Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

1 Clement, Turtullian, Origen, the writers of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Eusebius, and Augustine.

The epistle known as 1 Clement is dated by Early Christian Writings to between 80 and 140 AD. The later date makes more sense in the context of the other second century apologists. The basis for a first century date is some alleged persecution at Corinth under Domitian but the connection is dubious, at best.

Tertullian is generally dated from 160 - 220 AD in other words, 3d century.

Origen is dated at 185 - 254 AD, 3d century.

You left out Polycarp d 155 AD, Irenaeus, d 202 AD, and Justin Martyr although perhaps you are including them in the catchall phrase Ante-Nicene fathers...in any case, they are all 2d century.

Eusebius 263-339 AD late 3d - 4th century

Augustine 354-430 AD late 4th -5th century.

So, everything you suggested is not first century writing, except for perhaps 1 Clement and if you'd like to talk about "Corinth" by all means lets do so. Its an interesting story.

Are you suggesting that in your view the only valid evidence for the historicity of Jesus is first century writing? In your view can such evidence come from first century historians or does the evidence have to be from eyewitnesses? In your view does the evidence have to come from someone who was not a Christian? In other words, what type of historical evidence would you accept as valid to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus?

Yet, he seems to know nothing about christians. Apparently he never heard of them in Syria, either.

I think you need to reread the article again. If neither Trajan nor Pliny knew anything about Christians, then why did Pliny use the term "Christian" and then never explain what a Christian was? Doesn't this suggest that they both knew the term "Christian" and what a Christian was? Furthermore, Pliny doesn't indicate that he never heard of them, he says he was never present at any legal examination of a Christian. There is a big difference. There is nothing in the article you provided that indicates that nothing about Christians was known. Even in the intro to the letters the author tells about Christianity spreading.

Lastly, Suetonius can be envisoned holding the stylus while the christians who were being questioned....or tortured in the case of the slaves...by Pliny. One suspects that whatever he learned of christians came from the mouths of those who were being questioned.

This seems absurd for the reasons given above. At best the letter indicates that Pliny may have only just learned what the Christians were doing in their meetings. That is it.

As you will see when you read the letter, there was nothing about any jesus coming back from the dead or being crucified in jerusalem mentioned.

I am not really sure what your whole point is with this statement as my whole point in this thread was that Jesus was a historical person and not fictional. I didn't bring up anything in this thread that I can think of relative to the death and resurrection (except for what Tacitus said but again that was only cited relative to the historicity of Jesus, not anything else).