Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?, page 8

Celsus
Now all we know about Celsus comes from the writings of Origen, a second century Christian author (185CE-254CE) and in "Contra Celsus by" Origen we have the following quote:

[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...

www.bluffton.edu...

I think this is highly strange for Celsus is stating that Jesus was a real man and his mother was convicted of adultery. To me this sames like a strange kind of logic:
1. Poster states Jesus was a myth.
2. Poster uses statement that says Jesus was real to indicate Christian beliefs of virgin birth attacked.
3. But attacks on virgin birth beliefs indicate that Jesus was a historical figure and his mother committed adultery.

Well that particular fellow is saying the whole story of Jesus is a myth and a fabrication. Therefore any statements (such as from Celsus) which refers to a historical Jesus must also be a fabrication. Yet he uses a misquote to of Origen's commentary about Celsus to give the impression that Celsus labeled the whole story of Jesus as a myth. However Celsus' comment of dubious birth indicates that Celsus must have considered Jesus as being a real person.

Marcion of Sinope
Almost every thing we know about Maricon was written by his detractors None of his original writings survive ("Marcion, then, is known only through his critics, who considered his doctrines a deviation from orthodox Christianity"). Maricon never treated Jesus as a myth. He considered the appearance of Jesus as an entity which had the look and feel of being a body but was actually a spirirtual being. In other words Jesus looked like any other man to a people (including the Romans). ("But Marcion taught that Christ assumed absolutely nothing from the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven in the I5th year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his preaching in the synagogue of Capernaum.")

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
ontruth.com...
www.gnosis.org...

Minucius Felix

Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.

This statement is a bold misreprestation of what Minucius Fexlix wrote. This statement was copied from "The Octavius of Minucius Felix" which was written ("written in the form of a dialogue between the pagan Caecilius Natalis and the Christian Octavius Januarius, a provincial lawyer, the friend and fellow-student of the author.")

The statement:

"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -

was a contention advanced by the pagan Caecilius Natalis in his criticism of Christianity. To which the Christian Octavius Janarius replied:

"These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves. For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man.

Caius

"For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."

Another blatant misrepresentation of what was written. This snippet came from "AGAINST THE HERESY OF ARTEMON" by Caius:

For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, and that from his successor Zephyrinus the truth was falsified. And perhaps what they allege might be credible, did not the Holy Scriptures, in the first place, contradict them. And then, besides, there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the heathen in defence of the truth, and against the heresies of their time: I mean Justin and Miltiades, and Tatian and Clement, and many others, in all which divinity is ascribed to Christ. For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man? All the psalms, too, and hymns of brethren, which have been written from the beginning by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, ascribing divinity to Him. Since the doctrine of the Church, then, has been proclaimed so many years ago, how is it possible that men have preached, up to the time of Victor, in the manner asserted by these? And how are they not ashamed to utter these calumnies against Victor, knowing well that Victor excommunicated Theodotus the tanner, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, who first affirmed that Christ was a mere man? For if, as they allege, Victor entertained the very opinions which their blasphemy teaches, how should he have cast off Theodotus, the author of this heresy?