Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2016, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2016 07:05 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 02:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 01:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Paul had no direct knowledge of any Jesus, but thanks for pretending that he did.

Okay so you say he didn't meet James, Jesus' brother?
He never knew about the crucifixion of Jesus, despite mentioning it ad nausium?
He never met any of the apostles, despite writing about it?

Are you one of those kinds of people who ignores evidence too?

Oh la la!

Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty.

"Okay so you say he didn't meet James, Jesus' brother?"


Paul did meet James, who may have been the brother of a Jesus. However Paul thought James had "nothing to add to the good news I preach." A James wrote nothing about his brother, Jesus, the son of God! Please read the previous two sentences again, and ponder over what they mean.

"He (Paul) never knew about the crucifixion of Jesus, despite mentioning it ad nausium?"

Yes, Paul mentioned Christ's crucifixion ad nauseum, but who was he referring to? It wasn't the Jesus of the gospels...

Paul Knew Almost Nothing of "Jesus"

Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Paul’s Christ was clearly someone different from the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes we think we know from the Gospels. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,
“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.) What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and

“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life. Consider Galatians:

“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts about Jesus as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might care to know about Yeshua. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul nor James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure - because the Gospels hadn’t been written yet, so Jesus’ status as a legendary character hadn’t been created.

Who then, was Paul’s Christ? It was someone who Paul thought had existed in heaven since the beginning of time, yet only revealed to the world via his own peculiar interpretation of Jewish scripture. Douglas Lockhart (http://douglaslockhart.com/) and a number of other scholars (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvEll.htm) think it could have been the “Teacher of Righteousness” written about in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are many theories as to who this character was, one of which is that he was an Essene leader, a priest, who lived perhaps a hundred years before Yeshua, who had disapproved of the Hasmonean high priest.

In the Gentile world of the time there was competition from many dying and rising gods such as Mithras. Those gods often didn’t have a mortal life that was remembered, just like Paul’s Christ. It was only the myth of them dying and rising again that gave them significance, just like his Christ. His Christ, real identity uncertain, was a Judaic myth invented to compete with these other cults. The idea that his Christ would one day be equated with Yeshua may not ever have been on Paul’s radar. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm).

It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries (more on this later.) Or, it could be that Paul was using the (very common) name to represent a spirit, not a person. “Paul” does say, once, in 1 Tim 6;13, that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, yet this wasn’t written by Paul. “Paul” does talk about what Christ allegedly said on the night he was betrayed, in the first letter to the Corinthians, but this whole passage is unique in that regard and therefore it too is suspiciously “unPauline.”

Most Christians I have talked to about this are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus undermines the account about Jesus being an inspiring, miracle working individual, someone with real feelings, empathy for his fellows, and charisma, who preached wise anecdotes that had so impressed his disciples and the crowds. This is an image created by churchmen using the Gospels. Paul knew none of this. Outside of Jewish scripture he only ever acknowledged one source of wisdom—himself. An authoritative Yeshua, even one recently deceased, would have focused the limelight on someone more significant than himself, and I don’t think he would have liked that.

Just who Paul thought his Christ was is a difficult concept to grasp, and in my opinion it’s not worth spending too much time on. It helps to remember that the sources of Paul’s ideas are obscure; that his writings have been tampered with; that original meaning is often lost in translations; that the Jesus stories we know so well only finished being cobbled together in the fourth century, and Paul had never read them; that Paul had an overactive imagination, and he was a very peculiar man.

"He never met any of the apostles, despite writing about it?"

Paul probably met some of the Nazarenes. BUT...did the Nazarenes know of a Jesus? Maybe...we don't know. As has been pointed out to you many times, we have no writings from anyone who knew a Jesus (with the possible exception of James, who writes nothing about Jesus.)

I happen to think there may have been a Yeshua...a failed and crucified insurrectionist. He was not the Jesus you read about in the the comic book gospels.

So...I ask you again, as you have said you are not a Christian, and you don't believe everything in the bible, why are you making such a big deal about whether there was some dude who actually existed named Jesus?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-07-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 03:12 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 02:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You implied that there were other people named Jesus who were regarded as a Messiah, presumably during that same time.

I am simply asking you for one other example, aside from Jesus of Nazareth, of any other person named Jesus who was entitled as Christ or Messaih.

In regards to my education, I will tell you this.

You are a student.

I am a teacher.

Wink

You are going to teach GWG...about religion...are you high?

No, I am not. I can actually teach him. He is a student, and I am a teacher. I have checked out and investigated all the players in this discussion whom I recognize as having some various degrees of education.

It was important for me to reveal that about myself because he previously insisted that he was better educated than I am, and I know he isn't, and will not be for quite some time.

But I like his confidence.

Bucky Ball is another with a great working knowledge of this subject, and appears to be educated to some degree on a university level, perhaps a 2nd year student. In time he will laugh at mythicism. I did.

Mark Fulton is well versed, but not formally educated. He has a great imagination, I will give him that.

Chas appears to perhaps be a scientist of some sort, likely computer related from what I can glean from his remarks.

RocketSurgeon is a layman, relying heavily on the commonly reported misconceptions from the mythicist camp.

And you are the voice of reason that binds everyone together.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
02-07-2016, 04:49 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 04:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I happen to think there may have been a Yeshua...a failed and crucified insurrectionist. He was not the Jesus you read about in the the comic book gospels.

And that is where we differ.

Yeshua is the same Jesus who's life Paul and the Christian sects embellished. This explains why Paul said he met James, the lord's brother, and why Paul constantly mentions the crucifixion of Jesus as the gospels and other sources do, and so on.

Yes, Paul loosely based his concept off of the very same Jesus/Yeshua of the gospels, who was also the focus of the original follows in the Church of Jerusalem.

This one and same Jesus/Yeshua spawned numerous sects including the Nazerenes, Christians, and Gnostics.

There are just too many similarities for this to be two or more different people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 04:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Sorry, double post.

"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
02-07-2016, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2016 05:17 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You may have read it, but you didn't textually excavate it. In short, you didn't fully understand what was actually there to see, and instead only read the words.

So I read it, but I didn't understand it because I don't come to the same conclusion as you? Wow. "Textually excavate"... wow. Dodgy

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So firstly, according to your reasoning- or lack thereof- it is not obvious that a proud Roman statesman and revered historian is writing Roman history for the Roman population?

Then secondly you say, "He is indeed writing Roman history?"

So either it is obvious that he is writing Roman history, or it is not obvious he is writing Roman history. Which is it?

He is writing Roman history, in describing the actions of Emperors--one in particular, in that case--who lived/ruled 50 years before his writing. It is a Roman history for Romans. The cultists in the story who got blamed for Nero's (possible) actions are only a detail, as are the things done to those people at the behest of the Emperor. The center of the story from Tacitus is the Emperor, not the victims. Only from the perspective of the past 1700 years of Christian dominance of Western culture do we see the Christians as being so important to the story that he'd be careful enough to check a document to verify that part of the story. You could just as easily substitute the worshipers of the Resurrected Amon-Ra in there, and it wouldn't change the story (if it was they who were persecuted). You accused me of substituting modern perspective into a story, yet you appear to be doing the same. They. Are. A. Footnote!


(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  In addition to that, you are merely speculating with an un-sourced opinion, and then you are attempting to diminish the importance of Pilate while referring to him as" some distant regional governor" while miserably attempting to convince me that that is what Tacitus actually thought about Pilate?

Tacitus by no means referred to Pilate as some "distant regional governor." You are attempting to put words into his mouth that do not exist.

To Tacitus, a century after Pilate was no longer Prefect of the Judean province, and not an actor in the story about Nero that Tacitus is telling, yes, he would have been "distant regional governor". Like the Christians themselves, who he was and what he did was not critical to that narrative, except as background information for the "present" (50 years before Annals) story being told. Again, Pilate is only seen as important to us because of his central place in Christian theology, which is what garnered him a mention in the section on why Nero was persecuting Christians.

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Then you assert again that you seem to understand that Tacitus was someone completely detached from the question of the Christians by asserting "the detail of whom the Christians are is not critical enough to merit more than a description," yet you fail to acknowledge that the entire paragraph is all about the numerous tortures Nero places on these Christians, whom you claim are "not critical enough to merit more than a description?"

If they are not critical enough to merit more than a description? as you say, then why does Tacitus go into such detail about their persecutions and tortures?

No, he says much more than a description about who they were.

Because the "numerous tortures Nero places on these Christians" is the point of the narrative: the narrative is about the actions of Nero. Again, if Nero was persecuting a cult that believed in a resurrected Amon-Ra, Tacitus would have briefly described what they were and where they came from, before going into detail about the actions of the Emperor. This should not be such a difficult concept for you.

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  This is nothing more than an apologetic, and does nothing to address my point. You have in no way whatsoever countered my point that Tacitus would not glean his information for Roman history from any dialogue he had with the Christians amounting to hearsay. You have provided no supporting evidence to validate any of your claims above, and are again merely asserting with no support whatsoever.

You think Tacitus would not go find out exactly what a Christian was, and what they claimed, in writing about them? Why not? It's clear they were present in Rome, and we know that Tacitus investigated and wrote about many cults, and had plenty of reasons to investigate Christianity prior to the writing of Annals. (One speculated reason I remember reading was the conversion of Emperor Domitian's niece Domitilla, to Christianity, about 10 years prior to the writing of Annals, something that would have struck a man like Tacitus as more than a bit curious and worth looking into, since it affected the ruler class of Rome.) You also leave out the fact that it was very difficult even for a Senator to access official Roman record-vaults without specific permission from the Emperor; if Tacitus already knew who and what the Christian claims were, as he likely did, then what would be the point of going to find the document about Pilate for what amounts to a footnote? It makes no sense.

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Does nothing to counter the point, and also if your position about Christians not quibbling actually did have merit, then how do you explain the numerous apologetic texts from the early church fathers who existed previously, during, and immediately after the time of Tacitus, and who vigorously defended their faith by attempting to counter anything they felt was inaccurate?

Well, the church did, later on, have quite a quibble with the tone of Tacitus' description of them... but his description of them was not inaccurate. When people accused them of practices they did not believe in, then they had cause to quibble.

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And why do we not see from the non-Christian antagonists in antiquity living after Tacitus saying anything to counter Tacitus's positive claim that Christ, of whom the Christians were named after, was executed by Pilate, indicating his actual existence?

How would they know if he was a real guy or not? I am unfamiliar with any "antagonists in antiquity" who would have been placed in a position to be able to know anything about Jesus other than the claims of his followers. If you are aware of any, please let me know. It is a moot point for an antagonist to argue-- "and he might not even be a real guy!" So?

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No one in antiquity questioned the existence of this Jesus as being, at the very least, an ordinary man. In fact, we have texts from non Christian antagonists who chastise the Christians for embellishing the life of Jesus instead of respecting him as being but a mere man.

We know the Christians were embellishing, and continuing to embellish, the story. Even modern Christian scholars admit that. And, just like them, I don't see any reason to quibble with Jesus existing as an ordinary man. I do, like them, quibble with the volumes of stories the Christians told about the man, and find the magical parts outright laughable. This argument from silence does not back up your point.

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, exactly. We do not find a Christian source that has the information that Tacitus used regarding Christ, and the persecution of the Christians. This indicates that Tacitus did not use Christian sources for this, which adds to the credulity that his sources were exclusively Roman, and specifically, Roman written sources.

You're conflating two different questions. Tacitus' use of written sources for the persecution of the Christians is a very different question from using official records of the alleged crucifixion of Christ. No one is arguing that T didn't have records and testimony about the persecutions. But just knowing what a Christian was and what they claimed does not require records... it requires ever having had a conversation with a person (say, for instance, Domitilla) who was a Christian. Ever. It does not warrant a conclusion that there exists some timely-written, now-missing Roman document that somehow gets Pilate's rank wrong.

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Again you are attempting to misrepresent the text by using such words as "Apparently" and inserting an interpretation of the text as meaning, "They call themselves Christians because of a guy they call Christ."

"They" is not in the text. The text clearly says, "called Christians by the populace." He is telling you that the Roman population calls them Christians, and not that the Christians themselves said anything at all in that respect. He is again using the ROMAN perspective to describe the origin of the Christians, and literally tells you that explicitly.

What's the difference? I paraphrased loosely to point out the objective of his passage about the Christians, not to try to semi-quote him.

And I'm saying he's telling the story from a Roman perspective! What point do you think you're getting across, here?

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are still of the mind that someone wrote down what the Christians claimed, despite the fact that I pointed to direct evidence that he used numerous written materials for his works, and I also directly pointed to him the Roman perspective by his use of "populace" directly within the same sentence as Christ and the Christians.

He tells us that they were called Christians by the Roman population, and not by the Christians themselves.

You're actually weakening your case. To make your case, you'd have to argue that the Christian detail-information was so little-known that Tacitus would have had to research it in the official library. But if it was well enough known among the general population for the Christians to have developed a nickname, you'd have to argue that Tacitus was the most clueless person in the city. This in no way provides support for your claim that he had to use documents to describe a Christian prior to listing the actions of Nero against them.

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The evidence is within the text, and is very obvious.

[Image: Nope-Cat-Meme-07.jpg]

(02-07-2016 12:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  It doesn't matter who's view you share, for all the matters is what can be demonstrated as having merit via evidence. It's one thing to assert something, but it's entirely different to back it up with corroborating evidence.

Since you made the clear implication that I am simply inventing this out of my own imagination, and that I am no scholar, I feel it is necessary to point out that other scholars, such as R.T. France and G.A. Wells, also agree with the weakness of the Tacitus passage as proof of the events described in the story, as well as the scholars I mentioned before.

It does not matter how strongly you assert that it "clearly" shows he was using official records to describe the Christians. I have "clearly" shown that there is no reason why we should assume that to be the case, why it would have been much easier for him to find out by simply asking someone or relying on his acquired knowledge of cults. There is certainly nothing in the text that suggests he needed to go to special trouble in order to describe the group called Christians by the populace for the sake of a historical account of Nero in which they are a footnote.

It is you who must establish that official records were used by Tacitus, and not simply general knowledge that Tacitus applied to the story about Nero, for this passage to become any sort of historical proof of an execution that is alleged to have happened 80 years before. The evidence against it coming from a timely official document is pretty strong, so it's a high bar you have to meet. You haven't even come close.

[Edited: Grammatical error.]

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-07-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 04:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I happen to think there may have been a Yeshua...a failed and crucified insurrectionist. He was not the Jesus you read about in the the comic book gospels.

And that is where we differ.

Yeshua is the same Jesus who's life Paul and the Christian sects embellished. This explains why Paul said he met James, the lord's brother, and why Paul constantly mentions the crucifixion of Jesus as the gospels and other sources do, and so on.

Yes, Paul loosely based his concept off of the very same Jesus/Yeshua of the gospels, who was also the focus of the original follows in the Church of Jerusalem.

This one and same Jesus/Yeshua spawned numerous sects including the Nazerenes, Christians, and Gnostics.

There are just too many similarities for this to be two or more different people.

My jaw drops at
1. your arrogance
2. your ignorance

You haven't addressed any of the issues I've raised in my last few posts. Feel free to do that instead of beating your chest.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-07-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 02:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 01:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Paul had no direct knowledge of any Jesus, but thanks for pretending that he did.

Okay so you say he didn't meet James, Jesus' brother?
He never knew about the crucifixion of Jesus, despite mentioning it ad nausium?
He never met any of the apostles, despite writing about it?

Are you one of those kinds of people who ignores evidence too?

Are you one of those kinds of people who ignores what is actually written?

I said direct knowledge; all of Paul's "knowledge" of Jesus is hearsay and hallucination.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-07-2016, 05:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 04:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  RocketSurgeon is a layman, relying heavily on the commonly reported misconceptions from the mythicist camp.

Actually, I am a biologist by education (having since retired from that field in order to pursue my engineering and design passions) with a passing interest in apologetics, left over from my upbringing as a fundamentalist Christian. I will freely and happily admit that I am a layperson, when it comes to religious studies.

However, you are dead wrong. I have little interest in the Mythicist camp, and am probably the only person besides you in this discussion who has never read Carrier or Price. I am utterly unaware of what positions they may hold that do or don't agree with my own. But thanks for trying! Thumbsup

"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
02-07-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 02:46 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 01:35 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Moses never existed.

Agreed.

Quote:No one who ever wrote of jesus, knew him.


Unknown.

Quote:The Exodus never happened.

Agreed.

Quote:The mythical global flood of 2349 BCE never happened.

Agreed.

Quote:The synoptic gospels were not written by their namesakes, and are pseudonymous works.

Agreed, and neither was John written by anyone named John.

Quote:Now run along and go learn a few things and come back when you are ready to challenge me. You stumbled into theTHINKINGatheist, and I am sure you thought you were going to come in here and teach us heathens a thing or two....silly. You know why we are experts in theology? Because we have studied it, read the bible, applied analysis and comparative studies to the OT, NT and the story of jesus. You need to go back to the kiddy table where you can impress them with stories of magic.

There is virtually nothing you can teach me that I don't already know. However ...

Multa profecto ostenderet tibi quod non possum etiam Latine et Graece.

Well what do you know, isn't this intriguing, a theist, or so I assume, who actually acknowledges what is known by any reputable, and non-YEC. Well, that is at least a breath of fresh air. I get tired spoonfeeding history to theists.

(02-07-2016 04:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No, I am not. I can actually teach him. He is a student, and I am a teacher. I have checked out and investigated all the players in this discussion whom I recognize as having some various degrees of education.

It was important for me to reveal that about myself because he previously insisted that he was better educated than I am, and I know he isn't, and will not be for quite some time.

But I like his confidence.

Hmmm interesting. Already taught my good friend. I don't hide my education level, nor my experience as an ex-xtian, born and raised, saved and evangelized. I have been at this for a bit, and have written many papers on the subject. I may have misread you, and that may be a good thing. I am not only confident but certain that regardless of the level of education you have in the field of theology, the facts are the facts, and I am fluent in the facts. I do tip my hat to you for admitting my posits were factual. Something I am well aware of, but sadly many theists are not. What is your theological position then on xtianity? Which one of the 40,000 different strains of christian delusion do you subscribe to, if any?

"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
02-07-2016, 05:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 04:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I happen to think there may have been a Yeshua...a failed and crucified insurrectionist. He was not the Jesus you read about in the the comic book gospels.

And that is where we differ.

Yeshua is the same Jesus who's life Paul and the Christian sects embellished. This explains why Paul said he met James, the lord's brother, and why Paul constantly mentions the crucifixion of Jesus as the gospels and other sources do, and so on.

Yes, Paul loosely based his concept off of the very same Jesus/Yeshua of the gospels, who was also the focus of the original follows in the Church of Jerusalem.

This one and same Jesus/Yeshua spawned numerous sects including the Nazerenes, Christians, and Gnostics.

There are just too many similarities for this to be two or more different people.

"Yeshua is the same Jesus who's life Paul ... embellished."

Bullshit! That is merely your assumption, and I have explained why. Show us some evidence to back up this assumption of yours.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: