Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2016, 03:38 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 08:55 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-08-2016 03:17 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

"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.

"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,

Beacause it is not "mere guesswork." He places Jesus in a coherent, plausible, rational framework...that of a Jewish peasant in first century Galilee under Roman rule. He uses the bare facts of his life (those agreed on) to create a realistic picture. It is far, far more plausible than the babble.

[i]"nor can he make it work with the existing evidence because it contradicts any evidence that points to the contrary."
"[/i]

Wrong. This is precisely what he does.

What might you be referring to by "existing evidence?" The author, does, after all, acknowledge Jesus was baptised by John and killed by the Romans....which are, you say, the only details about Jesus that are proven.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-08-2016 08:23 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  ]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

Never entitled as Christ.

Quote:What about Paul's Christ?

Marcion's Christ?

Valentinus' Christ?

All based on Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:Re "messiah"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...o-messiahs

None documented as being entitled as Christ or Messiah.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 06:19 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 03:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-08-2016 08:55 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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


He places Jesus in a coherent, plausible, rational framework...that of a Jewish peasant in first century Galilee under Roman rule. He uses the bare facts of his life (those agreed on) to create a realistic picture. It is far, far more plausible than the babble.

If "he places Jesus in a coherent, plausible, rational framework...that of a Jewish peasant in first century Galilee under Roman rule," then he certainly is doing guesswork. That is not based off of any actual credible documentation whatsoever.

Quote:
Quote:nor can he make it work with the existing evidence because it contradicts any evidence that points to the contrary.

Wrong. This is precisely what he does.

The existing evidence, which is only the Gospels, never portrays Jesus performing any acts of violence, nor does it show him inciting any of his followers towards violence.

Quote:What might you be referring to by "existing evidence?" The author, does, after all, acknowledge Jesus was baptised by John and killed by the Romans....which are, you say, the only details about Jesus that are proven.

And that is about all he can say for a certainty. If he makes claims of Jesus being some kind of warrior king, he's missed the point of the evidence completely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2016, 06:46 PM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2016 07:07 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 03:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

You have the synoptic; 3 gospels that are not identical, therefore 3 different authors who employed some of the same sources, but not all of the same sources.

The chapters in each of these gospels that details the time from his arrest to his burial have various numerous different elements that are unique to each version, which strongly indicates unique sources.

Sure, there is considerable harmony in the synoptic, particularly in respect to many of the words and deeds attributed to Jesus, but also there are many unique differences that indicate independent research on behalf of each unique writer.

Therefore, because each chapter in these three gospels that deals with the time period of his arrest to his burial demonstrates unique research, we therefore have three independent accounts of the events that occurred on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth from the synoptic alone.

And there's nothing bias about it. It's simply a reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2016, 02:07 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2016 02:10 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Perhaps I look at it a bit differently than you do, GU, as an evolutionary biologist.

What I see are not "three independent accounts", but three branches on an evolutionary tree, which are rooted in the same base tradition, but which developed additional elements over time. The term in biology is allopatric speciation, where a root population spreads into separate territories and begins acquiring unique mutations in their (now isolated) gene pools. Just as we look for evidence/clues in the DNA for where populations split and how the genes were passed down, we can evaluate the stories here on a similar basis.

In the earliest versions of Mark, we have an empty tomb but not a resurrection story. In later versions of Mark, we see the "tacked-on" resurrection story [Edit to Add: I should say "tacked-on stories" since there exists more than one variant of Mark-Plus], and more-developed (evolved) versions of this myth in the other two synoptics. Of course, there was still some "gene-sharing" going on between the first century Christian communities, as memes found their way into the narrative and were adopted by other groups, so it's not entirely allopatric, but I think it's pretty clear that speciation is going on. Unlike DNA, they were able to go back and add the "missing" bit to the early version of Mark to make it jive with the version of Christian mythology that was evolving through the middle part of the first century, 30-50 years after the execution of Jesus.

In other words, I think calling them "independent accounts of the events", the fundamentalist narrative by the way, is more than a little misleading, and not a good way to describe it.

"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
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-08-2016, 03:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-08-2016 06:46 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-08-2016 03:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are not independent all sources. The one who's biased here is YOU.

You have the synoptic; 3 gospels that are not identical, therefore 3 different authors who employed some of the same sources, but not all of the same sources.

The chapters in each of these gospels that details the time from his arrest to his burial have various numerous different elements that are unique to each version, which strongly indicates unique sources.

Sure, there is considerable harmony in the synoptic, particularly in respect to many of the words and deeds attributed to Jesus, but also there are many unique differences that indicate independent research on behalf of each unique writer.

Therefore, because each chapter in these three gospels that deals with the time period of his arrest to his burial demonstrates unique research, we therefore have three independent accounts of the events that occurred on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth from the synoptic alone.

And there's nothing bias about it. It's simply a reality.


Therefore, because each chapter in these three gospels that deals with the time period of his arrest to his burial demonstrates unique research, we therefore have three independent accounts of the events that occurred on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth from the synoptic alone


This is so outlandishly wrong, it reminds me of this...
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/...omide.html
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
16-08-2016, 08:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-08-2016 02:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Perhaps I look at it a bit differently than you do, GU, as an evolutionary biologist.

What I see are not "three independent accounts", but three branches on an evolutionary tree, which are rooted in the same base tradition,

Agreed, and that root will be the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:but which developed additional elements over time. The term in biology is allopatric speciation, where a root population spreads into separate territories and begins acquiring unique mutations in their (now isolated) gene pools. Just as we look for evidence/clues in the DNA for where populations split and how the genes were passed down, we can evaluate the stories here on a similar basis.

Again, agreed.

Quote:In the earliest versions of Mark, we have an empty tomb but not a resurrection story. In later versions of Mark, we see the "tacked-on" resurrection story [Edit to Add: I should say "tacked-on stories" since there exists more than one variant of Mark-Plus], and more-developed (evolved) versions of this myth in the other two synoptics.

Agreed.


Quote:Of course, there was still some "gene-sharing" going on between the first century Christian communities, as memes found their way into the narrative and were adopted by other groups, so it's not entirely allopatric, but I think it's pretty clear that speciation is going on. Unlike DNA, they were able to go back and add the "missing" bit to the early version of Mark to make it jive with the version of Christian mythology that was evolving through the middle part of the first century, 30-50 years after the execution of Jesus.

Agreed.

Quote:In other words, I think calling them "independent accounts of the events", the fundamentalist narrative by the way, is more than a little misleading, and not a good way to describe it.

Unfortunately, although you provide a reasonable argument for the Markan gospel as a whole, you are not actually addressing my point regarding:

"The chapters in each of these gospels that details the time from his arrest to his burial have various numerous different elements that are unique to each version, which strongly indicates unique sources."

Sure, each of the 3 synoptic gospels share common information, but it is what they don't share that makes them as unique from each other as a dolphin is from a porpoise. Although both belong to the whale family, it is their unique characteristics that makes them distinct from each other.

It is obvious in the section in question that all the gospels have a common gene ie; the execution of Jesus. However, it is the introduction of the random variables in this section that I am addressing, which indicate original research. It is this original research that sets them apart from each other in which we have a dolphin, porpoise, and a beluga.

All we can say for a certainty though is that the crucifixion of Jesus is the common gene, and all the rest only merely provides one "whale" of a story.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
16-08-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:What I see are not "three independent accounts",


We have one original, so-called "mark" which is the bare bones story which is then augmented by two fan fics, (matty and luke) expanded with the additions of lots of silly shit - the nativity shit, for example - and then there is john which seems to come from a different tradition but still copies most of the original mark tale.

It's all just bullshit without a single fact to substantiate it.

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
16-08-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-08-2016 10:13 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:What I see are not "three independent accounts",


We have one original, so-called "mark" which is the bare bones story which is then augmented by two fan fics, (matty and luke) expanded with the additions of lots of silly shit - the nativity shit, for example - and then there is john which seems to come from a different tradition but still copies most of the original mark tale.

It's all just bullshit without a single fact to substantiate it.

I cannot accept your opinion because I find it completely implausible that someone like you could possibly exist.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-08-2016 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:Therefore, because each chapter in these three gospels that deals with the time period of his arrest to his burial demonstrates unique research, we therefore have three independent accounts of the events that occurred on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth from the synoptic alone

This is so outlandishly wrong

Actually it is obviously factual, as each account of that particular point in time introduces random variables not found common in any other gospel record.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: