Did Jesus Live?

Originally posted by DanielPasono
Oh really?
And how much research have you put into finding the truth about whether or not Jesus was a real man? How many hours have you spent reading opinions on both sides of the equations? How many historians have you read on the topic?
The existance of Jesus as a real human being is extremely well documented and only the pure denial of fact would ...[text shortened]... e to conclude elsewise. Assuming, of course, that one actually was interested in fact.

Daniel

Why do you assume that I haven't studied the "historical" information about the life of Jesus?

As Nage already mentioned, so far there is no first hand historical proof that Jesus did exist as a man.

Do I believe that he existed? You failed to ask me that.

Deducting from secondary historical sources it is likely that a man, named Jesus, did live in that timeframe. As a "historian", which I am not, but I studied history to become a history teacher, the historical evidence of the existence of Jesus is as vague as the historical evidence of the existence of King Arthur.

As a wannabe historian I am very interested in any proof that would take away any doubt about the existence of Jesus. So far, as a historian, I can not find any other well-documented writings about the life of Jesus ... unless I use the bible as a trusted historical source ... and even if I did that, it would only be one source, which, of course, is not enough for a historian.

The papers filed in court supporting and opposing Cascioli's law suit are available at http://www.luigicascioli.it/tabella_eng.php for those interested.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The papers filed in court supporting and opposing Cascioli's law suit are available at http://www.luigicascioli.it/tabella_eng.php for those interested.

John of Gamala eh?

Don't get sidetracked by Satanism & Nudity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If your lawyer talks like LH, I suggest you immediately report him to both the nearest disciplinary committee and mental health professional.

And if your lawyer talks like no1, I suggest you give him a bar of soap.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You might try wearing platform shoes since sarcasm flies so far above the container of air you call a head.

It wasn't sarcasm.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this forum, you're still very much a Catholic (in your way of thinking, that is). All you've done is replace the Bible with the US Constitution, Tradition with precedent and the Church hierarchy with US courts.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, it isn't. It is based purely on secondary historical evidence (texts). The case for the existence of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is equally well documented. Can I interest you in some fascinating literature?

Go ahead - I'm interested.

And how do you distinguish primary vs. secondary historical evidence?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Go ahead - I'm interested.

And how do you distinguish primary vs. secondary historical evidence?

Oh no, you're not a good candidate for Krishna Consciousness!

Primary evidence is something like an implement, a pot, a bone, dated back to the period in question. Secondary is effectively hearsay.

Originally posted by NicolaiS
As Nage already mentioned, so far there is no first hand historical proof that Jesus did exist as a man.

What qualifies as first-hand historical proof?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oh no, you're not a good candidate for Krishna Consciousness!

Primary evidence is something like an implement, a pot, a bone, dated back to the period in question. Secondary is effectively hearsay.

Have you been hanging out with the funny people in saffron robes again? 🙂

Just want to clarify the idea of 'primary evidence' further. The examples you've given are pertinent to prehistoric man. What does it mean with respect to personalities in the ancient world? What qualifies as primary evidence for the existence of, say, Alexander the Great? Plato? Hammurabi? Tutunkhamun?

Originally posted by NicolaiS
So far, as a historian, I can not find any other well-documented writings about the life of Jesus ... unless I use the bible as a trusted historical source ... and even if I did that, it would only be one source, which, of course, is not enough for a historian.

The Bible isn't one source, as you well know. It is a compilation of various material written in different places at different times.

Besides, the Gospel accounts in the Bible are not the only source of historical information about Jesus - there are the apocryphal Gospels as well.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What qualifies as first-hand historical proof?

Original manuscripts, contemporary records, or documents (speeches, letters, interviews, diaries ) created at the time an event occurred.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just want to clarify the idea of 'primary evidence' further. The examples you've given are pertinent to prehistoric man. What does it mean with respect to personalities in the ancient world? What qualifies as primary evidence for the existence of, say, Alexander the Great? Plato? Hammurabi? Tutunkhamun?

My examples are pertinent to any time. An Edwardian bidet and an Aurignacian hand axe fall into the same category. Hammurabi signed his tablets. Tutankhamun left a tomb with cartoons. Plato wrote a few books. I don't know about Alexander, but I do believe there are coins with his face on them from the time he ruled.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Bible isn't one source, as you well know. It is a compilation of various material written in different places at different times.

When all else fails, patronise.

The Gospels are still not primary evidence.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
When all else fails, patronise.

The Gospels are still not primary evidence.

Please follow the conversation before making such knee-jerk reactions.

I did not claim the Gospels were primary evidence (I am still trying to determine precisely what that is). Nor did I patronise Nicolai - I was pointing out a factual error. Each book of the Bible must be evaluated separately as a source of historical information because they originated separately, can be traced separately and were later compiled together by the Church for liturgical reasons.

Just because every scrap of information we have about Hammurabi (say) is in the Louvre does not mean we only have one source of information about Hammurabi.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Please follow the conversation before making such knee-jerk reactions.

It's not what you say, darling, it's how you say it.