[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

...No one here including myself it's arguing about complete accuracy of the gospels. Simply the existence of a man named Jesus in the early first century

I am actually arguing for a little more than that. I contend that:
· a real man named Jesus of Nazareth existed in Palestine in the first century CE
· he was an apocalyptic reformer who gained a following
· he was executed by crucifixion for sedition in accordance with Roman law
· his followers believed he had risen from the dead, and had appeared posthumously to several of them.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Again, we are at a standstill when we have to use the Gospels as a historical reference for the man named Jesus.

Are you suggesting in this then that because the Gospels are historically dubious then it follows that they are historically worthless? In my opinion, this is an extreme and unreasonable form of scepticism that is analogous to denying the occurrence of the Trojan War because of the exceptional historical problems with Homer.

* I will procede to happily answer your questions, but I also expect that you follow suit and answer some of my own. I am still waiting for your response to my queries about your confidence in the existence of the last high priest in the Jerusalem Temple, Phineas ben Samuel...

Originally Posted by Cheese

• Was there any first hand knowledge of the man or simply references based on hearsay?

No document or record of Jesus survives from an eyewitness. However, I have already qualified precisely why that is the case, and furthermore have shown why this is actually to be expected. The absence of eye-witness testimony in no way invalidates the historical probability that there was a real man, Jesus of Nazereth. I have already agreed that my evidence is circumstantial, but have argued at length why this is not terribly problematic for my own case. The point being, At least my historical reconstruction depends upon SOME evidence, unlike mythicists' theories which consistently suffer from an utter dearth of any corroboration.

What I am curious about is the alternative. What evidence do you depend upon to presume that Jesus was a myth? Do you have any "first hand knowledge" of a Jewish "Christ-myth" in the first century? What historical criteria have you employed in assessing the mythicists' theories, and by what methods do you determine their superiority to my own claims?

Originally Posted by Cheese

• When did the first reference to Jesus get recorded?

In the Pauline Epistles. Scholars are practically unanimous in assigning all of the undisputed Paulines to a 20-year period between 45–65 CE. These letters include Romans, Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians and Philemon. The earliest of these is 1 Thessalonians, which is commonly dated between 45–50, but it is safe to assume that most would set it closer to 50. Bear in mind that while Paul's letters present the earliest documented evidence for Jesus, they contain traditions that are also virtually universally regarded as pre-Pauline. That is, while Paul was writing these things down in the 50's and 60's, he was also citing sources (likely oral but perhaps also written) that testify to the existence of Jesus, and which he clearly did not invent. Examples of these are in the Corinthian confession in 1 Corinthians 15 (written b. 57 CE), and the Christological hymn in Phil 2:6–11 (written ca. 56 CE), and a citation of one of Jesus's teachings in 1 Thes 4:13–18 (c.a. 50–51 CE).

So, if we accept that traditions about Jesus were in circulation prior to their documentation in 50, this would indicate their existence within 12–20 years of his death, and almost certainly within the lifetime of followers and companions who would have witnessed his death. If you are determined to deny the existence of the man Jesus, then you must produce a plausible and historically legitimate counter theory—that is, one which depends upon geographical, cultural, religious, and political certainties and receives support from even a modicum of circumstantial evidence—which contains the invention of a Christ myth within Palestine and within the lifetime of the same people who were witnesses to the mythologized period and events in question.

...So where is your evidence?