Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 04:47 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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.

Perhaps "some of us" need to read a little closer?

Listed below are just the first two posts I randomly chose, and between them I can point out at least 15 bible quotes he uses to further his arguments:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1039676

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1039949

And if that isn't enough, Mark flatly admits to it here:

Quote:I admit I have cherry picked what Jesus may have said

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1039953

So I'm not sure what "some of us" are reading here, but I have spent a lifetime analyzing words, and I am trained to intensely view things.

It is what it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 05:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Not in an attempt to prove anything about any of this being true.

The gospels don't count anyway. I can pull out the quran to prove islam if you like.

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
31-07-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 05:03 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Not in an attempt to prove anything about any of this being true.

The gospels don't count anyway. I can pull out the quran to prove islam if you like.

The argument here is not to pull out the Bible and prove Christianity in the same fashion as your statement of pulling out the Qur'an to prove Islam.

This argument is all about determining history, not whether or not a religion is true or false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 05:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 02:15 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  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!

The Bible doesn't say three days, that is just ignorant misunderstanding by Christians who either lack reading comprehension or don't actually read the Bible.

1 Corinthians 15:3–7 "...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures"

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Matthew 28 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

Luke 24 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. 5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.

John 20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Crucified on Friday (first day), rises on Sunday (third day). Less than 48 hours.

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
31-07-2016, 06:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 02:15 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  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!

The Bible doesn't say three days, that is just ignorant misunderstanding by Christians who either lack reading comprehension or don't actually read the Bible.

1 Corinthians 15:3–7 "...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures"

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Matthew 28 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

Luke 24 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. 5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.

John 20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Crucified on Friday (first day), rises on Sunday (third day). Less than 48 hours.

But it was supposed to be connected to some prophecies that called for 3 days ad 3 nights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 06:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 06:03 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Bible doesn't say three days, that is just ignorant misunderstanding by Christians who either lack reading comprehension or don't actually read the Bible.

1 Corinthians 15:3–7 "...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures"

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Matthew 28 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

Luke 24 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. 5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.

John 20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Crucified on Friday (first day), rises on Sunday (third day). Less than 48 hours.

But it was supposed to be connected to some prophecies that called for 3 days ad 3 nights.

I will try to explain.

The Gospel records depict Jesus being crucified on the eve of the Passover, which is the day before the Passover.

When we examine more closely, we see that the Gospel's use the plural of of the word "sabbath" in both John and Luke. The reason is because there were two sabbaths. The Day of the passover would be considered a sabbath, and the following day would be a Saturday, and would also be a sabbath.

This indicates that Jesus was crucified on a Thursday, as the day of the Passover would be on a Friday, and a regular sabbath would be on a Saturday.

Mary shows up at the tomb on a sabbath, but the gospels day it was still dark, therefore the Saturday sabbath had not yet ended, Then, as the gospel says, when it was light, the sabbath would end and Mary would be able to do the works of anointing Jesus for his death. This would be on a Sunday, the first day of the week.

So we have Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Also, about 3 days would have passed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 07:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
You're still doing it! After reading all of these,

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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/

Except that Ehrman did a bad job, here. He mentions that it "dates to the time of Jesus", but it does not. It dates to a range that at its low end includes the time of Jesus, if you actually read Yardena Alexandre's report. The only other piece of evidence Ehrman mentions is the coins from just prior to/during the time of Jesus, which are not evidence that pins the site to a specific date... I have coins in my pocket right now that date from the 1970s... but it's 2016.

Ehrman does, however, do an amazing job of trying to validate Dark's work by throwing shade on "lack of qualifications", even though that is not a standard held to when assessing well-documented work by people who confirm the presuppositions in that field of study, as Mark has already shown you in previous posts. Salm has tried repeatedly to get Dark to address the issues, rather than simply attack his lack of qualifications, and he will not do so.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Yes, Ehrman mentions this, too. But he points out that we see wealthy tombs are from after/around the 70 CE date, which validates my hypothesis that people were emigrating there in the wake of the destruction of other cities... and the relative absence of "poor person" tombs Ehrman excuses as being irrelevant because they weren't buried in a way that was preserved. It's hand-waving to excuse the absence of the evidence.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Cool! It's what I've been saying all along. Thanks!


(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/bethnaz/

A blog by this guy:

"My name is Eric Hatfield (aka unkleE) and I live in Sydney, Australia. I have worked in environment protection, studied and read widely in theology, New Testament history, philosophy and some areas of science (cosmology, DNA and neuroscience), and have a keen interest in ethics and beliefs in our 21st century culture. I believe in God, try to follow the way of Jesus, and prefer to connect with people of different beliefs rather than argue with them."

Really?!? You do know that repeating the same two peoples' arguments a whole bunch of times doesn't turn it into a more legitimate argument, right?

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Stephan Pfann - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report

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

You made me re-read (yes, I had already read it) a 78 page report only to find yet again that it repeatedly states exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that the pottery dates to a period with a range of possible dates, and that this range only just barely covers the time Jesus was alleged to be growing up there, at the very low end?

The closest thing it says to evidence of earlier habitation is this:

The surface finds include examples at either extreme of the chronological
range of our site. A single potsherd of an Early Bronze Age III platter (Fig.
37:1), with a thickened, incurved rim, represents the earliest find at the
Nazareth Farm. It is finished with a typical burnished net pattern on its
interior surface. To date, no Early Bronze occupation has been recognized
and this is the only artifact recovered from this period at the site.


(Emphasis mine.) So, like my 1970s coins, they had an artifact from earlier, probably some sort of heirloom, which was out-of-date with the main material found there, from the first-to-third-century-C.E. period.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yehudah Rapuano - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002):Final Report

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

This is the same thing. They are co-authors on the same paper, which still says nothing that supports your contention.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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/

All this does is re-quote Bart Ehrman. This seems to be a theme with you and your "sources".

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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."

Well, technically, Jesus would have been dead by 34 C.E., but I get what you're saying. And it's neat that it dates to "the middle of the 1st century", since that's what I've been fucking saying all along.

At some point, are you planning to present actual evidence that we're wrong, or are you going to just keep repeating stuff I've already read like there'll be something else in it, next time?

"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
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
31-07-2016, 07:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Cue "all the experts agree" line in 3... 2... 1...

"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, 07:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 06:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 06:03 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  But it was supposed to be connected to some prophecies that called for 3 days ad 3 nights.

I will try to explain.

The Gospel records depict Jesus being crucified on the eve of the Passover, which is the day before the Passover.

When we examine more closely, we see that the Gospel's use the plural of of the word "sabbath" in both John and Luke. The reason is because there were two sabbaths. The Day of the passover would be considered a sabbath, and the following day would be a Saturday, and would also be a sabbath.

This indicates that Jesus was crucified on a Thursday, as the day of the Passover would be on a Friday, and a regular sabbath would be on a Saturday.

Mary shows up at the tomb on a sabbath, but the gospels day it was still dark, therefore the Saturday sabbath had not yet ended, Then, as the gospel says, when it was light, the sabbath would end and Mary would be able to do the works of anointing Jesus for his death. This would be on a Sunday, the first day of the week.

So we have Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Also, about 3 days would have passed.

But that is not what the Gospels say. You're making that up. Drinking Beverage

You've provided an elaborate fiction to explain an ignorant misunderstanding of plain language.

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
31-07-2016, 07:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 06:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I will try to explain.

The Gospel records depict Jesus being crucified on the eve of the Passover, which is the day before the Passover.

When we examine more closely, we see that the Gospel's use the plural of of the word "sabbath" in both John and Luke. The reason is because there were two sabbaths. The Day of the passover would be considered a sabbath, and the following day would be a Saturday, and would also be a sabbath.

This indicates that Jesus was crucified on a Thursday, as the day of the Passover would be on a Friday, and a regular sabbath would be on a Saturday.

Mary shows up at the tomb on a sabbath, but the gospels day it was still dark, therefore the Saturday sabbath had not yet ended, Then, as the gospel says, when it was light, the sabbath would end and Mary would be able to do the works of anointing Jesus for his death. This would be on a Sunday, the first day of the week.

So we have Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Also, about 3 days would have passed.

But that is not what the Gospels say. You're making that up. Drinking Beverage

You've provided an elaborate fiction to explain an ignorant misunderstanding of plain language.

Elaborate fiction? Hardly.

This information is actually in the gospel records.

There are 7 high sabbaths

On the Jewish calendar the 15 and 21 Nisan are the first and last day of the Feast of Unleavend Bread.

The Day of Pentecost or "Shavout" is 50 days (7 X7 days after the first fruit feast).

The Feast of the Trumpet 1 Tishri,

The Day of Atonement 10 Tishri

The 15 and 22 of Tishri for the Feast of the Ingathering.

So, with the eve of the Passover being a Thursday, then that Friday was a high sabbath. The following Saturday would be a regular Sabbath.

Now we look at John:

Joh_19:31 Then the Jews, because it was Preparation, begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the sabbath. For that sabbath was a high day.

Both Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 both show the use of the plural "sabbaths," and both indicate more than one.

Why is this such a big deal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: