Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2016, 10:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
There is no record.of a synoptic Gospel being written until 78 AD. There is huge lattitude for the events in the synoptic Gospels to be about events after 33 AD.

Mythicist logic is flawed. There is nothing in the NT to date Jesus to 33 AD. Mythicists look at the historical record for a record of Pontius Pilate and find no Jesus. They conclude from this that there was therefore no such person as Jesus.

That logic is based on the idea that the New Testament is accurate and truthful about the dating of the events but inaccurate and untruthful about the much more significant aspects of the story i.e. that Jesus existed at all.

So. On the one hand the New Testament is a complete hoax and fraud, totally unreliable in its core facts and therefore a work of pure myth...based on one fact in it being absolutely true. It's just a stupid and illogical analysis.

Hey. Suppose the setting of the story in 33 AD is as deliberately false as the story about walking on water?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 10:54 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
The point is that if Jesus was crucified later, for instance by Titus Flavius, it may be that he or his father,Vespasian, only allowed the Gospel of Mathew to be written if it did not mention his having done this.

The story is put at the time of Pilate to protect the guilty and the date of the story has no significance to the story or its message.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 12:21 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
"suppose that.... "what if...". "it may be..."

And maybe it was written by a fucking dragon. This is why no one listens to you or takes you seriously: you don't provide facts, evidence, or even arguments you just try to weave a bloody narrative out of "what ifs" and "could be".

Prove it, publish it, or shut up with your pseudo-historian amateur hour garbage.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
25-06-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 10:45 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  There is no record.of a synoptic Gospel being written until 78 AD. There is huge lattitude for the events in the synoptic Gospels to be about events after 33 AD.

Mythicist logic is flawed. There is nothing in the NT to date Jesus to 33 AD. Mythicists look at the historical record for a record of Pontius Pilate and find no Jesus. They conclude from this that there was therefore no such person as Jesus.

That logic is based on the idea that the New Testament is accurate and truthful about the dating of the events but inaccurate and untruthful about the much more significant aspects of the story i.e. that Jesus existed at all.

So. On the one hand the New Testament is a complete hoax and fraud, totally unreliable in its core facts and therefore a work of pure myth...based on one fact in it being absolutely true. It's just a stupid and illogical analysis.

Hey. Suppose the setting of the story in 33 AD is as deliberately false as the story about walking on water?

The Christian gospels are primarily theological documents rather than historical chronicles. As such they are only good for comparing and contrasting with known historical timelines.

Two methods have been used to estimate the year of the birth of Jesus, one based on the accounts of his birth in the gospels with reference to King Herod's reign, the other by working backwards from his stated age of "about 30 years" when he began preaching: most scholars, on this basis, assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC. Both of these are hardly accurate enough to state a solid date, but it is the collection of available data from varying sources that allows one to make a decent hypothesis.

Three details have been used to estimate the year when Jesus began preaching: a mention of his age of "about 30 years" during "the fifteenth year" in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, another relating to the date of the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the death of John the Baptist. Hence, scholars estimate that Jesus began preaching, and gathering followers, around 28-29 AD. According to the three synoptic gospels Jesus continued preaching for at least one year, and according to John for three years. Again these are in accordance with "religious traditions" which means stories that were passed on which hardly equals factual data, but they can be taken into account when compared.

Four main approaches have been used to estimate the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. One uses non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus. Another works backwards from the historically well established trial of Apostle Paul in Achaea to estimate the date of Paul's conversion. Both approaches result in CE 36 as an upper bound to the crucifixion. Thus, scholars generally agree that Jesus was crucified between 30-36 CE. So what is the mean average Delta? 33CE.

Astronomical point estimates developed by Newton focus on Friday 3 April CE 33 and, less frequently, Friday 7 April CE 30. Recent astronomical research uses the contrast between the synoptic date of Jesus' last Passover on the one hand with John's date of the subsequent "Jewish Passover" on the other hand, to calculate Jesus' Last Supper to have been on Wednesday, 1 April CE 33 and the crucifixion on Friday 3 April CE 33.

So whereas I am the last person to point to fictional fairy tales as the validation for anything...in accordance with the sources within the belief system, and compared with moderately accepted facts, it seems like it would be 33CE.

It is like when I state "the mythical global flood of 2349 BCE." No, that does not mean I think the flood occurred in 2349 BCE, which is why I put the word mythical in front of it, or I describe it as "in accordance with christian tradition..." Backwards calculation of specific statements in the bible in comparison to historical events that we know happened gives us the date 2349 BCE "in accordance with tradition".

So "in accordance with christian tradition", jesus was executed approx 33CE. Philo was in Jerusalem in 39-40 CE according to his writings. Since Philo isn't making extraordinary claims, his writings of that can be worthy of consideration.

I didn't write the fable, I just disect it.

"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
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
25-06-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 10:45 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So. On the one hand the New Testament is a complete hoax and fraud, totally unreliable in its core facts and therefore a work of pure myth...based on one fact in it being absolutely true. It's just a stupid and illogical analysis.

Hey. Suppose the setting of the story in 33 AD is as deliberately false as the story about walking on water?

If any part of a story that is meant to be historically accurate was written to be false to protect someone than how do you know the entire thing isn't false? I've heard the theories about Jesus being an awesome rabbi who went around being charitable and charismatic but what does that have to do with the Jesus messiah myth? It seems you're just making excuses here.

Even if you were to prove this more humble Jesus did exist it's not like that's the same guy the Christians are currently worshiping. They worship the magical one that was executed and then came back to life, if you were to tell those people their Jesus never walked on water or turned water to wine they may let it go but the whole resurrection thing? That fucking matters and if that information can't be corroborated by any sources who were there, as in first hand accounts then there is no reason to believe it ever really happened.

That's the whole point of this thread, we have yet to find anything that proves this story. It's amazing what a little bit of doubt can accomplish, we may as well believe in the Iliad too. Troy was a real city and the story includes many Greek Gods including Zeus and Hermes, does that mean these Gods really existed?

I mean it seems to fit with history in many ways, maybe some parts were falsified, why not? If you're gonna make excuses for the nonsense in the Bible why not for other stories with a religious context? Probably because you don't believe in those Gods so why bother? Well I don't believe in Jesus so I gain nothing by making excuses for him.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SitaSky's post
25-06-2016, 03:04 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 10:14 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  and yes Philo visited Jerusalem 6 years after his death, and no,

This will be like the 5th time you've been called out on this lie, and fail to take accountability for it.

Philo didn't visit Jerusalem 6 years after Jesus death, nothing in own writing place him on or near Jerusalem at that time. Philo stated he visiting Jerusalem once during his own life time, and not in the time frame you suggest.

I'm asking you again are you going to admit that you were wrong, or are you just gonna continue repeating the lie here?

Quote:he point dear child is not how many times Philo was in Jerusalem

The point is your lying when you claim that Philo was in Jerusalem 6 years after Jesus's death. And lack the honesty required to admit that.

Are you gonna own up to it? Or try and dodge this for the like 5th time already?





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
25-06-2016, 03:13 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 01:50 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Philo was in Jerusalem in 39-40 CE according to his writings.

No Philo's writing do not place him in Jerusalem at that time. But apparently that doesn't stop you from repeating this lie.





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
25-06-2016, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 03:54 PM by Tomasia.)
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 08:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.


If one thing has become apparent, it's that for the atheists here nothing is reliable. Josephus is to be distrusted, Tacitus is to be distrusted, the first hand account of Paul is to be distrusted.

Atheists here point to Philo not mentioning Jesus, yet if Philo did mention Jesus they would just claim he's not to be trusted, that he wasn't there to witness any of it. That he relied on hearsay. Because that's the pattern here.

It's the pattern of thought borrowed from the birthers and creationist. You provide a birth certificate, and they go about the unreliability of short form birth certificates.

What all this discussion confirms for me, is my suspicion, that there's something psychological as opposed to rational about atheists and their belief that Jesus did not exist. That's it driven more out of a desire for Jesus to not exist, than reason. It's seem there's something bothersome to them about Jesus existing, though I'm not entirely sure why that is.




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
25-06-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Drinking Beverage
Gets ass handed to him and then proceeds to ignore
Drinking Beverage
Don't mind me, just stuffing your bullshit back in your face

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
25-06-2016, 04:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 01:50 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Philo was in Jerusalem in 39-40 CE according to his writings.

No Philo's writing do not place him in Jerusalem at that time. But apparently that doesn't stop you from repeating this lie.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have two finals due today, but allow me to drag you about for a bit:

Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.

"Philo says nothing of his own religious practices, except that he made a festival pilgrimage to Jerusalem.."

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Philo-Judaeus

Providence 2.62

"It amounts to this. It has been worked over by a clumsy hand which has destroyed the interlocutory setting, and torn the thoughts away from their essential order; it includes two large Christian interpolations, but otherwise is genuinely Philonic. The second book, which is twice the length, has no such difficulties. The dialogue is clearly maintained throughout. There is nothing which suggests interpolation and the parallelism both of thought and language, at any rate in the part of which the original is preserved by Eusebius, gives overwhelming evidence of its genuineness. This is particularly true of the first part of the second fragment. It is very remarkable therefore that it is more devoid of traces of Judaism than even the Quod Omn. Prob. and the De Aet. There are no allusions to the O.T., and no mention of Moses; the one and only fact which suggests that the writer is a Jew is the personal allusion to his visit to Jerusalem via Ascalon (ยง 64).

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/...ook38.html

Very little is known about the life of Philo. He lived in Alexandria, which at that time counted, according to some estimates, about one million people and included largest Jewish community outside of Palestine. He came from a wealthy and the prominent family and appears to be a leader in his community. Once he visited Jerusalem and the temple, as he himself stated in Prov. 2.64.

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

"he mentions having visited Jerusalem"

http://www.loebclassics.com/view/philo_j...63.449.xml

Tomasio...you feel that? That is my foot in your ass, as usual.

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: