The Historical Jesus

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Have you ever wondered why so many early converts to this new religion were willing to accept the oral tradition of Gospel authorship?


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

You haven't explained to me why none of their accounts mean anything. Nor have you provided me with any sources to the contrary. 


Also, I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Sheldon.

Have you ever wondered why 900 people in Jonestown willingly drank poisoned Kool-Aid? Same-same.

I didn’t say ‘none of their accounts mean anything’. I said they have nothing to do with whether Jesus was an historical figure (they’re concerned with the authorship of the synoptic Gospels). As for sources to the contrary, I’m sure you can use a search engine as well as I can.

This is an open forum. Anyone is entitled to reply to any post.

Boru