Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-07-2016, 01:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 12:01 PM)natachan Wrote:  Roman historians didn't write histories as we think of them. They told narratives. The concept of a history the way we think of it was not a thing to them. "Histories" we're meant to sell a narrative. Facts are irrelevant. Facts might make up the basis of Roman histories, but they weren't all that was in there.

And that is exactly why i am wondering for quite some time now that the guy with the masters´ degree didnt mention this fact (yet) but treated the roman historians´ works like "factbooks".

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 11:12 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 10:21 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  When was this passage first written?

Circa Ad 111.

So basically you are calling an oral story passed down for a few generations and then supposedly transcribed perfectly as evidence for your position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 12:32 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 11:32 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  And who exactly considers or calls such places "towns"? There are many farms, plantations, houses, etc. that have names attached to them. Doesn't make them towns. The Nazareth that Jesus is said to have lived in is described as a town, with multiple families, a synagogue, etc. This is not at all the same thing as a farm.

Let me also repeat that I am not a mythicist, and I am not claiming that Jesus didn't exist or that Nazareth didn't exist. I think both probably did. My problem is with Tomasia's flimsy evidence. Nothing he has provided proves that Nazareth existed circa 4 BC. I neither know nor care whether or not it did. But he is not making much of a case for his claim.

And you somehow think that what constitutes a town/village/community in our culture in our modern times can be anachronistically imposed upon the ancient past to a completely different culture of people who would have a completely different understanding of things than we do today?

Can you provide one example of anyone in ancient history who defines what constitutes a town so that we can see if your modern concept actually has any merit whatsoever?

No, you cannot find one, because the standards we have today were not shared by those in the ancient past.

You are committing the Historian's Fallacy, which is understandable, considering you are by no means a historian.

No, I'm not a historian, and have never claimed to be, but I do know how to read. Read the Gospels. Nazareth, as portrayed in the Gospels, is a town -- regardless of what they might have called it back then. The description given is that of what we would call a town. It doesn't come across as being anything like a farm. The Gospels say there was a town there, and describe it as a town, and Tomasia keeps crowing about archaeologists finding a farm. So what? For the third or fourth time, I make no claims about Nazareth. But his argument is a shitty one. A farm is not a town.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 02:47 PM)ohio_drg Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 11:12 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Circa Ad 111.

So basically you are calling an oral story passed down for a few generations and then supposedly transcribed perfectly as evidence for your position.

Ummm no?

You are. And that's what uneducated people do.

Tacitus lists the sources for his Annals countless times, which includes the official Roman records and the historical narratives of previous authors. He can be seen accessing these records at the very beginning of the story in question, and in paragraphs before and immediately after the section on Christ.

Okay, so you don't like the idea that Jesus may actually have existed. But you don't need to lie about what my position is, especially when my position has been stated in abundance through this discussion.

Further continuance of it will place you on ignore, as I have little to no tolerance for liars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 02:48 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 12:32 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you somehow think that what constitutes a town/village/community in our culture in our modern times can be anachronistically imposed upon the ancient past to a completely different culture of people who would have a completely different understanding of things than we do today?

Can you provide one example of anyone in ancient history who defines what constitutes a town so that we can see if your modern concept actually has any merit whatsoever?

No, you cannot find one, because the standards we have today were not shared by those in the ancient past.

You are committing the Historian's Fallacy, which is understandable, considering you are by no means a historian.

No, I'm not a historian, and have never claimed to be, but I do know how to read. Read the Gospels. Nazareth, as portrayed in the Gospels, is a town -- regardless of what they might have called it back then. The description given is that of what we would call a town. It doesn't come across as being anything like a farm. The Gospels say there was a town there, and describe it as a town, and Tomasia keeps crowing about archaeologists finding a farm. So what? For the third or fourth time, I make no claims about Nazareth. But his argument is a shitty one. A farm is not a town.

It may not be a town according to your standards but your standards, nor the standards of anyone else in this discussion, do not matter. My standards do not matter. We cannot pretend to think that we know how anyone in ancient history understood a town to be. It's intellectual dishonesty to do so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 03:27 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 02:48 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No, I'm not a historian, and have never claimed to be, but I do know how to read. Read the Gospels. Nazareth, as portrayed in the Gospels, is a town -- regardless of what they might have called it back then. The description given is that of what we would call a town. It doesn't come across as being anything like a farm. The Gospels say there was a town there, and describe it as a town, and Tomasia keeps crowing about archaeologists finding a farm. So what? For the third or fourth time, I make no claims about Nazareth. But his argument is a shitty one. A farm is not a town.

It may not be a town according to your standards but your standards, nor the standards of anyone else in this discussion, do not matter. My standards do not matter. We cannot pretend to think that we know how anyone in ancient history understood a town to be. It's intellectual dishonesty to do so.

Neither you nor Tomasia seem to be getting the point. This has nothing to do with semantics or what we call things vs. what they called them then. The point is: What the archaeologists found does not match what is described in the Gospels. Call it whatever you like -- it doesn't match.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
20-07-2016, 03:53 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 12:44 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Can you please provide for me one written ancient reference to someone other than Jesus who was entitled, for example, "John the Christ," or "Simon called Christ?"

Go ahead. Let's see it.

Good luck with this and ... we are done here.

Big Grin

Don't hold your breath. This would require them to admit there are no such references other than in regards to Jesus. And they would rather eat crows than do that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only one to even come close was Simon bar Kokhba in AD 132-135 and it would appear that only a Rabbi mentioned him as a Messiah. Other evidence regarding this pretender shows how other Jews at the time viewed him as one who proclaimed himself as a Messiah.

But what we do not see in history, including him, is anyone outright saying Simon_bar_Kokhba the Christ, or even directly saying Simon_bar_Kokhba the Messiah, although this one comes pretty close.

And that's really all we can say about that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 04:12 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 03:52 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 03:27 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  It may not be a town according to your standards but your standards, nor the standards of anyone else in this discussion, do not matter. My standards do not matter. We cannot pretend to think that we know how anyone in ancient history understood a town to be. It's intellectual dishonesty to do so.

Neither you nor Tomasia seem to be getting the point. This has nothing to do with semantics or what we call things vs. what they called them then. The point is: What the archaeologists found does not match what is described in the Gospels. Call it whatever you like -- it doesn't match.


The description of Nazareth is that of an insignificant place, so I'm not too sure where you believe that diverges from the reality of Nazareth.

Are we gonna revert back to arguing about the Greek word "polin"?

Or do you have something else to say in regards to the Gospels' description of Nazareth. Because I don't recall you ever indicating how it was described in the Gospels, beyond the English translation of a single Greek word.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
20-07-2016, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2016 04:16 PM by Commonsensei.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I've been poping in and out so i'm going to have to admit I don't have the full spectrum of the conversation. I will also admit I am one of those uneducated people that GoUp maybe talking about. But that's why question's need to be asked and both side need to be heard. HOWEVER. I would have to ask, is intensive study the best method for finding God/Jesus? The average joe will not go threw such intensive digging or attempt to reach a "masters" level education. Nor dose it hold ground work for people's beliefs or acceptance.

All I can imagine is if I was an all powerful being. One that would want my stories and information to be heard threw out time. The quest for my exsitance would not be a toilsome one. How many years before books and information came readily available? How many could not get an education on any subject let alone one about divinity? If a few letters is all that is required or casual conversations is what is the basis of proof that a god walked among us then I am at a complete lose.

Because that would mean that Gautama Buddha, most have figured out how to achieve complete Nirvana. King Arthur must have been an amazing king and Lycurgus must have been a total bad ass.

It's a belief of mine that any rational person that calls themselves a christian would apply the same skepticism that anyone else would have they meet someone calling themselves a god or the reincarnation of Jesus. I could list off 5 cult leaders off the top of my head that are calling themselves the reincarnation of Christ, today. And I guarantee most "believes" would stand on the side of disbelief. But give it 2000 years, maybe one of these guys to could be the replacement for the current one everyone is GAH-GAH for. Who knows? Not me.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
20-07-2016, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2016 06:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 12:44 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 12:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Totally false. "Christ" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Anointed One", (messiah).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Mes...st_century

There were many. If you "haven't noted one" you know nothing about Hebrew culture of the time.

Can you please provide for me one written ancient reference to someone other than Jesus who was entitled, for example, "John the Christ," or "Simon called Christ?"

Go ahead. Let's see it.

Good luck with this and ... we are done here.

Big Grin

You wish we were "done here".
Your question is ridiculous.
You want me to name JEWISH messiahs that were called by GREEK titles, by Hebrew or Aramaic speakers who didn't even speak Greek ?

Isn't this jusr quaint. yet again trying to argue from silence.
Facepalm

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: