View Single Post
Old 02-03-2009, 02:00 PM   #453
Sonist
Apeist
Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sonist ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Sonist's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,126
Karma: 381090
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The sunny part of California
Device: Generic virtual reality story-experiential device
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
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":



(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.
No offense taken. I was more or less of the same opinion as you, until I took more active interest in the subject a few years ago. Since then, based on the evidence I have seen, I have come to believe that it is more likely that a historical Jesus never existed, even as a charismatic apocalyptic sect leader.

The lack of any contemporaneous evidence (even if you accept the Tacitus passage as genuine, and there are good arguments why you should not, the Annals were written in the second decade of the Second Century) fits nicely with the etherial Christ and gnostic tendencies of Paul.

The argument for etherial, non-historic Son of Man origins of the Jesus myth, seems to provide a more coherent and satisfactory explanation for the gradual emergence of a flesh and blood Jesus figure in the Second Century.

I personally find religion in general, and the history of early Christianity in particular, fascinating, so pardon my jumping here with both feet:-) There are a bunch of books on the subject, some decently written and some not (I've pointed to a couple in a previous post.) But a quick Google search will bring up various summaries of the main arguments, such as this one: http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id6.html

Last edited by Sonist; 02-03-2009 at 02:37 PM.
Sonist is offline