Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2016, 03:41 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 03:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 02:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  False, the Nazarene believed in both the resurrection, and that Jesus was God, in adoptionist view of divinity, they also believed in the virgin birth. in fact their views paralleled the views of christianity, with their only real difference being in regards to the Jewish law.

"They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2"


The writer of Mark doesn't replace the Jewish law either.


More a part of your imagination than fact. Judging that the contention between Paul and some of the early jewish followers of Jesus, is documented by Paul only, that this contention revolved around one issue only, whether Gentiles need to follow the jewish ritual laws. Paul while disagreeing with the others here, hardly paints it as amounting to "hating each others guts".


No, there's nothing in Mark that indicates he adopted Paul's idea. Mark's Jesus is the least miraculous and divine of the bunch, doesn't do away with Jewish laws, or anything of the sort. Doesn't draw connections between Jesus and Adam, etc....
.


Mark also indicated that Jesus was executed by the Romans. If your claim that the Nazarenes's didn't believe that this was partly instigated by the Jews, I'm calling bullshit, that you made that up. If you want to prove me wrong, site the actual early sources, that support this.


False, for variety of reasons, primarily because Mark's Gospel doesn't have Jesus saying "love you enemies" or "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the meek". Nor does Jesus say "pay your taxes" in any of the gospels. Though I'll give you a pass on the last one, which you likely meant the passage about "rendering unto Caesar". Which was a response to the Pharisees trying to trap him, into saying yes or no, instead he gives them a non-answer.

The Nazarenes on the other hand did have a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, and this Gospel unlike Mark has all the turn the other cheek, love you enemies bits,.


He also ate with sinners, and prostitutes. Doesn't mean he wasn't against what they were doing. The fact that Mark categorizes sinners and tax collectors together, doesn't paint them in the best of light.


Yet Luke's Gospels indicates that the Kingdom of God is among you. Mark's placement is ambiguous.

I would like to know where you derived that the Nazarene held a view similar to Luke here. What early source your derived that view from.



Yes, and they supposedly spoke to you from the dead, telling you all about the wild beliefs you ascribe to them, that remain entirely unsupported by the sources we do have regarding their views. Sources which negate the very claims you suggested here.

"False, the Nazarene believed in both the resurrection, and that Jesus was God, in adoptionist view of divinity, they also believed in the virgin birth."

The church fathers said literally thousands of outlandish things. They cannot be relied upon. There are many quotes from the church fathers which say the very opposite.

We do not have any writings from the Nazarenes except maybe perhaps the book of James in the new Testament and maybe perhaps some of James' writings in the dead sea scrolls.


I think you laid out your own noose here. If church father writing of what the Nazarenes believed aren't trust worthy, and if we don't really have any writings of the Nazarenes, then where does that leave you.

You made a variety of claims about what the Nazarenes did and did not believe, yet acknowledge that no real early sources exists to indicate what they did or did not believe.

In other words you were just making it all up?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
26-07-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Mark, respectfully, and as much as I hate to agree with Tomasia, I don't think it's outlandish. There are several exchanges of letters about the Nazarenes which indicate that they were Jews who accepted most of the things the Christians accepted about Jesus (yet the Fathers still considered them Satan worshipers for the differences), including his crucifixion and resurrection... they were Messianic Jews, at least by the third or fourth century. Much of what you have alleged about them is correct, but I think enough of the Christian writers said the same thing about them to consider it as significant evidence.

"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
26-07-2016, 07:07 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 09:03 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 03:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:"however, the best approximation of the truth certainly appears to rest with a consensus of experts, whom all claim that the evidence clearly shows that Nazareth even before the 1st century."

So you keep saying, ad nauseum. Please stop it. The majority of people here don't buy this. You have been asked to prove it, many times, but you just repeat it.

We have proven it here, many many times already. We have listed and linked to numerous scholars and archeologists in the field. We gave you the scholarly consensus of:

Bart Ehrman
Yardena Alexandre
Ken Dark
Bellarmino Bagatti.
Père Viaud
Richard Carrier
Mark Chancey
Adam Porter
LaMoine DeVries
John McRay
Stephan Pfann
Yehudah Rapuano
Dr. Justin Bass

But when we ask you to find one single scholar related to this subject of Nazareth who makes the claim that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, you have never provided even one.

What's your response to this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 02:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:So why single out Nazareth? The Gospels depict Jesus performing miracles all over the god damn place in numerous towns, so does that mean that those town's existence also need to be questioned?

Yes. As far as I'm aware all the other places mentioned in the gospels we have historical evidence for. All except for Nazareth in the first century... which has zilch.

So despite the consensus that there is an abundance of evidence in the Nazareth area dating to before, during, and after the 1st century from some of the world's foremost authorities- which include those on the list in my previous post- you still maintain that there is zero evidence?

Could you give me a good reason why anyone should choose to believe you- who is not a historian, archeologist, or authority in any way relative to this subject- instead of the consensus of world class experts, which incidentally includes Mythicist Richard Carrier?

What is it about you that should convince the rest of the world that you are right and they are all wrong?

Quote:"We see a history of the early beliefs and religious origins of Christians in all it's glory. It's not even a matter of whether or not the events in the Gospel occurred, but rather quite simply a matter of the history of the Christian belief system."

OOPS! You let that one slip out, didn't you!

So much for your historical objectivity!

Who are "we"? That wouldn't be your fellow believers in pews by any chance, would
it?

Please tell us all about the "glory" of Christian history. What is so special about a pro Roman rewrite of history? When I read the gospels I find them pathetic and childish. Their anti-Jewish pro-Roman bias jumps out at you from nearly every page. The so called philosophy contained therein is weak, poorly expressed, and much of it is downright dangerous for mental health if ardently believed.

Again, you don't seem to understand what I am talking about. I am not speaking of the history of Christianity from the perspective of one who is subject to religious beliefs, because I have none.

Rather, I speak of it from the perspective of a historian who analyzes the belief system an effort to determine how this belief system managed to shape the future history of virtually all mankind beginning from the origins of Christianity.

I reach many conclusions, one which I wrote a thesis on in which details how the Roman Empire crumbled under the weight of Christianity, and how that lead to the rise of Islam. In short, if the Roman Empire would never have been invaded by, and subsequently adopted Christianity as the state religion, and instead continued to grow, Muhammad would have met his end against the Roman legions, and Islam would have died with him.

But that is another story, and that is why historians research belief systems; they can either positively or negatively affect the entire human race one way or another. Mostly negatively.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 08:13 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 08:18 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I have been getting killed at work with this new project, and taking three graduate courses at the same time for masters degree number two has made me a ghost at TTA. But I wanted to swing by and take a look real quick, and oh my...haven't we been chasing bigfoot while I was gone...

You are getting lost in the noise. You are cluttering your mind with the inconsequential. Whether Nazareth existed or not, or whether jesus of "nazareth" was an actual physical person matters not. Whether a man called jesus from "nazareth' proclaimed himself to be the son of god, then was unceremoniously nailed to a piece of wood truly existed matters not. People love to tell stories, and exaggerate them with the retelling. Who gives a shit what this false messiah (although that term makes me laugh is there as no such thing as a messiah) did or said before being nailed to a piece of wood. Too bad no one knows what he did or said if they did care as there exists not a single eyewitness to any of the magic who bothered to write it down. The synoptic gospels were pseudonymous works, as even going up admitted because he seems to be educated in the field, as I am. There isn't a single person who ever wrote of jesus who knew him, nor a scrap of contemporary, historical, or archaeological evidence to support a single magic story of the bible ...because...it was all made up. Based on older sumerian, greek, crete and babylonian myths. So what does it matter if a physical man named jesus did exist and who was actually nailed to some wood for being a problematic rebel rouser...allegedly? It doesn't.

It doesn't mean a fucking thing. We may as well discuss the fallacies of Thor's logic...ponder on the deep musings of bigfoot, or discuss spongebob's sex life...all discussions of the fiction, fantasy, and forgery that make up the legend of jesus christ are simply the physical expression of men slapping their lips together as a form of neurological flatulence. meaningless. It would be meaningful if there was corroboration, empirical evidence...something more substantial than faith...which is the belief in something without evidence....enough said.

I am still waiting for someone to provide a scrap of evidence that magic exists...that a transcendental super being created over 400 billion planets until it/he/she got at least one juuuuuust right, then grabbed a handful of dirt and blew into it, creating man...or so the BS story goes. In the meantime, I will just keep waiting, while the theistic spinsters argue over the inconsequential in a sad attempt to misdirect the audience from the fact that there is zero evidence....which is why it requires faith.Rolleyes

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
26-07-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 08:13 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I have been getting killed at work with this new project, and taking three graduate courses at the same time for masters degree number two has made me a ghost at TTA. But I wanted to swing by and take a look real quick, and oh my...haven't we been chasing bigfoot while I was gone...

You are getting lost in the noise. You are cluttering your mind with the inconsequential. Whether Nazareth existed or not, or whether jesus of "nazareth" was an actual physical person matters not. Whether a man called jesus from "nazareth' proclaimed himself to be the son of god, then was unceremoniously nailed to a piece of wood truly existed matters not. People love to tell stories, and exaggerate them with the retelling. Who gives a shit what this false messiah (although that term makes me laugh is there as no such thing as a messiah) did or said before being nailed to a piece of wood. Too bad no one knows what he did or said if they did care as there exists not a single eyewitness to any of the magic who bothered to write it down. The synoptic gospels were pseudonymous works, as even going up admitted because he seems to be educated in the field, as I am. There isn't a single person who ever wrote of jesus who knew him, nor a scrap of contemporary, historical, or archaeological evidence to support a single magic story of the bible ...because...it was all made up. Based on older sumerian, greek, crete and babylonian myths. So what does it matter if a physical man named jesus did exist and who was actually nailed to some wood for being a problematic rebel rouser...allegedly? It doesn't.

It doesn't mean a fucking thing. We may as well discuss the fallacies of Thor's logic...ponder on the deep musings of bigfoot, or discuss spongebob's sex life...all discussions of the fiction, fantasy, and forgery that make up the legend of jesus christ are simply the physical expression of men slapping their lips together as a form of neurological flatulence. meaningless. It would be meaningful if there was corroboration, empirical evidence...something more substantial than faith...which is the belief in something without evidence....enough said.

I am still waiting for someone to provide a scrap of evidence that magic exists...that a transcendental super being created over 400 billion planets until it/he/she got at least one juuuuuust right, then grabbed a handful of dirt and blew into it, creating man...or so the BS story goes. In the meantime, I will just keep waiting, while the theistic spinsters argue over the inconsequential in a sad attempt to misdirect the audience from the fact that there is zero evidence....which is why it requires faith.Rolleyes

exactly why I became so bored. The thread at present has zero to do with the OP. It has been hi jacked. Possibly as a way to avoid the OP?

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
26-07-2016, 09:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Carrier's position is thus, and I agree with him, though I am less skeptical of the idea that the town formed rapidly in lieu of evidence of the town in anything prior, and don't see any reason to think it's there very long before we hear that it is there.

"Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary."


http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ce-of.html

I have no particular argument with any of that. I simply do not agree with his stated reasons for thus concluding.

Edit to Add: I stand corrected. I did stand in disagreement with one element, but I find his argument persuasive, and have changed my mind. I will accept the 70 C.E. date as the most likely for the arrival of the priestly course at Nazareth.

"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
26-07-2016, 09:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 03:43 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Mark, respectfully, and as much as I hate to agree with Tomasia, I don't think it's outlandish. There are several exchanges of letters about the Nazarenes which indicate that they were Jews who accepted most of the things the Christians accepted about Jesus (yet the Fathers still considered them Satan worshipers for the differences), including his crucifixion and resurrection... they were Messianic Jews, at least by the third or fourth century. Much of what you have alleged about them is correct, but I think enough of the Christian writers said the same thing about them to consider it as significant evidence.

Ok.
Do you happen to have the references?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 09:46 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 09:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Carrier's position is thus, and I agree with him, though I am less skeptical of the idea that the town formed rapidly in lieu of evidence of the town in anything prior, and don't see any reason to think it's there very long before we hear that it is there.

"Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary."


http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ce-of.html

I have no particular argument with any of that. I simply do not agree with his stated reasons for thus concluding.

Edit to Add: I stand corrected. I did stand in disagreement with one element, but I find his argument persuasive, and have changed my mind. I will accept the 70 C.E. date as the most likely for the arrival of the priestly course at Nazareth.

Yes, and the 70 C.E. date absolutely demonstrates that Nazareth, by necessity, must have existed prior to 70 C.E., and since we have wide-spread agreement that the gospels' dating begins sometime later then the pre-70 C.E. existence of Nazareth, it sort of throws an obvious problem into your position.

Mind you, I think the gospels were created earlier. Luke-Acts, despite being full of fairy tales, has a 1st person narrative that appears to end around C.E. 60.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 03:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 09:46 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 09:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Carrier's position is thus, and I agree with him, though I am less skeptical of the idea that the town formed rapidly in lieu of evidence of the town in anything prior, and don't see any reason to think it's there very long before we hear that it is there.

"Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary."


http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ce-of.html

I have no particular argument with any of that. I simply do not agree with his stated reasons for thus concluding.

Edit to Add: I stand corrected. I did stand in disagreement with one element, but I find his argument persuasive, and have changed my mind. I will accept the 70 C.E. date as the most likely for the arrival of the priestly course at Nazareth.

Yes, and the 70 C.E. date absolutely demonstrates that Nazareth, by necessity, must have existed prior to 70 C.E., and since we have wide-spread agreement that the gospels' dating begins sometime later then the pre-70 C.E. existence of Nazareth, it sort of throws an obvious problem into your position.

Mind you, I think the gospels were created earlier. Luke-Acts, despite being full of fairy tales, has a 1st person narrative that appears to end around C.E. 60.

Even though I am on ignore I feel compelled to ask.

Have you seen any evidence for existence prior to 70? Genuinely curious. If such evidence exists I have either overlooked it or just haven't stumbled across it yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ohio_drg's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: