BD you asked "SCOUT your reference to a link which declares Pauls writings much earlier than the gospels is MOST welcome." Paul's writings were still way after the supposed existence of JC - hardly, therefore, original. But as you enjoyed the article so much does this mean you will now become a ‘paulian’ instead of a christian?

Excerpts from David H Lewis’ article.

“The early Christians corroborate virtually nothing that we have previously taken for granted from the gospels!

None of the very first Christians know anything about an annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel. They know of no virgin birth, star of Bethlehem, wise men, Herod, slaughter of the innocents or the flight into Egypt. In fact they know nothing at all of a Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth. They are equally unhelpful about Jesus’ adult adventures, for they know of no disciples, friends or earthly enemies nor of any baptism by John in the Jordan. They don’t mention or quote any teachings, parables or sermons or morals; in fact they attribute no ethical instruction to the earthly Jesus at all…….

……The very first Christians give no indication even that Jerusalem was the place of Jesus’ execution, and nothing in their evidence requires us to believe the event occurred in Pilate’s time; it could have happened at any time in the preceding several centuries! Certainly none of them write as if it was a recent event within their lifetimes……

…..Paul characteristically draws support for his arguments from the Old Testament, not from the earthly Jesus. The reasonable inference here is that none of this was available to Paul because none of it had really happened…..

In the end we must surely ask ourselves, “If the very first Christians knew so little about Jesus, what possible grounds do we have for believing he ever existed?”

So BD, you agree that the gospels are a load of old cobblers and Paul never knew of the supposed Jesus’ many teachings.

We are making progress!

I'm impressed by so many learned people;so many experts on the history/myth of the bible. The bibliographies are amazing. I've never heard of the sources mentioned; you all surpass me.
However... I do know Julius Caesar died 44 BC. Octavian, known Caesar Augustus reigned as first emperor 27BC to 14AD.
Which leads me to my point.
Despite cameras, TV, a literally world wide audience, there is still controversy about the death of JFK, only about 40 years ago.
It seems strange to me that the Creator of the entire Cosmos should manifest itself only once, at a time when people considered stoning women for adultery acceptable behaviour.
Apparently, virgin births weren't all that rare...

This film, based on the book by Brown, based on another work of fiction published by the Jesus Corporation, will probably cause hundreds of thousands of compliant sheep to follow their marketing bell wethers dutifully to the movies.
The dogs are barking!

Bosk has asked good questions, but the tone is to discredit the biblical records: "How about the accuracy of the Gospels regarding the crucifixion. Was it the 3rd hour as Mark 15:25 declares? Or was it the 6th hour as John 19: 14, 15 says?" The charge of inaccuracy is incorrect for the following reasons.

The two writers follow different systems of time. John – Roman time; Mark – Jewish time. For the Romans, the day was from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hours began at 6 pm, so the morning began at 6am. Pliny the Elder's, Natural History 2.77, confirms this.

Mark 15:25 states that "And it was the third hour when they crucified him" (i.e. 9 am). It is almost universally agreed that the Synoptics' hours (Matt., Mark, & Luke) are numbered from sunrise (i.e. starting at approx. 6 am).

John 19:14 does not speak of the time when Jesus was crucified but, "now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He [Pilate] said to the Jews, 'Behold your King!'" This is the time of Christ's appearance before Pilate's judgement seat and not the time of His crucifixion.

Why would John use the Roman system of time? Historical investigation (Irenaeus, 2nd century) indicates that John probably wrote his Gospel ca. AD 85-95 from Ephesus, capital of the Roman province of Asia. So, for the Roman civil day, John would employ the Roman system.

Careful reading of the text and accurate historical investigation solve the alleged problem.

Bosk's other claims "concerning the resurrection - No two gospels agree on who found Jesus' empty tomb first" can be answered with a careful investigation of the parallel texts to show no conflict. I don't have the time to answer these in detail at the moment.

Sounds like Bosk has an anti-biblical agenda!

Sorry BD but that interpretation won't do.

1) The term Christ does NOT mean messiah in ancient Greek. It means ointment & NEVER refers to the one anointed. [Hess in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p.495]. Now remember Josephus was writing to a Roman audience who would have understood Greek. So to them Josephus would have been writing something like "Jesus, who is called the ointment, brother of James." Doesn't make much sense does it? Unless Josephus is supposed to have explained the term elsewhere - such as the Testimonium Falvinium? And as I've already shown the Testimonium Falvinium is fraudulent.

2) It MUST also be noted that Josephus NEVER uses the term "Christ" even when he is arguing that Vespasian is the Messiah. Why would Josephus do it in this instance? Doesn't make much sense does it? So it seems the term "Christ" was probably added to the original passage by a christian scribe.

But does the rest of the passage refer to Jesus? No because it goes against the whole meaning of that section of Josephus!
3) What is the passage about? The key point is that Josephus is explaining why Ananus lost the priesthood and Jesus Damneus got it, of all people. Ananus' error was, he arrested the brother of Jesus of Damneus, accused him of crimes, and then had him stoned in the most high-handed manner. In compensation for this outrage, Ananus takes the fall and Jesus of Damneus gets the High priesthood. Josephus is not identifying which James, he is identifying which brother (of Jesus Damneus). Really, fundamentally, he is just identifying a person, James. It's Joe Blow, who happens to be the brother of the future High Priest. His only role in history is to spur Agrippa to change High Priests. If you keep that in mind the meaning becomes crystal clear.

Ozspen
Four problems with your claims concerning the timing of the crucifixion.

1) John was a Jew writing to a Jewish audience so it seems most reasonable to assume that he used the Jewish method of keeping time {i.e. from sunrise to sunset].

2) John had used Jewish time keeping before [e.g.: John 4:5-7; John 1: 35-39]

3a) Scholarly support is for one method of time keeping used by the Gospel writers. E.g.: “All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.” (From New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88)

3b) Lest you think I’m only quoting from liberal theological sources. FF Bruce [a very conservative bible scholar) writes “As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon. Despite Westcott’s arguments, NO evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were EVER reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches" (The Gospel of John, p.66)

4) Finally “Conclusive proof that the sunrise reference system was used not only by the Jews, but by Greeks and Romans alike is found in dozens of examples of time-reckoning found in the ancient writings. Click on this link if you don’t believe me:

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

Conclusion: You are mistaken & so are the Gospels concerning the time of Jesus’ death!

Now to your stranger claim concerning the identity of who found the tomb? A logical point - Only ONE person or group can EVER be FIRST in any unique event. So if many people are all claiming to be first at the same thing (i.e. I found the tomb first) then most or all of them MUST be wrong. There is NO other alternative unless you want to say bye bye to logical thought.

As to your anti-bible jibe I am NOT against anything [including the bible] - I am on the side of truth! Is there another side?