Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 11:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 11:25 AM)Doddia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 11:19 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Since you continue to accuse me of not reading the passage (for some reason), I'll just quote it here:

"There is a city of Syria, on the sea shore, Ascalon by name: when I was there, at the time when I was on my journey towards the temple of my native land for the purpose of offering up prayers and sacrifices therein" ...

All he says is that he stopped through Ascalon "on [his] journey towards the temple" to go pray and offer sacrifices. It does not say he stopped there and returned immediately home. It does not say he was only journeying for the purpose of offering sacrifices, only that he was journying towards the temple for that purpose.

So yes, it is a stop one would take if on a trip somewhere else. I certainly would, if I had a journey to make for official purposes, but not a hard-pressed timeline, and got a chance to swing by Jerusalem (and I'm not even Jewish!). It is directly on the path from Alexandria to Jerusalem, but also the major road to the cities of the coast and, eventually, up to Rome (unless one took the shortcut and went by boat, which could be more dangerous). Even more importantly, Ascalon is where one would land (as I'm sure you know, most boats of that day hugged the coast, rather than venturing straight across the open waters, especially when it was near the dangerous storm season, as he indicates in Embassy) if returning from a sea-voyage to Rome toward Alexandria, but wishing to take the opportunity while abroad to visit the Temple.

[Image: first_crusade.jpg]


Well, any time after this "wonderman" was beginning to make a name for himself, as the Gospels claim, would have sufficed... so any time in the last 20 years of his life, a period in which we know he was traveling, as opposed to a period before then, when we have no evidence he traveled at all.

Since you seem to keep letting it slip your mind that we're dealing with a guy who was both socially and geographically suited to hearing the tales of Wonder Jesus™, and that the real argument here isn't whether or not Jesus was a real apocalyptic preacher but whether or not the Gospel accounts (and those of Paul) are trustworthy accounts, I'll just take a break to remind you.

Keep in mind that we don't need him to physically travel in order to be in contact with the people of Jerusalem and the Levant on matters of religious significance-- he was wealthy, known in religious writer circles, and recorded things about religion as insignificant as birds and crocodiles. What he did not record were religious crazy-people making wild claims, so we wouldn't expect him to write about Yeshua ben Yosef... but we would expect him to write about anyone who made such a stir that they were followed by multitudes and were known throughout the land, as the gospels claim. By even asserting a guy who was so prominent in Alexandria's Jewish community and had contacts in Jerusalem (early in his life, if I believe your verson!) hadn't heard of Jesus, you're making our case for us.


Straw man argument.

I am not responding to an argument that is not mine. People with far more insight into ancient texts than I possess have, and do, make that argument. I simply pointed out that it should be considered strongly, for that reason.




[Image: StrawMan.jpg]

I'm less interested in whether the gospels are trustworthy, because they're clearly not. There are too many inconsistencies, such as one ass in one gospel and two in another; normal for accounts written by different people.

I'm more interested in whether Jesus was a historical man. They say there's no smoke without fire and we're here discussing him.

There were lots of wandering apocalyptic preachers. The question is not answerable. The "memes" in the gospels reflect the multiple memes of the times ... but most important (to me) is the fact that the general interests of post-diaspora Rabbinic Judaism (the "golden rule" etc) is what the gospels are about. They could have written in, a "conflated" Jesus-figure, based on multiple preachers, to star in the texts they made up to talk about their new cult's origins.

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, 11:38 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 11:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 11:25 AM)Doddia Wrote:  I'm less interested in whether the gospels are trustworthy, because they're clearly not. There are too many inconsistencies, such as one ass in one gospel and two in another; normal for accounts written by different people.

I'm more interested in whether Jesus was a historical man. They say there's no smoke without fire and we're here discussing him.

There were lots of wandering apocalyptic preachers. The question is not answerable. The "memes" in the gospels reflect the multiple memes of the times ... but most important (to me) is the fact that the general interests of post-diaspora Rabbinic Judaism (the "golden rule" etc) is what the gospels are about. They could have written in, a "conflated" Jesus-figure, based on multiple preachers, to star in the texts they made up to talk about their new cult's origins.

Isn't that what Jesus supposedly said? 'You can do everything I can do and more' and 'You are gods'. Don't ask me where they are, they're in the NT.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Doddia's post
29-06-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 11:38 AM)Doddia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 11:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There were lots of wandering apocalyptic preachers. The question is not answerable. The "memes" in the gospels reflect the multiple memes of the times ... but most important (to me) is the fact that the general interests of post-diaspora Rabbinic Judaism (the "golden rule" etc) is what the gospels are about. They could have written in, a "conflated" Jesus-figure, based on multiple preachers, to star in the texts they made up to talk about their new cult's origins.

Isn't that what Jesus supposedly said? 'You can do everything I can do and more' and 'You are gods'. Don't ask me where they are, they're in the NT.

I'm not sure what you're thinking of. There is John 16:12 ""I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.' etc.
But my point was, the post -diaspora writers (who were interested in the "golden rule") were writing a century later than the "historical placement" (of Jesus) in the early First Century. So it appears they make up the gospel character.

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, 12:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 11:38 AM)Doddia Wrote:  Isn't that what Jesus supposedly said? 'You can do everything I can do and more' and 'You are gods'. Don't ask me where they are, they're in the NT.

I'm not sure what you're thinking of. There is John 16:12 ""I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.' etc.
But my point was, the post -diaspora writers (who were interested in the "golden rule") were writing a century later than the "historical placement" (of Jesus) in the early First Century. So it appears they make up the gospel character.

No not that verse. I agree that the gospels were written much later than his life time. A lot of human history has been passed down through oral traditions and the Chinese whisper effect is bound to come into it so we can't rely on everything that's written. Some of it perhaps?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 12:00 PM)Doddia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm not sure what you're thinking of. There is John 16:12 ""I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.' etc.
But my point was, the post -diaspora writers (who were interested in the "golden rule") were writing a century later than the "historical placement" (of Jesus) in the early First Century. So it appears they make up the gospel character.

No not that verse. I agree that the gospels were written much later than his life time. A lot of human history has been passed down through oral traditions and the Chinese whisper effect is bound to come into it so we can't rely on everything that's written. Some of it perhaps?

Not unless there is evidence for it. That "oral" tradition thing is unfounded in the Hebrews, as far as I'm concerned. Hebrews were writers. They wrote things down. There was no tradition of "perfect memorization" like the Greek poets or Muslim Hafiz :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)

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, 07:48 PM
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.

Of course there are.

All 4 Gospels are 1st century. All the letters of Paul. Josephus was very close to a contemporary and qualifies. So was Cornelius Tacitus, the Roman Historian.

All the writers of the works listed above were from the 1st century.

The definition of "contemporary" is: "of about the same age or date."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 08:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 07:48 PM)GoingUp 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.

Of course there are.

All 4 Gospels are 1st century. All the letters of Paul. Josephus was very close to a contemporary and qualifies. So was Cornelius Tacitus, the Roman Historian.

All the writers of the works listed above were from the 1st century.

The definition of "contemporary" is: "of about the same age or date."

Totally false, GoingDown.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html
Paul didn't even write "all the letters of Paul".
The gospels are declarations/proclamations of faith. Not "accounts/history".

Get with the program. All the crap you say is debunked.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Carrier.htm

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, 08:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 07:48 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Of course there are.

All 4 Gospels are 1st century. All the letters of Paul. Josephus was very close to a contemporary and qualifies. So was Cornelius Tacitus, the Roman Historian.

All the writers of the works listed above were from the 1st century.

The definition of "contemporary" is: "of about the same age or date."

Totally false, GoingDown.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html
Paul didn't even write "all the letters of Paul".
The gospels are declarations/proclamations of faith. Not "accounts/history".

Get with the program. All the crap you say is debunked.

Doesn't matter if they are declaration of faith. There is no written rule that specifies that they need to be history books to qualify as documents that lend credence to the historicity of a person.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant if Paul wrote all the letters, for there are 2 points here:

1. He wrote most.

2. Whoever wrote the others was also contemporary, and it doesn't matter who they were or what their names were.

Nothing has been debunked. All I see are twists and turns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 08:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 08:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Totally false, GoingDown.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html
Paul didn't even write "all the letters of Paul".
The gospels are declarations/proclamations of faith. Not "accounts/history".

Get with the program. All the crap you say is debunked.

Doesn't matter if they are declaration of faith. There is no written rule that specifies that they need to be history books to qualify as documents that lend credence to the historicity of a person.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant if Paul wrote all the letters, for there are 2 points here:

1. He wrote most.

2. Whoever wrote the others was also contemporary, and it doesn't matter who they were or what their names were.

Nothing has been debunked. All I see are twists and turns.

The Bible can't prove the Bible. Circular. What about all the other gospels? Are they true also. Yes. Declarations of faith are unreliable. NOT one was written by an eye witness. Most scholars do not accept the gospels as reliable. They are full of impossible contradictions. Paul never met Jesus. He said he hallucinated him, and got his gospels "from no man". You actually have no proof of anything you have claimed. I see you're quite the newbie to this discussion. You actually think 500 zombies also rose on Easter and walked around Jerusalem as Matthew asserts, and the temple curtain was torn, yet not one Jew ever mentions this ? The Sanhedrin was never once in all of history called into session on Passover weekend for a trial. It's all lies and mythology.

The Church Fathers were liars. They admitted it. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...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
29-06-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Doesn't matter if they are declaration of faith. There is no written rule that specifies that they need to be history books to qualify as documents that lend credence to the historicity of a person.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant if Paul wrote all the letters, for there are 2 points here:

1. He wrote most.

2. Whoever wrote the others was also contemporary, and it doesn't matter who they were or what their names were.

Nothing has been debunked. All I see are twists and turns.

The Bible can't prove the Bible. Circular.

And that's what we call misinformation.

Any person with even a meager semblance of decent knowledge in religious studies knows that the bible was not always the bible. It is a collection of manuscripts assembled in part some 60 years after the death of Jesus, and amended as years went past until about 325 AD.

If the Bible was a single author, you might have a point. But it is from multiple authors, and in regards to the NT, all these different authors agree that a man named Jesus did exist, and was crucified.

Quote:What about all the other gospels? Are they true also.

Not everything is as black and white as you make it out to be. Not everything is 100% true or 100% false. What we look for is a commonality, and the commonality is that all these contemporary documents from multiple sources attest to the existence of Jesus.

The commonality is that they all agree on this man's existence, and that he was crucified.

Quote: Yes. Declarations of faith are unreliable.

You are painting all those documents with the same brush. They contain more than just declarations of faith, as demonstrated by the aforementioned commonalities.

Quote:NOT one was written by an eye witness.

And you know this how?

Quote: Most scholars do not accept the gospels as reliable. they are full of impossible contradictions.

Yet these very same "most scholars" almost universally agree that a man named Jesus, who is at the center of the Christian religion, once existed and was crucified.

Quote: Paul never met Jesus.

The only way you could determine this is by believing the Book of Acts, or what Paul says in his letters.

So are you saying to me that you believe that Paul didn't meet Jesus because Acts and the Letters indicate he didn't, and then you tell me that the Letters and Acts cannot be used to prove the existence of Jesus?

Are you cherry picking what works for what YOU believe, instead of seeing what is actually there?


Quote: He said he hallucinated him, and got his gospels "from no man". You actually have no proof of anything you have claimed. I see you're quite the newbie to this discussion.

And again you believe what he says there, yet disbelieve what he says concerning the existence of Jesus?

You do not get to pick and choose what you believe to be true while at the same time admonish others for doing the same thing.

And I am anything but a newbie on this topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: