Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 03:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 02:54 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 02:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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?"

I am not disagreeing with you here. As I said previously, we really don't know what was previously written. Whether it was a gospel or not is unclear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 03:28 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 06:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The evidence for this has already been discussed to the point of [i]ad nausium throughout this thread. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest that you deny it or reject it.[/i]

The words are "ad nauseum."

Still waiting for your evidence that Christianity began with Jesus, and that Peter thought Jesus had risen from the dead.

Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents, each attesting via a cohesive chain of evidence to Jesus being the origin of the Christian faith.

But I guess the Hell that your Romans created as part of Christianity will freeze over before that happens.

Big Grin

"Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents"

Ha ha! Your only "evidence" is the NT! And even that is not very good.

I have read it, many times. I'm not convinced.

None of the original contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, they were Jews.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 03:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 03:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 06:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents, each attesting via a cohesive chain of evidence to Jesus being the origin of the Christian faith.

But I guess the Hell that your Romans created as part of Christianity will freeze over before that happens.

Big Grin

"Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents"

Ha ha! Your only "evidence" is the NT! And even that is not very good.

I have read it, many times. I'm not convinced.

None of the original contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, they were Jews.

I don't get you. You keep saying that none of the contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, yet assert his contemporaries were Jews.

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?

You are also misunderstanding the word "contemporary" as if it can only refer to either an eyewitness or someone who heard of Jesus. The truth is that anybody living at the time if Jesus would be a contemporary, even if they lived 10,000 klms away and never heard of him.

Tacitus shows us that in CE 63 Nero persecuted Christians. They were called "Christians" within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus. Therefore, anyone whom Nero persecuted who was 30 years or older would have been a contemporary of Jesus.

Also, anyone born in the general vicinity of Jerusalem anytime in the earliest part of the 1st century could have become Christianized later on, and they would also be contemporaries of Jesus.

Now, just because the word "Christian" did not exist at the time of Jesus by no means states that the Christian faith was not based upon this same Jesus. Although the word was not coined until some time after his crucifixion, it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the origin of Christians beliefs is based upon this same Jesus.

Now the origin of Christian doctrine is a different story. Church doctrine has very little to do with Jesus, as it is more inclined to rules and regulations governing a church.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 04:55 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 03:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I don't get you. You keep saying that none of the contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, yet assert his contemporaries were Jews.

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

Batman has contemporaries too.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
11-08-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 04:55 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 03:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I don't get you. You keep saying that none of the contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, yet assert his contemporaries were Jews.

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

Batman has contemporaries too.

Yes because the consensus of a fictitious character (Batman) somehow compares to the consensus of a non fictitious character (Jesus).

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 05:07 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 04:55 PM)Banjo Wrote:  FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

Batman has contemporaries too.

Yes because the consensus of a fictitious character (Batman) somehow compares to the consensus of a non fictitious character (Jesus).

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

That's presumptial reasoning to get to the consensus.

Spiderman takes place in New York City and has contemporary figures on the tales like meeting Neil Degrass Tyson.

Jesus's gospel takes place in Jerusalem and has contemporary historical figures like Pontious Pilate.

How do you know one is proclaimed truth or proclaimed fiction? You know sometimes stories stated as truths are considered fiction. Myths & oral legends. Even Don Quixote opens expressing it being a true account. It has the 16th century Spanish region as its historical account. But it takes more than it's own account to conclude a rational judgement on its validity.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
11-08-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 05:07 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 04:55 PM)Banjo Wrote:  FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

Batman has contemporaries too.

Yes because the consensus of a fictitious character (Batman) somehow compares to the consensus of a non fictitious character (Jesus).

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

Yeah. You're no historian.

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
11-08-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Ever considered changing careers? Perhaps a Brickies labourer?

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
11-08-2016, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 07:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 03:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 03:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents"

Ha ha! Your only "evidence" is the NT! And even that is not very good.

I have read it, many times. I'm not convinced.

None of the original contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, they were Jews.

I don't get you. You keep saying that none of the contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, yet assert his contemporaries were Jews.

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?

You are also misunderstanding the word "contemporary" as if it can only refer to either an eyewitness or someone who heard of Jesus. The truth is that anybody living at the time if Jesus would be a contemporary, even if they lived 10,000 klms away and never heard of him.

Tacitus shows us that in CE 63 Nero persecuted Christians. They were called "Christians" within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus. Therefore, anyone whom Nero persecuted who was 30 years or older would have been a contemporary of Jesus.

Also, anyone born in the general vicinity of Jerusalem anytime in the earliest part of the 1st century could have become Christianized later on, and they would also be contemporaries of Jesus.

Now, just because the word "Christian" did not exist at the time of Jesus by no means states that the Christian faith was not based upon this same Jesus. Although the word was not coined until some time after his crucifixion, it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the origin of Christians beliefs is based upon this same Jesus.

Now the origin of Christian doctrine is a different story. Church doctrine has very little to do with Jesus, as it is more inclined to rules and regulations governing a church.

Drinking Beverage

There was no "the Christian faith". It developed in many places, in many forms, with all sorts of various (what to us would be) strange attributes, (witness the gospels found at Nag Hamadi).

You have no clue whether the many forms of early Christianities were based on one person, or many, (a combo job). It's very strange the gospels don't mention Paul, if he was as well known as he's supposed to have been, in Acts, and really was writing as early as he is supposed to have been. It's very strange all Paul's quotes come from the Septuagint, (if he was really a student of Gamaliel). Why does no Jewish writer mention a famous student of Gamaliel, "gone apostate" ? There are mountains of reasons to be skeptical about the "party liner" and one of it's preachers here about.

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, 09:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 06:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 03:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I don't get you. You keep saying that none of the contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, yet assert his contemporaries were Jews.

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?

You are also misunderstanding the word "contemporary" as if it can only refer to either an eyewitness or someone who heard of Jesus. The truth is that anybody living at the time if Jesus would be a contemporary, even if they lived 10,000 klms away and never heard of him.

Tacitus shows us that in CE 63 Nero persecuted Christians. They were called "Christians" within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus. Therefore, anyone whom Nero persecuted who was 30 years or older would have been a contemporary of Jesus.

Also, anyone born in the general vicinity of Jerusalem anytime in the earliest part of the 1st century could have become Christianized later on, and they would also be contemporaries of Jesus.

Now, just because the word "Christian" did not exist at the time of Jesus by no means states that the Christian faith was not based upon this same Jesus. Although the word was not coined until some time after his crucifixion, it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the origin of Christians beliefs is based upon this same Jesus.

Now the origin of Christian doctrine is a different story. Church doctrine has very little to do with Jesus, as it is more inclined to rules and regulations governing a church.

Drinking Beverage

There was no "the Christian faith". It developed in many places, in many forms, with all sorts of various (what to us would be) strange attributes, (witness the gospels found at Nag Hamadi).

The Christian title actually began before Paul rose to prominence. In fact, you will not even find Paul refer to himself or anyone else as "Christian." The word is never used in his letters. The reason is because Paul himself was Jew. He did not invent the word, nor did he actually identify with it.

The title of Christian was the evolution of faith in Christ as it traversed from Jew to Gentile. In the beginning, it was a title applied to Gentile followers of Christ, and not to Jewish followers of Christ.

Jewish followers of Christ included the Nazarene, but also included members of the Pharisee and other common Jews. It was James who headed up this sect of "Messianic Jews" during the first century. Although despised by the Sanhedrin/Sadducee, this group was tolerated (barely) in Jerusalem, and were permitted access to the temple.

Now, Paul was actually torn between those "Messianic Jews" that James headed up, and the Gentile Christian movement that was gaining ground throughout the Roman empire. In his letters you can see his strife and anger coming through due to this conflict. Paul was a Jew, but since he evangelized to the Gentiles and Jews in the early part of his evangelism- and kept getting rejected by the Jews, including James in Jerusalem- he went almost exclusively in Gentile mode. This was his way of saying, "Fuck you, James."

However, Paul would not fully identify himself with "Christian," nor would he fully identify himself with the Messianic Jews. This is exactly why you see what he wrote in 1 Cor 9:20 - 9:22. He tried to remain neutral because he was having issues letting go of his Jewish roots.

So my point here is that perhaps Paul was not actually Christian as is supposed, nor was he fully subscribing to the Messianic Jews run by James either. He associated with both, but he danced to his own tune, walking between the raindrops in an effort to not tread hard upon the toes of either the Jews or the Gentiles.

But eventually the dominant Christian sect won out over the Messianic Jews, and the doctrines of Paul were absorbed into the Christian religion along with the Gospel records and other literature. Paul's doctrine jibed well- not perfectly- with the Gospel records treasured by the Christians, but Paul himself would be considered an apostate by both the common Jews and the Messianic Jews of the 1st century, and therefore ostracized from Jewish literature.

And those are my thoughts on Paul.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: