Jesus Christ

[Minimalist]

There is nothing wrong with trying to learn more. To be certain there is enough religious clap trap out there to make getting to the bare bones of the story difficult if not impossible.


Consider the ramifications of this.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...85,00.html

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

The alleged smudged part has been resolved in Knohl's favor:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/extra.asp?Ar...ticleID=14

Since there was confusion in the media reports with regard to my view of Israel Knohl’s reading of the critical line of Hazon Gabriel (the Gabriel Revelation), I would like to make the following statement: After reviewing the document, I came to the conclusion that the reading suggested by Professor Knohl for the third word of line 80—HAYE “live”—seems to be the only plausible reading of that word. Thus, the first five words of this line should be translated as: “In three days live, I Gabriel.”
All my best regards,
Ada Yardeni

(Yardeni is a recognized expert in the field.)

[The Grand Nudger]

RE The reference in Tacitus Annals.

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

Loves me the wiki. There honestly isn't much to this one. I would be careful of calling this the strongest evidence for a historical christ, if I were the type of person that wished to argue FOR a historical christ. Nevertheless, there it is.

[Faith No More]

I think a better question than what is the historical evidence for Jesus is why do we have to look so hard for it in the first place. Imagine that a man that performed miracles and then rose from the dead. Even in that day with lacking communication word of this would have spread like wildfire. Historians from all corners of the globe would have been lining up to write about the stories they had heard of this amazing man. Instead we have to actively search for any historical record confirming this supposedly amazing man's existence. I think the actual historical record is irrelevant when you consider the fact that somebody who would have been so well has so little historical documentation. In theory, the evidence should be overflowing and impossible to ignore.

[Minimalist]

Id also like to hear more about the tactius rederence since that one seems to be the strongest evidence.

And, of course, D-P, it seems to me I just did a discussion of this (most probable ) forgery on one board or another. Let me look around and see if I can find it so I don't have to type the whole fucking thing out again.

[The Grand Nudger]

We really need to put some time into getting stickies together, would seriously decrease the workload in these sorts of discussions..lol. Then, we could just point to the stickies before we're told what we believe, or that our conclusions are incorrect.

[searchingforanswers]

I didnt say your conclusions were incorrect i just wanted to learn about them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol, no worries Answers, I wasn't speaking directly to you on that one; more to those of who end up trotting out the same evidence to the same arguments over and over.

[DeistPaladin]

I would be careful of calling this the strongest evidence for a historical christ, if I were the type of person that wished to argue FOR a historical christ. Nevertheless, there it is.

You caught my sarcastic irony there.

[Mad Militant]

RE The reference in Tacitus Annals.

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

Loves me the wiki. There honestly isn't much to this one. I would be careful of calling this the strongest evidence for a historical christ, if I were the type of person that wished to argue FOR a historical christ. Nevertheless, there it is.

Yep that one is weak. The 15:44 reference in Tacitus Annals is only him referring to a sect of Christians that are proclaiming some man Christ as their saviour.

[Minimalist]

Well, I did find it over at Atheist Forums.com. The discussion at that point was dealing with Tacitus:

Not a very credible witness. How did he get his information?

Either it was from existing Christians. Or from Roman records.

(Quoting above earlier posts in the thread)

Or, most likely it was a fraud perpetrated in the late middle ages as we have not a single reference from pagan or xtian sources that Tacitus wrote any such thing. The closest we come is the obscure 5th century xtian writer, Sulpicius Severus, who mentions a lot of it without citing Tacitus and leaves out the bullshit about Pilate.

Chapter 29 of Severus' Chronica

CHAPTER XXIX.

Is the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it
happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at
Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the
emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of
building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried
escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He
therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel
tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds
of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts,
they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain
by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day
came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the
night. In this way, cruelty tint began to be manifested against the
Christians. Afterwards, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which
were enacted; and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to
be a Christian. At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to death, the
former being beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion. And
while these things went on at Rome, the Jews, not able to endure the
injuries they suffered under the rule of Festus Florus, began to rebel.
Vespasian, being sent by Nero against them, with proconsular power,
defeated them in numerous important battles, and compelled them to flee
within the walls of Jerusalem. In the meanwhile Nero, now hateful even to
himself from a consciousness of his crimes, disappears from among(1) men,
leaving it uncertain whether or not he had laid violent hands upon himself:
certainly his body was never found. It was accordingly believed that, even
if he did put an end to himself with a sword, his wound was cured, and his
life preserved, according to that which was written regarding him,--"And
his mortal(2) wound was healed," --to be sent forth again near the end of
the world, in order that he may practice the mystery of iniquity.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII11-5.TXT

The beginning bears a close resemblance to what appears in Tacitus' "Annals" but no one in antiquity ever mentions it in relation to him.


As noted below, no writer, xtian or otherwise, makes the slightest reference to Tacitus' alleged comments regarding Nero and punishing "multitudes" of xtians for starting the fire.

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm