You aren’t making any sense now.

I already answered you on first century historians. Thallus wasn’t a first century historian; and he never mentioned Jesus. Neither did Josephus; the two passages there are interpolations by later Christians—and even if they had been authentic, he’s just repeating the Gospels and post-Gospel Christian lore, not corroborating them. Useless. And there are no other first century historians who mention Jesus.

The earliest lectionary was written in the 800s AD (800 years after Christianity began; and 1200 years ago), and only a handful; most are centuries later than even that (e.g. 13th-15th century, 1300-1500 years after Christianity began). They are highly derivative of the aftermath of long chains of copying and heavily edited to “agree” with what Medievals wanted or expected the text to look like then. They are of minimal use in reconstructing the text (and yet, fully used in my work, as I rely on the Aland text which employs them in its reconstruction). And of no use in establishing anything in the Gospels is historical.

The author of 1 Clement says he knew Peter and Paul. But he never says they told him Jesus was a person on earth, as opposed to a celestial being who only communicated by revelation. To the contrary, 1 Clement uniformly writes as though that’s all Jesus ever was. The author of 1 Clement also has no knowledge of the Gospels or any story in them. See my analysis in OHJ. Like I told you to.

Thallus never mentioned Jesus. That’s a modern myth. Nor was he a first century author (that is also a modern myth). See my peer reviewed article proving both points in Hitler Homer Bible Christ.

Josephus never mentioned Jesus either. The paragraph on Jesus is a forgery and the line about Jesus later is an accidental interpolation. See my discussion of the scholarship and evidence on both points in Ch. 8.9 of On the Historicity of Jesus. That section is devoted entirely to Josephus. And see my summary of the latest scholarship on Josephus here.

But even if we are gullible and believe Josephus wrote those things, the paragraph comes from the Gospels (as has been proved under peer review), and all Christians were brothers of Jesus (in fact Brothers of the Lord appears to have been the original word for “Christian”: OHJ, Element 12, Ch. 4), so we can find no evidence in Josephus that he had any other source of information than the Gospels, and unsourced Christian lore. Neither of which gets us to a historical Jesus.

There are no other first century historians that even allegedly mention Jesus. Zero is not “many others.” Second century and later historians also only have the Gospels as a source. So they are useless too. All we have are the Gospels. All they had were the Gospels. And the Gospels are unreliable. Full stop.

And “Christian” just means “Messianists,” people who follow or believe in a messiah. That doesn’t get us anywhere. Least of all because that’s not what Christians originally called themselves. Paul implies they were originally called Brothers of the Lord (all becoming a brother of the Lord by adoption by God through baptism, as Paul meticulously explains). Acts says they were originally called Nazorians (a word we don’t actually know what it means; it is not the word for a person from Nazareth, for example) and that they acquired the name Christians from outsiders decades later. But Acts lies about chronology repeatedly and fabricates probably most of its content so it’s not a reliable source on these points (see Ch. 9 of OHJ). If 1 Peter is authentic, he uses the word, and may have coined it, but we can’t tell when. But since all it means is “follower of the messiah,” it doesn’t help us determine whether that meant earthly or celestial messiah. 1 Peter never mentions an earthly messiah.

That the church father manuscripts are unreliable is not my allegation. It’s standard knowledge in the field. I cite the mainstream scholarship on this and give examples of the problem in my book Hitler Homer Bible Christ (e.g. pp. 290-91; w. pp. 295-300). It was most famously demonstrated by Bruce Metzger, the most renowned Christian textual critic in history.

Lectionaries (that we have) date to the 800s AD and later. They are late medieval texts (most in fact actually Renaissance era). Not ancient. Useless

We have no way of knowing Clement of Rome is mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Clement was a common name. And no mention is made there that Clement is a congregation leader or in Rome. Nor would this help us determine what Clement knew about Jesus. That we can only get from 1 Clement itself. Which never places Jesus on earth.

Knowing the Gospels are myth and late medieval texts derivative does prove something: that we can’t use them to argue Jesus existed (or anything at all). All we can use them to argue is what the people writing them believed or wanted others to believe. Not how those beliefs were formed, or on what evidence. That’s why they are useless.

I have already given extensive evidence that the Gospels are myth and not historically usable in On the Historicity of Jesus. That the late medieval lectionaries are only of use in reconstructing the text, and not of very great use even in that, is well established in standard critical editions of the text of the Bible. See the introductions to the Aland text for instance.

Ok, accepted that Gospels are myth and reliability of early church fathers are uncertain, Pauline letters are forgery ok agreed how about historians of the 1st century such as Josephus, Thallus and many others who claim that Jesus was crucified,,,,and people who believed in a man named Jesus were known has Christians. The historians are not nutcase….at a point of time i can agree that you cannot trust the Bible, but what about the historians…are they reliable. Please, answer….

Ok, please support your allegations that the church fathers manuscripts are known to be unreliable. You did not address about Sir David Dalrymple, who spoke about lectionaries of early church fathers. And Clement of Rome is mentioned in Philippians 4:3….just saying Gospels are myth and cannot be trusted, and the early church fathers manuscripts are unrealiable proves nothing. Why you say so? is you need to provide evidences or it will be considered as a frustrated attack. So, please be kind enough to give evidence and proves attacking will not solve the issues.

There is no evidence Paul was alive when any Gospel was written.

There is no evidence any Gospel was written by any Pillar (or any witness at all).

That the Gospel writers used Paul does not tell us anything about the historicity of Jesus.

And 2 Thessalonians is universally agreed by all mainstream scholars to be a forgery.

Clement did not write Philippians. And Philippians never says Jesus was on earth.

I have no idea what you are thinking here.

You are also confusing early with late church fathers and texts. You have no sense of chronology. And you are citing scholarship so defective and obsolete it predates almost the entirety of United States history. Everything before 1950 is suspect. Because its methodology was poor. This is standard knowledge in the field of history today.

I fail to see the relevance of that to anything I said.

He is using late church fathers. The church father manuscripts are known to be unreliable for this purpose. And knowing what the text was is useless for knowing whether the text is saying anything that’s true.