Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 08:54 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Doesn't matter if they are declaration of faith.

Oh? A declaration of faith is essentially, a sales pitch combined with a love letter. It is not an historical account. It is not necessarily factual.

(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Historical documents are sought after precisely because they lend credence to the historicity. A testimonial letter tells what someone believed in the best terms possible. Historical documents written by known historians are the least common evidences for your god.

(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Furthermore, it is irrelevant if Paul wrote all the letters, for there are 2 points here:

It is relevant that there are known forgeries in the bible. It immediately rules out the "unerring word of god". While it does not rule out the entire collection, it demands closer scrutiny.

(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  1. He wrote most.

Well hell, must all be true then.

(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  2. Whoever wrote the others was also contemporary, and it doesn't matter who they were or what their names were.

Umm, no. For example, both letters to Timothy have been estimated to have been written between 90-140 C.E. They specifically contradict the earlier "imminent apocalypse" theology and begin the "not know the day or hour" spiel.

Not caring who the author was is not an indication of objective thinking. It is an example of gullibility.

(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Nothing has been debunked. All I see are twists and turns.

On the contrary. The same people that tell you how old the bible was and other things that you accept, are the ones that are telling you there are problems.

The twists and turns are all on the side promoting TRUTH.

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
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
29-06-2016, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 09:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And that's what we call misinformation.

You wish. You have no support and no proof for even one thing you claim. That's what YOU, a biased believer, call "misinformation".
You are totally non-conversant with non religious views of any of this.

Quote: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.

Irrelevant. I am a grad student in the field, and your assertions with no references are worthless. The canon was NON-UNANIMOUSLY VOTED into being. The texts had many authors, ALL with reasons to lie. There were hundreds of gospels, including infancy gospels. You think they are all correct ?

Quote:all these different authors agree that a man named Jesus did exist, and was crucified.

All believers. Not one an eyewitness. Not one is reliable.

Quote: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.

You have NOTHING from an unbiased non-believer.

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

Scholars know they had a common source and a common FAITH. What did you expect. Faith documents are not reliable. Period.

Quote:And you know this how?

The burden of proof is on you. IF Jesus lived when they say, all his contemporaries were DEAD.

Quote: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.

You have no poll to prove that. Almost all are PAID by religious institutions. Not free to say what they really think. 50 years ago no one questioned the OT as true. Now archaeology has debunked it all.

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

There is no reason to even think about it, in that case. What a stupid thing to say. There are 2 Pauls .... each with very different philosophies. You really know very little about the NT, I see.

Quote: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?

Yes I am. The concept is dismissed. There is no reason to accept ANY of it. There are no unbiased sources for any of it.

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

He DIDN'T EVEN say he met Jesus. They are two different levels of claims. He had NO DETAILS of Jesus. He called him the "Christ". I don't buy there was a Paul either. They claimed he was a student of Gamaliel. Yet not on Jew mentions a Jewish student of this famous man became a Christian.

Quote: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.

You have NO PROOF of anything you claim.

Quote:And I am anything but a newbie on this topic.

You're a total newbie, and a presuppositionalist.
Obviously you are if you didn't even know the gospels are not history.

Paul's journeys are absolutely impossible, as the writers of Paul claimed ... Yale Professor of NT.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152





















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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-06-2016, 09:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:54 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Doesn't matter if they are declaration of faith.

Oh? A declaration of faith is essentially, a sales pitch combined with a love letter. It is not an historical account. It is not necessarily factual.

Is a sales pitch always necessarily a lie?

And in regards to "historical accounts," now that depends on how the document is viewed. Regardless of whether or not none, some, or all is true in the document, the documents themselves testify of the historical beliefs of early followers of Jesus.

They provide a history of the origins of Christian beliefs, and whether or not those beliefs are factual is irrelevant.

So yes, they do indeed have historical significance in that respect.

Quote:
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Historical documents are sought after precisely because they lend credence to the historicity. A testimonial letter tells what someone believed in the best terms possible. Historical documents written by known historians are the least common evidences for your god.

All written historical documents on everything prove absolutely nothing conclusively.

At best they are anecdotal, and in regards to questions of faith all they do is fortify it, but never can they prove it.

Faith is not a question of absolute proof. Faith is what is established when there is some anecdotal evidence to support it. The fact that we have numerous documents from various sources all attesting to the existence of Jesus is indeed excellent anecdotal evidence to warrant a fortification of faith.

Did a Big Bang occur? You don't know for sure, do you? You can't make that positive claim because you have absolutely no way of determining with 100% certainty that the Big Bang actually occurred.

So why do you believe? Do you believe because the anecdotal evidence suggests it? How is that any different than how a Christian arrives at his/her state of belief?

Quote:
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Furthermore, it is irrelevant if Paul wrote all the letters, for there are 2 points here:

It is relevant that there are known forgeries in the bible. It immediately rules out the "unerring word of god". While it does not rule out the entire collection, it demands closer scrutiny.

Now let's hold on here for a moment, okay?

You are making a positive claim that there are "known forgeries" in the bible, but where is the good evidence to suggest it? Not even the scholars are in complete agreement about the forgery claim, and all they are doing is voicing an opinion, but none of them are actually providing any good evidence to support that position.

Can you do better? Can you provide real tangible evidence to prove the forgery claim?

Don't bother, you won't find any.

Quote:
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  1. He wrote most.

Well hell, must all be true then.

No, but it strongly suggests it to be true rather than not true. It's evidence for, and not evidence against.

Quote:
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  2. Whoever wrote the others was also contemporary, and it doesn't matter who they were or what their names were.

Umm, no. For example, both letters to Timothy have been estimated to have been written between 90-140 C.E. They specifically contradict the earlier "imminent apocalypse" theology and begin the "not know the day or hour" spiel.

And those estimates can be countered by another person's estimates and round and round we go. All these opinions are from the very same scholars who are virtually unanimous on the existence of Jesus.

Therefore, if we accept that what they say about the dating of some letters is true, should we also not accept that what they say about the existence of Jesus to also be true?

Or ... should we just cherry pick what we like, and leave the rest behind? That might be how you roll, but it's not how I roll.

Quote:Not caring who the author was is not an indication of objective thinking. It is an example of gullibility.

Do you somehow think that if we put the name of Jack, or Jill, or Harry on any of those documents that it will somehow change the content of those documents, or the age of them in any way?

Please explain to me how a name being added to those documents changes anything written within, or the age of them.

Quote:
(29-06-2016 08:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Nothing has been debunked. All I see are twists and turns.

On the contrary. The same people that tell you how old the bible was and other things that you accept, are the ones that are telling you there are problems.

And those same people tell YOU that Jesus most likely existed, and was crucified.

Quote:The twists and turns are all on the side promoting TRUTH.

The truth is never known, but rather it is only ever assumed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The truth is never known, but rather it is only ever assumed.

There are certain truths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 08:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Bible can't prove the Bible. Circular.

And that's what we call misinformation.

No. That is critical thinking. If the bible proves the bible, then every religious tome for every religion must be true.

The Book of Mormon?
Scientology?
The Jehovah Witnesses?

All true because their holy books say they're true.

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

The Anglican Church uses the King James bible.
The Roman Catholics use the NRSV-CE
The Protestants have their own compilation
So does Greek Orthodox.
So does Roman Orthodox.
So does the Syrian Church.
And the Ethiopian Church.

A couple churches even have their own popes. Go figure.

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

And anyone with even a meager semblance of biblical learning knows that "jesus" was a common name in that era. The Jewish nation was in a state of turmoil and doomsday prophets were running rampant. There were probably multiple jesuses crucified.

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Seriously? Christians are the ones running around shoving the holy word of god in everybody's faces. The holy inerrant word of god. That infallibility is why idiots are building an ark in Kentucky.

Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke were based off of him. John was written decades later, last, and has the most extravagant miracles.

One account, two plagiarisms and one extremely different account do not make commonality.

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:NOT one was written by an eye witness.

And you know this how?

Because the "apostles" and jesus, spoke Aramaic. They were probably illiterate in their own language, but if jesus was a rabbi, he could read Hebrew. Hebrew was not a spoken language, thus the whole Aramaic thing.

In any case, the four gospels were written in Ancient Greek by authors much more sophisticated then illiterate fishermen.

This has been proven beyond doubt. See Bart Erhman's works for more details.

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

You enjoy saying that. Even if a man named jesus was crucified, that doesn't make him a deity.

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
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?

Speaking of twists and turns. Paul starts out talking about his Damascus Road conversion. That's the core of his message and the reason behind his schism with the other apostles. Throw that out and you can throw everything out.

Which isn't a bad idea really...

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

You're going to get dizzy, twisting like that.

If Paul starts out his ministry by admitting to experiencing a hallucination or seizure. He admits to never have met jesus while he was alive. To me, this seems like a valid point that Paul might not be telling accurate stories about jesus.

It's also interesting to note that Paul is responsible for much of the early theology and doctrines of the church. Interesting in that a man who supposedly got his start oppressing christians essentially took over their religion.

(29-06-2016 08:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And I am anything but a newbie on this topic.

On this side you are.

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, 09:49 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
The set of texts that says 500 zombies also rose with Jebus and walked around Jerusalem, graves were opened, and rocks were spit .... yet not one Jew or Roman tries to find the man they supposedly had just gone to all that trouble to execute ... is supposed to "fortify" faith ? LMAO. You can't possibly be serious.

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, 09:55 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Is a sales pitch always necessarily a lie?

It is not something I would base my life around, certainly.

(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  They provide a history of the origins of Christian beliefs, and whether or not those beliefs are factual is irrelevant.

So yes, they do indeed have historical significance in that respect.

Wars have been fought over those beliefs. Entire cultures have been wiped out. Slavery in the US was justified by that book.

If those beliefs are false, then any justification for those actions fails. Those beliefs are cited in politics and policies around the world.

If they are false then those who profess them need to stop forcing them on the rest of humanity. Immediately.

(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Faith is not a question of absolute proof. Faith is what is established when there is some anecdotal evidence to support it. The fact that we have numerous documents from various sources all attesting to the existence of Jesus is indeed excellent anecdotal evidence to warrant a fortification of faith.

Which jesus? "Honor thy father and mother jesus" or "don't bury your father jesus" The healer or the divider? Depends on which gospel, doesn't it?

(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Did a Big Bang occur? You don't know for sure, do you? You can't make that positive claim because you have absolutely no way of determining with 100% certainty that the Big Bang actually occurred.

Actually yes we can. If you throw out the Big Bang cosmology you're throwing out most of our astronomy, physics and other sciences.

You're not going to tell me the earth is flat, are you?
That the sun revolves around the earth?

(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So why do you believe? Do you believe because the anecdotal evidence suggests it? How is that any different than how a Christian arrives at his/her state of belief?

Because science is based on information gained from experimentation and study.

There is no anecdotal evidence in science. And if you can't tell the difference between the scientific method and anecdotal evidence then you have no business bringing up the Big Bang.

(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Now let's hold on here for a moment, okay?

You are making a positive claim that there are "known forgeries" in the bible, but where is the good evidence to suggest it? Not even the scholars are in complete agreement about the forgery claim, and all they are doing is voicing an opinion, but none of them are actually providing any good evidence to support that position.

heh. Yeah. I'm gonna save the rest for tomorrow. It's gonna be fun.

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, 10:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 09:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Is a sales pitch always necessarily a lie?

Nice try. Fail. They are not reliable, and you know it.

Quote:And in regards to "historical accounts," now that depends on how the document is viewed. Regardless of whether or not none, some, or all is true in the document, the documents themselves testify of the historical beliefs of early followers of Jesus.

You don't know that. You presume that. They had no conception of what "history" was. The Romans were actively discussing that very question. The Hebrews had no word for "history". You made that up, and have no evidence for it.

Quote:They provide a history of the origins of Christian beliefs, and whether or not those beliefs are factual is irrelevant

They do not. The Councils provide that, and are full of details for how they argued and invented their religion.

Quote:So yes, they do indeed have historical significance in that respect.



Quote:Historical documents are sought after precisely because they lend credence to the historicity. A testimonial letter tells what someone believed in the best terms possible. Historical documents written by known historians are the least common evidences for your god.

You're obviously a Fundie literalist. L:iberal scholars do not agree with that. At all.

Quote:All written historical documents on everything prove absolutely nothing conclusively.

Wrong. There are levels of historical evidence in the methods of History. Obviously you know nothing about History.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

Quote:At best they are anecdotal, and in regards to questions of faith all they do is fortify it, but never can they prove it.

They are not. Corroborated events by multiple unbiased sources is FAR better than assertions by non-eye witnesses and people of faith.

Quote:Faith is not a question of absolute proof. Faith is what is established when there is some anecdotal evidence to support it. The fact that we have numerous documents from various sources all attesting to the existence of Jesus is indeed excellent anecdotal evidence to warrant a fortification of faith.


"We" have nothing of the sort. you have obviously never read Carrier.

Quote:Did a Big Bang occur? You don't know for sure, do you? You can't make that positive claim because you have absolutely no way of determining with 100% certainty that the Big Bang actually occurred.

Science is not about 100% anything. You analogy is false.

Quote:So why do you believe? Do you believe because the anecdotal evidence suggests it? How is that any different than how a Christian arrives at his/her state of belief?

They are FAR different. "No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him". Christians do not *chose* belief.

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, 10:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-06-2016 10:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Christians do not *chose* belief.

Although religion is primarily an indoctrination process via the youth, there are individuals who, for whatever retarded reason, do "choose" to become religious in their adult lives after having not believed prior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: