The Historical Jesus

[Sheldon]

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?

No, since the claim is unevidenced, lacks context, and thus is purely anecdotal, but even were it not, it is clearly another bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The number of people who believe something, tells us nothing about that belief, least of all when they hail from an epoch of extreme credulity, superstition, and ignorance. 

The majority of Egyptians believed cats were deities, now do you find this anecdotal unevidenced claim a compelling reason to believe cats were, are, or could possibly be deities? 

"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. 

I explained it, the methodology of verifying historical facts explains it, there is not one single contemporary source, beyond a common name, and fairly common execution of a political prisoner, there is no independent or corroborating evidence for anything in the gospel myths. 

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

With a string of logical fallacies, and without offering one word of my post for context...