The Shroud Of Turin

[Archaic]

Hi, guys.

What is our working definition of the phrase "all serious historians"? Are we all serious historians? Or is that all in the eye of the beholder?

I think it's rare to find absolute unanimity in any field of historical inquiry.

For myself, I accept it as an established historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived, and I also personally believe it to be utterly true.

Best regards, Archaic

[DVV]

That's indeed what you're saying.
And you're wrong.

[belinda]

What are you disagreeing with ?
The established fact that almost all serious historians on the subject are of opinion that Jesus has most certainly existed ?

I am saying it is not an ëstablished fact that "all serious historians" agree Jesus existed

[DVV]

No I still disagree and I am aware of the date

What are you disagreeing with ?
The established fact that almost all serious historians on the subject are of opinion that Jesus has most certainly existed ?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

As an agnostic, I'd like to see some secular historical information matching the info of the gospels:

For example, any secular info about an unexplained earthquake in the Palestine region, that happened together with a sudden eclipse around 30 ad etc...

All the best
Jukka

[The Good Michael]

In two months I will talk to the Chileans about Jesus. They will know.


Mike

[belinda]

Hi Belinda,

yes there is a consensus (consensus doesn't mean unanimity, of course).
Jesus has most certainly existed, and I know no university that teaches otherwise.
This was a 19th century debate. Now it's 2010.

Amitiés,
David

No I still disagree and I am aware of the date

[DVV]

I drank 15 pastis with them just the other day.
I can tell you they're all fond of salt peanuts.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

What about John the Baptist, Demitrius, Crispus and Simon Magus?

They must have all existed too.

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Belinda,

yes there is a consensus (consensus doesn't mean unanimity, of course).
Jesus has most certainly existed, and I know no university that teaches otherwise.
This was a 19th century debate. Now it's 2010.

Amitiés,
David

[belinda]

I have to disagree with this. I don't think there is any consensus out there that the Jesus depicted in the New testament definently existed .

[DVV]

Actually, both you and Tom are saying that there is evidence Christ did exist. Um nope sorry, there is zero evidence for that. If you want to argue that Jesus of Nazareth existed, which is the argument that is being conducted, that's one thing, but you absolutely cannot say there is any evidence whatsoever that the Christ walked the earth. Whether "Jesus of Nazareth" was the Christ is a matter of faith. Not record.

I have to agree with this.
At the same time, no specialist will deny Jesus historicity. This debate is closed for decades.
As soon as 40-50 (less than one generation after Jesus), traditions already existed about his life - as we learn from Paul - and it's therefore completely unlikely that such a figure would have been "invented" so quickly.

[Ally]

Agreed, Tom. Whether you like it or not, there is DOCUMENTED FACT that Christ did indeed exist. Whether you believe his word of the Bible, and his motivations however is a much more debatable. Refusing to believe Christ was an actual, historical human being is like saying in the fall of 1888 in London, that prostitutes weren't murdered either, or like saying the Holocaust is a complete hoax.

Regards,
Justin

Actually, both you and Tom are saying that there is evidence Christ did exist. Um nope sorry, there is zero evidence for that. If you want to argue that Jesus of Nazareth existed, which is the argument that is being conducted, that's one thing, but you absolutely cannot say there is any evidence whatsoever that the Christ walked the earth. Whether "Jesus of Nazareth" was the Christ is a matter of faith. Not record.

[Jonathan H]

Historically speaking, there are no surviving primary sources on Jesus of Nazareth, as opposed to ones on Julius Caesar [thanks o the Christian monk copyists] or a plethora on the Jack the Ripper murders.

Amongst those who first mention Christ, the Pagan writers Tacitus and Suetonius are not primary.

The Jewish writer Josephus is primary, but he does not mention Jesus of Nazareth at all. The two, notorious references which are contained in his his writings about Jesus Christ are arguably Christian [or Catholic] forgeries for a number of reasons, amongst them that Church fathers never quoted them in defense of their founder in the centuries before taking over the crumbling Roman state. Those references only date from the 4th century.

The Gospels, apart from their obvious bias, are secondary sources as they are not written by eyewitness and the first one, Mark, may not meant to be taken literally at all, despite including figures who were historical: eg. John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and Herod Antipas.

In terms of religious and/or spiritual faith none of the above matters, because the life-giving spirit of the risen Christ is known to believers in their hearts. He lives, therefore he once lived.

On the other hand, in terms of the science of history it matters a great deal.

[belinda]

List the evidence then,apart from the bible.