I can't believe there are still Christians who insist that the Shroud of Turin is any kind of evidence. You'd think two carbon dating tests that dated it to the Middle Ages would have put it to rest but then Christians have demonstrated a miraculous ability to deny any scientific findings they don't like.
Any references to letters written within the "early church" should be taken with a grain of salt from the get-go. The problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation abounded during that time. An aspiring theologian who wanted to get his ideas to be accepted would commonly use the name of a deceased famous religious leader or prophet and "discover" the writing. Roughly half the letters of Paul found in the canonical NT are considered to be of questionable authenticity.
Changes to scriptural documents were also known to creep in over time, even with the most meticulous of care by the ancient copyists. Sometimes these changes could be by accident while other times things might be changed to suit the evolving theology of Christianity. Mark chapter 16 is a prominent example, where the back end of the resurrection account (one would think an important detail they'd have gotten right the first time) was added.
Outside the early Christians, there is no mention of Jesus in the first century. Josephus mentions a "brother of James" but reading on we find that the reference was to Jesus Bar Damneus. We need to remember that Jesus was a common name at the time. Even Tacitus in the second century didn't mention Jesus by name. He only tells us that a "Christos" ("anointed one") was where the "Christians" got their name and that this unnamed man was crucified by a "procurator" Pilate (curiously, Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator, a name given to Roman governors in later centuries, but perhaps I'm being to nit-picky as many Christians will claim).
It's obvious that Jesus was completely insignificant outside his splinter faction of Judaism. While that doesn't preclude a mortal Jesus, it does rule out a miracle working godman.
Any references to letters written within the "early church" should be taken with a grain of salt from the get-go. The problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation abounded during that time. An aspiring theologian who wanted to get his ideas to be accepted would commonly use the name of a deceased famous religious leader or prophet and "discover" the writing. Roughly half the letters of Paul found in the canonical NT are considered to be of questionable authenticity.
Changes to scriptural documents were also known to creep in over time, even with the most meticulous of care by the ancient copyists. Sometimes these changes could be by accident while other times things might be changed to suit the evolving theology of Christianity. Mark chapter 16 is a prominent example, where the back end of the resurrection account (one would think an important detail they'd have gotten right the first time) was added.
Outside the early Christians, there is no mention of Jesus in the first century. Josephus mentions a "brother of James" but reading on we find that the reference was to Jesus Bar Damneus. We need to remember that Jesus was a common name at the time. Even Tacitus in the second century didn't mention Jesus by name. He only tells us that a "Christos" ("anointed one") was where the "Christians" got their name and that this unnamed man was crucified by a "procurator" Pilate (curiously, Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator, a name given to Roman governors in later centuries, but perhaps I'm being to nit-picky as many Christians will claim).
It's obvious that Jesus was completely insignificant outside his splinter faction of Judaism. While that doesn't preclude a mortal Jesus, it does rule out a miracle working godman.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
