Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2016, 09:53 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 07:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 06:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I defined what a Christian is when you said the same thing earlier.




Sent from my iPad 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, 10:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 09:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 07:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

I defined what a Christian is when you said the same thing earlier.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No. You said what it means *to you*.
No Christian community shares your heretical ideas.
You defined it for yourself.

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, 10:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 09:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I defined what a Christian is when you said the same thing earlier.

Being a Christian merely means one believes in Jesus. Anything after that is silly dogma.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 11:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I predict this thread hits 99 pages in two days. Yes

Popcorn

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
05-07-2016, 01:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 11:18 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I predict this thread hits 99 pages in two days. Yes

Popcorn

75 pages, and i still havent read anything that would convince me.

Come on, here i am, still beating up my slaves regularly so they usually die within 1-2 days (im getting old, ya know, so cant beat them to death on the spot anymore). So if you want me to become a christian and beat my slaves up only so hard that they dont die within 2-3 days (while, during the rest of the time, i really do respect them, and they respect me, as christ commanded), it needs definitely more to convince me than "well, Tacitus maybe knew some shit", or "yeah, Josephus probably wasnt forged".
If you want me believe i have to marry my rape victims (which i usually dont do, it can get expensive to feed another person day-in day-out in exchange for just having "30 minutes of fun" [hint: i am an olympic swimmer], and i am not even talking about those fancy dresses and shoes) then it needs certainly more than "there maybe were official roman records about Jeebus´ crucifiction, but they are lost now".
Hallucinations on a road trip by a megalomaniac control-freakish narcissist also wont be enough to convince me to stone my unruly children. So, please excuse me while i keep beating up my unruly kids with a (small!) stick until further evidence pops up.

And, boy, getting drunk and having sex with my daughters? You better bring me a letter signed by Jesus C. personally, before i am going to consider that.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
05-07-2016, 02:50 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 03:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: 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 ?

Hey Bucky, did I ever tell you about my brother? He rose from the dead, on a Tuesday. He was an olympic Tae kwon do champion. I once saw him turn water into wine, and walk on water. He was a great guy...he had the world's foulest farts, which was always good for a laugh. Oh, he was a god too. Funny thing, the guy never had a girlfriend, but he sure fucked a lot of goats. Our mum was a virgin...actually she still is. I've been thinking of starting a religion, here's the deal... you gotta have faith in him, (my brother) or else you're going to hell. Waddya think? Will it sell? Should I throw in some parables? Does it need more dragons?
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
05-07-2016, 02:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 01:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Really? Look below:


One of the Emperor related events he is describing is the reign of Tiberius. Since you responded to my statement- which only mentions Tiberius- then what am I supposed to think? I clearly said "Tacitus is using a plethora of written official Roman records" within the same context as Tiberius, and you responded with "I don't doubt that Tacitus is using records about the Emperor-related [Edit to Add: events] he is describing."

No lied intended. It's what you said.

I don't doubt there was a record of the time period of Tiberius' reign (probably many such), and that a chronicler of the Emperors would be as familiar with those dates as a Presidential Historian today would be familiar with when Taft or Kennedy was President of the United States.

That is still a separate question from whether Tacitus is simply explaining that the Christians were people who claim their Lord was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (as it says in Luke), to which Tacitus would have said "sure, why not?" and simply recorded it that way because he had no reason to care about the specific detail of it, or whether he was working from an alleged document about the Crucifixion (one which somehow manages a major anachronism about rank that does not fit the timeline in question) written at the time of the Crucifixion. You continue to conflate these points.

"A plethora of documents" does not equal "he had record of the trial, recorded at the time of the trial, in Judea, and sent to Rome where Tacitus could read it".

(04-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  No strawman whatsoever. You are indeed cherry picking one line of text, namely, "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" all because of one single word within it;"Christ."

You have no problem with the rest of this massive tome of Annals, but this one line of text, and this one word of "Christ" absolutely requires an excessively and ridiculously high burden of proof by you.

That is not how history works, nor is how it is determined to be true. You do not place unreasonable standards of proof upon any part of the work than you do upon other parts, especially when this particular section begins with, and continues to include, a plethora of evidence demonstrating that Tacitus was indeed using written sources both historical and official.

Your expectation of evidence eg; nothing less than a precise footnote after the word Christ, is completely unreasonable and unacceptable.

What makes you think I have no other issues with the lines in Annals, other than the bit about Christ and the crucifixion? (Or that I would not, if we were discussing another section.)

You are trying to impugn my character here by stating that I have some bizarre anti-Christian bias (you Christians and your martyr complexes!) that makes me argue over it and no other. Hogwash.

But you're quite right about one thing-- reading only one text and considering only what that one text says is not how we determine history to be true. We compare what is known from all records, and from political affiliations/motives we suspect, and from things like the laws of physics (such as our knowledge of the positions of stars and comets, seasons, etc.), and develop an overall picture from many diverse elements.

The story of Jesus as attested to by the Christian culture has many elements which are clearly fraudulent. For instance, there is no record made by people we'd expect to make such records (from anyone outside of the Christian cult) talking about a three-hour eclipse/darkness, the splitting of the veil, and the appearance of walking zombies from the graves of Jerusalem. We know that there is no record among Jewish documents about the trial and execution of Jesus, in which the Sanhedrin council was somehow illegally convened on the eve of a Sabbath for the first time in history.

These sorts of things place a very high bar on any claim to be made that it did indeed happen as related in the Bible, and I simply do not think that Tacitus counts as sufficient evidence to meet that bar.

(04-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you have absolutely no supporting evidence of this whatsoever.

Therefore, this argument is dismissed.

You mean no evidence other than my proof, in his own words, that he was a member of a council whose job it was to investigate new cults coming to Rome, and keep track of them?

(04-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  So you expect well learned people to believe- without evidence- that Tacitus used a few scribbles from some 50 year old parchment about some comments made by some hated Christians about Christ, Pilate, and Tiberius?

Is that about right?

"A few scribbles"? Heyyyyy, you're not trying to poison the well, there, are you?

And no. I expect him to have read what he could find about the arson trials he was writing about, and to be familiar with the scriptures and other claims of the cult he was writing about.

(04-07-2016 10:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Firstly, I'm not a Christian, nor do I have any faith in any kind of religion.

Secondly, again you are being completely unreasonable with your expectation of evidence.

Your position is rejected, not only by me, but virtually unanimously by the learned in the scholarly community.

And for good reason.

I disagree with your assertion that it is accepted "virtually unanimously" among scholars, especially if we ignore the ones with clear and outspoken bias, such as those among the conservative Christian theological circles, who bend over backward to claim everything in the Bible is literal and to back that with whatever they can throw at it. It is the reason I haven't/don't read the Mythicists... I don't trust their objectivity enough to do more than consider some of the arguments I hear of theirs, related in other contexts.

I also think you are a liar about not being a Christian. I can see no other reason you'd accuse me of anti-Christian bias, using the terms you did, instead of understanding (or accepting) my statement that I would not care if we were discussing claims about the historicity or Lord Krishna or the Buddha or Quetzalcoatl [Edit: or Robert Christ]. Or Attila the Hun, for that matter.

"But you're quite right about one thing-- reading only one text and considering only what that one text says is not how we determine history to be true. We compare what is known from all records, and from political affiliations/motives we suspect, and from things like the laws of physics (such as our knowledge of the positions of stars and comets, seasons, etc.), and develop an overall picture from many diverse elements.

The story of Jesus as attested to by the Christian culture has many elements which are clearly fraudulent. For instance, there is no record made by people we'd expect to make such records (from anyone outside of the Christian cult) talking about a three-hour eclipse/darkness, the splitting of the veil, and the appearance of walking zombies from the graves of Jerusalem. We know that there is no record among Jewish documents about the trial and execution of Jesus, in which the Sanhedrin council was somehow illegally convened on the eve of a Sabbath for the first time in history."


BowingBowingBowingBowingBowing

Just thought I'd put the above in big letters so GU can read it again.
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
05-07-2016, 03:18 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 03:35 AM by Mark Fulton.)
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

Yeah, because your brother rising from the dead is a bit "ho hum" isn't it? Rather like having your toenails cut. You don't want to boor your audience with trivial details.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 01:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 01:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  We know that there is no record among Jewish documents about the trial and execution of Jesus, in which the Sanhedrin council was somehow illegally convened on the eve of a Sabbath for the first time in history.

They illegally convened to execute James as well, according to Josephus, so it wasn't the first time they illegally convened.

Oops! I think you got your dates confused. James was executed in 62 CE, many decades after your (possible) Jeebus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 05:36 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 02:50 AM)Mark Fulton 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 ?

Hey Bucky, did I ever tell you about my brother? He rose from the dead, on a Tuesday. He was an olympic Tae kwon do champion. I once saw him turn water into wine, and walk on water. He was a great guy...he had the world's foulest farts, which was always good for a laugh. Oh, he was a god too. Funny thing, the guy never had a girlfriend, but he sure fucked a lot of goats. Our mum was a virgin...actually she still is. I've been thinking of starting a religion, here's the deal... you gotta have faith in him, (my brother) or else you're going to hell. Waddya think? Will it sell? Should I throw in some parables? Does it need more dragons?


Then, after they go to all the trouble to somehow engage the Romans in a trial which was totally unnecessary, (he caused a ruckus in the temple, for which he was liable for execution anyway in the Pax Romana), there are reports he was re-animated, THE first human in all of history ..... and despite all the trouble to get the execution accomplished, not one Roman or Jewish posse is assembled to go to try to find this remarkable brother of yours. He must have been some dude. Facepalm

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: