Re: historicity of Christ

From: M.B.Roberts (
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 02:22:05 EDT

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: So. Baptist Spin on Coal"

    I trust you all knew that Darwin never existed. Though this is little known
    it becomes very clear indeed for a careful study of his alleged life. A good
    starting point is his supposed Autobiography which was only published in
    its supposed complete version in 1959 some 77 years after his supposed

    There a several parts of this "Autobiography" which are simply false and
    contradicted by manuscript notes found in Cambridge Univ Library which are
    reckoned to be by Darwin.
    In his Autobiography Darwin describes the visit he made to Wales in 1831.
    There two pionts where the Autobiography is proven to be wrong. First he
    claimed to have spent many hours in Cwm Idwal with Adam Sedgwick looking for
    fossils. But the notes of D and S shew that if they went there they went on
    different days. Secondly D claimed to have walked from Capel Curig to
    Barmouth in a straight line using a compass. That route would be totally
    exhausting and if one looks at D's notes for this route he went in a zig-zag
    D returned to Wales in 1842 to look for glaciation and wrote that "it was
    the last time I was ever strong enough to climb mountains." However his mss
    notes show that he didnt climb one mountain and never walked more than 3-4
    miles - a feeble effort for a 33 year old.

    As for Darwin's so-called notes they cannot be tied in to the places
    alleged. At Llanberis he speaks of a steep cliff to the NE, it is a gentle
    slope. In Cwm Idwal he descibes an enourmous boulder and 4 lateral moraines
    on the West side of the lake - there are none. At Bwlch Drws Ardudwy he
    describes a mountain NE of the the col - there isnt one. I can give many

    Further the so-called works of Darwin are clearly derivative from previous
    ideas. His geology on the Beagle voyage has many echoes of Lyell's
    Princilpes of Geology and thus applying the rules some use for NT criticism
    could not be written by Darwin. In the Origin of Species and other works
    there are many unacknowledged references to earlier writers so cannot be by

    I put all these arguments to the Darwin Seminar which met last week in
    Shrewsbury and we all voted that most of Darwin's works are not authentic
    and that he probably did not exist. We also concluded that there was more
    probability that Jesus actually lived

    Michael Roberts

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan Clarke" <>
    Cc: "American Scientific Affiliation" <>
    Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:56 PM
    Subject: Re: historicity of Christ

    > Hi Charles
    > This is a tragic conclusion for your friend to draw and a source of grief
    for you (and for me also, I too have had friends who have followed this
    > I must say though that I am bemused by a claim for the non-historcity of
    Jesus. I am understand some rejecting His teachings, or querying aspects of
    the gospels, given the limited extra-Biblical information we have. But to
    reject entirely His historicity? This seems to be a case of willfully
    choosing to ignore facts. Jesus is spoken of in Josephus, Tactitus and the
    rabbinical literature, and there is obscene graffiti about people
    worshipping a crucified God in Pompeii. This is the will to believe in the
    face of evidence that matches YEC, geocentricism, or moon landing denial.
    > Similarly, statements that Early Christianity is rooted in platonic or
    pagan ideas are so bizarre it is hard to know where to begin. The
    Jewishness of Jesus is well established and 1st century Judaism was probably
    the least likely culture on earth for belief in virgin birth or the
    incarnation to arise.
    > This is not my field, but I would suggest that reading the original
    sources (such as Josephus) and any one of a slew of books on first century
    Judaism. I don't know how well he is regarded these days, but I have always
    found Edershem helpful (although difficult to read). So I would not
    recommend him for starters.
    > However seeing the basic premise of any denial of the historicity of Jesus
    is to deny the validity of the basic sources (especially the gospels), it is
    hard to know where to begin. Look at the holocaust deniers.
    > You have my prayers.
    > Jon
    > Charles Carrigan wrote:
    > > All,
    > >
    > > This is probably not the most appropriate forum for this question, but I
    can't think of a better place. So here goes......
    > >
    > > A very good friend of mine has recently rejected his Christian faith.
    He has done this, so he says (and I have no reason to doubt him), because
    after researching the historicity of Christ and the gospels and Paul, he can
    no longer believe that the person of Jesus Christ as proclaimed by
    traditional Christianity was an historical figure. Instead, he now believes
    that Christianity has its roots in pagan and mythical cultures, combined
    with neo-Platonism and Judaism of the time. I'm not an apologist, nor am I
    a scholar of biblical literature or history or whatever else that might be
    appropriate. He has given me a laundry list of literature on the subject,
    which I have neither the time nor the energy to pursue. (He has mentioned
    writings by Robert M. Price, Charles Templeton, and many others). So I'm
    looking for someone who has seriously researched these issues and can
    perhaps provide some information for me to pass along.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > C
    > >
    > >
    > > Charles W. Carrigan
    > > Univ. of Michigan - Department of Geological Sciences
    > > 2534 C.C. Little Bldg.
    > > 425 E. University Ave.
    > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "The point of having an open mind, like an open mouth,
    > > is to close it on something solid."
    > > -G.K. Chesterton

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 12 2001 - 02:26:11 EDT