Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2016, 12:25 AM
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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having read all surviving works of Tacitus, I can state clearly he never mentioned any Jesus.

You need to read the previous posts. For example I mentioned his family had suffered under the Julio Claudians. Tiberius with his cohort Sejanus, to be precise.

Tacitus took a lot of anger out on that family and it is often seen in his writing. You would know this had you read Tacitus, but you have not.

Even the story of Nero persecuting xians has no evidence to support it and is likely an adage after Eusebius came to power alongside Constantine.

That the member of the Julio Claudian family would have even known about a tiny sect of xians is implausible. Why? They were unimportant. And extremely small in number.

Read the posts before you respond Tomasia. Otherwise you don't fair well.

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
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
25-06-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 10:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

This is a dishonest and contradictory statement. Not only do the bolded sections completely contradict each other, the middle statement could also be taken to contradict the initial claim.

(24-06-2016 10:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Narrowness?

Many posters insist on evidence.
Many posters rely on science and the scientific method to verify claims.
Many posters demand that those who profess religious beliefs justify them.

If this is narrowness then fine, I can accept that.

How can you discuss anything if you refuse to give details. This is another dishonest and contradictory statement.

In one post, you claim to be a christian. The word "christian" can mean anything from a mormon to roman catholic to methodist to baptist to nondenominational.
To have any rational, meaningful discussion to are going to have to define your position and then defend it when people question it.

I should also note that many posters who ask your beliefs are doing so in order to avoid making assumptions or generalizations. The opposite of what you often do.

(24-06-2016 10:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Nor do I believe you give a shit either.

Given your history here, why should he?

You insist on telling us what we believe, why we believe it and why we are wrong to believe that way. When we refute those fallacies, stating our beliefs in the process, you play manipulative word games. When backed into a corner you move the goal posts, shift burden of proof or simply claim victory and move to another thread.

(24-06-2016 10:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You don't ask our beliefs. You tell us what they are, then argue against your strawman. Many posters here have also stated their own worldviews. You tend to deny that or ignore it, since it usually conflicts or refutes your arguments.

(24-06-2016 10:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So expect from me the same.

So you "sink to our level"? Instead of setting a "good example"?

That's not very christian, is it?

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
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
25-06-2016, 07:41 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 10:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Horseshit. When asked, I answer. You dissemble and make excuses.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-06-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Hi Seoq,

Just adding my two cents. There's a really good book called Nailed by David Fitzgerald that rips to shreds any contemporary accounts of Jesus. I highly recommend it if you are looking for any books on the subject.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jennybee's post
25-06-2016, 08:51 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:No, I have no problem stating what my religious beliefs, I just don't give a shit about defending them here,...
while engaging in perpetuous inquiry about other peoples beliefs (which, in this case is just a disbelief), then picturing these persons as close minded, misled, stubborn or even fundamentalist, judging others with such contempt and thinking a divine authority makes you doing so a rightful thing to do....

...thats what the inquisition did.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
25-06-2016, 08:56 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-06-2016 04:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  not to mention the plethora of NT texts from multiple writers, using sources both written and oral earlier than their own writings,

We're STILL waiting to have this "plethora" to be detailed and enumerated, and how we know each one is reliable.

I suspect we will wait forever.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2016, 08:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-06-2016 12:11 PM)seoq Wrote:  I have a few questions and I apologize in advance if they're hard to understand.

I'm wondering if there are any contemporary accounts of Jesus. To be more specific, were there any people who lived during his time who were close to the areas his ministry (supposedly) visited who should have written about him or told others about him? How about people who were not so close but were known to write reliable accounts of what was happening in that region during that time? I'm also wondering if it's reasonable to expect that there should be non biblical contemporary accounts of him, considering that he (supposedly) preached to thousands and preformed miracles in front of many (possibly thousands)? Surely there were literate people who would have witnessed him first hand that would have wrote about him, and considering the nature of his ministry (legitimate miracles) even non literate people would have spread word about him that would have ended up being chronicled by others. Am I asking reasonable questions? I feel like they're obvious and I would appreciate it greatly if someone could take the time to help me understand why these things don't exist. I've asked Christians and was basically told that the accounts in the bible are sufficient to prove that he did in fact do the things written about him in the gospels (and so forth).

To be clear I'm asking for reliable contemporary accounts that didn't end up in the Bible or a part of Christian tradition. For example someone writing a letter to someone else about Jesus and what he was doing.

Thank you.

There's nothing from the time associated with Jesus. That leads some sceptics not to look at a different time. If you look at a later date you will find mention of a family with similar histories to that of Jesus and his family and the evidence of it is in Jewish, Roman and Armenian histories.

This view is considered heretical around here as will be evidenced by the hysterical posts which follow from some of our resident myhthicists.

Just watch.

Anyway. This later Jesus has the same name and became a rabbi. He converted after being sent away by his parents at an early age to a place called Charax Spasinu. He was converted by a Rabbi Eleazar who preached a Hellenized version of Judaism. This Jesus then became popular in Jerusalem for his work educating children and helping with famine relief. He became involved in an uprising and is said to have been thrown over the wall after which he is not heard of again.

All from the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 10:14 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 10:18 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-06-2016 06:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 06:07 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Perhaps you should learn more about history. Tacitus wasn't even born yet until 31 years AFTER jesus's death.Let's look at some facts:

I guess this is a common disease among atheists here, where they attempt to raise points in regards to claims I never made. Such as Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus. So save it.


Quote:You ineptitude and lack of knowledge of the historicity of jesus is only over-ridden by your epic level of ignorance and gullibility...

My ineptitude and lack of knowledge? Your the guy who made up a claim about Philo being in Jerusalem around the time of Jesus's death, and have been called out on it twice, this will be the third time. Previously you stated your lack of response was because you were too busy, yet you had time for this post, but not the time to take accountability for passing along a false claim?

At least Bucky was able to confess that he was wrong in this, while you and rocketsurgeon have yet to take ownership of this.

Quote:Jesus was nailed to a piece of wood 33 CE. Philo led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39 CE. Philo clearly was in the area around the time of jesus's execution.

Sure if several hundred miles from Jerusalem can be interpreted as near the area, lol.

We have Philo's embassy to Gaius, I even reread it in our previous conversation about this. Please cite the portion of where Philo claims he was in the Jerusalem area at the time. Can't find it huh? Yea that's what I though.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You fixate on the inconsequential.

let me take it down to basics for you, my ineducable tyro buddy. If jesus was the messiah, and these wondrous and epic level of magical acts were occurring, do you not think historians in the area where they happened would have heard of them, and more importantly, wrote about them? yes Alexandria is a few hundred miles from Jerusalem, and yes Philo visited Jerusalem 6 years after his death, and no, Philo apparently had never heard about jesus because he never mentions him. Odd don't you think? Now why is this a nail in the coffin for christianty?

"Philo's primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity."

Now how could someone who was so invested in the theological world at that time, fail to mention jesus christ? Consider

oh, there is more:

"he visited Jerusalem and the temple, as he himself stated in Prov. 2.64. Philo's brother, Alexander, was a wealthy, prominent Roman government official, a custom agent responsible for collecting dues on all goods imported into Egypt from the East. He donated money to plate the gates of the temple in Jerusalem with gold and silver. He also made a loan to Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great. Alexander's two sons, Marcus and Tiberius Julius Alexander were involved in Roman affairs. Marcus married Bernice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who is mentioned in Acts (25:13, 23; 26:30). The other son, Tiberius Julius Alexander, described by Josephus as "not remaining true to his ancestral practices" became procurator of the province of Judea (46-48 C.E.) and prefect of Egypt (66-70 C.E.). Philo was involved in the affairs of his community which interrupted his contemplative life (Spec. leg. 3.1-6), especially during the crisis relating to the pogrom which was initiated in 38 C.E. by the prefect Flaccus, during the reign of emperor Gaius Caligula. He was elected to head the Jewish delegation, which apparently included his brother Alexander and nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander, and was sent to Rome in 39-40 B.C.E. to see the emperor. He reported the events in his writings Against Flaccus and The Embassy to Gaius."

Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

Yet no mention of jesus christ superstar the miracle spouting demi-god.

Gasp

Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.

With Philo's close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa "vexing certain of the church" or killing "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).

Nope, not a word...perhaps the bible has yet again exposed itself for the fiction, forgery and fantasy that it is... oh noes

"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel."

– Philo, "On the Confusion of Tongues," (146)

No mention of jesus? odd.

The point dear child is not how many times Philo was in Jerusalem, but the fact that he had been, and was immensely invested in the theological development at the time, had familial ties to Jerusalem, invested money in jerusalem, and yet NEVER apparently heard of jesus christ the miracle performer...never witnessed the magic, never heard stories of the magic, never mentioned all the drama that allegedly happened in jerusalem and when he visited in 39CE on his way to visit the emperor in 40 CE, he apparently didnt see or hear anything worth writing down about the son of god who created so much attention just a few years previously. A THINKING person would surmise that if the man jesus of nazareth existed (I believe so) and was executed (most likely) then that is the extent of any truth of jesus of nazareth. He clearly did not have the impact the bible states, he clearly did not perform miraculous acts supposedly witnessed by throngs of people, he clearly did not cause zombies to burst out of their graves because those types of events would have been noted. Not one royal scribe, historian, astronomist or literate person etc AT THE TIME apparently heard of or saw these miraculous events. THAT is the point about Philo's lack of mentioning of jesus.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
25-06-2016, 10:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Careful:

(25-06-2016 10:14 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

– Philo, "On the Confusion of Tongues," (146)

You're going to confuse people with sources and citations...

Thumbsup

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
25-06-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 08:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  There's nothing from the time associated with Jesus.

Which is a very strong point against historicity.

(25-06-2016 08:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  That leads some sceptics not to look at a different time.


Some. However the vocal posters here have discussed the evidence from a variety of eras.

(25-06-2016 08:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  If you look at a later date you will find mention of a family with similar histories to that of Jesus and his family and the evidence of it is in Jewish, Roman and Armenian histories.

The reason historians focus on the oldest sources is because they are the most accurate. They are less likely to have been corrupted by embellishment, forgeries and propaganda.

(25-06-2016 08:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  This view is considered heretical around here as will be evidenced by the hysterical posts which follow from some of our resident myhthicists.

You cannot pre-debunk those who are about to debunk you, by predicting the inevitable debunking.

(25-06-2016 08:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Just watch.

No. Watch and learn.

(25-06-2016 08:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyway. This later Jesus has the same name...

Source citation? Preferably with a link. I'm sure there is more than one "Jewish Encyclopedia".

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: