ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2013, 10:53 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 10:14 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I think Ralph is putting forward a reasonable hypothesis, although it's not perfect, because no hypothesis about Jesus can be, given the lack of reliable sources. I think you recognise that too.
I do recognize that. I'm not saying that the entire bible is wrong or right, but there has to be a consistent standard for evaluating what parts are accurate.

Some of the common standards are independent corroboration, where two different sources verify the same fact. This seems to be what Ralph is attempting to do, but he's siding with the context of the alleged Josephus sources on whatever conflicts. For example, he said that the bible and Jewish War both speak of a crowd that Jesus gathered before entering Jerusalem (5000 people, was it?) and said that this was biblical correlation that proved that Jesus/Izaz was collecting an army to attack Jerusalem with. But the biblical narrative speaks of this as a crowd that came to listen to the Sermon on the Mount. So the only verified information from two different sources is that Jesus drew a crowd -- you can't then go on to say that it was either a crowd of listeners or an army because the sources don't both agree on that.

One of the major problems with this standard is plagiarism. We know that Matthew and Luke aren't technically independent sources that verify Mark because they both used Mark as a source. So even when we're trying to find correlations between the bible and writings of Josephus, how do we know that one didn't use the other as a source? Doing so would invalidate their independence.

There are other standards, such as evidence against interest. As Ralph has pointed out, "Josephus" believes that Izaz is the Messiah. This makes his writings that show Izaz fulfilling prophecy as highly suspect. None of it qualifies as evidence against interest because it furthers the author's interest.

There are other historical methods, but Ralph does not appear to be applying them. He has a theory with supporting evidence, and maybe he's right -- but at the same time, there is evidence that doesn't fit his theory that he's simply ignoring. I don't think he's as interested in the truth as he is making a name for himself by finding something new. If it is true, he has to address the why the bible would include "the hidden truth" here while simultaneously making great efforts to demonstrate the opposite by showing Jesus as a pacifist who spent his time preaching rather than recruiting.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
06-03-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(04-03-2013 08:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Other than Egor? Consider
Stop egging Egor on HoC............. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 05:55 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 06:04 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Did you not read or notice my emphasis on your confirmation bias? You keep deliberately ignoring the parts of scripture that don't line up with your theory while putting forth as evidence parts of scripture that conform with your theory. You ignore scripture that disagrees with you and argue for the veracity of bits that agree.

I can't keep wasting my time like this.


I think I explained quite clearly that the quotes you gave are true-ish, but had been covered in fairy dust by the gospel authors.

The test is - do the verses make more sense when the fairy dust is removed, than when it is applied? In all cases, the texts make much more sense in a real historical context, when the dust is removed.

Ergo, although I appreciate your rebuttals, the meanings I have explained make a great deal more sense.

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 06:01 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
>>Despite knowing that it will be pointless (because of your bias), let me enlighten you: Yes, you're right,
>>Herod would be afraid of a child that would take his throne. Jesus is supposedly along royal lines and
>>Herod was not; Herod was only a steward of the throne and could be dethroned once a rightful heir came along.

So we agree that Jesus was royal, a prince and king. However this would have to be Herod Archelous, to agree with a birth under the taxation of Quirinus.



>>But to acknowledge that Jesus could dethrone Herod, you also have to acknowledge that he
>>made no attempts to do so because you're drawing both stories from the same source.

Jesus did not need to. The Herodian tyrant had long-since been banished to France by the time Jesus came to a position of power.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 06:11 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 06:15 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Where exactly in the Talmud?

I did give the references:
Boiled in shit Gittin 55-57
Mary bought the high priesthood Yebamoth 61

Try the Come Hear online Talmud.


He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.1 He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot semen.

He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel. He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement Gittin 56

(Note: Balaam is a common pseudonym for Jesus. In the original Oxford Manuscript, is says 'Jesus' instead of 'Sinners of Israel'.)



IT ONCE HAPPENED TO JOSHUA. He APPOINTED HIM but he was not elected! Said R. Joseph: I see here a conspiracy; for R. Assi, in fact, related that Martha the daughter of Boethus brought to King Jannai a tarkab of denarii before he gave an appointment to Jesus b. Gamala among the High Priests. Yebamoth 61



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 06:20 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?


>>Aren't you forgetting that the High Priest in Jesus' day was a Roman puppet? If Jesus was a political
>>insurgent (and I absolutely agree with you that he was,) the Romans would hardly have installed him
>>as a high priest in the temple.

I think I answere this on the other thread. Perhapsnyou would like to bring your reply back to this thread, so we do not duplicate ourselves.



>>On the surface it seems you have neglected to consider the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene. I think they
>>were a branch of the Essenes, and we know from the dead sea scrolls that the Essenes deeply resented
>>and hated the high priest in the temple. So Jesus would hardly have been willing to act as a Roman puppet
>>(the high priest) in Jerusalem.

Sort of, but the Wicked Priest was Saul-Josephus himself. And by the AD 60s the Romans were not in control of the Temple, as I said on the other thread.



>>James Tabor, also mentions that John the Baptist, said to be a descendent Aaron, may have been aspiring to
>>become the new high priest. I assume you agree that this may have been the case?

Oh, quite probably. But in this scenario, it is likely that John was of the previous generation to Jesus. The gospels/Josephus may be right here, when they allude to John being beheadded in the early AD 30s.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 06:33 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2013 06:58 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?



>>Do linguistic experts think that Paul's and Josephus' writing styles are the same?

William Whiston says as much in his 'Dissertaion on Hades' at the end of his translation.
There is also a very good textural and content comparison by a Swedish lady, which was very illuminating. It is an online pdf, but I cannot find it at present. I am away from my computer this month, and do not have a copy of it. It is worth searching for.



>>If Josephus had a hand in writing the Gospels (an idea that I concur with), how do you explain
>>Paul's almost complete lack of knowledge about anything the Gospels' Jesus said or did?

Because the Epistles were written BEFORE the Jewish Revolt, and the gospel events are all about the Jewish Revolt of the AD 60s. This is why the Epistles do not narrate the full crucifixion episode, or anything like it. Because it had not yet happened.




>>If the Jesus of the Gospels was, in fact, Jesus of Gamalla, how do you explain the fact that James, the brother
>>of Jesus, was the leader of the Nazarenes executed in about 62 CE? James would not have been the leader of
>>the Nazarenes if Jesus had been alive.

Yes he would.

It is specifically narrated that the younger Izas-Manu (ie, Jesus) would be king. But the younger was away and so the elder (ie, James) was tasked with holding the kingship until he returned. This equates quite nicely with the Eseaan monarchy, where Manu V ruled from AD 50 to 57, and another Manu (Emmanuel) ruled from AD 57 until 71.

Obviously the throne became empty in AD 71 because Manu VI had been crucified in Jerusalem and then sent to Rome as a prisoner in AD 70. Manu V would have died in AD 62 ish.

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
Sounds like y'all are skipping the Talmud, which (the oral version) Paul quotes and which has contemporaneous evidence of importance for the existence of the biblical, miracle working Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(07-03-2013 06:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 06:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  




>>Do linguistic experts think that Paul's and Josephus' writing styles are the same?

William Whiston says as much in his 'Dissertaion on Hades' at the end of his translation.
There is also a very good textural and content comparison by a Swedish lady, which was very illuminating. It is an online pdf, but I cannot find it at present. I am away from my computer this month, and do not have a copy of it. It is worth searching for.



>>If Josephus had a hand in writing the Gospels (an idea that I concur with), how do you explain
>>Paul's almost complete lack of knowledge about anything the Gospels' Jesus said or did?

Because the Epistles were written BEFORE the Jewish Revolt, and the gospel events are all about the Jewish Revolt of the AD 60s. This is why the Epistles do not narrate the full crucifixion episode, or anything like it. Because it had not yet happened.




>>If the Jesus of the Gospels was, in fact, Jesus of Gamalla, how do you explain the fact that James, the brother
>>of Jesus, was the leader of the Nazarenes executed in about 62 CE? James would not have been the leader of
>>the Nazarenes if Jesus had been alive.

Yes he would.

It is specifically narrated that the younger Izas-Manu (ie, Jesus) would be king. But the younger was away and so the elder (ie, James) was tasked with holding the kingship until he returned. This equates quite nicely with the Eseaan monarchy, where Manu V ruled from AD 50 to 57, and another Manu (Emmanuel) ruled from AD 57 until 71.

Obviously the throne became empty in AD 71 because Manu VI had been crucified in Jerusalem and then sent to Rome as a prisoner in AD 70. Manu V would have died in AD 62 ish.

.


Hi Ralph, I'm at work now, just wanted to say thanks for vyour answers...I will respond later tonight,../.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(07-03-2013 07:55 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sounds like y'all are skipping the Talmud, which (the oral version) Paul quotes and which has contemporaneous evidence of importance for the existence of the biblical, miracle working Jesus.


See post 45 where Ralph refers to the Talmud.

Please show us YOUR evidence from the Talmud for the "biblical, miracle working Jesus."

Please quote Paul's quote.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: