Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/21/11 at 02:23:55:

Sorry, I don't like his ethics too much.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/21/11 at 02:23:55:

Thanks again. As you see I am really an amateur. I am not even capable of presenting this argument correctly:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

Sigh.
Not that I buy this.

March 25th was always the date of the annunciation and Christmas was chosen 9 months later. Prior to a separate celebration for the Nativity of Christ, it was rolled into Theophany (Epiphany in the West) on January 6th along with everything else Christ did before his baptism (which is what Theophany/Epiphany is about). This stuff far predates the Gregorian calendar issue - it's more like stuff happening from 4th-8th century in both East and West. Annunciation colliding with Lent and Easter (Pascha) is no big deal in the Christian East. When Annunciation collides with Pascha, Pascha does not take precedence, but instead you have "kyriopascha", a combination of the two. 

BTW Byzantine new year was always September 1st. You always need to remember what is going on in the New Rome when making pronunciations about this sort of thing...

Jesus was born March 25, 4 BC. He started his ministry at age 30. It lasted for 3 years. He was crucified at 33 years of age.

In the old days, the New Year started in March, not December. The Catholic Church moved the New Year to January 1 and Christmas to December 25 because both holidays were too close to Easter and Lent in March/April.  This was a result of the Gregorian calendar being adopted in Europe in the 1580s and later.

Ok, I took for granted that a source that placed Suetonius at c50CE was accurate. He was born 69CE according to my more reliable sources.

Regarding the Pauline letters: Try every one of them!

Paul was considered the first Christian for very good reasons. The introduction to Romans one describes Paul as a "servant of Christ Jesus", Corinthians 1:1: "Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God"
Cor.2:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, 

All of his letters begin in a similar vein, and Jesus is brought up by name repeatedly throughout these letters.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/20/11 at 23:44:29:

I have to admit that I haven't read all Pauline letters, only several. There are quite a few and some are long too. So it would be nice if you could give me a reference. As far as I know he only refers to him as Christ.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/20/11 at 23:32:12:

Suetonius was born around 70. Plinius in 62.

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html
http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pliny/pliny_y.htm

Both wrote when there were already several christian communities, so they are not independent.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/20/11 at 23:32:12:

No, other people are and I want to make very sure that they are wrong. Rejecting Paulus as primary evidence does not mean that I accept the hypothesis that Paulus used the notion Christ as some abstract concept of Logos or whatever. I wrote explicitly that I find the theories of various Jesus-mythologists much more problematic.
I'm just a sceptic. Or an advocate of the devil, if you like.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/20/11 at 23:32:12:

No. Early First Century. Of course they very likely can be writtten earlier. Theories which date the gospels earlier are extrapolations. That's no reason at all to dismiss them.
Still this is not the point. If we can't be entirely sure that the gospels have two independent origins we have to apply the principle of testis unus, testis nullus. That's why Flavius Josephus is so important; and the chain Jesus - John - Polycarpus - Irenaeus.
Your truly advocate of the devil doesn't see how this can be dismissed without turning to absurd conspiracy theories.

MNb wrote on 07/20/11 at 23:16:40:


Mark, you may want to actually read the Pauline letters. Paul mentions Christ repeatedly in each of them. He mentions Jesus Christ by name and describes what Christ said and did. He also makes clear that he never met Christ himself, but that he had met and argued with Peter and the rest of the Apostles.

MNb wrote on 07/20/11 at 22:24:47:

I know, I am not entirely up to date on quantum mechanics anymore, but this part I knew (hurray). The real problem is that people dont understand science. At some point there are conflicting theories which can't be disproven (and no Intelligent design doesnt fall into that category, it is easily disproven by watching a Fnoord game). The other problem is that people dont understand the issue at all (unfortunately those are the guys in charge). In this case (the gospels), you can't get much further then being able to prove or disprove certain particulars, then again I am preaching to the choir;)

The Gospels are not "primary" sources of the life of Jesus in the sense that they were not written by the Apostles themselves. 

The letters of Paul are just about the earliest primary documents of Christianity in existence. They were written by someone who met the Apostles. There is overwhelming evidence from Roman documents to Paul's letters to archealogical evidence and even oral traditions that there was an historical Jesus. Even the Jewish orthodoxy of the time agreed that there was a rabbi named Jesus who was executed by the Romans. 

The Gospels were written a generation or two after the events they describe. They were collected and crafted, almost certainly from a single source, "Q", which contained the sayings, acts,  and some speeches of Jesus. This single source is not extant. They each have a slightly different perspective, with the Gospel of John being the most radically different of the bunch. It's possible that the Gospel of John did not rely on "Q" at all. There is some evidence that The Acts of the Apostles was written by an eye-witness to the events described there. The tradition is that John wrote it, but it may have been transcribed by one of John's followers.

John was the last living apostle, and there are independent primary sources that verify he was the bishop of Antioch. Polycarp met him.

That there was an historical Jesus is beyond question. Whether he was the Son of God is a question of faith. The simple answer to the question in the subject of this thread is:

People are Christians because they believe that Jesus is the Son of God.