Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 07:40 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Philo was 75 when he died in 50ce.

Source 1 indicates 55-65.
Philo Judaeus (born 15–10 bce, Alexandria—died 45–50 ce, Alexandria)
Ref 1

Source 2 indicates 60.
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.E.—40 C.E.)
Ref 2

Source 3 indicates 75
Philo of Alexandria (c. 25 BCE – c. 50 CE)
Ref 3

It would be more accurate to say he was 55-75 when he died.

Wouldn't want to get sloppy or careless.

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
29-06-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Now who's just making shit up out of whole cloth?

So he was a regular globetrotter, eh? It's more likely to you that he made several trips around the Mediterranean rim, only one of which happened to be to Jerusalem, when he was a youngster, rather than in the period of his life when we know he was traveling? Gotcha.

(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is that what qualifies as good and careful thinking?

Yes, considering all the possibilities, talking them through and bouncing them off our fellow human beings in order to look for supposition errors or factual errors is good and careful thinking. Considering any plausible explanation which hasn't yet been logically excluded is good and careful thinking. I'm sorry that this needs to be explained to you.


(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

*sigh* This is the last time I tell you I think the passage is genuine. But if you're going to sit there and pretend that your explanation is the only one, then I'm done talking to you. It's simply too exhausting to get you to stop making straw-men out of your opponents' arguments and crowing about your knowledge... which somehow seems to be so limited that it doesn't recognize that, however few, there are legitimate scholars who have issues with the version you (and I) accept as being legitimately a reference to a martyred James the Just.

If you'd like to see a fuller analysis of the Josephus passage than is realistically possible in a "discussion" like on this forum, try here:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10....s identify

I do smell desperation, but it's not on our side. Goodbye, Mr. Strawman Maker.

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-06-2016, 09:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 04:30 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 04:17 PM)Doddia Wrote:  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?

Yes, how on earth can any of us know for sure what happened so many years ago? That's impossible, but some scholars think their mentioning him is an indication that Jesus may have been a historical person.

You're quite right in pointing out that not all scholars agree, but then that's the norm among scholars of any academic discipline.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 09:06 AM)Doddia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 04:30 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  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?

Yes, how on earth can any of us know for sure what happened so many years ago? That's impossible, but some scholars think their mentioning him is an indication that Jesus may have been a historical person.

You're quite right in pointing out that not all scholars agree, but then that's the norm among scholars of any academic discipline.

I forgot to say no I haven't heard of the mythicist theory but it sounds fascinating; I'll look it up. Are you interested in Jung's theories of archetypes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:20 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Now who's just making shit up out of whole cloth?

So he was a regular globetrotter, eh? It's more likely to you that he made several trips around the Mediterranean rim, only one of which happened to be to Jerusalem, when he was a youngster, rather than in the period of his life when we know he was traveling? Gotcha.

(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is that what qualifies as good and careful thinking?

Yes, considering all the possibilities, talking them through and bouncing them off our fellow human beings in order to look for supposition errors or factual errors is good and careful thinking. Considering any plausible explanation which hasn't yet been logically excluded is good and careful thinking. I'm sorry that this needs to be explained to you.


(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

*sigh* This is the last time I tell you I think the passage is genuine. But if you're going to sit there and pretend that your explanation is the only one, then I'm done talking to you. It's simply too exhausting to get you to stop making straw-men out of your opponents' arguments and crowing about your knowledge... which somehow seems to be so limited that it doesn't recognize that, however few, there are legitimate scholars who have issues with the version you (and I) accept as being legitimately a reference to a martyred James the Just.

If you'd like to see a fuller analysis of the Josephus passage than is realistically possible in a "discussion" like on this forum, try here:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10....s identify

I do smell desperation, but it's not on our side. Goodbye, Mr. Strawman Maker.

Interesting, I'm learning from this site, which is why I joined. I knew that Josephus was a Jew who joined the Roman army but what about Philemon? I'll admit I don't know too much about either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:31 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 09:34 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  So he was a regular globetrotter, eh? It's more likely to you that he made several trips around the Mediterranean rim, only one of which happened to be to Jerusalem, when he was a youngster, rather than in the period of his life when we know he was traveling? Gotcha.

He traveled to Jerusalem to participate in the Jewish Festival, it wasn't a stop on a trip somewhere else, if you read the passage. In fact the only reason he even mentioned he traveled to Jerusalem, is to say that he visited Syria, while traveling to Jerusalem for the purpose of the Festival, so not when he was traveling for his Embassy to Gaius, which was in a different writing of his, and if it were the case, he'd be telling us that he visited Syria, on his way to meet Gaius, but that's not the case.

At best we'd have to speculate at what reasonable age would a wealthy Jew in Alexandria, have made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 20s? 30s? 40s? 50s? And even more effort to try and squeeze the period in which he made that trip, into the 3-4 years of Jesus significance, or after his death. But as far I can see there's little to no reason, to believe he was more likely to have been there during that short window, than other periods of his life.

Quote:
(29-06-2016 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

*sigh* This is the last time I tell you I think the passage is genuine. But if you're going to sit there and pretend that your explanation is the only one, then I'm done talking to you. It's simply too exhausting to get you to stop making straw-men out of your opponents' arguments and crowing about your knowledge... which somehow seems to be so limited that it doesn't recognize that, however few, there are legitimate scholars who have issues with the version you (and I) accept as being legitimately a reference to a martyred James the Just.

The entire portion of my post that you copied and responded to, was based on your suggestion that it was another James, than the James the brother of Jesus, as indicated in Matthew, in Mark, and the first hand account of Paul. It wasn't implying that you claimed it was an interpolation, just that it was another James. And I highlighted the variety of coincidences we'd have to believe to assume it was another James, than this one.

Quote:Yes, considering all the possibilities, talking them through and bouncing them off our fellow human beings in order to look for supposition errors or factual errors is good and careful thinking.

Yes, and lets see that good and careful thinking put to work, in addressing what I wrote about your suggestion that it was another James.

"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, 09:38 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 09:20 AM)Doddia Wrote:  Interesting, I'm learning from this site, which is why I joined. I knew that Josephus was a Jew who joined the Roman army but what about Philemon? I'll admit I don't know too much about either.

Josephus didn't "join the Roman army". He defected, and went to Rome, and worked for the emperor as a translator and PR guy. He thought (or said he thought) Vespasian was the messiah..... which is one of the reasons the 1st "interpolated" text makes no sense. Why would someone who thought Vespasian was the messiah say someone else was ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

There are reasons to doubt what various "leaders" in the early church claimed and stated. They admitted they "played" with the truth, if they thought it produced an outcome they thought was desirable.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-C...rly+church

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
29-06-2016, 09:48 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 09:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 09:20 AM)Doddia Wrote:  Interesting, I'm learning from this site, which is why I joined. I knew that Josephus was a Jew who joined the Roman army but what about Philemon? I'll admit I don't know too much about either.

Josephus didn't "join the Roman army". He defected, and went to Rome, and worked for the emperor as a translator and PR guy. He thought (or said he thought) Vespasian was the messiah..... which is one of the reasons the 1st "interpolated" text makes no sense. Why would someone who thought Vespasian was the messiah say someone else was ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

There are reasons to doubt what various "leaders" in the early church claimed and stated. They admitted they "played" with the truth, if they thought it produced an outcome they thought was desirable.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-C...rly+church

As far as I'm aware Josephus didn't claim that Jesus was the Messiah; he just mentioned him. If I'm wrong someone correct me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:07 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 10:23 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 09:48 AM)Doddia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 09:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Josephus didn't "join the Roman army". He defected, and went to Rome, and worked for the emperor as a translator and PR guy. He thought (or said he thought) Vespasian was the messiah..... which is one of the reasons the 1st "interpolated" text makes no sense. Why would someone who thought Vespasian was the messiah say someone else was ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

There are reasons to doubt what various "leaders" in the early church claimed and stated. They admitted they "played" with the truth, if they thought it produced an outcome they thought was desirable.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-C...rly+church

As far as I'm aware Josephus didn't claim that Jesus was the Messiah; he just mentioned him. If I'm wrong someone correct me?

The Testimonium Flavianum Josephus, Chapter 18
"Testimonium Flavianum
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

("the Christ" ..... IS "the messiah") ... the Greek translation of the Hebrew "anointed one".
So yeah.
IF he wrote the text in Chapter 18, (which makes NO sense), he called Jesus the "messiah". He would have also had to be affirming the resurrection. Not likely.
The earliest known copy of it is in the Museo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioteca_Ambrosiana ) Ambrosiano in Milan. The text above is in different handwriting, and in different ink than the surrounding text. It's clearly a forgery.

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
29-06-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 10:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 09:48 AM)Doddia Wrote:  As far as I'm aware Josephus didn't claim that Jesus was the Messiah; he just mentioned him. If I'm wrong someone correct me?

The Testimonium Flavianum Josephus, Chapter 18
"Testimonium Flavianum
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

("the Christ" ..... IS "the messiah") ... the Greek translation of the Hebrew "anointed one".
So yeah.
IF he wrote the text in Chapter 18, (which makes NO sense), he called Jesus the "messiah".
The earliest known copy of it is in the Museo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioteca_Ambrosiana ) Ambrosiano in Milan. The text above is in different handwriting, and in different ink than the surrounding text. It's clearly a forgery.

Wow, amazing, thanks for that! You've corrected me. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: