Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 09:25 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 09:10 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 09:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then you have magically changed your position.
You told us before you have always believed in the gods.

It's interesting to observe how some theists wiggle.

Let's make it a new dance move called the "Tomato Wiggle." Basically you shake your head so fast and hard for so long that your brains begin to leak out

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
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
28-06-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 02:53 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Tomasia I'm not sure what you're talking about. You claim I need to correct my error in saying that Philo was in Jerusalem shortly after the execution of Jesus... and we showed you that he was part of a delegation to Rome that occurred in 40 C.E., and he wrote about many things in Judea at the time

Yes, he was part of Embassy to Gaius. The distance between Rome and Jerusalem is 1400 miles, so you tell me, how that puts him in Jerusalem at 40 C.E. You tell me how Philo being on or around Rome equal Philo being on or around Jerusalem at that time.

Quote:including stopping by the Temple there (estimated at 39 C.E., placing him there roughly 6 years after the execution of Jesus), which was the center of his religion. He would certainly have spoken to priests and family members, in the city.

He didn't stop by the Jerusalem temple around 39 C.E., I challenge you to go read the Embassy to Gaius, which is available for free online, for support. And when you're unable to do so, to correct yourself. And acknowledge that you were peddling a false claim.

Okay, I read that tedious thing, and I do stand corrected; in the Embassy to Gaius, he states that they sailed there, via Dicaearchia, which is modern-day Pozzuoli (ironically, where Paul claims to have landed on his way to Rome, too). However, it says nothing of their return home, be it by boat or road.

What I do know is that Philo himself states that he went to Jerusalem, and modern Hebrew scholars talk about the influence his connections with Jerusalem's scholarly community had (on him and on them), and I have no reason to distrust this information.

It made sense to me that he would have done it during his embassy to Rome, but apparently he made a separate trip. Okay. It doesn't change the contemporary nature of his journey. He was born 25 years before the Common Era. He went to Rome (by boat, apparently) in 40 C.E. At some point before his death in 50 C.E., he went to Jerusalem and spoke to the scholars there.

So I must ask you this... even if he made two trips, and did not combine them into his journey to/from Rome in 40 C.E., what changes in terms of him being a contemporary witness, and whence comes your objection? At absolute most it adds 10 years to his timing, and possibly reduces it to even closer to the time of Christ's presence in Judea, if not in 40.

In other words: what changes, in terms of our assertions here about contemporary witness who would have written about such monumental claims as were penned (after the death of Philo in 50) by Christians about the events that supposedly happened during his lifetime, which he appears not to have heard about?

"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
28-06-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 09:59 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, he was part of Embassy to Gaius. The distance between Rome and Jerusalem is 1400 miles, so you tell me, how that puts him in Jerusalem at 40 C.E. You tell me how Philo being on or around Rome equal Philo being on or around Jerusalem at that time.


He didn't stop by the Jerusalem temple around 39 C.E., I challenge you to go read the Embassy to Gaius, which is available for free online, for support. And when you're unable to do so, to correct yourself. And acknowledge that you were peddling a false claim.

Okay, I read that tedious thing, and I do stand corrected; in the Embassy to Gaius, he states that they sailed there, via Dicaearchia, which is modern-day Pozzuoli (ironically, where Paul claims to have landed on his way to Rome, too). However, it says nothing of their return home, be it by boat or road.

What I do know is that Philo himself states that he went to Jerusalem, and modern Hebrew scholars talk about the influence his connections with Jerusalem's scholarly community had (on him and on them), and I have no reason to distrust this information.

It made sense to me that he would have done it during his embassy to Rome, but apparently he made a separate trip. Okay. It doesn't change the contemporary nature of his journey. He was born 25 years before the Common Era. He went to Rome (by boat, apparently) in 40 C.E. At some point before his death in 50 C.E., he went to Jerusalem and spoke to the scholars there.

So I must ask you this... even if he made two trips, and did not combine them into his journey to/from Rome in 40 C.E., what changes in terms of him being a contemporary witness, and whence comes your objection? At absolute most it adds 10 years to his timing, and possibly reduces it to even closer to the time of Christ's presence in Judea, if not in 40.

In other words: what changes, in terms of our assertions here about contemporary witness who would have written about such monumental claims as were penned (after the death of Philo in 50) by Christians about the events that supposedly happened during his lifetime, which he appears not to have heard about?

I think it's rather pointless pedantry on his part as well as argument for the sake of argument.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
28-06-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 09:59 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, he was part of Embassy to Gaius. The distance between Rome and Jerusalem is 1400 miles, so you tell me, how that puts him in Jerusalem at 40 C.E. You tell me how Philo being on or around Rome equal Philo being on or around Jerusalem at that time.


He didn't stop by the Jerusalem temple around 39 C.E., I challenge you to go read the Embassy to Gaius, which is available for free online, for support. And when you're unable to do so, to correct yourself. And acknowledge that you were peddling a false claim.

Okay, I read that tedious thing, and I do stand corrected; in the Embassy to Gaius, he states that they sailed there, via Dicaearchia, which is modern-day Pozzuoli (ironically, where Paul claims to have landed on his way to Rome, too). However, it says nothing of their return home, be it by boat or road.

What I do know is that Philo himself states that he went to Jerusalem, and modern Hebrew scholars talk about the influence his connections with Jerusalem's scholarly community had (on him and on them), and I have no reason to distrust this information.

It made sense to me that he would have done it during his embassy to Rome, but apparently he made a separate trip. Okay. It doesn't change the contemporary nature of his journey. He was born 25 years before the Common Era. He went to Rome (by boat, apparently) in 40 C.E. At some point before his death in 50 C.E., he went to Jerusalem and spoke to the scholars there.

So I must ask you this... even if he made two trips, and did not combine them into his journey to/from Rome in 40 C.E., what changes in terms of him being a contemporary witness, and whence comes your objection? At absolute most it adds 10 years to his timing, and possibly reduces it to even closer to the time of Christ's presence in Judea, if not in 40.

In other words: what changes, in terms of our assertions here about contemporary witness who would have written about such monumental claims as were penned (after the death of Philo in 50) by Christians about the events that supposedly happened during his lifetime, which he appears not to have heard about?

[Image: what-difference-does-it-makes.jpg]

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
28-06-2016, 11:54 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 08:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 11:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Dude. What part of Bob is God do you not understand?

What's to understand? Consider The humor? Th absurdity? The non-definition of 'God'?

Yes.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-06-2016, 11:57 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.

Absolutely yes there were two. Josephus and Philemon, both historians of the period who weren't doing themselves any favours by recording Jesus' existence. I'm sure that if you google Josephus and Philemon you'll get something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Doddia's post
28-06-2016, 12:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 11:57 AM)Doddia Wrote:  Absolutely yes there were two. Josephus and Philemon, both historians of the period who weren't doing themselves any favours by recording Jesus' existence. I'm sure that if you google Josephus and Philemon you'll get something.

Heh. Yeah, those two are mentioned once or twice, further on in the thread. Big Grin

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
28-06-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 11:57 AM)Doddia Wrote:  
(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.

Absolutely yes there were two. Josephus and Philemon, both historians of the period who weren't doing themselves any favours by recording Jesus' existence. I'm sure that if you google Josephus and Philemon you'll get something.

Josephus didn't write a "contemporary account" of Jesus. The interpolation in Chapter 18 is clearly a forgery, and the reference in Chapter 20 references a "brother" named James.
How about you link us to the writings of Philemon ?

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
28-06-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 11:57 AM)Doddia Wrote:  Absolutely yes there were two. Josephus and Philemon, both historians of the period who weren't doing themselves any favours by recording Jesus' existence. I'm sure that if you google Josephus and Philemon you'll get something.

I'm unaware of a Philemon who was a historian of the period (feel free to enlighten me). I'm assuming by "Philemon", which is a book of the Bible, you meant to refer to Tacitus, a Roman Senator.

The problem is that neither Tacitus nor Josephus were born at the time of Jesus' alleged crucifixion, which makes them unable to record Jesus' existence... only to record stories they were told about it by later followers of Jesus.

"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
28-06-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 09:59 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Okay, I read that tedious thing, and I do stand corrected;

Thank you, now I'll wait for GoodwithoutGod to correct himself too.

Quote:It made sense to me that he would have done it during his embassy to Rome, but apparently he made a separate trip. Okay. It doesn't change the contemporary nature of his journey. He was born 25 years before the Common Era. He went to Rome (by boat, apparently) in 40 C.E. At some point before his death in 50 C.E., he went to Jerusalem and spoke to the scholars there.

Sure that might make sense, if you never read Philo, and wanted to make shit up as you went along. Philo mentions going to Jerusalem once, and it wasn't in his Embassy to Gaius, but in his writing's On Providence. In fact he only mentions this in passing, to explain why he was in Syria, astonished by the number of pigeons there, stating he was there on his traveling to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish Festivals.

So no you're wrong all around here. He doesn't say anything of visiting scholars in Jerusalem during his trip either, just that he went to pray and make sacrifices.

Quote:So I must ask you this... even if he made two trips, and did not combine them into his journey to/from Rome in 40 C.E., what changes in terms of him being a contemporary witness, and whence comes your objection? At absolute most it adds 10 years to his timing, and possibly reduces it to even closer to the time of Christ's presence in Judea, if not in 40.

As stated Philo lived several hundred miles away in Alexandria, and visited Jerusalem once, he's primarily interest was in penning his philosophical views. The subjects of pretty much each of his writings were theological. And there's no real reason to believe that he visited Jerusalem, during Jesus's short lived ministry there, before he met his untimely death.

So it's not really surprising why Philo wouldn't have mentioned Jesus, anymore so than it's surprising that he didn't mention any of the other Roman-Palestine area messiahs of the time.

Some people, and I believe you as well appealed to his supposed family connections, the letters they supposedly exchanged with each year. Yet even if Philo did write of Jesus based on these letters, the choir here would be crying as to how he wasn't an eye witness to the events he described, that it was based on hearsay, or an interpolation, like we do in regards to Josephus passage on James.

If Josephus isn't sufficient for these very reasons, I'm not sure while Philo would be.

"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: