The Historical Christ

[chatpilot]

Anto Kennedy I would love to see this so called abundant evidence for the historical Christ and I don't mean the biblical accounts but rather I would love to see secular evidence.The scant evidence that I have read is very vague and in most cases dubious at best.No Christian can give an exact date for the birth of Jesus and there are no secular records of his death.Also,why did it take the authors of the N.T. so long to write about him?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.All the words attributed to Jesus were put there by the authors basing themselves on local myths and lore regarding Jesus.

[Minimalist]

He was born sometime between 7BC and 3 AD, died sometime around 33-37 AD.

Because that does NOT answer the question. He's your boy. It's your story. Yet, the best you can do is offer a range for arguably the two most important dates in anyone's life. Your problem with this is that your holy books have two different stories. One claiming that Herod the Great was alive (before 4 BC) and another claiming that P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria (beginning 6 AD). Your other two holy books don't even bother with the story.

Why can your sources not agree? Are they making it all up, as seems likely.


And, by all means, let's see this "historical evidence."

[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.

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)

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.

.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.

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)

[Minimalist]

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


Julius Caesar 7/13/100 BC to 3/15/44 BC. He was 56 years old when murdered by a group of conspirators. In addition, we have coins, statues, his own writings, the testimony of others both allies and opponents. Jesus exists in only one book.....much as Scarlett O'hara exists only in one book...Gone With The Wind. He is a character in a novel.

Your sources do not just "disagree" my friend. They tell two mutually exclusive stories. They contradict each other.

Let us assume you are a policeman called to the scene of a hit and run accident. You are told that there are two witnesses. You interview each separately.

The first tells you that the victim was struck by a blue car. The second tells you it was struck by a green car. Do you assume you are looking for
a) a blue car?
b) a green car?
c) disregard the witnesses as effectively useless?

Now, here's the scoop. I place little stock in ancient writing. Any of it, unless it can be confirmed by other sources or archaeology. Any king who puts up a victory stele is not going to give an unbiased account. I agree fully that Caesar's various memoirs are political documents. The notion that 250,000 Gauls materialized to relieve the siege of Alesia is laughable. Almost as laughable as the bible account of 185,000+ Assyrians laying siege to an insignificant shithole like 8th century BC Jerusalem. Or 2 million Persians invading Greece (Herodotus.) These numbers are obviously inflated and NONE of them are worth a damn. Archaeology has confirmed that Caesar did lay siege to Alesia but the rest of the story is sheer propaganda.

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)

You have obviously concocted a whole scenario based on one novel none of which can be confirmed. These writings are of dubious authorship and generally date from much later periods. Further, they have been extensively edited (either accidentally or intentionally in cases...see Bart Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus") and are thus reflective of later political reality and have precious little to do with the first century AD.

BTW, "what" historical evidence is there for Mohammad? Much like your jesus...he seems to be an invention to personalize a cult.

[Kyuuketsuki]

This particular fundie claimed to have a PH. D. in "archaeology." As it turned out, what he had done was go to some xtian diploma mill and pay the fee. He may as well have gotten his "degree" out of a cereal box.

I have a PhD and I have few doubts it is just as worthless

Kyu

[chatpilot]

Anto Kennedy honestly speaking without the gospels narratives about Jesus you have squat.The whole foundation of christianity crumbles due to lack of evidence.The gospels are not only unreliable but they are as stated by minimalist of dubious authorship.In fact till about the middle of the second century these books were presented anonymously and were it is believed given those names later on.One of the requirements of the canon for a book to be considered inspired was that it had to be written by an apostle of Jesus or a disciple of one of Jesus's apostles.This may be the reason that those names were later appended to the synoptic gospels of Matthew,Mark,Luke and the gospel of John.Oral traditions change with the passage of time sometimes drastically and tend to be exaggerated.

The scribes that copied and edited the scriptures also did so with bias based on their own beliefs and this helps account for the many contradictions in the narratives.Now if you really want to have fun read the story of the cruci-fiction and the resurrection.There is so much contradiction in just those two stories that it's rediculous to believe that someone with half a brain could believe them.

[Minimalist]

This particular fundie claimed to have a PH. D. in "archaeology." As it turned out, what he had done was go to some xtian diploma mill and pay the fee. He may as well have gotten his "degree" out of a cereal box.

I have a PhD and I have few doubts it is just as worthless

Kyu

However, I'm sure you had to do more than write a check to get it.

---

There is so much contradiction in just those two stories that it's rediculous to believe that someone with half a brain could believe them.

The previously mentioned Bart Ehrman (who was a fundie until he started reading that shit closely) has noted that most xtians combine what are 4 separate stories into something he calls the gospel of Matthewmarklukeandjohn. Cramming it all together into a veritable holy stew obscures the meanings that the authors were trying to convey.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I have a PhD and I have few doubts it is just as worthless

However, I'm sure you had to do more than write a check to get it.

Oh I didn't even have to do that ... part of the reason it is so worthless!

Kyu

[Anto Kennedy]

BTW, "what" historical evidence is there for Mohammad? Much like your jesus...he seems to be an invention to personalize a cult.

Oh shit I can't believe you actually said that. I had an inkling you would, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I can't talk to you, you're too irrational.

---

Julius Caesar 7/13/100 BC to 3/15/44 BC.

You do know that on that same wikipedia page there are two reference numbers over the dates of birth and death?

There is some dispute over the date of Caesar's birth. The day is sometimes stated to be 12 July when his feast-day was celebrated after deification, but this was because his true birthday clashed with the Ludi Apollinares. Some scholars, based on the dates he held certain magistracies, have made a case for 101 or 102 BC as the year of his birth, but scholarly consensus favours 100 BC. Goldsworthy, 30

Oh look, we don't know Caesars birthday.

After Caesar's death the leap years were not inserted according to his intent and there is uncertainty about when leap years were observed between 45 BC and AD 4 inclusive; the dates in this article between 45 BC and AD 4 inclusive are those observed in Rome and there is an uncertainty of about a day as to where those dates would be on the proleptic Julian calendar. See Blackburn, B and Holford-Strevens, L. (1999 corrected 2003). The Oxford Companion to the Year. Oxford University Press. p. 671. ISBN 978-0192142313

Nor his death.

So what we do is make a an estimate (that doesn't mean Caesar didn't exist)

---

Your sources do not just "disagree" my friend. They tell two mutually exclusive stories.

A mutually exclusive story would be something like this.

Story A - A woman has a sandwhich, then goes to work where she gets sacked by her boss.
Story B - Some fat guy from Bangladesh steps in dog shit.

The Gospels on the other hand all describe a man called Jesus, who was a Galilean, who started a ministry aged 30, died aged 33, rose from the grave and sent his 11 disciples out to spread the Good News.

How are those accounts "mutually exclusive"?

---

Any of it, unless it can be confirmed by other sources

The writings of Joesephus and anti-christian commentators don't count?

[Kyuuketsuki]

The writings of Joesephus and anti-christian commentators don't count?

Of course they do ... dunno which others you refer to but the Josephus quote(s) tends to be regarded as a later interpolation (in effect a fake).

Kyu