The Testimony of Nathan

[Drich]

I had mentioned this in passing in another thread, but I believe it needs a thread of its own. There's a slim volume out on Amazon.com with the title The Testimony of Nathan Son of Isaac Concerning Jesus of Nazareth translated from the Greek by Ben Armhardt. It has been tentatively dated to the eleventh century but purports to be written by a contemporary of Jesus who debunks certain of the miracles and the resurrection. If authentic--i.e. a copy of something that was actually written in the first century--it would really do in Christianity. However, it would also do in the mythicists as well. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it. Any textual critics in the house?

you guys kill me.. when ever we have a 2nd or 3rd century source it is automatically discarded as being in authentic no matter what it's provenance may actually be. and here you are with a confirmed 11th century document and you are pushing it to be written in the time of Jesus.. Never mind the best efforts and the resources of the church to assimilate and preserve everything written on Christ, and still yet can only provide a 3rd century copy of his works.. Some how your single source material predates any effort to date it!
IF you had half as much faith in God you would be able to harness so much of the Holy Spirit you could probably heal people.

[Minimalist]

Your reading comprehension skills remain in the toilet, dripshit.  No one is taking this bullshit seriously.  It is getting the same treatment we give your stupid-assed bible.

[Caligvla XXI]

No one is taking this bullshit seriously.

But suppose an actual first-century manuscript did turn up exposing the miracles and resurrection of Jesus as staged spectacles. Would you be torn between elation that Jesus had been exposed as a fraud on the one hand and depression that his existence had been historically proven on the other hand?

[Minimalist]

I really doubt that I'd give a shit one way or the other.

Right now, the "evidence" for a Gospel Jesus is non existent.  The evidence for a Historical Jesus is mainly wishful thinking.  The evidence for a Mythic Jesus is compelling.

A historical jesus merely means some shlub who was wandering around Judaea annoying people until he got himself killed.  If there was such a person it really does not matter.  If someone comes up with evidence for a Gospel Jesus - you know a miracle working fuck who really came back from the dead and then flew up to heaven - that would be something but that really is a bridge too far unless you are a fundie asshole who already thinks it is real.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one is taking this bullshit seriously.

But suppose an actual first-century manuscript did turn up exposing the miracles and resurrection of Jesus as staged spectacles. Would you be torn between elation that Jesus had been exposed as a fraud on the one hand and depression that his existence had been historically proven on the other hand?

Wouldn't give a shit either way. I don't actually care whether there was some babbling rabbi who got himself axed by the romans. Hell...I don't actually care if they really did kill the son of "god".

Nothing to do with me, no alteration in my positions or the way I live my life.

[Caligvla XXI]

A historical jesus merely means some shlub who was wandering around Judaea annoying people until he got himself killed. 

I concur.