Re: The True Meaning of Christianity
Namaste.
Originally Posted by
pineblossom
The point I was making is that the evidence to which I refer comes not from what is written in the biblical texts - but from the Roman historical record.
Actually there is nothing in Roman or Greek historical records about Jesus, and the Romans and Greeks wrote down everything... including recipes and grammars for correct pronunciations, not unlike Panini did with his Sanskrit grammar.
Flavius Josephus is not a credible source for information about Jesus. Josephus lived c. 37-100 CE. He was born after the time of Jesus, so he had no firsthand knowledge of Jesus. It was hearsay from dubious sources. Josephus's claim to fame, and is probably accurate, is his documentation of the final struggles between the Romans and Jews, Masada, and the destruction of the temple, all of which occurred during his lifetime. That is all well documented by the Romans.
The Romans also have information about Pontius Pilate's life and career, but it makes no mention of a Jesus of Nazareth. Now, is it possible that despite their penchant for documentation, the Romans didn't think Jesus was that important? Possible, but I think unlikely given the "press" he's been given by other non-credible sources.
The gospels were written in the first century CE at the earliest, and probably not even by anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. At the time it was fashionable to write using someone else's name to lend credibility. By that time, the names of the apostles were gaining ground, but there's no credible history of them either.
The point is that belief in Jesus is just that, belief. If one needs proof for the existence of someone one believes in, then how strong is that belief and faith?
śivasya hridayam viṣṇur viṣṇoscha hridayam śivaḥ
Bookmarks