It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Sight2reality
Come on now people. Someone needs to rattle your heads around just a bit. First establish if Jesus even existed, before trying to accomplish the impossible task of "pinpointing" his birthdate.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Actually there is decent enough documentary evidence of his existence. The annals of tacitus for example mention him as the founder of christianity who was put to death by Pontius Pilate.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Tacitus lived from circa 56 - 117. and although I can't find a firm date on the annals what I am seeing suggests that he had intended to write more and died before finishing, so we can place it at the late end of his life.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
The key question in determining whether or not his backing of Christ's existence can be accepted hinges on how quickly opposition to a bold-faced lie can be silenced. He names a Roman governor (procurator actually), attributes an act to that person, names the victim, and gives the reason.
How in the world is a historian going to make such statements about events that occurred within the lifetime of the preceeding two generations if they are not true and not be refuted?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Another thing to keep in mind is that objectively (that is, without taking the miracles and such forgranted) a character like Jesus isn't exactly unlikely.
Originally posted by spamandham
Tacitus got his information from the Christian stories. We know this because he refers to him as 'Christus' and not 'Jesus of Nazareth'. So we have a historian recording the Christian myths he heard from Christians. This proves nothing about a historical Jesus.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I would disagree with that interpretation on the basis of the context. He referred to Christians as a class hated for their abominations, etc. He seemed to be providing a history of a social phenomenon from the general public's perspective. Hearsay I grant you, but since when do the opponents of an urban legend substantiate parts of the legend?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Furthermore, I have to reitterate in contrast to the logical nature of a historical Jesus (not necessarily a devine one who preformed magic tricks mind you- he could have been another Simon Magus), stands the illogical nature of a Jesus myth.
Why would the 4 gospel writers, James the supposed brother of Christ, and Paul have gotten together and spontaneously assembled a body of fictions in the mid to late first century which were so abominable to the religious and political sensibilities of the day that they resulted in the muder of many believers including several of the church leaders, and yet did not recant?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
It stands to reason that they believed what they were saying. I think they believed wrong, but it doesn't make any sense to believe that they were all engaged in a lie from which they gained nothing and lost everything.
Originally posted by spamandham
Again, why would Tacitus refer to 'Christus' as the one who had been crucified unless he got the information 2nd hand from Christians? If he were re-recording prior Roman records, he would have used 'Jesus of Nazareth' or something similar.
If you read the Christian writings in chronological order (rather than Bible order), and make no assumptions that these writers all knew eachother, you can see the myth unfolding.
Explain how that could happen in such a short time. Some of those who actually witnessed Jesus' ministry would still be alive and would have kept the doctrines consistent over such a short time period.
Further, if you read Paul's writings without predjudice of the other NT writings (which were written much later), you do not see any evidence of a physical Jesus.
- Paul never refers to Jesus as 'Jesus of Nazareth' nor does he refer to his geneaology, nor his place of birth, nor anything else that would establish Jesus as a physical historical human.
- Paul's savior parallels the savior in the books of Enoch, who's sacrifice is made in the spiritual domain
Myths start out vague and become more detailed over time. Actual history starts out detailed and becomes vague over time. Which do we observe when we read the Christian writings chronologically?
They probably weren't involved in a knowing lie, they were involved in the making of a myth.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
As I have already explained, when commenting on a social phenomenon you use the name by which it is commonly known.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
The gospels explicitly say that they knew eachother, do they not?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not necessarily. Today when a politician finishes speaking on TV we immediately begin to fight about what he really meant. People want to view the world through a lense which is convenient to them and which meshes with their background. Then there are personal agendas to consider as well- people who would dilleberately twist things for their own gain.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
spamFurther, if you read Paul's writings without predjudice of the other NT writings (which were written much later), you do not see any evidence of a physical Jesus.
Philippians 2:7-8 "But made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of a man. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point od death, even death on the cross."
Originally posted by The Vagabond
- Paul never refers to Jesus as 'Jesus of Nazareth' nor does he refer to his geneaology, nor his place of birth, nor anything else that would establish Jesus as a physical historical human.
Consider the emphasis of his books though. He did not write the story of Christs life. Why would you write the story of Christs life to people who already believed in him?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
It seems to me that Paul was clearly trying to hijack the church,
Originally posted by The Vagabond
A unique aspect of the Book of Enoch which is mirrored only in one book of the old testament and in the gospels is the referral to the Messiah as the Son of Man. You see less of this from Paul. He seems to prefer Christ or Christ Jesus.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
A bit of a generalization there, which holds more true in the information age than to the dissemination of a widely opposed story during the first century.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
They said they spent several years with a man of flesh and blood who performed miracles before their very eyes. If that's not true then they're lying their butts off, plain and simple.