Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2016, 05:53 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 09:31 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 06:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 04:33 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  By the way dipstick....if your jesus was so famous that people were coming from all over and gathering in throngs someone would have noticed...like Philo, who was in the area within 5-6 years....


There you go again repeating the same false claim you were called out on previously. Philo was not in Jerusalem with 5-6 years within Jesus's death, at least there's nothing in our available sources regarding Philo that supports your claim that he was.

You made that up, or likely heard someone else claim it, but didn't bother verifying the accuracy of it, because you clearly didn't get that from reading Philo, or Josephus on Philo.

So I'm calling you out on this again, either acknowledge you were mistaken in this claim of yours, or cite the portion of Philo's writing that supports him being in Jerusalem within that 4-5 year range of Jesus's death.

I'll wait your response, or your non-response as a result of being too busy.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1007679

Here you go YET AGAIN:

It is apparent you have never studied the works of Philo. I am too busy today to educate you at length. Philo asserted there were three "centers" of his world; Jerusalem, Greece and Alexandria (Borgen, 1997). Philo is an important source for knowledge in reference to the Jewish Diaspora, Judea, and knowledge of Jerusalem.

Jesus was nailed to a piece of wood 33 CE. Philo led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39 CE. Philo clearly was in the area around the time of jesus's execution.

EDIT: Now let's take a minute and reflect....a hybrid god is executed 33CE, the earth goes dark for three hours midday, the earth shakes, zombies burst our of fucking tombs and go to town to appear amongst the townfolk....and you believe if that ridiculous tale actually happened, that philo would not have heard of it when he was there 6 years later!?!? truly? Not one literate fellow thought wow, that was worthy of writing down...or shit, retelling to others...yet Philo, an advent recorder of events, with a shine for christians, who wrote the fucking LOGOS didnt mention it?

Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).

One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 CE).

Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.

Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.

It would be a complete fallacy to presume that this historian would have somehow not heard of these amazing events. Someone causing such a stir that drew "throngs of people from all over" to hear him speak would surely have been noteworthy. A zombie invasion and the earth going dark would get someone's attention one would think. Something like that happening would have sent shockwaves through the area. Yet Philo is silent. One of my books in my private library is referenced below. Perhaps you should start reading and researching about Philo so you can make an informed assertion. I understand emotion and passion making one open one's mouth as a physical expression of neurological flatulence, but you would earn more credibility if your posits had some substance...perhaps some portion of historical fact to base them on...just a thought. Carry on about how Philo would have not had cause to write of jesus and was never in the area around the time of his magic and subsequent death. Here, I will give you a shovel so you can continue digging the hole for yourself...

Reference:
Borgen, P. (1997). Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. New York: Brill.

(23-06-2016 07:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 07:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I already said I made a mistake.

You did, Goodwithoutgod didn't, and repeated the same nonsense here again. And it was my post calling him out on this, that you earlier replied to.

Rolleyes

You really are ineducable you know that?

33 CE nailed to the cross, massive global magic occurs....and Philo in town 6 years later, who writes constantly about theological and historical events mentions it NOT.

The point is he was always in the area, attached to Jerusalem via multiple ways as I broke down for you, and was in town within 6 years of christ's death. If some charimatic fellow was "drawing throngs of people from all over" and was performing miracles like Benny Hinn on a world tour, and then upon his execution the world went dark midday, and zombies burst out of their graves, Philo would have heard about it, shit everyone in the region should have heard about it.... oh wait, didn't they EXPERIENCE it? The world did supposedly go dark afterall from 3-6pm Consider Not only did he not experience it, hear about it, but when he was in town 6 short years later no one bothered to share this epic global event with Philo...almost as if it didn't happen...

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
23-06-2016, 06:07 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 09:37 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
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.

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.

Perhaps you should learn more about history. Tacitus wasn't even born yet until 31 years AFTER jesus's death.Let's look at some facts:

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

So yes, he took at lot of things at face value it seems as he was (A) not an eyewitness, (B) not born yet until 3 decades later. Thus he wrote his tales based on urban legend...stories...people love to tell stories...the best ones get retold, and exaggerated some more. Story telling was a popular form of entertainment back then. Throw a little magic in it, sprinkle in some zombies and resurrected hero-godling and you have quite the tale!

Your ineptitude and lack of knowledge of the historicity of jesus is only over-ridden by your epic level of ignorance and gullibility...

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
23-06-2016, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 06:34 PM by Tomasia.)
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 06:07 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Perhaps you should learn more about history. Tacitus wasn't even born yet until 31 years AFTER jesus's death.Let's look at some facts:

I guess this is a common disease among atheists here, where they attempt to raise points in regards to claims I never made. Such as Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus. So save it.


Quote:You ineptitude and lack of knowledge of the historicity of jesus is only over-ridden by your epic level of ignorance and gullibility...

My ineptitude and lack of knowledge? Your the guy who made up a claim about Philo being in Jerusalem around the time of Jesus's death, and have been called out on it twice, this will be the third time. Previously you stated your lack of response was because you were too busy, yet you had time for this post, but not the time to take accountability for passing along a false claim?

At least Bucky was able to confess that he was wrong in this, while you and rocketsurgeon have yet to take ownership of this.

Quote:Jesus was nailed to a piece of wood 33 CE. Philo led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39 CE. Philo clearly was in the area around the time of jesus's execution.

Sure if several hundred miles from Jerusalem can be interpreted as near the area, lol.

We have Philo's embassy to Gaius, I even reread it in our previous conversation about this. Please cite the portion of where Philo claims he was in the Jerusalem area at the time. Can't find it huh? Yea that's what I though.





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, 06:32 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 06:42 PM by SitaSky.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 06:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I guess this is a common disease among atheists here, where they attempt to raise points in regards to claims I never made. Such as Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus. So save it.

Hey Tomato! I asked you a question, you are ignoring it. I'll ask it again:

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 Krishna?

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SitaSky's post
23-06-2016, 06:46 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 06:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I guess this is a common disease among atheists here, where they attempt to raise points in regards to claims I never made. Such as Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus. So save it.

Tomasia. I often have time for you. Please do not follow Heywood's example.

In fact, it was not until the later centuries that Romans knew anything of xianity at all. The sect was tiny. The story of Nero persecuting them has no archeological evidence to back it. It is likely a copyist fooled with Tacitus. (Pronounced TAKITUS) The C in Latin always being hard.

Here is a letter and a response showing this ignorance at a later date during the reign of Trajan. You may find it interesting.

I also want you to note that these people were given 3 chances. Only the most fanatical went to their executions.

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Circa 111-113 AD.

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
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
23-06-2016, 06:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 06:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sure if several hundred miles from Jerusalem can be interpreted as near the area,

As compared to Tacitus? Born decades after the supposed crucifixion? Writing decades after that?

Your hypocrisy is both amazing and contemptible.


(23-06-2016 06:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I guess this is a common disease among atheists here, where they attempt to raise points in regards to claims I never made. Such as Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus. So save it.

You cited Tacitus and Josephus as equivalent sources.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
23-06-2016, 06:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 02:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No they're sources. They're not firsthand sources, but sources nonetheless

Unreliable sources.

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

Not if they're mentally ill, unreliable, or lying. YOU have no clue whether they are reliable.

Quote:So go ahead squirm a little more for me.
[quote]

You are incapable of causing that. You can barley write a sentence in correct English.

[quote]
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.

No one is getting a beating from the ignorant likes of you, you arrogant bastard. You know someone KNOWS they're in trouble when (like COTW) they start with the arrogant boasting.

So you don't believe the gospels. Good to know. Thumbsup

You have YET to take on ONE of the arguments of Price or Carrier. All you can do is say we are polluted. You are so fucking lame.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-06-2016, 07:00 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 06:32 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 06:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I guess this is a common disease among atheists here, where they attempt to raise points in regards to claims I never made. Such as Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus. So save it.

Hey Tomato! I asked you question, you are ignoring it. I'll ask it again:

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 Krishna?


Judging that I made no claims here for the miracles of Jesus, or his divinity, and have stated that I have no problem with a Jesus who was lunatic, that didn't perform a single miracle, there's not any particular points of yours relevant to address, and are perhaps better reserved for those who actually make and desire to defend such claims.


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, 07:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 07:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 06:32 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Hey Tomato! I asked you question, you are ignoring it. I'll ask it again:

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 Krishna?


Judging that I made no claims here for the miracles of Jesus, or his divinity, and have stated that I have no problem with a Jesus who was lunatic, that didn't perform a single miracle, there's not any particular points of yours relevant to address, and are perhaps better reserved for those who actually make and desire to defend such claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you don't believe that Jesus Christ was a messiah sent to Earth as God in mortal form to die for our sins? So, when someone says there are no contemporary historical accounts for this person, only third hand accounts written decades after he supposedly died so no way to prove he ever lived...that's totally ok with you? Or do you think Jesus did exist based on these flimsy texts you have been defending? Because if that is the case than you would also have to agree that Lord Krishna existed, maybe he wasn't magical but he did live, is that correct?

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SitaSky's post
23-06-2016, 07:21 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 10:37 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 02:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No they're sources. They're not firsthand sources, but sources nonetheless
A 3rd hand retelling, devoid of demonstrable facts or any evidence, is hearsay and nothing more.

When you are not feeling well do you talk to a doctor or do you talk to a person who knows a person who heard of a doctor for medical advice? What you consider "good enough" on the topic of Jesus Historicity would not be good enough in any other area of your life. You are just, typically, so desperate for anything legitimate to cling to that you will utterly ignore what little critical thinking you have.

The problems with the Tacitus accounts are many, well documented and still without a response from you above bitching and crying about atheists.

Of the many things damning to your position the worst is that Christian historians and leaders who were known to use Tacitus fail to list this passage while specifically looking through pagan sources for references for Christ.

The fact that you don't want to apply proper skepticism and critical thinking to this is not surprising. No christian with access to Tacitus, who were specifically looking for things exactly like this, makes any mention of it until the fucking 15th century, to the fact that at one point the only copy of the book was made centuries after its writing BY Christians, the fact that the period that would specifically deal with Christ if he had been a historical figure has been deliberately removed. These and many other reasons I can not with any degree of intellectual honesty, rationality consider this Christian penned copy, centuries after the fact, retelling of a a 3rd hand account which is not referenced by a single contemporary author or historian as anything other than hearsay if not an outright deception.
The fact that you can only speaks to your gullibility, your low standards, and your need for any, ANY, bit of flotsam to cling onto to save your ever so precious delusions.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: