""Contemporary scholarship favours the view that Jesus, if he existed (and it is thought he probably did) was born sometime in 5-3 BC; ""
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 8:21:36 PM

Jesus was a common name at the time, and self-appointed messiahs were too. It is likely there has been a condensation of more than one character into the one that was eventually portrayed in the Bible.

There is virtually no evidence for Jesus of the Bible outside the Bible narrative -

Virtually all references in contemporary historians (Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Tacticus, Suetonius) were

(i) to "Chrestus", "Christus", "Christos" (or other such names meaning at the time 'anointed one', or 'useful' as was often applied to servants or slaves)*, or

(ii) to his followers - often called "Christianos" (Tacticus).

A lot of Josephus's references to Christ are considered later additions, and Origen later wrote Josephus did not believe Jesus was *the* Christ.

Considering Jesus is supposed to have lived amongst 500 people for 40 days after his resurrection, it is very surprising nothing of that was recorded by the contemporary historians then or in ensuing decades.

----

* There have been difficulties with translation and transcription -

xpnotoc/s (Latin transliteration chrestus) means useful.

xpiotoc/s (christus) means anointed.

I bet you didn't learn that in SRE classes, McReal.

Did you know there is a group of Catholics in South America who believe Christ ate a meal of guinea pig at the last supper. This belief is based on a study of Leonardo De Vinci's famous painting 'The Last Supper' where it can clearly be seen guinea pig on the table. It may just be a coincidence that these devout catholics favourite dish is, you guessed it, guinea pig. Personally I believe Christ and the disciples sent out for pizza and a couple of slabs of VB for a last piss up! My favourite dish, you guessed it, pizza and beer! I'm sure there is worse rubbish taught in RE classes than this sort of clap trap!

Quote: In no other subject in the curriculum would teachers be allowed to exhort students to believe such baseless “truths”.

Surely you jest. Teachers trot out baseless "truths" portrayed as fact all the time, about the environment, history, nuclear bombs and power, wind power, David Hicks or whatever takes their fancy.

Sometimes the indoctrination is covert, sometimes blatant.

The latest pet of many teachers is their ill-considered and ill-researched opinions on Global warming, presented to so many students as fact, with narely a mention of authorative opinions such as that of Emeritus Professor Philip Stott of the University of London, who is on the Academic Advisory Council of The Global Warming Policy Foundation who wrote:

"Global warming is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and cost-raising farce that ever infected the world."

Nice use of Tu quoque, LB Loveday.

What has Global warming got to do with this post. Maybe the answer lies in the parents hands by removing their children from scripture. I am sure most parents do not give the matter any thought, it is something that just happens.