Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2016, 02:44 PM
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.

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 googled 3 of them, in relation to Nazareth, and couldn't find any definitive statements about the existence of Nazareth in the first century.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 03:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 11:17 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

"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."

I asked you to prove Jesus followers thought he'd risen from the dead without using the gospels and you respond with quotes from the gospelsFacepalm How can the historian in you take these ramblings at face value? Surely you are not that credulous?

I'll ask you again… show me some good quality evidence that Jesus' original followers thought he had risen from the dead.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 03:29 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 11:17 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

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

Prove it. Your "consensus of historians" line will not do.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 03:28 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 11:17 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

The gospels are fiction. The dating of Clement is uncertain, Paul and "Peter" were referring to a Christ, not your Jesus.

There are no writings from the original family or disciples of Jesus that claim he rose from the dead.

Your "7" is zero. Try again.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 03:34 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 12:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 12:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.


"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."

They weren't small, they numbered about 8000, they lived successfully in Jerusalem for 30 years and more, next to Pharisees. Jesus did not found this cult. They were around for hundreds of years before his time. Do some research...don't just make stuff up.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 03:48 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 02:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(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.

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 googled 3 of them, in relation to Nazareth, and couldn't find any definitive statements about the existence of Nazareth in the first century.

I can understand why you wouldn't put much effort into it, so I will excuse your lack of effort.

Meanwhile, I merely took the top 3, and the bottom 3 on the list and got the following results in about 5 minutes.

Bart Ehrman - Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources.

http://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/

Yardena Alexandre - The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/d...very-jesus

Ken Dark - In 2012, archaeologist Ken Dark, Associate Professor at Reading University, announced he had found remains of an exceptionally well-preserved domestic building, probably a ‘courtyard house’ dating from about the middle of the first century. The house later went out of use, and several tombs were constructed on the site, probably late in the first century.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/bethnaz/

Stephan Pfann - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report

http://www.uhl.ac/files/8613/3552/5109/N...Report.pdf


Yehudah Rapuano - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002):Final Report

http://www.uhl.ac/files/8613/3552/5109/N...Report.pdf


Dr. Justin Bass - Archaeological discoveries have definitively proven that Nazareth did, in fact, exist at the time of Jesus.

https://danielbwallace.com/2015/08/01/fa...ne-6-2015/

Cool

PS: by the way, the Ken Dark entry above details a 2nd House discovery in Nazareth dating to at least the middle of the 1st century.

Now all we need to find is a sign post that says, "Welcome to Nazareth. The year is C.E. 34, and Jesus lived here."

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 03:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:"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."

I asked you to prove Jesus followers thought he'd risen from the dead without using the gospels and you respond with quotes from the gospelsFacepalm How can the historian in you take these ramblings at face value? Surely you are not that credulous?

Actually, you said no such thing. In fact, you didn't ask me to prove anything at all. The post I quoted is yours, and can be view HERE.

Quote:I'll ask you again… show me some good quality evidence that Jesus' original followers thought he had risen from the dead.

I consider what I showed you to be reasonably good evidence. I can't help it that you then make claims that don't exist, and then with the non-existent claims, you move the goal-posts.

Amazing.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 04:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 03:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 12:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.


"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."

They weren't small, they numbered about 8000, they lived successfully in Jerusalem for 30 years and more, next to Pharisees. Jesus did not found this cult. They were around for hundreds of years before his time. Do some research...don't just make stuff up.

And the historical evidence of this is where? Let's see who your sources actually are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 03:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:Not counting Josephus, we have 7 records of the resurrection story from the 1st century.

The gospels are fiction.

So you are using "fiction" and then passing it off as actual history when you use numerous gospel quotes in your book and when you use them in your debates with me?

If that is what you are doing, then would it be correct to say that your book is based upon fictitious reports from the Gospel record?

And wouldn't that then qualify your book as a work of fiction?

Big Grin

Quote:The dating of Clement is uncertain

The dating of everything in the ancient world is uncertain, but if you are willing to accept the scholarly consensus on dating of other ancient documents, why then do you doubt their qualifications to correctly approximate the dating of Clement when the document is used against your argument?

This is why I view your arguments as being rife with intellectual dishonesty, whether intentional or not intentional. Whenever something works for you, it must be authentic. But if we take the very same thing and make it work against you, suddenly it isn't authentic.

That is not what a serious historian does, nor is it how one should behave. It's disgusting.

Quote: Paul and "Peter" were referring to a Christ, not your Jesus.

According to whom, then? That work of fiction you wrote?

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 04:47 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Mark does not, and has not, used the gospels as evidence. Some of us are reading this nonsense.

Meanwhile in Nazareth a horse race plays out.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: