Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2016, 05:16 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 04:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 04:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You suggested that such things were evidence of Jesus not existing. It doesn’t follow from a source not being contemporary, that this is evidence of the person written about not existing. If iyou consider that x is weak evidence in support of A, it doesn’t follow that X is also evidence for B.

And secondly Josephus is a contemporary for James, whose death he writes of, and indicates was the brother of Jesus. So his writing on James is contemporary.


No if someone is writing of meeting a person’s brother, and disciples, that’s a first hand account of meeting them. I think it goes without saying that non-historical people don’t have biological brothers. Not to mention the James/Jesus is cited not only in the NT, but in Josephus as well, who is contemporary of James.

This (supposed brother) James wrote a letter in the NT. If your brother actually rose from the dead, would you forget to mention it in a letter promoting your cult ?


How many pages, or sermons can you have on any given number of Sundays before you have to mention the resurrection. What's the requirement? If particular sermon doesn't mention the Resurrection, would we say the speaker forgot to mention it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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, 05:17 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 04:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 04:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And secondly Josephus is a contemporary for James, whose death he writes of, and indicates was the brother of Jesus. So his writing on James is contemporary.

So then Tomato, now you're trying to make a case for contemporary accounts of James.
I see. Facepalm


It is a contemporary account of James, and Paul's writing is a first hand account.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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, 05:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 05:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 04:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So then Tomato, now you're trying to make a case for contemporary accounts of James.
I see. Facepalm


It is a contemporary account of James, and Paul's writing is a first hand account.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which Paul ? You have no evidence that the letters with "Paul" slapped on top are contemporary. You don't know which Paul (if any) wrote what). He never met Jesus. That is the SUBJECT of this thread, not whether there are accounts of James.

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
04-07-2016, 05:39 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 05:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 04:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This (supposed brother) James wrote a letter in the NT. If your brother actually rose from the dead, would you forget to mention it in a letter promoting your cult ?


How many pages, or sermons can you have on any given number of Sundays before you have to mention the resurrection. What's the requirement? If particular sermon doesn't mention the Resurrection, would we say the speaker forgot to mention it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice try. Fail. The POINT is, the resurrection would be THE MOST astounding compelling reason to persuade he had. He didn't use it. There is a reason for that.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-07-2016, 05:44 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 05:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 05:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How many pages, or sermons can you have on any given number of Sundays before you have to mention the resurrection. What's the requirement? If particular sermon doesn't mention the Resurrection, would we say the speaker forgot to mention it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice try. Fail. The POINT is, the resurrection would be THE MOST astounding compelling reason to persuade he had. He didn't use it. There is a reason for that.


Persuade his Christian audience who already believed in the resurrection?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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, 05:47 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 05:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 05:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It is a contemporary account of James, and Paul's writing is a first hand account.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which Paul ? You have no evidence that the letters with "Paul" slapped on top are contemporary. You don't know which Paul (if any) wrote what). He never met Jesus. That is the SUBJECT of this thread, not whether there are accounts of James.


The Paul who wrote of meeting James his disciples, in one the letters regarded as authentic. This is a first hand account, even though you earlier seemed to have trouble with the definition of a first hand account previously.

And unless non-historical people can have biological brothers, than the point stands.

"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, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2016 06:03 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 02:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You seem to have put your argument into the position that you are insisting that the only way to conclusively prove where Tacitus got his information from is if an officially signed Roman document detailing the events surrounding the death of Christ, and signed by Pontius Pilate, is produced.

I said no such thing. What I did say (if you will re-read what you quoted of me) is that it is odd to claim such a document existed, written in the year 33 C.E., which would call Pilate by a rank that was not available to the governors of Judea until a decade later. This is evidence that whatever source he was working from, be it hearsay or later documents, was not something written in Judea at the time of the trial, but would have come from a later date, either through Christian storytelling or later documentation that was a transcription of rumor. Either way, it means that Tacitus is unreliable as a source of information about the crucifixion.

(04-07-2016 02:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  That is not necessary. We do not require such extensive documentation to arrive at the plausible conclusion that Tacitus' sources were other official documents, as well as the works of other historians, especially since the internal evidence demonstrates that he employed such practices throughout his works. Even if a document was presented detailing the death Christ and signed by Pilate, anybody could just as easily question it's authenticity as well, and round and round we go again.

Plausible is not the same thing as true. My arguments are also plausible, despite your denials, and the very fact that they are also plausible means that we cannot count Tacitus as evidence of the things you claim they prove.

A document would go a long way toward establishing that link, if its veracity was unquestionable... but they should question and doubt it, if there is reason to do so, the same as we would for any other source. That's one of the things that tells me you're a Christian trying to give special status to this Christ-story, and not an unbiased scholar, as you claim.

(04-07-2016 02:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  This argument would not stop regardless of how much evidence is provided, because the standard would continue to rise above what is required even more due to the fact that people just don't like the idea that Jesus may actually have existed as a mere man. The only ones I ever see who argue against this are almost always people with strong bias against religion. This indicates to me that their bias makes it impossible to be honestly impartial.

The evidence that is currently available is considered to be more than good enough for the vast majority of highly skilled professional historians to accept that Christ actually did exist, albeit, at the very least as a mere man.

I also consider the weight of the evidence to suggest that Jesus (not Christ, despite what he was called) existed, and that his followers considered him the Christ. But I will not call things proof which are not proof. It is intellectually dishonest-- as is saying that the reason I hold a position (which is also held by other respected, reputable scholars, no matter what minority opinion they hold) is because I am biased against your religion.

The only people I have ever seen accuse me of religious bias are those who presuppose these stories to be true (as do MANY of the so-called "scholars", who are really theologians preaching to the Christian public who so desperately wants this story to be true), but I have had conversations with quite a few professors of Religious Studies, and not one of them suggested I was biased in my analysis, even when they disagreed with me.


(04-07-2016 02:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And then we get the hard-core denialists who attempt such things as "interpolation," or "that's not evidence" when it really is evidence, or "the whole thing is a 13 century forgery," or some other laughable position that they cannot possibly support. Those types of people are viewed as anti-Christian conspiracy theorists who will bend over backwards to deny anything in regards to Jesus. They don't even seem to care how utterly stupid they make themselves appear to be, for all that matters is they will do whatever it takes to make the issue of the existence of Jesus go away.

Thanks for bringing those things up as if they were in any way associated with anything I said. I appreciate having the opportunity to watch you build yet another straw man.

A great many religious scholars are atheists, even the ones who think the weight of evidence supports an historical Jesus. Why would that be?

(04-07-2016 02:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  But the reality is, the historians don't actually give a fuck what you, me, or anybody else says. They reached their consensus based upon the historical method, and they came to a well educated conclusion that Jesus did exist as an ordinary man, and that the Tacitus text is absolutely, without question, genuine history. And that is good enough for me.

This is not a field that lends itself well to freedom from bias. Normally, I would simply concur with a "consensus" opinion by experts in a field, but it doesn't take much digging to find that a large percent of them are not at all unbiased in why they write about this subject.

"The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice." - Donald H. Akenson (29 September 2001). Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1.

I tend to concur with Bart Ehrman's analysis of the topic:

"It is obviously important for a historian to look at all the evidence. To most modern people, it is surprising to learn just how little evidence there is for Jesus outside the Christian sources. He is not mentioned in any Roman (or Greek, or Syriac, or… whatever – any pagan [i.e., non-Jewish, non-Christian]) source of the entire first century. Never. That strikes people as surprising. He is mentioned a couple of times within about 80 years of his life by two Roman sources (Pliny and Tacitus; I’m not sure Suetonius can be used). And he is almost certainly referred to twice in the Jewish historian Josephus, once in an entire paragraph. But that’s it for the non-Christian sources for the first hundred years after his death. It’s not much. But it’s something, and since these are not sources that based their views on the Gospels (since these authors hadn’t read the Gospels), it shows that Jesus was indeed known to exist in pagan and Jewish circles within a century of his life.

The really compelling evidence, though, comes in the Christian sources. Mythicists write these sources off because they are Christian and therefore biased, but that is not a historically solid way to proceed. Christian sources do indeed have to be treated gingerly, but they are sources every bit as much as pagan and Jewish sources are. What I show in
Did Jesus Exist? is that there are so many Christian sources that can be used by historians that there is really no doubt at all that Jesus at least existed."

Source: Bart Ehrman's blog at Patheos.

So am I still biased, now that I explained why I do not consider Tacitus to be valid enough evidence, but still think the man was real? Or is it okay now that I've confirmed an agreement at least one element of your pet religion?

[Edit to Add: As should be obvious, I disagree with Ehrman's conclusion that Tacitus had not read the read the gospels, or at least heard the tales within.]

(04-07-2016 02:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So I am going to end this discussion because, quite frankly, it actually bores the fuck out of me.

Enjoy whatever it is you choose to believe.

[Image: tumblr_mxx24a7wMc1qa3pfso1_400.gif]

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
04-07-2016, 06:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 05:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 05:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Which Paul ? You have no evidence that the letters with "Paul" slapped on top are contemporary. You don't know which Paul (if any) wrote what). He never met Jesus. That is the SUBJECT of this thread, not whether there are accounts of James.


The Paul who wrote of meeting James his disciples, in one the letters regarded as authentic. This is a first hand account, even though you earlier seemed to have trouble with the definition of a first hand account previously.

And unless non-historical people can have biological brothers, than the point stands.

He never said "biological" brother ... and I seem to recall the cult members claiming Mary was always a virgin.

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
04-07-2016, 06:37 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He never said "biological" brother

No he said brother in a biological non-figurative sense, just like Josephus did, my dear weasel.

But it's always fun seeing how far you go with this dishonesty of yours. You claim that you don't care whether Jesus existed or not, yet are here attempting to go full retard in defense of it, "he didn't mean biological brother"

"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, 07:37 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2016 07:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 06:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He never said "biological" brother

No he said brother in a biological non-figurative sense, just like Josephus did, my dear weasel.

But it's always fun seeing how far you go with this dishonesty of yours. You claim that you don't care whether Jesus existed or not, yet are here attempting to go full retard in defense of it, "he didn't mean biological brother"

It's fun to see someone go full retard trying to defend this historical bullshit who can't/won't even define what a Christian is. You can't make up shit about Josephus and get away with it, Weasel King.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: