Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-07-2016, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2016 11:38 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 10:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 09:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So is Bob.
And the moonlighting job as god probably pays OK too.

Nah, I'm pretty sure he does that pro bono.

SLACK! SAIL!



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
21-07-2016, 12:14 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 09:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  My specifics have been posted. My very short list of books and resources I use are posted.

And you have no fucking clue that you are speaking to me as if I have a PHd, which I don't.

If I had a PHd life would be easier. THEN i could just concentrate on a single area and make a good living on that alone.

Mind you, I know a couple of PHd's up here who are not employed.

I know what a Master's is. As I said, I have friends who teach ancient history.

What you have not supplied is what period you actually got your Master's in.

Why is this?

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
21-07-2016, 01:37 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 08:19 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 05:17 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Paul was influenced by a source common to himself and the gospel writers."

Yep. Scripture.

Which scripture?

I can't believe you needed to ask this. Jewish scripture
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-07-2016, 01:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 01:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 08:19 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Which scripture?

I can't believe you needed to ask this. Jewish scripture

Hi Mark.
That guy is a bullshit artist.

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
21-07-2016, 02:19 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 02:38 PM by Mark Fulton.)
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

"Please provide one single example of anyone else in history who actually was entitled as Christ."

You should listen to this... I suggest you start at about the 19th minute and go through to about the hour mark. I don't agree with everything he says, but, boy is this interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJhBxz5Yw1Q

"uneducated persons such as yourself."
"then you and anyone else are full of shit."

These ad hominems are unnecessary. Please stick to the topic.
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
21-07-2016, 02:48 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 06:23 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 08:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 08:29 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  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.

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.

You have no understanding of my position. Your thinking is very "black and white" and your imagination out of control. You are probably not really interested, but the following summarises my conclusions about Jeebus....

Summary of Yeshua’s Life

Yeshua probably did exist, yet was someone quite different from the Jesus character in the Gospels.

Rather than passively accepting the conventional Christian account, we are best served by paying Yeshua more respect by acknowledging his humanity, family, society, and religion. It makes sense to circumvent Christian mythology by placing Jesus in the religious context of first-century Judaism, the political context of Roman occupation and violent oppression, and the social context of poverty.

Yeshua was the first-born child of a young Jewish girl, and his biological father, identity unknown, may not have been in the picture to offer him direction. He was probably part of a large family of Jewish peasants.

Yeshua would have been proudly Jewish, and familiar with Jewish Scripture. Like most poor Jews of his time, he must have had some grandiose delusions, such as that Jews were the world’s superior people, specially favored by God and destined to show pagans the proper way to live. He may have imagined that he was the Messiah, a person depicted in Scripture whose mission was to establish the kingdom of God, an ideal Jewish state, in which everyone worshipped Yahweh. It is possible that he was convinced that his God would intervene in the affairs of men to help initiate this.

As Yeshua grew up, he would have seen his fellow Galileans oppressed and impoverished by the Romans. His cousin John created a grassroots anti-Roman movement, which Yeshua joined. Herod Antipas, Rome’s puppet ruler, who thought John was a political threat, had John murdered.

Yeshua was brave enough to take over the rebels’ leadership, and worked hard to rally common Jews to his cause, which was nothing less than to expel the Romans and their collaborators from Israel. He was not the first, or the last Jew to harbor such dreams, and it was a very risky business. His less militant countrymen eschewed joining his ranks.

Yeshua’s goal to overthrow the Romans must have seemed possible because of the enthusiasm with which he was sometimes received, yet (as best we know) he had no military experience or intelligence. So it is no surprise that he fell flat. Yeshua had talked the talk but failed to deliver. The Romans captured, scourged, and crucified him, a punishment reserved for any rebellious insurgent who threatened Roman rule.

Yeshua promised a lot but did not achieve much. As he was dying in agony on a cross, he would have wondered why his God had not helped him, and he must have figured he was a failure. Memories of other Jews crucified by the Romans may have flashed through his mind. His goal had been to liberate Israel, yet he only added his name to a long list of dead Messiahs. Before he took his last breath, he may have wondered whether the Romans would ever be defeated.

It is ironic that the Romans, the very people Yeshua despised, adopted him as their hero some three centuries after they killed him, and then blamed his own people, the Jews, for his death. The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the Bible, and it has been the primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history ever since. That has been devastating for the Jewish people, because Churches have harassed the Jews as Christ-killers, with terrible consequences. Adolf Hitler, who was a Catholic, wrote

“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”(Mein Kampf p. 65.)

Yeshua had a tough life, and he stood up for what he believed in. He tried hard to make a difference for his compatriots. It is ironic that in places the Gospels portray Jesus as a pacifist, when he was, in fact, a freedom fighter. They Gospels’ authors Jesus praised the meek, yet he was a proud man who refused to accept poverty and oppression.

The above assessment of Jesus sees him as a political insurgent. There are others who prefer to see Jesus as portrayed in the Gospel of John:

“... My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36 KJB.)

Yet is it not obvious that the hand of a pro-Roman, anti Jewish author is trying to disguise a militaristic Jesus?

Matthew reports these words from Jesus:

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9 KJB.)

Luke has Jesus saying

“And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other...” (Luke 6; 29 KJV.)

Can we realistically imagine this from a man crucified as a zealot?

As a consequence of passages like the above, “Jesus” is often thought of as a peacemaker, whereas in reality he was a zealot

The historian needs to examine the important details of ancient (supposed) biographies such as the Gospels, put them in context, and consider the authors’ credibility and intent. Only then can we have an educated guess as to what may be fact or fiction, and the likely unhistorical parts of the Gospels disregarded.

Yeshua’s political ambitions, or lack thereof, is a topic strongly debated. Some think he was a Pharisee. Some deny he was an Essene, others say he was a pacifist Essene. Some claim he was an apocalyptic Messiah on a suicide mission.

Yet if the bare facts of Yeshua’s life are considered; that he was a poor Galilean peasant who led a band of Jewish men around Galilee, that he was hailed as a king, and then arrested and crucified by nervous Romans, the question must be asked why more historians in the past have not realized that he was a political insurgent.

A growing number of scholars claim that Jesus never existed, because there are no contemporary known sources to vouch for him, and they may be right.

No one knows the whole truth about what happened two thousand years ago. Yet surely the above summary of Yeshua’s life fits with what we know of secular history and is more real than the confusing story people are told in Church. One must either be a diehard Christian, or deliberately dishonest, to reject outright the account that has just been given.

The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!

The Jesus of theology has stripped down the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind.

The evidence indicates that Yeshua was in fact a popular potential Messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda was not to preach pagan theology or pacifist ethics, as Christian beliefs would have it. If that had been the case he would not have had any Jewish followers, nor would he have aroused the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. Yeshua attracted the crowds because so many people at that time were poor and oppressed by the Romans. The Jewish people were not looking for a new religion, they were longing for freedom.

Christianity first emerged decades after Yeshua’s death, and then became a religion primarily for Gentiles. Christianity used his story to create something new that was not Jewish, and that hewould not have understood or approved of.

Any real story of Yeshua has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries created many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than for Jews.

It is highly unlikely that Yeshua thought that he was literally God’s son, or that any of his original disciples thought that of him either. He never saw himself as the Savior of the World or the Lamb of God. It never crossed his mind to sacrifice himself for sinners. He never rose from the dead.

The Romans crucified Yeshua twice: once in real life, and then by turning him into “Jesus” and lying about his legacy in the Gospels.

Does it not seem odd and rather macabre that some of today’s Christians worship a crucifix? As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, is it not it in poor taste to eagerly advertise the fact? What would Jesus think of that? If he were somehow alive today, would not his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

Does it make sense to:
- worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian and Peter Cresswell. Authors like these have not had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.
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
21-07-2016, 02:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 10:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 07:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you don't get it.

And this has already been pointed out, we have graves from that area, pottery, coins, even an excavated farmhouse all dating to the time of Jesus, or in some case much earlier.

Not to mention other evidence like this:

"A tablet at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, dating to 50 CE, was sent from Nazareth to Paris in 1878. It contains an inscription known as the "Ordinance of Caesar" that outlines the penalty of death for those who violate tombs or graves. "

But lets see you continue on with your dishonesty.

You claim that archaeological evidence is the strongest form of evidence when it comes to history here, yet here you are attempting to dismiss archeological evidence, to suit your dishonesty.

No, let's see you provide evidence of your claims.

You still haven't learned that evidence is required. Facepalm

From Wikipedia:
"The Nazareth Inscription or Nazareth decree is a marble tablet inscribed in Greek with an edict from an unnamed Caesar ordering capital punishment for anyone caught disturbing graves or tombs. It is dated on the basis of epigraphy to the first half of the 1st century AD. Its provenance is unknown, but a French collector acquired the stone from Nazareth. It is now in the collections of the Louvre."

It's provenance is not known, and it's about disturbing graves. That supports a funerary site, not a village.

"Its provenance is unknown, but a French collector acquired the stone from Nazareth".


Ha ha! Some Frenchman bought it in Nazareth! It didn't come from Nazareth!
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
21-07-2016, 03:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 11:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:12 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yes, funeral sites exist outside of towns/villages, even today. I see them all the time on bike rides out in the country. And to say that first-century Palestine was an occupied region says nothing about whether or not there was a town at any specific location within that region.


No when you have archaeological evidence from a site with a variety of graves, an excavated farm, pottery, coins, all dating to the period in question, it should go without saying that this was an occupied town that existed at the time.

How many times do we have to keep hearing the same (wrong) argument over and over? You do know that continually repeating something doesn't make it true, right?
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
21-07-2016, 03:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 11:24 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No when you have archaeological evidence from a site with a variety of graves, an excavated farm, pottery, coins, all dating to the period in question, it should go without saying that this was an occupied town that existed at the time.

Sorry, but none of that says "town" to me. And you need to define "the period in question" and "at that time". "There were a few people living in the area some time during the first century" is quite different from "There was a town/village at this specific location in the year 4 B.C.". Other ancient towns (such as Pompeii, to give but one example) have a lot more in the way of building and structures than "an excavated farm".

I'm not saying there wasn't a town there. I honestly don't know. But none of your flimsy evidence proves there was.

Well said. You are perhaps the fifth person to point this out. I have read no further, but I bet he just repeats himself again or comes up with the "the vast majority of blah blah blah" line.
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
21-07-2016, 03:17 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 06:25 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 11:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:49 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  If you say so. I don't find it convincing. Towns have buildings, as in more than one building.

Yes, I know if we sent you out on an archaeological dig, and you uncovered a site with an excavated farm house, numerous graves, pottery, coinage, spread around all dating to the 1st century, you apparently would conclude that it was region occupied by a single farm house, and the occupants of the farm house only.

"Yes, I know if we sent you out on an archaeological dig, and you uncovered a site with an excavated farm house, numerous graves, pottery, coinage, spread around all dating to the 1st century, you apparently would conclude that it was region occupied by a single farm house, and the occupants of the farm house only."

This must be the 20 th time I've read this. Is there not some forum rule about people repeating themselves?
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: