Did Jesus Live?

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

Do you know the dates of these writings? Tacitus wrote two generations after Jesus, and
Seutonius four. They are the product of secondary literature themselves -- all refer to Jesus's
followers in the present or past, and point backwards to Jesus as their leader. Josephus's
writing comes from his own experiences and directly address Jesus Himself, not through His
followers.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Josephus's
writing comes from his own experiences and directly address Jesus Himself, not through His
followers.

Nemesio

Does that make Josephus more direct evidence for Jesus' existence than the Gospels?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Does that make Josephus more direct evidence for Jesus' existence than the Gospels?

Hey man I listened to all of Bocephus stuff.
What you talkin bout man?lol jk

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you know the dates of these writings? Tacitus wrote two generations after Jesus, and
Seutonius four. They are the product of secondary literature themselves -- all refer to Jesus's
followers in the present or past, and point backwards to Jesus as their leader. Josephus's
writing comes from his own experiences and directly address Jesus Himself, not through His
followers.

Nemesio

I don't think so; Josephus was born in 37 AD at least 8 years or more after Jesus' death. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Does that make Josephus more direct evidence for Jesus' existence than the Gospels?

Wouldn't you say? The other writers are addressing Jesus anecdotally because they are
addressing His followers. Basically they say, 'These Christians, who are named after this
guy Jesus whom they think is the Christ....' In other words, their emphasis is on contemporary
Christians, not on Jesus. By contrast, Josephus was focusing on history and specifically on
Jesus. I feel this emphasis gives it a different, greater weight (interpolation notwithstanding).

I should amend my statement, Josephus is the closest thing to a primary source outside of
the Gospels, but even it isn't a primary source.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't think so; Josephus was born in 37 AD at least 8 years or more after Jesus' death. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

I would think that his earlier date would put him in touch with more reliable sources,
most notably the Jerusalem Church and perhaps St James in particular. Tacitus isn't
an adult until most of the people who knew Jesus personally were martyred, minimizing
the likelihood that he interacted with any of them.

It's just my opinion, but to call it a primary source was inaccurate.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Wouldn't you say? The other writers are addressing Jesus anecdotally because they are
addressing His followers.

I know that Luke can't possibly be considered a primary source because he admits as much. I know, too, that the oldest Gospel manuscripts are a couple of centuries too late. Ignoring that and making the necessary assumptions, is it possible that the other three were present at some points of Jesus' life, so that at least some parts of their narratives can be considered "eye-witness reporting"?

Does Josephus describe the Man of Sorrows as man or God?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I know that Luke can't possibly be considered a primary source because he admits as much. I know, too, that the oldest Gospel manuscripts are a couple of centuries too late. Ignoring that and making the necessary assumptions, is it possible that the other three were present at some points of Jesus' life, so that at least some parts of their narratives can be considered "eye-witness reporting"?

We can rule out St John, because the theology is so advanced, so complicated, and so Gnostic,
that it is clearly the product of a later author. Furthermore, his record of Jesus's activities is
utterly irreconcilable with the earlier authors.

We can also rule out St Matthew. He clearly relied on St Mark for information. If he were a
witness, he would have written his own narrative, not rely on editing the clumsy work of St Mark.
Furthermore, we know that he was a redactor, taking St Mark and Q and tailoring them to his
particular understanding of Jesus. We can see this editorial process by lining up Sts Matthew
and Mark on a given passage, or seeing how St Luke treats Q material more literally that St
Matthew.

So that leaves St Mark (and 'Q,' but that is just a record of sayings attributed to Jesus, which I
find largely reliable). I think it's pretty clear that St Mark wasn't a witness, but of the second
generation of Christians. I don't know of a single Biblical author who asserts that his text is
any earlier than the 60s CE, and most historical Jesus folk opine that it was written shortly
after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE.

Does Josephus describe the Man of Sorrows as man or God?

Depends how much you think is interpolated. It is pretty clear that Josephus was never a
Christian, so the notion that he would attest that Jesus was the Messiah is certainly dubious.
The idea that Jesus was 'God' rather than 'of God' or 'inspired by God' was a later construct;
of the Gospels, St John alone comes the closest to this, but even with him it can be a
confusing conclusion to draw.

This idea -- that Jesus was God -- was the subject of great controversy until it became
Orthodoxy in the 2nd century as the Dogma of the Trinity was codified.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
It is pretty clear that Josephus was never a
Christian, so the notion that he would attest that Jesus was the Messiah is certainly dubious.

Do you take Josephus' account as proof of Jesus Bar-Joseph's historical existence?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do you take Josephus' account as proof of Jesus Bar-Joseph's historical existence?

I take it as fairly good evidence. That is, Josephus mentions three specific people
in the Bible who were essential to the Christian message: St John the Baptist, St James,
and Jesus. If you excise the interpolation as the product of later editors, you will see that
these three references concord with his treatment of the various other 'minor' figures that
were doing things amongst the Jews in the period of time covered in his history.

I also consider the authentic writings of St Paul as strong evidence that St James
(brother of the Lord, Galatians 1:19), and Sts Peter and John (pillars of the Church,
Galatians 2:9) existed. In contrast with the Gospels, which have an interest in promoting
Jesus, St Paul's references are more natural, a reflection of tensions of the time between
him and the Jerusalem Church (i.e., between whether the Gospel was the province of
Jewish Christians only or the whole world).

If we accept that Sts Peter, John and James existed, we have good reason, I think, to
accept that Jesus existed.

This is, of course, just my opinion. Whereas I conclude that it is highly improbable that
Jesus is merely a figment, the creation of twelve very creative characters, I cannot
reasonably rule it out as impossible. I think there is a lot of unrelated, interdependent
evidence which requires 'too creative' of an interpretation to conclude that Jesus was
the invention of over-active imaginations.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This idea -- that Jesus was God -- was the subject of great controversy until it became Orthodoxy in the 2nd century as the Dogma of the Trinity was codified.

The bulk of your post being regurgitated bile from other result-minded 'scholars' as to render the whole mess beyond problematic, I will contend with one readily refuted portion.

According to you, Paul did not consider Jesus Christ equal with God?

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

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

I can help with this one -
For example - a Primary historical souce would be the actual helm worn by Prince Edward, the Black Prince of Wales, which we have. A Secondary source would be a painting of Edward wearing the helm or a book of text containing a description of the helm. A perfect example of a secondary source would be Edward's effigy, where one can see the helm beneath his head - the effigy is made of brass and only a representation of the helm, the the actual helm itself.

Insofaras Jesus is concerned - a primary source of evidence would be a bone or even bone dust from Jesus. Of course, how that could be proven nowdays is hard to say.... I doubt it could be done, to be honest.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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.

All of those, historically speaking, are still secondardy sources.

Bluntly put - a primary source is a extant piece (def: Still in existence; not destroyed, lost, or extinct) that you can hold in your hand.

Secondary source is anything one step from extant - a drawing, painting, sculpture and some texts.

Tertiary sources include most texts and copies of any secondary source.

It gets pointless after the tertiary sources.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The bulk of your post being regurgitated bile from other result-minded 'scholars' as to render the whole mess beyond problematic, I will contend with one readily refuted portion.

Uh-huh. Insult when you can't offer your own substantiated opinion and maybe people
will listen to the chest-beating alpha male.

According to you, Paul did not consider Jesus Christ equal with God?

This is not precisely what I said. I said that St Paul didn't think that Jesus was God.
I believe the best way to state what St Paul believed was that he thought that Jesus was
a divine manifestation of God. This is what I take Philippians 2:6 (and following) to mean,
as well as all of the 'Son of God' references. There is a distinction between God the
Father, and His Son, the Lord Christ Jesus, and St Paul is consistent in these distinctions.
He refers to Jesus as 'the image of God,' a reflection of God's almighty perfection on earth
in man. This is quite different than the Dogma of the Trinity, which speaks of God in
Three persons.

Nemesio

This is quite different than the Dogma of the Trinity, which speaks of God in
Three persons.

Nemesio

As an orthodox Jew, Saul would have credited only God with creation. When Saul became Paul, that was never repudiated.
The fact that we have the entire Scripture with which to now flesh out the thinking of God, changes nothing on the degree in which it was revealed.
The Trinity consists of three distinct Persons. This is Scriptural, not contructed after the fact, as you allude to in your post.
Because so much of your post is as stated, there is no need to offer any counter-balancing argument. Some people cannot handle the truth.