Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
For what it's worth, Dawkins is actually fairly gentle on Christianity, by at least not hammering in the glaring problem, that based on the evidence, the central character is unlikely to have ever been a real historical personality, biblical bootstrapping notwithstanding.
|
With respect, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus was not a genuine historical figure. His reported activies are completely "in line" with the various "apocalyptic" cults we know from documentary evidence were prevalent in 1st century Judea - it was very widely believed at the time that the Roman occupation of Judea was a "punishment from God" and signalled the imminent end of the world.
Certainly by the mid-60's AD the "Christians" were a sufficiently well-known (and disliked) group for them to be a convenient "scapegoat" for Nero to blame them for the great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, as reported by the Roman historian Tacitus in "Annals XV":
Quote:
|
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, was executed during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
|
(This is, by the way, the first "independent" historical mention of Christianity.)
That is, of course, entirely different from saying that Jesus was anything
other than a normal human being - a think which I don't personally accept for an instant.