The Historical Jesus

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A secondary source is still a source of information, and not all secondary sources are completely invalid.

Just labeling everything that Papias, Iraeneus and Clement of Alexandria did as, "subjective speculation" doesn't make it so.

And when all of the secondary sources point in one direction, and you cannot provide me with any evidence to the contrary, then you are free to draw whatever conclusions you want to draw from that.


Assuming that all Christians merely converted to, and fundamentally accepted; all Gospels as being written by whomever they were told wrote them, with no ounce of critical thought, does not make it so. Some early Christians may have had this point of view, but Papias provably did not, and there were other early scholars which did not accept these writings "as is" without any amount of critical thought.

Do you guys really believe that skepticism is a recent invention?

The scholarship of Papias, Iraeneus, and Clement does nothing to prove the historicity of Jesus.

But ‘all of the secondary sources’ manifestly do NOT point in one direction. You simply think so because you’re invested in choosing only those sources that do.

I don’t think anyone here as claimed that all Christians, especially all early Christians, accepted the traditional authorship of the Gospels at face value. But the evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of them have done exactly that.

And I’m absolutely sure than no one here claims that skepticism is a recent invention.

Boru