Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you think poorly. I can do nothing about that ...

Especially poorly, it seems, since I thought I was experiencing a refreshing turn toward civility from you. I guess I was mistaken.

Whether I believe Matthew and Mark is irrelevant to the argument.

All right, then: we'll go with the more gramatically correct but somewhat more stuffy "if one believes". In accepting the Gospels as true, Eusebius and his audience would have also accepted the idea that people "outside the movement" as you put it, specifically the people in Jesus' hometown that ridiculed Him, considered He and James to be brothers.

Then perhaps it was a partial interpolation but not pious fraud,

A partial interpolation would still be a pious fraud (or perhaps just a fraud without the piety); just not a pious fraud in whole cloth.

taking us back to the initial suggestion that such a sloppy result was unlikely to be the product of a man of Eusebius' intellect.

Which is a suggestion that was not made by me. Are you now distancing yourself from it?

1) That was a remarkably inane statement.

Inane or not, it's a logical conclusion that we can draw if the argument you just gave is correct. Personally, I lean more toward your argument not being correct, which means that any "inane" conclusions that we can draw from it aren't really a concern for me.

2) You are the one suggesting that the TF is an obvious [attempt at] fraud, not I.

No, actually, that was Quagmire.

Really? You should publish your evidence. You'll become famous.

Since Contra Celsus and Demonstratio Evangelica have already been published, it seems I missed the boat on that one.

As for the rest ...... it amounts to little more than unbridled speculation predicated upon sloppy thinking, i.e., garbage in, garbage out. None of it stands as a coherent, much less compelling, argument against historicity.

Wait... is your position now that the Testimonium is genuine?

 

[Oberon]

Maybe because he is heir. Do you know what I mean..?

If we assume for a moment they are brothers with the same father then the story sounds more like James had some kind of clout or political influence and Ananus was jealous of him thus making this false charge....and when he had James killed the King stripped his authority and gave it to the slain brother of James....Jesus. That's why it was worth mentioning the name in the beginning and at the end to tie it all together...

Again...Just a thought....

Your posts are those of an intelligent person who is still in the early stages of researching this topic. You have up until this point not displayed the kind of attitude that seems to be dominate logician (i.e. I am not at all acquainted with the topic but that won't stop me from stating uninformed opinions as if I was). Yet, although you can't read Greek, you have ignored my correction of your understanding of the english translation. Your mistake was completely understandable, but I would have thought that once someone with the ability to read greek text explained to you why your reading is only possible in English you might have abandoned it. Is it that you simply do not trust me? If this is the case it is easily remedied, as their are a few grammars of greek available for free online, and I can point you to relevent passages. In the meantime, I can only repeat that while in english it is sometimes unclear which word particular modifiers ought to be attached to, in greek this is not the case.

 

[logician]

So then the answers to my questions are 1. you can't cite a single source on oral tradition you have read and 2. you can't name a single ancient historian who didn't rely on oral tradition. And you are hardly in a position to call any of my statements bogus, as it appears your only source for "facts" on the subject are either to be found on the internet or in a book written by two people who have no idea what they are talking about (the one source you have cited that comes even remotely close to being authoritative, Price, you haven't even read but can only quote what others have said. In any even he is hardly a historian). You have consistently failed to cite any modern historian of the relevent period (not just biblical or NT scholars, but classicists, historians of paganism, etc) who you use as a source for the justification of your opinions. And yet you are somehow qualified to determine whether statements I have made are bogus?

You have failed to cite one historian contemporary to the time of the supposed Jesus that ever heard of such a man. The absence of hard evidence of a "biblical" Jesus is quite embarrassing, yet you continue to act as if his existence was a certainty. Your arguments simply are illogical.

 

[Oberon]

You have failed to cite one historian contemporary to the time of the supposed Jesus that ever heard of such a man. The absence of hard evidence of a "biblical" Jesus is quite embarrassing, yet you continue to act as if his existence was a certainty. Your arguments simply are illogical.

Outside of the gospels there is stil Josephus. However, as you are too ill-informed to understand either the nature of the gospel texts (and therefore their nature with respect to historicity) or the arguments involved in why the vast majority of scholars have argued that Josephus did reference Jesus (in at least one of the two and probably both references that were passed down to us) you are again particularly ill-qualified to comment.

Again, you would perhaps be better able to understand my arguments if you were at all acquainted with the type of evidence for ancient people OR the nature of ancient historical texts. You have no such acquaintence.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Your posts are those of an intelligent person who is still in the early stages of researching this topic. You have up until this point not displayed the kind of attitude that seems to be dominate logician (i.e. I am not at all acquainted with the topic but that won't stop me from stating uninformed opinions as if I was). Yet, although you can't read Greek, you have ignored my correction of your understanding of the english translation. Your mistake was completely understandable, but I would have thought that once someone with the ability to read greek text explained to you why your reading is only possible in English you might have abandoned it. Is it that you simply do not trust me? If this is the case it is easily remedied, as their are a few grammars of greek available for free online, and I can point you to relevent passages. In the meantime, I can only repeat that while in english it is sometimes unclear which word particular modifiers ought to be attached to, in greek this is not the case.

Yes point me to one please.

I was looking at the transliterated text and then looking at it in english. I didn't take it greek, like arabic/hebrew, had any uppercase or lowercase lettering or any punctuation marks like commas so looking at the translation in english one can see where and maybe why the punctuations were placed where they were but I'll have to check some other sources to see if it makes grammatical sense for the paragraph to be rendered the way it is or why not the way that I listed it, assuming we are to take it as the genuine article and not interpolation.

 

[logician]

Outside of the gospels there is stil Josephus. However, as you are too ill-informed to understand either the nature of the gospel texts (and therefore their nature with respect to historicity) or the arguments involved in why the vast majority of scholars have argued that Josephus did reference Jesus (in at least one of the two and probably both references that were passed down to us) you are again particularly ill-qualified to comment.

Again, you would perhaps be better able to understand my arguments if you were at all acquainted with the type of evidence for ancient people OR the nature of ancient historical texts. You have no such acquaintence.

Yes, we have you figured out Oberon, only "experts" such as yourself need post on these forums, everyone else is to illiterate to bother. Why don't you find an "experts" forum to post on where you'll feel at home.

 

[Oberon]

Yes point me to one please.

I was looking at the transliterated text and then looking at it in english. I didn't take it greek, like arabic/hebrew, had any uppercase or lowercase lettering or any punctuation marks like commas so looking at the translation in english one can see where and maybe why the punctuations were placed where they were but I'll have to check some other sources to see if it makes grammatical sense or the paragraph to be rendered the way it is or why not the way that I listed it, assuming we are to take it as the genuine article and not interpolation.

Go to google books, and go to advanced search. Limit your search to those available in full text, and search for "greek grammar." Find which ever one seems good enough for you (goodwin and smyth are ok, or just look for an elementary one). Then let me know which one, or ones, you downloaded, and I'll do the same and point you to the relevent passages.

Greek does not have uppercase/lowercase, nor do the texts have commas. However, the relationship between words is indicated by inflection (like Latin). It is possible to note such a relationship even if the words are seperated by a dozen others. In this case they are not, as by the time Josephus was writing Greek had been simplified and was more straightforward than in classical times. In any event, what is important here are the endings to the words. If you are looking at the transliterated greek I provided (or from somewhere else) you will note that the ending for Jesus/Iesou and for "being called Christ/ tou legomenou Christou" are the same. The reason for this is that both are in the genitive case, indicating that they belong together.

Yes, we have you figured out Oberon, only "experts" such as yourself need post on these forums, everyone else is to illiterate to bother. Why don't you find an "experts" forum to post on where you'll feel at home.

No. For one thing, my expertise is limited to a particular area, and like all experts the further from that area the topic is, the less I can be considered an expert. Also, there are other people with less expertise here than I (in this particular area) who are still FAR better qualified to offer opinions or to understand the nature of my arguments because they have actually read a few books by scholars. You haven't. You continue to offer the same types of arguments, yet your only basis seems to be a single book and a couple of sites you found online.

You can't read the primary texts in there original languages. You haven't bothered to read translations (outside of perhaps the gospels, but I'm doubting you have even read these in their entirety. Even if you had, in order to obtain a better grasp of the nature of ancient histories/texts you would still need to READ ancient histories/texts outside of the NT). And even if both of the above seemed like too much work, you could at least acquaint yourself MINIMALLY with relevent scholarship. You have done none of these things, and yet you claim that MY arguments are illogical.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Especially poorly, it seems, since I thought I was experiencing a refreshing turn toward civility from you. I guess I was mistaken.

Good grief.

All right, then: we'll go with the more gramatically correct ...

No comment ...

... but somewhat more stuffy "if one believes". In accepting the Gospels as true, Eusebius and his audience would have also accepted the idea that people "outside the movement" as you put it, specifically the people in Jesus' hometown that ridiculed Him, considered He and James to be brothers.

Therefore?

A partial interpolation would still be a pious fraud ...

That is not at all true. There are any number of reasons why text may be modified, most having nothing at all to do with deception.

Which is a suggestion that was not made by me. Are you now distancing yourself from it?

I was never close to it. Pay attention.

Inane or not, it's a logical conclusion that we can draw if the argument you just gave is correct.

The assertion ...

If it really is obvious that the Testimonium was a fraud, then Eusebius was guilty of deceit whether he wrote it himself or not.​

is neither logical nor coherent.

Since Contra Celsus and Demonstratio Evangelica have already been published, it seems I missed the boat on that one.

There is nothing in either that supports your contention.

Wait... is your position now that the Testimonium is genuine?

Not at all. It is my position that the best explanation of the TF is that it is a partial interpolation.

 

[logician]

You can't read the primary texts in there original languages. You haven't bothered to read translations (outside of perhaps the gospels, but I'm doubting you have even read these in their entirety. Even if you had, in order to obtain a better grasp of the nature of ancient histories/texts you would still need to READ ancient histories/texts outside of the NT). And even if both of the above seemed like too much work, you could at least acquaint yourself MINIMALLY with relevent scholarship. You have done none of these things, and yet you claim that MY arguments are illogical.

How do you know what I have or haven't read? Again you arrogant assumptions keep flowing out live a river, and your constant red herrings and personal attacks to distract from the subject at hand only weaken your case(whatever that is).

In reality, by definiton, the bibilical Jesus could NOT have existed unless you believe in the impossible, i.e. miracles, because that is essentially what the gospels were about. Then the argument reduces to what Jesus's might have been floating around in Jerusalem at that time claiming they were god, and how what one of them said got twisted into the gospels we have today. It's much easier to accept the alternative, that the gospels weren't based upon oral tradition of some man, but fictionalized stories based upon the OT and prevalent religious mythology at the time. Inventing a "real" Jesus to fit the impossible is not then necessary.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. There is no tradition of a mythicist polemic against early Christianity by the Pagans.
2. There is no tradition of a mythicist polemic against early Christianity by the Jews.
3. There is no compelling reason to question the authenticity of the James reference.
4. There is no compelling reason to question the existence of the Jerusalem sect (the 'Pillars' of Jerusalem).
5. There is no compelling reason to reject as entirely fictive the tension between the Jerusalem movement and the Paul's work abroad.
6. Everything that we know about 2nd Temple Period Judaism suggests that such sects accreted around charismatic sect leaders.There is, therefore, no compelling reason to reject the hypothesis that this leader was the Yeshua of nascent Christianity.

The alternative hypothesis involves a massive, and massively effective, conspiracy of deceit. Ironically, it is offered by the very people most likely to invoke Occam's Razor in questions of theology. The irony here is rich indeed ...

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe because he is heir. Do you know what I mean..?

If we assume for a moment they are brothers with the same father then the story sounds more like James had some kind of clout or political influence and Ananus was jealous of him thus making this false charge....and when he had James killed the King stripped his authority and gave it to the slain brother of James....Jesus. That's why it was worth mentioning the name in the beginning and at the end to tie it all together...

Again...Just a thought....

Lots of problems with that;

---Messiah wasn't/isn't a hereditary title.
---The characters mentioned in 18:3,3 puts the time period somewhere around 62 CE.
---This James is usually identified with the author of the Epistle of James, which would mean that he's refering to himself when he mentions "Christ" in the Epistle, which, for a lot of reasons, doesn't make sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How do you know what I have or haven't read?

From your comments?

 

[Oberon]

How do you know what I have or haven't read?

Because of your consistent failure (stretching back days now) to cite a single source you have read (other than Freke and Gandy). Your one other citation (Price) required you to plagiarize from others. In addition, had you read relevent scholarship, you wouldn't have demonstrated basic misunderstandings of the issues.

In reality, by definiton, the bibilical Jesus could NOT have existed unless you believe in the impossible, i.e. miracles, because that is essentially what the gospels were about. Then the argument reduces to what Jesus's might have been floating around in Jerusalem at that time claiming they were god, and how what one of them said got twisted into the gospels we have today. It's much easier to accept the alternative, that the gospels weren't based upon oral tradition of some man, but fictionalized stories based upon the OT and prevalent religious mythology at the time. Inventing a "real" Jesus to fit the impossible is not then necessary.

You continue to hold the gospels up to the standards of modern day history, and then abandon them as worthless because they don't meet those standards. No ancient history did. In addition, you can't possibly have read enough of the OT OR enough source material of "prevalent religious mythology", or you wouldn't be making your argument.

 

[Quagmire]

No, actually, that was Quagmire.

No I didn't; my position all through this thread has been that the interpolations where obvious (and amatuerish).

I never once used the terms "fraud" or "forgery" in regards to the TF as a whole.

If you remember we were debating the likelihood that Eusebuis was responsible for the interpolations, or possibly for the authorship of the TF itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I didn't; my position all through this thread has been that the interpolations where obvious (and amatuerish).

I never once used the terms "fraud" or "forgery" in regards to the TF as a whole.

If you remember we were debating the likelihood that Eusebuis was responsible for the interpolations, or possibly for the authorship of the TF itself.

I didn't mean to suggest you did; at least in my head, I was referring to the more fantastic parts of the TF. Sorry if that wasn't more clear.

Therefore?

Therefore it speaks against your point. It was an agreed-upon fact that people "outside the movement" referred to Jesus and James as brothers. It speaks against the premise of your argument that if Eusebius were to have changed the TF to suit his purposes, he would have also changed the reference to James as well.

That is not at all true. There are any number of reasons why text may be modified, most having nothing at all to do with deception.

My point was just that a partial interpolation or modification can still be a pious fraud. You presented a false dichotomy.

The assertion ...

If it really is obvious that the Testimonium was a fraud, then Eusebius was guilty of deceit whether he wrote it himself or not.
​

is neither logical nor coherent.

Of course it is. Knowingly passing off false material as true is deceitful whether or not the person passing it off actually created it. You suggested that the TF was a "the most sloppy and transparent 'pious fraud'"; this implies that Eusebius would have known that it was false. We know that he did pass it along, therefore, if the TF was the "transparent fraud" you suggested, then Eusebius would have been deceitful in doing so.

There is nothing in either that supports your contention.

Note the passages in bold:

Demonstratio Evangelica, 3:5

And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus as well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words:

"And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed."​

​

Contra Celsus, 1:47:

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people,

 

[logician]

Because of your consistent failure (stretching back days now) to cite a single source you have read (other than Freke and Gandy). Your one other citation (Price) required you to plagiarize from others. In addition, had you read relevent scholarship, you wouldn't have demonstrated basic misunderstandings of the issues.



You continue to hold the gospels up to the standards of modern day history, and then abandon them as worthless because they don't meet those standards. No ancient history did. In addition, you can't possibly have read enough of the OT OR enough source material of "prevalent religious mythology", or you wouldn't be making your argument.

I've read the entire bible thru twice, and many parts much more besides, and was a practicing Christian for a number of years when younger.


HInduism was around for a long time before Xianity. Concerning Krishna and Christ

"Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Jesus Christ's and Krishna's life. He found what he believed were 346 elements in common within Christian and Hindu writings.
He did report some amazing coincidences:

• #6 & 45: Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God.
• 7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
• 8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity
• 13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
• 18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
• 21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
• 27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
• 30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
• 41 & 42: Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
• 56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
• 58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
• 60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
• 66: Both were "without sin."
• 72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
• 76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• 83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
• 86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
• 101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
• 109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
• 115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
• 121 to 127: Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. "

" From the Egyptian Book of the Dead (starting on page li),

This is the story of the sufferings and death of Osiris as told by Plutarch. Osiris was the god through whose suffering and death the Egyptians hoped that his body might rise again in some transformed or glorified shape, and to him who had conquered death and had become the king of the other world the Egyptian appealed in prayer for eternal life through his victory and power. In every funeral inscription known to us, from the pyramid texts down to the roughly-written prayers upon coffins of the Roman period, what is done for Osiris is done also for the deceased, the state and condition of Osiris are the state and condition of the deceased; in a word, the deceased is identified with Osiris. If Osiris liveth for ever, the deceased will live for ever; if Osiris dieth, then will the deceased perish. Later in the XVIIIth, or early in the XIXth dynasty, we find Osiris called ‘the king of eternity, the lord of everlastingness, who traverseth millions of years in the duration of his life, the firstborn son of the womb of Nut, begotten of Seb, the prince of gods and men, the god of gods, the king of kings, the lord of lords, the prince of princes, the governor of the world, from the womb of Nut, whose existence is everlasting, Unnefer of many froms and of many attributes, Tmu in Annu, the lord of Akert, the only one, the lord of the land on each side of the celestial Nile.’
​

In that essay, I wrote, "The first paragraph above, shows the similarity in roles of Osiris and Jesus – that through their resurrection humans can attain eternal life. The second paragraph shows the similarity in how they are addressed in literature, although it would be easy to see how these lofty praises could be addressed to any powerful figure. At any rate, seeing some of the important traits of Jesus in a mythical figure that predates him, does call into question the source of those concepts in Christianity."
Well, I'm currently re-reading The Egyptian Book of the Dead (I meant to be finished before my visit to the King Tut and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs Exhibition at the Dallas Museum of Art, but it's taking me a bit longer than I'd hoped). I just noticed another similarity between Osiris and Jesus (page cxxxviii).

It is to be noticed how closely the deceased is identified with Osiris, the type of incorruptibility. Osiris takes upon himself "all that is hateful" in the dead : that is, he adopts the burden of his sins; and the dead is purified by the typical sprinkling of water.​

So, it's not only through Osiris's resurrection that the Egyptians thought they could attain eternal life, but they even envisioned Osiris as performing a function very similar to forgiving them of their sins."

Jeff's Lunchbreak: Another Similarity Between Osiris & Jesus

Just some examples of some beliefs that may have been floating around at the time of the supposed Christ.

 

[dogsgod]

I did address it. And, unlike you or your source, I actually know Greek.

Here is a my own literal translation with syntactical notes:

...he assembles [lit. made to sit, from the greek kathizo, which when referring to a group can imply assemble] the council of judges [objective genitive] and having led [aor. part] the brother of Jesus, the one being called the Christ [gen. part. which may be taken as either further modifiers of Jesus, or as a more parenthetical gen. abs.] and his name was James [lit. name to him -was- James, the usual greek way of naming]...

We can go on if you would like...

Don't bother.

Strictly speaking, in “the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,” the words “the one” are not necessary. The word “tou” in “ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou” represents a grammatical practice in Greek of repeating or inserting the article before an attributive adjective when it follows the noun it modifies. For example, “the good work” is rendered “to ergon to agathon (lit., the work the good).” In our case, “legomenou” is a participle, but used as an adjective modifying “Iēsou,” and thus the article “tou” is inserted. The Greek is not necessarily making a special point of saying “the one” as the English suggests. Translations of the passage usually include “the one” but sometimes it is merely “called Christ.” (Compare Matthew 4:18, where Jesus saw “Simon called Peter”: “Simōna ton legomenon Petron.”) The latter is the form I will use. jesuspuzzle.com

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, I asked you to describe an event from the gospels that actually happened and how we can know it happened and you have yet to produce. What's the problem?

 

[Oberon]

Don't bother.

Strictly speaking, in “the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,” the words “the one” are not necessary. The word “tou” in “ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou” represents a grammatical practice in Greek of repeating or inserting the article before an attributive adjective when it follows the noun it modifies. For example, “the good work” is rendered “to ergon to agathon (lit., the work the good).” In our case, “legomenou” is a participle, but used as an adjective modifying “Iēsou,” and thus the article “tou” is inserted. The Greek is not necessarily making a special point of saying “the one” as the English suggests. Translations of the passage usually include “the one” but sometimes it is merely “called Christ.” (Compare Matthew 4:18, where Jesus saw “Simon called Peter”: “Simōna ton legomenon Petron.&#8221 The latter is the form I will use. jesuspuzzle.com

This is poorly written. For example, the statement "legomenou is a participle, but used as an adjective..." betrays an utter lack of comprehension of the language. A participle is BY NATURE and adjective (a verbal adjective). It ALWAYS modifys something (even if the modified word/subject is implied). Also, in greek proper names received a definite article all the time (differing from english). The reason "the one" is inserted is because "tou legomenou" by itself may be translated as "the one being called." We have to add extra words to the translation in english because greek uses particples differently than english.

Oberon, I asked you to describe an event from the gospels that actually happened and how we can know it happened and you have yet to produce. What's the problem?

The problem is a lack of relevent knowledge on your part which would allow you to better understand the nature of the gospels as texts. You interepret them as mythical because you aren't well acquainted enough with what myths looked like. But lets do it anyway, just for fun.

Jesus' baptism by John

This event is held to be historical by scholarly consensus. There are several reasons.

First, the story is anchored by another historical figure, for whom we have independed attestation (from Josephus): John the Baptist. It also coheres with what we know about him: that he did in fact baptize people, and was well known for it.

Second, it satisfies the crition of embarrassment. The baptism of Jesus by John would place Jesus in a distinctly inferior position. The fact that the gospels go out of their way to lessen as much as possible (John leaves out the incident altogether) demonstrates this.

Third, at the time Mark at least was written, there were still followers of John the baptist who could be asked about the event (which some scholars suggest is the only reason it was recorded at all).

Fourth, several different strains of the Jesus tradition record a relationship between John and Jesus.

Fifth, the event helps to explain other aspects of the Jesus tradition (where Jesus got his start, some of his first disciples, Jesus' sayings concerning John, a source of Jesus' apocalyptic outlook, etc).

 

[darkendless]

Anyone who uses the bible as evidence, or evidence from scholars basing their own evidence on the bible has failed already to prove Jesus was divine or real for that matter.