Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2016, 07:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 06:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 06:09 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Then why do you keep harping on about it?

Because the discussion about it keeps harping on and on.

Then stop. It has become tedious in the extreme. I thought you were driving it and others answering. So just stop.

There were many villages scattered throughout the Roman empire.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2016, 07:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
My asshole itches. .... wait it always itches.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2016, 07:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 07:05 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 06:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Because the discussion about it keeps harping on and on.

Then stop. It has become tedious in the extreme. I thought you were driving it and others answering. So just stop.

There were many villages scattered throughout the Roman empire.

You know ... you're right. It's a tedious and stupid conversation. If people want to believe it didn't exist in the 1st century I will leave them to their own devices.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
18-07-2016, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2016 07:34 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 06:09 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Then why do you keep harping on about it?

Because some idiots here want to argue for it's non-existence, duh.

And these same idiots will complain about written sources, suggesting that written testaments are weak evidence, claiming that archaeological evidence is strongest evidence we can have for that period. Yet when a variety of archaeological evidence is available for Nazareth's existence at the time, our dishonest atheists like to complain about the lack of written accounts of it.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 07:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 06:09 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Then why do you keep harping on about it?

Because some idiots here want to argue for it's non-existence, duh.

And these same idiots will complain about written sources, suggesting that written testaments are weak evidence, claiming that archaeological evidence is strongest evidence we can have for that period. Yet when a variety of archaeological evidence is available for Nazareth's existence at the time, our dishonest atheists like to complain about the lack of written accounts of it.

On both sides.

Happily it will now end.

BTW. There exist no contemporary artifacts or evidence of any kind Jesus ever existed. Only hearsay. Backed by propaganda and the destruction of nearly all the works written later within Rome that disproved the Jesus narrative. The xians burned them all.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
18-07-2016, 08:52 PM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2016 08:59 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 07:45 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 07:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Because some idiots here want to argue for it's non-existence, duh.

And these same idiots will complain about written sources, suggesting that written testaments are weak evidence, claiming that archaeological evidence is strongest evidence we can have for that period. Yet when a variety of archaeological evidence is available for Nazareth's existence at the time, our dishonest atheists like to complain about the lack of written accounts of it.

On both sides.

Happily it will now end.

BTW. There exist no contemporary artifacts or evidence of any kind Jesus ever existed. Only hearsay. Backed by propaganda and the destruction of nearly all the works written later within Rome that disproved the Jesus narrative. The xians burned them all.

Although a written account of Jesus by a non-Christian contemporary would be the crown jewel, it's really not necessary to win the argument for historicity. The near contemporary evidence, as well as other numerous non-biblical texts allow for a reasonable and supported position favoring historicity that far outstrips any and all arguments for total myth.

1. No good argument against Tacitus has ever been put forward. Some people think their arguments against are good, but the reality is that they are so poor as to not even warrant consideration by virtually all historians, atheists, secularists, and religious alike. This evidence is prima facie from a non Christian source, and with Tacitus specifying his sources in abundance throughout his works, the arguments regarding his sources are answered within the text itself.

2. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews is very suspect, however the reality is we do not know with any certainty if it was ever interpolated or forged. To ignore this reality is nothing short of special pleading. Sure, it doesn't look like something a Jew would write, at least some of it, but the reality is that there is no evidence against it, and we have it being cited as far back as more than 1700 years ago.

3. The second mention of Jesus by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews is solid. I have seen many arguments against it ranging from forgery to it being about some other Jesus. But with absolutely no evidence against it ever being presented, and no other argument against it not suffering from a lack of reason, and the fact that it ties in James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ- something we find in multiple other sources- this evidence is prima facie from the 1st century.

4. The Apostle Paul may never have met Jesus, but it would be foolish to not think he was a contemporary. Paul is prima facie evidence of a contemporary writing about Jesus during the 1st century.

The internal evidence indicates that Paul was rejected by the Church of Jerusalem which was likely being run by Jesus' brother, James. It became an issue of circumcision verses non circumcision, with James honoring the traditional Judaic practices, while Paul- disgruntled with his rejection- appealing to the Gentiles. The origin of the Christian Church finds it's birth in Paul, while the original teachings of Jesus died with James.

Paul appeared to know very little about the life of Jesus, aside from him being crucified by Pilate. However, Paul did believe in the resurrection as taught by Jesus as per the gospel writers, which indicates this part of Jesus's proposed teaching had reached Paul, despite the gospels not being written during his time. One only needs to reason that if Paul got his resurrection info from the Gospel, why then doesn't he talk about anything else in the gospel? But he rarely speaks about anything we see in the gospels records, indicating that Paul was influenced by a source common to himself and the gospel writers.

The 3 persons listed above lived in the first century, and also wrote in the first century and very early 2nd century. They existed. They wrote. They and what they wrote is evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ; evidence that has never been even adequately disputed, let alone refuted.

And what solid evidence has the argument for Mythicism ever presented?

Absolutely none.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
18-07-2016, 10:21 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Tacitus never mentioned a "Jesus".

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
19-07-2016, 05:14 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 10:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tacitus never mentioned a "Jesus".

True.

What's more, there were many first and second century "Christs" in Rome.

Tacitus could have been referring to any number of groups, all of which bore little resemblance to the one we think we know.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
19-07-2016, 05:17 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 08:52 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 07:45 PM)Banjo Wrote:  On both sides.

Happily it will now end.

BTW. There exist no contemporary artifacts or evidence of any kind Jesus ever existed. Only hearsay. Backed by propaganda and the destruction of nearly all the works written later within Rome that disproved the Jesus narrative. The xians burned them all.

Although a written account of Jesus by a non-Christian contemporary would be the crown jewel, it's really not necessary to win the argument for historicity. The near contemporary evidence, as well as other numerous non-biblical texts allow for a reasonable and supported position favoring historicity that far outstrips any and all arguments for total myth.

1. No good argument against Tacitus has ever been put forward. Some people think their arguments against are good, but the reality is that they are so poor as to not even warrant consideration by virtually all historians, atheists, secularists, and religious alike. This evidence is prima facie from a non Christian source, and with Tacitus specifying his sources in abundance throughout his works, the arguments regarding his sources are answered within the text itself.

2. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews is very suspect, however the reality is we do not know with any certainty if it was ever interpolated or forged. To ignore this reality is nothing short of special pleading. Sure, it doesn't look like something a Jew would write, at least some of it, but the reality is that there is no evidence against it, and we have it being cited as far back as more than 1700 years ago.

3. The second mention of Jesus by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews is solid. I have seen many arguments against it ranging from forgery to it being about some other Jesus. But with absolutely no evidence against it ever being presented, and no other argument against it not suffering from a lack of reason, and the fact that it ties in James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ- something we find in multiple other sources- this evidence is prima facie from the 1st century.

4. The Apostle Paul may never have met Jesus, but it would be foolish to not think he was a contemporary. Paul is prima facie evidence of a contemporary writing about Jesus during the 1st century.

The internal evidence indicates that Paul was rejected by the Church of Jerusalem which was likely being run by Jesus' brother, James. It became an issue of circumcision verses non circumcision, with James honoring the traditional Judaic practices, while Paul- disgruntled with his rejection- appealing to the Gentiles. The origin of the Christian Church finds it's birth in Paul, while the original teachings of Jesus died with James.

Paul appeared to know very little about the life of Jesus, aside from him being crucified by Pilate. However, Paul did believe in the resurrection as taught by Jesus as per the gospel writers, which indicates this part of Jesus's proposed teaching had reached Paul, despite the gospels not being written during his time. One only needs to reason that if Paul got his resurrection info from the Gospel, why then doesn't he talk about anything else in the gospel? But he rarely speaks about anything we see in the gospels records, indicating that Paul was influenced by a source common to himself and the gospel writers.

The 3 persons listed above lived in the first century, and also wrote in the first century and very early 2nd century. They existed. They wrote. They and what they wrote is evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ; evidence that has never been even adequately disputed, let alone refuted.

And what solid evidence has the argument for Mythicism ever presented?

Absolutely none.

"Paul was influenced by a source common to himself and the gospel writers."

Yep. Scripture.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
19-07-2016, 05:34 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 08:52 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 07:45 PM)Banjo Wrote:  On both sides.

Happily it will now end.

BTW. There exist no contemporary artifacts or evidence of any kind Jesus ever existed. Only hearsay. Backed by propaganda and the destruction of nearly all the works written later within Rome that disproved the Jesus narrative. The xians burned them all.

Although a written account of Jesus by a non-Christian contemporary would be the crown jewel, it's really not necessary to win the argument for historicity. The near contemporary evidence, as well as other numerous non-biblical texts allow for a reasonable and supported position favoring historicity that far outstrips any and all arguments for total myth.

1. No good argument against Tacitus has ever been put forward. Some people think their arguments against are good, but the reality is that they are so poor as to not even warrant consideration by virtually all historians, atheists, secularists, and religious alike. This evidence is prima facie from a non Christian source, and with Tacitus specifying his sources in abundance throughout his works, the arguments regarding his sources are answered within the text itself.

2. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews is very suspect, however the reality is we do not know with any certainty if it was ever interpolated or forged. To ignore this reality is nothing short of special pleading. Sure, it doesn't look like something a Jew would write, at least some of it, but the reality is that there is no evidence against it, and we have it being cited as far back as more than 1700 years ago.

3. The second mention of Jesus by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews is solid. I have seen many arguments against it ranging from forgery to it being about some other Jesus. But with absolutely no evidence against it ever being presented, and no other argument against it not suffering from a lack of reason, and the fact that it ties in James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ- something we find in multiple other sources- this evidence is prima facie from the 1st century.

4. The Apostle Paul may never have met Jesus, but it would be foolish to not think he was a contemporary. Paul is prima facie evidence of a contemporary writing about Jesus during the 1st century.

The internal evidence indicates that Paul was rejected by the Church of Jerusalem which was likely being run by Jesus' brother, James. It became an issue of circumcision verses non circumcision, with James honoring the traditional Judaic practices, while Paul- disgruntled with his rejection- appealing to the Gentiles. The origin of the Christian Church finds it's birth in Paul, while the original teachings of Jesus died with James.

Paul appeared to know very little about the life of Jesus, aside from him being crucified by Pilate. However, Paul did believe in the resurrection as taught by Jesus as per the gospel writers, which indicates this part of Jesus's proposed teaching had reached Paul, despite the gospels not being written during his time. One only needs to reason that if Paul got his resurrection info from the Gospel, why then doesn't he talk about anything else in the gospel? But he rarely speaks about anything we see in the gospels records, indicating that Paul was influenced by a source common to himself and the gospel writers.

The 3 persons listed above lived in the first century, and also wrote in the first century and very early 2nd century. They existed. They wrote. They and what they wrote is evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ; evidence that has never been even adequately disputed, let alone refuted.

And what solid evidence has the argument for Mythicism ever presented?

Absolutely none.

"while the original teachings of Jesus died with James."

Mmmmmmmmm.

So....um...you admit, then, that today's Christianity is built upon a massive fraud? Ie Paul's nonsense? Interesting. I agree.

What I don't agree with is that "Jesus" had any "original" teachings. If he even ever existed, he was a Jew. Judaism hasn't "died." It's been modified, for sure, but the basic tenets are still around.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: