Should we expect secular evidence of Jesus existence?

[dogsgod]

The dates are based on what we read in Acts as well as from Galatians wherein Paul states that his visits were 14 years apart. The marker is the death of Herod Agrippa. From there it's a simple matter of reading what is there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The dates are based on what we read in Acts as well as from Galatians wherein Paul states that his visits were 14 years apart. The marker is the death of Herod Agrippa. From there it's a simple matter of reading what is there.

The entire Pauline chronology is based on the Gallio inscription, not the death of Agrippa.

 

[Oberon]

The dates are based on what we read in Acts as well as from Galatians wherein Paul states that his visits were 14 years apart. The marker is the death of Herod Agrippa. From there it's a simple matter of reading what is there.

1) This has nothing to do with Josephus. You also claim Josephus had a date for the death of john the baptist, and you have neatly been avoiding how this date may be obtained.

2) Your dating is worthless because you make two different James' the same person.

3) Where does Acts say Paul was with James the son of zebedee when he was killed?


4) Paul and acts don't always quite add up (which is only natural given luke's imperfect knowledge of paul's career and a lack of familiarity with Paul's letters).

 

[dogsgod]

1) This has nothing to do with Josephus. You also claim Josephus had a date for the death of john the baptist, and you have neatly been avoiding how this date may be obtained.

2) Your dating is worthless because you make two different James' the same person.

3) Where does Acts say Paul was with James the son of zebedee when he was killed?


4) Paul and acts don't always quite add up (which is only natural given luke's imperfect knowledge of paul's career and a lack of familiarity with Paul's letters).

Try to follow the thread.

 

[dogsgod]

The entire Pauline chronology is based on the Gallio inscription, not the death of Agrippa.

Yes, but for the sake of argument I was using Acts just to show what a ef up it is.

 

[Oberon]

Try to follow the thread.

Try to report accurate information. Instead of making up dates, like from Josephus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, but for the sake of argument I was using Acts just to show what a ef up it is.

Well, the mistake you're making is not choosing a fixed point in time that is precisely related to Paul. Instead, you chose a fixed point with no referent to Paul.

Acts, of course, has Paul before the judge Gallio, who only served for one year. And we know what year that was, and the chronology of Acts makes sense on its own terms relative to this fixed point.

 

[dogsgod]

Well, the mistake you're making is not choosing a fixed point in time that is precisely related to Paul. Instead, you chose a fixed point with no referent to Paul.

Acts, of course, has Paul before the judge Gallio, who only served for one year. And we know what year that was, and the chronology of Acts makes sense on its own terms relative to this fixed point.

No doubt, but just the same, the killing of James and the death of Herod is bracketed by Paul's arrival and departure from Jerusalem, and we know what year Herod Agrippa died.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No doubt, but just the same, the killing of James and the death of Herod is bracketed by Paul's arrival and departure from Jerusalem, and we know what year Herod Agrippa died.

 

[Oberon]

No doubt, but just the same, the killing of James and the death of Herod is bracketed by Paul's arrival and departure from Jerusalem, and we know what year Herod Agrippa died.

I'd love to hear how you arrived at all this. And also how you arrived at Josephus' date for John the baptist. Or did you just copy from some online source without reading critically, because as an unbiased, critical observer out for the truth, finding whatever websites which support your mythicist view is the way to go?

 

[Ilisrum]

I read this article a while back. It's rather credible, actually. Could be where he got his information from.

John The Baptist In the New Testament and Josephus

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If someone discovers some tomb in Galilee with the bones of Jesus in along with his personal effects such as a crown of thorns and three rather large nails, then that it what I would call secular evidence of his existence. But it is no longer secular if you expect him to make a second coming and walk into an Olympic Stadium during the opening ceremony fully fleshed as some Christians are expecting him to do to a similar effect.

 

[dogsgod]

I can understand an apologist rolling his eyes. It's extremely inconvenient to read (in Acts of the Apostles), of Paul and Barnabas being in Jerusalem while King Herod Agrippa I dies, because that places them in Jerusalem in 44CE. It's no wonder Gallio is a preferred marker, as if to pick and choose.

 

[Oberon]

I can understand an apologist rolling his eyes. It's extremely inconvenient to read in Acts of Paul and Barnabas

It's not inconvenient at all for an apologist (or scholar), because nobody pays much attention (at least not for the issues dealt with here) to later 2nd century texts which are not canonical (and so an apologist doesn't have to worry about them) and of no real use for understanding the life of Paul or of Barnabas.

 

[Oberon]

I read this article a while back. It's rather credible, actually. Could be where he got his information from.

John The Baptist In the New Testament and Josephus

The first problem, at least for dogsgod, is that the author cannot get to a date of 36 without using the account of the gospels. The author uses two brackets to determine when John could have been executed: it had to have been before the battle in 36 (this is true), and after Herod's remarriage.

The issue, however, is that Josephus says nothing about a problem John had with Herods remarriage. Josephus mentions merely that deisas Herodes to epi tosonde pithanon autou tois anthropois me epi stasei tini pheroi/Herod, fearing lest his [John's] great persuasive power over people lead to some revolt...

In other words, going by Josephus the only thing we know is that John was killed before Herod's battle.

This belies dogsgod's statement

Reading Josephus, John the Baptist wasn't killed until 36CE.

Things aren't adding up.

Even adding in the marriage issue, which we get only by using the gospels, we still can't get a date close to 36 without some guesswork (the dates are far from clear), which makes little sense because one has to accept on the one hand the explanation of the gospels with regards to John's death as historical while simultaneously rejecting an aspect of their account which is far more likely to be historical (a basic date of death).

 

[dogsgod]

It's not inconvenient at all for an apologist (or scholar), because nobody pays much attention (at least not for the issues dealt with here) to later 2nd century texts which are not canonical (and so an apologist doesn't have to worry about them) and of no real use for understanding the life of Paul or of Barnabas.

Since when is Acts of the Apostles non-canonical? I edited my post in order to spell it out for you.

BTW, That's rather humorous, that non-canonical works can be ignored, no doubt apologists are reading the true works of Christ.


Are non-canonical gospels of a different genre? LOL

 

[dogsgod]

If someone discovers some tomb in Galilee with the bones of Jesus in along with his personal effects such as a crown of thorns and three rather large nails, then that it what I would call secular evidence of his existence. But it is no longer secular if you expect him to make a second coming and walk into an Olympic Stadium during the opening ceremony fully fleshed as some Christians are expecting him to do to a similar effect.

There has been a tremendous amount of secular so called evidence presented but all of it has been met with disappointment. Christianity is a hoax, with no shortage of apologists that will rarely ever admit to being duped.

 

[Oberon]

Since when is Acts of the Apostles non-canonical? I edited my post in order to spell it out for you.

Edited your posts to spell it out? You said "acts of Paul." You are aware this is a late second century work, independent of the acts of the apostles?

BTW, That's rather humorous, that non-canonical works can be ignored, no doubt apologists are reading the true works of Christ.

Many scholars will largely ignore canonical works because, when critically analyzed by people who know what they are talking about (unlike the websources and amateurs you run to) they are determined to be largely without historical value. John's gospel, for example is often thought to be largely worthless, or at least useful only when it corroborates something known from another sources.

And no, non-canonical sources are used all the time. josephus, for example. Or the gospel of thomas.

LOL

Γελᾷ δ’ ὁ μῶρος, κἄν τι μὴ γελοῖον ᾖ/ gela d' ho moros, kan ti me geloion e
Still waiting to hear your explanation as to how Josephus places John's death at 36 CE.

 

[dogsgod]

Irenaeus declared that the four [gospels] he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken from Ezekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6-10, of God's throne borne by four creatures with four faces—"the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle"—equivalent to the "four-formed" gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion, bull, eagle, man. Irenaeus was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth. By reading each gospel in light of the others, Irenaeus made of John a lens through which to read Matthew, Mark and Luke. wiki

:biglaugh:

At least it's entertaining. The truth, yagottaluvit.

 

[Oberon]

Irenaeus declared that the four [gospels] he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken from Ezekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6-10, of God's throne borne by four creatures with four faces—"the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle"—equivalent to the "four-formed" gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion, bull, eagle, man. Irenaeus was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth. By reading each gospel in light of the others, Irenaeus made of John a lens through which to read Matthew, Mark and Luke. wiki

:biglaugh:

At least it's entertaining. The truth, yagottaluvit.

So we've covered the "copy from bad sources and then stop responding when they are publicily shown to be full of errors and written by people without a clue" strategy. We've seen the "I can't answer the questions but maybe if I'm really sarcastic people won't notice I don't know what I'm talking about" strategy...and here we have the "I can't interact with the scholarship or really critically analyze the sources experts use, but I can just copy and paste absurd selections that don't really show anything at all but make me feel better for being ignorant."

I wonder what's next.