Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2016, 05:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Religion was free in Rome at that time. Christians were not important enough nor committing crimes worthy of persecution. Certainly not during the time of the Julio Claudians.

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
30-07-2016, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2016 06:30 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 11:16 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:I wonder why you think the Nazarenes were intimidated by Paul? Paul had no power in his own time. He was a legend in his own lunchbox, and I'm sure he could rant on, but he commanded no men, and had no legitimate authority, a fact that seems to have been glaringly obvious to any Jews who had anything to do with him.

Why would the very people who were the family and disciples of Jesus be intimidated by a pro Roman half Jew rabbiting on about a Christ? They knew that Paul had never met Jesus and therefore could not be an authority on him.

PS Or do you think Paul was in league with the Sadducees and thereby could throw some weight around?

If we accept the depiction in Acts and his letters of Paul's persecution of the followers of Jesus as being accurate, then the Nazarene sect would have every reason to be wary of Paul's supposed conversion. He could be a spy, trying to gain their trust for example.

I think Paul was simply caught up in the persecution of the followers of Jesus, and took it upon himself to persecute them just like many other Pharisee did. He was nothing special or different than any other Pharisee in this respect.

Quote:I sort of agree with this. I suspect there were many "Pauls," all agents of the Roman government, and this was how Christianity was born. It just happens that Paul's writings survived. And, yes, I have no proof of this "many Pauls" hypothesis...I am just having an educated guess.

You may actually have proof. After all, we do have some letters that may not be genuine to Saul of Tarsus, and we also have many other writings exterior to the bible that are attributed to him, but we know it wasn't him.

Have you thought about looking at it from that angle? Not that I believe it, but still, it's in evidence that can allude to the possibility.

Quote:Oops! Did you really mean to write this?

Yes, absolutely.

Quote:You sound very confident that there was a Jesus. Please explain why ( you can leave out the Tacitus bit...I've read that already). Bear in mind that I think there was a Jesus too, but I'm less confident than you.

Because nothing else explains the available evidence better than historicity.

The evidence does not go away when anyone proclaims "complete myth." After all the screaming and shouting is done, the evidence still remains.

It doesn't disappear when someone writes of a parallel Jesus/Yeshua story, such as you did. We have seen this before from Doherty, and others. None are taken seriously. No offense, but it's true.

The evidence remains without adequate refute, and in most cases, without any reasonable refutation whatsoever. Making claims of interpolation against all the evidence borders upon insanity, and reeks of desperation. It simply looks so ridiculous as to elicit laughter in the scholarly community. It really does.

"Because nothing else explains the available evidence better than historicity.
The evidence does not go away when anyone proclaims "complete myth." After all the screaming and shouting is done, the evidence still remains.
It doesn't disappear when someone writes of a parallel Jesus/Yeshua story, such as you did. We have seen this before from Doherty, and others. None are taken seriously. No offense, but it's true.
The evidence remains without adequate refute, and in most cases, without any reasonable refutation whatsoever. Making claims of interpolation against all the evidence borders upon insanity, and reeks of desperation. It simply looks so ridiculous as to elicit laughter in the scholarly community. It really does."


With respect, you have a habit of making claims like this...using strongly worded statements about the mountain of evidence you have to back up your ideas...yet you neglect to actually present that evidence. I stlll have no idea why you believe in an historical Jesus, (more ardently than you don't believe in miracles,) other than what you wrote about Tacitus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 05:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:"Because nothing else explains the available evidence better than historicity.


And what fucking evidence would that be?

(Do try to remember that your silly-assed gospels are the claim, not the evidence. )

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
30-07-2016, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2016 06:48 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 10:55 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 12:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I find this highly unlikely for the following reasons...

The Bible’s first mention of Paul is in Acts, where he is depicted as a devout Pharisee. Paul is portrayed as a bitter persecutor of Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem. This persecution was unlikely. Jesus’ original followers, the Nazarenes, were Jews, not Christians. Pharisees commonly argued with other Jews over the interpretation of Scripture, yet they did not physically attack those with different opinions.

Both Acts and Paul's letters both allude to and explicitly tell us he was persecuting the followers of Jesus.

Quote:There is no historical record of overt antagonism between Pharisees and Nazarenes in the 50’s and 60’s. In Acts, the author even relates an incident in which Peter (a disciple of Jesus) was saved by a speech from Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees, from being sentenced to death by the Sadducees (Acts 5:37.) You do not save someone from persecution if you are persecuting him!

Are you again using the bible for your history? If so, then this same Book of Acts also shows the Pharisee attacking other Jews, such as the Nazarene.

In fact, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews shows a constant infighting between Jews- not only of the different sects- but also within the same sects. It is rife with stories of betrayal, murder, and persecution, so I have no idea where you are getting the impression that Jewish sects didn't persecute or even murder one another.

Quote:If there was any conflict, it was between the Sadducees (the high priests) and the Nazarenes. The high priest occasionally physically persecuted the Nazarenes - Yeshua’s death is one example, and James’ (Jesus’ brother) murder under the orders of the high priest in 62 CE is another.

And here you just agreed that there was persecution between the sects, so not sure what you are trying to say about it being unlikely.

Quote:If Paul did, in fact, attack Yeshua’s followers, it would have been under the direction of the Sadducees, who were allied to the Roman establishment.

Nope, Paul was a Pharisee. He did it as a Pharisee.

"Are you again using the bible for your history?"

No!. Are you? Surely not! I read real, secular history, and then I'm in a position to comment on the truth or otherwise of what's in the babble. When there are inconsistencies in the babble, I point them out. When the babble's authors are lying, which they frequently do, btw, I point it out.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2016 08:38 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:As most Essenes were celibate, Yeshua may not have had a family of his own. Nor would he have been bothered with accumulating wealth. He was a man with an altogether different agenda. I think he made a career out of preaching about his political aspirations for Israel. Yeshua was young, poor, oppressed, and almost certainly a religious idealist.

Yeshua was part of the underdog class, and lived in a time and in a place that was a hotbed of political unrest. He had the right pedigree to be a zealot; he talked, lived, and associated with zealots, and he was killed as a zealot, (discussed shortly) so he obviously was a zealot. I think he fashioned himself as the head of a gang of Galilean militants, men who resented the fact that Romans were rulers in God’s holy land. They wanted to free their people from foreign command and create an illustrious Israel. Much of the evidence for this is in the bible.

Yeshua’s stature grew as time went by. The two of them might have planned that once they had established political power in Palestine, John, the heir of Aaron, was to be the new high priest and Yeshua, the descendent of David, the new king of Israel.

This is entire speculation, and has little to no evidence for support. Meaning no offense, but this is a prime target for the meme, "Cool story, bro."

Quote:Consider Jesus’ attitude to violence:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword

Consider the whole of that in its context Matthew Chapter 10.

He is giving his disciples instructions on spreading his message through Israel. He does not give instructions on waging a war. In fact, he tells his disciples in Mat 10:14 "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" and then he says in Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves."

And then he tells them in Mat 10:23 that if they are persecuted "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another." He tells them to flee, not to fight. He is instructing his disciples to bring his message, and if that message is rejected, to be "as harmless as doves" He is telling you that his message will cause arguments and fights, and will be rejected by many. He was comparing his message to a sword because it will cause people to fight with each other.

He goes on to tell us in Mat 10:35 that his message will "set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be those of his own household."

You just can't take stuff out of context and rework what its true meaning is so that it works with your theory. That's not history at all. That's a total fabrication.

Quote:Consider Jesus’ attitude to the rich:

“Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:24, NJB.)

In Jesus’ day the wealthy were in bed with the Romans.

This message has nothing to do with the Romans. The point of this message is that if people worship their possessions more than they worship God, then they will not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. It's just that simple.

Quote:Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free

If I didn't know better, I would say you have read "Yeshua: A Model for Moderns" By Leonard Swidle.

Again, you are using the bible as though it depicts history. However, this section of Luke is one of the parts I have flagged as being only the beliefs of the author, and does not depict an actual event.

Quote:Herod was wary of a coup commanded by John, so had him killed. The Gospel authors deliberately didn’t detail the real reason for John’s death, because it didn’t fit with their invented image of John and Jesus as pacifist evangelists. Josephus also points out that John had criticized Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, which wouldn’t have endeared him to Herod. John’s death in early 28 CE must have been a serious setback.

The Gospel writers could have had it right also. It doesn't make Josephus wrong if the Gospel writers were right. Both stories could be two parts to the same truth.

According to the Gospel writers, Herod had John arrested and thrown in prison, but it wasn't until John was in prison for some time that Herod beheaded him. But the Gospel records do not actually say why John was thrown in prison, but only say he was beheaded because of Herodias.

Josephus tells us why John was thrown in prison, for fear that his popularity could be used to incite Jews to take up arms against Herod. Josephus doesn't tell us John was only killed to fend off a possible rebellion, but also so "that to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself (Herod) into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late."

As you stated, Josephus also points out that John had criticized Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, which wouldn’t have endeared him to Herod. This in Josephus could easily also have factored into why Herod killed John, just as the Gospel records also state.

Both the Gospel records and Josephus are actually almost in perfect harmony regarding the arrest and death of John the Baptist, and this is another fine example of my position that many things in the Gospel records are events that actually happened, which completely contradicts the Mythicists position of total myth.

Quote:These rally calls weren’t what everyone wanted to hear. Some of his fellow Jews

“rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30, KJV.) Why such an angry reaction? Yeshua called for the overthrow of the social structure, and that didn’t suit everyone. There were some powerful people making more than a good living just the way things were. Some of the people would have been petrified at the prospect of a war with Rome.

Complete speculation again, and this speculation finds absolutely no support in that chapter of Luke. And again you are taking it out of context. This story begins in Luke 4:16. It relates that Jesus came into his hometown of Nazareth, read from the Torah, and proclaimed himself to be a prophet.

The people there who knew him question his claim of a prophet because they knew his father. He explained that a prophet is without honor or belief among his own kindred, and gave examples how such respected prophets such as Elijah and Elisha were also not believed among their own people, and how those prophets went out to other people and helped them instead of their own people in Israel.

His point here was that he claimed to be a prophet, and since the people of his own hometown questioned his prophet-hood, he would leave them and go help people someplace else.

That pissed off the people in the synagogue and they basically tried to throw him out of town, literally. That's all it says. Stop reading into this stuff. You'll go mad. It's already right there in black and white.

The rest of what you wrote is far too massive of a wall of text that I am not interested in refuting it for the next 2 or 3 days, but since it continues the same theme as what I have already addressed, then the same analysis of it applies.

You are taking things out of their context and inventing an entirely different story, for whatever reason remains a total mystery to me. Very little of what you wrote has any supporting evidence whatsoever, and any claims that the gospel records somehow verifies your position leaves you facing numerous problems since you are, without question, forced to concede the historical accuracy of those gospel verses if you really believe your own claims.

Not only that, but the very verses of the gospel you are using are all taken out of context, and then you attach an interpretation of them that has absolutely nothing to do with them when they are placed back into their actual original context.

Please discontinue these massive walls of text, and find a way to make your posts get to the gist of what you are trying to say in as few words as possible. Seriously Mark, nobody has the time to address a 7,350 word post, which works out to 17 pages in my Microsoft Word program.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 08:54 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 05:43 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 09:28 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Using this approach we see what they believed to be true, and we also see what they knew to be true.

Consider

Okay. Just to be sure, I never believed. Atheist all my life.

With what you say in the above post, which I edited for space, you say you speak from their position, that they believed. Fine, they believed. This does not make them correct.

You are right, it doesn't make them correct ... but it doesn't mean they were liars either, nor does it mean they knowingly fabricated things. They earnestly believed that what they were writing was the truth, all of it.

That's all my point really is.

Quote:I recall reading in Livy a report in the senate that a baby had been born with an elephant's head? Can't remember clearly. Obviously it was a deformed infant. If they believed it enough to report it in the senate, they must have held some belief. Doesn't make it true though.

Yet the point remains that in their time, with their level of intellect and education, as far as they were concerned a baby had been born with an elephant's head. That was the absolute truth to them in their time.

Quote:Thanks for understanding. My mind is not what it once was. By a long shot.

Cheers. D.

I think we are good.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 09:02 PM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2016 09:37 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 05:57 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:"Because nothing else explains the available evidence better than historicity.


And what fucking evidence would that be?

All the evidence put forth by a consensus of historians who can run circles around your education while disrobing themselves, greasing themselves up, and then having sex with 10 other people at the same time while giving you just the finger.

They would just tease you, but you would never be invited to the orgy.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 05:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:Firstly, there is no good evidence that Jesus actually was a cousin of John the Baptist. You can only ascertain this from 1 single gospel record; Luke. This tells me again that you are respecting the gospels for some degree of historical value.

So does it have to be two or three gospel authors who say something before it becomes "good evidence?" Let's just say that Jesus was closely associated with John then. All four gospels have Jesus being baptised by John or something similar. John was murdered. That would've pissed Jesus off.

The Gospel accounts show Jesus using the death of John to his advantage to promote his religious belief system. It was like he won the lottery.

Quote:Yes I do respect the gospels for some degree of historical value. Yet as Bucky points out they are documents of faith, and they have to be read with a very critical eye.

They are more than just documents of faith. They do have some degree of historical value, as they depict belief systems of the early Christians.

Quote:
Quote:Both Acts and Paul's letters both allude to and explicitly tell us he was persecuting the followers of Jesus"

Yes. Yet it really doesn't quite ring true. Why would Paul, a Pharisee, be persecuting the Nazarenes? Jews didn't really do this to each other, even 2000 years ago. It's a bit like Jehovah witnesses and Catholics today, they might dislike each other, but they don't go around killing each other as a rule.

I think the author of Acts made a big deal out of the antagonism between Paul and the Nazarenes because there was a lot of angst between them, and the author could make out but that was before Paul saw the light and became a Jesus fan.

He persecuted them because he was lead to believe that they posed a threat to the security of the Jewish people of Israel. Like I said in earlier posts, Jesus was being proclaimed as being a Messiah, which carries the connotation of him also being a King. If Caesar thought for one moment that the Jews had made somebody a king without his approval, he would view it as an act of war and send in the Roman legions to destroy them all. The thought of the Roman legions bearing down on Jerusalem to destroy the Jews would undoubtedly invoke great fear among the people, so they needed to stamp out the Nazarenes as proof to Caesar that the problem was eradicated.

But you can't keep a good man down, can you? Hence, the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ took flight, a well played ploy by his followers to demonstrate to the persecuting Jews that they (the Jews) were wrong, and that Jesus had come back from the dead and would destroy all who opposed him and his followers. This story spread like wildfire, and was potent enough to scare many persecuting Jews away from the sect ... including Paul, who believed the resurrection story and out of fear and guilt of his actions, converted.

And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 09:47 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 09:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 05:57 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  And what fucking evidence would that be?

All the evidence put forth by a consensus of historians who can run circles around your education while disrobing themselves, greasing themselves up, and then having sex with 10 other people at the same time while giving you just the finger.

They would just tease you, but you would never be invited to the orgy.

Big Grin

Another non answer. Unbelievable that you've done it again after I pulled you up for it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 09:51 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 09:47 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 09:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  All the evidence put forth by a consensus of historians who can run circles around your education while disrobing themselves, greasing themselves up, and then having sex with 10 other people at the same time while giving you just the finger.

They would just tease you, but you would never be invited to the orgy.

Big Grin

Another non answer. Unbelievable that you've done it again after I pulled you up for it.

Hard-core mythers like him will ever only get answers like that. They can't be reasoned with. They are worse than any theist I have ever encountered.

Fuck, they are worse than fundamentalists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: