I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed
by Farkel 199 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
HelpMeBelieve
djegg, may I second the motion?
-
mP
Leo
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm
Again, Atwill suggests that Mark’s story of Joseph of Arimathea requesting the body of Jesus be taken down and given to him comes from Josephus’ own experience of recognizing three crucifixion victims as former associates of his and securing Roman permission to have them taken down alive and treated, though only one survived. How similar are the names “Joseph of Arimathea” and “Joseph b ar-Matthias ” (the historian’s full name)! If the gospel story is based on Josephus’ story, that would solve the problem of why Joseph seems to have asked only for Jesus, and what happened to the two other “thieves” crucified alongside him. But to posit such a thing, one hardly need envision a committee writing both stories in the hope that the clever reader would connect them (as if doing so would remotely imply some identity between Jesus and Titus Caesar!).
Come on, blind Freddy can see that Joseph of Arimathea is just too convenient a match for Josephus jewish name. Because Price cant understandsome other connection does not make the J of A sample incorrect. That is a separate point that nees adddressing.
-
Leolaia
You have not actually given an opinion why its wrong.
I did give an opinion....Robert Price's opinion. I did that because it's late and I'm about to go to bed, and I don't want to make the effort of putting things into my own words. Maybe tomorrow. At any rate, Price sums up much of my impression of Atwill's thesis.
How do you explain the coincidences ?
I don't know, most I've seen are not impressive and need no explaining, which is part of why I said I think the thesis is a streeetch. Price discusses a few of them. If your bar for considering something a parallel is that low, you will find LOTS of parallels quite easily. It's similar to how conspiracy theories are formed out of anomalies and coincidences, which means they are lacking in internal consistency and thus fail to adequately explain the preponderance of the evidence because they were designed to explain the coincidences and oddities. Sometimes a coincidence means something, sometimes it doesn't; it's a coincidence. It's how the evidence fits together into a comprehensive picture that allows one to judge whether the anomaly means anything. For example, if you've read Fomenko, you'd know that he considers the entirety of ancient history to be a medieval hoax. He finds LOTS of fascinating, compelling coincidences between unrelated histories, which led him to consider them to be duplications and fabrications. Atwill's thesis kind of reminds me of Fomenko in a way. But Fomenko is wrong. His amazing discoveries of parallels don't mean anything. We know this because they are invalidated by the preponderance of evidence, real physical evidence like radiocarbon dating, that proves you can't compress world history the way he does. There is no internal consistency if you truly take all the evidence into account. Anyway, I'm about to fall asleep, I'll try to pick this up tomorrow....
-
transhuman68
LOL, you are a funny guy, mP! Whether Tacitus wrote 'Christus' or 'Chrestus' doesn't really matter- he knew who he was writing about; and everyone got their Greek words mixed up back then anyway. But, lol, whether Jesus was just a rabbi or a rebel leader; the facts are he has disapeared almost without trace- ordinary people didn't count for much in the 1st century, and with almost all the population being illiterate, there was really no-one who could leave us a written record. I do think Jesus existed as a person though.
-
mP
Trans
LOL, you are a funny guy, mP! Whether Tacitus wrote 'Christus' or 'Chrestus' doesn't really matter
mP:
Of course it matters, when the words mean totally different things.
Im not disagreeing w/ the your statement that there is little or no proof Jesus ever existed. BUt if we are trying to find out, then one needs to try and be accurate when looking at separate elements of the evidence. We really should try and be honest, and not just take somebodies word for it, especially when they have been caught lying many times.
-
mP
Leo:
I don't know, most I've seen are not impressive and need no explaining, which is part of why I said I think the thesis is a streeetch . Price discusses a few of them. If your bar for considering something a parallel is that low, you will find LOTS of parallels
mP:
Examples please, most of your statements are opinions or personal comments without any real concerete references back to the text or any of the historical references that Atwill makes. I tried to give but one example from Price about J of Arimathea.
Im sorry but we are not talking about Fomenko. YOur reply spends more time about Fomenko while we are talking about a different portion of history and analaysis. Ive never read much of Fomenko, but history is tuff and not everything is recorded so sure sometimes stuff was invented. And when inventing stuff people sometimes copy. We can see the same thing in the Bible more than once. That said i dont know enuff about Formnko to give a more honest response.
Whether Fomenko is right or wrong has no impact on Atwills theory and vice versa. They are separate that have no relationship or dependencies. After all that your reply doesnt say much but i will wait until tomorrow. This lame association is especially lame, lets leave that argument to xians who associate the majesty of the universe as proof of the god recorded in the Bible.
-
mP
Help:
Mp, how about debating
Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University? His fiction books are so-so but his expertise is with ancient Christianity, he is formidible for being an old geezer! We both are reading different historical accounts of Jews and Christians. Are you using other sources than Wiki, have you read the big volume books with plenty of details or do you focus on anti-Jesus websites? I've read most of Maier's, Wallace, Bart D's and many more books on the ancients. Can you comment on Maier's short page here? Here's the link:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952895
mP:
Sorry appeals to authority are not proof. This is especially problematic when we have many scholars with different opinions telling us different things.
The details i have provided are simple enough that dont require scholarlship for 30 years to understand. We all have brains we dont need to be told how to think.
We are all free to read the sources of info i am showing, like the history of the time around judea and the early Roman church. Noobody is disputing these records. There are many puns on names in the gospels that can only be explained by using them in the context i have tried to describe.
Judas Iscariot = sicarri = terrorist rebel group
jospeh of arimathea = josephus full jewish name.
etc
-
Fernando
This may be of interest to some:
The Christ Files, is a full-scale historical documentary based on the book of the same name by Dr. John Dickson,
Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Australia.