Christ's History ~ Why the Delay In Recording It?

This thread isn't about whether or not Christ existed.

It's about why there was a delay in recording his existence as an historical figure.

Originally posted by WalterRatlos

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by GD21D

 

Yes, but Christ was a teenager at the time of Augustus' death.

Was he already speaking to the people then? I thought that came later.

Well, there was this time when he got lost preaching in the temple at the age of 12 or thereabouts.

Tiberius reigned until 37AD so, if the timing of Christ's death is correct, Christ was dead when Caligula took over. Caligula was immediately before Claudius.

edit on 6/23/2012 by aaaiii because: (no reason given)

So, he was most probably crucified under Tiberius for sedition, if he even existed that is.

no where in the nearly 5 pages of text I read stated the obvious.

His deciples led by preaching the word. Many of them just fishermen, or even a taxman. Nothing suggest, that this slave bound people, were alowed to understand how to write at the time. I would think that this is an obvious reply to your question. Eventually, scribes who understood, once his church was established, recorded what was preached down the years.

Maybe that's why there are suttle diffrences in the bible. Also consider, that maybe someone did take notes on what they had at the moment and those notes eventully were put together to make a gospel. One maybe more accurate than the other. the notes themselves maybe unfound, faded with time, or destroyed. It's possible, if true, such documents could be hidden away in private places or lost to the dark ages.


man I wish we had more knowledge of the dark ages.


That's just my take on it.

Originally posted by aaaiii
As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?

Originally posted by aaaiii
This thread isn't about whether or not Christ existed.

It's about why there was a delay in recording his existence as an historical figure.

The two go hand in hand. The first part of the above statement may just answer the second part.

reply to post by fixer1967

I didn't intend that this thread become a pissing match.

In this discussion, Christ existed.

Originally posted by aaaiii
As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?

The Torah and other books that told of Jesus before he came were found to be written long before he showed up. The bible has been found to actually be 10,000 years old. That is many many scientist and archeologist making that statement. Not to mention a ton of Scientist and Archeologist recently coming out and saying that the prophecies in the bible are extremely accurate and could only be of Divine work.

The Satanist that rule this country now have been trying very hard to remove proof of his being here but the bible will always survive as it has since it was first written on stone. A world without God is no world at all, it is hell.

Originally posted by pro-all
I find it rather funny that people would hint that the apostles had no need to document the life of Jesus because they felt he would return in their life time. This alone shows that christianity was flawed from the very beginning. There was no blue print to spread the so-called good news and the apostles were deluded. Everything about this religion doesnt add up for me. If Jesus intended his message to be futuristic and universal, he would put a mechanism in place to achieve that. All we have now are people talking of oral tradition. How do one memorize whole books containing thousands of verses? Isn`t it suspicious that modern christianity as we know it today was founded by Paul, a known murderer instead of one of the apostles? I personally prefer to remain on the fence rather believing a fairy tale.

Maybe the apostles were illiterate, at least some of them must have been, although that customs officer would definitely know to read and write at least Greek and/or Latin. Christianity in the beginning was a Jewish sect - one of many competing sects. Furthermore, it was quite communistic; believers had to sell everything and then bring the money to the church and fork it over to the apostles who would distribute it among the believers and be responsible for the prosperity of all.

Well, all religions are delusional to a point, in that they are based on myths and mythology. The sect of Christianity arose from the messianic, eschatological beliefs of the Jews, namely that one from the line of David would arise and deliver them from bondage (first the Babylonians then the Greeks then the Romans). In fact, between Augustus' death and the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD thereabouts, there were quite a few Jews who tried to convince their brethren that they were in fact the awaited Messiah. That is why Matthew and Luke both list all of the line of the house of David. Strangely enough, however, the line is traced through Joseph who was not involved in siring Jesus, if you believe the same gospels. I'm not sure whether Paul was the founder of that sect or whether he was a Trojan horse maybe or what his role was specifically. It's interesting that his name was Saul first, like the mythical first king of Israel and David's predecessor.

On oral tradition and learning large texts by heart, it is not as miraculous as it sounds. It just needs good memory and lots of practice. Homer's Illiad and Odyssey were learned by heart and recited orally, not read.

reply to post by aaaiii


Religion used a tool to control the masses was not new and here is the biggy on Christianity...

first two commandments of the old testament make it violation to worship man or idols, so in other words, worshiping Jesus or any man or making crosses and kissing them, was against God's law by definition, no matter how anyone tries to twist it around.

conspiracy? You bet your life it is...

Originally posted by article
no where in the nearly 5 pages of text I read stated the obvious.

Maybe because it is not that obvious at all. Some of them would have been indeed illiterate, but the tax-man should at least know how to read and write Latin and/or Greek. It would have been probably required for his job.

His deciples led by preaching the word. Many of them just fishermen, or even a taxman. Nothing suggest, that this slave bound people, were alowed to understand how to write at the time. I would think that this is an obvious reply to your question. Eventually, scribes who understood, once his church was established, recorded what was preached down the years. .

Yeah, could have been that way, but there is good evidence that not all were. Some would know Greek and/or Latin. The prevailing theory is that there was a source document, called Q, a sort of Protoevangelium, which formed the basis for Mark's account and through him of that of Matthew and Luke as well. Also, prevailing opinion is that Mark is the oldest of the three.

Maybe that's why there are suttle diffrences in the bible. Also consider, that maybe someone did take notes on what they had at the moment and those notes eventully were put together to make a gospel. One maybe more accurate than the other. the notes themselves maybe unfound, faded with time, or destroyed. It's possible, if true, such documents could be hidden away in private places or lost to the dark ages.

The subtle differences of the gospels is because the writers had different approaches and different goals in mind and also a different audience. It's indeed possible and that is what scholars assume must have happened.

man I wish we had more knowledge of the dark ages.

They were not that dark really; it's just that the Church controlled knowledge during that time and that Christianity was misused for political and silly philosophical purposes.

one and quick theory here is jesus existed but like any1 today whos lauded like kennedy or dali lama.....made out to be more than they actually are.......god exists cause everyone has to believe that theres more to life than what we believe.....they need that to think that their life means something, but really we live, we die and no story how much we want to believe it is going to change that. go to sleep and wake up without a dream and tell me what u remember?nothing......its same when u die...darkness comes then thats it.....no memory no nothing...ur dead and thats it....simple.

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge

Originally posted by aaaiii
As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?

The Torah and other books that told of Jesus before he came were found to be written long before he showed up. The bible has been found to actually be 10,000 years old. That is many many scientist and archeologist making that statement. Not to mention a ton of Scientist and Archeologist recently coming out and saying that the prophecies in the bible are extremely accurate and could only be of Divine work.

The Satanist that rule this country now have been trying very hard to remove proof of his being here but the bible will always survive as it has since it was first written on stone. A world without God is no world at all, it is hell.

Any sources?

I'm pretty damn positive that the bible IS NOT 10,000 years old.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by fixer1967

 

I didn't intend that this thread become a pissing match.

In this discussion, Christ existed.

Any thread about religion or politics becomes a "pissing match" by default. That is just the way it is.
Now you tell my why you think there is such a long gap in the historical record on this matter.

Even the Bible has a time gap. It has him as a child on one page and a grown man on the next. It is about a 30 year gap if I remember right..

If it works for you then good but the whole religion thing just does not work for me so I guess I can give you an answer that you are willing to hear. Good luck

reply to post by Malcher


Or how about Horus ?

Horus was born on "December 25th" (winter solstice) in a manger.
He was of royal descent, and his mother was the "virgin Isis-Mery."
Horus's birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three "wise men."
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized.
Horus was baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who was decapitated.
The Egyptian god had 12 companions, helpers or disciples.
Horus performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised Osiris from the dead.
The god walked on water.
Horus was "crucified" between two "thieves."
He (or Osiris) was buried for three days in a tomb and resurrected.
Horus/Osiris was also the "Way, the Truth, the Life," "Messiah," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of the Father. He was called "Holy Child," as well as "the Anointed One," while Osiris was the KRST.
Horus battled with the "evil one," Set/Seth.
Horus was to reign for one thousand years.

The sun in the winter solstice on December 25 hangs in a constellation known as the crux (Southern Cross). Then it is “born” after 3 days of seemingly hanging in the same spot and starts to set in a different place going further North each night. People were so fearful in the winter that the sun would not came back that they celebrated its return, and the end of the continual shortening of days. When it is born, the North star lines up with Orion’s belt, composed of three stars known as the “three kings”.

In the end, we need to ask ourselves: Is it more plausible that 2,000 years ago the God of the cosmos took birth through the womb of a virgin as a Jewish man who walked on water, performed miracles, raised the dead, resurrected himself from death and ascended into heaven - or could it be that this tale is a reworking of older myths in currency around the known world of the time?

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge

The Torah and other books that told of Jesus before he came were found to be written long before he showed up. The bible has been found to actually be 10,000 years old. That is many many scientist and archeologist making that statement. Not to mention a ton of Scientist and Archeologist recently coming out and saying that the prophecies in the bible are extremely accurate and could only be of Divine work.

I seriously doubt that the OT is actually 10,000 years old; 2,500 years is more like it. It was probably written - most of it anyway - during the Babylonian captivity and in the course of the following 500 years, until Jesus supposedly arrived on the scene.

The Satanist that rule this country now have been trying very hard to remove proof of his being here but the bible will always survive as it has since it was first written on stone. A world without God is no world at all, it is hell.

Actually, it was written on papyrus or clay tablets and definitely not on stone. The world, we all live in, is both heaven and hell. A world without God or Gods is perfectly fine with me. And remember: "Good guys go to heaven; bad guys go everywhere!" And riddle me this about the infallible and inspired word of God of the OT. What was God's purpose when he inspired scribes to write the books of Kings and Chronicles. These are long lists of succeeding kings and governors with little to no message. Especially Chronicles is all in the style of and so and so became King the year so and so and he reigned for so and so years etc. Verse after verse, I mean, God really not only works in mysterious ways, but he also speaks in mysterious ways.

Originally posted by aaaiii
As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?

Don't worry I will answer and troll for you.

Because jesus was invented by man.

Originally posted by GD21D
The better question may be. Why did Caesar Augustus never mention this prominent figure in his own writings? Perhaps he was oblivious to the happenings in his own empire. Maybe he was just too busy dealing with other matters rather than addressing the murder of a proclaimed son of a god.

\

Actually, a lot of people, even Richard Dawkins, believe that Jesus existed and was a spiritual teacher.

Prominent critics of religion like John Remsburg and Richard Dawkins say that while the Gospel accounts are no more historical than any other myth (Dawkins likens them to an ancient Da Vinci Code) the odds are Jesus did exist.

Historicity of Jesus (Wikipedia)

In my opinion the bible is a metaphor for the natural universe. It holds truth in it but men have twisted and perverted the truth for their own gain. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun and god a metaphor for light and warmth.

Jesus was the 'light of the world' a ne whoever followed him 'wouldon never walk in darkness'. The sun is the light of our world and if you follow it you will never walk in darkness, literally.

The miracles Jesus performed can he explained as natural phenomena as well.

1) Walking on water: Watch the sun set or rise on the beach and it will look as though the sun is 'walking' over the horizon.

2) Turning water into wine: In order to grow a grape vine you need water and sunshine. Water to hydrate the plant and the sun for photosynthesis. With both of those things the vine will grow grapes you can use to make wine.

3)Healing the sick: Time is the measurement of the suns path across the sky. With time the sick will heal themselves naturally.

The creation story is equivalent to the big bang. Supposedly god was here before anything else. Light is the fastest thing in the universe, nothing came before light even at the big bang. Without light the universe would have noform, just as with god because god gave the universe form.

Adam represents all male humans and Eve all female humans. The forbidden fruit represents self-awareness because as soon as Eve ate the fruit they noticed they were naked and wanted to cover themselves. With self-awareness comes the feeling of seperateness or individualism which leads to the me over everyone else mentality which leads to the wars that are fought and the corruption that takes place.

We are in heaven right now, and Eden represents Earth within heaven. The universe is heaven, yet the greed and corruption and war makes Earth hell for some.

Our self-awareness resulted in all the bad things we see today, because we see ourselves as separate from the universe, and religion is there to enforce that feeling.

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by R_Clark
Interesting link on this subject with bibliotecapleyades
Saying that the true authorship was Calpurnius Piso ....
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Yes, that is where my research led me too. I think "Jesus Christ" was actually Julius Caesar, and the story of Jesus was taken from the story of Mithra.

Mithra, Sungod of Persia

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

Source
Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as "the Way," "the Truth," "the Light," "the Word," "the Son of God," "the Good Shepherd." Mithra is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Knowing this, it is easy to see how this myth evolved into modern Christianity.

if you do a bit more research on mithra you'll find there are two different versions. the one that parallels with christianity was POSSIBLY (i just want to emphasize that) stolen from christianity itself. mithras spread from region to region adapting to each region as it moved. just sayin'.

they took things from the religions they liked as they moved about.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by Toromos

 

That's exactly my point.

If he was so extraordinary why wasn't he written about while he was alive?

it may be important to note that most of the people who followed him were outcasts, poor and sick people. (lepers) the following may have been considered rather small. i'm sure very few had the education skills to be literate, and the ones that did, maybe they did write something which some of the later gospels were based on. and maybe the original is lost to time. who knows?

olliemc84

My question is if this guy was so important, why wasn't there anything written about his childhood/teenaged years?

There's nothing in any of the four Gospels to indicate that Jesus did much of religious significance before meeting John the Baptist, except to learn the Hebrew Bible. So, it's entirely possible that there isn't a fat lot to say about his early years that would help recruit members.

Also, all four Gospels agree that his immediate associates, presumably the sources for whatever biographical traditions were eventually written down, met him in his adulthood (they might well have been adolescents), as a high status individual (personally recommended by the charismatic John the Baptist, and in the synoptic Gospels, someone who already had had visionary experiences at his baptism and in the desert). They were together a few years at most, and possibly as little as a few months. Apparently, they sometimes traveled separately from him.

OK. how much do you know about your boss' childhood and teenaged years? How much would you tell about your own to people who work for you? John suggests that its source might have been able to ask Mary, Jesus' mother. If he did, there's nothing about it in the Fourth Gospel, except maybe the marriage scene, unique to John.

Meh. How much of the interesting stuff you did as a teenager did you tell your mother about?
-