Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  No one is corroborating it. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of writings,by various authors concerned with a variety of purposes. NT text, didn't become canonized into the bible, until few hundred years after they were written.

This is not a point, or points, in your favor.

The canonization of the biblical collection was an election influenced by both political desires and popular desires. How do you know that the more historically accurate texts weren't excluded? Even worse, this was after several centuries of the "orthodox" faction eliminating and purging the opposition.

This is why the question of Jesus's existence is largely moot. There is absolutely no way to tell what happened. You cannot honestly say that he "definitely" existed as all the Christian churches say. The best you can do is determine a level of probability.

(23-06-2016 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what you seem to be suggesting here is not that we can't use the bible as evidence for historical events, and persons, but we can't use the writings of believers as evidence for historical events and persons.

The status of the author as a fanatic is a factor in determining their veracity.

If "Paul" is writing a travel guide about Ancient Syria, then his religious fanaticism should be noted, but is probably not a factor.

If "Paul" is writing letters attesting to the miracles of the religion he is propounding, we can take that with a healthy grain of salt.

(23-06-2016 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact you seem to be suggesting that only non-Christian sources can serve as evidence.

In regards to Christianity, Christian sources are, by definition, biased.

Non-Christian sources are less likely to be biased. The more non-Christian sources you have, the stronger your case will be.

(23-06-2016 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Of course historians and scholars are not likely to agree with you, but you're entitled to your own personal beliefs here.

That is true now, but only because of the stranglehold Christianity and religion have had on the world cultures.

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
23-06-2016, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 11:27 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what's your counter argument here, that given these multiple attestations of the James/Jesus connection not just by Paul, but even Josephus that this makes its more likely that Jesus did not exist?

They're not "attestations". (Nice try at moving the faith claims into a higher realm of reliability .. you failed). They are statements of faith. Claims of faith. HUGE difference. In an age where pious fraud was perfectly acceptable, much more is required. You have not demonstrated ANY of these claimants are reliable or objective. Until you do, there is no "counter argument" necessary.

Quote:Do these attestations serve the case for non-existence or existence better. Do you acknowledge they're a bit of an inconvenience for those who want to argue for non-existence?

They are what they are. Faith claims made by people who were not eye witnesses to anything. They are neutral if even that. They are unsupported and unproven. They might be inconvenient if the founders of your cult hadn't admitted to purposeful deception. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

Quote:In your view is it reasonable to conclude that there was a historical Jesus based on factors like this?

No. The reasonable thing is to conclude we can't make a conclusion.

Quote:Do you believe the conclusions regarding a historical Jesus drawn by folks like Ehrman are reasonable?

No. I think there is are many reasons to doubt, and making a conclusion is unfounded. There is no evidence to base a conclusion on, which is reliable, and much to wonder about in light of literary context about later dating. The gospels reflect the interests of late First Century and post-diaspora Judaism, not early First Century. Acts reflects highly developed theological thought, which would have been impossible in the settings it's presented in. Something about all that is very fishy. They may have obliquely used one of the many wandering preachers to build the new cult on ... we will never know. Was it the Jesus as portrayed in the faith proclamations called "The Good News" (gospels) ... no way. Impossible.

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
23-06-2016, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 11:23 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The Bible is a collection of writings,by various authors concerned with a variety of purposes. NT text, didn't become canonized into the bible, until few hundred years after they were written.

The canonization process was by VOTE. The voting was non-unanimous , and every voter had their own interests, biases, and NONE were actually witnesses to the events.

(23-06-2016 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what you seem to be suggesting here is not that we can't use the bible as evidence for historical events, and persons, but we can't use the writings of believers as evidence for historical events and persons.

Exactly right. You need EXTERNAL corroboration. You have NONE. Are we to believe 500 dead people walked around Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, or the temple curtain ripped, and NOT ONE JEW mentioned it ? The writers were NOT WITNESSES. They existed in a faith community, and received what they thought they knew through a faith community. If we knew they were reliable as witnesses, MAYBE you could use them. You know nothing of the sort about these people. And you just said this morning that they used "sources" *oral and written* ... which you FAILED to identify), and they were not THE source. What the fuck are you even talking about here ?

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
23-06-2016, 11:29 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 10:34 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  This is why the question of Jesus's existence is largely moot. There is absolutely no way to tell what happened. You cannot honestly say that he "definitely" existed as all the Christian churches say. The best you can do is determine a level of probability.

Judging that I stated previously I don't deal in absolutes, or proofs, but in likelihood it goes without saying that I'm speaking about a level or probability.

The historical method, is about producing the best or most likely explanation here.

Quote:In regards to Christianity, Christian sources are, by definition, biased.

In that regard pretty much every writing of the ancient world is bias. Even historian like Josephus had agendas.

Quote:Non-Christian sources are less likely to be biased. The more non-Christian sources you have, the stronger your case will be.

Non-Christian sources are not likely to be writing histories of Christian religious figures, they're at best attest to a handful of points about them, like Tacitus writing of Jesus being crucified by Pilate, and a mischievous superstition breaking out. Or Josephus mentioning the death of James.

But for some reason even here once non-Christian sources are brought in in support of historicity many atheists want to dismiss this as well.

Historians deal with the sources they have available to them, and what reasonable inferences can be drawn from them, what best explains the events the encounters written about.


Quote:The canonization of the biblical collection was an election influenced by both political desires and popular desires. How do you know that the more historically accurate texts weren't excluded? Even worse, this was after several centuries of the "orthodox" faction eliminating and purging the opposition.

There's a variety of texts, many of which confirm a variety of details in conjunction. Such as Jesus being crucified, in fact you have sources outside the bible indicating this as well such as Tacitus, indicating he was crucified under Pilate. That he had a brother named James, even a first hand account of someone meeting him, plus Josephus writing of James death.

But in the warped mind of individuals here factors like this don't support the existence of Jesus.

Quote:That is true now, but only because of the stranglehold Christianity and religion have had on the world cultures.

Yea, that's it, straight of a creationist playbook. Creationist blame the lack of acceptance among scientist regarding their ideas, not because of the credulousness of their argument, but because the strong hold secular liberalism has on Academia. The reason why the mythicist don't get much traction among professional historians and scholars, is because of Christianity's strong hold on the world, not because their argument are not particularly good ones.

Please.






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
23-06-2016, 11:36 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 11:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Exactly right. You need EXTERNAL corroboration. You have NONE. Are we to believe 500

Yet we have multiple corroboration of Jesus having a brother James, a first hand account of someone meeting James, external corroboration from Josephus about James's death, indicating he was Jesus's brother.

You have multiple corroborations of Jesus crucifixion, even external corroboration by Tacitus, indicating that he was crucified by Pilate.

Somehow even with multiple and external corroborations like this, we're suppose to see these things as not supportive of a historical Jesus.






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
23-06-2016, 11:50 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 10:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 10:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm here to preach. Isn't that the honest response you were looking for anyways?



And my intentions are to preach, and find ways to get rid of obstacles and impediments to this.


I'm not the one telling you to leave, you are lol. All you do is bitch and moan about me preaching, if it bothers you so much you're on the wrong forum, and need to join one that prohibits this.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"I'm here to preach. Isn't that the honest response you were looking for anyways? "

It's what you actually do. Are you honestly admitting that this is the reason you're here, or do you think you're being cleverly sarcastic?

"And my intentions are to preach, and find ways to get rid of obstacles and impediments to this. "

Are you honestly admitting that this is the reason you're here, or do you think you're being cleverly sarcastic?

"I'm not the one telling you to leave, you are lol. All you do is bitch and moan about me preaching, if it bothers you so much you're on the wrong forum, and need to join one that prohibits this."

You're the one bitching and moaning about people giving you a hard time about your preaching. If you want to preach and not be called out on it, you're on the wrong fucking forum.



But if you are actually now admitting to just being here to preach, that makes you a....(wait for it)....liar. Because YOU have explicitly given different reasons for being here that were not only to not preach, but you vehemently denied your preaching intentions.

This wouldn't be atypical for you (to accuse others of your failings)


I decided to expand my understanding of what it means to preach to incorporate everything I do that might be interpreted as supportive of my religious beliefs as preaching.


With this in mind, I decided that the best way to explain what I'm doing here, is to say that I'm here to preach.

Is that honest enough for you? Can I continue with my preaching?


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
23-06-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 11:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Non-Christian sources are not likely to be writing histories of Christian religious figures, they're at best attest to a handful of points about them, like Tacitus writing of Jesus being crucified by Pilate, and a mischievous superstition breaking out. Or Josephus mentioning the death of James.

People are looking for non-Christian sources to mention Christ and Christianity. Just like one would do in the case of any other historical investigation. There are not enough historical sources to merit the certainty with which Christians speak.

(23-06-2016 11:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But for some reason even here once non-Christian sources are brought in in support of historicity many atheists want to dismiss this as well.

The only one I've heard discounted is Josephus. There is legitimate evidence that at least some of Josephus' accounts were altered. That casts doubt on him as a whole, although it does not discredit him.

This is particularly problematic because Josephus is the oldest non-Christian source.

(23-06-2016 11:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Historians deal with the sources they have available to them, and what reasonable inferences can be drawn from them, what best explains the events the encounters written about.

And if you apply that standard to Christianity, you have the following:

A carpenter in first century Palestine claimed to be the messiah. He preached in Jerusalem during a turbulent and volatile holiday and was crucified by the Romans. His followers deified him and started a cult around his worship. This small cult grew until it became a world wide religion.

There is no proof or even compelling evidence of divinity.

(23-06-2016 11:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's a variety of texts, many of which confirm a variety of details in conjunction. Such as Jesus being crucified, in fact you have sources outside the bible indicating this as well such as Tacitus, indicating he was crucified under Pilate. That he had a brother named James, even a first hand account of someone meeting him, plus Josephus writing of James death.

Yes, and there are sources that dispel many of the details as well. Crucifixions did not involve nails in the palms, but in the wrists. Even worse, those who were crucified were not buried, but left for the vultures. The hypothetical tomb was empty for a reason... It was never used.

(23-06-2016 11:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But in the warped mind of individuals here factors like this don't support the existence of Jesus.

Perhaps they hold to a higher standard of evidence.


(23-06-2016 11:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:That is true now, but only because of the stranglehold Christianity and religion have had on the world cultures.

Yea, that's it, straight of a creationist playbook. Creationist blame the lack of acceptance among scientist regarding their ideas, not because of the credulousness of their argument, but because the strong hold secular liberalism has on Academia. The reason why the mythicist don't get much traction among professional historians and scholars, is because of Christianity's strong hold on the world, not because their argument are not particularly good ones.

Please.

Are you dishonest enough to deny that religious organizations have persecuted, tortured and murdered non-believers and dissenters? Both in the past, and in some cases even today?

Even in the 19th and 20th century atheism or the wrong type of religion could have shut down one's career. Listen to Robert Ingersoll talk about the issues he faced as an atheist.

How many atheist bloggers have been murdered overseas?
Cartoonists? Filmmakers? Journalists?

And you think that is a valid comparison?

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
23-06-2016, 11:56 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  No one is corroborating it. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of writings,by various authors concerned with a variety of purposes. NT text, didn't become canonized into the bible, until few hundred years after they were written.

Precisely. That is one of the reasons to doubt their accuracy.

Quote:So what you seem to be suggesting here is not that we can't use the bible as evidence for historical events, and persons, but we can't use the writings of believers as evidence for historical events and persons.

No, you can't use the text of the Bible to prove the Bible is accurate. It's accuracy must be supported by other evidence. Why is this not obvious to you?

Quote:In fact you seem to be suggesting that only non-Christian sources can serve as evidence.

Is that it?

No.

Quote:Of course historians and scholars are not likely to agree with you, but you're entitled to your own personal beliefs here.

Historians do agree that supporting evidence is required.

I don't know which 'scholars' you are referring to. Care to be specific?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-06-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 11:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 11:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Exactly right. You need EXTERNAL corroboration. You have NONE. Are we to believe 500

Yet we have multiple corroboration of Jesus having a brother James, a first hand account of someone meeting James, external corroboration from Josephus about James's death, indicating he was Jesus's brother.

You have multiple corroborations of Jesus crucifixion, even external corroboration by Tacitus, indicating that he was crucified by Pilate.

Somehow even with multiple and external corroborations like this, we're suppose to see these things as not supportive of a historical Jesus.

Tacitus wrote of the early Christians, he wrote about them in the 1st century decades after Jesus lived and died. Many other historians question his accuracy but fact is he's writing about the man the early Christians worshiped, in no way was he there or able to write from a first hand account. That's like someone writing a story that mentions that Greeks worshiped Zeus and explaining about his life and then saying " See? Zeus was real and this guy wrote about him!"

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SitaSky's post
23-06-2016, 12:10 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 12:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 11:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 11:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Exactly right. You need EXTERNAL corroboration. You have NONE. Are we to believe 500

Yet we have multiple corroboration of Jesus having a brother James, a first hand account of someone meeting James, external corroboration from Josephus about James's death, indicating he was Jesus's brother.

You have multiple corroborations of Jesus crucifixion, even external corroboration by Tacitus, indicating that he was crucified by Pilate.

Somehow even with multiple and external corroborations like this, we're suppose to see these things as not supportive of a historical Jesus.

You have nothing of the sort. Josephus did not see James die. We know he is an unreliable historian ... which I HAVE REPEATEDLY challenged you to falsify. He may have been repeating something he HEARD about. He repeated ALL the now debunked Jewish history as fact. He was in the employ of Rome. You don't have "multiple corroborations" of anything. You have multiple faith claims ... just like there were multiple Greek myth repetitions.

Tacitus has been debunked a number of times ... and you know that. Tacitus was repeating something he heard about. It's evidence of nothing. You don't have multiple corroborations of the crucifixion. It follows a "trial" (the stories and days of which are contradictory), which never would have happened. The Sanhedrin was NEVER ONCE in all of history called into session on Passover weekend. No peasants were ever brought in front of Roman aristocrats for questioning and trial. It's all bullshit which you accept at face value as your self-admitted presuppositionalism blinds you to any other possibility. I repeat ... you have DISQUALIFED yourself from any discussion of this matter. You admitted you cannot be objective.

Explain to us NOW, how it is, 500 dead people walked around Jerusalem and NO ONE, Jewish or Roman even mentions it. It's all bullshit, and you know it.

So.... all in all, it appears that the fake macho nonsense of "running people out of town" have as much truth value as the lies told in the gospels about temple curtains and dead people walking around.

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: