Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2016, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2016 08:08 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks for taking the bait.
That's not what Tillich said, so you're shit out of luck. I just proved you wrong when you claimed we had no knowledge of the nuances of Christian theology.
I'll accept Bonhoeffer's definition, AND the fact he said Christianity comes (only) in community. That leaves you out in the cold.

Lol, yet you claim Bonhoeffer isn't a christian.

So according to you if they are a part of a religious community of some sort, you classify as a christian? Such as Marcus Borg would be a christian if he's a part of a liberal christian congregation, or Donald Trump would be a christian since he claims to be a member of a presbyterian church.

"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
19-07-2016, 08:11 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 10:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tacitus never mentioned a "Jesus".

Irrelevant.

There is enough information to determine the great probability that he was speaking of Jesus Christ, whom the Christians were named after, and whom was crucified by Pilate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
19-07-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 05:14 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 10:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tacitus never mentioned a "Jesus".
What's more, there were many first and second century "Christs" in Rome.

I keep seeing this from uneducated persons such as yourself. therefore ...

Please provide one single example of anyone else in history who actually was entitled as Christ. I don't want any oblique references, I want a precise example such as "Joseph Christ, " or "John who was called Christ."

Until you, or anyone else, can provide exactly that, then you and anyone else are full of shit.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 08:19 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 05:17 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 08:52 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Which scripture?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 08:26 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 05:34 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 08:52 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

I do not admit to subscribing to your extremist views, if that is what you are hoping to see.

It's built on more than Paul's concept of Jesus. Although we refer to them as the Synoptics, the reality is that Luke is very different from Mark and Matthew. Where Mark and Matthew focus on Jesus, Luke extends into Acts, and what it actually does is give us a history of the superstitious beliefs of the Church, as opposed to focusing so much on Jesus.

Quote: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.

He didn't. He was just a very good teacher from the Nazarene school of thought, one who commanded attention via the authority demonstrated through his knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 08:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 07:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 06:49 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  You make this statement and fail to recognize the level of dishonesty in your own posts. Facepalm

Yea, says the group supporting the suggestion that Tacitus was referring to another Christ, who was crucified under Pilate, and for whom a "mischievous superstition" broke out in the wake of his death.

And when that suggestions doesn't work as well as they though it would, revert to Tacitus not being a contemporary, or supposedly basing this on what Christians told him.

Simply pathetic.

Once again. Painting with a broad brush while failing to actually address what was said with supporting evidence of your position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 08:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 08:15 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 05:14 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What's more, there were many first and second century "Christs" in Rome.

I keep seeing this from uneducated persons such as yourself. therefore ...

Please provide one single example of anyone else in history who actually was entitled as Christ. I don't want any oblique references, I want a precise example such as "Joseph Christ, " or "John who was called Christ."

Until you, or anyone else, can provide exactly that, then you and anyone else are full of shit.

Big Grin

What formal education do you have? Besides if you have been in academic circles long enough you would know merely getting an education on a topic is not enough to become an expert.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2016 08:50 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 08:29 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 07:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, says the group supporting the suggestion that Tacitus was referring to another Christ, who was crucified under Pilate, and for whom a "mischievous superstition" broke out in the wake of his death.

And when that suggestions doesn't work as well as they though it would, revert to Tacitus not being a contemporary, or supposedly basing this on what Christians told him.

Simply pathetic.

Once again. Painting with a broad brush while failing to actually address what was said with supporting evidence of your position.

I paint in a broad brush, because the tendency among folks here is tow the party line. Hence why folks like Mark Fulton who holds to the existence of historical Jesus, find himself arguing in support of ahistoricity, because that's what his chums over here are inclined to support.

Most people here seem to lack the sort of balls to carve out their own position, and tend to prefer to pat or support the views of others, united against some common enemy, or disrupter of group harmony, often with pathetically bad arguments, like suggesting Tacitus was referring to another Christ.

And secondly I disputed a variety of claims here, pointing out the ridiculousness of suggesting Tacitus was referring to another Christ, and the archaeological evidence that indicates Nazareth did exist at the time of Jesus, contrary to the suggestions of our dishonest atheists.

"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
19-07-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 08:15 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 05:14 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What's more, there were many first and second century "Christs" in Rome.

I keep seeing this from uneducated persons such as yourself. therefore ...

Please provide one single example of anyone else in history who actually was entitled as Christ. I don't want any oblique references, I want a precise example such as "Joseph Christ, " or "John who was called Christ."

Until you, or anyone else, can provide exactly that, then you and anyone else are full of shit.

Big Grin

Show me the passage in Tacitus. By the way. All his surviving works are a meter from me.

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
19-07-2016, 09:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 08:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks for taking the bait.
That's not what Tillich said, so you're shit out of luck. I just proved you wrong when you claimed we had no knowledge of the nuances of Christian theology.
I'll accept Bonhoeffer's definition, AND the fact he said Christianity comes (only) in community. That leaves you out in the cold.

Lol, yet you claim Bonhoeffer isn't a christian.

So according to you if they are a part of a religious community of some sort, you classify as a christian? Such as Marcus Borg would be a christian if he's a part of a liberal christian congregation, or Donald Trump would be a christian since he claims to be a member of a presbyterian church.

Bonhoeffer said so. I don't need to "claim" anything.
He wrote a book on Christian community. Obviously you never read it.
No one who says they need no Jesus for their (crazy) cult brand of Christianity is in alignment with ANY Christian community. You are the VERY DEFINITION of a classical "heretic". You align with NO community. You cooked up your own brand.

I never said anything about Borg or Trump. YOU damned yourself with your own words. You are always insulting atheists, yet according to Tillich they are not even the group you imply they are ... and yet you have the ignorant balls to say people here have no knowledge of theological nuances.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: