Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 12:38 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 12:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 11:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you can provide evidence to suggest that Paul got his "Jesus" from somewhere else?

You have to be careful with a phrase like "Jesus of the Gospels". Assuming that Jesus was a real person, I'm pretty sure that "Jesus of the Gospels" is a highly embellished exaggeration of that real person. To say that Paul's Jesus was the "Jesus of the Gospels" is like saying that an 1870 biographer of Abraham Lincoln got his Abraham Lincoln from "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter". Nonsense -- it didn't exist yet, and neither did the Gospels when Paul was writing. We have covered this before. Paul and the Gospels may have based their Jesus on the same historical person, but Paul didn't get Jesus from the Gospels. They weren't written yet.

And perhaps that is true. However, according to Paul there were in fact Gospels floating around during his time. He alludes to them frequently.

I will keep that in mind. Mind you, I use the term with the caveat that the historical Jesus is who's life was embellished in the Gospels.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 12:38 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 12:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You have to be careful with a phrase like "Jesus of the Gospels". Assuming that Jesus was a real person, I'm pretty sure that "Jesus of the Gospels" is a highly embellished exaggeration of that real person. To say that Paul's Jesus was the "Jesus of the Gospels" is like saying that an 1870 biographer of Abraham Lincoln got his Abraham Lincoln from "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter". Nonsense -- it didn't exist yet, and neither did the Gospels when Paul was writing. We have covered this before. Paul and the Gospels may have based their Jesus on the same historical person, but Paul didn't get Jesus from the Gospels. They weren't written yet.

And perhaps that is true. However, according to Paul there were in fact Gospels floating around during his time. He alludes to them frequently.

I will keep that in mind. Mind you, I use the term with the caveat that the historical Jesus is who's life was embellished in the Gospels.

What I see Paul referring to frequently is the "Gospel" (singular), meaning "good news" or teaching. I don't think he's referring to a written Gospel in the same sense as those that appear in the Bible. In any case, this is getting a bit nitpicky. I will concede that Paul and the 4 canonical gospels probably all based their Jesus on one and the same historical person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-08-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 12:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 12:38 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And perhaps that is true. However, according to Paul there were in fact Gospels floating around during his time. He alludes to them frequently.

I will keep that in mind. Mind you, I use the term with the caveat that the historical Jesus is who's life was embellished in the Gospels.

What I see Paul referring to frequently is the "Gospel" (singular), meaning "good news" or teaching. I don't think he's referring to a written Gospel in the same sense as those that appear in the Bible. In any case, this is getting a bit nitpicky. I will concede that Paul and the 4 canonical gospels probably all based their Jesus on one and the same historical person.

It may true that the language does not specifically say that the Gospels floating around were written, but also it doesn't say they weren't either. But let me show you a couple things ...

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

Other stuff ...

2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 01:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 12:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What I see Paul referring to frequently is the "Gospel" (singular), meaning "good news" or teaching. I don't think he's referring to a written Gospel in the same sense as those that appear in the Bible. In any case, this is getting a bit nitpicky. I will concede that Paul and the 4 canonical gospels probably all based their Jesus on one and the same historical person.

It may true that the language does not specifically say that the Gospels floating around were written, but also it doesn't say they weren't either. But let me show you a couple things ...

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

Other stuff ...

2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,

I'm not sure that the Galatians passage isn't referring to a previous writing of Paul himself -- he wrote more letters than the ones preserved in the bible. And anywhere where it says "another gospel", I think he's just referring to a rival teaching.

However, I'm making some assumptions there. I don't claim to know anything for certain. There may have been other documents in circulation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 01:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  It may true that the language does not specifically say that the Gospels floating around were written, but also it doesn't say they weren't either. But let me show you a couple things ...

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

Other stuff ...

2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,

Except that's only one translation of Galatians 3:1, which you carefully selected (obviously). Young's Literal Translation says, in verses 1-5:

O thoughtless Galatians, who did bewitch you, not to obey the truth -- before whose eyes Jesus Christ was described before among you crucified? This only do I wish to learn from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith? So thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? So many things did ye suffer in vain! if, indeed, even in vain. He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you -- by works of law or by the hearing of faith [is it]?

While the NASB says:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

If you read it in context, it's clear he's describing an oral tradition and referring to "the Law", which is a reference to the Old Testament that he often makes.

Don't be disingenuous. Leave that to Paul.

"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
11-08-2016, 02:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:I'm pretty sure the only Mythicist here is Minimalist.

Indeed I am and proudly so.

The bible is a pile of propaganda put out by the winning side in a centuries long struggle to procure dominance over other religious groups and fuckheads like GU are obviously incapable of understanding anything political at all.

Xtians do not worship any historical figure and there could have been hundreds of Y'shuas bar Yosefs in Palestine. They worship the magic tricks that their fucking bullshit bible claims are true. For that, a real live human being is not needed.
Fuckheads like GU can't comprehend that, either.

The fact the jesus freaks cannot agree on
a) when the fucker was born,
b) when the fucker died,
c) was his ministry 1 year or 3 years,
d) did he bust up the temple at the beginning or end of his ministry,
e) who went to the tomb?
f) who did they see at the tomb?
g) what were his last words?

etc., etc, etc.,

The fact that all these loose ends exists is evidence that these bullshit stories were concocted at different times by different people for different audiences.
As such, there is no reason to assume that there is any more need for a historical person than there is for fucking Osiris.

And when the fucktards are asked for evidence they can come up with nothing except to refer to their fucking bible which is the cause of all of the problems noted above.

Produce evidence for you boy or go fuck off,GU.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
11-08-2016, 02:33 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 12:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 11:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Paul got his Jesus from Jewish Apocalyptic literature.

Right, now please produce this "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature which uses a variation of Jesus (Yeshua) and show me where:

1. He was crucified, as Paul says.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as Paul says.
3. He had 12 apostles, as Paul says.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as Paul says.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.
6. He had a brother named James, as Paul says.

Let's see this Jewish Apocalyptic literature with those elements included within it, Mr. Ball.

And then you will need to demonstrate with evidence how the Gospel writers the NT all speak of a Jesus as;

1. He was crucified, as the Gospels say.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as the Gospels say.
3. He had 12 apostles, as the Gospels say.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as the Gospels say.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as the Gospels say.
6. He has a brother named James, as the Gospels say.

Do you think these 4 Gospel writers were actually all Paul? Did they also use the same "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature as Paul did? Or are these comparisons all just some incredibly improbable coincidence?

What do you think, Mr. Ball?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

I don't need to follow your idiotic outline, and I don't *have* to do anything, you moron. The things you list have NOTHING to do with it, but thanks for proving you have NO CLUE what I'm even talking about. All the details you list could have easily been invented. You have not a shred of evidence any of them were actually true. I provided the paper where I PROVED that the "exaltation" (just as Ehrman says ... but my paper was written BEFORE his book), ("being raised up") is the same as the exaltation of Jewish heroes. You are SO totally ignorant of Jewish culture, and the times that you can't even begin to see it. I see you never really read Ehrman's last book. YOU on the other hand, have never ever even written ONE paper on anything. All you can do is parrot Fundamentalist bullshit. God are you stupid.

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
11-08-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 01:53 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 01:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  It may true that the language does not specifically say that the Gospels floating around were written, but also it doesn't say they weren't either. But let me show you a couple things ...

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

Other stuff ...

2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,

Except that's only one translation of Galatians 3:1, which you carefully selected (obviously). Young's Literal Translation says, in verses 1-5:

O thoughtless Galatians, who did bewitch you, not to obey the truth -- before whose eyes Jesus Christ was described before among you crucified? This only do I wish to learn from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith? So thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? So many things did ye suffer in vain! if, indeed, even in vain. He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you -- by works of law or by the hearing of faith [is it]?

While the NASB says:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

If you read it in context, it's clear he's describing an oral tradition and referring to "the Law", which is a reference to the Old Testament that he often makes.

Don't be disingenuous. Leave that to Paul.

There is nothing disingenuous about it.

The Greek word is γραπτός and written ais "prographo"

"pro" is a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of,
"grapho" is a primary verb; to "grave", especially to write;

Therefore, it is parsed as "in front of written."

Then finalized as "to write previously."

Therefore ...

Gal_3:1  Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was previously written among you crucified?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 02:54 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 02:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 01:53 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Except that's only one translation of Galatians 3:1, which you carefully selected (obviously). Young's Literal Translation says, in verses 1-5:

O thoughtless Galatians, who did bewitch you, not to obey the truth -- before whose eyes Jesus Christ was described before among you crucified? This only do I wish to learn from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith? So thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? So many things did ye suffer in vain! if, indeed, even in vain. He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you -- by works of law or by the hearing of faith [is it]?

While the NASB says:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

If you read it in context, it's clear he's describing an oral tradition and referring to "the Law", which is a reference to the Old Testament that he often makes.

Don't be disingenuous. Leave that to Paul.

There is nothing disingenuous about it.

The Greek word is γραπτός and written ais "prographo"

"pro" is a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of,
"grapho" is a primary verb; to "grave", especially to write;

Therefore, it is parsed as "in front of written."

Then finalized as "to write previously."

Therefore ...

Gal_3:1  Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was previously written among you crucified?

Maybe, but that whole passage is talking about the Galatians being seduced away from what Paul had previously taught them. So the most sensible interpretation of that phrase is that, if it refers to a written teaching, it is a written teaching of Paul himself, not some other document. He's basically saying "Why are you foolishly letting someone else talk you out of what I taught you?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-08-2016, 02:59 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 02:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 12:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Right, now please produce this "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature which uses a variation of Jesus (Yeshua) and show me where:

1. He was crucified, as Paul says.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as Paul says.
3. He had 12 apostles, as Paul says.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as Paul says.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.
6. He had a brother named James, as Paul says.

Let's see this Jewish Apocalyptic literature with those elements included within it, Mr. Ball.

And then you will need to demonstrate with evidence how the Gospel writers the NT all speak of a Jesus as;

1. He was crucified, as the Gospels say.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as the Gospels say.
3. He had 12 apostles, as the Gospels say.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as the Gospels say.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as the Gospels say.
6. He has a brother named James, as the Gospels say.

Do you think these 4 Gospel writers were actually all Paul? Did they also use the same "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature as Paul did? Or are these comparisons all just some incredibly improbable coincidence?

What do you think, Mr. Ball?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

I don't need to follow your idiotic outline, and I don't *have* to do anything, you moron. The things you list have NOTHING to do with it, but thanks for proving you have NO CLUE what I'm even talking about. All the details you list could have easily been invented. You have not a shred of evidence any of them were actually true. I provided the paper where I PROVED that the "exaltation" (just as Ehrman says ... but my paper was written BEFORE his book), ("being raised up") is the same as the exaltation of Jewish heroes. You are SO totally ignorant of Jewish culture, and the times that you can't even begin to see it. I see you never really read Ehrman's last book. YOU on the other hand, have never ever even written ONE paper on anything. All you can do is parrot Fundamentalist bullshit. God are you stupid.

Is that the best you can muster?

Did you see me arguing against any such exaltation? No, you did not. ALL scholars can find numerous similarities between the resurrection story of Jesus with many myths and legends.

But ... and that is a very big BUT ... just because there were supposed (improbable) exhalations of previous persons by no means indicates that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus were based on ANY of them.

You claim that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus are based upon the Jewish Apocalyptic literature available at the time.

I challenged you to provide evidence to support that assertion, and the best you can do is bring up some example of the exhalations of previous legends?

I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none, Mr. Ball. Nada. Squat.

And it should be noted that you had absolutely no explanation as to how the Gospel authors somehow managed to provide exactly the same details in their records as Paul states in his letters.

So you need to explain to me, with evidence, how those Gospel authors ended up with the exact same details concerning Jesus as Paul has, and yet not one gospel ever mentions Paul insomuch as we could determine that they got their information from him.

So let's see it, Mr. Ball.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: