Greetings all,

(The conversation about Jesus' historicity seems to have spilled into
several groups, here is my post from soc.history.ancient.)


Apologists often claim no-one refuted or doubted Christian claims until
recently. This is patently false, as the folowing shows :


Early refutations of Christianity
===============================

We can see how Christianity was received in the early days by how it
was described, such as :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"

This is not the sign of a new truth being accepted - it is obviously
the EXACT OPPOSITE - a wacky new cult, initially mostly ignored,
sometimes ridiculed and rejected with dismissive comments.


Jewish responses to Christianity
================================

The Jewish response is just what we would expect of a wacky new cult -
initially they ignore it. But late in the 1st century, as more Jews
leave for Christianity, the Jews formally BAN the Christians from their
synagogues and curse them as "minim". And lets not forget the Gospels
arose sometime after the war, the Jews had a LOT more to worry about
than refuting some new cult.

Later, of course, when Christianity is rising to power, and the Jews
have recovered from the Roman destructions, they DO try to discredit
Jesus with all sorts of horrible stories being told -
* Jesus is a ***** (a mamzer) born from Mary's adultery with a Roman
soldier,
* Jesus is a child conceived in the "time of separation" (during
menstruation),
* Jesus was a evil magician who tried to lead people astray,

This is not the sign of the Jews unable to refute Christianity - on the
contrary - it's the sign of a new cult which is at first ignored, then
ridiculed and attacked when it starts to become a threat.


Variant Christian views
=======================

In the formative period of Christianity, the 2nd century, we see all
sorts of disagreement about specific Christian claims :

JOHN, POLYCARP -

The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a
son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the
flesh.

The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that
Jesus came in the flesh.

MINUCIUS FELIX

Consider the astonishing case of Minucius Felix - he explicitly
rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, he
explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century
church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the
crucifixion - 2 central beliefs of Christians.

GNOSTICS etc.

Many other disagreements are expressed in the 2nd century :
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom
or spiritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",
* forged letters warning about forgeries and "other christs"

2ND CENTURY SILENCES

We also see examples of 2nd century Christian writers who discuss
Christian beliefs at length but conspicuously FAIL to mention Jesus -

* Mathetes to Diognetus - responded to 'close and careful inquiries'
and preaches in Neo-Platonic tones of the Logos, his Son, but no time,
place, or identity for this incarnation are provided. The name Jesus
never appears.

* Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks - Esoteric Christianity at its
finest - neither Christ nor Jesus not Son is mentioned anywhere - the
Logos is the emphasis. In Ch.21, Tatian compared Christianity with
pagan mythology and wrote: "Compare you own stories with our

narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the
grounds that we too tell stories".

* Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On
The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in
a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of
Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In
Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned, but the
Logos is directly equated with the Son of God.

* Theophilus (of Antioch) wrote To Autolycus which does NOT mention
Christ, nor Jesus.

In short - the 2nd century is full of refutations and rebuttals as the
varying Christian sub-sects argued about what was "really true" about
Jesus.

This is not the sign of a historical event which was not refuted - its
a clear sign of the exact opposite - religious mythology being argued
over.


Forged Christian works

Many of the early Christian documents were FORGED in the name of
someone else, including :
* deutero-Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians)
* Pastorals
* James
* 1,2 Peter
* 1,2,3 John
* Jude

Such forgeries argue AGAINST it being history. The Gospels too, are
anonymous works - authors unknown.


Pagan responses to Christianity
===============================

Initially, the new cult is largely ignored, but ridiculed by a few
writers -
* Tacitus - "a class hated for their abominations", "a most mischievous
superstition"
* Pliny - "this mad sect"
* Lucian - "misguided creatures"

This is not the sign of a grand new truth being accepted - it is the
sign of a wacky new cult which barely rated a dismissive mention at
first.

Later on, when Christianity and the Gospels first rose to prominence,
they DID receive detailed rebuttals.

CELSUS -

Celsus specifically attacked the Gospels as "fiction" based on myths,
and he claimed the Gospels were changed over and over to deflect
criticism. Hoffman's reconstruction has quotes such as these :

"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story
of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians
are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to
conceal this monstrous fiction"

Celsus' attack was so damaging to the church, that they attempted to
erase it from history, we only have quotes of it because of angry
Christians who answered his critique.

This is not the sign of external agreement on Christian claims - it is
demonstrably the exact opposite - a specific attack that the Gospels
were FICTION, an attack so damaging the church tried to burn every copy
of it.

PORPHYRY -

A few generations later, as the church is consolidating its power, a
pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs
"Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :

"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses
to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing
his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"

"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he
takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."

"Another section in the gospel deserves comment, for it is likewise
devoid Of sense and full of implausibility; I mean that absurd story
about Jesus sending his apostles across the sea ahead of him after a
banquet, then walking across to them 'at the fourth watch of the
night'...Those who know the region well tell us that, in fact, there is
no 'sea' in the locality but only a tiny lake which springs from a
river that flows through the hills of Galilee near Tiberias... Mark
seems to be stretching a point to extremities when he writes that
Jesus-- after nine hours had passed-- decided in the tenth to walk
across to his disciples who had been floating about on the pond for the
duration... It is fables like this one that we judge the gospel to be a
cleverly woven curtain, each thread of which requires careful scrutiny"

JULIAN -

Then, just as Christianity had come to be the state religion, the Roman
emperor Julian rejected the faith and wrote his own refutation of
Christianity, "Against the Galileans", including comments such as :
".. why do you worship this spurious son of his whom has never been
recognised as his own", and "You however, I know not why, foist on him
a counterfeit son".

Note this telling criticism of Julian, the educated Roman emperor :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the
well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of
Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on
all matters"

Here we see Julian explicitly state that Jesus and the Gospel stories
are UNKNOWN TO HISTORY.

There is no doubt from this that early Christianity was dismissed as a
cult based on lies and myths.

Iasion

Apologists often claim no-one refuted or doubted Christian claims until
recently. This is patently false, as the folowing shows :

Early refutations of Christianity
===============================

We can see how Christianity was received in the early days by how it
was described, such as :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"

This is not the sign of a new truth being accepted - it is obviously
the EXACT OPPOSITE - a wacky new cult, initially mostly ignored,
sometimes ridiculed and rejected with dismissive comments.

Jewish responses to Christianity
================================

The Jewish response is just what we would expect of a wacky new cult -
initially they ignore it. But late in the 1st century, as more Jews
leave for Christianity, the Jews formally BAN the Christians from their
synagogues and curse them as "minim". And lets not forget the Gospels
arose sometime after the war, the Jews had a LOT more to worry about
than refuting some new cult.

Later, of course, when Christianity is rising to power, and the Jews
have recovered from the Roman destructions, they DO try to discredit
Jesus with all sorts of horrible stories being told -
* Jesus is a ***** (a mamzer) born from Mary's adultery with a Roman
soldier,
* Jesus is a child conceived in the "time of separation" (during
menstruation),
* Jesus was a evil magician who tried to lead people astray,

This is not the sign of the Jews unable to refute Christianity - on the
contrary - it's the sign of a new cult which is at first ignored, then
ridiculed and attacked when it starts to become a threat.

Variant Christian views
=======================

In the formative period of Christianity, the 2nd century, we see all
sorts of disagreement about specific Christian claims :

JOHN, POLYCARP -

The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a
son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the
flesh.

The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that
Jesus came in the flesh.

MINUCIUS FELIX

Consider the astonishing case of Minucius Felix - he explicitly
rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, he
explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century
church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the
crucifixion - 2 central beliefs of Christians.

GNOSTICS etc.

Many other disagreements are expressed in the 2nd century :
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom
or spiritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",
* forged letters warning about forgeries and "other christs"

2ND CENTURY SILENCES

We also see examples of 2nd century Christian writers who discuss
Christian beliefs at length but conspicuously FAIL to mention Jesus -

* Mathetes to Diognetus - responded to 'close and careful inquiries'
and preaches in Neo-Platonic tones of the Logos, his Son, but no time,
place, or identity for this incarnation are provided. The name Jesus
never appears.

* Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks - Esoteric Christianity at its
finest - neither Christ nor Jesus not Son is mentioned anywhere - the
Logos is the emphasis. In Ch.21, Tatian compared Christianity with
pagan mythology and wrote: "Compare you own stories with our

narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the
grounds that we too tell stories".

* Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On
The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in
a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of
Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In
Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned, but the
Logos is directly equated with the Son of God.

* Theophilus (of Antioch) wrote To Autolycus which does NOT mention
Christ, nor Jesus.

In short - the 2nd century is full of refutations and rebuttals as the
varying Christian sub-sects argued about what was "really true" about
Jesus.

This is not the sign of a historical event which was not refuted - its
a clear sign of the exact opposite - religious mythology being argued
over.


Forged Christian works

Many of the early Christian documents were FORGED in the name of
someone else, including :
* deutero-Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians)
* Pastorals
* James
* 1,2 Peter
* 1,2,3 John
* Jude


Such forgeries argue AGAINST it being history. The Gospels too, are
anonymous works - authors unknown.

Pagan responses to Christianity
===============================

Initially, the new cult is largely ignored, but ridiculed by a few
writers -
* Tacitus - "a class hated for their abominations", "a most mischievous
superstition"

* Pliny - "this mad sect"
* Lucian - "misguided creatures"

This is not the sign of a grand new truth being accepted - it is the
sign of a wacky new cult which barely rated a dismissive mention at
first.

Later on, when Christianity and the Gospels first rose to prominence,
they DID receive detailed rebuttals.

CELSUS -

Celsus specifically attacked the Gospels as "fiction" based on myths,
and he claimed the Gospels were changed over and over to deflect
criticism. Hoffman's reconstruction has quotes such as these :

"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story
of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians
are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to
conceal this monstrous fiction"

Celsus' attack was so damaging to the church, that they attempted to
erase it from history, we only have quotes of it because of angry
Christians who answered his critique.

This is not the sign of external agreement on Christian claims - it is
demonstrably the exact opposite - a specific attack that the Gospels
were FICTION, an attack so damaging the church tried to burn every copy
of it.

PORPHYRY -

A few generations later, as the church is consolidating its power, a
pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs
"Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :

"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses
to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing
his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"

"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he
takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."

"Another section in the gospel deserves comment, for it is likewise
devoid Of sense and full of implausibility; I mean that absurd story
about Jesus sending his apostles across the sea ahead of him after a
banquet, then walking across to them 'at the fourth watch of the
night'...Those who know the region well tell us that, in fact, there is
no 'sea' in the locality but only a tiny lake which springs from a
river that flows through the hills of Galilee near Tiberias... Mark
seems to be stretching a point to extremities when he writes that
Jesus-- after nine hours had passed-- decided in the tenth to walk
across to his disciples who had been floating about on the pond for the
duration... It is fables like this one that we judge the gospel to be a
cleverly woven curtain, each thread of which requires careful scrutiny"

JULIAN -

Then, just as Christianity had come to be the state religion, the Roman
emperor Julian rejected the faith and wrote his own refutation of
Christianity, "Against the Galileans", including comments such as :
".. why do you worship this spurious son of his whom has never been
recognised as his own", and "You however, I know not why, foist on him
a counterfeit son".

Note this telling criticism of Julian, the educated Roman emperor :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the
well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of
Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on
all matters"

Here we see Julian explicitly state that Jesus and the Gospel stories
are UNKNOWN TO HISTORY.

There is no doubt from this that early Christianity was dismissed as a
cult based on lies and myths.