(June 19, 2012 at 7:29 am)FallentoReason Wrote:michaelsherlock Wrote:...as the primary material we have for the Jesus of history, if such a person existed, comes from the Gospels, which are interwoven with obvious mythological components.
Good post michael, but it just brings us to what I see as square one: who wrote the Gospels? Only then can you begin to answer the 'Jesus question'.
Thanks. I think you are right FTR. No matter what extra-biblical source we might try to use to establish an historical Jesus, we never ascend beyond the reach of the Gospels. That is, every non-Christian source we have for an historical Jesus, aside from the fourth century forged Josephus passage (TF) and the 3rd Century "Jesus the brother of James" "Who was called Christ" in the Antiquities of the Jews, keeping in mind that the latter reference was likely altered with regards to the phrase, "who was called Christ" as the most likely Jesus in this reference was Jesus the son of Damneus, who is given the position of High Priesthood after James, his brother, is wrongfully killed by Ananus. We have only Seutonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, and these guys are all writing in the 2nd century, and only mention the religion of Christianity and its founder, which is as good as a person referring to followers of Buddha, at that time, as proof that Buddha existed.
I agree with you, it is a very circular situation, and anytime we get trapped in a circular ride for too long, we get dizzy and the rational faculties fail us. This is the problem with Christian apologetics, in my opinion.
You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL
http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/