RE: The Historical Christ
August 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm by Anto Kennedy.)
You still haven't provided a date for Julius Caesar's birth and death.
If scholars can't be sure about arguably one of the most well known and important Roman general's date of birth or death, what on earth makes you think a bum from Galilee is going to get better treatment by the historians?
The very fact that we have a date range within such a small number of years is amazing in and of itself. 7BC-3AD is a very accurate date range.
Sources do that. Thats what's fun about being a historian, you can look at differing accounts of the same scenario and try and reconstruct an unbiased, objective version of events (although that rarely happens)
Only an idiot would reject the Gospel accounts. They may be biased, but so is Caesars "Gallic Wars", doesn't mean it's not a valuable source of historical information.
Well fuck me sideways, ain't that a shock. Now tell me when Julius Caesar's date of birth was.
Guess that means we have to discount the Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings lists, none of those guys could have possibly existed because they were only recorded 500-1000 years after their supposed reigns. (Writing was only invented after their reigns)
So let's just throw away this amazing idea called "talking", were people can communicate information without writing on parchment. In many cultures the oral tradition could survive intact for thousands of years.
Besides, the apostles; their children, friends and followers were still around. Mark's Gospel apparently comes from the teachings of Peter, a witness to Jesus.
The Gospels are just as valid as the Hadiths, and you'd be a madman if you denied the historical existence of Muhammad (PBUH)
If scholars can't be sure about arguably one of the most well known and important Roman general's date of birth or death, what on earth makes you think a bum from Galilee is going to get better treatment by the historians?
The very fact that we have a date range within such a small number of years is amazing in and of itself. 7BC-3AD is a very accurate date range.
Quote:Why can your sources not agree?
Sources do that. Thats what's fun about being a historian, you can look at differing accounts of the same scenario and try and reconstruct an unbiased, objective version of events (although that rarely happens)
Quote:Anto Kennedy I would love to see this so called abundant evidence for the historical Christ and I don't mean the biblical accounts
Only an idiot would reject the Gospel accounts. They may be biased, but so is Caesars "Gallic Wars", doesn't mean it's not a valuable source of historical information.
Quote:.No Christian can give an exact date for the birth of Jesus
Well fuck me sideways, ain't that a shock. Now tell me when Julius Caesar's date of birth was.
Quote:None of the people that wrote about Jesus were writing first hand accounts of his life and times since none of them have ever met him.
Guess that means we have to discount the Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings lists, none of those guys could have possibly existed because they were only recorded 500-1000 years after their supposed reigns. (Writing was only invented after their reigns)
So let's just throw away this amazing idea called "talking", were people can communicate information without writing on parchment. In many cultures the oral tradition could survive intact for thousands of years.
Besides, the apostles; their children, friends and followers were still around. Mark's Gospel apparently comes from the teachings of Peter, a witness to Jesus.
The Gospels are just as valid as the Hadiths, and you'd be a madman if you denied the historical existence of Muhammad (PBUH)
