Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2016, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 09:49 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 11:17 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 09:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  "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,

I agree, of course, that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. Yet I've never found one iota of evidence that the original followers of Jesus made it up.

Actually, if you look at the Gospel bible quotes below you will see that the idea that Jesus would rise from the dead was already in the minds of his followers.

Mat 27:62 - 64: Before Jesus Was Entombed

And on the next day, which was after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered to Pilate saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while He was living, 'After three days I will rise again.' Then command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead.'"

Mat 28:12 - 15: After The Discovery Of The Empty Tomb

And being assembled with the elders, and taking counsel, they gave enough silver to the soldiers saying, "Say that His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept. And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and make you free from care." And taking the silver, they did as they were taught. And this saying was spread among the Jews until today.


Quote:Paul (who never met Jesus)... yes, although I think he was referring to his Christ, not to the Jesus of the gospels.

Paul's Jesus was based upon the same Jesus written about in the Gospels, and not some fabricated Christ such as you are inventing.

You are more like Paul than Paul could ever be. You are doing the exact same thing with Jesus as you accuse Paul of doing.

Laugh out load

Quote:It was the gospels' authors that made out that Jesus rose from the dead, and they most definitely were not the original disciples of Jesus.

I am saying that the story of his resurrection preceded the writing of the Gospels, and Paul's letters alone are evidence of that as being factual. This point you cannot even dispute.

Quote:In fact it can be argued that the original Mark's gospel, the first of the four to be written, had no resurrection story in it at all...that it was only interpolated into that Gospel at a later date. It is quite possible that the resurrection stories in the other gospels were added in later too. Those authors did, after all, use "Mark's" gospel (minus a resurrection appearance of Jesus) as a template. I don't know if that was the case, but it is a possibility. If so, it would've been in the second century after Paul's nonsense about a resurrected Christ was popular, that a resurrected Jesus would then have been incorporated into the gospel stories to create Christianity.

It might be possible because the oldest copy of Mark ends at the empty tomb, but even with that we still see that in that oldest gospel, Jesus was still not in his grave.

Also, other evidence from other 1st century letters in the Bible say the following:

1Pe_1:21 those believing in God through Him, He who raised Him up from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope might be in God.

And then we have Clement of Rome, writing around CE 90:

1Clem 24:1
Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

So, if you think that the resurrection story was somehow interpolated into the gospel records in the 2nd century, the evidence from the 1st century disputes it as it shows the resurrection story existed at least as far back as the CE 30s with Paul, and continues a time line through all 4 gospels and Acts, a letter of Peter, and a letter of Clement ... all from the `1st century.

Since Clement quotes from the gospel numerous times, and also relates the resurrection story from the gospel, then we know it was already in the gospel in the 1st century.

Not counting Josephus, we have 7 records of the resurrection story from the 1st century.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 09:52 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 03:40 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:]Both the Gospel records and Josephus are actually almost in perfect harmony regarding the arrest and death of John the Baptist

No. The gospels left out the bit that John was a political threat to Herod.

Did they? Observe the following:

Luk 3:16 John answered all, saying, I indeed baptize you with water, but He who is mightier than I comes, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to loose. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor and will gather the wheat into His storehouse. But He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. And then indeed exhorting many things, he proclaimed the gospel to the people.

But Herod the tetrarch -being reproved by him on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done- added this above all, that he even shut John up in prison.


Luke shows us that John was inciting the people with the promise of what can only be understood as the coming of a Messiah, and with the use of parables, John exhorts that violence will erupt.

Then, Luke tells us that Herod "added" what John was saying to John's accusation regarding Herodias as being the reasons why John was thrown into prison.

You cannot expect the Gospel writers to use the same terminology as Josephus, but at least Luke shows us that because of what John was saying in regards to a Messiah coming to bring violence is part of the reason why John was arrested.

Luke's version of events works perfectly with Josephus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 12:04 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You are making out that you are the historian and I'm not, whereas in fact, you just have a different opinion to mine. That's Dunning Kruger.

I am not "making out" anything.

I am stating clearly that I am the historian, and you are not. And because you seem to think you can challenge this, then it's obvious to me that it is you who are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.

You display this effect constantly, by insisting that your fabricated history can even exist in the same room with the works and opinions of professional, qualified and highly respected historians.

You have expressed your bias against the Christian religion so often that it's obvious what your agenda here is, and it has nothing to do with actual history. You are so convinced of your beliefs regarding Jesus that you really are not unlike a theist at all.

And you reflect the Dunning Kruger effect in abundance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 10:41 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 10:46 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 04:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You were asked for evidence of a claim, and you respond with a cheap ad hominem and ( for the hundredth time, ) your "consensus of historians" line, rather than the evidence.

Obviously you are so out of the loop that you can't recognize what his agenda actually is.

Firstly, this thread is now over 180 pages long, and within it we have gone through all the available evidence concerning Jesus of Nazareth. And this guy has been coming here reading this entire thread and then says, "What evidence?"

His agenda is to absolutely IGNORE all available evidence as if it doesn't exist, and/or give the impression he is disputing it without ever providing evidence to support his dispute, or by providing a point of view that is so unlikely as to be dismissed.

And then he goes away proclaiming how he won an argument he didn't even participate in, only to come back a few pages later and do it all again.

And that's why I called him out as being a "fucking retard" who doesn't even deserve the benefit of the facade of political correctness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 10:50 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 11:13 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 07:54 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Good luck, Mark. I gave up after I quoted one of the experts he listed, saying that some of the experts are beginning to discuss the possibility that there was no Nazareth in the first half of the First Century, and he continued to use that "consensus of the historians" line anyway.

I guess he feels that if he asserts it forcefully and emotionally enough, it will overcome the fact that (as I have repeatedly pointed out) the experts do not agree entirely on this point, and that the evidence he has cited still does not definitively point to an early FC town (only that it admits to the possibility, which is what you see when you read their reports rather than the public-consumption versions), let alone the other things he is asserting, but that it must be inferred from the speed at which it is presumed, by the experts he is quoting, that a town can be built up under normal circumstances (ignoring the abnormal circumstances of the single greatest event of that century in that region happening right about the time the city shows up in the record).

Despite all the protestations about being interested only in the history, and in intellectual honesty, I have seen little in the way of that other than appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks against our character, intelligence, etc.

How is it that you cannot figure out that although Carrier says a possibility exists, that he still maintains that Nazareth existed in the 1st century?

Hell, even I have said a possibility exists, but that doesn't mean it's likely.

Have you gotten so desperate with this topic that you are pulling at straws? Have you even considered what your position actually says?

1. A historian says it's possible, but unlikely, so you hang onto the 'possible' and promote it as a possibility worthy of some very serious consideration.
2. A consensus of historians agree, and you doubt them.
3. A consensus of archeologists agree, and you doubt them.
4. In our discussions, we showed that even according to your position, Nazareth would have had to exist with the name of Nazareth 3.5 decades after Jesus, and yet you still doubt.

I think I was mistaken when I said you were grasping at straws, because the reality is that you are grasping into thin air.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 12:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 05:30 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

Maybe not, but Sunni and Shia Muslims do; and just a few hundred years ago, different sects of Christians were murdering each other wholesale (the Thirty Years War). In fact, you only have to go back a few decades to "the troubles" in Northern Ireland. That was partly political, but it was also partly Catholic vs. Protestant.

I have to confess that I have no idea whether different Jewish sects persecuted each other in the first century, but I don't find the idea totally implausible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 12:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 12:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 05:30 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

Maybe not, but Sunni and Shia Muslims do; and just a few hundred years ago, different sects of Christians were murdering each other wholesale (the Thirty Years War). In fact, you only have to go back a few decades to "the troubles" in Northern Ireland. That was partly political, but it was also partly Catholic vs. Protestant.

I have to confess that I have no idea whether different Jewish sects persecuted each other in the first century, but I don't find the idea totally implausible.

If this sect of the Nazarene were small at the time, and they had been portrayed by the Pharisee as being a threat to the security of the Jewish people, then surely they would be attacked.

One thing that people need to consider as being a real possibility here is that Jesus started the Nazarene sect, so it could have indeed been very small indeed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 01:21 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 10:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  How is it that you cannot figure out that although Carrier says a possibility exists, that he still maintains that Nazareth existed in the 1st century?

Hell, even I have said a possibility exists, but that doesn't mean it's likely.

Have you gotten so desperate with this topic that you are pulling at straws? Have you even considered what your position actually says?

1. A historian says it's possible, but unlikely, so you hang onto the 'possible' and promote it as a possibility worthy of some very serious consideration.
2. A consensus of historians agree, and you doubt them.
3. A consensus of archeologists agree, and you doubt them.
4. In our discussions, we showed that even according to your position, Nazareth would have had to exist with the name of Nazareth 3.5 decades after Jesus, and yet you still doubt.

I think I was mistaken when I said you were grasping at straws, because the reality is that you are grasping into thin air.

No, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Carrier states his reason for concluding that it exists, based upon what he sees as the low likelihood that a city could be built that quickly, when it appears in the record. I disagree, and have explained why this is so.

Carrier also points out that it has been traditional to accept it as real, but it is increasingly being discussed (among your experts) that there's no actual proof of a first-half-of-first-century Nazareth, and it's possible it wasn't there at all.

The archaeologists all only state "first century", which is something I would also say, since I concur that it existed by 70 CE. You keep pointing to that statement and trying to expand this term to mean "throughout the first century", which is not necessarily the case.

You continue to overstate the degree of certainty within the community, even though an actual reading of the findings of those archaeologists and historians reveals that they only tentatively accept that proposition you seem to find so certain.

This level of dishonesty is astounding. You really must stop misrepresenting what the experts are actually claiming, here. It is beneath you. Or at least it should be.

Edit to Add: I also happen to have no issue with the findings of the archaeologists, only the conclusions drawn from their findings, which the actual findings support as a possibility but not as an inescapable conclusion. I continue to argue the point largely because it pisses me off when you take what is actually known and try to expand it into a proof (which, again, it is not), then try to belittle me for accepting only what has actually been proven.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
31-07-2016, 01:38 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 02:36 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 01:18 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 10:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  How is it that you cannot figure out that although Carrier says a possibility exists, that he still maintains that Nazareth existed in the 1st century?

Hell, even I have said a possibility exists, but that doesn't mean it's likely.

Have you gotten so desperate with this topic that you are pulling at straws? Have you even considered what your position actually says?

1. A historian says it's possible, but unlikely, so you hang onto the 'possible' and promote it as a possibility worthy of some very serious consideration.
2. A consensus of historians agree, and you doubt them.
3. A consensus of archeologists agree, and you doubt them.
4. In our discussions, we showed that even according to your position, Nazareth would have had to exist with the name of Nazareth 3.5 decades after Jesus, and yet you still doubt.

I think I was mistaken when I said you were grasping at straws, because the reality is that you are grasping into thin air.

No, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Carrier states his reason for concluding that it exists, based upon what he sees as the low likelihood that a city could be built that quickly, when it appears in the record. I disagree, and have explained why this is so.

Carrier also points out that it has been traditional to accept it as real, but it is increasingly being discussed (among your experts) that there's no actual proof of a first-half-of-first-century Nazareth, and it's possible it wasn't there at all.

The archaeologists all only state "first century", which is something I would also say, since I concur that it existed by 70 CE. You keep pointing to that statement and trying to expand this term to mean "throughout the first century", which is not necessarily the case.

You continue to overstate the degree of certainty within the community, even though an actual reading of the findings of those archaeologists and historians reveals that they only tentatively accept that proposition you seem to find so certain.

This level of dishonesty is astounding. You really must stop misrepresenting what the experts are actually claiming, here. It is beneath you. Or at least it should be.

Edit to Add: I also happen to have no issue with the findings of the archaeologists, only the conclusions drawn from their findings, which the actual findings support as a possibility but not as an inescapable conclusion. I continue to argue the point largely because it pisses me off when you take what is actually known and try to expand it into a proof (which, again, it is not), then try to belittle me for accepting only what has actually been proven.

My contention with you is specifically this:

ALL the historians and archeologists know about the assertion that Nazareth didn't exist (positive claim) in the 1st century. ALL the historians and archeologists agree that there is no absolutely irrefutable proof that Nazareth existed in the early first century. Now here is what you need to understand:

Despite the lack of conclusive proof, but due to all the rest of the evidence that is available, ALL the historians and archeologists connected to Nazareth agree that the likelihood of Nazareth existing in the early 1st century is very very high, and the likelihood that it didn't exist in the early part of the 1st century is so negligible as to be virtually moot.

Like I keep harping about here, NOTHING in ancient history can ever be 100% verified conclusively. It's impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 02:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
No matter how hard one tries to stuff a prophecy of 3 days and 3 nights in the grave to Friday afternoon to Sunday AM at dawn or so, it just doesn't fit? Were those who wrote the Gospels really that dumb that they thought one could get 3 days and 4 nights into a short week end? Whether or not the dude existed or not His claim to fame was dying for 3 days and 3 nights, and he didn't even stay dead the whole 3 days! Talk about a fail!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Born Again Pagan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: