Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2016, 11:47 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 08:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-07-2016 04:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In case anyone is interested in what I think about the existence or nonexistence of an historical Jesus here is my spiel. I bow down to GWG's narrative which is far more comprehensive, although I have a slightly different angle...

Did Yeshua Exist?

The Gospels’ writers and editors were mythmakers. Many historians suspect they didn’t base their writings on a genuine historical character, and they may be right. No definitive contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence, despite many wordy claims, lacking in facts, to the contrary (such as here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY). Do contemporary historians mention him?

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) 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, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Jesus. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...505.html).

Philo-Judaeus, (15-10 BCE - 45-50 CE) a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus.
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...letter=P).

We might expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but they didn’t. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature didn’t occur before the third century CE and bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.
What about the Roman writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate’s or Herod’s dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet nothing about Jesus.

Edward Gibbon, (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm) writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his classic work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:

“How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.” Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work. It’s the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who probably appeared on the historical scene only fifteen plus years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but some scholars suspect he refers to a different character to Yeshua. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). If this is so, his references to “Jesus” may be interpolations. Whether or not Paul’s Christ was Yeshua, his writings are remarkably deficient in facts about Jesus.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Jesus the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference isn’t mentioned by any of the church Fathers, (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery. This reference is frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

The surprising truth is that no contemporary literate official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented details about Jesus that have survived. If he’d preached to thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and risen from the dead, surely someone would have jotted down some notes about him, but it appears they didn’t.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature.

I just have one question.

If he existed, did Jesus take a bath ?
I mean. What the hell was the matter with that James ? No bath ? Peeee-ewwwe.

I have it from a good source that when Jeebus was nailed to the cross, two Roman soldiers passed out from the smell from his armpits.

Peter though it was a miracle when Jeebus walked on water...because he'd washed his feet.

I guess this explains why Jeebus never had a girlfriend.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
09-07-2016, 12:04 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Don't forget to add in the crotch-rot.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
09-07-2016, 12:52 AM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2016 01:07 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-07-2016 12:04 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Don't forget to add in the crotch-rot.

Ah yes. The Roman soldiers gambled for his clothes...but not for who would get to wear them.

I have it from a good source that when Jeebus was hanging on the cross, his loin cloth fell off. It was so filthy it lay on the ground, squirming, as it had a life of it's own. The Roman soldiers were so repulsed they drew lots to decide who would be responsible for burying it.
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
09-07-2016, 01:27 AM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2016 01:48 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 08:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-07-2016 04:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In case anyone is interested in what I think about the existence or nonexistence of an historical Jesus here is my spiel. I bow down to GWG's narrative which is far more comprehensive, although I have a slightly different angle...

Did Yeshua Exist?

The Gospels’ writers and editors were mythmakers. Many historians suspect they didn’t base their writings on a genuine historical character, and they may be right. No definitive contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence, despite many wordy claims, lacking in facts, to the contrary (such as here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY). Do contemporary historians mention him?

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) 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, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Jesus. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...505.html).

Philo-Judaeus, (15-10 BCE - 45-50 CE) a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus.
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...letter=P).

We might expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but they didn’t. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature didn’t occur before the third century CE and bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.
What about the Roman writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate’s or Herod’s dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet nothing about Jesus.

Edward Gibbon, (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm) writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his classic work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:

“How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.” Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work. It’s the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who probably appeared on the historical scene only fifteen plus years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but some scholars suspect he refers to a different character to Yeshua. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). If this is so, his references to “Jesus” may be interpolations. Whether or not Paul’s Christ was Yeshua, his writings are remarkably deficient in facts about Jesus.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Jesus the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference isn’t mentioned by any of the church Fathers, (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery. This reference is frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

The surprising truth is that no contemporary literate official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented details about Jesus that have survived. If he’d preached to thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and risen from the dead, surely someone would have jotted down some notes about him, but it appears they didn’t.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature.

I just have one question.

If he existed, did Jesus take a bath ?
I mean. What the hell was the matter with that James ? No bath ? Peeee-ewwwe.

No family member ever stepped inside a bath house.Sadcryface

Origen , Eusebius, Bogdan the bullshitter and Augustine all reported the following amazing details about the holy family...one brother was known as grimy Joe, another as dirty Harry, number three was black Bob, and mum's nickname was stinky puss.

It took 200 years of fumigating the family house in Nazareth before it was safe to use as a tourist attraction.Gasp

Ever wondered what stained the shroud of Turin? Now you know.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
09-07-2016, 02:35 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2016 02:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 08:49 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Clearly by the late 2d century the jesus tale had been invented and fleshed out.

It would be interesting to go through the documents that are available (the "proceedings") from the Councils, to see what they were fighting about in terms of theology, and what the dates were ... it would be enlightening in terms of what the "fleshing out" was, and when it happened.

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
09-07-2016, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2016 02:53 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 03:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yeshua had been a potential legitimate king and messiah because he was of the royal bloodline of David. James too was of this bloodline, and of the same flesh and blood as Yeshua through at least one parent in common, their mother.

This is not well evidenced, Mark. This is actually just an assumption due to the gospel records.

Quote: It’s possible James was the “disciple Jesus loved,” (John 13:23 and 19:23–25 NJB) not named because Gentile editors wanted to minimize his importance.

Possible, but I lean towards Philip the Evangelist, aka "Lazarus," who was the brother of Mary of Bethany, and also of Martha.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 03:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  GU, you replied to the following question

"If "jesus" was a Nazarene, he couldn't have been a "Christian." Do you agree?"

with

"Does that question even need to be asked?"

I agree, totally, with your implication that Jesus was not a Christian... he was Jewish.

What perplexes me about you is how vehemently you attack "militant atheists" and "mythicists" (although you appear now to be softening your opinions).

Which part of the "historical Jesus" are you defending? None of the magic, you admit, is true. The Jesus character was not a Christian, you also appear to admit, so most of the spiel he allegedly said in the gospels is obviously made up too. What is there left about the "historical Jesus" for you to defend? Can you not see how the harder one looks at this, the more irrelevant the fact of "his" existence or not, becomes?

The only reasonable thing anybody can say regarding Jesus is that existed as a mere man, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and then his life was embellished by the Christians.

I don't even understand how the scholars conclude that he was baptized by John the Baptist.

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable with accepting what I have said here, because of all the positions available, the position I have is the only one that has any evidence for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2016, 03:24 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-07-2016 02:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(08-07-2016 03:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yeshua had been a potential legitimate king and messiah because he was of the royal bloodline of David. James too was of this bloodline, and of the same flesh and blood as Yeshua through at least one parent in common, their mother.

This is not well evidenced, Mark. This is actually just an assumption due to the gospel records.

Quote: It’s possible James was the “disciple Jesus loved,” (John 13:23 and 19:23–25 NJB) not named because Gentile editors wanted to minimize his importance.

Possible, but I lean towards Philip the Evangelist, aka "Lazarus," who was the brother of Mary of Bethany, and also of Martha.

This is not well evidenced, Mark. This is actually just an assumption due to the gospel records.

True. There's little doubt, however, that James, who existed, and may have been his brother, had considerable status...at least in part probably due to his bloodline, which means Jeebus may have had some status due to his family.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-07-2016 03:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-07-2016 02:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  This is not well evidenced, Mark. This is actually just an assumption due to the gospel records.


Possible, but I lean towards Philip the Evangelist, aka "Lazarus," who was the brother of Mary of Bethany, and also of Martha.

This is not well evidenced, Mark. This is actually just an assumption due to the gospel records.

True. There's little doubt, however, that James, who existed, and may have been his brother, had considerable status...at least in part probably due to his bloodline, which means Jeebus may have had some status due to his family.

Perhaps yes, I agree.

As for Nazareth not existing 1st century, I seen all those arguments, and every last one is based on an unqualified argument from silence. It makes absolutely no sense for Gospel writers to invent a town as mundane as Nazareth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2016, 03:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-07-2016 03:29 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(09-07-2016 03:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This is not well evidenced, Mark. This is actually just an assumption due to the gospel records.

True. There's little doubt, however, that James, who existed, and may have been his brother, had considerable status...at least in part probably due to his bloodline, which means Jeebus may have had some status due to his family.

Perhaps yes, I agree.

As for Nazareth not existing 1st century, I seen all those arguments, and every last one is based on an unqualified argument from silence. It makes absolutely no sense for Gospel writers to invent a town as mundane as Nazareth.

It makes absolutely no sense for Gospel writers to invent a town as mundane as Nazareth.

Except for the teeny weeny problem that there is no written or archaeological evidence for the existence of first century Nazareth. So Nazareth "is actually just an assumption due to the gospel records."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: