Actually, John, it's the other way around. Christ is the title, Jesus is the name. It's a pretty common one in California. BobW
--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > The evidence for the historical existence of Jesus
> of Nazareth is about
> > as good as that for Julius Caesar or Cicero --
> although it's certainly
> > true that, were it not for the existence of a
> movement that kept his
> > memory alive, he probably would have been
> forgotten: Jesus' life and
> > death did not have the historical significance of
> Caesar's -- or of,
> > say, Patrice Lumumba's -- as any Christian would
> admit (at least on
> > reflection).
> >
> > Of course there's always the view of the 19th
> century German scholar who
> > held that all of classical antiquity was a myth, a
> story made up by
> > monks in the 8th and 9th centuries CE. His
> evidence was that all our
> > documents from the first centuries are written in
> Carolingian minuscule
> > -- copies, it was claimed, but originals,
> according to him... --CGE
> >
>
> This is quite untrue. The historical existence for
> an actually existing
> Julius Caesar is thousands of times greater than for
> a historic Jesus
> what with there being only fabricated evidence for
> the later.
> You are either misinformed about the nature of
> secondary and primary
> evidence that exists or you choose to ignore the
> huge real differences
> between the evidence available.
> I am well aware that statements like yours are
> common and very few
> historians are willing to go on record saying the
> evidence for a mythic
> christ in nonexistent, there is no real gain for
> them for doing so and
> the howls of protest would make any such statements
> detrimental to ones
> career.
> One cannot prove there was no Jesus (Which is
> technically a title rather
> than a name) just as one cannot prove there was no
> Horus.
> This is really the tactic that fundamentalists tend
> to take, as if any
> and all evidence were of equal value. I'm always
> surprised to see it here.
> From Estabrook's previous postings he demonstrates
> more than a passing
> knowledge of the studies of antiquity so it's even
> more sad to see if
> from someone who should know better.
> If you wish to accept the argument that it is all
> fabricated so be it
> but to pretend the quality and kind of evidence for
> Julius Caesar and
> Jesus Christ are even remotely similar is to allow
> the existence of
> Isis, Hercules, Paul Bunyon, satyrs, cyclops,
> griffins, etc.
> If one is willing to accept the existence of
> evidence for Jesus Christ
> as being roughly comparable in value to that for
> Julius Caesar then one
> MUST also admit the evidence for the existence of
> griffins is greater
> than for Jesus Christ.
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>