Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 10:07 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The Narareth angle is trivial. The gospels were not historical texts, they were sales pitches. The OT passages regarding a messiah were revised to fit jesus.

Anytime the moment strikes for atheists to put their thinking caps on, they try and deflect. Since we're talking about Nazareth, than the angle is not trivial.
in fact it can't be that trivial if you want to suggest the Nazareth aspect was added to these text several centuries after their composition dates.

It can't be that trivial if a concentrated effort by later christians was made to insure that Nazareth as Jesus's hometown, is written into all four Gospel accounts. You can't have it both ways my friends. So lets go back to that thinking cap.

So what is it, if you want to go with the suggestion that it was latter addition to the text, what theological, prophetic, political purpose would it serve to have Jesus hometown as Nazareth? Only Matthew even makes the attempts to suggest this was a part of messianic prophecies, the others treat it as a trivial biographical detail.

So once again was the Nazareth portion likely to have been latter added into these Gospels, or did Nazareth exist at the time in which the texts were composed, the earlier be about 70ce.

Quote:Yay. One of the few places they don't contradict each other.

Which tends to indicate that passage is original to the text, and doesn't bode well for those who want to argue these passages were all later christian interpolation, or edits.

"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
22-07-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 09:24 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The gospels were edited to make them fit prophecies, for theological and political purposes. And just because scribes fucked up.

So the gospels were edited to fit the supposed early prophecies that the messiah would be from a place that didn't exist at the time called Nazareth? Let's see you put your critical thinking cap to good use here.

Quote:You need to read Erhman. No attempts were made to make the various versions agree until the era of the printing press. None of the early manuscripts are exactly the same. Most of the variations are minor, but some are important.

Yet no variations exist regarding the the verses indicating Jesus was from Nazareth, in all four gospel accounts. No support whatsoever that these portions were later edits to the text.

I really don't see the point of this discussion any more.

Most of these people are either creating works of fiction, conspiracy theorists, Jesus Mythicists etc. It wouldn't matter if there was conclusive proof, they would deny it.

What I see here are many people who choose to withhold the validation of an historical event or the validation of its higher probability according to the consensus of experts in the field. This is a form of denialism.

It would appear that these people have absolutely no interest whatsoever in acknowledging what is generally accepted history among the scholars in the field. Their objective instead is to hold on to a shred of dissent in some ridiculously vain effort to contest the positions held.

Nothing is going to change here. They have absolutely no hope of changing what is accepted as history. Therefore, this discussion is both fruitless and a waste of time.

Moving on ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 11:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Anytime the moment strikes for atheists to put their thinking caps on, they try and deflect.

Wow. Your lack of comprehension is pretty impressive.

I am not arguing about Nazareth. I might not have said that explicitly, but I was assuming you were intelligent enough to understand my meaning.
Once again, I stand corrected.

If I was arguing against Nazareth existing, then my post would be deflecting. Since I have not been arguing that, it is not deflecting.

You were acting like it was impossible for the bible to be altered, edited or changed. That is not the case.

(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Since we're talking about Nazareth, than the angle is not trivial. in fact it can't be that trivial if you want to suggest the Nazareth aspect was added to these text several centuries after their composition dates.

Which, I don't.

(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It can't be that trivial if a concentrated effort by later christians was made to insure that Nazareth as Jesus's hometown, is written into all four Gospel accounts. You can't have it both ways my friends. So lets go back to that thinking cap.

Good idea. Pull your head out of your ass and get that cap back on nice and straight. I'm getting tired of your generalizations and repeating myself, so pay attention.

I am not arguing with Jesus' existence.

I have no problems believing that a Jewish preacher named Jesus was executed by the Romans and his surviving followers deified him.

Still with me? Or do you need to look up any words?

Thus, the existence of Nazareth and it being his hometown is also not a problem for me.
I can believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth and that it existed at that time.

I do have a problem when you (notice, no generalizations, I'm talking about you) act like the bible was not altered, revised, edited, etc.

That straighten everything out for you?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
22-07-2016, 11:50 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 09:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 09:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know when the gospels were invented, or edited, or rewritten.
70 CE doesn't cut it. We're asking if there is evidence to support a claim that Jesus was from there, EARLY 1st Century.

SO someone edited all four Gospels, after the dates in which they were originally penned, to indicate that Jesus was born in Nazareth?

You have any evidence that this portion of the writing was edited later, such as copies of these text, that show different versions of the particular passages?

And what exactly would be the motivation here to edit Nazareth into the text?

Nice attempt at deflection. I asked for evidence to support your "thousands of years". Where is it ?

Your editing question is irrelevant. The gospels were written LATER than 70 CE. They are evidence of nothing (at all) and certainly not of anything in the EARLY 1st Century. The gospels were not "penned". They were "assembled". I see you never learned anything about "scripture". The gospels are "evidence" of nothing, except that for which believers believed in.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-07-2016, 12:05 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 12:09 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 11:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your editing question is irrelevant.

It's relevant to anyone capable of putting their thinking cap on here.

Quote:The gospels were written LATER than 70 CE.

Mark's Gospel was written between 66-70CE.

Quote:They are evidence of nothing (at all) and certainly not of anything in the EARLY 1st Century. The gospels were not "penned". They were "assembled". I see you never learned anything about "scripture". The gospels are "evidence" of nothing, except that for which believers believed in.

The Gospels are in this case written sources, that date the existence of Nazareth to the time of Jesus. If as suggested Nazareth didn't exist in the first century, I'm not sure how first century writers would know of a town called Nazareth, that didn't exist until after they penned their works, lol. It's difficult to see the motivation, for placing Jesus in Nazareth, if we're to assume it was a latter addition. Nazareth as Jesus hometown, is treated as a trivial biographical detail in most instances, is not needed for any sort of messianic prophecies, theological, or political.

The Gospels do serve as evidence here, further collaborated by the archaeological findings, and etc...

Quote:Nice attempt at deflection. I asked for evidence to support your "thousands of years". Where is it ?

And I've responded with attempts to have you use your brain a lil bit here. I hope that doesn't make you too uncomfortable.

"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
22-07-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 11:46 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I do have a problem when you (notice, no generalizations, I'm talking about you) act like the bible was not altered, revised, edited, etc.

That straighten everything out for you?

I was speaking exclusively about Nazareth, and the verses regards Nazareth, I made no generalized statements regarding the Bible, or the NT as whole, so keep your strawman to yourself.

I never acted like the various books of the Bible were not altered, revised, edited, etc.. that just your projection.

The question is whether the Nazareth, as hometown of Jesus verses was later altered, revised, edited addition, to the original texts. So stop trying to move the goal post, from a specific passage, to the Bible in it's entirety.

So are you gonna argue that the Nazareth passage was likely a later addition to these text, not part of the original writings? Like Mark Fulton suggests? Or are you gonna erect more strawmen?

"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
22-07-2016, 12:32 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 12:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 07:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 07:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ... said the man who constantly insults atheists as a group.
Facepalm

"Sanctimony" is something you are intimately involved with, Tomato.

No, not all, I may insult atheists quite frequently, but I don't see myself as morally superior to anyone here, in fact just the exact opposite. You drop your wallet, I might just pick it up and keep it, while imagining that someone such as your would probably give it back to me.

Yet you constantly insult atheists as a group .... yeah. This group is nothing but a collection of the individuals you claim to be less than.
You are a sanctimonious ass hole.
You're good at lying to yourself.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-07-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 10:07 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yay. One of the few places they don't contradict each other.

Which tends to indicate that passage is original to the text, and doesn't bode well for those who want to argue these passages were all later christian interpolation, or edits.

Wooo, logic!

No it doesn't "tend to indicate" that. What it indicates is that the passage (or rather, concept) is common to the belief structure that spawned those texts. It's a subtle, but important, difference. I can interview almost everyone in the town of Philadelphia to learn that accounts all agree: the Eagles are the greatest team ever, but checking records for win/loss ratios and Super Bowls tells me that they're mediocre at best. All the early Mormon scriptures might well indicate that Joseph Smith found his golden plates in Manchester, New York, but it doesn't tell me if that really happened. That's the thing about scripture.

The other problem is that you're glossing over how poorly the Gospels do actually "agree" on what you're alleging. Mark, the earliest, contains no birth narrative at all, and the only place it mentions where Jesus grew up is the passage about "a prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown". This passage may indicate he grew up there, or it may be an early attempt to shift "the Nazarene" to "of Nazareth", as the Jesus legend grew and changed with second-generation Christians (you'll note that he's most often called the Nazarene in Mark, but less so in other gospels). Matthew and Luke, the only two that do mention his birth, don't agree on many important details.

By glossing this over to present a unified account of Jesus' origin, and then claiming that we have no evidence that the story might have been made up or cobbled together for some purpose other than accurate historical writing, you are being dangerously loose with facts, if not outright dishonest. It appears to be an after-the-fact attempt to make the "Christ" figure fit the prophecies from the Old Testament, including his Davidic lineages, in an attempt to highlight their cult's claims to legitimacy.

Since we're talking about ways in which the Gospels do and do not agree, can we argue next about whether or not there was a "first" census given during the reign of Herod... or whether it was when Quirinius was governor? (Since they weren't at the same time.) That has always been a favorite of mine.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-07-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I was speaking exclusively about Nazareth, and the verses regards Nazareth, I made no generalized statements regarding the Bible, or the NT as whole, so keep your strawman to yourself.

Oh for fucks sake.

(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Anytime the moment strikes for atheists to put their thinking caps on, they try and deflect.

That is a generalization and a fairly typical example from you.

So shove that strawman up your ass, if there's room next to your head.

(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So are you gonna argue that the Nazareth passage was likely a later addition to these text, not part of the original writings?

Hmm. If you're not bright enough to comprehend my previous post, then I don't know what else to say.

(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or are you gonna erect more strawmen?

Rolleyes

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
22-07-2016, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 12:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Mark's Gospel was written between 66-70CE.

Prove it. Totally bogus.
Whoever cooked it up KNEW the temple had been destroyed.

Mark 13 :
1. "As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

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: