Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Bannasidhe

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

Because Christ said to keep on asking :

"Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you. For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened. …Therefore, if you… know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?"

Of course even the thought of even having to ask once, never mind to go on asking will make many ego's out there feel like bursting into flames with rage.

It's not egos that would combust - it's reason and logic that would suffer by asking someone who may or may not have lived and died 2000 years ago for the ability to believe in them.
Perhaps I should start off small with Caeser...

Sandals and Shorts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not egos that would combust - it's reason and logic that would suffer by asking someone who may or may not have lived and died 2000 years ago for the ability to believe in them.
Perhaps I should start off small with Caeser...

Historically he did exist, whether you believe him or not, that's up you. Many didn't believe him at the time, that's well documented.

Bannasidhe

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

Historically he did exist, whether you believe him or not, that's up you. Many didn't believe him at the time, that's well documented.

Please link me a document contemporary with Jesus (i.e not a gospel) that proves he existed?

Otherwise, it is speculation based on second hand, noncontempornious accounts - aka hearsay.

Sandals and Shorts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please link me a document contemporary with Jesus (i.e not a gospel) that proves he existed?

Otherwise, it is speculation based on second hand, noncontempornious accounts - aka hearsay.

Well if you rule out all evidence then of course there is none, and by that standard Alexander the Great and Socrates never existed either. Now you're in tin foil hat terrority so I'll leave you to it.

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

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][9][10][11] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[33][34] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.

Sandals and Shorts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm a genuine atheist - far as I'm concerned I may as well ask the Tooth Fairy if she exists while I am about it.

There you go then. That's my point.

Sarky

Why do random posters always think they can out-history Bannasidhe? It's like they never read any of the threads where she's shredded such folks before...

Bannasidhe

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

Well if you rule out all evidence then of course there is none, and by that standard Alexander the Great and Socrates never existed either. Now you're in tin foil hat terrority so I'll leave you to it.

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

Ohhhh - surprise, surprise - it's a link to wikipedia. :rolleyes:

So you can't link me a contemporary document?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Why do random posters always think they can out-history Bannasidhe? It's like they never read any of the threads where she's shredded such folks before...

I'm only softening 'em up for someone older and wiser than I. :cool:

endacl

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

Well if you rule out all evidence then of course there is none, and by that standard Alexander the Great and Socrates never existed either. Now you're in tin foil hat terrority so I'll leave you to it.

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

Dude. There are standards...

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Bannasidhe

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

No, just sincerity

Sincerely - got anything better than wikipedia yet to prove Jesus existed?

georgieporgy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ohhhh - surprise, surprise - it's a link to wikipedia. :rolleyes:

So you can't link me a contemporary document?

Everything is mentioned in wiki these days and it's the first source coughed up by google when you search online.
You sound like a serious history scholar though. Have you decided not to accept Tacitus' reference to Christ, or is he not contemporary enough for you?

Sandals and Shorts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sincerely - got anything better than wikipedia yet to prove Jesus existed?

Yes the professional opinion of the majority of historians and scholars, what about you ?

Wiki is just a summary, all the footnotes and references are there to follow

Bannasidhe

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

Yes the professional opinion of the majority of historians and scholars, what about you ?

Wiki is just a summary, all the footnotes and references are there to follow

You are the one who said Jesus absolutely existed - the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence of a better caliber than wikipedia like a link which shows the existence of a primary source which specifically refers to Jesus otherwise, in the professional opinion of this historian (who is also a scholar according to all those awards given to me by various universities), you are merely conjecturing. How about you follow those wiki links and then link to the 'proof'.

By the by, I have no problem with conjecturing as long as no one claims that it is truth and not a best guess.

Bannasidhe

georgieporgy wrote: »

Everything is mentioned in wiki these days and it's the first source coughed up by google when you search online.
You sound like a serious history scholar though. Have you decided not to accept Tacitus' reference to Christ, or is he not contemporary enough for you?

Tacitus is not a primary source for the existence of Jesus - Tacitus is a primary source for the existence of Christianity during the reign of Nero. Big difference.

Edit: Wikipedia is not an acceptable source as far as history is concerned - as many, many students learn to their cost every year.

Sandals and Shorts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are the one who said Jesus absolutely existed - the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence of a better caliber than wikipedia like a link which shows the existence of a primary source which specifically refers to Jesus otherwise, in the professional opinion of this historian (who is also a scholar according to all those awards given to me by various universities), you are merely conjecturing.

I have no problem with conjecturing as long as no one claims that it is truth and not a best guess.

I'm quite happy to go with the opinion of the vast majority of professional historians and scholars. If they are happy enough to conclude Jesus existed, then so am I. All the footnotes and references are there for you to follow.

Just to quote a few of them

"In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Cambridge Professor Michael Grant (an atheist) 2004

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould

Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

Sarky

That's about as useful as saying a man named Paddy existed in Ireland in 1980.

Bannasidhe

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

I'm quite happy to go with the opinion of the vast majority of professional historians and scholars. If they are happy enough to conclude Jesus existed, then so am I. All the footnotes and references are there for you to follow.

Just to quote a few of them

"In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Cambridge Professor Michael Grant (an atheist) 2004

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould

Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

All of those quotes are what we professional historians call 'secondary sources' - i.e written by people after an event allegedly happened which they did not personally witness. They do not constitute evidence in and of themselves and are the historical equivalent of the legal 'hearsay' - which is inadmissible in a court of law for a very good reason.

You stated Jesus absolutely existed - therefore you need to provide the proof - if it so easy as following wiki links then do it then get back to us with that primary source I asked for.

georgieporgy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All of those quotes are what we professional historians call 'secondary sources' - i.e written by people after an event allegedly happened which they did not personally witness. They do not constitute evidence in and of themselves and are the historical equivalent of the legal 'hearsay' - which is inadmissible in a court of law for a very good reason.

You stated Jesus absolutely existed - therefore you need to provide the proof - if it so easy as following wiki links then do it then get back to us with that primary source I asked for.

It would seem professional historians can have different opinions on history. Some actually claim that the bible is not a historical document (loaded with contemporary references to Christ), others , both believers and non believers, say it is.

In addition to this most accurate ancient historical narrative, we have archeological evidence to verify biblical stories. Not to mention the physical evidence of Jesus' body.

Sarky

georgieporgy wrote: »

Not to mention the phisical evidence of Jesus' body.

Oh, this one is going to be spectacular.

krudler

georgieporgy wrote: »

It would seem professional historians can have different opinions on history. Some actually claim that the bible is not a historical document (loaded with contemporary references to Christ), others , both believers and non believers, say it is.

In addition to this most accurate ancient historical narrative, we have archeological evidence to verify biblical stories. Not to mention the phisical evidence of Jesus' body.

What evidence?

Nodin

georgieporgy wrote: »

It would seem professional historians can have different opinions on history. Some actually claim that the bible is not a historical document (loaded with contemporary references to Christ), others , both believers and non believers, say it is.

In addition to this most accurate ancient historical narrative, we have archeological evidence to verify biblical stories. Not to mention the phisical evidence of Jesus' body.

......astounded, so I am.

TheChizler

In before the shroud of turin...

Nodin

TheChizler wrote: »

In before the shroud of turin...

Ahh no, give the man some credit now.

Bannasidhe

georgieporgy wrote: »

It would seem professional historians can have different opinions on history. Some actually claim that the bible is not a historical document (loaded with contemporary references to Christ), others , both believers and non believers, say it is.

In addition to this most accurate ancient historical narrative, we have archeological evidence to verify biblical stories. Not to mention the phisical evidence of Jesus' body.

'Contemporary' = existing at the same time as...

No gospel is contemporary with Jesus. Therefore they cannot contain contemporary references to Jesus. They are secondary sources where unknown authors have written what they heard about Jesus without witnessing the events themselves or ever meeting Jesus. It's the wikipedia of the ancient world.

Of course the Bible is an 'historical document' - so are the Táin Bó Cúailnge, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Donation of Constantine - All that means it they are old. It does not mean the contents are either accurate or true.

'most accurate ancient historical document'? Really, compared to what? - it contradicts itself - not what I would call 'accurate'.

Archaeological evidence which demonstrates the existence of various Pharaohs, Babylonian kings, Augustus, Roman officials, certain cities yes - but does this 'prove' that events as told in the Bible are accurate? By that criteria the film Michael Collins is an accurate portrait of his life...

Physical evidence of Jesus' body???? Indeed - and Dev shot Big Mick.

georgieporgy

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

endacl

georgieporgy wrote: »

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

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.

TheChizler

georgieporgy wrote: »

Matthew and John gospels are first hand accounts.

Hee hee hee...

Nodin

georgieporgy wrote: »

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

"Not to mention the phisical evidence of Jesus' body"

If ye would.....

Lelantos

Oh this is going to be fun, in the immortal words of Homer J Simpson, "help me Jebus"

Bannasidhe

georgieporgy wrote: »

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

'First hand' - what does that mean exactly? It certainly doesn't mean they were written at the same time as the events happened as you imply
- a quick wiki (since you are so fond of wikipedia ) before you posted that might have been wise

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs.

Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73, c. 65–70.
Matthew: c. 70–100, c. 80–85.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c. 80–85.
John: c. 90–100, c. 90–110,The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church. Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s.

Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Few academic scholars, however, take Robinson's work seriously. For example, Raymond Brown of the Union Theological Seminary specifically rejects "Bishop John A.T. Robinson's maverick attempt." J.V.M. Sturdy said regarding Robinson's work that he "one sidedly ignores difficulties for his views, steamrollers the evidence, again and again advances from an improbable possibility to a certainty.

Now I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Jesus is alleged to have died c33 AD - the earliest estimated date for any of the Gospels in c50s...

I am beginning to think you do not understand what contemporary means...

Now - about the evidence of Jesus' body - care to expand on that?

uck51js9zml2yt

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

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.