I think that calculation went awry somewhere. I got 42 for some reason  

On King Arthur, there is good evidence that such a person existed, and he was a Regional Praetor who became a king soon after the breakup of the Roman Empire in 415. He was known for organising the local British Celts against the invading Saxons*. That's entirely off the top of my head. Exactly where he ruled is not known. There are Welsh, Scottish and English traditions there. Of course the legends were largely embellished during the late medieval period.

Also Old King Cole - remember the merry old Soul from Nursery Rhymes? He was a similar Romano-British Praetor who ruled in what is now Southern Scotland. They spoke an ancient form of Welsh at that time, and his real name was Coel Hen (Caelius Vetus or 'Old Caelius' to his friends).

* The Saxons and Jutes were first employed as mercenaries to fight against the Picts when the Roman Empire failed to respond to the Romano Britons' call for help (They had enough problems of their own). Again from memory, the Jutes were given what is now Kent and they settled down reasonably happily. The Saxons had bigger ambitions, and ultimately took over most of modern day England, pushing the original inhabitants North, West and South West into Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. I thought you might appreciate that bit of potted history.

Now if to continue the previous mathematical exercise and multiply the result by the number of active brain cells of an atheist the answer is zero.

I would like to think he existed, after all, the Jesus character was a fantastic role model, of acceptance, generousity of spirit, love, compassion, in short, all the best aspects of human nature that a person could hope to ascribe to.

Unfortunately, the fact that if a character of such prominence existed, and remember the bible describes jesus as being 'famous', with 'multitudes' of followers, then to have no-one from his lifetime make reference to him is troubling, to say the least.
Remember, we had him tried by Pilate, questioned by the high priests, publicly crucified by the romans, and yet none made mention of it in any way.

The fact is that we are solely restricted to the bible, which was assembled by the church, hundreds of years after Jesus was supposed to have lived, by choosing which texts to include, remember that they only used some of the available gospels, and called the others they discarded as 'heretical'.

Then we have the events from the bible that we might have expected independent historians and scholars to record, like the slaughtering of all the infants at the time of Jesus' birth, or the Lunar Eclipse, and Earthquake, at the time of his death.
The absence of any mention of such things must raise questions about the reliability of the bible authors who tell these stories.

Also the 'Fictional Writing' like style parts of the gospels, where Jesus thoughts are recorded, must be questioned, when written by someone living possibly 2 to 4 generations later than Jesus.

So, in balance, I would say that the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus is troubling, but not definitive enough to absolutely say there was no Jesus, but it would certainly indicate that there most likely was no Jesus as portrayed by the bible.

The Early Christian Fathers states, that Christian doctrine was established to embrace the Gentile concepts. "To interpret it to the Gentile mind, its affinities were the best in pagan religious thought were utilized. To maintain it against persecution, the martyr was willing to suffer. Finally, to ensure the perpetuity of the faith, the Church built up a close knit organization that was as uncompromising toward heresy and schism as it was toward the demands of the State." In The Verdict of History by Gary R. Habermas, this concept is carried further. "The charge is often made that Jesus' message was actually quite different from the one which Christians have traditionally taught concerning him. This sometimes is said to be the case, for instance, because the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself." Hugh Schonfield, a noted religious scholar, explains why the changes may have taken place. He states that Jesus was a teacher who was true to Judaism and who had no desire to start any new religion. "That is why, for instance, he never proclaimed his own deity," Schonfield wrote. Schonfield even challenges the early Church by claiming they may have written some of the New Testament books and influenced others to rewrite the story of Jesus. "The result is that Christian theology as it is taught today is not the teachings of Jesus and the apostles."

Paul's writings reveal little of the historical Jesus. A few historians have stated that Paul knew little of Jesus' historical life, the time of his birth, or death, for instance. G.A. Wells indicates that Paul may have conceived of Jesus as a supernatural being who led a very obscure life that was ended by crucifixion, perhaps even centuries before Paul's own time. But Paul was not interested in historical details, nor were the other writers of the New Testament, spiritual considerations dominated their thoughts. Habermas states that the "Gospels do not purport to record actual historical events, but that they simply report the faith of early Christians. We know much less about the historical Jesus than the Gospels actually recorded, for these writers were just not too concerned with history."

HISTORICAL RECORDS

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious 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 center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

All hearsay Calanen, which does not mean it is wrong, just that there is still not a single account of Jesus from his lifeteime.

The closest is that of little jimmy, and his brother jesus, I guess the bible must have missed Jimmy?

mozzaok wrote on Dec 21^st, 2008 at 7:27pm:


Hard to know, brother James may have meant spiritual brother as in the apostle James rather than his actual blood brother.

References to Pilate's report by the Imperial Senate are pretty good. All historical references are 'hearsay' and remember that most Roman records were destroyed in the great book BBQ by the barbarians when they took over. We forgot engineering knowledge, and how to build concrete for a 1000 years or so. Records as to an obscure preacher in an obscure Roman province are less likely to have been preserved.

I think there is little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but whether he was the son of God or not - is another question entirely.

Quote:


How many historical lunar eclipses and earthquakes were recorded? Are you sure about the infant slaughtering?

Quote:


How do you know that it was written so much later?

Quote:
.

The early proliferation is certainly strong evidence. It is pretty hard to have a religious movement in the absence of a leader.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.