Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2016, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 12:47 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Fail again Tomato. They are "sources" of nothing ... except what LATER Christians BELIEVED. In the link I provided there are multiple (real) scholars, (as opposed to you and your fake Fundie ones), who all agree the gospels are not "history". They are proclamations of FAITH. Not history.

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
22-07-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Fail again Tomato. They are "sources" of nothing ... except what LATER Christians BELIEVED. In the link I provided there are multiple (real) scholars, (as opposed to you and your fake Fundie ones), who all agree the gospels are not "history". They are proclamations of FAITH. Not history.

So in 70ce the writer of Mark believed that there was a town called Nazareth, that didn't exist at the time, that somehow came into existence later?

"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, 12:53 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 12:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Fail again Tomato. They are "sources" of nothing ... except what LATER Christians BELIEVED. In the link I provided there are multiple (real) scholars, (as opposed to you and your fake Fundie ones), who all agree the gospels are not "history". They are proclamations of FAITH. Not history.

So in 70ce the writer of Mark believed that there was a town called Nazareth, that didn't exist at the time, that somehow came into existence later?

Don't be retarded. Even YOU, Tomato, can't be THAT stupid. ANY bullshit to deflect, we see. Mark COULD NOT have been written before 72. You have no clue when it was assembled, and why or when it was edited, later.

BTW, You said "in this case" the gospels are 'written sources". Why "in this case" ? What makes it so special ?

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
22-07-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:34 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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.

Do you just enjoy making things up Rocketsurgean. Nazareth is mentioned in all four Gospels accounts numerous times each, and is written of similar ways. There's no real difference between Mark, of Matthew, or Luke, or John's treatment in this regard. In fact all four Gospels also refer to Jesus as the Nazarene. So I'm guessing who ever you suggested wanted to change the Nazarene, to "of Nazareth", forgot to edit those passages, lol.

And Mark uses the word Nazarene the same amount of times as John about 3 times, but even less so than Acts. So quit your lying.

So what's your argument, that these original versions of these Gospels didn't have Nazareth as a place, that latter Christians altered these passages to make it into a place. That they were thorough enough to alter all four of the Gospels in this regards, get rid of any copies that indicated alterations, but not thorough enough to edit out all the mentions of the Nazarene in any single Gospel?

Do you guys actually hear your arguments in your head before you start suggesting them? Or do you just have diarrhea of the mouth.

Quote: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.

We're just talking about Nazareth here, a place that served no real theological, or messianic purpose, and does in fact exist. That somehow the writers of these text in the first century, knew of, before the town even existed, lol.

Quote: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.

I'm from Philly, I don't know of anyone from Philly who thinks that the Eagles are the greatest team ever, and if they did, it wouldn't be based on their win/loss ratios, lol.

A more accurate analogy would be, if we had records of a bunch of people talking about Islamic terrorist flying plains into the world trade center 20 years prior to the events occurring. Or speaking of the years of Obama Presidency decades before Obama was the president.

Mark Fulton suggests Nazareth didn't exists until the 4th century, yet we have writings of those who acknowledged it's existence in the first century. In fact we have writings of others in the 2nd century, christian and non-christian indicating the same. An inscription in a synagogue dating to the third century, that indicates Nazareth was around during the Bar Kocheba Revolt. I guess they all saw the future.

"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, 01:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 12:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So in 70ce the writer of Mark believed that there was a town called Nazareth, that didn't exist at the time, that somehow came into existence later?

Don't be retarded. Even YOU, Tomato, can't be THAT stupid. ANY bullshit to deflect, we see. Mark COULD NOT have been written before 72. You have no clue when it was assembled, and why or when it was edited, later.

BTW, You said "in this case" the gospels are 'written sources". Why "in this case" ? What makes it so special ?

"Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE."

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelo...dating.htm

But I'll give you the additional 5 years, if you want.

I guess these writers had a crystal ball, that gave them insight into a town that supposedly came into existence a few centuries later.

"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, 01:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, You said "in this case" the gospels are 'written sources". Why "in this case" ? What makes it so special ?

Uhm, because if Nazareth didn't exist at the time they wrote about it, how would they of known about it, duh.

If Nazareth didn't come into existence until the 4th century, as my buddy Mark Fulton likes to suggests, how did these individuals few centuries earlier know about it?

The fact that they wrote about it, supports it's existence at the time, even further supported by a variety of archaeological findings at the time.
|

"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, 01:56 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 07:42 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 01:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 12:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, You said "in this case" the gospels are 'written sources". Why "in this case" ? What makes it so special ?

Uhm, because if Nazareth didn't exist at the time they wrote about it, how would they of known about it, duh.

If Nazareth didn't come into existence until the 4th century, as my buddy Mark Fulton likes to suggests, how did these individuals few centuries earlier know about it?

The fact that they wrote about it, supports it's existence at the time, even further supported by a variety of archaeological findings at the time.
|

It may or may not have existed. You don't say what the "at the time is". I never said anything about the 4th Century. You have no evidence it was a "town" early in the 1st Century.

"Uhm, because if Nazareth didn't exist at the time they wrote about it, how would they of known about it, duh." .... what an idiot.
The gospels CLAIMED (as they thought they needed to) that he was born in Nazareth. The circulating myth (ie stories of FAITH) claimed that's where he was born. You STILL buy the bullshit they were writing history. I'm starting to think you were serious about going to Parrot University.

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, 02:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 01:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gospels CLAIMED (as they thought they needed to) that he was born in Nazareth.

It's actually worse than that. They claimed he was "from" Nazareth, but two of them claimed that he was born in Bethlehem ("to fulfill the prophecy"), and made up two completely different and highly unlikely stories to explain the discrepancy. I'm willing to buy Nazareth -- it's Bethlehem that I'm extremely skeptical about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
22-07-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 02:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 01:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gospels CLAIMED (as they thought they needed to) that he was born in Nazareth.

It's actually worse than that. They claimed he was "from" Nazareth, but two of them claimed that he was born in Bethlehem ("to fulfill the prophecy"), and made up two completely different and highly unlikely stories to explain the discrepancy. I'm willing to buy Nazareth -- it's Bethlehem that I'm extremely skeptical about.

And a donkey trip to Egypt to fulfill a different prophecy. And all the dead babies to fulfill another one etc...3 wiseguys watching their sheep as they followed a star across the sky bringing gifts of gold Frankenstein and mirth!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Born Again Pagan's post
22-07-2016, 05:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
And that's only part of it :
http://www.odessacofchrist.org/Scripture...Thomas.pdf

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: