(1) The Talmud is not contemporary.  It is a collected group of traditions none can be dated with certainty prior to the third century.  Especially since it will not have been until the seventh century that the Talmud would have been completely codified and canonized.

(2) This is hardly evidence for a historical Jesus.  To put this into perspective, the Greeks claimed to be able to date the events of the epics of Homer based on a marble stele known as the Parian Marble (Marmor Parium).  They also claimed they had the tomb of Dionysus at Delphi where it was said to contain the limbs by which the Titans had torn apart.  Of course the Argonautika never happened and the Trojan War did not occur.  Dionysus was not torn limb from limb by the titans.  And Jesus never existed either.  All of these events and characters represent literary creations during a period where such creations were commonplace, and euhemerizing was just as common.

(3) On the note of euhemerization, you should be aware that by the time the Talmud would have been in the initial phases of compilation, at least all four Gospels would have been written and collected, and an established orthodoxy would have been put in place.  By the time the Talmud was finalized and canonized by Jews, the canonization of the New Testament would have been officiated for almost three hundred years (if we were to go by St. Athanasius' Easter letter).   I hope this helps put this into perspective for you, and further helps you see why the Talmud is not evidence for a historical Jesus.

This of course proves that there was/is a spaceship behind Hale-Bopp... It should also be noted that the cultists had themselves castrated prior to their blast off. Say what you will, those guys had FAITH.

Then too, there is strong evidence that Mayan and Incan sacrificial victims frequently volunteered for their fate, thus proving that the Gods of the Sun and Moon are real, after all, who would let their hearts get cut out for a 'myth'...

How many have died for the glory of Allah? Does this not mean that Allah is real?

You get my point.

Why do people make stuff up? Ask Joseph Smith (convicted con-man) or L Ron Hubbard...(writer of bad pulp sci-fi)

All the way up to the Nicean Council, there was a deep divide within the early christian community over the existence of Jesus as a historical, flesh and blood person. In other words, from the beginning, there were those that worshiped Jesus, who didn't believe he was a 'real' person, but rather a spiritual being. In my own opinion (yes, just theory) the REASON for making up false geneologies, tall tales and stories lifted and mis-interpreted from the OT was not malicious, but a sincere effort to provide 'evidence' to support a particular dogmatic stance. Many people believed, and still believe that it's ok to lie, as long as it strengthens the faith.

LC >;-}>

I have not had the patience to read through the whole thing admittedly, I've skimmed through it.

If anyone tries to show the Biblical account of Jesus as some sort of proof saying that the gospels match up to one another please simply refer them to the Council of Nicea. If the gospels matched up initially why form a council to decide on things. Using the Bible for proof is bollocks.

I have been researching this issue to death and all my research indicates that Islam, Judiasm and Christianity are all a crock!  Its a hoax people! Let me summarize as best I can.  At least the latter history.  Monotheism (Belief in one god) arose with King Tut's father about 1400 BC, coinciding with the books of Moses.  It has been proven that these early books were slightly modified.  At any rate they borrowed from earlier mythology from Persia and Egypt including the gods Amen, Is Rae and El. Israel.  All Egyptian gods. The books after moses were written over several hundred years.  In about 650BC the Jews lost a greart leader.  To bolster their spirits the clergy arbitrarily declared the coming of a new king, a messiah who would lead them.  Of course he never came.  Around 175BC the Essene cult broke from mainstream Judiasm.  They worshipped a man called the Teacher of Righteousness who was crucified and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.  The Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and hid them in caves because the Jews hated them.  Fast forward to about 70AD.  The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek.  Nobody knows who wrote it.  Jesus is mentioned but Mark is the most simplistic of the gospels.  The writers were not very bright and borrowed from earlier mythology.  Research Chrshna, Bhudda, Mithra and The Teacher of Righteousness.  They are all the same person!!!! Thus A Damn Hoax played upon the ignorant. After that Matthew & Luke are written and the miracles enhanced and embellished to make their central figure Jesus more appealing.  Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark.  John was written after and contradictions abound among the gospels.  In 312 the Christians converted the Emperor of Rome.  Christianity became legal and the following century Rome fell. Surprise!  Education and science stalled and the Dark Ages begins.  Christianity reigns supreme. 

The clergy disagreed with the scriptures so they arbitrarily selected some and compiled the bible and destroyed others.  We have copies of copies of copies translated from Hebrew to Greek into Latin. The bible is created.

Regarding the argument here - No contemporary evidence.  They are correct.  There is none.  Furthermore the Jesus story was plagerized from earlier mythology.  Bhudda and Chrishna were born of virgins on Dec 25th and many other similiarities exist.  Available upon request. 

Christians though are violent and seek to force their beliefs on others.  Who bangs on your door selling reigion?  They went north into Europe of virgins and massacred a continent, committing a holocaust and destroyed the culture of white replacing it with Christianity.  Any Christian supports the faith that butchered our ancestors.  Yes I said butchered.  Hacking, cutting and beheading.  Research it yourself. EX: Charlemagne - Verdun 782AD.  They converted European kings.  Teutonic knights formed during the Third Crusade to wipe out the Pagans - murder them.  The Crusades were all about killing Muslims.  The Muslims, an equally violent offshoot of Judiasm is no different and equally evil.

After that comes the Protestant Reformation once the printing press is invented in 1455 and the bible translated into English, German etc. and distributed to common people. A blood bath followed, the rest is history.

Here's some information on the resurrection appearances from http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm: "In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is "free of doctrinal or moral error"), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. "It is quite obvious," Brown writes, "that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection."[1] "Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances," explains Brown, "the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem."[2] Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the simples solution to the contradiction: "We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee."[3] Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, "Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative."[4] Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.

Epic fail. You used the Buybull.

I know what the Buybull is. It's bullshit. Using it is what is known as "circular logic." Asshat.

Hi Mig_Killer,

I will not address your argument for contemporary evidence concerning Corinthians, since it is not contemporary.  Paul states explicitly that he receives his messages from revelation and not from any man - he explicitly is against the Jewish Christian church, calling them outright hypocrites, and these are the guys (Peter for example) which Gospel authors put down as eyewitnesses to his life.

But your comments about Boyd and Eddys is interesting.  I have read both of them, probably more than you have since I have many of their SBL articles dealing with the Jesus quest.  They both do posit some great speculations, but beyond that the substance is lacking.  But it would be irrelevant regardless.  I can not speak for Brian Sapient, but I do not put any weight into the pagan parallels, and no Jesus Mythicist that I know in scholarship uses the argument from pagan parallels.  What Boyd and Eddys are addressing in their work is a position that has not been held by serious scholars in decades, it is also one I do not hold to. 

I suppose that it is normal for somebody completely ignorant of my position to assume I do make this claim, since so many amateur metaphysicist Jesus mythers do use this claim and it has since been made more famous by the movie Zeitgeist which I do not like personally.  But, I do not hold to such perspectives.  I would suggest you get more acquainted with Richard Carrier and Thomas L. Thompson, Gerd Leudemann and Bob Price.  There are several books being published in the next few years concerning the reopening of the question of historicity, Richard Carrier is publishing one, Thomas L. Thompson is co-editing a book on the subject, I am coming out with one, and Bob Price is also working on another book which may deal with this subject.  To my knowledge, the books already out by Thompson and Price have not been refuted by any scholar through any monograph or collection of essays, nor any peer reviewed journal. 

Highest regards,

Rook

No, Paul is using the term "received" here in the same manner he uses it when refers to "receiving" the revelations from Jesus.  Paul never met Jesus and makes this clear in his epistles.  No historical Jesus scholar which I know of today would make the suggestion that Paul knew Jesus and received a teaching from him. 

I haven't read it because it is not pertinent to me.  You must understand that I have a rather large reading list of material for my research, much of it into modern literary understandings of structure and genre.  I often do not make my scope large enough to include apologists.  I'm sorry if this troubles you, but I simply do not take them seriously enough to include them in my research.  I have serious scholars with critical experience that I must spend time with.

Bob Price was citing a direct reference to an early church father.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

I'll talk to Bob to see if he knows about this critique.  Perhaps he already has up a response that you might want to look at.

I don't know who Tommy is.  Is he the blogger who wants to debate me?  Often times people assume my position (ignorantly) before finding out anything about me.  Perhaps people should spend more time examining my arguments instead of taking them for granted?

Because scholars aren't supermen.  Most likely he didn't know of the book or he didn't find it relevant.  He had other projects going on, like his two articles published in the collection of essays The Empty Tomb.  Additionally he was starting work on his dissertation.  I'm sure the most simplest explanation is just that he didn't have time to get to it.  But just because he didn't, doesn't mean other scholars won't.  If they haven't already.

Take care.  Feel free to stop in stickam one show-night and hang out.