Why did pagans not take any notice of Jesus?

[Angrboda]

Making sense of fiction is the work of an editor, not a historian.  Is it puzzling that the traveling miracle man that everyone had heard of isn;t actually mentioned by anyone?  Yes, but since that's not the historical jesus it hardly matters.  

We know that people hear (and believe) stories like that..all the time, and none of it relies on there being any actual travelling miracle man that everyone's heard of or even a man that no one has heard of.  Mythical christ and legendary jesus are both uninformative as to any historical man.  This is another point that historicists and mythicists agree on.

Historicists think that there was a man that stories were attached to. Who was that man?  Can't really tell from the stories.  Mythicists think that there was a story that men were attached to.  Who was/were that/those men, can't really tell from the stories.  That's it, that's the difference, and in neither proposal of the development of christianity and magic book is it exceptional that a miracle man wasn't noticed by anyone.  It's only exceptional in the context of a fictional world that exists nowhere beyond the pages of magic book.

Imagine yourself having this same conversation about abraham lincoln, vampire hunter.  How come nobody noticed he was killing vampires?  Isn't that strange?  It makes sense that people would notice it, right?

Or, for a more direct example.  Who was John Frum?

The problem with that is that the historical Jesus hypothesis claims that there are ordinary accounts and tellings in the story that are to be believed and then there are non-ordinary, exceptional aspects which are to be ignored in discovering the historical Jesus. Being known throughout Syria is not an exceptional aspect to this account, and so if we are asked to deny that, then the historical Jesus is based upon a flawed premise, because even the ordinary events in the account are shown not to be true or credible. If those parts of the account aren't historical, then the argument for a historical Jesus goes away.

[The Grand Nudger]

One historical jesus candidate is Some Guy* about whom we know nothing because the contents of the new testament can't be sorted into credible and non credible piles in the first place.  John Remsburg was one of the authors who, in the 1800s, opined on the subject in the context of the christ myth...the irony here being that remsburg becomes a sort of founding father of the mythicist position even though he was a historicist.

[Brian37]

Pagans didn't take notice of Jesus because he wasn't dressed up as a French maid wearing fishnets.

I doubt that even aliens would find that joke to be funny.

Darth Vader didn't wear fishnets either.

How can I hurt a fictional being?

[Jehanne]

I doubt that even aliens would find that joke to be funny.

Darth Vader didn't wear fishnets either.

How can I hurt a fictional being?

"Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime."

-- Richard Dawkins

---

Maybe they did not believe him because they recognized his "miracles" to be a sham, a dime-a-dozen so-called "miracle workers" in 1st century Palestine?

  Proof they thought it was a sham, there's no indication they were believed to be shames by those who rejected Him, as a matter of fact He healed people known to others to be ill and cured of that particular illness. 

GC

Who claimed this, though?  Answer:  2nd or 3rd generation, Greek speaking Christians who were scattered throughout the Diaspora.

GC, Do you believe in the Miracle of Calanda:

Wikipedia -- Miracle of Calanda

If not, why not?

---

According to Professor Bart Ehrman, Lecture 10, in his New Testament Great Courses series, modern scholars possess hundreds of pagan (non-Christian, non-Jewish) sources from the 1st century.  Why is it that none of these sources even mention the existence of Jesus?

None of these pagan sources mention Pilate either, or hardly any jewish religious figures at the time like Elder Hillel, or any of the other numerous messiah claimants strung up by Rome.   

Why?

Perhaps because writing was an expensive enterprise, so why waste it writing about irrelevant figures, or on news reports that have no real importance to the pagan communities? Their lack of mentioning of any of above mentioned figures, reveals their lack of interest in doing so.

They knew religious cranks when they saw or heard about them; as you state, such were a dime-a-dozen in first century Palestine.

[Acrobat]

Darth Vader didn't wear fishnets either.

How can I hurt a fictional being?

"Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime."

-- Richard Dawkins

---

  Proof they thought it was a sham, there's no indication they were believed to be shames by those who rejected Him, as a matter of fact He healed people known to others to be ill and cured of that particular illness. 

GC

Who claimed this, though?  Answer:  2nd or 3rd generation, Greek speaking Christians who were scattered throughout the Diaspora.

GC, Do you believe in the Miracle of Calanda:

Wikipedia -- Miracle of Calanda

If not, why not?

---

None of these pagan sources mention Pilate either, or hardly any jewish religious figures at the time like Elder Hillel, or any of the other numerous messiah claimants strung up by Rome.   

Why?

Perhaps because writing was an expensive enterprise, so why waste it writing about irrelevant figures, or on news reports that have no real importance to the pagan communities? Their lack of mentioning of any of above mentioned figures, reveals their lack of interest in doing so.

They knew religious cranks when they saw or heard about them; as you state, such were a dime-a-dozen in first century Palestine.

Whether they knew them or not, they didn’t particularly care to write about them, none of their writings of the time mention any of the Jewish messiah claimants, they don’t even mention people like Pilate, let alone Jesus.

[Godscreated]

---

  Proof they thought it was a sham, there's no indication they were believed to be shames by those who rejected Him, as a matter of fact He healed people known to others to be ill and cured of that particular illness. 

GC

Who claimed this, though?  Answer:  2nd or 3rd generation, Greek speaking Christians who were scattered throughout the Diaspora.

GC, Do you believe in the Miracle of Calanda:

Wikipedia -- Miracle of Calanda

If not, why not?

 Peter, John, Matthew were all eyewitnesses to these events they are also 1st generation. Paul and Luke had first hand accounts from eyewitnesses and were also 1st generation writers. 
 I do not know if the story is true or not, what I do know is the process of healing as described in the testimonies is not how God would work. The healing done by Jesus were immediate and witnessed by people who were present at the event.
 If this man's leg was amputated because of gangrene then the miracle was that he was healed and was able to continue with his life, gangrene so bad that the leg was black was fatal the majority of the time in those days. So I take this story with a grain of salt and let others decide for themselves if it's true or not. Sensational health and wealth stories are not important to me because I see the real reasons for a Christian life and when healing comes then that is a great bit of grace from God.
GC

---

  Proof they thought it was a sham, there's no indication they were believed to be shames by those who rejected Him, as a matter of fact He healed people known to others to be ill and cured of that particular illness. 

GC

How do you know that?

 Really, I mean what do you expect me to say, you know the answer. Just because you are convinced the Bible is fiction doesn't make it so.

GC

[Abaddon_ire]

How do you know that?

 Really, I mean what do you expect me to say,

I expect you to say how you KNOW that.

you know the answer.

No I don't. Not until you answer.

Just because you are convinced the Bible is fiction doesn't make it so.

GC

Not unless I can demonstrate it to be fiction, sure. Except that I can. Anyone can who is willing to expend the effort. You clearly are not willing to expend the effort preferring your invulnerable security blanket.

[Jehanne]

---

Who claimed this, though?  Answer:  2nd or 3rd generation, Greek speaking Christians who were scattered throughout the Diaspora.

GC, Do you believe in the Miracle of Calanda:

Wikipedia -- Miracle of Calanda

If not, why not?

 Peter, John, Matthew were all eyewitnesses to these events they are also 1st generation. Paul and Luke had first hand accounts from eyewitnesses and were also 1st generation writers. 
 I do not know if the story is true or not, what I do know is the process of healing as described in the testimonies is not how God would work. The healing done by Jesus were immediate and witnessed by people who were present at the event.
 If this man's leg was amputated because of gangrene then the miracle was that he was healed and was able to continue with his life, gangrene so bad that the leg was black was fatal the majority of the time in those days. So I take this story with a grain of salt and let others decide for themselves if it's true or not. Sensational health and wealth stories are not important to me because I see the real reasons for a Christian life and when healing comes then that is a great bit of grace from God.
GC

---

Few modern scholars are of the opinion that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses to any of the events of Jesus' day.  Why do you think that such is the case?

[Godscreated]

 Peter, John, Matthew were all eyewitnesses to these events they are also 1st generation. Paul and Luke had first hand accounts from eyewitnesses and were also 1st generation writers. 
 I do not know if the story is true or not, what I do know is the process of healing as described in the testimonies is not how God would work. The healing done by Jesus were immediate and witnessed by people who were present at the event.
 If this man's leg was amputated because of gangrene then the miracle was that he was healed and was able to continue with his life, gangrene so bad that the leg was black was fatal the majority of the time in those days. So I take this story with a grain of salt and let others decide for themselves if it's true or not. Sensational health and wealth stories are not important to me because I see the real reasons for a Christian life and when healing comes then that is a great bit of grace from God.
GC

---

Few modern scholars are of the opinion that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses to any of the events of Jesus' day.  Why do you think that such is the case?

 The scholars you listen to are not believers, you believe what Ehrman has to say now don't you. We have copies of the gospels from the second century so when where the originals written, the first century. That would be the time of the disciples. Like you said those people have opinions and opinions are not facts and many opinions are not worth the paper they were written on. Most people in this world that know of Shakespeare believe that the writings we have are originals, nope they are not, not only that there is great doubt that the man that wrote those plays is of the name Shakespeare.

GC

---

 Really, I mean what do you expect me to say,

I expect you to say how you KNOW that.

The answer was in my post, the Bible.

you know the answer.

No I don't. Not until you answer.

You should have it was in my post, but since it alluded you I gave the answer above.

Just because you are convinced the Bible is fiction doesn't make it so.

GC

Not unless I can demonstrate it to be fiction, sure. Except that I can. Anyone can who is willing to expend the effort. You clearly are not willing to expend the effort preferring your invulnerable security blanket.

 No you can't, people have tried for a couple thousand years and no one has proven the Bible wrong. Don't you think that that would have been enough time, apparently not though since you believe you are more qualified than those in the past or present.

[Jehanne]

Few modern scholars are of the opinion that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses to any of the events of Jesus' day.  Why do you think that such is the case?

 The scholars you listen to are not believers, you believe what Ehrman has to say now don't you. We have copies of the gospels from the second century so when where the originals written, the first century. That would be the time of the disciples. Like you said those people have opinions and opinions are not facts and many opinions are not worth the paper they were written on. Most people in this world that know of Shakespeare believe that the writings we have are originals, nope they are not, not only that there is great doubt that the man that wrote those plays is of the name Shakespeare.

GC

---

Here's a list of New Testament fragments:

Wikipedia -- New Testament papyri

GC, this is a major, major problem for you, your lacking of fundamental understanding of the subject matter that you are espousing on.  Scholars possess fragments of the Gospels from the 2nd century.