The Historical Christ

[dagda]

I have heard (and read) much speculation that Christ was not an historical figure. Looking at the evidence for and against, I would have to conclude that this view is just silly. Although it is not beyond the realms of probability that the Christ was made-up, it is far more likely that he existed in some shape or form.

For the following argument I will take a secular historical view point. Although it is against my own personal beliefs, for the purpose of this argument I will assume that the miracles etc found in the Gospels are a consequence of Chinese whispers and coincidence.

I think that this link sums up the argument nicely http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

There is also speculation that these extra-biblical sources are forgeries. First of all this is unlikely as the majority are less than pro-Christian (why would you make critical evidence?) Secondly, there is little to no evidence of this being the case so we will have to assume that the sources are real until evidence proves otherwise. Then there is the huge problem presented by a 'faked' Christ- how faked him and why? Then there is the minor miracle of how they managed to keep such a massive con a
secret.

[Kyuuketsuki]

[dagda]

From what I can tell, your post has little or nothing to do with the argument at hand. Yes there are many valid points in there about the 'evils' of orthodoxy and how they set us back several hundred years. And yes, much of the story around Christ seems to be borrowed from other religions (the early Church Fathers noted this and wrote it off as tamperings from Satan) but none of this disproves an historical Christ figure.

What is more, there are several mistakes. The part about three Magi is crap. There is no refrence to how many Magi there was (we only know that there is more than one due to the plural), it is just assumed that there are three because there was three presents.
Also, the points you state are central to Christian faith is not accurate either. They are central to Catholic faith. That is not the same thing. Although you rightly state that all modern christian groups stem from the Catholic Church, for several centuries after (and before) Constintine the majority of Christians would have disagreed with your points.
I would like to state that I am taking this argument down a secular angle and that as a starting point, all miricles are assumed to be coincidence and embelishment.

'I don't "do" theists links BTW ... I expect anyone advancing their own views in such contentious areas to be able to write a fully justify their own POV.'

The reason I presented the link was that it pretty much covers the basics of the argument and provides a starting point for debate. Did you read the link or did you made up your mind when you saw the thread title?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh Dagda,

What a way to reject a post? One verbal sweep of your hand and it's done ... have you been taking lessons from Frodo?

The simple fact is there is no validatable evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ and the evidence most frequently claimed is either poorly interpreted or considered to be fraudulent.

IMO you didn't really provide that link as additional information because you didn't really make much of an argument therefore the link became your information. As I said earlier ... if you want to present an argument please post it here in your own words, copying & pasting large chunks of text is frowned upon and, if you think about it, providing a link as your evidence is pretty much the same thing.

Rather than link elsewhere or C/P why don't you sum up the basic points as to why you believe there was a physical Jesus Christ and then we can take it from there?

Kyu

[Tiberius]

If you guys want a debate I could easily set up the debate forum for such an event?

[dagda]

At your insistence, here we go.

Evidence from History

The Gospels

Before you say it, yes these can be considered bias and are riddled with flaws, but to discount them as evidence is poor history. For example, if I wished to study the rise of the Nazis, Mien Kampf would be useless on its own (extremely bias etc) but could be used in connection with other primary texts to argue a theory. In the same way, the Gospels can be used in connection to other texts to show Christ probably was an historical figure.


Roman/Jewish Sources


Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Africanus, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, the Mara Bar-Serapion and Thallus are all non-Christian sources which make reference to a Christ figure in some way. Many of these sources are uncomplimentary ('so-called Messiah etc) and it is this fact which goes against the idea of forgery. Why create a source critical of you?

Extra-biblical Gospels

These add more weight to the other Gospels as they were written by people who tended to hate the orthodox authors of the other Christian sources. This makes co-operation in a giant scam unlikely.

The Lack of Evidence?

The name Christ is a Greek title. The lack of a proper name does not discredit the existence of Christ, however. This shows that the name has been lost (like so much) to the mists of time and the fires of hatred, not that the Christ never existed.
In fact, because the name has so clearly been lost, it makes evidence gathering more difficult (you try finding the records of a nameless man) hence goes some way to explaining the lack of sources with the real name of Christ upon it. Even if we discovered a mountain of papers, we would not know they showed us evidence.

What is more, I can think of few places which are more war-torn and blood soaked areas than Israel. The chances of records of a minor prophet in a back-water province at a time when there where hundreds of 'Son of God' wannabes is highly unlikely. That some did is a minor miracle but again explains why we have no 'real' name evidence. A lot gets lost in 2,000 years of war.

The idea that the existing evidence is a forgery seems groundless. I have yet to come across any evidence for the idea and, until I do, I will dismiss the possibility.

The other factor brought about by the forgery idea is who, why and when? I can think of no answer which satisfy me, perhaps you will have more luck.

[Kyuuketsuki]

At your insistence, here we go.

Well it's going to have to wait because I'm away for a few days ... given that I've just been though all this crap with Mark, whether I can be arsed to catch up when I return remains to be seen.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

You're being disingenuous I believe Kyu. Dagda addressed you fully and you dismiss with pre made yet largely irrelevant material. Now you dodge badly. Mark left because of your poor etiquette. Not a good way to represent this forum IMHO.

[Tiberius]

Trust me fr0d0, Kyu is leaving the forums for a few days for a good reason. He has made this reason know to the staff but not publicly so I won't be revealing it. He's not dodging.

[fr0d0]

OK I retract that statement then.