Did Jesus Live?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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 or ...[text shortened]... y) is in the Louvre does not mean we only have one source of information about Hammurabi.

Although on that point you can't get around the fact that the Bible compilation of the new testament is biased towards books that describe Jesus as divine.

A primary historical source is an account of an event that has occurred, by someone or something that was there at the time.

Originally posted by lukemcmullan

A primary historical source is an account of an event that has occurred, by someone or something that was there at the time.

For anyone who wants to understand these terms better (I know I do: http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/materials.htm):

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's not what you say, darling, it's how you say it.

Or maybe you just read it when you were in a bad mood.

Read the three sentences I wrote again - what's so patronising about them?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
For anyone who wants to understand these terms better (I know I do: http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/materials.htm):

From the source you cited:

There are a few more complicated cases. For example, a memoir of the sixties by Bob Dylan would be a primary source, even if it was published in 1998, because it contains the recollections of someone who was alive in 1967.

Why would the Gospels* not be considered primary sources?

* Note: In discussions about the "historical" Jesus, this includes the Apocryphal Gospels as well.

Originally posted by lukemcmullan
Although on that point you can't get around the fact that the Bible compilation of the new testament is biased towards books that describe Jesus as divine.

Of course. And there are books from the 2nd cent. that describe Jesus as just a bastard child. But that is not what we are trying to answer here.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

Do you mean each book of the Gospels and/or NT?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

If you truly believe that I think just because a court rules it it must be so, you truly desperately need a reading comprehension course.

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?

The Gospel of John referenced a pool with 5 portices that was destroyed in 70 AD along with the rest of Jerusalem. Is that not evidence that the author *could* have been alive to witness Jesus' life?

Originally posted by Darfius
The Gospel of John referenced a pool with 5 portices that was destroyed in 70 AD along with the rest of Jerusalem. Is that not evidence that the author *could* have been alive to witness Jesus' life?

It is evidence that either the author saw the temple before it was destroyed in 70 CE, or that
he spoke with someone who saw the temple. Of course, I'm assuming that the pool with
five porticos was both correct and an unusual fact (that is, that all pools didn't have five porticos
for some obscure Levitican reason, or something).

Nemesio

Originally posted by NicolaiS
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.

I see you ducted my question. (Yes, I changed login names). You failed to mention if you have read any material on the topic.
Even the most noted skeptics admit that Jesus was a real man that lived when the Bible says He did. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are all from people who personally knew Jesus. They can't be discounted simply because they were included in the Bible. Then there's the writings of Josephus. A very well respected historian of that time era. Not to mention the writings of the other apostles and friends (by Mary, Thomas, etc). The evidence is there if you are willing to accept it.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I see you ducted my question. (Yes, I changed login names). You failed to mention if you have read any material on the topic.
Even the most noted skeptics admit that Jesus was a real man that lived when the Bible says He did. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are all from people who personally knew Jesus. They can't be discounted simply because they were included in the Bible. Then there's the writings of Josephus. A very well respected historian of that time era. Not to mention the writings of the other apostles and friends (by Mary, Thomas, etc). The evidence is there if you are willing to accept it.

First of all, no one believes that Sts Mary, Thomas, &c were the authors of the texts attributed
to them. They are all 2nd- and 3rd-century creations -- making it impossible for their authorship.
Second of all, the attribution to Sts Matthew and Mark are both 2nd-century attributions by Papias
as quoted by Eusebius in the 3rd century. Papias is notorious unreliable as even Eusebius
notes.

The selection from Josephus is, for me, the only example of primary support for Jesus's
existence, and even that is severely interpolated. That having been said, I find the secondary
literature (the Gospels, Letters of Sts James and John, especially) to be of strong evidentiary
value as to make the likelihood that Jesus existed pretty certain. I wouldn't utterly rule out the
possibility that He didn't, but I would consider it to be a highly improbable scenario.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I see you ducted my question. (Yes, I changed login names). You failed to mention if you have read any material on the topic.
Even the most noted skeptics admit that Jesus was a real man that lived when the Bible says He did. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are all from people who personally knew Jesus. They can't be discounted simply because th les and friends (by Mary, Thomas, etc). The evidence is there if you are willing to accept it.

First of all ... why change a login name ... how am I supposed to "know" its Daniel who is writing this post?

I didn't intend to duct any question. I assumed it was clear that I have studied the material on the topic by explaining I have studied history in collage ... but alas ... I shouldn't assume.

Yes ... I have studied material, especially Roman historian's like Tacitus, suetonius, Plutarch and Josephus. The lack of information about Jesus and the rise of Christianity during the Roman period is, in my opinion, proof enough to doubt the man Jesus lived as the gospels tell us. I do not deny Jesus lived or even was a phrophet and was crucified. I merely state that there is no primary source to sustain these claims.

Regarding the gospels ... the were written long after the mentioned events took place and have been subject of multiple translations and adjustements. Also the many times the gospels contradict each other is for me reason not to accept them as primairy source ... secondary/tertiary? ... yes ... but not primary and that is to me still paramount to accept an event as a "historical fact"

( I know that "a" historical fact does not exist, but I will not discuss that here )

EDIT ... I forgot ... I also read the bible ... entirely.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why would the Gospels not be considered primary sources?

Like. was Mark present at Jesus' birth. Etc.

It might be a whole lot more instructive if you set about showing that the Gospels do constitute primary historical evidence, if only because you are probably much more motivated to do so than I am the contrary (besides, I'm happy to go with the historians on this one).

Originally posted by Nemesio

The selection from Josephus is, for me, the [b]only example of primary support for Jesus's existence[/b]

Then you might also want to read the Roman historian Tacitus and another Roman historian named Seutonius. They both non-Christians wrote about Jesus.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
Then you might also want to read the Roman historian Tacitus and another Roman historian named Seutonius. They both non-Christians wrote about Jesus.

DF

Yes, what they wrote is secondary evidence--long after the reported facts, passing on what they had heard from other sources. By the way who was Chrestus?