Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

MagicMarker

Well those little bits of cracker turn into Jesus, does that count?

georgieporgy

endacl wrote: »

John was the last one to be written. Matthew was written (cobbled together) sometime circa 70-100 ad. It's clear you're not a professional historian. I'm not either, but could find those facts in under 5 minutes.

I'm a dentist, not a historian. But any schoolboy knows that Matthew and John were contemporaries of Jesus, knew him, saw him, went round with him , and their gospel accounts are first hand evidence. (primary sources were requested).
Someone who knows nothing about it can certainly google the dates of composition.

endacl

Marshall Large Valor wrote: »

can't believe no one mentioned Josephus who mentions the man Jesus in his writings. on phone now so can't link.

I'm on the phone too, but find linking no problem...

This is a wiki too, in the grand tradition of 'oh we're doing it that way, are we...?'

Courtesy of RationalWiki...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus

Josephus Flavius (generally just Josephus) was a Romanised Jewish historian who wrote about Israel round about New Testament times. At least one Christian scribe tampered with his text and made it appear that Josephus considered Jesus the savior or “Christ”.[1]
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
If Josephus had written that he would have been a Christian, and there is no evidence that he was. He says throughout his writings that he believes the Roman emperor Vespasian was the Jewish Messiah, and probably believed in the Emperor's explicit claim to deity. Maybe he was just overly flattering of everybody?

Bannasidhe

Marshall Large Valor wrote: »

can't believe no one mentioned Josephus who mentions the man Jesus in his writings. on phone now so can't link.

Titus Flavius Josephus was born 4 years after Jesus is alleged to have died and - like Tacitus - is not a primary source for the existence of Jesus but is a primary source for the existence of Christianity during the reign of Nero.

It really isn't that hard folks - a primary source is, at it's most basic level, contemporary. One cannot be contemporary with someone who died before you were born.

I could write reams about JFK and Marilyn Monroe and no matter how accurate what I wrote was it would not be a contemporary account as they both died before I was born.

endacl

georgieporgy wrote: »

I'm a dentist, not a historian. But any schoolboy knows that Matthew and John were contemporaries of Jesus, knew him, saw him, went round with him , and their gospel accounts are first hand evidence. (primary sources were requested).
Someone who knows nothing about it can certainly google the dates of composition.

Did you not read Bannasidhe's post above? All four gospels were written post-jebus, and anonymously. That's a widely accepted fact even, and this may surprise you, among xian scholars.

On a side note. We do value qualifications and experience here. I hope you'll indulge me, as a dentist. Why are teeth so badly 'designed'?!? They won't last more than a few years without daily brushing/flossing. And wisdom teeth? What's that all about?

Play To Kill

georgieporgy wrote: »

Not to mention the physical evidence of Jesus' body.

Do tell how you can believe this while also believing that the body was resurrected?

neemish

Marshall Large Valor wrote: »

can't believe no one mentioned Josephus who mentions the man Jesus in his writings. on phone now so can't link.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html

Chapter 3, no 3 - 3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Bannasidhe

georgieporgy wrote: »

I'm a dentist, not a historian. But any schoolboy knows that Matthew and John were contemporaries of Jesus, knew him, saw him, went round with him , and their gospel accounts are first hand evidence. (primary sources were requested).
Someone who knows nothing about it can certainly google the dates of composition.

Oh, I'm sorry - is the criteria now 'every schoolboy knows'?
Next up 'the dogs in the street' guide to the Ancient World.

How on Earth can anyone say Matthew and John 'were contemporaries of Jesus, knew him, saw him, went round with him' when no one even knows who 'Matthew' and 'John' were?

The fact is the identity of the authors of the Gospels is unknown - how can one possible say 'this person whose identity is unknown witnessed these events which he then wrote about around 30 years later... maybe 40 years...or even 50...but he definitely knew Jesus and witnessed what happened'?

krudler

georgieporgy wrote: »

And I thought you were a professional historian.... Matthew and John gospels are first hand accounts.

How can something written after the fact be first hand accounts? they weren't written by the people who witnessed it, ergo not first hand.

"Eyewitness accounts" don't exist in the bible, it's the equivalent of a judge believing every word of an "eyewitness" to a crime who was told about it 40 years later by someone else.

neemish

endacl wrote: »

Did you not read Bannasidhe's post above? All four gospels were written post-jebus, and anonymously. That's a widely accepted fact even, and this may surprise you, among xian scholars.

Have you ever heard of the Q source? Q lived at the same time as Jesus, and is one of the main sources for Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Also, Mark was written no later than 60 CE, is thought to have lived at the same time as Jesus. Although it would probably be more accurate to say that the "School" of Mark wrote the Gospel, as opposed to one author. Some accounts leave out the last chapter and this was most certainly not written by "Mark" (will need to dig out the references - they're in books as opposed to online)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

Lelantos

neemish wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the Q source? Q lived at the same time as Jesus, and is one of the main sources for Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Also, Mark was written no later than 60 CE, is thought to have lived at the same time as Jesus. Although it would probably be more accurate to say that the "School" of Mark wrote the Gospel, as opposed to one author. Some accounts leave out the last chapter and this was most certainly not written by "Mark" (will need to dig out the references - they're in books as opposed to online)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

I've learned not to trust Q since encounter at farpoint

Bannasidhe

neemish wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the Q source? Q lived at the same time as Jesus, and is one of the main sources for Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Also, Mark was written no later than 60 CE, is thought to have lived at the same time as Jesus. Although it would probably be more accurate to say that the "School" of Mark wrote the Gospel, as opposed to one author. Some accounts leave out the last chapter and this was most certainly not written by "Mark" (will need to dig out the references - they're in books as opposed to online)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

Do you meant the Q hypothesis?

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second hypothetical document called "Q" as a source. Q was conceived as the most likely explanation behind the common material (mostly sayings) found in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke but not in Mark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

Jeez - people really arn't even trying when they don't even bother to wiki - never mind produce actual, you know, acceptable links...

endacl

neemish wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the Q source? Q lived at the same time as Jesus, and is one of the main sources for Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Also, Mark was written no later than 60 CE, is thought to have lived at the same time as Jesus. Although it would probably be more accurate to say that the "School" of Mark wrote the Gospel, as opposed to one author. Some accounts leave out the last chapter and this was most certainly not written by "Mark" (will need to dig out the references - they're in books as opposed to online)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

The Q source is actually a combined document, a compilation of all the common references from the three synoptic gospels. Compiled after those three were written.

Do you know what you're talking about at all?

neemish

Although some of John is eyewitness, it was DEFINITELY not all written by John. There are several styles of authorship throughout it and it has a completely different tone to other Gospels - it is much more theologically thought out and has moved on from simply telling the story. Have a look at Nicodemus' encounter in the 3rd Chapter, the woman at the well, the last supper discourse - we've moved on from Mark.

Have a look at Michael Mullins "The Gospel of John" or Brown's The Gospel and Epistles of John

Bannasidhe

neemish wrote: »

Although some of John is eyewitness, it was DEFINITELY not all written by John. There are several styles of authorship throughout it and it has a completely different tone to other Gospels - it is much more theologically thought out and has moved on from simply telling the story. Have a look at Nicodemus' encounter in the 3rd Chapter, the woman at the well, the last supper discourse - we've moved on from Mark.

Have a look at Michael Mullins "The Gospel of John" or Brown's The Gospel and Epistles of John

Since we have no idea who 'John' was - how can you possibly think that highlighted bit is correct?

endacl

neemish wrote: »

Although some of John is eyewitness, it was DEFINITELY not all written by John. There are several styles of authorship throughout it and it has a completely different tone to other Gospels - it is much more theologically thought out and has moved on from simply telling the story. Have a look at Nicodemus' encounter in the 3rd Chapter, the woman at the well, the last supper discourse - we've moved on from Mark.

Have a look at Michael Mullins "The Gospel of John" or Brown's The Gospel and Epistles of John

Ahem. Sorry to have to repeat myself, but do you know what you're talking about at all...?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Titus Flavius Josephus [...]

Damn. I go out for a cycle in the West Cork sun and I miss this.

Anyhow, I was going to say that I'm going to toast anybody who claims that Josephus, Tacitus or Pliny are primary sources for the existence of Jesus. And further slice and dice them if they claim that any of these three authors constitute evidence for the Jesus stories in the bible.

Why do so many people have such dreadful problems understanding what a primary source is? Like, sheesh, it's really quite simple.

neemish

endacl wrote: »

The Q source is actually a combined document, a compilation of all the common references from the three synoptic gospels. Compiled after those three were written.

Do you know what you're talking about at all?

I know a little although I'm a bit rusty!;)


Q is most definitely earlier than Matthew and Luke, but may have been written at the same time/slightly after Mark. And is separate to all three.
http://web.archive.org/web/19990219224131/http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~bjors/q-english.htm

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Why do so many people have such dreadful problems understanding what a primary source is? Like, sheesh, it's really quite simple.

Melts my head. It's not rocket science...

Agus

Most modern mainstream scholars would be of the opinion that

1. Jesus existed
2. We have some pretty early sources on him but nothing that can be shown to be contemporary
3. We can establish some facts about him that are probably true (mainly pretty general stuff on the outline of his life) but not much more than that.

Pherekydes

georgieporgy wrote: »

Matthew and John gospels are first hand accounts.

In view of

Matthew 9:9 wrote:

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

How do you think Matthew witnessed any of Jesus's life before he met him?

Especially any of this stuff:

Matthew 1 wrote:

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

How did he know Mary was a virgin?

Bannasidhe

Agus wrote: »

Most modern mainstream scholars would be of the opinion that

1. Jesus existed
2. We have some pretty early sources on him but nothing that can be shown to be contemporary
3. We can establish some facts about him that are probably true (mainly pretty general stuff on the outline of his life) but not much more than that.

He may or may not have existed. He quite possibly did but the fact remains there is no actual evidence he did.

Nor even if his existence could be 'proven' would that 'prove' his divinity.

Nodin

georgieporgy wrote: »

I'm a dentist, not a historian.....

I'm a bollocks with no patience. Where's the physical evidence for Jesus you mentioned?

coolhull

Lelantos wrote: »

I've learned not to trust Q since encounter at farpoint

But James Bond trusted Q, and Bond has a license to kill, so I'm sure as hell not going to disagree with him....

Agus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He may or may not have existed. He quite possibly did but the fact remains there is no actual evidence he did.

Nor even if his existence could be 'proven' would that 'prove' his divinity.

Most historians working in the area think he did exist on the basis of the available sources/evidence. I agree that no definite proof exists, especially as none of those sources are contemporary. And yes, obviously the mere fact that he probably existed does not in any way prove his divinity.

georgieporgy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since we have no idea who 'John' was - how can you possibly think that highlighted bit is correct?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=84

As you are not a christian I can understand how there may be gaps in your knowledge of christianity.

don't be afraid to study catholic sources

georgieporgy

Nodin wrote: »

I'm a bollocks with no patience. Where's the physical evidence for Jesus you mentioned?

had it earlier on today but ate it

Bannasidhe

georgieporgy wrote: »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=84

As you are not a christian I can understand how there may be gaps in your knowledge of christianity.

don't be afraid to study catholic sources

LOL.

Oh - I study everyone's 'sources' and I ask a number of questions including

1. Who is the author.
2. Who is the audience/intended recipient?
3. What kind of source is it?
4. When was it written?
5. What was the purpose of it being written?
6. Is it intended for the public, a select few or private?

Now, would these 'Catholic' sources have any investment in 'proving' the authenticity of the Bible that may cause them to be a tad....biased.

There can be no 'Catholic' sources contemporary with Jesus as there was a) No Christianity - Jesus being Jewish and all.
b) No 'Catholic' church during Jesus' lifetime.

Nodin

georgieporgy wrote: »

had it earlier on today but ate it

So theres none then. Nice one. Ha ha. We are much amused etc.

georgieporgy

endacl wrote: »

Did you not read Bannasidhe's post above? All four gospels were written post-jebus, and anonymously. That's a widely accepted fact even, and this may surprise you, among xian scholars.

On a side note. We do value qualifications and experience here. I hope you'll indulge me, as a dentist. Why are teeth so badly 'designed'?!? They won't last more than a few years without daily brushing/flossing. And wisdom teeth? What's that all about?

You need to carefully clean both ends (orifices) of the alimentary canal. If you concentrate on one and neglect the other...., well just imagine what the tail end would be like if you neglected it. Keep your oral cavity clean and your teeth will last for life as intended.

Wisdom teeth? funnily enough wikipedia has loads of accurate info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth