Christ's History ~ Why the Delay In Recording It?

As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?

I did not post this thread to troll. I am genuinely interested in member opinions about this topic.

i am creating a religion around David Blaine right now. I plan on leaving it to my grandchildren when I die. They will pass it on to their children and when it is about 100 years after the death of David Blaine, we will kick off the new religion. Blaine can do way cooler stuff than walk on water.
The Church of Blaine will be the religion of the future.



edit- thats code for, I do not buy the whole jesus story. At all.

The better question may be. Why did Caesar Augustus never mention this prominent figure in his own writings? Perhaps he was oblivious to the happenings in his own empire. Maybe he was just too busy dealing with other matters rather than addressing the murder of a proclaimed son of a god.

Whatever the facts, the Bible was written by man and by men removed by several orders from the actual events. As such it is hearsay. To adhere to such a book as containing the word of God is just wrong.

The moment you start quoting passages the whole thing, Old and New Testaments falls in a heap. Then the faithful have to start with the excuses.

The book was written by man with all his frailness, ego, lust and greed.

P

reply to post by GD21D

Wasn't his emergence more toward Claudius' reign?

I seem to remember Herod believing he was The Christ and preparing to go to war with Rome over it.

Interesting link on this subject with bibliotecapleyades
Saying that the true authorship was Calpurnius Piso ....
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by aaaiii
Nope, if memory serves me correctly the reign of Augustus was from 31 B.C. to 14 A.D. Fully encompassing the life of Jesus.

reply to post by R_Clark

And Piso was around the time of Tiberius because he committed suicide after Tiberius refused to release scrolls with Augustus' seal. Piso relied upon them as evidence in his trial for treason.

reply to post by GD21D

Yes, but Christ was a teenager at the time of Augustus' death.

Was he already speaking to the people then? I thought that came later.



Tiberius reigned until 37AD so, if the timing of Christ's death is correct, Christ was dead when Caligula took over. Caligula was immediately before Claudius.

Actually, you are correct. I just had a brief misinterpretation of the time frame.

reply to post by GD21D

No biggie. That was a long time ago.

You were right about there being no Roman record of Christ.

The gospels aren't histories. They are theological tracts meant to tie together the then increasingly persecuted and far flung followers of Jesus. This is a point that both fundamentalists and critics of the Gospel stories get wrong. The Gospels are "good news", and not a play-by-play account of what happened to Jesus.

reply to post by Toromos

Okay, but there still is no history of Christ from his time. Everything written about him came long after his death.

If he was so important wouldn't they have written about him while he was alive?

Perhaps its because his story is stolen from various others?
Just saying the facts are there - Jesus' story is not a new one, even though the church want you to believe it is.

reply to post by PrimalWisdom

It's possible he was a "resurrection" of old myth. His story does, strangely, parallel others that came before him.

Originally posted by R_Clark
Interesting link on this subject with bibliotecapleyades
Saying that the true authorship was Calpurnius Piso ....
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Yes, that is where my research led me too. I think "Jesus Christ" was actually Julius Caesar, and the story of Jesus was taken from the story of Mithra.

Mithra, Sungod of Persia

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

Source
Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as "the Way," "the Truth," "the Light," "the Word," "the Son of God," "the Good Shepherd." Mithra is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Knowing this, it is easy to see how this myth evolved into modern Christianity.

reply to post by aaaiii


He wasn't that important to the Romans. He would have been another prophet and miracle worker to them. There were lots of men claiming that at that time. His execution was just business as usual.

He was important to his followers, but they were not historians. They wanted to spread the "good news" (in their eyes). As the movement became bigger, they needed a way to give some unity to all the disparate interpretations of Jesus's message. Hence, the Gospel stories are born and Paul starts circulating his letters to the new churches.

On a side note, it's the early Christians that invented what we would call a book today. Since they needed an easy way to transport these new writings from church to church, they bound them all together in a codex.

reply to post by Toromos

To me, that weakens his case.

reply to post by aaaiii


What is his case?