I let you choose the topic and you have chosen something with which I admit I am not fully versed. When dealing with such things (on any subject) I will see what the experts have to say. In this case, I find no compelling expert argument to suggest that Socrates and the others are fictional. What would you have me say? And since you are making an argument about Socrates, are you saying you are an expert on him? That is what your logic suggests.
The whole point of this thread is that there is a double standard when dealing with philosophical and religious figures.
If the evidence for both Jesus and Socrates is similar, then the fact that experts do not argue over the historicity of Socrates but do argue over the historicity of Jesus demonstrates that a double standard is in action.
But to carry it even further, no one even believes that Plato or Xeonophon are quoting Socrates accurately - even the experts believe that Plato and Xenophon are constructing their own arguments and putting them in Socrates' mouth in the various dialogues that feature him, and Aristophanes is obviously producing a parody.
The evidence for Socrates' existence and views is therefore even more sparse than that for Jesus, and yet he is viewed as an authentic historical figure with very little argument. That's a clear sign that a double standard is at work.
I think I understand what you meant, and that you obviously mis-spoke when you tried to communicate it.
Well, Christianity was clearly around, so the movement must have been started at least by that time.
It's not just Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke tell some of the nativity, but the rest of the New Testament effectively is a claim that Jesus lived in the 1st Century. And then you have the Church fathers as well, and historians noting that Christianity stems from that time. There are a lot more sources than just Matthew and Luke.
I believe we went over the geneologies in some detail earlier. I don't find the disagreement between the two to be of any great concern.
I can trace my own genealogy to common ancestors along a good number of completely different paths.
Actually neither one gives a date like "4 BCE". Refrences to events mentioned in the nativity, such as the census, have been used to try to date each account by historians, but they could be wrong, since they are working on what limited records have survived.
When did this go from "first appearance" to "widespread knowledge"?
Isn't the date of first appearance more important than how popular or widespread they were when asking if they are authentic accounts?
Is this an "if I ran the zoo" argument? Ignatius' letters give signs that they were all written rather hastily, which is understandable, since he was under arrest and on his way to Rome to be executed when he wrote them. It's quite likely that he did not have any written documents with him to consult and quote from. His letters are not heavily-researched and planned documents, but hastily-written and from the heart. Arguing that he should have quoted from the Gospels if he had known of them ignores the context in which he wrote.
Which may simply mean that Clement had access to additional traditions or writings beyond what have survived to the present. It does not indicate that Clement did not know of the gospels.
Clement was not attempting to recount a history of Jesus in his writings, so he has no need to go into detail of the death of Jesus.
Are you referring to the
Epistle of Barnabas, written by what is commonly called Psuedo-Barnabas? The real St. Barnabas died in AD 64.
An excellent possible explanation, actually.
So not quoting from a work or mis-quoting it is evidence against the existence of a work? I'm not sure that's solid reasoning.
If I re-tell the story of
The Hobbit without actually quoting it directly or by mis-quoting it, is that evidence that I haven't actually read
The Hobbit or that
The Hobbit doesn't actually exist?
However, that isn't even what's happening here - to carry the analogy, these people aren't even trying to retell the story of
The Hobbit, but are just referring to characters from the story outside of its context.
Which doesn't really say much about whether they are authentic.
My translation says it was "the princes of this world", and it does mention that they crucified him. "Princes of this world" is more or less accurate - it was the Romans and the leaders of the Jews together who killed Jesus. Those more concerned with worldly wealth than the heavenly knowledge Jesus had to offer - thus "princes of the world."
I'm sorry - I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this quote. Are you trying to contrast "princes of this world" with "rulers and authorities in the heavenly places"? But it's not a contradiction - he is exploring two different ideas, in two entirely different letters.
This fits in rather well with the gospel accounts, in which the Jewish authoritiese can't find any solid witnessess against him and in which he "disarms" Pilate by his manner. The triumph spoken of, of course, is the resurrection. Colossians also mentions the cross just before the verses you quote.
If you are looking for fault it is easy to pre-suppose that Paul must exactly quote the gospels in order to discuss Jesus in any degree, but that is not the case.
They were not attempting to produce an account of Jesus' crucifiction, so there is no reason for them to go into great detail about it.
It looks to me like he was talking about both, and that Jesus overcame the earthly rulers.
But was predicted by Jesus in the gospels.
But which is also in keeping with the gospel accounts. Can you point to a place where he contradicts the account?
No, he's not - because Paul isn't telling the tale of Jesus. He is speaking to an audience of the Church and attempting to correct them in matters of doctrine where he believes they have gone wrong, not give the history of Jesus. His epistles are not historical or biographical - they are doctrinal and corrective. They assume a basic knowledge of Jesus' story and teachings because they were written to communities of believers.