|
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
i havn't read any articles on this either, we will have to wait for artic, won't be long until he finds this christian bashing thread anyway |
HRHR 
Firstly, I'm no authority on the topic, and there's probably a high likelihood that I'm wrong, but it is something that interests me, so I've been trying to read up on it whilst keeping an open mind. 
Okay, I don't consider the bible a reliable record, just because the bible talks about Jesus doesn't mean that he existed, or did what is outlined in the bible. What I'm trying to look at is the historical evidence for Jebus. There are quite a few books on the topic (Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle' is particularly good, it really is worth a look, whether you agree with it or not), but I'll try to summarize what I've come across so far.
In short, the bible can't be considered as objective evidence of Christ's existence (In my opinion). If Christ truly did exist, and do what the bible asserts that he did, then surely he would pop up in historical accounts from the day? Shouldn't there be at least a few first hand sources other than the bible, which just so happens to be riddled with contradictions, errors and so on?
The bible claims that Jesus was well known (Matthew 4:25 is one such passage that claims that, I'm fairly sure that there are more, maybe a Christian could provide better input here). He healed people, had huge flocks of people following him, performed great miracles, converted people, pissed off the Romans, caused earthquakes when he was crucified, caused a global three hour 'blackout', caused the bodies of dead saints to rise from their graves and walk the streets as if nothing had happened and last, but not least, is said to have been revered by many as the son of god.
Sounds like a pretty famous bloke, no?
Then why is it that there are next to no references to him in the historical writings of the day? Yes, there's the bible, but that was written by over 60 authors (I believe that's correct, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and long after the time Jesus was said to have walked the earth. Ample time for the Church to simply invent someone to help gain followers for their new religion.
I think the key thing here is to look at first hand sources, as second, third, fourth etc. hand sources can only repeat what they've heard, what they've been told and so on.
Here's a little summary of some of the historians of the day who would have been reasonably expected to mention our friend Jebus in their writings.
Flavius Josephus is the person who really should be addressed first. If you ask an Xian to provide historical evidence of Jesus aside from the bible, they invariably turn to him. He was the author of a historical record of the Jews, and an account of the Jewish revolt against the Romans.
Christians tend to claim that he did in fact mention Jesus in his writings, even though the passage is generally considered to be a forgery by nearly every practising historian. This is what he is claimed to have written:
| quote: | | "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day." |
This might look convincing, but it can be shown to be a forgery in various ways. Firstly, it sounds absolutely nothing like the rest of the book, the passage is entirely out of character from the rest of the writing. It sticks out like a sore thumb. The passage is also written in the form of a sermon. Flavius was not Christian. He was Jew, an orthodox Jew to be precise. He got his job because of that. There was no way that this man would be going around writing something like that when he was employed by the Romans. It also clearly contradicts other passages in the same book. Flavius was not a Christian, and is never alleged to have attested to the divinity of Jesus, aside from this one passage. Indeed, most Christian Scholars have accepted that at least some of the passage is a forgery, but maintain that if it's cut down somewhat, passages such as "Now there was about this time, Jesus" can remain. The problem is, even when you cut it down, it still goes on about Jesus in a positive light. Flavius actually talks about the other people claiming to be the Messiah at the time. Yes, other so called sons of god such as Theudas and so forth. Seems that Jebus isn't so unique after all. Flavius curses these other so called messiahs, he claims that they are responsible for wars and death. He calls them liars, describes them as false prophets. Flavius was an orthodox Jew, and it makes sense that he would describe them as such. He remained Jewish till the day he died. There is simply no logical explanation as to why he would have changed his opinion on Jebus, yet not converted to Christianity. Indeed, Flavius (If Jesus had existed), would have been forced to denounce him and essentially discredit him. Here was a man going against the Roman rule, and that was something that they did not tolerate. If he didn't denounce and discredit Jebus, there's a pretty good chance that he would have been fired by the Romans. Just imagine what would have happened if he actually praised him as some Christians like to claim. The Romans hated so called messiahs, because they tended to go against authority and promote revolts (Jebus cleansing the temple, anyone?).
Another argument against the authenticity of that particular passage is also very convincing. It appears that the Jebus praising section mysteriously appeared in the fourth century, before that it seems that it wasn't actually in there (Can you spell, 'forgery'? ). Another argument states that the passage is out of context, but I've rambled on too much. In short, aside from bible literalists who think the earth is flat, i've never really come accross anyone who asserts that the passage is in fact authentic.
Some Christian apologists like to cite Suetonius as well, the following passage in particular: "Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."
God knows why someone would consider this evidence of Jesus' existence, hell, if he is indeed talking about Jesus, then he seems to have misspelled his name. Whoops.
Another commonly cited passage that apologists think helps prove Jesus' existence was written by Pliny the Younger. It reads as follows: "(Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god..."
Refuting this is quite simple, it merely states that Christians worshipped Christ as a god, it doesn't say anything about his actual existence, or even his deeds.
I would go on, but since all of these (Plus many more) are outlined and refuted in 'The Jesus Puzzle' and other books like it, there really is no point. Not to mention that i have a life to lead outside of ta. It's important to stress that I've only just touched on the topic, there really is a load of material out there that needs to be considered. Either way, I freely admit that I'm a total novice when it comes to this topic/area, so if any of you Christians note any obvious errors that I've made, by all means, point them out.
___________________
Currently Whoring:- Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
- CPU - So It Begins
- Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
|
