Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2016, 04:58 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 04:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 03:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have no issue with Jesus being baptized and crucified. If that's what you think is all we know for sure...I agree. My hypothesis involves what being baptized meant and why he was crucified.

Then you are in agreement with historians on what they accept as actually being factual; that Jesus/Yeshua, who was called Christ/Messiah, was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans.

Then you are in agreement with historians on what they accept as actually being factual; that Jesus/Yeshua, who was called Christ/Messiah,

No one knows what he was called by his family or original followers.

My opinions...."Jesus" no...this is the Greek for Yeshua. Christ...doubtful. Messiah....dunno.

"was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans."
[/quote]

Yes..I agree this is probable.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 05:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 04:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 04:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Then you are in agreement with historians on what they accept as actually being factual; that Jesus/Yeshua, who was called Christ/Messiah, was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans.

Then you are in agreement with historians on what they accept as actually being factual; that Jesus/Yeshua, who was called Christ/Messiah,

No one knows what he was called by his family or original followers.

My opinions...."Jesus" no...this is the Greek for Yeshua. Christ...doubtful. Messiah....dunno.

"was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans."


Yes..I agree this is probable.

You can call him Jesus, or Yeshua, or Isa, and you will always be speaking of the same man. It's really just language, and can never change any kind of history.

Same with Christ and Messiah. They refer to the exact same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 09:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 05:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 04:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Then you are in agreement with historians on what they accept as actually being factual; that Jesus/Yeshua, who was called Christ/Messiah,

No one knows what he was called by his family or original followers.

My opinions...."Jesus" no...this is the Greek for Yeshua. Christ...doubtful. Messiah....dunno.

"was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans."


Yes..I agree this is probable.

You can call him Jesus, or Yeshua, or Isa, and you will always be speaking of the same man. It's really just language, and can never change any kind of history.

Same with Christ and Messiah. They refer to the exact same thing.

Well...there were lots of Jesus's, lots of Christs, and lots of messiahs. I told you about the Christs a few weeks ago. Did you follow that up?

"and can never change any kind of history."


I've got no idea what you mean by this. What history are you referring to?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 03:17 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 09:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 10:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It is a good read, so is Peter Cresswell's book.

Don't concern yourself with the "bad reviews" thing...we all know why they exist.

Actually Mark, some reviews are valid.

Dale Martin, the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, faults Aslan for presenting early Christianity as being simply divided into a Hellenistic, Pauline form on the one hand, and a Jewish, Jamesian form on the other. Martin says that this repeats 19th-century German scholarship which now is mostly rejected.

Elizabeth Castelli, the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of Religion at Barnard College and a specialist in biblical studies and early Christianity, argued that Aslan largely ignores the findings in textual studies of the New Testament, and relies too heavily on a selection of texts, like Josephus, taking them more or less at face value (which no scholar of the period would do). Near her conclusion, she writes: "Zealot is a cultural production of its particular historical moment—a remix of existing scholarship, sampled and re-framed to make a culturally relevant intervention in the early twenty-first-century world where religion, violence and politics overlap in complex ways. In this sense, the book is simply one more example in a long line of efforts by theologians, historians and other interested cultural workers."

Craig A. Evans, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor at Acadia Divinity College, writing in Christianity Today, states that Aslan made many basic errors in geography, history and New Testament interpretation. He said it "relies on an outdated and discredited thesis," consistently fails to engage the relevant historical scholarship, and is "rife with questionable assertions."

Stephen Prothero, the professor of religion at Boston University, who said Aslan’s perspective as a Muslim may have influenced his writing as he found the picture of Jesus in Zealot seems more like a failed version of the Prophet Muhammad than the figure depicted in the Bible; yet Prof. Prothero agreed that biographies of Jesus citing alternative sources are often controversial since "outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus"

Darrell Gwaltney, dean of the School of Religion at Belmont University, concurred and commented "Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he was... And they were eyewitnesses."


What I get from all these scholars (and there are others) is that Aslan's scholarship relies on outdated 19th century scholarship (something I have constantly pointed out as being used by you and others in this thread), he overly simplifies the competing sects as only being Pauline and Jamesian (when you and I both know it's far more than that), and also that Aslan actually fabricates a biography of Jesus because Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he was, and also outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus.

These are massive flaws, Mark.

"and also that Aslan actually fabricates a biography of Jesus because [i]Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he
was,"


There are no records from anyone who was "present in the life of Jesus." So you cannot claim people couldn't make up their mind who he was, because you don't know this.

Think about your rather ridiculous assertion. I bet his mum changing his nappies knew who he was. I bet his "followers" knew who he was. I bet the Roman soldiers who nailed him to a cross knew who he was.

"outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus."

Well...everyone knows this, including the author. Yet the author has placed Jesus in a very plausible context...one far more realistic than the babble. He has a right to do that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2016 08:49 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 09:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 05:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You can call him Jesus, or Yeshua, or Isa, and you will always be speaking of the same man. It's really just language, and can never change any kind of history.

Same with Christ and Messiah. They refer to the exact same thing.

Well...there were lots of Jesus's, lots of Christs, and lots of messiahs. I told you about the Christs a few weeks ago. Did you follow that up?

You and others keep bringing this up. However, when asked to produce any ancient texts of just 1 other person whom the title of Messiah or Christ was added to his name - such as Judas Christ, Simon Christ, etc- in the 1st century, not one of you has ever produced any evidence whatsoever.

Sure, you can show me a list of a few people who were thought to be messianic pretenders, but not one on that list from the 1st century has any documentation of being given the title of Messiah or Christ.

There is a massive difference between who we believe to have qualified as being a Messianic pretender and any one who was given the title of Messiah/Christ.

And we both know that there is only documentation of just 1 person from the 1st century who was entitled as being Messiah/Christ; Jesus of Nazareth/Yeshua the Nazarene.

No one is saying that in the 1st century that there were NOT other people who may have been entitled as Christ or Messiah, but rather only that we do not have any direct evidence of it.

Mark you are going to see me constantly pushing a very consistent theme here:

Always work with the evidence in regards to approximating history. Always.


Quote:"and can never change any kind of history."

I've got no idea what you mean by this. What history are you referring to?

The history that Yeshua/Jesus/Isa existed as a human being, and was baptized by John, and was crucified by the Romans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2016 12:14 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 03:17 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:and also that Aslan actually fabricates a biography of Jesus because Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he
was,

There are no records from anyone who was "present in the life of Jesus." So you cannot claim people couldn't make up their mind who he was, because you don't know this.

Watch how this statement will work against you.

Quote:Think about your rather ridiculous assertion. I bet his mum changing his nappies knew who he was. I bet his "followers" knew who he was. I bet the Roman soldiers who nailed him to a cross knew who he was.

[i]"outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus."

Well...everyone knows this, including the author. Yet the author has placed Jesus in a very plausible context...one far more realistic than the babble. He has a right to do that.

Except, as you said, "there are no records from anyone who was "present in the life of Jesus" so how can this author create anything plausible with mere guesswork? All he can do is create an interesting story, but because he must use guesswork, he can never ever actually prove his thesis, nor can he make it work with the existing evidence because it contradicts any evidence that points to the contrary.

His work is interesting, but unfortunately because his theme actually lacks evidence- and relies on re-interpreting the existing evidence without the availability of external sources to verify his interpretation- all he can provide to you is a theory that must be regulated at the low end of the possibility scale.

Although a work of fiction, Dan Brown added some interesting insights regarding Jesus in his book The Davinci Code. However, most scholars easily recognized how Dan Brown had to stretch the truth extensively to make his theories work with his story line. Aslan is doing the exact same thing.

Always work with the evidence. Always.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus



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
15-08-2016, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2016 03:21 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 12:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  


1. The first thing he does is list all what is improbable regarding Jesus, such as all the mythical and magical aspects. To his credit, he then acknowledges the fact that virtually all modern scholars agree that there is a core element to the existence of Jesus, but then he says "What the core element is, is anybody's guess."

No, it's not anybody's guess. That core element is the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, the one consistent element we find in all 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul, 1Clement, Tacitus, Ignatus and a host of other ancient literature.

2. He is quick to dismiss the prospect of the NT providing any history of Jesus due to all the myths and embellishments, but then he raves about the quality of the works of Flavius Josephus, which also include all the Jewish myths and embellishments of the Old Testament. Therefore, how can he rave about the excellent historical quality of one book that is rife with myths and embellishments and then at the same time rail against the history of another that also has myths and embellishments?

Obviously his bias is very evident here.

3. At the 20:00 - 20:10 mark he says regarding the Testimonium Flavium, "There's no way he (Josephus) is reporting on anything other than what Christians were saying." This is clearly an assertion, and also a contradiction since a few seconds later he is seen saying the the text was wholly interpolated. Well, how could Josephius be reporting on anything other than what the Christians are saying if it was an interpolation?

He is equivocating between claiming the text was written by Josephus according to what he had heard from the Christians, and/or that the text was likely wholly interpolated by a Christian.

So which is it? He had better hope Bart doesn't watch this video.


4. He also says that other scholars were saying that the TF would not be written by a Jew because it appears to be far too Christian like. Although it is true that other scholars hold this view, it should be acknowledged that according to our earliest sources the earliest followers of Jesus were not Christian, but rather they were all Jews.

As Mark and I have been discussing here, Jesus would have attracted a number of Jews from various sects including Pharisee, Essene, Nazarene etc, so just because we see the TF in Josephus as it is does not mean that if Josephus wrote it that he was writing the Christian view, for if it was believed by many Jews that Jesus was the Christ and that he rose from the dead then it is absolutely plausible that Josephus was writing the views of many of the Jews.

The fact that Jesus was a Jew, and our earliest sources demonstrate conclusively that all his followers were Jews strongly indicates that many Jews believed he was the Christ, and that he rose from the dead, and therefore it is entirely possible that Josephus was among those believers.

Mr. Price and other scholars needs to acknowledge that the Christian view was not the only game in town.

Thumbsup


5. His excuse for rejecting the position that the TF was only partially interpolated was because of the words the TF has regarding the positive statement of "He was the Christ," yet he fails to acknowledge that if the TF was partially interpolated then something original such as "He was called the Christ" could have simply been altered along with some of the rest.

This is a very weak and logically flawed excuse to reject partial interpolation.

6. He says it is almost certainly based upon the 24th Chapter of Luke because of some similarities, but the reality is that the evidence for this position is by no means strong enough to warrant a position of "almost certainly."

7. His attempt to throw doubt upon the second mention of Jesus employs the Mythicist classic position that the Jesus and James mentioned were some other Jesus and James. Firstly, he intentionally omits the title given to Jesus as "Jesus who was called Christ" when he makes the comparison between Jesus and James of the Gospels and Jesus and James the sons of Damneus. The problem here is that Jesus the son of Damneus is not ever mentioned as having a brother named James in any text whatsoever. This argument is so weak as to not even be considered tenable or even possible by the vast majority of scholars.

Despite all this, I like this guy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 03:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 03:04 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No, it's not anybody's guess. That core element is the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, the one consistent element we find in all 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul, 1Clement, Tacitus, Ignatus and a host of other ancient literature.

They are not independent all sources. The one who's biased here is YOU.

Mr. Price and other scholars needs to acknowledge that the Christian view was not the only game in town.
[/quote]

I believe it's Dr. Price, Mister, (possibly even Dr. Dr. Price). Angel

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
15-08-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 08:23 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 09:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Well...there were lots of Jesus's, lots of Christs, and lots of messiahs. I told you about the Christs a few weeks ago. Did you follow that up?

You and others keep bringing this up. However, when asked to produce any ancient texts of just 1 other person whom the title of Messiah or Christ was added to his name - such as Judas Christ, Simon Christ, etc- in the 1st century, not one of you has ever produced any evidence whatsoever.

Sure, you can show me a list of a few people who were thought to be messianic pretenders, but not one on that list from the 1st century has any documentation of being given the title of Messiah or Christ.


There is a massive difference between who we believe to have qualified as being a Messianic pretender and any one who was given the title of Messiah/Christ.

And we both know that there is only documentation of just 1 person from the 1st century who was entitled as being Messiah/Christ; Jesus of Nazareth/Yeshua the Nazarene.

No one is saying that in the 1st century that there were NOT other people who may have been entitled as Christ or Messiah, but rather only that we do not have any direct evidence of it.

Mark you are going to see me constantly pushing a very consistent theme here:

Always work with the evidence in regards to approximating history. Always.


Quote:"and can never change any kind of history."

I've got no idea what you mean by this. What history are you referring to?

The history that Yeshua/Jesus/Isa existed as a human being, and was baptized by John, and was crucified by the Romans.

You and others keep bringing this up. However, when asked to produce any ancient texts of just 1 other person whom the title of Messiah or Christ was added to his name - such as Judas Christ, Simon Christ, etc- in the 1st century, not one of you has ever produced any evidence whatsoever.

Re "christ"....

What about Serapis? http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/serapis.htm

What about Paul's Christ?

Marcion's Christ?

Valentinus' Christ?

Re "messiah"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...o-messiahs
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: