Mark's version of "Jesus"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(01-08-2015 03:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-08-2015 12:03 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Rolleyes

No one knew jesus it seems...

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13 books, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only twice, each as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus. Unsure

There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

Gasp

Don't even get me started on the synoptic gospels, written by anonymous authors long after their namesake's death...

Consider

So how do you know of jesus exactly? oh yeah, that is right....you don't. Oh wait, you aren't arguing for religion, you want to argue about the existence in your mind of your personal god.....Rolleyes

hmmmmm one would surmise it is fiction.

Having written about this myself...this is a fantastic assessment.

I particularly like this, and I rabbit on about it myself, is it undermines almost the entire pretext of Christianity....

"Paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13 books, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay."

I agree. Since Paul, the creator of Xtianity, never met or witnessed the earthly jesus, and no one else who ever wrote of jesus knew him, it is all urban myth and legend, Now once they nailed this dipstick to a piece of wood like a common little thief, this struck quite a blow to the growing following to this latest of "messiahs"....whatever is Paul to do now? ooh I know, "he appeared before 500 witnesses, the disciples, James and then me"....odd that no one else wrote that down, not one of the witnesses...no one, completely uncorroborated...and Paul had what we call...motive ...to lie. Thus Xtianity is just a hollow, unfounded, fictional BS religion just like the rest of them.

"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
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-08-2015, 05:07 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(01-08-2015 11:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
Quote: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, although not all scholars accept this. So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it did not fit with their manufactured image.

I didn't read much past this false dichotomy. Josephus could have written about Jesus and the record was simply lost. Sure it is possible early Christians destroyed it, but there are many other just as reasonable possibilities on why it didn't survive until today.

There is no "false dichotomy". The notion that Josephus was "objective" is preposterous. He was in the employ of the Roman Emperor. He wrote to demonstrate that Vespasian was the messiah. The idea that he would say someone else was the messiah is so far fetched, it's not even reasonable to imagine. Why would he write about a nobody ? The Sanhedrin was never once in all of Jewish history called into session on Passover weekend, (as the gospels say in recounting their fairy tale). There's so much wrong with the "passion" and the surrounding events (suggesting that JEWS drink his blood at the last Supper, which was an eons-old abomination for Jews) is so wack it not even possible to consider it.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-08-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
Mark I really enjoyed this. I've been meaning to purchase your book; not merely "just to show support" but because I have a real interest. Reading this was the tipping point for me.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
01-08-2015, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2015 07:28 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(01-08-2015 06:33 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  Mark I really enjoyed this. I've been meaning to purchase your book; not merely "just to show support" but because I have a real interest. Reading this was the tipping point for me.

Thankyou!

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not William Shakespeare when it comes to authorship, yet if you get my book, particularly as an e-book, (from Amazon Big Grin), there are nearly 1000 links to interesting articles and documentaries... so it's a good resource.

PS...just for your interest....I calculated I spent about 15,000 hours researching and writing the thing. I also spent over $10,000 on editing and publishing. I got my first ever cheque back for royalties last week...$137.00, and because it came from the USA, I have to wait eight weeks for it to get cleared! LOL . The whole venture was very much a labour of love. If I ever write another book I'm going to pick a topic that I already know something about!
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
02-08-2015, 12:10 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
Interesting read Mark. I was interesing in picking up the book a while ago but I never got around to it. I will have to get it when I get back to the states.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
02-08-2015, 12:48 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2015 12:51 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(01-08-2015 04:05 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-08-2015 11:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I didn't read much past this false dichotomy. Josephus could have written about Jesus and the record was simply lost. Sure it is possible early Christians destroyed it, but there are many other just as reasonable possibilities on why it didn't survive until today.

HJ, it is not a false dichotomy for the following reasons.

Josephus wrote books. Those books have survived. As best we know he didn't write a page or 2 here or there on a particular topic and then get it published. So if he wrote details about Jesus it has been deliberately removed from his histories, and it would obviously have been Christians who did that. Pious fraud was extremely common in the first millennium.

Read about the TF here....
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

I'm not surprised that you didn't get beyond the first few paragraphs of my post. You are a typical fundamentalist Christian in that you are not interested in the real history or in anything that may challenge your beliefs. It will only take you 10 minutes to read. It took me thousands of hours to research. If you're going to comment, pay me the respect of reading the damn thing first.

Mark

It simply does not follow that if Josephus wrote details about Jesus it has been deliberately removed from his histories. Many many many books written in antiquity have been lost....for all sorts of reasons. That is a fact of history and it is not in dispute. Your belief that books written by Josephus are invulnerable from all manner of threats except Christians is simply ridiculous.

I didn't read that much of your work for two reasons. First I simply do not care about the subject. Second, If I am coming across blatant logical fallacies like the one I pointed after reading just a few words....its obvious your work isn't even close to be ready for prime time.

Here is some advice. Click on that link below. It will help you overcome your propensity for illogical thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/user/PhilosophyFreak
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2015, 12:53 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(01-08-2015 05:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-08-2015 11:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I didn't read much past this false dichotomy. Josephus could have written about Jesus and the record was simply lost. Sure it is possible early Christians destroyed it, but there are many other just as reasonable possibilities on why it didn't survive until today.

There is no "false dichotomy". The notion that Josephus was "objective" is preposterous. He was in the employ of the Roman Emperor. He wrote to demonstrate that Vespasian was the messiah. The idea that he would say someone else was the messiah is so far fetched, it's not even reasonable to imagine. Why would he write about a nobody ? The Sanhedrin was never once in all of Jewish history called into session on Passover weekend, (as the gospels say in recounting their fairy tale). There's so much wrong with the "passion" and the surrounding events (suggesting that JEWS drink his blood at the last Supper, which was an eons-old abomination for Jews) is so wack it not even possible to consider it.

You should watch the channel I suggest Mark watch in my previous post in this thread too. It is obvious you don't know much about logical fallacies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2015, 01:37 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2015 01:40 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 12:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-08-2015 04:05 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  HJ, it is not a false dichotomy for the following reasons.

Josephus wrote books. Those books have survived. As best we know he didn't write a page or 2 here or there on a particular topic and then get it published. So if he wrote details about Jesus it has been deliberately removed from his histories, and it would obviously have been Christians who did that. Pious fraud was extremely common in the first millennium.

Read about the TF here....
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

I'm not surprised that you didn't get beyond the first few paragraphs of my post. You are a typical fundamentalist Christian in that you are not interested in the real history or in anything that may challenge your beliefs. It will only take you 10 minutes to read. It took me thousands of hours to research. If you're going to comment, pay me the respect of reading the damn thing first.

Mark

It simply does not follow that if Josephus wrote details about Jesus it has been deliberately removed from his histories. Many many many books written in antiquity have been lost....for all sorts of reasons. That is a fact of history and it is not in dispute. Your belief that books written by Josephus are invulnerable from all manner of threats except Christians is simply ridiculous.

I didn't read that much of your work for two reasons. First I simply do not care about the subject. Second, If I am coming across blatant logical fallacies like the one I pointed after reading just a few words....its obvious your work isn't even close to be ready for prime time.

Here is some advice. Click on that link below. It will help you overcome your propensity for illogical thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/user/PhilosophyFreak

You didn't read my post.

You know next to nothing about Josephus, or early Christianity, or the ancient Jewish and Roman world.

By your own admission, you are not interested in the subject.

So why are you making noise, why do you think your poorly made point is so important, and what makes you think anyone is taking any notice of you?
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
02-08-2015, 01:49 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2015 01:54 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 01:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(02-08-2015 12:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Mark

It simply does not follow that if Josephus wrote details about Jesus it has been deliberately removed from his histories. Many many many books written in antiquity have been lost....for all sorts of reasons. That is a fact of history and it is not in dispute. Your belief that books written by Josephus are invulnerable from all manner of threats except Christians is simply ridiculous.

I didn't read that much of your work for two reasons. First I simply do not care about the subject. Second, If I am coming across blatant logical fallacies like the one I pointed after reading just a few words....its obvious your work isn't even close to be ready for prime time.

Here is some advice. Click on that link below. It will help you overcome your propensity for illogical thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/user/PhilosophyFreak

You didn't read my post.

You know next to nothing about Josephus, or early Christianity, or the ancient Jewish and Roman world.

By your own admission, you are not interested in the subject.

So why are you making noise, why do you think your poorly made point is so important, and what makes you think anyone is taking any notice of you?

I didn't realize you had published. I pointed out your logical fallacy so you could correct it before publication and maybe look for other blatant errors of the same kind. If your book is going to be convincing, its arguments must be logically valid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2015, 03:38 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2015 02:50 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-08-2015 01:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You didn't read my post.

You know next to nothing about Josephus, or early Christianity, or the ancient Jewish and Roman world.

By your own admission, you are not interested in the subject.

So why are you making noise, why do you think your poorly made point is so important, and what makes you think anyone is taking any notice of you?

I didn't realize you had published. I pointed out your logical fallacy so you could correct it before publication and maybe look for other blatant errors of the same kind. If your book is going to be convincing, its arguments must be logically valid.

Ok.

Let's talk around this topic in a friendly way.

You write

"Many many many books written in antiquity have been lost....for all sorts of reasons. That is a fact of history and it is not in dispute."

Agreed!

" Your belief that books written by Josephus are invulnerable from all manner of threats except Christians is simply ridiculous."

I never said that Josephus' works were invulnerable from all manner of threats. In fact it is fairly obvious that some , or all, of the TF is an interpolation (written by a pro Christian hand....probably hundreds of years after Josephus was dead.)

It is a fact that "pious fraud" occurred regularly for 1000 years after Jesus.

I was simply making the point that if a real Jesus existed, it is remarkable that Josephus never mentioned him, unless of course Jesus was just a common criminal and not particularly famous.

On the other hand, if Jesus was a significant political player, and did cause a ruckus in Jerusalem and was executed for his efforts, then it is very likely Josephus would have mentioned him. Is that were the case, it is probable that Christians would have removed this down-to-earth account about Jesus from the works of Josephus, and the world would be no wiser. These Christians may well have replaced this account with the Testimonium Flavium.

Now... I'm not aware that scholars think that any other parts of Josephus' works have been interpolated, or that parts have been removed. Yet if Christians did remove Josephus' story about Jesus, there is no way this removal would be detectable. Yes...it is true that I am only guessing, yet I never claimed it was a fact.

You seem to be suggesting that Josephus' account about Jesus could just be missing. This is highly unlikely, because none of the Church Fathers from the second or third century ever refers to Josephus talking about a Jesus or a Christ ( they don't even know of the Testimonium Flavium! ). The early Christians were, in fact, quite desperate to prove that Jesus was flesh and blood, not some ghost like mythical figure.

What is more, I am not aware that scholars think there is any evidence that any parts of Josephus' published works are now missing or lost (although I'm happy to be corrected). What we do have from Josephus appears to be remarkably intact.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: