Christ is Dead

[Tom Bombadil]

Sorry, but there's no archaeological evidence at all to indicate a person called Hannibal existed.

None at all.

There's no reference to him at all in Carthaginian writings, which is strange given he's supposed to be their greatest general ever.

Seeing as there are no existing Carthaginian records there are no references to anyone. So perhaps a little less surprising.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Seeing as there are no existing Carthaginian records there are no references to anyone. So perhaps a little less surprising.

Exactly.

Which is a perfect example of why there are next to no records of Christ's existence.

If the Romans can remove a whole civilisation almost completely from the pages of history it wouldnt be too hard for them to wipe almost all traces of one man from them.

History is written by the victors, not the vanquished.

 

[OzMike]

...

 

[OzMike]

Looks like divine intervention got to the picture

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Hang on a minute.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Exactly.

Which is a perfect example of why there are next to no records of Christ's existence.

If the Romans can remove a whole civilisation almost completely from the pages of history it wouldnt be too hard for them to wipe almost all traces of one man from them.

History is written by the victors, not the vanquished.

But the difference is we have lots of surviving records from the 1st century, Roman and otherwise who strangely fail to mention Jesus or the anyone who we could infer to be the source of the legend.

Refences start appearing in the century following the supposed death of Jesus, but at first they refer to Christians, and then when they do speak of Jesus the Christians are their sources. There is no independent evidence.

In the Roman litereture we start to see refenences to Hannibal some 100 years after his death. These are not the first histories of the punic wars, but sadly the writings of Cato et al no longer exist, so yes they are not primary sources of evidence.
What we do have though are references in neutral sources from the Greeks and others, again not contemporary but which provide supporting independent evidence for his existence. Combine this with extensive archaeological evidence for the 2nd punic war and you have compelling evidence for his existence.

Now returning to Christ, crucially there is no independent evidence for his existence as might be expected in the Roman or Hebrew litereature, and neither is there any archaeological evidence. This is not to say he didn't exist, but it is a matter of faith not fact.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

But the difference is we have lots of surviving records from the 1st century, Roman and otherwise who strangely fail to mention Jesus or the anyone who we could infer to be the source of the legend.

Refences start appearing in the century following the supposed death of Jesus, but at first they refer to Christians, and then when they do speak of Jesus the Christians are their sources. There is no independent evidence.

In the Roman litereture we start to see refenences to Hannibal some 100 years after his death. These are not the first histories of the punic wars, but sadly the writings of Cato et al no longer exist, so yes they are not primary sources of evidence.
What we do have though are references in neutral sources from the Greeks and others, again not contemporary but which provide supporting independent evidence for his existence. Combine this with extensive archaeological evidence for the 2nd punic war and you have compelling evidence for his existence.

Now returning to Christ, crucially there is no independent evidence for his existence as might be expected in the Roman or Hebrew litereature, and neither is there any archaeological evidence. This is not to say he didn't exist, but it is a matter of faith not fact.

All the above can be applied to Hannibal too.

There's plenty of records of the Carthaginian wars, but they are written by the Romans and others, all of whom also forget to mention a Hannibal.

As stated previously the first mention of a "Hannibal" occurs nearly a century later after the Carthaginian empire was crushed.

We know that large battles occured between the two empires so naturally there will be archaeological evidence of these battles, but that isn't proof that a Hannibal existed.

As there is no solid contemporary evidence for Hannibal's existence he needs to be regarded in the same light as Christ then when dealing with the actual existence of the actual individual.

He could be a ficticious name made up to fill the need for a hero figure to lead the Carthaginian armies in battle.

Just as Christ could be a ficticious name made up to lead the fledgling christian movement.

My issue is that one is considered a lock in for a legitimate historical person, yet the same isn't afforded to the other historical character.

This is despite the historical backgrounds of the two being quite similar in so far as they were both seen as ememies within/by the roman state and neither have any direct contemporary wirting about their existence.

 

[Everest]

Dead?
Didn't even know he'd been ill

 

[beorhthelm]

My issue is that one is considered a lock in for a legitimate historical person, yet the same isn't afforded to the other historical character.

but then no one is claiming that Hannibal is the son of Christ and no one follows the alledged teachings of Hannibal (well, a few military maneuvers aside) as a guide to their lives, no one has built an institution of power and control based on recounting the story of his life and teachings. When people claim that a book is the only guide to how you should live and that this book is infalliable and completely true, one might expect some evidence to back that claim.

so, lets dismiss Hannibal as a mythical general, and dispence of the Jesus fellow at the same time.

 

[Huple]

I saw a film about this hannibal bloke the other night and there was no mention of him commanding the Carthaginians during the first punic war. All they had him doing was going around eating people.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

but then no one is claiming that Hannibal is the son of Christ and no one follows the alledged teachings of Hannibal (well, a few military maneuvers aside) as a guide to their lives, no one has built an institution of power and control based on recounting the story of his life and teachings. When people claim that a book is the only guide to how you should live and that this book is infalliable and completely true, one might expect some evidence to back that claim.

so, lets dismiss Hannibal as a mythical general, and dispence of the Jesus fellow at the same time.

You've missed the point on this discussion by referencing God.

This isn't about who or what he was, it's just about is there the possibility a guy named Jesus existed around that time and was he spuiking to the peoples of that time.

The bible is like any other historical writings of the time, some information will be factual, some will be totally made up, the majority will be a mixing of both together to make a story.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

We have plenty of evidence of belief systems from the middle east and beyond which do not rely on Greek or Roman sources



This is another load of complete tosh. Are you saying that the last century of scholarship is essentially a study of the Victorians?

Of course, there is enormous knowledge of other cultures. I have a degree in this sort of stuff (not that this should count for anything). What I am saying is that the popular imagination is still mostly fired by the prejudices of Victorian scholars (like Sir James Frazer) who believed that human progress was all about the transition from pantheism to monotheism and that this somehow justified the domination of the poor benighted heathens by the British Empire.

 

[Huple]

Of course, there is enormous knowledge of other cultures. I have a degree in this sort of stuff (not that this should count for anything). What I am saying is that the popular imagination is still mostly fired by the prejudices of Victorian scholars (like Sir James Frazer) who believed that human progress was all about the transition from pantheism to monotheism and that this somehow justified the domination of the poor benighted heathens by the British Empire.

Ah the old transition from pantheism to monotheism arguement yet again.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Anyway back to work tomorrow you SLACKERS !. Christ is alive and well until the next Good Friday anyway.

 

[defrocked priest]

Pah !