quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Seems like almost all of those are from books written after Jesus' death.

The first one wasn't written until 30 years after Jesus death.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Seems like almost all of those are from books written after Jesus' death.

Are you suggesting that no biography (certainly calling the gospels a biography is over simplistic) can be accurate if written after the death of it's subject?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Are you suggesting that no biography (certainly calling the gospels a biography is over simplistic) can be accurate if written after the death of it's subject?

It does seem quite strange that it took 30 years before the first one was written though.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM It does seem quite strange that it took 30 years before the first one was written though.

It only seems strange if you don't know the context. A few points to keep in mind:
a) the Jews had a very strong tradition of verbal storytelling. This was the cornerstone of their faith for thousands of years and the primary method of teaching. This makes a great deal of sense since most people could listen to stories; however, very few could read. The value of writing something down is deminished if there are few people to read it. Most of the books of the old testament were written until hundreds of years after the events they describe occured... the new testament on the otherhand was completely written by 100AD.
b) Christianity was illegal within Judea and later the Roman Empire for a few hundred years followint it's inception. Christians met in secret and hid from the authorities in order to avoid punishment of death. Given this climate it's pretty understandable that few would take the risk of making or keeping a written record of their faith in any form... the fact that the books of the new testament were written so early is actually quite remarkable given the risks in doing so.
c) Writing was not exactly a common skill in Judea during the first century thus you have a small pool of people who could record a written account of Jesus' life. This pool would have been made even smaller by the fear of punishment and death as noted above.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It only seems strange if you don't know the context. A few points to keep in mind: a) the Jews had a very strong tradition of verbal storytelling. This was the cornerstone of their faith for thousands of years and the primary method of teaching. This makes a great deal of sense since most people could listen to stories; however, very few could read. The value of writing something down is deminished if there are few people to read it. Most of the books of the old testament were written until hundreds of years after the events they describe occured... the new testament on the otherhand was completely written by 100AD. b) Christianity was illegal within Judea and later the Roman Empire for a few hundred years followint it's inception. Christians met in secret and hid from the authorities in order to avoid punishment of death. Given this climate it's pretty understandable that few would take the risk of making or keeping a written record of their faith in any form... the fact that the books of the new testament were written so early is actually quite remarkable given the risks in doing so. c) Writing was not exactly a common skill in Judea during the first century thus you have a small pool of people who could record a written account of Jesus' life. This pool would have been made even smaller by the fear of punishment and death as noted above.

i always hesitate to get in an argument with you concerning theology, but i do enjoy having my undies pulled up over my head by attractive, intelligent men, so here goes...

why wasn't ANYONE writing (even negatively) about jesus at the time of his life? i mean, given his miracles he should've been (to plagiarise pat condell) "more famous than elvis". surely historians of the time would have at least made a passing comment on the "charlatan corrupting the people of judea"?

even if he didnt exist that doesn't mean he doesn't have wisdom to impart (not so dissimilar from our friend raistlin ) but christian teachings (or at least practice) are such a world away from what he taught and the message he conveyed (at least in the states) which i think that is far more important than an argument concerning his existence.

___________________

Religions all a load of bollocks no offense to anyone is religious in here btw.

In Europe especially you see people becoming Christians etc after the fall of the Roman Empire. There was no control over the population so I think religion was used a form of population control back in dark/feudal ages.

___________________

I thought Bin Laden and those kinda creeps don't believe in Jebus either. Don't want to cast the lot of non-believers in with Bin Laden though, because the world has some Buddists, Hindus, Aborigines, jungle men in Indonesia and other dudes who are in the same non-believing category. Besides Bin Laden and bunch, they're not necessarily bad guys and neither are the Jews.



[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Seems like almost all of those are from books written after Jesus' death.

Well, the gospels are written accounts of Jesus's life from eye-witnesses. The central theme of Christianity it Jesus's death on the cross, so the gospels couldn't be written while he was still doing his ministry! His teachings weren't complete until after the resurrection. You gotta to admit, believe in it or not, it's a great story!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I thought this was interesting about Jesus as the messiah from the texts..

The fact that the accounts of the gospels are superficially consistent with prophecies made in the Old Testament isn't really anything to get excited about. The gospels (Mark and Luke especially) were written with the aim of accommodating these prophecies into the biography of Jesus, even in instances where the two were incompatible.

Take the place of Jesus' birth for instance. The first problem for the authors is that the prophecies place the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, when it was apparently common knowledge and a source of controversy (John 7:41-42) that Jesus was from Nazereth. Mark and Luke go to convoluted and completely irreconcilable lengths to explain this problem (Mark and John - wisely - avoid addressing this at all). Luke presents what has since become the traditional nativity account: Mary and Joseph originally from Nazereth, go to Bethlehem for a census, no room at the inn, Jesus born in a manger, shepherds pay heed and they move back whence they came. Matthew, however, suggests that Mary and Joseph were originally from Bethlehem and had Jesus there, but they were then chased into Egypt by Herod, told by an angel to go back to Israel and then decided to move to Nazereth because Joseph was too scared to go back to Bethlehem. While I'm sure that an inerrantist could explain the discrepencies with the right sort of mental calisthenics (in fact, I'd love to see them try) the best explanation here is that Jesus was from Nazereth, the prophecies said Bethlehem, and two Christians came up with contradictory explanations to reconcile the two.

There are other examples, but this is the most striking.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

*serious microphone announcer voice*
renegade VS moral hazard

celebrity deathmatch! tnite on TA!

people should tune in, you might actually learn something.

___________________

i think the fundamental issue here is spelling..... the jews think that Jewsus was the messiah, and since they are gramatically anal retentive, Jesus doesnt exist because its spelled wrong


im talking out of my ass right now..... while eating porridge at work because i slept in / had great morning sex, so im in an impeccably good mood today.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why wasn't ANYONE writing (even negatively) about jesus at the time of his life? i mean, given his miracles he should've been (to plagiarise pat condell) "more famous than elvis". surely historians of the time would have at least made a passing comment on the "charlatan corrupting the people of judea"?

They have found a handfull of references to Jesus from Nazarith that are non-biblical and fit the period of time we're looking for...
Most noteable of these would be Josephus (c.37-100CE)... "About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks." (taken from his text "the Antiquity of the Jews). This is a rather interesting source as Josephus was a jewish high-priest.
There is also a notation regarding Jesus (presumably) in The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a that notes; "On the eve of passover, Yeshu was hanged." The Talmud is a written record of rabinnic discussions about issues of the day. Now, the name Yeshu although being similar to Yeshua (which is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus) actually an ancronym for an expression that means "may his name be erased from history" which is a term generally reserved for rabbi that have mislead their people. It is quesionable whether or not this is Jesus the text references; however, the date of the eve of passover certainly fits with the biblical account of his execution.
There are several greco-roman historians that reference Jesus in a cecular fashion; however, since it's arguable that most of these were writen as a response to Christianity they probably aren't very credible and certainly aren't first hand.
Additionally, there are a number of accounts by Roman historians that reference Pilate's own records regarding the charges against Jesus, his interigation of Jesus and the subsequent execution. Unfortunately, the actual records from Pilate that these historians reference were either destroyed or lost.

Of all that I mentioned above, the accounts date from within a few years of Jesus's death to 50 years after with the exception of the records of Pilate which would have been written shortly after the execution as part of his regular report to the Emperor.

As far as why there are no records (that we've found) written during his life... probably due to the remote and inconsequential nature of Gallalia and Judea within the Roman Empire. This was not an area that Rome found to be incredibly important and likely wouldn't have been keeping detailled records of the comings and goings of it's peoples. Moreover, there really were not a great deal of people that were able to write in the region at that time, nor was keeping written record of such things important to the Jews since only the religious classes could read.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down