Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2016, 06:38 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 05:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 03:34 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I see absolutely nothing strange about Jesus having a brother named James. But then again, I see the whole of this from the entirety of all available historical evidence, and not from any preconceived Christian or anti-Christian position.

I mean, what is so strange about a mere man having a brother?

That's how I see it.

Once again, you have completely misunderstood me. This is tedious.

Meh.. Eventually he will throw a hissy fit and block you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 06:46 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2016 06:50 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 03:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 12:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Mark's position is that all 4 gospels and Acts are complete works of fiction that depict absolutely nothing of historical value at all. Therefore, according to him, Nazareth was an imaginary town in the Gospels, and later Christians conspired to create a real town and name it Nazareth to make it appear like it had always existed. Then, we are expected to believe that nobody noticed this invented town and said anything about it such as, "Hey, look at those fucking Christians! They actually created a town and called it Nazareth in an effort to make it look like the Nazareth that is in the Gospel actually existed!"

[...]

Despite the literary evidence demonstrating that Nazareth was mentioned as place of existence as early as CE 130, Mark also tries to make the claim that the written gospels didn't exist until nearly the middle of the 2nd century.

So the question is this:

How could early Christians invent a town called Nazareth as early as CE 130 to make it jibe with a written gospel record that didn't supposedly exist until CE 150?

Also, since we know the written Gospel of Luke existed long before CE 130 as per previous posts with evidence, and we know it mentions Nazareth, this just makes this conspiracy theory of his concerning Nazareth all the more bizarre.

Again, I don't think either of you are grasping the bulk of his (or my) arguments. We think that there were shifts in the theology of the group that would become known as "Christians", and that the myth was added to most heavily prior to the writing of the Gospels. Thus, looking to the Gospels (even if we assign them their standard dates-of-writing, which I do) as evidence for what happened before they were written is useless; it's only a snapshot of what had come to be believed among the 2nd-generation followers of Jesus the Nazarene, in this case as he was shifting to become "Jesus of Nazareth". Simply put, there's nothing useful added to the discussion by saying that the gospels certainly were around by 130 C.E.; it is useful information for Mark to correct his later-authorship hypothesis, but it's not on point with regard to the discussion we've been having.

Also, stop saying "in the first century" as if it's a single block of time. It's as stupid to compare the events of the year 6 C.E. (given an estimated birthdate of 6 BCE, it would be when Jesus first started to teach) and 24 C.E. (when the return to the "hometown" of Nazareth is alleged to have happened as he began his ministry) to stuff that would happen in 70 C.E. as it would be to use something that happened in 1970 as evidence of something happening in 1924. Can you guess how many American towns were built between 1924 and 1970? Can you guess how many more would have been built up as a result of refugee relocation, if we'd been fighting a rebellion against the near-genocidal, occupying forces of Rome at that time? But according to you guys, it's enough to say "in the 20th century".

There are a few fairly major problems with accepting the Gospel narratives as honestly depicting the life of Jesus in Nazareth.

* They supposedly try to throw him off a cliff, upon his return to the town, when there are no cliffs near the town that would become known as Nazareth. This is a good way of establishing (on behalf of later-generation Christians) that Jesus was not a Nazarene sect member, but a man rejected by the people who didn't accept the new "post-Judaism" religion because of his "true vision from God", so to speak. It takes him from being a mere Jewish sage to being "A Man Without A Country" (apologies to Kurt Vonnegut), which could appeal to the mixed Jewish-Hellenic populations to which Paul belonged and to whom the religion was being marketed.

* There is no way a town as small as this would have had a synagogue or temple, at which Jesus could have gone in to read from Isaiah, as claimed in Luke. It makes further sense that this was a small place being built up in the wake of the revolt's displaced crowds when you consider that a priest had to be assigned there after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

* Luke uses the Greek word polis, meaning a large, usually walled, city. The word for a village would be kómé, which he does not use in describing it, even though he uses kómé to describe other villages throughout the region. Luke also refers to "multitudes" from that town. This indicates that the author of Luke is trying to show Jesus as coming from a significant, well-populated place that simply could not have existed without having left much more evidence, according to what we know about the region. (This is hardly surprising, as Luke is infamous for having the least apparent knowledge of Judaism, and is clearly written by an educated Greek far from Judea.)

If Nazareth arose around the time of the rebellion, perhaps founded by Nazarenes seeking to avoid the conflict altogether, it would be a simple matter for the writers to "assign" this place as the hometown of their new-and-improved version of Jesus. They don't need to invent a town, as you suggest in your mockery. They do need to invent a Jesus who is not just a member of a cult, but a founder of his own... as his legend grew, it mattered that he have such stories that try to demonstrate not only his background, but to legitimize their claim that he was the Messiah, and later, God Incarnate.

Simply scoffing at straw versions of the argument, rather than addressing the points being (actually) raised, doesn't make you guys look all that great. We're continually pointing out to you that there are reasons to doubt the traditional, suppositionalist accounts, but all you do is mock and use phrases like "conspiracy theory" so you don't actually have to consider any alternatives.

If that's how you want to do it, fine. But don't be dicks about it.

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you lately, Tomasia, but you need a serious attitude adjustment. Try getting a drink and getting laid, perhaps.

Your mistake Rocketsurgeon, is that you buy your homies bullshit. You likely swallowed much of Mark Fulton's argument, like you did much of other people's suggestions about Philo, without looking into the sources themselves.

Let's start with this Nazarene sect, please outline for me the disparities between the views of the writers of let say that Gospel of Mark, and the Nazarene Sect. Which parts of Mark's Gospel's portrayal of Jesus would this sect have disagreed with?

Secondly explain to me why if these writers were trying to downplay Jesus "the nazarene", to have those passages read as "Jesus of Nazareth", or Jesus being from the hometown of Nazareth, why do all four Gospels refer to Jesus as "the Nazarene" as well. Not to mention the book of Acts abundant use of term "the Nazarene", though the author of Acts wrote Luke as well.

Also explain to me why these writers would have preferred to use a home town of Nazareth, to downplay Jesus association with this supposed "Nazarene sect", a factor that caused such trouble for the writer of Matthew that he had to jump through loops to connect Jesus to Bethlehem. Why choose "Nazareth" a place that held no real significance, as an invented hometown for Jesus, rather than Bethlehem? Not to mention Mark's suggestion that Nazareth derived it name for being occupied by member's of this sect.

"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
25-07-2016, 07:15 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 11:00 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote: Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Peter and the Twelve


Here's 5. Do you ever get anything right?

And the stupid mythicist once again rears his ugly head.

Ummm ... since we were talking about the Acts of the Apostles ... what do you suppose we were talking about?

Need a clue?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 08:10 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 12:44 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Secondly, you purposely understate the evidence because it's far FAR more than a single dwelling. It's also several 1st century (and older) tombs, 1st century ( and older) pottery, 1st century coins (from 104–76 BCE, 37–4 BCE, and 1 from 54 CE), and literally thousands of 1st century (and older) artifacts, 1st century bath houses, a hewn pit, etc.

I am well-aware of the other pieces of evidence.

Yet you attempted to diminish it by only mentioning the house. You grossly understated the totality of the evidence in some fucked up typical dishonest method to gain an advantage.

Quote:the arguments being promoted by the Israeli Antiquities Authority, who have every reason to encourage tourist traffic by putting out slanted conclusions before they are ready to be considered the actual academic consensus-- a long way from the absolute consensus of every expert on the subject. That is what I read in the reports. I am sorry that you feel my conclusion is unwarranted, but do not pretend I have not read all I can find online about this, by now.

And here we go with another stupid ass conspiracy theory. So now we can add the Israeli Antiquities Authority to the pile of persons who conspire in some way to cover up the truth, or distort it in some way.

How the fuck does this not get old with you idiots? You have no grounds, no reason, and no evidence to make such an accusation.

For that alone, you are a fucking retard.

Drinking Beverage

Quote:
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Thirdly, since you are using the Gospel records as part of your argument and arguing that they claim Nazareth was big enough for a Synagogue and use this as evidence against, you therefore open the door for anybody else to use them as evidence to support the existence on Nazareth.

You're missing the point. If Nazareth was a real place, a tiny hamlet out of hundreds that sprang up during the mass migrations of displaced war victims, as I think occurred,

You can think whatever the fuck you want, but at the end of the day you don't have a pot to piss in as far as evidence to support what you think. You keep throwing unsupported theories out there when you have no just cause to make them, other than continue this fucked up crusade of yours against history.

No I have no choice but to treat you as someone who is intentionally lying.

Quote: then it doesn't matter any more than any other of those hamlets except as a footnote. If Nazareth fits the description in Luke, then it means I have to more carefully consider the degree of accuracy of the story about the life of Jesus contained in Luke. If the author is utterly wrong in the details of the story, to the point that they cannot accurately describe the hometown that was visited and where Jesus is shown teaching in authority from the Old Testament (clear opportunity for myth-building), it indicates that the author is not speaking as if taking dictation from a first-generation witness, as claimed to be an authority behind the claims of Christian wannabe-theocrats in the country I care about.

Yeah, like your fucked up and lying theory is somehow validated when you have no evidence or reason to create such a fucked up piece of shit theory. Dude what fucking evidence do you think you got to back up any of this bullshit?

And how the fuck does your completely unsupported pet theory of Nazareth stack up against the opinions of all the experts in the field?

It fucking doesn't. Rather, your position is a joke that only fucking retards would subscribe to.

Get a fucking grip.

Quote:
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Fourthly, we have Justin Martyr in CE 140 mentioning the existence of Nazareth.

Neato! What does that have to do with pre-diaspora villages where Nazareth would one day be?

Oh wow ... here an idiot uses the logical Fallacy of Presumption when he provides no evidence in the first place!

Show evidence to support your presumption before you make such idiotic statements and end up continuously looking like a retard.

Quote:
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Fifthly, we have an inscription from the Jews (Not Christians) reassigning their priests to Nazareth as early as CE 70 or as late as CE 130, which would be ridiculous if Nazareth was a newly Christian created town.

Still not claiming Christians created this town. Stop it.

And it does make sense if the town was founded and/or massively expanded by migrants who were displaced in the GIANT, GENOCIDAL WAR that took place throughout that region for nearly a decade. Why is it so hard to grasp that this is a highly-likely time to found a new town?

Yet, here you are arguing against the existence of the town of Nazareth as not being big enough for a synagogue, yet agree that a company of priests were sent there in CE 70 when, according to you, there would not even have been a synagogue to send them to?

Your shit is so deep you're drowning in it. You don't even fucking understand that priests are assigned to towns that need to be big enough to support them. But no, using your fucked up understanding, this company of priests was sent to minister to a town that barely had anybody in it and had no synagogue to preach in.

Dude, what's the fucking point of sending priests to minister to nobody?

It just doesn't occur to you that the town must have pre-existed CE 70 in order for it to even be listed as a town in CE 70. And it would be required to be big enough to have a synagogue to send the priests to.

Get a fucking clue.

Quote:
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Sixthly, we have Ireneaus in CE 170 telling us that Marcion possessed and butchered the Gospel of Luke sometime before CE 140 to create his own version of a Gospel, and he tells us enough information about what Marcion cut out for us to know that he cut out the parts concerning Nazareth at the beginning of this Gospel.

Again... what does this have to do with the question of whether or not people outside of Palestine, who were writing this story (since we know it was not the disciples who actually wrote these Gospels) after the R/J war, actually knew enough about the town they were writing about to describe the place? If they didn't know that, how could they know that it existed (or didn't) seventy years prior?

This is yet another fallacious presumption of yours. You are assuming that the gospel writers never knew anything about Nazareth, but again you provide no evidence to support this, and actually attempt to manufacture evidence such as insisting that the gospel records were originally written outside of Judea.

Another fucking house of cards.

Quote:
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you are trying to say it's all about some single house? And you wonder why we piss all over you personally? We do it because what you are doing is called:

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

It's not "all" about some single house.


THAT is ALL what YOU attempted to relate.

Quote:
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Do you not see the obvious logic problem with what you are saying above?

You are saying that the early Christians attempted to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to the same name as that town, Nazareth.

But dude, how the fuck could the early Christians attempt to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to Nazareth if Nazareth didn't exist?

Easy. Because you refuse to understand what I am saying. I am saying that Nazareth began to exist before they wrote, and that the writers who put that in were not the people who were actually there, on the ground, to tell the initial tales that grew into the myth of Jesus the Son of God. Those who wanted a more-magical Jesus did not want him to be just a Jewish Nazarene, but something greater, which had appeal in the Hellenized regions to which the Gospels spread. In the pre-70s literature (Paul), there is no mention of Nazareth... but in post-70s literature (Gospels) there exists such a concept. The pattern seems consistent, to me.

And yet you continue to use an argument from silence as a means of holding to this fucked up theory of yours?

So let me summarize your position here:

According to you, the Jews sent a company of priests to basically "create" a town called Nazareth around CE 70. Then, the Christians- sometime before CE 140- in their desperation to justify why Jesus was regarded as a Nazarene seized upon the idea that if they interpolated and/or created all 4 gospels texts and Acts, and included this newly created town of Nazareth, it would bring some kind of justification as to why Jesus was regarded as a Nazarene?

And then you say these same Christians all somehow conspired to erase any mention of this "Nazareth Conspiracy" from every available text, leaving absolutely no trace whatsoever of their deeds?

And you say this all happened during a period of time (CE 70 - 140 because Justin mentions Nazareth around CE 140) when both the Jews and the Romans were persecuting scores of Christians who were forced to hide their beliefs to avoid persecution?

Really?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

I will leave it at that. Enough said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 08:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 05:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 03:34 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I see absolutely nothing strange about Jesus having a brother named James. But then again, I see the whole of this from the entirety of all available historical evidence, and not from any preconceived Christian or anti-Christian position.

I mean, what is so strange about a mere man having a brother?

That's how I see it.

Once again, you have completely misunderstood me. This is tedious.

You are making the claim about the strangeness of Paul only mentioning James as being the brother of Jesus just once, and then making a huge jump to suggest it was interpolated based upon that one lone entry. You are suggesting that it was interpolated because Paul only mentions it once. Using your reasoning, I guess we should consider everything as being an interpolation because, as you reason, thousands of things in Paul's letters were only mentioned once?

No?

Then what is your reasoning for singling out this one line of text then? Why does this have to be an interpolation and not everything else that only mentions people, places, and things just once?

I see right through you, Mark.

Anybody can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 05:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 09:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Acts presumes to chronicle the life of Paul from Pharisee to Christian. So of course it will chronicle the transition and present both the Paul who was heavily influenced by Judaism and as time went past, it shows you the Paul influenced by his theology on Jesus and Greek theology/culture.

It would be better for your low credibility to actually say "I don't know anything about that" when faced with things you know nothing about, instead of pretending to know about things you never heard of.


And it would be better if you actually contributed a counter-point to demonstrate your presumed superiority.

But you can't do that, because you know my point is obviously correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2016 09:07 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 12:44 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And finally, Mark's position is that Nazareth was invented by early Christians:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1028599

Let the mocking begin!

Drinking Beverage

I must have missed that, in the page reference you made. I see nowhere he makes that claim.

Well then, let's see ...

The following post was lifted wholesale from the Jesus Never Existed website:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1028789

He got it from here:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

So fuck yeah ... Mark's position is clearly the same as that website's, and that website states right at the top, the following:

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

And what do we see there?

"The writer of Matthew (re-writer of the proto-Matthew stories) heard of 'priestly' families moving to a place in Galilee which they had called 'Nazareth' – and decided to use the name of the new town for the hometown of his hero."

I suggest you go there and read it. Maybe then you will see Mark's true position.

It's obvious to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 09:19 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 08:29 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 05:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Once again, you have completely misunderstood me. This is tedious.

You are making the claim about the strangeness of Paul only mentioning James as being the brother of Jesus just once, and then making a huge jump to suggest it was interpolated based upon that one lone entry. You are suggesting that it was interpolated because Paul only mentions it once. Using your reasoning, I guess we should consider everything as being an interpolation because, as you reason, thousands of things in Paul's letters were only mentioned once?

No?

Then what is your reasoning for singling out this one line of text then? Why does this have to be an interpolation and not everything else that only mentions people, places, and things just once?

Because other things that he mentions only once are pretty ordinary things. Meeting the brother of God incarnate (what Paul believed Jesus to be) is not an ordinary thing, and would seem to be worth more than a single passing mention in one of the letters. If I met God's brother, you couldn't get me to shut up about it. That's why it seems odd that he only mentions it once.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
25-07-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And here we go with another stupid ass conspiracy theory. So now we can add the Israeli Antiquities Authority to the pile of persons who conspire in some way to cover up the truth, or distort it in some way.

Yes, apparently a conspiracy by the Jews, which shouldn't be surprising judging by the fact they made up the holocaust.

Apparently everyone has an agenda, except of course anti-theists, and mythicist. They unlike the Jews are an honest bunch.

"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
25-07-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And here we go with another stupid ass conspiracy theory. So now we can add the Israeli Antiquities Authority to the pile of persons who conspire in some way to cover up the truth, or distort it in some way.

Yes, apparently a conspiracy by the Jews, which shouldn't be surprising judging by the fact they made up the holocaust.

Apparently everyone has an agenda, except of course anti-theists, and mythicist. They unlike the Jews are an honest bunch.

"Yes, apparently a conspiracy by the Jews, which shouldn't be surprising judging by the fact they made up the holocaust."

"Yes, apparently a conspiracy by the Jews, which shouldn't be surprising judging by the fact they made up the holocaust."


"...the fact they made up the holocaust."

"...the fact they made up the holocaust."


The stupidity, it almost hurts to see such large concentrations of it in one area.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: