Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 04:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 01:48 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 01:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What's interesting is the tendency for many atheists to readily swallow this sort of rubbish, without question, and fight tooth and nail to resist being held accountable for it when called out on it.

You would be the expert on that, wouldn't you?

Josephus was a Jewish historian who worked for the Romans as a soldier He wrote stuff down and mentioned Jesus. Why would he do that, make stuff up?

This is from scholars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 04:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 04:17 PM)Doddia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 01:48 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You would be the expert on that, wouldn't you?

Josephus was a Jewish historian who worked for the Romans as a soldier He wrote stuff down and mentioned Jesus. Why would he do that, make stuff up?

This is from scholars.

IIRC, Josephus mentions Jesus twice. One of those passages is considered dubious. Some scholars believe it might be forged. Others do not.

We had another thread dedicated to that issue:
another thread
Like this thread, it got a bit contentious.

Have you heard of Richard Carrier and the mythicist theory?

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, 05:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ..... 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.

Rolleyes

As I said, in PROVIDENCE http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1020452

Providence 2.64

"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 (§ 64).


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

now dipshit, does it fucking matter who he met in jerusalem? he was fucking there. So the point from the fucking beginning was....Philo never mentions jesus. Since Philo was intimately familiar with theology at the time, wrote the fucking foundation for which Christianity theology is based, was in jerusalem around the time jesus was executed...it is UNBELIEVABLE he never mentions jesus, or any of the biblical miraculous acts of global darkness and invading zombies that impacted the area....a THINKING person would surmise if this jesus had the affect he allegedly had where people were in massive throngs from all over to hear him...and had such a dramatic and never seen before impact on life in that area...Philo would have heard about it. 3, 6, 10 years later WHATEVER... those types of events would not have faded into old news. Do you not grasp that? You clutter your mind with the inconsequential. Philo existed, Philo lived in the region, Philo traveled, Philo was in jerusalem, Philo was engaged with the temple in jerusalem and yet...YET...he never mentions jesus. it is unfathomable to think jesus could have been doing what the bible says in that region and Philo never heard of it...guess it wasnt that big a deal..you know...global darkness and zombies and stuff is just an everyday occurrence there. Wake the fuck up.

"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
28-06-2016, 05:35 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 04:17 PM)Doddia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 01:48 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You would be the expert on that, wouldn't you?

Josephus was a Jewish historian who worked for the Romans as a soldier He wrote stuff down and mentioned Jesus. Why would he do that, make stuff up?

This is from scholars.

No he didn't. The first one was a fraud, the second one is questionable.
He didn't "work as a soldier".
You clearly don't know "scholars".

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
28-06-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 04:17 PM)Doddia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 01:48 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You would be the expert on that, wouldn't you?

Josephus was a Jewish historian who worked for the Romans as a soldier He wrote stuff down and mentioned Jesus. Why would he do that, make stuff up?

This is from scholars.

Josephus' writing is not contemporary and it's a forgery.



Matthew 22: And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him. 23: And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. 24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. 25And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.


So here's a guy who supposedly is defying all the laws of physics, is known "THROUGHOUT ALL OF SYRIA", is curing diseases that plagues all of humanity, is famous far and wide, has "MULTITUDES" of people following him around, raises dead people and has them WALKING IN THE STREETS of a major middle eastern city. Here's a guy who during his own death a huge earthquakes happens, the sky goes dark FOR THREE HOURS and this happens in a very busy city full of merchants, traders from the silk road, Roman soldiers, Jewish rabbis (who knew how to write) yet NOT ONE PERSON writes about all these events during the time it happened.

Oh no, they wait 45 to 80 years to write it down......AFTER the stories were told for two generations. If this isn't the biggest cock and bull story ever to come down the pike then I don't know what is and anyone who believes it is an idiot.

Geesh!

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like dancefortwo's post
28-06-2016, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 06:45 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Wow, you're a smug little asshole. I've held off applying such labels to you, as others have done, until I saw for myself. Time to dissect this a bit:

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I went over the problems with these objections, such as Banjo claim that the passage makes better sense if we removed that portion all together, claims that it was referring to a James who was the brother of the high priest etc.. I also point out that, the James portion unlike the Testimonium is regarded as authentic, by scholars and historians. Yet people here are inclined to a minority view of their own, arguing it’s inauthenticity.

I don't believe any (or many) of us are arguing the passage is an interpolation (inauthentic), in that it wasn't written by Josephus. So you're flailing away at a straw-man, AGAIN. The argument is, if you will re-read what I previously wrote, that it may not apply to THE James of the Bible, as there are other contenders for the identity of the men with that common name. Whether or not the scholarly consensus on this that the passage really does refer to James the Just (and apparently I have to tell you, again, that I think it does), the other explanations must be taken into account. I do not consider it a settled question. Nor should you. That's why I said "hold it as evidence only to the degree warranted", before.

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  This sort of tendency indicates to me, that without a doubt, that even if Philo, heard of Jesus from secondhand sources, and wrote of him, what we’d have is individuals claiming that this was a christian interpolation, or that Philo got his information from hearsay. They’d be doing to Philo what they do with Josephus, and Tacitus, and etc… Because that’s the name of the game.

If the style of the writing did not fit the philosophy or writing style of the man writing it, then we would think it was an interpolation, as we do with the Josephus passage about "if it be lawful to call him a man".

If Philo could not possibly have been there to witness the things he was describing, then it would be called hearsay. That's the literal definition of the term.

The "name of the game" here is to apply logic completely to the situation, not to jump to cherished pet ideas because you think the evidence should probably be read your way, and no other. Us pointing out to you that there are other ways that might work, while you continue to harp on only your pet idea, should show you the problem, here. It's why I called you dishonest.

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No the tendency is what I refer to as doubt casting. Claiming this individual is not to be trusted, deemed as unreliable, suggestions that they could be lying. Suggest that Paul might be lying about meeting his brother and disciples. That the early church got rid of writings supportive of the mythicist position, etc..

1) You cannot trust Paul without cross-checking the assertions he makes, as he was a person deliberately (rightly or wrongly) trying to spread a religion. He has a clear agenda, and it is well known that at that period in history it was common for writers to make stuff up to support their claims. People making up religions make up stuff all the time, even today. The same applies, for instance, when we review the "history" of the Mormon church as written by Joseph Smith and his core followers.

2) We know that the church did destroy things it did not feel fit its particular agenda. To deny this is to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and hum.

3) Are you going to admit at some point that I am not a Mythicist? Seriously, dude, this is getting old.

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That particular passage could be an interpolation. If you point out that historians and scholar deem a particular passage as authentic, they blame it on the christian strong hold on the scholarship here, that it’s a result of the particular scholars agenda.

Again... not calling it an interpolation, so knock that shit right off, bud.

And you're apparently unwilling to acknowledge that "traditional" interpretations of things carry a lot of weight in scholarly circles (even in science, where they should not, despite its auto-correcting nature), and that in the particular case of theologians and certain historians, the market for "heretical" interpretations may not be very good. What we look at is the reasons listed for considering it authentic, or not, and make judgment calls on which methodology seems most reliable, just as scholars do when reviewing the work of others. You should consider, as we do, the fact that "scholarly consensus" here carries a lot of baggage from the theological influence of the Christian cult on people who attempt to approach this issue.

All that said, I do think it refers to real people and events, for which Josephus was obviously not an eyewitness, but which he heard about and recorded decades after they happened... with the usual amount of "game of telephone" in the middle years.

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’m sure you, and others here deem all of this as a rational tendency, primary because it’s a common tendency among your fellow atheists in regards to historicity. But it’s not, it’s more psychological than rational. More akin to what takes place in my delusional cousin’s paranoias, or among birthers, and 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

If you repeat that 9/11 shit about six more times, it will finally become true. Our ideas are based in good and careful thinking about the subject. I'll say it one last time: if Jesus was real but not magical (as I think), then it changes nothing about our beliefs... so why would we go to the trouble you suggest?

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s not my point. I’m not the one speaking of zombies roving around, you and others seem to be obsessed with that part.

Because, as I just pointed out, above, it doesn't matter if he was just a teacher who pissed off some important members of the establishment and got himself murdered. It's the "magical man-god who changed the world" bit that makes Christianity a thing... if you leave out the magical parts of the Gospels (when considering the likelihood of their authenticity), then you have nothing. Nothing.

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Philo just mentioned in passing that he was in Jerusalem, to explain why he was in Syria. He just may have met with scholars and family members in the area during his visit, but he didn’t tell us this, nor did he mention any part of the conversation he may or may not have had with them at the time. Nor can you place this visit in Jerusalem in the period in which your eager to, around the time of Jesus ministry and death. It’s more wishful thinking on your part, than anything else.

I would certainly place the highest likelihood of his journey being during the later adult years of his life, once he had established his reputation and fortune, yes. That puts him there sometime between 30-50 CE (the latter being the outside date, since he died then), well within the timeframe to have heard about all the miraculous stuff. And you've got to be out of your mind delusional to think he went to the temple just to pray and carry on. He makes it clear that it was a once in a lifetime chance to actually visit the origin/focus of his faith, in his "passing" description.

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet in the earlier thread, before you now admitted ignorance, you wanted to interject yourself when I corrected GoodwithoutGood on this point, claiming that his placement of Jesus at the time was correct. When I called out GoodwithoutGood about his placement of Philo in Jerusalem based on his Embassy of Gaius, you probably should have shut the fuck up, since you now admit to have not read the Embassy to Gaius. Your confidence, and endorsement at the time, was clearly not warranted.

Go fuck yourself. Seriously. I just explained why and how I came to that conclusion, and it would have sufficed to say "no he went by boat, as it says in this passage..." instead of trying to pretend we haven't read any Philo. And again, I still place him in that region in that time frame... it's just not as part of the trip to Rome. When else would he have gone? As a youngster, like some trip to Disney World?

(28-06-2016 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I’m not going to belabor the point any further, you admitted you were incorrect, and I’ll leave it at that.

Crowing is unbecoming. But right in character for an asshole.

"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
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-06-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Rocket, "smug asshole" is a requirement when your position lacks credibility...

...so that should clear up things I hope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
29-06-2016, 06:15 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 06:59 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 05:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  now dipshit, does it fucking matter who he met in jerusalem? he was fucking there. So the point from the fucking beginning was....Philo never mentions jesus. Since Philo was intimately familiar with theology at the time, wrote the fucking foundation for which Christianity theology is based, was in jerusalem around the time jesus was executed...it is UNBELIEVABLE he never mentions jesus, or any of the biblical miraculous acts of global darkness and invading zombies that impacted the area....a THINKING person would surmise if this jesus had the affect he allegedly had where people were in massive throngs from all over to hear him...and had such a dramatic and never seen before impact on life in that area...Philo would have heard about it. 3, 6, 10 years later WHATEVER... those types of events would not have faded into old news. Do you not grasp that? You clutter your mind with the inconsequential. Philo existed, Philo lived in the region, Philo traveled, Philo was in jerusalem, Philo was engaged with the temple in jerusalem and yet...YET...he never mentions jesus. it is unfathomable to think jesus could have been doing what the bible says in that region and Philo never heard of it...guess it wasnt that big a deal..you know...global darkness and zombies and stuff is just an everyday occurrence there. Wake the fuck up.

No, what matters is you're a lying piece of shit. Here's your claim from earlier about Philo:

"He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.”

You also claimed Philo was in Jerusalem in 39CE, or few short years after Jesus's death. Another lie.

We all agree that Philo had visited Jerusalem at some point in his life, he mentions he did in passing in On Providence, only to explain why he was in Syria. It's your lie about when he was Jerusalem that's my issue, which like the sad sack of shit you are, have yet to take accountability for.

You didn't get that from Philo, you heard it on the internet and took it at face value, without question, and repeated it here. You could have confessed to this, and all of this could have been avoided. But it's you refusal to acknowledge this, is what I take issue with.

"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
29-06-2016, 06:30 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 05:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  now dipshit, does it fucking matter who he met in jerusalem? he was fucking there. So the point from the fucking beginning was....Philo never mentions jesus. Since Philo was intimately familiar with theology at the time, wrote the fucking foundation for which Christianity theology is based, was in jerusalem around the time jesus was executed...it is UNBELIEVABLE he never mentions jesus, or any of the biblical miraculous acts of global darkness and invading zombies that impacted the area....a THINKING person would surmise if this jesus had the affect he allegedly had where people were in massive throngs from all over to hear him...and had such a dramatic and never seen before impact on life in that area...Philo would have heard about it. 3, 6, 10 years later WHATEVER... those types of events would not have faded into old news. Do you not grasp that? You clutter your mind with the inconsequential. Philo existed, Philo lived in the region, Philo traveled, Philo was in jerusalem, Philo was engaged with the temple in jerusalem and yet...YET...he never mentions jesus. it is unfathomable to think jesus could have been doing what the bible says in that region and Philo never heard of it...guess it wasnt that big a deal..you know...global darkness and zombies and stuff is just an everyday occurrence there. Wake the fuck up.

No, what matters is your a lying piece of shit. Here's your claim from earlier about Philo:

"He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.”

You also claimed Philo was in Jerusalem in 39CE, or few short years after Jesus's death. Another lie.

We all agree that Philo had visited Jerusalem at some point in his life, he mentions he did in passing in On Providence, only to explain why he was in Syria. It's your lie about when he was Jerusalem that's my issue, which like the sad sack of shit you are, have yet to take accountability for.

You didn't get that from Philo, you heard it on the internet and took it at face value, without question, and repeated it here. You could have confessed to this, and all of this could have been avoided. But it's you refusal to acknowledge this, is what I take issue with.

Lying about what GWG is saying to you and labeling his responses as "lies" continues to make you look like a dishonest fuck. Which is clearly all you want to be seen as now. A lying preacher Drinking Beverage Yep, you're a Christian (they aren't all lying jerk-bags, but the ones who go on atheist forums because they're so insecure tend to be)

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
29-06-2016, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 07:06 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I would certainly place the highest likelihood of his journey being during the later adult years of his life, once he had established his reputation and fortune, yes. That puts him there sometime between 30-50 CE (the latter being the outside date, since he died then), well within the timeframe to have heard about all the miraculous stuff

Philo was 75 when he died in 50ce. So your time frame would require him to be making the trek for the Jewish Festival between the age of 55-75. He also came from a wealthy family, so there’s no reason to think he couldn’t have financially supported his trip to Jerusalem, earlier than this.

It seems we have to believe he made the trek at that age range, and period you suggest, for no other reason, than if he did it in his 40s, or 30s, or earlier, he would have missed Jesus entirely, whose own significance, his ministry and untimely death, was a for a few short years, about 3-4 years of importance.

Philo trip to Jerusalem must have been an uneventful one also, since he only mentions it in passing, and found the pigeons in Syria as a more significant thing to write about than the goings on in Jerusalem at the time of his visit.

Quote:Wow, you're a smug little asshole. I've held off applying such labels to you, as others have done, until I saw for myself. Time to dissect this a bit:

Thank you, I’m trying on a new look, it seems to suit me well.

Quote:I don't believe any (or many) of us are arguing the passage is an interpolation (inauthentic), in that it wasn't written by Josephus. So you're flailing away at a straw-man, AGAIN. The argument is, if you will re-read what I previously wrote, that it may not apply to THE James of the Bible, as there are other contenders for the identity of the men with that common name. Whether or not the scholarly consensus on this that the passage really does refer to James the Just (and apparently I have to tell you, again, that I think it does), the other explanations must be taken into account. I do not consider it a settled question. Nor should you. That's why I said "hold it as evidence only to the degree warranted", before.

No, posters here have tried to argue pretty much everything here. That the entire passage about James was an interpolation, like Banjo suggested. That the James was another James as you suggest. That it was another Jesus. That the Christ part was an interpolation. That the Christ bit didn’t mean messiah, but high priest, etc…That because Josephus wasn’t there to witness James’s as death, his passage is to be disregarded.

Quote:Our ideas are based in good and careful thinking about the subject.

Lol, if anything can be said about the thinking here on the subject, is that it could hardly be classified as good and careful, but excessively sloppy. Why else would you have ran to support GoodwithouGod claims about Philo being in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus death, using the Embassy to Gaius as support, while later confessing to have never read it?

Is that what qualifies as good and careful thinking?

Apparently it’s good and careful thinking, that leads you to suggest that it was possibly another James. Who just coincidently had a brother named Jesus, who also coincidently was a messiah claimant, and who also coincidently had a rift with the Jewish authorities who accused him and others with him of breaking the Jewish law, and stoning them. Who coincidently would have lived and died in the same time frame. And it was a coincident that the writers of Matthew, of Mark, the first hand account of Paul also have their Jesus, another messiah claimant, having a brother named James, who was also a part of his following.

It’s good and careful thinking that leads one to think this is more likely to be the case, than it being James/Jesus cited in Mark, and Matthew as being brothers, for whom we also have a first hand account, indicating that relationship as well. We have collaborating sources here, even a first hand source, establishing this relationship.

But in you view good and careful thinking here, is to believe that it was likely another James, and the subsequent details were just a series of uncanny coincidences.

In reality your good careful thinking, is nothing of the sort, it’s nothing but desperation.

"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: