Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2016, 07:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 07:15 AM)Banjo Wrote:  We do know that all writings against xianity were destroyed by the xians after Constantine made it the official religion.

This point should be stressed. It should be noted as one of the primary points in the discussion.

Active censorship and suppression of divergent texts has eliminated the chance for objective scholarship. Much in the same way that Orthodoxy was established by absorbing or eliminating the "heretical" sects.

I should note that such actions are not confined to the realm of religion. What is the quote? "History is written by the victors..."

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
24-06-2016, 07:44 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Protagoras.
As to gods, I have no way of knowing either that they exist or do not exist, or what they are 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
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
24-06-2016, 09:21 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2016 10:25 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 11:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 10:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "I'm here to preach. Isn't that the honest response you were looking for anyways? "

It's what you actually do. Are you honestly admitting that this is the reason you're here, or do you think you're being cleverly sarcastic?

"And my intentions are to preach, and find ways to get rid of obstacles and impediments to this. "

Are you honestly admitting that this is the reason you're here, or do you think you're being cleverly sarcastic?

"I'm not the one telling you to leave, you are lol. All you do is bitch and moan about me preaching, if it bothers you so much you're on the wrong forum, and need to join one that prohibits this."

You're the one bitching and moaning about people giving you a hard time about your preaching. If you want to preach and not be called out on it, you're on the wrong fucking forum.



But if you are actually now admitting to just being here to preach, that makes you a....(wait for it)....liar. Because YOU have explicitly given different reasons for being here that were not only to not preach, but you vehemently denied your preaching intentions.

This wouldn't be atypical for you (to accuse others of your failings)


I decided to expand my understanding of what it means to preach to incorporate everything I do that might be interpreted as supportive of my religious beliefs as preaching.


With this in mind, I decided that the best way to explain what I'm doing here, is to say that I'm here to preach.

Is that honest enough for you? Can I continue with my preaching?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't have to redefine what the word "preach" means in order to be preaching:
deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.
"he preached to a large congregation"
synonyms: give/deliver a sermon, sermonize, address, speak More
publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).
"a church that preaches the good news"
synonyms: proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound
"he preached the gospel to them"
earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).
"my parents have always preached toleration and moderation"
synonyms: advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel
"they preach toleration"

So trying to claim that you are redefining what it means to preach so that you can avoid the fact that you are actually preaching, is a dishonest move.

Your dishonesty goes even deeper than that too, because you want to try and have it both ways. You want to preach your bullshit, but only from vague points and literally refuse to expand on what you mean or believe when pressed but you reserve the right to demand specifics from others to preach against. Hypocrisy and dishonesty.

For instance:
"I don't believe in whatever you likely think it means for Jesus to be the messiah, or God, or divine. And don't have the patience to deal with all the fundie baggage that gets flung in these parts.

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."


You make claims about your Jesus and your god, but you keep those claims vague so that you don't believe you have to defend them. This is a dishonest tactic. And you are just straight-up lying too. Because YOU point to the gospels as evidence of your Jesus. And guess what? The NT makes MANY miracle claims. Either the NT is full of shit and it doesn't speak any facts about your Jesus that are reliable, or its stories are facts about your Jesus. You can't have it both ways to selectively pick out what you want.

"No, I hold that Jesus did exist, and that either it requires ignorance or delusion to believe otherwise."

You hold that belief, but can't deliver actual evidence to support it. You point to two sources external to the gospels (Paul's letters and Josephus) and hold them up as evidence to corroborate your Jesus. Except (as has been pointed out numerous times) Paul is (at best) an unreliable source (the man as much as admitted to experiencing hallucinations) and is certainly not unbiased. Whatever his sources are or whatever/whoever his sources claim to be, there is literally 0 evidence to corroborate that either. As for Josephus' reliability on this subject, others have already pointed out the issues in detail there.

Why? Because there exists NO contemporary evidence of your Jesus. There almost certainly was a person named Yeshua alive at that time, but that does not mean that the Jesus of the NT is real. Why? Because the Jesus of the NT is a person to whom fantastical stories are attributed. He is a man-god. But then you pull this shit:
"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. "

That is a claim the NT makes. That is supposed to be a FACT about your Jesus. Instead of admitting that this fact is a lie and it did not happen, you simply special plead it away. "Well, I don't necessarily believe that every story attributed to him is true." Then your Jesus didn't exist. Many human beings existed at that time, and several were certainly named Yeshua. But if you want to hedge your bets and claim that he existed but didn't perform the miracles, then a human existing named Yeshua literally provides no support for your religious delusions. You can't honestly point to the Gospels for support of your argument when its convenient and then special plead it away when it damns your argument. That's intellectually dishonest. Too much brain washing.

But even still, the historical records and the non-fantastical stories attributed to Jesus aren't substantiated either. So even a guy named Yeshua who served as the basis for Christianity being crucified isn't supported.

"We have first hand accounts of an individual who met his brother and disciples. "

We have A first hand account from Paul where he CLAIMS to have met his brother and disciples. But his claim is corroborated by what exactly? His word? The reality is that YOU take it on faith that Paul was telling the truth because you have NO evidence to substantiate it. It's called "faith" because it isn't "evidence" or "proof."

Speaking of proof:
"Judging that I stated previously I don't deal in absolutes, or proofs, but in likelihood it goes without saying that I'm speaking about a level or probability. "

Bullshit. You are certain your Jesus existed in spite of the arguments contra to it. You even special plead to accommodate your religious faith-based opinion.

But back to this drudgery:
"We have the writing of Josephus writing of his brother's death, Tacitus writing of him being crucified under Pilate, not to mention the plethora of NT texts from multiple writers, using sources both written and oral earlier than their own writings, how anyone can reasonably infer from all this that Jesus did not exist, is beyond me. It requires some 9/11 truther like thinking. Which wouldn't be surprising really, since the alternative to Jesus not existing would be the mother of all conspiracy theories. "

We have people who lived decades after Jesus writing about stories they have heard from other people with 0 evidence to substantiate any of it. You compare skepticism of NT Jesus' existence with 9/11 conspiracy, not realizing you're the one yelling "jet fuel can't melt steel beams!!!!" The rest of us are pointing out the flaws in your bullshit and where you are technically correct (a human named Yeshua existed) from where you have erroneously extrapolated into bullshitland (the same Yeshua is the character Jesus from the NT and the stories from it are rooted in fact).

Which brings me back to this question you avoided:
And just to clarify, are any of the gospels or any part of them first-hand accounts?



"Complain about a lack of corroborating CONTEMPORARY non-Christian sources.

When non-Christian sources THAT ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS AND/OR ARE UNBIASED BUT ARE UNRELIABLE AND ARE ALL BASED ON HEARSAY are provided, complain about them not being there to observe the events they write of first hand. "


CAPITALIZED, ITALICIZED, AND UNDERLINED are additions by me into the straw man you made so that it accurately reflects the critiques given to you.

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

They are sources but sources of what? They are NOT sources that substantiate the claims of NT Jesus. They are sources that substantiate claims that stories about magic Jews were being told at the time. People make stories up or stories are embellished or stories and words are attributed to people that didn't do or say them because of various bullshit (like politics or personal feuds or literally any reason a human conceives of, even to make a story sound better).

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

Word games to avoid what is actually being pointed out. Paul's writings are first hand accounts...of his own life but they are NOT first hand accounts of Jesus'. And his stories and claims about Jesus are also NOT first hand accounts of Jesus' either. That CLAIM would require additional evidence/proof to corroborate it. Additional unsubstantiated claims (Hi, I'm Jesus' brother or Hi, I was Jesus' disciple) are not enough to substantiate their stories. (and as has also already been pointed out to you, Paul divines much of his opinions of Jesus from a fucking hallucination. How exactly does one review the authenticity of a fucking hallucination?)







[Image: beard-slap.gif]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
24-06-2016, 09:26 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 04:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 08:43 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You have claimed to be a christian. What you state above are not the beliefs of a christian.

The accepted and understood definition of a christian is someone who worships jesus christ as the son of god and the savior of mankind. A christian believes that christ died for the sins of humanity.

If you define being a christian as something else, then it is up to you to define those beliefs.

If you choose to remain vague, then the fault of any misconceptions rests entirely on yourself.

Duly noted, I'll discuss your criteria for what it means to be a Christian with my advisors.

Like BlowJob, you lack the balls to state what you actually believe.

Yet you (and he) repeatedly demand that others be specific about theirs. Consider

You both should just remove your hypocritical asses from this forum.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
24-06-2016, 10:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 09:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 04:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Duly noted, I'll discuss your criteria for what it means to be a Christian with my advisors.

Like BlowJob, you lack the balls to state what you actually believe.

Yet you (and he) repeatedly demand that others be specific about theirs. Consider

You both should just remove your hypocritical asses from this forum.

But then how could he "learn" (which is what he first said what he was doing here, before that all changed and he started telling us we are warped and polluted) ?
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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-06-2016, 12:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 04:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I hold that Jesus did exist, and that either it requires ignorance or delusion to believe otherwise. We have first hand accounts of an individual who met his brother and disciples. We have the writing of Josephus writing of his brother's death, Tacitus writing of him being crucified under Pilate, not to mention the plethora of NT texts from multiple writers, using sources both written and oral earlier than their own writings, how anyone can reasonably infer from all this that Jesus did not exist, is beyond me. It requires some 9/11 truther like thinking. Which wouldn't be surprising really, since the alternative to Jesus not existing would be the mother of all conspiracy theories.

You do realize there are respected historians who have studied the 1st and 2nd centuries in depth and even they have a hard time admitting that Jesus was a real person, we're just supposed to ignore that and call them crazy conspiracy theorists? I'd trust them over you any day, I've read books myself about the true origins of the Jesus myth and even read The Pagan Christ by Reverend Tom Harpur who truly believes in the Christ figure but doesn't believe that Jesus was a real person, he also strongly suggests not taking gospel literally or any historical basis for Jesus for that matter.

But somehow he got it wrong and you have it right, I'm sorry but it does take faith to believe Jesus was a real person. I have yet to find any proof from the time he actually lived that supports his existence.

But still you haven't answered my question, do you think Lord Krishna was a real person? You may have to study it yourself first but since you seem so interested in the historicity of Jesus I'd think that would interest you in other religions as well, or are you only interested in Christianity and proving their messiah actually lived?

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SitaSky's post
24-06-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 09:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 11:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I decided to expand my understanding of what it means to preach to incorporate everything I do that might be interpreted as supportive of my religious beliefs as preaching.


With this in mind, I decided that the best way to explain what I'm doing here, is to say that I'm here to preach.

Is that honest enough for you? Can I continue with my preaching?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't have to redefine what the word "preach" means in order to be preaching:
deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.
"he preached to a large congregation"
synonyms: give/deliver a sermon, sermonize, address, speak More
publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).
"a church that preaches the good news"
synonyms: proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound
"he preached the gospel to them"
earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).
"my parents have always preached toleration and moderation"
synonyms: advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel
"they preach toleration"

So trying to claim that you are redefining what it means to preach so that you can avoid the fact that you are actually preaching, is a dishonest move.

Your dishonesty goes even deeper than that too, because you want to try and have it both ways. You want to preach your bullshit, but only from vague points and literally refuse to expand on what you mean or believe when pressed but you reserve the right to demand specifics from others to preach against. Hypocrisy and dishonesty.

For instance:
"I don't believe in whatever you likely think it means for Jesus to be the messiah, or God, or divine. And don't have the patience to deal with all the fundie baggage that gets flung in these parts.

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."


You make claims about your Jesus and your god, but you keep those claims vague so that you don't believe you have to defend them. This is a dishonest tactic. And you are just straight-up lying too. Because YOU point to the gospels as evidence of your Jesus. And guess what? The NT makes MANY miracle claims. Either the NT is full of shit and it doesn't speak any facts about your Jesus that are reliable, or its stories are facts about your Jesus. You can't have it both ways to selectively pick out what you want.

"No, I hold that Jesus did exist, and that either it requires ignorance or delusion to believe otherwise."

You hold that belief, but can't deliver actual evidence to support it. You point to two sources external to the gospels (Paul's letters and Josephus) and hold them up as evidence to corroborate your Jesus. Except (as has been pointed out numerous times) Paul is (at best) an unreliable source (the man as much as admitted to experiencing hallucinations) and is certainly not unbiased. Whatever his sources are or whatever/whoever his sources claim to be, there is literally 0 evidence to corroborate that either. As for Josephus' reliability on this subject, others have already pointed out the issues in detail there.

Why? Because there exists NO contemporary evidence of your Jesus. There almost certainly was a person named Yeshua alive at that time, but that does not mean that the Jesus of the NT is real. Why? Because the Jesus of the NT is a person to whom fantastical stories are attributed. He is a man-god. But then you pull this shit:
"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. "

That is a claim the NT makes. That is supposed to be a FACT about your Jesus. Instead of admitting that this fact is a lie and it did not happen, you simply special plead it away. "Well, I don't necessarily believe that every story attributed to him is true." Then your Jesus didn't exist. Many human beings existed at that time, and several were certainly named Yeshua. But if you want to hedge your bets and claim that he existed but didn't perform the miracles, then a human existing named Yeshua literally provides no support for your religious delusions. You can't honestly point to the Gospels for support of your argument when its convenient and then special plead it away when it damns your argument. That's intellectually dishonest. Too much brain washing.

But even still, the historical records and the non-fantastical stories attributed to Jesus aren't substantiated either. So even a guy named Yeshua who served as the basis for Christianity being crucified isn't supported.

"We have first hand accounts of an individual who met his brother and disciples. "

We have A first hand account from Paul where he CLAIMS to have met his brother and disciples. But his claim is corroborated by what exactly? His word? The reality is that YOU take it on faith that Paul was telling the truth because you have NO evidence to substantiate it. It's called "faith" because it isn't "evidence" or "proof."

Speaking of proof:
"Judging that I stated previously I don't deal in absolutes, or proofs, but in likelihood it goes without saying that I'm speaking about a level or probability. "

Bullshit. You are certain your Jesus existed in spite of the arguments contra to it. You even special plead to accommodate your religious faith-based opinion.

But back to this drudgery:
"We have the writing of Josephus writing of his brother's death, Tacitus writing of him being crucified under Pilate, not to mention the plethora of NT texts from multiple writers, using sources both written and oral earlier than their own writings, how anyone can reasonably infer from all this that Jesus did not exist, is beyond me. It requires some 9/11 truther like thinking. Which wouldn't be surprising really, since the alternative to Jesus not existing would be the mother of all conspiracy theories. "

We have people who lived decades after Jesus writing about stories they have heard from other people with 0 evidence to substantiate any of it. You compare skepticism of NT Jesus' existence with 9/11 conspiracy, not realizing you're the one yelling "jet fuel can't melt steel beams!!!!" The rest of us are pointing out the flaws in your bullshit and where you are technically correct (a human named Yeshua existed) from where you have erroneously extrapolated into bullshitland (the same Yeshua is the character Jesus from the NT and the stories from it are rooted in fact).

Which brings me back to this question you avoided:
And just to clarify, are any of the gospels or any part of them first-hand accounts?



"Complain about a lack of corroborating CONTEMPORARY non-Christian sources.

When non-Christian sources THAT ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS AND/OR ARE UNBIASED BUT ARE UNRELIABLE AND ARE ALL BASED ON HEARSAY are provided, complain about them not being there to observe the events they write of first hand. "


CAPITALIZED, ITALICIZED, AND UNDERLINED are additions by me into the straw man you made so that it accurately reflects the critiques given to you.

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

They are sources but sources of what? They are NOT sources that substantiate the claims of NT Jesus. They are sources that substantiate claims that stories about magic Jews were being told at the time. People make stories up or stories are embellished or stories and words are attributed to people that didn't do or say them because of various bullshit (like politics or personal feuds or literally any reason a human conceives of, even to make a story sound better).

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

Word games to avoid what is actually being pointed out. Paul's writings are first hand accounts...of his own life but they are NOT first hand accounts of Jesus'. And his stories and claims about Jesus are also NOT first hand accounts of Jesus' either. That CLAIM would require additional evidence/proof to corroborate it. Additional unsubstantiated claims (Hi, I'm Jesus' brother or Hi, I was Jesus' disciple) are not enough to substantiate their stories. (and as has also already been pointed out to you, Paul divines much of his opinions of Jesus from a fucking hallucination. How exactly does one review the authenticity of a fucking hallucination?)







[Image: beard-slap.gif]

[Image: 20160218141812]

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
24-06-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 04:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 07:04 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  So you don't believe that Jesus Christ was a messiah sent to Earth as God in mortal form to die for our sins?

I don't believe in whatever you likely think it means for Jesus to be the messiah, or God, or divine. And don't have the patience to deal with all the fundie baggage that gets flung in these parts.

Quote: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?

No, I hold that Jesus did exist, and that either it requires ignorance or delusion to believe otherwise. We have first hand accounts of an individual who met his brother and disciples. We have the writing of Josephus writing of his brother's death, Tacitus writing of him being crucified under Pilate, not to mention the plethora of NT texts from multiple writers, using sources both written and oral earlier than their own writings, how anyone can reasonably infer from all this that Jesus did not exist, is beyond me. It requires some 9/11 truther like thinking. Which wouldn't be surprising really, since the alternative to Jesus not existing would be the mother of all conspiracy theories.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You fall for every fucking forgery the assholes put out. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

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
24-06-2016, 09:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Holy gang bang Batman. Tomasia you just got it in every hole, and yet, to no one's surprise, you have dismissed all the overwhelming truth drug across your face like a nut sack on a porn star.

All facts, or lack there of, point to Jesus' existence being questionable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
24-06-2016, 10:50 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 09:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  [quote='

Like BlowJob, you lack the balls to state what you actually believe.

Yet you (and he) repeatedly demand that others be specific about theirs. :consider:

You both should just remove your hypocritical asses from this forum.

No, I have no problem stating what my religious beliefs, I just don't give a shit about defending them here, or having to deal with people's fundie baggage or whatever else comes with it. I have no interest in trying to appeal to those who have a particularly narrow way of looking at things, to think more broadly, to discuss questions of meaning, or whatever else pertain to my particular religious belief.

Nor do I believe you give a shit either.

I also don't see you or other's here defending or presenting your own world views either, primarily reserving yourself to whatever singular topic arises at any particular moment, and that's it. So expect from me the same.















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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: