Atheist women dating sql updating table variable
He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3). 2:8) and that he died and was buried (1 Cor 15:3-4).He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1 Cor. And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians ).If there is any writer who should mention Jesus, it's Josephus. But the majority of modern scholars disagree, arguing there is solid evidence to believe that Josephus did make a mention of Jesus here and that it was added to by Christians to help bolster their arguments against Jewish opponents.That debate aside, the "The earliest Christian traditions make no mention of a historical Jesus and clearly worshipped a purely heavenly, mythic-style being.So it makes far more sense that should mention Jesus than some poets in far off Rome.But it is hard to see why even Philo would be interested in mentioning someone like Jesus, given that he also makes no mentions of any of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers, and Messianic claimants of the time, of which there were many.But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives.
But given that Philo seems to have had no interest at all in any of the various people Jesus, the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus either carries little or no weight.
In fact, there is only one writer of the time who had any interest in such figures, who also had little interest for Roman and Greek writers.
He was the Jewish historian Josephus, who is our sole source for virtually all of the Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers, and Messianic claimants of this time. Mythicists take comfort in the fact that the first of these references has been added to by later Christian scribes, so they dismiss it as a wholesale interpolation.
So it sounds suspicious to people that there are no contemporary records at all detailing or even mentioning Jesus.
But our sources for in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous—they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.
Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.