Mark's version of "Jesus"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2015, 05:08 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 12:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  First I simply do not care about the subject.

In that case, Heywood Jahfuckoff?

"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
[+] 5 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
02-08-2015, 08:19 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(01-08-2015 12:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome 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.

What does any of this have to do with Fulton's false dichotomy? Are you taking Fulton's position that there two and only two possibilities? Either Josephus didn't record it or if he did the Christian's destroyed it. Who knows what happened. Maybe a dog ate it.

No HJ, I am making the point that Josephus, just like every other person who ever mentioned jesus, is either an interpolation, a lie (Paul), or written by someone who never even met him. Maybe it is all made up.

"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
02-08-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 03:38 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

Mark, I am suggesting that the following is a false dichotomy

"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."

It is a false dichotomy because the dichotomy you wrote above is not jointly exhaustive. There are other alternatives why we have nothing written by Josephus regarding the crucifixion of Christ. Your hand waving away of those alternatives does magically change your false dichotomy into a true dichotomy.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. I am saying the thinking you used to get to your conclusion is flawed. Thus your conclusion is less credible than it otherwise would be if your thinking was robust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-08-2015 03:38 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

Mark, I am suggesting that the following is a false dichotomy

"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."

It is a false dichotomy because the dichotomy you wrote above is not jointly exhaustive. There are other alternatives why we have nothing written by Josephus regarding the crucifixion of Christ. Your hand waving away of those alternatives does magically change your false dichotomy into a true dichotomy.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. I am saying the thinking you used to get to your conclusion is flawed. Thus your conclusion is less credible than it otherwise would be if your thinking was robust.

You're rather obsessive compulsive aren't you! You've read 4 or 5 paragraphs , latched on to a (rather unimportant) idea, repeated yourself 3 or 4 times, don't seem to have appreciated the details around your argument, and still haven't read the rest of the post.

Yes, it is possible that Rufus, Josephus' dog, opened up all 10 copies of "Wars of the Jews" and ate page 212 in each. This page contained the true account of Jesus Christ, and Josephus and all the other readers in the late first, second and third centuries failed to notice that it was missing.

Or it could have been aliens who removed the page. Or god.

Or Josephus, the official government historian, someone who had ample means to disseminate his works, wrote a book or a pamphlet about Jesus, which everyone, including all those 2nd and 3rd century Christians, failed to notice.

These are all theoretical, yet highly unlikely possibilities. So, you're right. There, do you feel better now?

Any chance you can let go, and actually read my post? You, of all people, should be fascinated by the history.
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
02-08-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
You have to understand, Mark, HJ is looking for someone to debate and no one will oblige, for the reasons you just listed. So he is making you his huckleberry.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
02-08-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 03:59 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You have to understand, Mark, HJ is looking for someone to debate and no one will oblige, for the reasons you just listed. So he is making you his huckleberry.

He is kind of like that turd that is just hanging on for dear life and won't fall into the bowl.

"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
[+] 4 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
02-08-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 05:43 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(02-08-2015 03:59 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You have to understand, Mark, HJ is looking for someone to debate and no one will oblige, for the reasons you just listed. So he is making you his huckleberry.

He is kind of like that turd that is just hanging on for dear life and won't fall into the bowl.

Dingleberry.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
02-08-2015, 09:23 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
Is there anyone else who sees a failed Jewish insurrectionist in the gospels?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2015, 09:39 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
Reza Aslan sees it that way. Although, it is worth noting that J. D. Crossan finds the variety of HJ's to be an embarrassment. That so many scholars can read the same shit and come away with such varied opinions gives Crossan no comfort.

The bible is a Rorschach test: People see in it what they want to see.

And, depending on what they report seeing, it helps you decide how fucking nutty they are.

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
02-08-2015, 09:54 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(02-08-2015 09:39 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Reza Aslan sees it that way. Although, it is worth noting that J. D. Crossan finds the variety of HJ's to be an embarrassment. That so many scholars can read the same shit and come away with such varied opinions gives Crossan no comfort.

The bible is a Rorschach test: People see in it what they want to see.

And, depending on what they report seeing, it helps you decide how fucking nutty they are.

Yes, Reza Aslan, and Peter Cresswell is another.

To me, there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence that this is the case.

Maybe I am just seeing what I want to see.Consider
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: