Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 09:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  Can't? No, can't be bothered to.
When each side's evidence is considered, it comes up short.
There is no need to compare them; it is pointless.

No there is, if you wanna suggest the positions are equivalent

Since I didn't say they were equivalent, there is no need to compare them. Drinking Beverage

Quote:Now, you think the writing of Tacitus, of Josephus regarding James, Paul's first hand account of meeting his brother and disciple are weak evidence in support of a historical Jesus. Can you point to equivalent evidence for a non-existing Jesus, you see as just as strong (just as weak)?

How is it that you can't understand a straightforward concept expressed in clear language? Consider

Neither side has a compelling case. Why is there a need to compare them?
You seem to require that not only you but everyone has to choose a side.

Get over it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-07-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 11:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No there is, if you wanna suggest the positions are equivalent

Since I didn't say they were equivalent, there is no need to compare them. Drinking Beverage

Quote:Now, you think the writing of Tacitus, of Josephus regarding James, Paul's first hand account of meeting his brother and disciple are weak evidence in support of a historical Jesus. Can you point to equivalent evidence for a non-existing Jesus, you see as just as strong (just as weak)?

How is it that you can't understand a straightforward concept expressed in clear language? Consider

Neither side has a compelling case. Why is there a need to compare them?
You seem to require that not only you but everyone has to choose a side.

Get over it.

Does the other side have equivalent weak evidence in support of their position? Do they have weak evidence in general, as you suggest the historicist side has? Regardless of whether you think either side has a compelling case or not.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 11:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  Since I didn't say they were equivalent, there is no need to compare them. Drinking Beverage


How is it that you can't understand a straightforward concept expressed in clear language? Consider

Neither side has a compelling case. Why is there a need to compare them?
You seem to require that not only you but everyone has to choose a side.

Get over it.

Does the other side have equivalent weak evidence in support of their position? Do they have weak evidence in general, as you suggest the historicist side has? Regardless of whether you think either side has a compelling case or not.

The evidence for both sides would be the exact same evidence, the same writings by the same historians. Since there are no truly contemporary accounts of Jesus, as in writings during his lifetime or right after he was executed and supposedly came back to life it's difficult to know if he was a real person or not, since the historians who wrote about him didn't live during his time and didn't write about him until after Christianity started there is little reason to believe he was real person and even less reason to believe he was a magic half god messiah sent to save us all.

Since the evidence you have is weak, that is enough reason to question it and dismiss it, like I've pointed out before if I told you about a guy who lived and died and came back to life 100 years ago in 1916 and no one talked about it until now you would doubt it yet you believe the writings about Jesus from over 2,000 years ago? Ok fine, you can believe it all you want but why do you care so much if we believe it?

It's not going to change our lives if Jesus was real, just like Krishna being real or Rama or any other Hindu avatars being real wouldn't change yours, the evidence is simply weak and unconvincing to us, get over it.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SitaSky's post
04-07-2016, 12:33 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 11:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 10:26 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I consider rising from the dead after three days an extravagant claim. Someone that is resuscitated after three minutes makes the news, let alone three days.

Yea, I know the journalist at the time should have been swarming, upon hearing the news that the followers of Jesus claim to have seen him for a short bit after he died.

Yeah, you would think an omnipotent, omniscient god would have thought about that. Go figure.

But that's the problem with thinking. Once you start thinking about it, all sorts of questions appear.

Like why a god would need to sacrifice himself to himself to loophole the rules he created.

Or how someone can atone for sins another person committed.

Fuck the evidence. It would have been nice if they had come up with a coherent story first. At least Greek Mythology makes sense.

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
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
04-07-2016, 12:41 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2016 12:48 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 12:26 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  The evidence for both sides would be the exact same evidence, the same writings by the same historians.

Ah, so Tacitus writing of Jesus death under the hands of pilate, is evidence for Jesus not existing? Josephus writing of his brother James death, is evidence for Jesus's not-existence as well?

Is this correct?

Quote:Since there are no truly contemporary accounts of Jesus, as in writings during his lifetime or right after he was executed and supposedly came back to life it's difficult to know if he was a real person or not, since the historians who wrote about him didn't live during his time and didn't write about him until after Christianity started there is little reason to believe he was real person and even less reason to believe he was a magic half god messiah sent to save us all.

This is where people ignorance of ancient history shows. Our primary source of anything going on in that period of time in Roman Palestine, is a single writer, Josephus, beyond Josephus the only other person's writing we have is of Philo, who lived several hundred miles way. Contemporary or not isn't even the issue according to folks here, it's first hands accounts, eye witness accounts they're looking for. Apparently clueless that first hand sources, are like unicorns in regards to the ancient world. And want to suggest to historian of that period they can't do they job properly, since they rely heavily on such second hand sources to render that period at all.

You have to be what can only be categorized as an extreme skeptic, to cast such a large net of suspicion and doubt.

Quote:Since the evidence you have is weak, that is enough reason to question it and dismiss it, like I've pointed out before if I told you about a guy who lived and died and came back to life 100 years ago in 1916 and no one talked about it until now you would doubt it yet you believe the writings about Jesus from over 2,000 years ago? Ok fine, you can believe it all you want but why do you care so much if we believe it?

No we'd be talking about it like we see it, as your superstitious belief of seeing a dead man, just like we do sightings of big foot, or elvis. Like Tacitus, labeling it as a "mischievous superstition"

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 12:33 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yeah, you would think an omnipotent, omniscient god would have thought about that. Go figure.

Thought about what, how to convince folks like yourself in his existence?

Quote:Like why a god would need to sacrifice himself to himself to loophole the rules he created.

To convey a moving story, I mean why else?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 12:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Ah, so Tacitus writing of Jesus death under the hands of pilate, is evidence for Jesus not existing? Josephus writing of his brother James death, is evidence for Jesus's not-existence as well?

Is this correct?

The writings you are referring to are weak examples of evidence, they were writing about a man who was being worshiped at that time yet no accounts exist during his life time, there is no reason to believe he ever existed if that much time went by with no mention.

If I showed you an historical document written a hundred years after Rama died and it stated clearly he was a real guy but nothing from the time he lived was ever written would you say it was strong evidence he was real or weak evidence? Also the writings about him are directly related to his religious status as a Hindu God. Would that make it less or more believable to you?

(04-07-2016 12:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is where people ignorance of ancient history shows. Our primary source of anything going on in that period of time in Roman Palestine, is a single writer, Josephus, beyond Josephus the only other person's writing we have is of Philo, who lived several hundred miles way. Contemporary or not isn't even the issue according to folks here, it's first hands accounts, eye witness accounts they're looking for. Apparently clueless that first hand sources, are like unicorns in regards to the ancient world. And want to suggest to historian of that period they can't do they job properly, since they rely heavily on such second hand sources to render that period at all.

You have to be what can only be categorized as an extreme skeptic, to cast such a large net of suspicion and doubt.

What is so wrong with being an extreme skeptic first of all? Also I can admit perhaps Jesus was a real person but there are no reliable first hand accounts or second hand accounts for that matter, all we have are third hand accounts at best that are not noted until a century has passed, how is that reliable again?

The only honest position is the skeptical position. Not only are we missing first hand accounts of Jesus but we lack any other physical or archaeological evidence of his existence. The Hindus have archaeological evidence for Krishna, does that bother you? Do you feel a need to prove he never existed or do you accept it? I know you don't care what an atheist says about Hinduism but what about actual Hindus who believe he was a real person and they have historical proof to back it up? Is that compelling or are you still skeptical?

(04-07-2016 12:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No we'd be talking about it like we see it, as your superstitious belief off seeing a dead man, just like we do sighting of big foot, or elvis. Just Tacitus, labeling it as a "mischievous superstition"

Yes you are right, you would dismiss it because it sounds pretty fucking silly to think a century went by and no one thought to mention that guy that lived, died and came back to life and there are contemporary accounts of his life existing. I'm glad we're finally on the same page here, welcome to the world of extreme skeptics.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
04-07-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 11:04 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 10:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  They speak for themselves, as has been previously demonstrated earlier in this thread.

You can leave out either 'previously' or 'earlier'.

You still don't speak for others. You just think when you say that it lends credence to your walls of text.

No.

I provided links specifically to where these scholars speak for themselves. If you want to see those links, read the thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 01:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 10:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's actually not at all as 'cut and dry' as GoingDown would have it.

There are no original copies of Tacitus' Annals. The oldest copies there are, are/were in Christian hands. We know they interpolated things. The name in the manuscript of the group that Nero persecuted was "Chrestiani". Chrestus was the name of a Jewish insurrectionist whom Seutonius mentions as the leader of a group of Jews expelled from Rome 20 years prior. There could not possibly have been large numbers of "Christians" yet in Rome in 60 AD. The cult was just starting. Why would Tacitus get one name spelled one way, and "Christus" spelled another, if he was SO cognizant of details ?

This tired old mythicis argument.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Yep, a christian is going to edit the Tacitus text and tell us how their beliefs are "evil" and "superstitious" and how they were "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment."

I'm sure they would get right on that.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 12:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Thought about what, how to convince folks like yourself in his existence?

God has a clear obligation to convince every single living human of his existence, especially that human version of himself that was born of a virgin and died for our sins because if we don't believe we suffer for it, if he doesn't try to convince us he's indifferent to us or to the suffering of billions of souls destined for Hell, why would he deserve to be worshiped or even be called at God at that point?

(04-07-2016 12:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To convey a moving story, I mean why else?

Awww yes, the always moving story of a good man who went around living like a magical hippie and was brutally beaten, tortured, nailed to a wooden cross to slowly bleed out and die of exposure as a punishment for the collective sins of a bunch of people whose souls are being held hostage by a sky wizard....oh but he comes back to life in the end, so it's all good! Nothing to see here folks! Just a moving story for the whole family to watch!

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SitaSky's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: