The Historical Christ

[dagda]

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."

I am not actually participating in the debate (although this is my thread, I grew bored of the whole argument some time ago. Far too pedantic and inconclusive) I thought I would add something intresting in here. Most biblical scholars think Matthew's account is probably more acurate-apart from the whole killing thousands of children thing-as the majority of the facts can be paired up with actual events. For instance, Christ's birth sometime in the winter of 5-4BC happens to have a living and breathing Herod-who is pretty important to the story. What is more intresting is that a big glowing star appeared in the sky about this time-this is recorded by the Chinese and the early Christians/Jews. Added to this, certian Jewish sects thought the Christ was about to arrive so there where 'wise men' wandering about in the area at the time.

[chatpilot]

I agree with you on that one Dagda this whole historical Jesus debate does get pretty boring after awhile and one wearies of repeating himself endlessly and presenting what he deems his evidence or lack thereof.I personally do not consider the existence of Christ inconclusive since I think that the lack of evidence outside of the scriptures far outweighs the evidence for his existence.I am sufficiently convinced that he did not exist and that he was in fact a fictional character whose fame as the son of God was boosted by the creativity and doctrines created by Paul of Tarsus.I consider Paul/Saul the father of Christianity as we know it today.

---

BTW I just downloaded the movie 'The God who wasn't there' and saw some of it.It seems in line with some of my own conclusions regarding the historicity of Christ.

[Minimalist]

There are problems with "Paul of Tarsus", too.


One of his so-called "authentic" epistles claims that he escaped from King Aretas in Damascus. But, Aretas IV never controlled Damascus. Aretas III controlled Damascus.....in the first half of the first century BC.

[chatpilot]

That may be so but I think that his writings or at least those attributed to him only focus on a spiritual Christ not a historical/terrestrial Christ.He either is responsible for deifying the man or creating the god man myth.

[Minimalist]

Or, Marcion did it and he seems to be the dividing point. Prior to the mid second century there isn't much, if anything written about "Paul."

If the core of these letters began with some sort of eschatological group which was being chased out of Jerusalem by King Alexander Jannaeus in the first century BC what does it have to do with any first century AD "jesus?"

First and Second Corinthians are usually considered to be among the "authentic" epistles...yet, the second century Greek geographer, Pausanias, made an extensive catalog of religious sites in Corinth at the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius and has nothing to say about any Jew or Christians in Corinth...a full century after "Paul" claims to have been there ministering to poor Christians who were set upon by Jews.