Have been following with interest a series of posts on the Vridar site about many different takes on that heroic figure from the bible - Moses:

From book 5 of Tacitus’s Histories:

3 1 Most authors agree that once during a plague in Egypt which caused bodily disfigurement, King Bocchoris approached the oracle of Ammon and asked for a remedy, whereupon he was told to purge his kingdom and to transport this race into other lands, since it was hateful to the gods.

So the Hebrews were searched out and gathered together; then, being abandoned in the desert, while all others lay idle and weeping, one only of the exiles, Moses by name, warned them not to hope for help from gods or men, for they were deserted by both, but to trust to themselves, regarding as a guide sent from heaven the one whose assistance should first give them escape from their present distress.

They agreed, and then set out on their journey in utter ignorance, but trusting to chance. Nothing caused them so much distress as scarcity of water, and in fact they had already fallen exhausted over the plain nigh unto death, when a herd of wild asses moved from their pasturage to a rock that was shaded by a grove of trees. Moses followed them, and, conjecturing the truth from the grassy ground, discovered abundant streams of water.

This relieved them, and they then marched six days continuously, and on the seventh seized a country, expelling the former inhabitants; there they founded a city and dedicated a temple.


https://youtu.be/y4SnzwjriGg

Though this figure is now largely dismissed as mythical and his adventures - including the slavery in Egypt interlude and exodus - fictional events, no one seems to have taken the trouble to publish 'doubts' about Moses or the Exodus stories.

Owdhat wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

Owdhat wrote:Not in such close proximity to the emergence of the first text and when the event was supposed to have happened - about 50 to 100 years.

If you are going to argue for an HJ you must have one.

Your HJ is a cult member/leader, most likely obscure, who's friends/family/followers told his story after he was whacked by the authorities. Later the story got embellished by writers. Is that basically it?

Please feel free to add/clarify.

Basically, though there is scant info on friends and family to be had excepting the one sibling they call James.
He appears as a follower of 'John the Baptist' and is executed a couple or so years later during which time he:

Gains some notoriety amongst the locals for treating & having limited success with sick people.

Teaches and makes speeches that are good enough to be remembered or partially remembered years later.

Not a very long appearance on the scene to get noticed outside his of his circle.

An accident of history makes him the ideal candidate to front the new growing religious movement loosely based around his, probably misunderstood teaching.

Several hundred years later crucifixion for low life is banned and suddenly the cross looses its stigma and starts to appear in Christian iconography.

For Stein's benefit, and in my own defense I suppose I submit the above response. My point is that there is no methodology for distinguishing tale from invention. I'm arguing primarily from a literary standpoint. It really doesn't matter if someone else talks about Clark Kent the reporter. Superman is still just a story.

In the end there is no historical superman unless we confer historicity on every idea and character ever penned, which I think is where the HJ argument tries to get its steam.

I'll pull out my dragon analogy again. We all know dragons are not real, yet everything about them is as real as real gets if we cut one up and look at all the pieces. Are dragons historical? How or how not? I say they are not.

And 'criterion for embarrassment' claims are purely religious/political cases of special pleading. There are countless embarrassing accounts of protagonists and events in literature generally, but no one takes the time to state that these events and situations must be historically accurate or else they would never have made print. It's just silly. In the case for an alleged HJ the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, and amounts to nothing more than question begging.

Ducktown wrote:
For Stein's benefit, and in my own defense I suppose I submit the above response. My point is that there is no methodology for distinguishing tale from invention. I'm arguing primarily from a literary standpoint.

This is so NOT what you said in your previous. You said

"Free and others have stated that if a tale contains real people, places and events, then it is a factual tale. But they have never stated how they decide what parts are real and what parts are invented by the author" [emphasis mine].

That was a DIRECT pointing at statements made by specific individuals AT THIS THREAD. You were NOT referencing airy-fairy generalizing about literary conventions overall. You were targeting specific individuals IN THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION and lying about them.

Deal with it.



Stein

The HJ argument is going nowhwere.

Stein uses the Christian Bible to argue the Heresy that Jesus was a mere man with a human father which is PRECISELY what the Christian Bible DENIES.

The HJ argument must be the very worst argument known to mankind.

It is like using Superman comics to argue that Superman was really real with a human father and was NOT born on Krypton.

1. Christians of antiquity admitted their Jesus had NO brother called James the apostle.

2. Christians of antiquity claimed James the apostle was ALIVE c 68-69 CE or years AFTER James in Antiquities of the Jews was dead.

3. Christian writers admitted their Jesus was Born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

4. Galatians 1.19 does not mention a character called Jesus.

5. The Pauline Corpus was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus, a mere man with a human father.

6. There are NO stories of Jesus of Nazareth from the 1st century.

The HJ character is nothing but modern imaginative fiction based on ANCIENT myth/fiction fables called the New Testament.

Mark - or the narrative attributed to Mark- says nothing about the birth of the man introduced on his way to meet the baptizer.
Christian writers have said many things that are not found in the gospel attributed to Mark. What the Christian writers say only shows the selling pitch that made a religion .

The beginning of Mark is easy to accept as the way a 'gifted nobody' would have made his/her entrance into the revolutionary history of a community.

Also note the original GMark has no zombie appearances for Jesus after he disappears from the tomb either.

Stein

Ducktown wrote:

Owdhat wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

Owdhat wrote:Not in such close proximity to the emergence of the first text and when the event was supposed to have happened - about 50 to 100 years.

If you are going to argue for an HJ you must have one.

Your HJ is a cult member/leader, most likely obscure, who's friends/family/followers told his story after he was whacked by the authorities. Later the story got embellished by writers. Is that basically it?

Please feel free to add/clarify.

Basically, though there is scant info on friends and family to be had excepting the one sibling they call James.
He appears as a follower of 'John the Baptist' and is executed a couple or so years later during which time he:

Gains some notoriety amongst the locals for treating & having limited success with sick people.

Teaches and makes speeches that are good enough to be remembered or partially remembered years later.

Not a very long appearance on the scene to get noticed outside his of his circle.

An accident of history makes him the ideal candidate to front the new growing religious movement loosely based around his, probably misunderstood teaching.

Several hundred years later crucifixion for low life is banned and suddenly the cross looses its stigma and starts to appear in Christian iconography.

For Stein's benefit, and in my own defense I suppose I submit the above response. My point is that there is no methodology for distinguishing tale from invention. I'm arguing primarily from a literary standpoint. It really doesn't matter if someone else talks about Clark Kent the reporter. Superman is still just a story.

In the end there is no historical superman unless we confer historicity on every idea and character ever penned, which I think is where the HJ argument tries to get its steam.

I'll pull out my dragon analogy again. We all know dragons are not real, yet everything about them is as real as real gets if we cut one up and look at all the pieces. Are dragons historical? How or how not? I say they are not.

And 'criterion for embarrassment' claims are purely religious/political cases of special pleading. There are countless embarrassing accounts of protagonists and events in literature generally, but no one takes the time to state that these events and situations must be historically accurate or else they would never have made print. It's just silly. In the case for an alleged HJ the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, and amounts to nothing more than question begging.

I can't find the above reply from Owdhat (ie as highlighted above in red), so at present I can only reply to it via Ducktown's quoting of it above -

- Owdhat, what you say above highlighted in red, that's something you simply made up though is it not? I mean - that is not what it says about Jesus in the biblical writing, is it!

In the biblical writing it says Jesus performed miracle A, then he gave some wonderful insightful speech, then he performed miracle B, then he performed miracle C, then he made some amazing prophecy D, then he performed miracle E, then miracle F, then G, then H, I, J .... X, Y and Z... and then more & more! Why did your account leave all of that out??

You are trying to describe what in these threads is called a HJ. That is a recently invented (c.1800) Jesus stripped of almost all the central biblical descriptions of him (all of which are impossible), purely and entirely for the purpose of trying to suggest that if you pick out only the bits that are not physically impossible then you are left with bit's that are at least not physically impossible!! ... well you could do exactly that with the tales of Superman, Spiderman, Alice in Wonderland and every absurdly bogus ghost story and flying saucer story ever told!

And still, even after that totally bogus method of erasing practically everything of consequence ever claimed by anyone at all about Jesus in biblical times, you are left with the fact that not a single person ever wrote to make any credible claim that they had themselves ever known any such person as Jesus at all.

And if nobody ever knew Jesus, then all that any of the writing about him could ever contain as "evidence", is just evidence of their religious hearsay beliefs about an unknown un-evidenced supernatural prophesised messiah of their past. And that is evidence only of religious belief. It is not actually any evidence of Jesus ever known to anyone at all ... i.e. none, 100% zero.

And just as a footnote to the above - a few pages back I think either you or Oldskeptic asked me if the only evidence that counted was if someone actually wrote to make a credible claim of meeting Jesus. And the answer to that is no ... no, that is not the only way to have genuine evidence, providing you do have some other genuine evidence such as architectural or other physical remains, or else official local governors records of things like arrests and trials etc., or failing any of that, you might have actual contemporaries who gave traceable accounts of events that could be independently confirmed as details for the activities of Jesus. But afaik, you actually have precisely none of that. Not a single thing! No such architectural or other physical remains of any kind (though thousands of Christian fakes like the Shroud of Turin and the Bone Box of James etc.); no such official Roman court records or any other such records ever saying a single thing about Jesus ; and no actual independent contemporary writing of any kind giving any check-able or confirm-able details of a single thing about Jesus...none, nothing at all, big fat Zero.

IanS wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

Owdhat wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

If you are going to argue for an HJ you must have one.

Your HJ is a cult member/leader, most likely obscure, who's friends/family/followers told his story after he was whacked by the authorities. Later the story got embellished by writers. Is that basically it?

Please feel free to add/clarify.

Basically, though there is scant info on friends and family to be had excepting the one sibling they call James.
He appears as a follower of 'John the Baptist' and is executed a couple or so years later during which time he:

Gains some notoriety amongst the locals for treating & having limited success with sick people.

Teaches and makes speeches that are good enough to be remembered or partially remembered years later.

Not a very long appearance on the scene to get noticed outside his of his circle.

An accident of history makes him the ideal candidate to front the new growing religious movement loosely based around his, probably misunderstood teaching.

Several hundred years later crucifixion for low life is banned and suddenly the cross looses its stigma and starts to appear in Christian iconography.

For Stein's benefit, and in my own defense I suppose I submit the above response. My point is that there is no methodology for distinguishing tale from invention. I'm arguing primarily from a literary standpoint. It really doesn't matter if someone else talks about Clark Kent the reporter. Superman is still just a story.

In the end there is no historical superman unless we confer historicity on every idea and character ever penned, which I think is where the HJ argument tries to get its steam.

I'll pull out my dragon analogy again. We all know dragons are not real, yet everything about them is as real as real gets if we cut one up and look at all the pieces. Are dragons historical? How or how not? I say they are not.

And 'criterion for embarrassment' claims are purely religious/political cases of special pleading. There are countless embarrassing accounts of protagonists and events in literature generally, but no one takes the time to state that these events and situations must be historically accurate or else they would never have made print. It's just silly. In the case for an alleged HJ the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, and amounts to nothing more than question begging.

I can't find the above reply from Owdhat (ie as highlighted above in red), so at present I can only reply to it via Ducktown's quoting of it above -

- Owdhat, what you say above highlighted in red, that's something you simply made up though is it not? I mean - that is not what it says about Jesus in the biblical writing, is it!

In the biblical writing it says Jesus performed miracle A, then he gave some wonderful insightful speech, then he performed miracle B, then he performed miracle C, then he made some amazing prophecy D, then he performed miracle E, then miracle F, then G, then H, I, J .... X, Y and Z... and then more & more! Why did your account leave all of that out??

You are trying to describe what in these threads is called a HJ. That is a recently invented (c.1800) Jesus stripped of almost all the central biblical descriptions of him (all of which are impossible), purely and entirely for the purpose of trying to suggest that if you pick out only the bits that are not physically impossible then you are left with bit's that are at least not physically impossible!!

Why will no myther ever, ever address and actually analyze the research that has recently been made on the philological layers in the various sources, the colloquialisms and Aramaicisms that have been unwrapped in certain Koine Greek materials but significantly not in others and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications from many more agnostics in the profession than just Ehrman? We've seen references to the Aramaicisms and colloquialisms in this very thread from a number of different posters already. It is the act of a troll to pretend that such references have not been made right here. It is the act of a troll to routinely trot out a shameless lie instead that the HJ model is not based on any philological scholarship at all, when it bloody well is. It is the act of a troll and a woo peddler to routinely trot out the same lie over and over again, showing that the goal of mythers is not to analyze all the data and the research that the modern world has finally generated, but to peddle kool-aid that they know to be based on lies, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

No, Yeshua the human rabbi was never a zombie. But these mythers sometimes act like they're the real zombies around here.

Stein

Stein wrote:Why will no myther ever, ever address and actually analyze the research that has recently been made on the philological layers in the various sources, the colloquialisms and Aramaicisms that have been unwrapped in certain Koine Greek materials but significantly not in others and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications from many more agnostics in the profession than just Ehrman? We've seen references to the Aramaicisms and colloquialisms in this very thread from a number of different posters already. It is the act of a troll to pretend that such references have not been made right here. It is the act of a troll to routinely trot out a shameless lie instead that the HJ model is not based on any philological scholarship at all, when it bloody well is. It is the act of a troll and a woo peddler to routinely trot out the same lie over and over again, showing that the goal of mythers is not to analyze all the data and the research that the modern world has finally generated, but to peddle kool-aid that they know to be based on lies, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

No, Yeshua the human rabbi was never a zombie. But these mythers sometimes act like they're the real zombies around here.

Stein

Why will no myther historicist ever, ever address and actually analyze present the research that has [ever] been made on "the philological layers" in 'the various sources', the 'colloquialisms' and Aramaicisms that have been 'unwrapped' in 'certain' Koine Greek materials, but 'significantly' not in others, and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications ... ??

References, please!!

It is the act of a troll to pretend that such references have not been made right here.

It is the act of a troll to routinely trot out a shameless lie instead that - the HJ model is not based on any philological scholarship at all - without producing said scholarship !!

It is the act of a troll and a woo peddler to routinely trot out the same lie over and over again, showing that the goal of mythers historicists is not to analyze all the data and the research that the modern world has finally generated, but to peddle kool-aid ...

Stein - please peddle the references to said scholarship !!!

Stein wrote:Also note the original GMark has no zombie appearances for Jesus after he disappears from the tomb either.

Stein

gMark's Jesus was a Transfiguring Sea water water who was in the company of Satan BEFORE he was raised from the dead.

Stein, you have only confirmed that YOUR HJ is found in the Myth/Fiction fables called the New Testament.

Stein, what original are you talking about?

You invent your own ORIGINALS.

The manuscripts and Codices with gMark is no earlier than the 3rd century and do not state anywhere that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.

Mark 6:48

And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

Jesus was a GHOST in gMark.

No human being can WALK on the sea for MILES.

Mark 9:2

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: andhe was transfigured before them..

The author of gMark wrote FICTION

Mark 1:13

And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him..

Stein wrote:[

Why will no myther ever, ever address and actually analyze the research that has recently been made on the philological layers in the various sources, the colloquialisms and Aramaicisms that have been unwrapped in certain Koine Greek materials but significantly not in others and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications from many more agnostics in the profession than just Ehrman? We've seen references to the Aramaicisms and colloquialisms in this very thread from a number of different posters already. It is the act of a troll to pretend that such references have not been made right here. It is the act of a troll to routinely trot out a shameless lie instead that the HJ model is not based on any philological scholarship at all, when it bloody well is. It is the act of a troll and a woo peddler to routinely trot out the same lie over and over again, showing that the goal of mythers is not to analyze all the data and the research that the modern world has finally generated, but to peddle kool-aid that they know to be based on lies, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

No, Yeshua the human rabbi was never a zombie. But these mythers sometimes act like they're the real zombies around here.

Stein

Your claims only confirm your desperation. Why are you peddling the Christian Bible

There is NO Yeshua the human rabbi in Tacitus' Annal's 15.44.

There is no Yeshua the human rabbi in Josephus' Antiquities 20.9.1.

The character called a Rabbi in the NT was God Creator, Born of a Ghost and/or a Transfiguring WATER Walker.

* bump *

Stein wrote:Why will no myther ever, ever address and actually analyze the research that has recently been made on the philological layers in the various sources, the colloquialisms and Aramaicisms that have been unwrapped in certain Koine Greek materials but significantly not in others and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications from many more agnostics in the profession than just Ehrman?

Writing only my own opinion, I have no quarrel with your links to "peer-vetted publications". I acknowledge having not yet read even ONE of your sources.

Oh, that's right. There are no links, no references, no sources. Just insults.

So, let's try something else.

Suppose I were to grant you, that is, to acknowledge, right here, in black and white, unequivocal, no holds barred, flat out acknowledge that you are correct, and that various Koine Greek materials indicate Aramaicisms underlying the Koine Greek texts, we call "gospels".

So, now let's see how that will help us.

There are then, THREE possibilities, to account for these Aramaicisims: (assuming that the Koine Greek texts have not been adulterated in the past 1800 years.)
A. The Aramaicisms in the Greek text demonstrate the living human Jesus' actual language at the time he lived. Nota Bene, they could not reflect the text of a native speaker of divine origin, for a supernatural deity's omniscience would have eliminated such contamination: he would have elaborated pure koine Greek, and or pure Hebrew, or pure Aramaic, as he chose, but not intermingle the three, in apparently casual fashion, as one might expect from an uneducated fisherman or tradesman.

B. The Aramaicisms in the Greek text reflect errors in speaking proper Koine Greek, as would not have been anticipated from a twelve year old boy so intelligent that he taught the rabbis in the Temple. These errors serve as curious impediments to understanding Jesus' existence on terra firma, they are certainly unconvincing as evidence of a divinity, walking on water and raising the dead, and curing the Aramaic girl's epilepsy by means of gesticulation.

C. The Aramaicisms in the Greek text reflect precisely the sort of excellent prose writing one would anticipate encountering from someone who sought to elaborate on the tales attributed to Homer. Jesus, a local character, perhaps even one may write, a central, or even the central character in this Greek work of fiction. As such, he is given a sprinkling of Aramaic expressions, added as seasoning, to promote reader interest in the story, by conveying a sense of authenticity--rural Jewish rabbi wandering about, traveling North from Tyre to reach Lake Galilee, which lies to the east. What kind of folks would be attracted to this story? Not folks from near Lake Galilee, obviously. How about people with money, in places far removed from Jerusalem--Rome, Corinth, even Alexandria.

In the short ending of Mark there is no resurrection . There is no information about his birth either.

In chapter 6 we are told that he is the son of the carpenter (1) and Mary, and has brothers and sisters. His family is well known to the village and he is treated like the boy they all had known.

It is a dogma of the RCC that Mary was a perpetual virgin who never had any other children and never consummated her marriage to Joseph .

The early church made a man into a god, transformed his mother into a perpetual virgin, honoured his obscure birth with a divine father and his death was only a pause in a busy schedule. Where could traces of the man be found?


I. Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible) Hardcover – 21 Dec 2007
by Adela Yarbro Collins (Author), Harold W. Attridge (Editor)
Fortress Press, U.S. (21 Dec. 2007
ISBN-13: 978-0800660789
In page 287-88, note d
The earliest surviving MS ( fragmentary)...Is this the son of the carpenter and Mary?

RealityRules wrote:

Stein wrote:Why will no myther ever, ever address and actually analyze the research that has recently been made on the philological layers in the various sources, the colloquialisms and Aramaicisms that have been unwrapped in certain Koine Greek materials but significantly not in others and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications from many more agnostics in the profession than just Ehrman? We've seen references to the Aramaicisms and colloquialisms in this very thread from a number of different posters already. It is the act of a troll to pretend that such references have not been made right here. It is the act of a troll to routinely trot out a shameless lie instead that the HJ model is not based on any philological scholarship at all, when it bloody well is. It is the act of a troll and a woo peddler to routinely trot out the same lie over and over again, showing that the goal of mythers is not to analyze all the data and the research that the modern world has finally generated, but to peddle kool-aid that they know to be based on lies, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

No, Yeshua the human rabbi was never a zombie. But these mythers sometimes act like they're the real zombies around here.

Stein

Why will no myther historicist ever, ever address and actually analyze present the research that has [ever] been made on "the philological layers" in 'the various sources', the 'colloquialisms' and Aramaicisms that have been 'unwrapped' in 'certain' Koine Greek materials, but 'significantly' not in others, and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications ... ??

References, please!!

It is the act of a troll to pretend that such references have not been made right here.

It is the act of a troll to routinely trot out a shameless lie instead that - the HJ model is not based on any philological scholarship at all - without producing said scholarship !!

It is the act of a troll and a woo peddler to routinely trot out the same lie over and over again, showing that the goal of mythers historicists is not to analyze all the data and the research that the modern world has finally generated, but to peddle kool-aid ...

Stein - please peddle the references to said scholarship !!!

I very humbly and politely asked for links to this alleged research the last time this notion was floated.

No joy!

Hard to learn from 'information' which is never presented.

But if all we ever get is vague claims about supposed 'Aramaicisms' and 'older layers' in the story, well the vague answer is that even if the story is older than gMark or was at one time told in Aramaic is no guarantee of history either. I think it's been pointed out that a myth can be told in any language - even in Aramaic!

proudfootz wrote:... a myth can be told in any language - even in Aramaic!

you Blaspheeeeemerrrr !!! you! (if you say that loudly the pneuma will eventuate)

John 3:5
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit (πνευματος; noun - pneuma),
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
.

John 3:8
"The πνεῦμα (pneuma; wind) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the πνευματος (n. pneuma; Spirit)."
.

oops. No Aramaic. Sorrrrreeeeeee

RealityRules wrote:

proudfootz wrote:... a myth can be told in any language - even in Aramaic!

you Blaspheeeeemerrrr !!! you! (if you say that loudly the pneuma will eventuate)

...unless there's a peer reviewed paper by some bible student that shows why it's only possible to tell the truth in Aramaic.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised that there is such an argument being made by someone...

tanya wrote:

Suppose I were to grant you, that is, to acknowledge, right here, in black and white, unequivocal, no holds barred, flat out acknowledge that you are correct, and that various Koine Greek materials indicate Aramaicisms underlying the Koine Greek texts, we call "gospels".

We all know that the Jesus story was LIFTED from Hebrew Scripture so it MUST have underlying Aramaicism.

For example the words of Jesus, the son of God, translated "My God My God why has thou forsaken me was taken WORD for Word from Hebrew Scripture.

Psalm 22:1 ---My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Hebrew Psalms 22 ---אֵלִי אֵלִי, לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי;

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Matthew 1:22--- Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,


Matthew 21:4 ----All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

Matthew 26:56---- But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.

The Jesus story is based DIRECTLY on Hebrew Scriptures so it MUST be expected to have some Aramaicism influence.

iskander wrote:In the short ending of Mark there is no resurrection .

You seem not to have read or do not understand gMark.

gMark ends at the resurrection.

Mark 16.6-7

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

There is no information about his birth either.

There is information that he walked on water and Transfigured.

In chapter 6 we are told that he is the son of the carpenter (1) and Mary, and has brothers and sisters. His family is well known to the village and he is treated like the boy they all had known.

Your statement is fallacious. A question was ASKED if Jesus was the son of a carpenter but the author of the very same Gospel STATED [not questioned] that Jesus was BORN AFTER his mother was found WITH CHILD by a Ghost.

It is a dogma of the RCC that Mary was a perpetual virgin who never had any other children and never consummated her marriage to Joseph .

Writings attributed to Christians BEFORE the RCC state their Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle.

How in the world are you going to show that Mary did exist and actually had a child called Jesus of Nazareth??

The early church made a man into a god, transformed his mother into a perpetual virgin, honoured his obscure birth with a divine father and his death was only a pause in a busy schedule. Where could traces of the man be found?

Again, you write more fallacies.

It was the complete OPPOSITE.

The EARLIEST Manuscripts of the Jesus story STATE Jesus was the LORD from heaven and God Creator from the beginning WITHOUT a human father.

Christians of the Jesus cult do NOT worship men as Gods.

If Jesus was a known man then the Pauline Jesus stories are known Lies.