.
I am not sure I needed to put in my two cents but I couldn't help feeling like they both were making good points and it seems they both might be right or on to something.
It seems to often Paul is taken at face value when we know he has been worked over and his writings were selected by the orthodox which had been using his letter for Gnostic tendencies also. Some of his work seems to have been worked over as Paul was brought back into the fold after his falling out with James and Peter and after the war when the Jewish leadership was gone.
The only Judiaizers were those that didn't follow Paul and his gospel and his Jesus as he Gentilized Christianity and it seems Paul was the innovator except among some Diaspora Jews that found his gospel appealing.
I can't blame them or the gentiles but Paul seems to be an unlikely sorse of information about the HJ. Granted it may very well be that Paul was prone to disregard the HJ or the Jesus of the flesh because he was working at promoting his own authority against those that may have know Jesus with letters of reference.
This was one of Paul's shortcomings where he had to claim the growth of his churches were his recommendation.

[Lotan]

Whoopie, you didn't answer my objections at all , ever about Josephus…

False.
I answered all of them goat. Feel free to copy and paste anything that I missed.

but you DID use the logical fallacy of 'arguement by popularity'.

Well, sort of. As I said, the status of the Antiquities references is inconclusive, and I’m no expert, so I simply appealed to expert opinion. The consensus is that they are to some degree authentic. That doesn’t mean that they necessarily are authentic, only that the majority of experts thinks so. This was against your stated opinion that they were "likely to be a total insertion". So, if I had to bet, I would go with the scholarly consensus, but I wouldn't base any further claims on it.

Let's disregard that though, and just ignore Josephus, since you aren't bothering to read what I wrote…

False.
I’m not bothering to read what you wrote? How sadly cliché.
If you care to review our discussion you’ll see that I’ve addressed every single thing you’ve posted. Feel free to copy and paste anything that I missed.

…and answer my objections to both Antiquities 20 and Antiquities 18.

False.
I gave you answers. It’s not my business whether you like them or not.

However, you
did not answer my point that Josephus very carefully avoided the concept of the
Jewish Messiah, and the term 'Christ' would have had no meaning to his audience without knowledge of anointment (or wetter as Christ is literally in Latin).

That would most likely be because you haven’t raised that point until now. (Are you feeling alright?) I’m not a psychic. If you think that I missed this point, just Feel free to copy and paste anything that I missed.
In case you haven’t noticed (and you haven’t), I’m not a champion of the Josephus references. I don’t claim to know if he wrote them or not. Anyway, if his audience had no knowledge of anointment, why did they have a word for it? (BTW, the Latin bit is a red herring since Josephus wrote in Greek.)

All your sources other than that from before the second century (since you are insisting that Josephus is incidental, and I agree, because he is just to far away in time and location to be a source about a historical Jesus anyway), is the Christian writings. These writings have been modified and filtered through hundreds of years of bias and redacting.

And your point is what? This isn’t exactly news, goat.

Now, since the Gospels were written after the Jewish revolt, and decades later, that leaves the letters from Paul.

They are the least problematic source.

Paul never met the fleshly Jesus. The Christian story (I accept it might be pure fiction) is that he had a vision.

Paul never met the fleshly Jesus. The Christian story is an apologetic fairy tale, and is irrelevant from an historical point of view.

There is a lot of rhetoric from him, but no indication of a real person.

False.

"Paul tells us that Jesus was a Jew, descended from David, who ministered to Jews. He was humble and poor. He had a brother named James (as well as other brothers that Paul doesn’t name), and disciples named Cephas and John. He taught about a general resurrection, forbade divorce, and taught that preachers should be rewarded for their work. He said that his followers should love their enemies. He was arrested by the authorities and abused and crucified."

The only information imparted is
"He was born of woman", "he was of the line of King David" , and he 'Died but then appeard to Cephus and the 12'

False. I’ve already shown that he gives more information than that. (Well over a year ago, actually.)

Now, all those have pure elements of myth.. the expected Messiah from the line of David, the appocolyptic dying and rising etc etc.

Ah yes, "etc etc." How could I forget the "etc etc?"

Just bare bones claims that sound like it comes from Jewish expectations, or at least some of the appocylptic style jews expectations.

Being born, and dying aren’t strictly "pure elements of myth." The kerygma is. Paul is much more interested in the ‘risen’ Christ, than he is with the man who was crucified. In spite of that he does give us a few details about Jesus. I’ll give you a point for the "line of King David" bit though. It does sound too good to be true.

[Lotan]

The letter might indicate the human existence of Jesus but we can’t be sure of Paul or validity of the letters.

We can’t be "sure" of anything. It’s all degrees of probability, isn’t it?

What if Jesus was a title such as Savior?

Then approx. 1 in every 17 males in the first century bore that "title." Besides Yeshua is a diminutive. Today we might call him ‘Josh’. Not much of a title.

There are no copies or even pieces of his letter before the 3rd century…

But they’re quoted as early as the beginning of the 2nd century (if not earlier?). Is there a good reason not to date them to the 50s?

…well after the battle between the proto-orthodox and Marcion that raged for centuries. Given unacceptable writings were destroyed by law along with those that had them after the church had the favor of Constantine we can’t say what was lost or what was edited by the Orthodox Church beginning in the fourth century. It is not an argument from silence when there is nothing but propaganda left.

No, but there are two factors that suggest that they remained relatively intact. One is that they were disseminated early, and were widely known. Another is that the Pauline view of Christianity became the orthodox view. Presumably the letters that were included in the canon (even as early as Marcion) were acceptable. There would have been little need to change them. At least not much.

I found it interesting that Josephus writes about Jesus where he is suppose to tell us about Judas the Galilean. But I am getting ahead of myself I often get ahead of myself even if I am behind everyone else.

OK, I’ll bite – why is he supposed to tell us about Judas the Galilean?

There are ‘conspiracy theories’ and there are possibilities. Are you saying there was no ‘conspiracy� to control what was deemed acceptable and not acceptable writings?

Of course not. I’m saying that I just don’t think the idea that Paul himself was an invention is a realistic one. Where is the evidence for that?

We even suspect some of Paul’s writings may suffer from editing including James Peter and the 500 witnesses.

Could you expand on this? I realize that Paul’s letters may have been doctored here and there, but it sounds like you’re talking about the kerygma. My understanding is that Paul received it and modified it himself.

That is one theory.

I believe it’s the prevalent one.

I just moved and all my books are still in boxes. I don’t want to put them up until I get the carpet in so I am forced to use what I have read on the internet.

I can save you the trouble of unpacking them. I’ll give you my address and you can send them UPS.

Robert price has a little article that does explain some of the problems.
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

I know that one…

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations."4 Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that
the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.5

With all respect to professor Price, the burden of proof still rests with the one who claims an interpolation, and Walker says as much too. His book Interpolations in the Pauline Letters can be read online (which is a good thing because Amazon wants $180 for a new copy!). There is also a good discussion on his book from the Internet Infidels discussion forum.

THE phrase "in which terms we preached to you the gospel" in 1 Cor. 15:1 must be remembered in what follows. The list of appearances is not simply some interesting or important lore Paul passed down somewhere along the line during his association with the Corinthians. This is ostensibly the Pauline gospel itself, the Pauline preaching in Corinth. "Behind the word 'gospel' in St. Paul we cannot assume a formula, but only the very preaching of salvation" (Dibelius).16
Again, v. 2 makes clear that what follows is not just a helpful piece of apologetics but rather the saving message itself. The phrases "if you hold it fast" and "unless you believed in vain" are not antithetical parallels. Rather, the latter means "unless this gospel is false," as the subsequent argument (vv. 14, 17) shows.
The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition.17 That Paul should have delivered the following tradition poses little problem; but t he had first been the recipient of it from earlier tradents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable for Pauline authorship. us not seek to avoid facing the force of the contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from earlier tradents and the protestation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive it from man." If the historical Paul is speaking in either passage, he is not speaking in both.

I disagree. Price’s strategy here is to argue that since Paul’s letters are a minefield of interpolations, he can dismiss evidence almost on an ad hoc basis.
There is no reason to suppose that 1 Cor. 15:2 is not authentic. Paul didn’t live in a bubble. He persecuted ‘Christians’, and (after his conversion) associated with them. There is simply no way, barring a supernatural explanation, that he didn’t receive his information about Jesus from others. There is plenty of evidence in my Did Jesus Exist? post to show that he did. There is also the criterion of embarrassment argument that he comes off as inferior to James & co. so it’s not likely that all those passages were invented as well.
So what to make of Gal.1:1? Here it is…

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

So Paul believes that Jesus and God are separate, and that God raised Jesus from the dead. No trinity there. Why? Because it hadn’t been invented yet. Paul uses very similar formulae in the introductions to other letters too. Wouldn’t an interpolator ‘fix’ Paul’s theology?
And here is Gal.1:11-12…

Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Obviously Paul could not have learned about Jesus solely through revelation. But he could very easily have considered his own interpretation of Jesus’ story to be divine revelation. If Pat Robertson can do it, why couldn’t Paul? This argument is strengthened by the context of these statements. Paul is trying to sell his gospel to the Galatians. His argument is that his is the real deal, because it comes directly from Jesus. And what is unique about Paul’s gospel "preached by me"? It’s gentile friendly – no circumcision, freedom from the Law, etc. That’s the theme of the epistle to the Galatians, and the theme of much of Paul’s writings. He certainly didn’t receive that from Cephas or James.

What evidence?

This is the part where I post the link to the Early Christian Writings site, but apparently Kirby let the domain name expire and it hasn’t been fixed yet. (I got a powerful Jones…)

I like the “time-traveling reptile from Mars� but that is a little silly because we all know he was Ea or even one of his sons.

Or just "the Sun."

Judas the Galilean had brothers with similar names and sons or grandsons with the names of Simon and Jacob or James which were killed by Herod about the time one of the James was killed and Peter arrested in Acts.

That’s nice.

It is very possible the gospels are a garbled history. Mark creates a saga and Luke and Matthew follow his lead not knowing much more then the author of Mark.

That’s basically correct. I don’t see the relevance, though.

I wish I had Lotan’s certainty. I bet many apologists agree.
It is fun that we can both talk about you in the third person.

Fun good. Lotan like fun. Lotan not like apologists. (Hey, do you remember ‘Mightor’?)

When Paul says he takes some by deceit and is always protesting he isn’t lying, I don’t think it is asking to much to be skeptical of Paul’s accounts.

I try to be skeptical of everything. Paul spends a lot of time whining about being a second class apostle, unlike Cephas, John, and the "brothers of the Lord". By his own accounts Paul was an outsider, vis a vis the super-apostles and it took Luke’s propaganda (Acts) to bring him into the fold. It’s hard to imagine why alleged proto-orthodox forgers wouldn’t have cast their relationship in amore positive light. As it stands, Paul is clearly the inferior party.

Given the orthodox changes this just adds fuel to the fire.

Which "orthodox changes"? Be specific. Just because there are bugs in the program doesn’t mean that you don’t have to point them out. Even W.O.Walker agrees with that.

My personal bias is that the HJ existed but I have my lingering doubts and can’t see any real reason why we should take it for granted as the evidence doesn’t seem to support a HJ.

I agree that we should not take it for granted, and I disagree about the evidence not supporting an HJ.

Looking at the gospels and Paul it is hard to see any traces of an HJ as he is buried din myth and raised in dogma and doctrine.

In Paul, those traces aren’t hard to see at all.
In the gospels they are a little harder to see, but they’re still there. For example, try to find an apologetic, mythic, or doctrinal basis for the tradition that Jesus lived in Capernaum. Wouldn’t the simplest answer be that it’s because he did?

[Goat]

The letter might indicate the human existence of Jesus but we can’t be sure of Paul or validity of the letters.

We can’t be "sure" of anything. It’s all degrees of probability, isn’t it?

Yes.. it is. And in my opinion, Paul is too biased a source and too vague, particularly with some of the recently discovered ancient texts to be taken seriously. It boils down to 'how do we verifiy the letters of paul?? we have the letters of paul!