Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2016, 03:25 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 03:17 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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. Is there not some forum rule about this?

It's called Clutching at straws.

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, 03:28 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 12:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  \
OK, I'll grant that Paul met some people who were (or at least claimed to be) disciples of Jesus, and wrote about it. I'll even grant that this Jesus existed. I have no beef with any of that. I am not a mythicist. And I don't particularly care whether or not Nazareth existed in the early first century, although I have seen no convincing evidence that it did.

I concede that Jesus probably existed. But in my opinion, the Jesus of the Gospels bears about as much resemblance to the real Jesus as "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" does to the real Abraham Lincoln. No divinity, no miracles, no resurrection, etc. However, since this thread is not about any of that, I am going to quietly fade away.

Jesus is a bit more than his divinity, miracles, or resurrection. One read of the earliest Gospel, Mark, divinity is at best only vaguely hinted at, the miracles are downplayed. Jesus heals a man and advises him not to tell anyone, and the resurrection occurs out of scene in Marks original ending.

And reading all four Gospels, even in the highly spiritualized rendition of Jesus in John, reveal the same underlying person. There's not much to support that the real Jesus, minus any fanciful attributes associated with him, was a different sort of person than the ones portrayed in the Gospels, embodied in overall teachings and message.

"There's not much to support that the real Jesus, minus any fanciful attributes associated with him, was a different sort of person than the ones portrayed in the Gospels, embodied in overall teachings and message."

ShockingShockingShockingShockingShockingShockingShocking

Surely you can't be serious? I had to read this 3 times because I couldn't believe you would write it. If you are serious, you have your head in the clouds, and you are no historian.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 03:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 03:28 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Jesus is a bit more than his divinity, miracles, or resurrection. One read of the earliest Gospel, Mark, divinity is at best only vaguely hinted at, the miracles are downplayed. Jesus heals a man and advises him not to tell anyone, and the resurrection occurs out of scene in Marks original ending.

And reading all four Gospels, even in the highly spiritualized rendition of Jesus in John, reveal the same underlying person. There's not much to support that the real Jesus, minus any fanciful attributes associated with him, was a different sort of person than the ones portrayed in the Gospels, embodied in overall teachings and message.

"There's not much to support that the real Jesus, minus any fanciful attributes associated with him, was a different sort of person than the ones portrayed in the Gospels, embodied in overall teachings and message."

ShockingShockingShockingShockingShockingShockingShocking

Surely you can't be serious? I had to read this 3 times because I couldn't believe you would write it. If you are serious, you have your head in the clouds, and you are no historian.

It's surprising but he actually makes a decent point. We don't have real evidence. Of course why would we? If he existed he was not important enough to rate a bust or a coin or a page in Plutarch.

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, 04:09 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 07:05 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 03:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I do not admit to subscribing to your extremist views, if that is what you are hoping to see. N

I've no idea what you mean, and neither do the readers. Another ad hominem. Please be specific, and try to stick to the topic.

What part of "your extremist views" wasn't specific enough for you?

Quote: If the original teachings of Jesus died with James, which is what you claimed, then the "teachings" of Christianity, as we know it today, are fraudulent, as most claim to be based on a "Jesus." The "Jesus" we think we know is a comic book man. Your comments please.

They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes.

However, that doesn't mean that some of those teachings failed to come down to us. Things are not as black and white as you seem to have a propensity to view them.

The Christianity we have today has a mixture of the teachings of the Nazarenes, the doctrine of Paul the apostle, sprinkled with Orthodox and Hellenistic Judaism, flavored with Mithra-ism, Gnosticism. and likely another half dozen myths and legends thrown in the pot to create a stew fit for any gullible fool.

The gospel records likely do have many of the original teachings of Jesus, but the narrators included the implausible to embellish this man to make him more attractive to a culture that was already predisposed to beliefs in gods that defied normal human capabilities; the Greco-|Romans.

The thing is, Mark, is that Christianity probably has some small degree of truth to it in regards to some of the things Jesus said. It's not as black and while as it being fraudulent or true, because it doesn't even matter. What matters here is answering questions the best we can according to the evidence, and hoping that we approximate the truth according to the evidence, and according to what is reasonable, in the interests of history, and only history.

If you want to look at things through the a single lens of what is fraudulent, then no one can stop you. But the truth is that you are totally missing the bigger picture that can only be seen with both eyes wide open, seeing only what is there, with no bias to taint the portrait.

"They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes."

Oh dear FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm How embarrassing for you that you are so self righteous and patronising, yet you are clearly profoundly ignorant about the history of the Nazarenes. Nazarenism did not fade away after James, as you imply. Here is the real history (with apologies to those who have read this before.)

What Happened to the Nazarenes?

The Nazarenes were Yeshua’s bona fide disciples. Much of their history is missing, probably because early Christians destroyed it. Yet their tale can be pieced together.

Hugh Schonfield points out the Nazarenes were not Christians.

“It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church, which received them, had no other course open than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics.”

It is probable that Paul, the founder of Christian theology, masqueraded as a Nazarene in the 50’s and early 60’s; at least he did so when he was associating with traditional Jews. Once Paul was accepted into Jewish communities, he tried to replace messianic Nazarene doctrine with his own pro government perspective.

To all true Nazarenes, Paul was a heretic and a traitor to Judaism. The cordial relationship between Paul and the Nazarenes described by the author of Acts was merely an attempt to connect Paul with an historical Jesus and was a fiction. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, (d. 236 CE) Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis) and Jerome all confirmed that the Ebionites (as the Nazarenes were later called, see below) opposed Paul as a false Apostle.

The Roman Emperor Nero may have blamed and persecuted the Nazarenes in Rome for the great fire of 64 CE. Christians today often incorrectly call Nero’s casualties Christians. There is a Christian “tradition” that this was when Peter was crucified, but there is no contemporary evidence to confirm the claim.

Hegesippus, (c. 110 - 180 CE) a Christian chronicler of the early Church, who may have been a Jewish convert, writes that after the death of James in 62 CE, the Nazarenes selected Symeon, (aka Simeon) son of Cleophas, to be their new leader. He was one of Yeshua’s relatives, possibly a cousin.

During the first Jewish war of 66 - 70 CE, some of the Nazarenes are said to have fled across the Jordan River to Pella. Yet many of them probably tried to defend Jerusalem and therefore perished. The survivors must have been bitterly disappointed by the defeat. The remaining rebels moved back to Jerusalem in 72 CE. They never regained their pre war status and influence.

Prior to 80 – 90 CE, the Nazarenes were still worshipping in synagogues alongside Pharisees. Yet many of their fellow Jews now viewed them as trouble causers, probably because of their nationalistic ambitions. The Pharisaic Jews referred to them as “minim” (Hebrew for heretic.) A heretic is someone who still remains within the faith, but believes in elements not acceptable to the orthodoxy, so mainstream Jews never considered the Nazarenes as Christians. A deep schism between the Nazarenes and other Jews formed, and by 90 CE, Nazarenes were excluded from some synagogues. It is likely that some Jews opted out of Nazarenism, and others were intimidated by it, because opposing Rome was dangerous.

In his “Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius of Caesaria, the father of early Christian history, wrote of the grandchildren of Jesus’ brother Jude, who were living in Galilee during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, (81–96 CE, Vespasian’s son and Titus’ younger brother.) (book 3, chapter 20.) Eusebius says Jesus’ relatives became dynastic leaders of various “Christian” (a misnomer) churches, and continued to be so up until the time of the Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE.)

Kamal Salibi, at the time an Emeritus Professor at the American University of Beirut, Department of History and Archaeology, wrote that after Symeon’s death, twelve others followed in turn whose names are preserved down to 135 CE (the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.)

So there were fifteen leaders of the Nazarene sect after Jesus, all of who were circumcised Jews and relations of Jesus. The word “Desposyni” was reserved uniquely for Jesus’ blood relatives and literally meant “belonging to the Lord.” They governed the Nazarenes. Each carried one of the names traditional in Jesus’ family: Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Symeon, Matthias, and others, although no later Desposynos was ever called Yeshua.

Sextus Julius Africanus’ reference to the “Desposyni” is also preserved by Eusebius:

“For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account...Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own igno- ble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”
(Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiae, 1:7:11.)

Eusebius also preserved an extract from a work by Hegesippus, (c.110–c.180) who wrote five books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. The extract refers to the period from the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) to that of Trajan, (98–117 CE) and includes the statement that two Desposyni brought before Domitian later became leaders of the churches:

“There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labor. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labor, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.”
(Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiae, 3:20.)

Eusebius also wrote that the Nazarenes did not fight in the second war (132-6 CE) against the Romans, as they considered Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish commander, to be a false messiah.

After this war, the fifteenth Nazarene leader was exiled with the remaining Jewish population when the Emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem.

Over the next few centuries, the Nazarenes headed by Yeshua’s relatives continued as a movement that some Jews joined. They were well respected in their own locales. They moved northeastward, eventually making their way to the Tigris-Euphrates basin, spread- ing throughout Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

The early Christians considered the Nazarenes a heretical sect, so ignored and later suppressed them. Justin Martyr denigrated their beliefs. The developing orthodox Catholic Church deliberately called them the “Ebionites,” “the poor ones” (although Jews did not consider this term derogatory; in fact they used the term to refer to the righteous.) Christians prior to Irenaeus did not use this term.

Irenaeus wrote
“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.”
These men were Gnostics who believed Jesus was a very human teacher. Irenaeus continues:

“They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God” (Against Heresies 1:26.)

The Gospel according to Matthew that Irenaeus refers to was probably the same Gospel that Jerome (342–420 CE) and Epiphanius called the “Gospel of the Nazarenes/Hebrews,” which was written in Aramaic. Jerome mentions that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, no significant part of this Gospel survives today. Some scholars believe that it was loosely linked to canonical Matthew, which fits with Matthew being the most pro-Jewish Gospel of the four. It is possible that this was how some facts about Yeshua the Nazarene insurrectionist made it into the Gospels.

Eusebius considered the Nazarenes heretics because

“... they regarded [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law—that by faith in Christ alone they would never win Salvation” (Ecclesiastical History 3.7.)

Hugh Schonfield would say that it was Eusebius who was the real heretic.
Irenaeus and Eusebius, both fervent Christians, depicted the Nazarenes correctly as a Jewish sect.

Gentile Christians came to refer to the Nazarenes indiscriminately as “Jewish Christians” because of their link with Jesus, yet this was another misnomer, because they never were Christians.

By the beginning of the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church was becoming dominant and there were confrontations with Jews, including the Nazarenes. With the Synod of Elvira, held in 306 CE, prohibitions against eating, marriage, and sex with Jews were enacted in the Roman Empire. Nazarenes were included in this ban, which in effect excluded them from all social and religious association with those in the growing Gentile Christian church.

The Emperor Constantine appointed Sylvester as the head bishop of the Catholic Church in 313 CE. According to the Irish Jesuit historian Malachi Martin,235 a meeting took place in 318 CE in Rome between Pope Sylvester I and the Desposyni. Sylvester provided sea travel for the Nazarene leaders as far as the Roman port of Ostia, thirty kilometers west of Rome. The fact that Sylvester thought it necessary to meet with them suggests that he was curious, yet it is obvious he initiated the meeting with the intention of exerting his pontifical authority over them.

The Nazarene leaders who appeared before Pope Sylvester quite rightly thought they represented Yeshua’s true legacy. They were, after all, his blood relations, part of at least three well-known lines of legitimate blood descent from Yeshua’s family. They were eight in number, and Joses, the oldest of them, spoke on their behalf. They bluntly refused to recognize the Roman church as having any authority, and made the following demands:

(1) That the confirmation of the Christian bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria be revoked;
(2) That these bishoprics be conferred on members of the Desposyni;
(3) That the Law be reintroduced, which included the Sabbath and the Holy Day system of Feasts, and
(4) That Christian Churches resume sending money to the Desposyni Church in Jerusalem, which was to be regarded as the “Mother Church.”

Such bold claims must have come as a surprise to Sylvester, who refused their demands. They were told that the leadership of Jesus’ church had moved to Rome, and that the Nazarenes had no jurisdiction.

Sylvester must have known his church was the impostor, but that did not concern him. The politics of power were more important than the truth. This was the last known formal dialogue between Christian and Nazarene leaders.

A few years later Nazarenes began to surface in southern Upper Egypt. In this remote locale, far from the center of Gentile Christianity, they continued to practice their beliefs.

In 364 CE, the Catholic Council of Laodicea decreed anathema on any “Jewish Christians” who continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Historical references to Nazarenes became scarce thereafter. The few remaining believers petered out.

What is appealing about the real story of Yeshua and the Nazarenes is that modern people can relate to it. We all have major concerns about organizations, and the way the Catholic Church, as an organization, treated the Nazarenes some 1700 years ago is an ancient example of what many people dislike about institutions. Whether an organization is a university, a government department, or a Church, their members often put the survivorship, growth and social standing of the organization in front of any controversial facts, or interesting truths, that may emerge. The Catholic Church today, for example, always protects its power, finances, people, and profile above all else. Embarrassing truths are dealt with professionally so as to leave as little damage to the organization as possible. In the first few centuries of Christianity, the Nazarenes’ claims, and their legacy, were not seen as a real threat to the Church’s autonomy. The Catholic Church barely flinched to deal with the Nazarene’s concerns. Respecting an honorable group of people was not an ethic that drove the early Church when deal- ing with powerless minorities. That legacy and modus operandi is very apparent in understanding the way the Church has operated throughout history and still operates today, for example in the Vatican’s attitude to homosexuality, the way they continue to not totally respect women (half their congregation) and their attitude towards the victims of child sexual abuse perpetrated by their own members.

To summarize, the Nazarenes were a Jewish sect that, at least in the first century, had strong anti Gentile political ambitions. Christianity, something quite separate, rather ironically became a religion for Gentiles. Christianity stole Yeshua the Nazarene’s identity to create Jesus, and reinvented him, not only as its founder, but also as God incarnate and the savior of the world. Christians then suppressed the Nazarenes, who struggled on for about four centuries before they disappeared.

If Yeshua, his family, and his original admirers could speak today, they would be dumbfounded at the distortion of their legacy.

References:
Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to
Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls” Klinghoffer, D. 1965 “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. Doubleday.
United States Of America.
Lockhart, D. 1997 “Jesus The Heretic”. Element Books. Dorset. Lockhart, D. 1999 “The Dark Side Of God”. Element Books. Dorset Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York. Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4kTNS18ses
http://ia600401.us.archive.org/34/items/...shFollower sOfJesusPart1-Ebionites/Podcast3.7JudeanFollowersOfJesusPart1- Ebionites.mp3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ebionites
http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE NAZORAEAN SECT.pdf
http://www.yashanet.com/library/nazarene_judaism.html
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/ebionites.html
http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/nazarenes.htm for the above information.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=b7bnvXrC47AC&pg= PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=Julius+Africanus,+desposyni,&sou rce=bl&ots=SKzFZ8tcXu&sig=cN-lLGGfHPzmMfpnjuvw- W2fqY4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VkzWUMmCEO6ViQePwIHQBg&v ed=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Julius%20Africanus%2C%20 desposyni%2C&f=false
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jVyz...AC&pg=PA29 6&dq=hegesippus,+symeon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jU7WUICTJa-UiQ fp7oGICg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hegesippus %2C%20symeon&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews http://www.conorpdowling.com/library/council-of-elvira http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0370Ebionites.php http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...ippus.html
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, 04:19 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(19-07-2016 07:05 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 03:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I do not admit to subscribing to your extremist views, if that is what you are hoping to see. N

I've no idea what you mean, and neither do the readers. Another ad hominem. Please be specific, and try to stick to the topic.

What part of "your extremist views" wasn't specific enough for you?

Quote: If the original teachings of Jesus died with James, which is what you claimed, then the "teachings" of Christianity, as we know it today, are fraudulent, as most claim to be based on a "Jesus." The "Jesus" we think we know is a comic book man. Your comments please.

They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes.

However, that doesn't mean that some of those teachings failed to come down to us. Things are not as black and white as you seem to have a propensity to view them.

The Christianity we have today has a mixture of the teachings of the Nazarenes, the doctrine of Paul the apostle, sprinkled with Orthodox and Hellenistic Judaism, flavored with Mithra-ism, Gnosticism. and likely another half dozen myths and legends thrown in the pot to create a stew fit for any gullible fool.

The gospel records likely do have many of the original teachings of Jesus, but the narrators included the implausible to embellish this man to make him more attractive to a culture that was already predisposed to beliefs in gods that defied normal human capabilities; the Greco-|Romans.

The thing is, Mark, is that Christianity probably has some small degree of truth to it in regards to some of the things Jesus said. It's not as black and while as it being fraudulent or true, because it doesn't even matter. What matters here is answering questions the best we can according to the evidence, and hoping that we approximate the truth according to the evidence, and according to what is reasonable, in the interests of history, and only history.

If you want to look at things through the a single lens of what is fraudulent, then no one can stop you. But the truth is that you are totally missing the bigger picture that can only be seen with both eyes wide open, seeing only what is there, with no bias to taint the portrait.

The Christianity we have today has a mixture of the teachings of the Nazarenes, the doctrine of Paul the apostle, sprinkled with Orthodox and Hellenistic Judaism, flavored with Mithra-ism, Gnosticism. and likely another half dozen myths and legends thrown in the pot to create a stew fit for any gullible fool.

Hurrah! There is a crack of light peeping through!


"What matters here is answering questions the best we can according to the evidence, and hoping that we approximate the truth according to the evidence, and according to what is reasonable, in the interests of history, and only history."


I couldn't agree more. That being the case, please stop endlessly repeating yourself, please stop your ad hominems against people you don't even know or understand, and please stick to the history. That way we all learn.
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, 04:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 03:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 08:27 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Were it proven, this discussion would not be taking place.

No it would still be taking place, we live in a world where many people believe 9/11 was an inside job, and the holocaust didn't happen.

You don't seem to be engaging honestly here yourself, you make claims, such as suggesting that Tacitus was referring to another Christ, then run far away when called out on it.

That's the sort of tendencies one finds among 9/11 truthers, and creotards, not those honestly engaging a topic for the truth of that matter.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"You don't seem to be engaging honestly here yourself, you make claims, such as suggesting that Tacitus was referring to another Christ, then run far away when called out on it"

You have a serious problem with your reasoning here.

"Jesus Christ" didn't mean anything specific until way into the 3rd century, and even then "he" was still evolving. Consider what all of the new Testament authors other than the gospel authors and the author of the book of Acts knew of "your" Jesus. Almost nothing! Big GrinCoolThumbsupSmartass
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, 05:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 10:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 10:32 AM)natachan Wrote:  I disagree. Christ is a title, and as you note was often used for a good number of those in antiquity.

I have never noted that. In fact, I have persistently urged those in this conversation to bring just one instance of written historical evidence of a person other than Jesus who has been entitled as Christ in the same fashion as Jesus. ie; Jesus the Christ, Jesus called Christ.

There is not one.

Quote: All this says is that they believe their anointed one was killed by Pilate.

It doesn't state any such thing. It proclaims it with a positive statement of fact.

Quote:There are no details to tie this to an actual event except the name Pilate.

That's why you opinion is invalidated, you are seeing things from either a Christian or anti-Christian perspective, as opposed to a strictly historical perspective.

It shows us the following:

1. Pontius Pilate crucified Christ.
2. Tiberius was the Caesar at the time.
3. It happened in Judea (a strictly Roman reference to a province as opposed to Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea.)
4. Other sources reveal it had to happen in Judea sometime between Ad 26 - Ad 36 due to Pilate's assignment to Judea, and Tiberius' reign.
5. Immediately after the crucifixion, a "mischievous superstition" broke out in Judea, an obvious reference to the resurrection.
6. The Christians got their name from this same Christ who was crucified.

You will need to re-think your "Pilate only" position, as it grossly understates the reality.


Quote: It would read exactly the same if this was just a story put around by Christians.

Re-asserting this will never make it true. It's an opinion that flies in the face of both reason and the evidence.

Quote:This passage is flimsy. It is the ne phrase that can be read as simply a statement of what this sect believed. And this is THE BEST extra-biblical evidence of this person. It's lousy.

You continue to assert that Tacitus is writing from a position of belief, when it is obvious he is writing a Roman history book. You have no evidence of this to justify any reason to hold to this position.

You can believe what you want, but proving your belief has merit is an entirely different thing, and you have no proof whatsoever to merit what you believe.

Just like religious people have no evidence of a god.

Quote:I think that there was an originator. Contemporaries, poets and observers, note that there were apocalyptic preachers in this area at the time. In fact it appears they were common. I remember a piece, I can't remember which poet wrote it, about the frequency of these preachers. We also know of several messianic Jewish preachers around this time. Some of their stories bear parallels to the Jesus story, including that of John the Baptist.

Again, no one else was ever entitled as Christ other than Jesus.

Quote:I find it likely that the person who we will call Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. I think it is likely that he either met, or was in some way associated with the sect that was around John the Baptist. It is possible that he was crucified by Pilate. Pilate was not a nice man and was known for killing people for little or no reason. I think his story was then embellished and exaggerated.

Exactly. This we can agree on, except for the evidence that indicates this same Jesus is exactly who Tacitus is talking about.

"Again, no one else was ever entitled as Christ other than Jesus."

You really , truly need to do a lot of reading....like about a month's worth, full time, and you will be highly embarrassed by statements such as these. You could start here...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...sity.html,
or, um, just google anything really. Go to the history sites...not the Christian ones. Big Grin
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, 05:17 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 05:49 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 11:54 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  It's a lack of evidence, belief is irrelevant.

In case your forgot there is little first-century evidence archaeologically ( bullshit xtian writers notwithstanding ) and no textual references to it at all. As noted, "Nazareth" is the town that theology built".

Origen, living in nearby Caesarea, gave so little of a fuck about any "Nazareth" that even in the third century he never went there.

Oh, and your pal "paul" never heard of it.

Origen, living in nearby Caesarea, gave so little of a fuck about any "Nazareth" that even in the third century he never went there.

Yes!

This is very compelling evidence that Nazareth wasn't around, even in Origen"s day. Origen was a religious fanatic. He desperately wanted the gospels to be historically true. He mentioned "Nazareth" many times. Yet he never wrote about Nazareth the place, despite living nearby the current site of 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, 05:21 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 05:52 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 12:29 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If an asshole means calling people out, holding them accountable for their suggestions, and shitty arguments. Than yes I'm an asshole.

It's not personal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should work on your reading comprehension. I'm not talking about arguments. I'm talking about you presuming to tell me what I think and believe, and why, and what "my game" is. That most assuredly does make you an asshole. Present your arguments, and refute mine if you can. But stop presuming to read my mind.

I'm done conversing with you anyway. Talk about shitty arguments -- all you can do is repeat the same ones over and over. They're not convincing anyone. And I'm not wasting any more of my time on them.

I'm amazed you kept going so long! If he mentions the fucking Roman coins or that all good historians agree with him one more time... I think I'll vomit.
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, 06:00 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 03:28 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Surely you can't be serious? I had to read this 3 times because I couldn't believe you would write it. If you are serious, you have your head in the clouds, and you are no historian.

Go ahead Mark, you know you've been waiting for the moment, to tell us all about the real Jesus. Now is your chance.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: