Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:But in the warped mind of individuals here factors like this don't support the existence of Jesus.

So anyone who does buy into the historicity bullshit, has a "warped" mind.
I see.
First the cause was we were "polluted".
Now it's "warped".
So Carrier and Price have "warped" minds.

You are REALLY fucking pathetic, Tommy Boy.

Maybe *Reasonable Faith* would be a better place for you to play.
Facepalm

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, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 01:28 PM by Tomasia.)
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 12:04 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 11:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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!"


To quote Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....

Tacitus doesn't claim that he's stating that Christians believed he was crucified under Pilate. In fact he's stating it as a historical fact. That Jesus was killed under Pilate.

Perhaps you wanna suggest that Tacitus just took what the Christians where saying about Jesus at face value, but that seems doubtful. But does seem to be the common tactic here, complain about a lack of external non-Christian sources, when presented with non-Christian sources, find some someway to cast doubts on these sources, with a series of weak arguments.

"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, 01:47 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 12:04 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  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!"


To quote Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....

Tacitus doesn't claim that he's stating that Christians believed he was crucified under Pilate. In fact he's stating it as a historical fact. That Jesus was killed under Pilate. We can trust what he has to write about early Christianity but not waht

Perhaps you wanna suggest that Tacitus just took what the Christians where saying about Jesus at face value, but that seems doubtful. But does seem to be the common tactic here, complain about a lack of external non-Christian sources, when presented with non-Christian sources, find some someway to cast doubts on these sources, with a series of weak arguments.

Was Tacitus there? Did he see Jesus get crucified with his own eyes or speak to anyone who was there? Was anyone who could've been there even alive at this point in time? We can trust what he has to write about early Christianity but not what what he has to say about Christ being executed by Pilate since he wasn't there, he's only relaying the information he knows to be true about Christians. I don't see any info from Tacitus stating he was crucified, than came back to life, a lot of people saw this happen and that it's accepted that he was a magic god-man, his divinity is still in question here.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 01:57 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 12:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have nothing of the sort. Josephus did not see James die.

Haha, I love watching a weasel squirm. You complain about not having non-Christian corroborating sources. Then when citing Josephus, and Tacitus you complain about them not seeing these events first hand, of Josephus not being there when James died.

Then when you have first hand accounts of someone who met his brother and disciples, who saw them. You complain about it being a Christian source.

You're a pathetic fool, lol. How desperate can you get?

Quote: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.

You keep harping on and on about these 500 dead people, as if I at some point claimed 500 dead people were walking around Jerusalem. I didn't. So direct your question to someone who made that claim, not me.

Quote:So.... all in all, it appears that the fake macho nonsense of "running people out of town"

Run them out or keep smacking the shit out of them until they squeal.






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, 02:13 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 01:47 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To quote Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....

Tacitus doesn't claim that he's stating that Christians believed he was crucified under Pilate. In fact he's stating it as a historical fact. That Jesus was killed under Pilate. We can trust what he has to write about early Christianity but not waht

Perhaps you wanna suggest that Tacitus just took what the Christians where saying about Jesus at face value, but that seems doubtful. But does seem to be the common tactic here, complain about a lack of external non-Christian sources, when presented with non-Christian sources, find some someway to cast doubts on these sources, with a series of weak arguments.

Was Tacitus there? Did he see Jesus get crucified with his own eyes or speak to anyone who was there? Was anyone who could've been there even alive at this point in time? We can trust what he has to write about early Christianity but not what what he has to say about Christ being executed by Pilate since he wasn't there, he's only relaying the information he knows to be true about Christians. I don't see any info from Tacitus stating he was crucified, than came back to life, a lot of people saw this happen and that it's accepted that he was a magic god-man, his divinity is still in question here.


Let's write how this works.

Complain about a lack of corroborating non-Christian sources.

When non-Christian sources are provided, complain about them not being there to observe the events they write of first hand.

When first-hand accounts are provided of an individual who met his brother and disciples complain about it being a Christian source, suggest he was lying.

If Josephus claimed to have been there, you likely would accuse him or lying, of it being a Christian interpolation.

Anything antithetical to ones position, needs to be explained away, not because it's the rational thing to do, but because of the inconveniences they create for a particular narrative.





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, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 02:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 01:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Haha, I love watching a weasel squirm. You complain about not having non-Christian corroborating sources. Then when citing Josephus, and Tacitus you complain about them not seeing these events first hand, of Josephus not being there when James died.

You keep telling yourself that. No one buys your garbage.
Tacitus was at least 3rd hand. Josephus was also. They are not "sources" and you cannot demonstrate they are in any way reliable. There is no "firsthand account" of someone who met his brother. It's a CLAIM. It's uncorroborated.

Quote:You're a pathetic fool, lol. How desperate can you get?

Lovely . That's how a Christian shares his faith ? Warped and polluted.
You're a fucking hypocrite.

Quote:You keep harping on and on about these 500 dead people, as if I at some point claimed 500 dead people were walking around Jerusalem. I didn't. So direct your question to someone who made that claim, not me.

It's IN THE GOSPEL of Matthew. YOU claimed this morning they were "sources". You're just a liar. How is it you pick and chose what to accept in your Jebus story, and what to leave out as preposterous ?

Quote:Run them out or keep smacking the shit out of them until they squeal.

No one's doing anything even remotely like that , you abusive fool.
When do you plan on started to do that ? Before, or after you get an education in your cult and the English language ?

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, 02:30 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 02:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You keep telling yourself that. No one buys your garbage.
Tacitus was at least 3rd hand. Josephus was also. They are not "sources" and you cannot demonstrate they are in any way reliable.

No they're sources. They're not firsthand sources, but sources nonetheless

Quote:There is no "firsthand account" of someone who met his brother. It's a CLAIM. It's uncorroborated.

Not if it's an account based on one's personal experience it's a first hand account.

http://macmillanmh.com/ccssreading/imagi..._2_2d.html

So go ahead squirm a little more for me.

Quote:It's IN THE GOSPEL of Matthew. YOU claimed this morning they were "sources". You're just a liar.

Have I at any point claimed that 500 dead people walked the streets of Jerusalem? No I didn't. So reserve your questions to someone who made that claim, because I never did. I don't argue for claims that I didn't make, regardless of how badly you want me too so you can avoid the beating you've been getting.





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, 02:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 02:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Anything antithetical to ones position, needs to be explained away, not because it's the rational thing to do, but because of the inconveniences they create for a particular narrative.

You are the one who is dismissing anything that is counter to your beliefs, I can admit that perhaps there was a man named Jesus who was executed by Pilate but was this man the son of a God? No, he wasn't and Tacitus doesn't assert that, he only says that the early Christians worshiped this man, that's it. That doesn't prove anything and like I said anyone who could've been there was long dead at that point.

There are no mentions of miracles like the virgin birth or the resurrection in any historical texts so the only thing you are proving is that Jesus was just a man, that's it, a very spiritual man who was executed...maybe. Tacitus can't even be totally sure. Do you really think any mention of a religious belief in any historical writing confirms that belief? That doesn't make any sense.

For example, there are non-Vedic historical accounts for Lord Krishna who apparently lived in India around 5,000 years ago as the mortal embodiment of the protector God Vishnu, do you believe he performed miracles and was a demi-god because he is mentioned in non-religious texts? If you are so quick to believe the second hand and third hand accounts from other writers to corroborate your Bible stories on the existence of Jesus than why not accept the divinity of Krisha?

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
23-06-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 12:04 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  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!"

It was early in the 2nd century.

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
23-06-2016, 05:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 05:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 12:04 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  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!"

It was early in the 2nd century.

Thank you for the correction. Thumbsup

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: