Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2016, 07:54 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:13 PM)Foxen Wrote:  There is a reason that the Apocrypha was not included in the final edition of the bible.

{no snark or sarcasm}

I posted about this point earlier. There is no "final version" of the bible.

If you consider one version to be final, which one?

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
02-07-2016, 08:00 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 01:18 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey GU,

this will be the fourth time I've asked you this.

Let's say "Jesus" existed. So what? What does that mean to you? I hope you don't think that what some anonymous writer wrote Jesus said or did means it is true? And so what if it is?

Why are YOU so interested in "his" existence or not? He has no meaning in your life, as far as I can tell. What's your agenda? Why are you here?

That's what I'd like to hear. Most of us still conversing with them have indicated that we accept christ existed or don't care or at least think it possible. I think Bucky is arguing against, but I kinda lost track at this point.

I definitely think Goingup is christian. The word choice, phrasing, etc.

Whatever.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-07-2016, 08:05 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:59 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  GoingUp has managed to piss some of us off because
-he is so cocksure of his own ideas, yet can't or won't explain himself, and
-because he doesn't have a nuanced understanding of the history, and
-because he promotes logical fallacies, and
-because he is so quick to denigrate other's ideas, which he most often just doesn't understand.

I would add that GU has also claimed to have a thorough understanding of history, logical argument and atheist argument. Claims that he has demonstrated are false.

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
02-07-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 01:18 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey GU,

this will be the fourth time I've asked you this.

Let's say "Jesus" existed. So what? What does that mean to you? I hope you don't think that what some anonymous writer wrote Jesus said or did means it is true? And so what if it is?

Why are YOU so interested in "his" existence or not? He has no meaning in your life, as far as I can tell. What's your agenda? Why are you here?

There were a number of Jewish Apocalyptic preachers at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. He was not special. They all were seen to be doing miracles. Dying and rising gods were a "thing" in the ancient world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...n-display/

But as Mark implied, and I asked here a few weeks ago, if he did exist, it makes no difference. His message was not unique. He was not unique. His existence, or non existence, places no demands on anyone, either way.

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
02-07-2016, 08:53 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, this tired argument again which has absolutely 0% evidence for support.

Moving on ...

"
[i]Yes, this tired argument again which has absolutely 0% evidence for support."[/i]

There is lots of evidence that Paul never knew Jesus or Jesus' ghost. If you're genuinely interested in discussing this, I'll present it.

And regardless of whether or not Paul ever met Jesus or his ghost has absolutely nothing to do with your 0% evidence to support all the interpolations you claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 08:56 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 09:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 07:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I have read post 506. I see nothing there to be embarrassed about.

What are you getting at?


I know what your position is, and have read the reviews on your book. But not one of the reviews is from a recognized scholar.

You have an interesting perspective on Paul, but it falls dramatically short on the realistic. You make far too many claims of interpolations with no supporting evidence other than your own opinion.

Your book will do well with conspiracy theorists, but it will not make a dent in the scholarly community.

No offense intended.

"I have read post 506. I see nothing there to be embarrassed about.

What are you getting at?
"

Jeebus! You are either dim witted or too lazy to understand what is there in black and white. I'll spell it out for you...again...

there is no evidence the authors of the gospels were "followers of Jesus." You, for some unexplained reason, think they were.

The "followers of Jesus" (if he existed) were fundamentalist anti gentile Jews, the Nazarenes, an Essenian sect. They were opposed to the gentile world.

If you disagree with this, say so, and say why.

I can't make it any clearer than this.

And...I don't think you know even a tiny fraction of what I think about Paul. Have you read my debate (if one could call it that) with a character called Q...it's in the section of this forum called "the boxing ring." (http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-Charlatan ). Please read that...then offer your opinion on my writings about Paul.Big Grin

Yes yes yes, I understand that you have mistakenly completely convinced yourself that early Christians were not following the teachings of Jesus.

I do not accept your premise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 08:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:24 PM)Foxen Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:16 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  PS Even if your argument made sense, (which it doesn't,) you are wrong. The writings of the church fathers are littered with propaganda about how Jesus came in the flesh precisely because there were so many critics denying his historicity. Google it.

As an atheist, why are you trusting fictional theistic writing over what GoingUp has provided?

You are basically supporting theism in order to denounce the very fact that GoingUp's claims have more accuracy in denouncing Christianity.

You will see a lot of that in this discussion.

They claim things to be false, but use the exact same texts to argue against it.

How the hell is that valid?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2016 09:42 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 01:16 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Please. You did not "counter", you dodged. Simple as that. You avoided the issue I had raised, as shown by the fact that you have to separately address it, now. But since you did, I will address that.

So you claim I dodged something, and then claim I addressed it, but still claim I dodged it?

I am as fluent in slang as anyone else, and I must say, what the fuck?

Quote:Yes, I have seen this claim by apologists, many times.

A Senator of Rome when working as a documentarian was of course careful to use only documented historical references when talking about the actions of emperors, and to specify when he was using only report (as in the case of "some people think he set the fires, others don't think it had anything to do with the emperor"). However, that's not what he's doing when describing what a Christian is, for the purpose of the audience. There's no need to cite to a document for an item so trivial to him, or to the audience, during the course of a mere description; it is enough for him to explain what the Christians claimed to believe-- namely, that their Lord was crucified by Pilate, etc. And that is exactly what we see in that passage.

You've expressed an opinion here with no evidence for support. I will show you the text from Tacitus and explain something to you that is exceptionally obvious about it all. I will show you textual evidence to support my position, where you have provided none to support yours.

Annals 15.44

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea,"

1. The first thing that is clearly obvious is that Tacitus is writing Roman history.

2. The next thing is that he described the Christians as "a class hated for their abominations." So the question you need to answer is whether or not a highly respected statesman and historian such as Tacitus would go to "a class hated for their abominations" to glean information pertaining to Roman history. Keep in mind Tacitus is NOT writing Christian history, but Roman history.

3. The fact that Tacitus mentions a high ranking Roman official such as Pilate, and of all people Caesar Tiberius, within the very context of Christ and the Christians not only supports the obvious fact that he is writing Roman history and not repeating hearsay from a hated class, but also we must consider that if Tacitus was writing false history about Christ and the Christians, then his mentioning of how the Caesar and Pilate were involved would also be false Roman history.

If this bit of Roman history of Pilate and Tiberius was false, why do we not see anyone else correcting Tacitus in antiquity? That is evidence we should expect if it were true, but that evidence doesn't exist.

4. And finally, you will not find one single Christian document in existence which details anything about what Tacitus said about the persecution of the Christians under Nero, which demonstrates that there is no evidence to support that Tacitus gleaned this information from Christians.

Now that is actual evidence we can see within the context, and no speculation is required. We are speaking about a Roman Historian who was writing Roman history, and just because you see something about Christ and the Christians in his works by no means gives you any reason whatsoever to believe that Tacitus is somehow writing Christian history into his Roman history book.

That is utterly ridiculous, and refuted by the actual available evidence. It would appear to me, and most historians for that matter, that the argument that Tacitus used Christian history instead of Roman history is a desperate attempt to simply make the reality of confirmation of the existence of Jesus to go away.

It's not going anywhere, no matter how desperate you get.

Quote:In order to state that Tacitus was using official documents of the Roman Empire, you'd have to allege that either the person sending the report (at the time of the trial) to Rome about Pilate got his title wrong, and not just wrong but in a way that would have made Pilate's rank/position illegal for another decade, or that Tacitus (the guy we can see is so careful about his documentation) made a mistake in writing down the wrong rank.

Or it is exactly what I demonstratedit was; Tacitus used the consensus of previous Roman historians and their historical records. If their records entitled Pilate as a Procurator, then that explains it. If the consensus was that Pilate was a Procurator, then that is what Pilate's title was known to be at the time of the previous historians writings.

Quote:It is also well-known that Tacitus held the Christians (and all other cults) in deep contempt, and part of his work was dedicated to understanding the claims of cultists throughout Rome. To assert that he expended the same amount of documentary care when simply rattling off the beliefs of one of those cults as he would expend on telling the tale of the actions of Emperors and statesmen is more than a stretch.

You are imposing your view upon Tacitus, and providing no evidence to support it. This is just an unsubstantiated and unqualified opinion and can be dismissed.

Quote:The simplest explanation is that Tacitus had talked to Christians, knew what their claims were, and wrote it down while in the much broader story of Nero's political machinations.

Another opinion that not only finds no evidence for support, but as I have demonstrated further up, has actual evidence against it. We can dismiss this also.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 09:39 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2016 09:42 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 06:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 05:33 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Welcome aboard!!!

No, by the way, you are conclusively wrong on all accounts, allow me to elaborate. Ex xtian here by the way, both parents ministers, and I have a degree in religious studies with specialization in Christianity from Saint Leo University so I am fluent in the woo.

No one who ever wrote of jesus, actually knew him. When you learn this, and validate this, it throws the whole Christianity belief basis out the window, thus discrediting it. Lets look at this real quick..

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. See the bottom where I get into Paul a bit more.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

When you research authorship of each book of the bible, you find out they were not written by whom you think, which makes them suspect for any level of validity. Let’s look at the gospels a bit more…

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Matthew: generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, many modern scholars reject this view. The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.

The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110. The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 7: (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). 2 of them (Ephesians, Colossians) scholars are divided on their authenticity, and of course 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are pseudepigrapha. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

Various works cited or used:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Hello.

Despite everything you wrote above, none of it explains why all these different historical texts from Christians, Jews, Romans, and non Christians depict this Jesus as someone who, at the very least, existed as a human being who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Since you are so well learned, then perhaps also you can explain to me how there is not one single historical document in existence that disputes the mere existence of this same Jesus as a mere human being?

Perhaps you would like to explain the comments of Celsus, which state:

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.

So here we have historical validation from a non Christian about this same Jesus, depicting him as nothing more than a mere man who learned a few magic tricks in Egypt which enabled him to present himself as some kind of a god.

And what of Lucian of Samosata (115-200 A.D.) who wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account ..."

So there we have two hostile accounts from two different people not far removed from the time of the crucifixion validating Jesus as one who existed as a man, with one mentioning his crucifixion.

How do you explain these comments from people who vigorously opposed the Christian religion, yet both validate the existence of this very same Jesus?

I never stated that a physical man named jesus never existed. Infact, it was quite a popular name, and there were several men by the name jesus who claimed ot be the messiah. All wrong of course. But the one you are concerned about is "jesus of Nazareth"...whether a man named jesus from nazareth actually existed or not is inconsequential. The magical jesus did not exist, as we know from analysis of historical evidence, or rather, the lack of, as I explained in my earlier post...you know, the earth going dark, the zombie invasion....and if he was the prolific Benny Hinn like charismatic preacher of his day that drew throngs of people from all over, then Philo would have mentioned him, yet he never wrote a word. Even though Philo's writings were the foundation of later christian theology, he wrote the logos, the word etc. yet never mentions jesus, even though he lived in the general region at the time of jesus...almost as if he was an insignificant fellow of no reknown. Perhaps Justus...who was from the same town as jesus, who was a historian at the time of jesus...nope, no mention of jesus...odd Consider

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
02-07-2016, 09:47 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 09:39 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 06:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Hello.

Despite everything you wrote above, none of it explains why all these different historical texts from Christians, Jews, Romans, and non Christians depict this Jesus as someone who, at the very least, existed as a human being who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Since you are so well learned, then perhaps also you can explain to me how there is not one single historical document in existence that disputes the mere existence of this same Jesus as a mere human being?

Perhaps you would like to explain the comments of Celsus, which state:

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.

So here we have historical validation from a non Christian about this same Jesus, depicting him as nothing more than a mere man who learned a few magic tricks in Egypt which enabled him to present himself as some kind of a god.

And what of Lucian of Samosata (115-200 A.D.) who wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account ..."

So there we have two hostile accounts from two different people not far removed from the time of the crucifixion validating Jesus as one who existed as a man, with one mentioning his crucifixion.

How do you explain these comments from people who vigorously opposed the Christian religion, yet both validate the existence of this very same Jesus?

I never stated that a physical man named jesus never existed. Infact, it was quite a popular name, and there were several men by the name jesus who claimed ot be the messiah. All wrong of course. But the one you are concerned about is "jesus of Nazareth"...whether a man named jesus from nazareth actually existed or not is inconsequential. The magical jesus did not exist, as we know from analysis of historical evidence, or rather, the lack of, as I explained in my earlier post...you know, the earth going dark, the zombie invasion....and if he was the prolific Benny Hinn like charismatic preacher of his day that drew throngs of people from all over, then Philo would have mentioned him, yet he never wrote a word. Even though Philo's writings were the foundation of later christian theology, he wrote the logos, the word etc. yet never mentions jesus, even though he lived in the general region at the time of jesus...almost as if he was an insignificant fellow of no reknown. Perhaps Justus...who was from the same town as jesus, who was a historian at the time of jesus...nope, no mention of jesus...odd Consider

And you think that all these different texts from various religious sects and cultures regarding this Jesus of Nazareth is better explained as all being based upon a wholly mythical character rather than a historical person who's life was embellished by Christians, but not embellished in other documents?

Roman history about him is false?
Jewish history about him is false?
Christian records of debates with non Christians about him are false?

That position is unreasonable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: