The Historical Christ

[LukeMC]

Roman/Jewish Sources


Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Africanus, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, the Mara Bar-Serapion and Thallus are all non-Christian sources which make reference to a Christ figure in some way. Many of these sources are uncomplimentary ('so-called Messiah etc) and it is this fact which goes against the idea of forgery. Why create a source critical of you?

In support of dagda's position: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=...C5027B28AE

[Giff]

Those non-christian or non-biblical sources have never been accepted as trustworthy by the general scientific community.

Josephus wrote about Jesus long time after he was supposibly dead. Also have his writing been moidfied afterwards.

Tacitus also seen to be not relible since there alot of errors in the passage. therefore is is concidered by some that christian scribes have added some things. But that is by some seeing to be unlikly since the passage is concidered to be far to critical to christianity to be added by christian scribes. Also is the passage written nearly 80 years after the death of Jesus.

About Julius Africanus I couldn't find anything about him but I found out taht theres was a guy called Sextus Juliius Africanus that was a christian historian that said that the earth was created 5500 years before Jesus birth. If anyone have things that either he or Julius Africanus wrote then present taht. He lived in the late 2nd century and beginning of the 3rd century. Therefore where is not relible since he lived long time after Jesus lived.

The reference to Jesus (or Yeshu that the name acctually is spelled) in the talmud is written 1000 years before Jesus supposed birth.

in the Mara Bar-Serapion is the name of Yeshu or Jesus in greek is not mentioned. It has just been assume that he write about Jesus and have been interputed like that.

The thallus never mentioned Jesus. But Sextus Julius Africanus is using it as a refrence to the darkness when Jesus died. This was cited by the 9th century historian George Syncellus.

So these prove nothing that Jesus existed. Ther need someone who lived during the time he lived that wrote about it. But such writings have never been found. The famous writers and historians of the time Jesus lived didn't write about him.

[dagda]

First, what does the scientific community have to do with anything? Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not history? It is kind of like a history teacher walking into a biology class and saying evolution is nonsense.

Secondly, what do you have against secondary sources? These sources are written after Christ's death but they may be taking there info from primary sources that have since been lost. So yes, these sources do support the existence of Christ.

Also from what I can tell Christ was only given the title after he died. As we have lost the real name of Christ, this would make finding a primary source written about him pretty hard. This means that secondary sources from the mid-first century are the best we are going to get. As I have stated before, we could have a truck load of papers with the Christs real name on it and we would not know.

I would also like to hear your (Giff) opinion as to how the Christ 'myth' came about. If it is credible you might even convince me of your myth hyppthesis.

[Giff]

First, what does the scientific community have to do with anything? Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not history? It is kind of like a history teacher walking into a biology class and saying evolution is nonsense.

Secondly, what do you have against secondary sources? These sources are written after Christ's death but they may be taking there info from primary sources that have since been lost. So yes, these sources do support the existence of Christ.

Also from what I can tell Christ was only given the title after he died. As we have lost the real name of Christ, this would make finding a primary source written about him pretty hard. This means that secondary sources from the mid-first century are the best we are going to get. As I have stated before, we could have a truck load of papers with the Christs real name on it and we would not know.

I would also like to hear your (Giff) opinion as to how the Christ 'myth' came about. If it is credible you might even convince me of your myth hyppthesis.

His name before he was Jesus Christ was Jesus of Nazareth, atleast what it says. The question is if Jesus of Nazareth have existed or not. I say it could have been possible that a character named Jesus of Nazaretht was an inpiration to the character in the bible.

However is there no real evidence of such thing. Don't understand what you talk about when you say that the scientific community doesn't have anything to do with history. I don't belong to the scientific community if that's what you mean.

Anyway what I can tell from the bible is Jesus or Yeshu that is the real name (Jesus is the greek translation of Yeshu) more or less a mythical character. There could have been someone that did something, like dying a martyrs death for his belief or perhaps even lead some kind of rebellion against the roman. However it's clear that the character in the bible have many sources. Probably many diffrent myths and tales that Jesus in the bible have been credited for.

I think acctually Chatpilot have a good explanation to all this and surely can come up with something better how they myth of Jesus was created. Also how likely that Jesus from Nazareth have existed. Chatpilot have acctually studied this alot, atleast from what I heared and understand from what he has written.

But as a lekman historian am I not convinced that Jesus from Nazareth have existed. There's no real proof and the non-biblical references to him is etiher been manipulated afterwards it has been written or is not mention the name of Yeshu.

[g-mark]

Did you know Australian's use the words 'jesus christ' as a profane expletive!

Where did the word 'christ' come from anyway?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Where did the word 'christ' come from anyway?

From Wiki:

Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed",[1] which as a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ,), carries much of its original Jewish meaning of "Messiah" —ie. "one [who is] anointed" or appointed by God with a unique and special purpose (mission) on Earth.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

[Kyuuketsuki]

Did you know Australian's use the words 'jesus christ' as a profane expletive!

Er, I sincerely doubt that's a purely Australian characteristic ... I've been using it for the best part of my life usually as some kind of variant like, "Christ Almighty!", "Jesus H Khrist!" or "Jesus H Khrist on a bike!"

On a number of occasions I've either been asked or posited the question, "What does Jesus Christ mean to me?" My inevitable response is, "Nothing but a convenient swearword!"

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Kyu

That's "some Australians".It's not a term I've ever used habitually,nor do I know anyone who does. I have nothing against it,but I prefer "shit!" or "fuck!"


Besides, the CORRECT phrase is "Jesus H Christ!' The "H" stands for "Hughie",after Jesus' dad,that being his first name. One of many useful facts I learned in the army. Another was roughly how much water a condom can hold. (well over a gallon)

[Edwardo Piet]

Did you know Australian's use the words 'jesus christ' as a profane expletive!

Er, I sincerely doubt that's a purely Australian characteristic ... I've been using it for the best part of my life usually as some kind of variant like, "Christ Almighty!", "Jesus H Khrist!" or "Jesus H Khrist on a bike!"

On a number of occasions I've either been asked or posited the question, "What does Jesus Christ mean to me?" My inevitable response is, "Nothing but a convenient swearword!"

Kyu

Yep a convinent swearword!

I personally like "Jesus-Christ-Monkey-Balls", "Jesus-titty-fucking-Christ" and "Holy-Jesus-Jumping-shitballs"/"Holy-Jesus-Jumping-shitballs Christ".

The sound of those obscenities just seem to have quite a bite to it.

First two I heard from South Park and the last one I kind of picked up from George Carlin although I don't think it's entirely verbatim I may have paraphrased it/changed it a bit but you get the general (obsence) idea.

[dagda]

So Giff, is your reason for thinking Christ was a made-up figure 'someone else has a good reason'? Not good enough. Defend your belife yourself!

I was saying that the scientific community has little to do with history. No more than history has anything to do with physics.