FSTDT Forums
Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on October 05, 2018, 07:36:17 pm
-
I got this from Quora
“There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan, non-Christian sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity; some ancient authors denied the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events surrounding His life:
Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion:
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we might find more confirmation of Jesus’ crucifixion. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, He was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of His crucifixion.
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:
“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”
From this account, we can add to our understanding of Jesus: He was a wise and influential man who died for His beliefs. The Jewish leadership was somehow responsible for Jesus’ death. Jesus’ followers adopted His beliefs and lived their lives accordingly.
Phlegon (80-140AD)
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:
“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):
“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)
“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
From these accounts, we can add something to our understanding: Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated His wounds after he was resurrected.”
-
The historicity of these accounts aside they wouldn't establish what your title claims if they were historically accurate. Your subject title posits these as proof that Christianity is true. Establishing that the stories of Jesus had a basis in any sort of fact would not prove the merits of the religion itself. They would not prove the existence of one god, they would not prove the divinity of Jesus nor that he was the Messiah and they would also not add any weight to the moral arguments posited in favour of Christianity.
I propose an alternative title, "more pointless rambling from Jacob." That would be in keeping with the subject title at least.
-
The historicity of these accounts aside they wouldn't establish what your title claims if they were historically accurate. Your subject title posits these as proof that Christianity is true. Establishing that the stories of Jesus had a basis in any sort of fact would not prove the merits of the religion itself. They would not prove the existence of one god, they would not prove the divinity of Jesus nor that he was the Messiah and they would also not add any weight to the moral arguments posited in favour of Christianity.
I propose an alternative title, "more pointless rambling from Jacob." That would be in keeping with the subject title at least.
But they mention the darkness and earthquake associated with the crucifixtion, and Mara Bar-Serapion calls him a wise King who was murdered.
-
Then he's stoned, he was a carpenter who was executed if the gospel accounts have any truth in them at all.
As for all this bollocks about Earthquakes, citation-now!
-
Then he's stoned, he was a carpenter who was executed if the gospel accounts have any truth in them at all.
As for all this bollocks about Earthquakes, citation-now!
Mt. 27:51 claims there were earthquakes when Jesus died. (Also dead people walking around.)
Challenge: Take all four Passion narratives (Mt. 26:1--27:66, Mk. 14:1--15:47, Lk. 22:1--23:56, Jn. 18:1--20:10) and form a single coherent, non-contradictory narrative that does not omit any details from any of the four accounts.
-
The historicity of these accounts aside they wouldn't establish what your title claims if they were historically accurate. Your subject title posits these as proof that Christianity is true. Establishing that the stories of Jesus had a basis in any sort of fact would not prove the merits of the religion itself. They would not prove the existence of one god, they would not prove the divinity of Jesus nor that he was the Messiah and they would also not add any weight to the moral arguments posited in favour of Christianity.
I propose an alternative title, "more pointless rambling from Jacob." That would be in keeping with the subject title at least.
But they mention the darkness and earthquake associated with the crucifixtion, and Mara Bar-Serapion calls him a wise King who was murdered.
snrk
Mara Bar Serapion also thinks Pythagoras was killed in Samos, but sure, let's trust that source.
-
Then he's stoned, he was a carpenter who was executed if the gospel accounts have any truth in them at all.
As for all this bollocks about Earthquakes, citation-now!
He gained lots of followers and called himself a King.
The citations about Earthquakes are in this post. “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
-
The historicity of these accounts aside they wouldn't establish what your title claims if they were historically accurate. Your subject title posits these as proof that Christianity is true. Establishing that the stories of Jesus had a basis in any sort of fact would not prove the merits of the religion itself. They would not prove the existence of one god, they would not prove the divinity of Jesus nor that he was the Messiah and they would also not add any weight to the moral arguments posited in favour of Christianity.
I propose an alternative title, "more pointless rambling from Jacob." That would be in keeping with the subject title at least.
But they mention the darkness and earthquake associated with the crucifixtion, and Mara Bar-Serapion calls him a wise King who was murdered.
snrk
Mara Bar Serapion also thinks Pythagoras was killed in Samos, but sure, let's trust that source.
The fact that he lived in 52 AD and mentioned Jesus, shows that he was an early source verifying true events that happened not that long before.
-
Then he's stoned, he was a carpenter who was executed if the gospel accounts have any truth in them at all.
As for all this bollocks about Earthquakes, citation-now!
Mt. 27:51 claims there were earthquakes when Jesus died. (Also dead people walking around.)
Challenge: Take all four Passion narratives (Mt. 26:1--27:66, Mk. 14:1--15:47, Lk. 22:1--23:56, Jn. 18:1--20:10) and form a single coherent, non-contradictory narrative that does not omit any details from any of the four accounts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.compellingtruth.org/amp/resurrection-accounts.html
-
According to Eusebius,
“Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus: "However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE], an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour [around noon] day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea."”
This dirrect quote is irrefutable proof of an Earthquake and Darkness around the time of Jesus’ death.
-
According to Eusebius,
“Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus: "However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE], an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour [around noon] day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea."”
This dirrect quote is irrefutable proof of an Earthquake and Darkness around the time of Jesus’ death.
I think I'll let RationalWiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Phlegon)take it from here.
How anyone could take a reference to an earthquake and eclipse in Nicea, 900 kilometres from Jerusalem, as evidence for the earthquake described in Matthew 28:2 (and only there) is more a sign of the shaky state of the "evidence" for the fantastic events in the New Testament, even in the age of the Church Fathers than anything else.
South of France, East Judea-same thing innit? ::)
.
-
According to Eusebius,
“Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus: "However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE], an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour [around noon] day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea."”
This dirrect quote is irrefutable proof of an Earthquake and Darkness around the time of Jesus’ death.
I think I'll let RationalWiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Phlegon)take it from here.
How anyone could take a reference to an earthquake and eclipse in Nicea, 900 kilometres from Jerusalem, as evidence for the earthquake described in Matthew 28:2 (and only there) is more a sign of the shaky state of the "evidence" for the fantastic events in the New Testament, even in the age of the Church Fathers than anything else.
South of France, East Judea-same thing innit? ::)
.
I addressed that on the article’s talk page.
“According to an article on Encyclopedia Britannia about the Chilean Earthquake of 1960, “The fault-displacement source of the earthquake extended over an estimated 560–620 mile (900–1,000 km) stretch of the Nazca Plate, which subducted under the South American Plate.” So a large Earthquake 900 km away from Jerusalem would have been felt in Jerusalem. So Phlegon’s reference to an Earthquake and a Solar eclipse happening at the same time during the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE] around the time Christ was crucified, is clear evidence for the Earthquake and darkness in the New Testament.”
-
The fact that he lived in 52 AD and mentioned Jesus, shows that he was an early source verifying true events that happened not that long before.
sigh, why do I even bother...
The letter is dated from anywhere between 72 AD to the third century. Assuming the wise king was indeed Jesus, the straightforward explanation is that he heard early Christians talk about Jesus and assumed the story was real. Given, again, that he makes up a tragedy befalling the people of Samos for their nonexistent crime of killing Pythagoras, maybe we should not assume his fact-checking is the best.
-
According to Eusebius,
“Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus: "However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE], an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour [around noon] day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea."”
This dirrect quote is irrefutable proof of an Earthquake and Darkness around the time of Jesus’ death.
I think I'll let RationalWiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Phlegon)take it from here.
How anyone could take a reference to an earthquake and eclipse in Nicea, 900 kilometres from Jerusalem, as evidence for the earthquake described in Matthew 28:2 (and only there) is more a sign of the shaky state of the "evidence" for the fantastic events in the New Testament, even in the age of the Church Fathers than anything else.
South of France, East Judea-same thing innit? ::)
.
I addressed that on the article’s talk page.
“According to an article on Encyclopedia Britannia about the Chilean Earthquake of 1960, “The fault-displacement source of the earthquake extended over an estimated 560–620 mile (900–1,000 km) stretch of the Nazca Plate, which subducted under the South American Plate.” So a large Earthquake 900 km away from Jerusalem would have been felt in Jerusalem. So Phlegon’s reference to an Earthquake and a Solar eclipse happening at the same time during the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE] around the time Christ was crucified, is clear evidence for the Earthquake and darkness in the New Testament.”
All Earthquakes are the same size innit?
What about the intervening cities in between Jerusalem and Nicaea, Rome f'rinstance? If your saying there was a titanic Earthquake across the entire Mediterranean you're gonna need more than vaguely contemporaneous reports of tremors in Nicaea.
-
According to Eusebius,
“Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about this, in his 13th book writing thus: "However in the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE], an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour [around noon] day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea."”
This dirrect quote is irrefutable proof of an Earthquake and Darkness around the time of Jesus’ death.
I think I'll let RationalWiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Phlegon)take it from here.
How anyone could take a reference to an earthquake and eclipse in Nicea, 900 kilometres from Jerusalem, as evidence for the earthquake described in Matthew 28:2 (and only there) is more a sign of the shaky state of the "evidence" for the fantastic events in the New Testament, even in the age of the Church Fathers than anything else.
South of France, East Judea-same thing innit? ::)
.
I addressed that on the article’s talk page.
“According to an article on Encyclopedia Britannia about the Chilean Earthquake of 1960, “The fault-displacement source of the earthquake extended over an estimated 560–620 mile (900–1,000 km) stretch of the Nazca Plate, which subducted under the South American Plate.” So a large Earthquake 900 km away from Jerusalem would have been felt in Jerusalem. So Phlegon’s reference to an Earthquake and a Solar eclipse happening at the same time during the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE] around the time Christ was crucified, is clear evidence for the Earthquake and darkness in the New Testament.”
All Earthquakes are the same size innit?
What about the intervening cities in between Jerusalem and Nicaea, Rome f'rinstance? If your saying there was a titanic Earthquake across the entire Mediterranean you're gonna need more than vaguely contemporaneous reports of tremors in Nicaea.
Um Nicaea is in Turkey so Rome is not between Jerusalem and Nicaea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaea
-
And here is an article showing scientific evidence for the Earthquake and how it distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, indicating that the Shroud of Turin was really Jesus’ burial cloth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/12/newser-shroud-turin-earthquake/5418349/
-
Fair call, got it confused with Nice. Geography fail there.
Still 900km away (about 600 miles to youse seppos) and plenty of intervening cities between them even in the late iron age so still a major earthquake for which you'd need a lot more supporting evidence-which, um, you don't have, um.And here is an article showing scientific evidence for the Earthquake and how it distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, indicating that the Shroud of Turin was really Jesus’ burial cloth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/12/newser-shroud-turin-earthquake/5418349/
The Shroud of Turin website (http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm) puts the carbon dating of the shroud many centuries after Jesus reported death.
The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390
And yes, yes. We know that lots of Catholic "researchers" are up in arms about puported problems with the radiocarbon dating. Take it away again RationalWiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Technical_problems).
There are many articles[9] online that say two scientists, Giulio Fanti, and Saverio Gaeta, have reexamined the shroud, and found it to be from around the time Jesus existed.
There are three problems with this pronouncement.
First, just because the shroud is from that time does not mean it was necessarily the shroud of Jesus. Yes, the shroud looks like the man was crucified, but it is widely accepted that crucifixion was the most common way to execute people during the First Century CE. Also the 14C-based date of the material doesn't mean the object was manufactured at that time, it is the date when the plants used to weave the cloth were alive. These usually correspond to the same approximate date within the error range of 14C dating unless the weaver is using unusually old plant material or the cloth being used was already old when it was used.
Second, both scientists are Catholics. I think we all know the track record of claims by Christians in matters of the faith. Also, there might be some motivation for Catholics to want to prove the shroud is real in that Pope Benedict XVI declared it the "official burial shroud of Jesus".
Third, the methods used. Infrared rays are able to determine the age of something very recent, and not the ancient past. The other method was spectroscopy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the object.
...
Of course some "Shroudies" will claim the skeptics and critics are in denial. However, they seem to have forgotten all the times they've been questioning the Shroud just because of the "right date". The reasons the carbon dating didn't work was for the nitpickiest of reasons. So it's tested again on the "right date", and we find something wrong with that test. Suddenly it's the skeptics and critics who are being nitpicky! It's not uncommon for Christian fundies to do this, rather it's a pretty standard M.O.: Calling critics closed-minded for not subscribing to fundie mumbo jumbo, while at the same time denying evolution even when the evidence for it is presented, and evolution denialists' claims to falsify evolution have never held water.
Which is of course the central problem with arguing with the religious in general, there's only ever a problem with the evidence when it works against their confirmation bias. It's prettied up as an argument about facts but really it's an argument about faith and you can't shake someone's faith if they don't want it shaken regardless of what the facts are.
-
Fair call, got it confused with Nice. Geography fail there.
Still 900km away (about 600 miles to youse seppos) and plenty of intervening cities between them even in the late iron age so still a major earthquake for which you'd need a lot more supporting evidence-which, um, you don't have, um.And here is an article showing scientific evidence for the Earthquake and how it distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, indicating that the Shroud of Turin was really Jesus’ burial cloth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/12/newser-shroud-turin-earthquake/5418349/
The Shroud of Turin website (http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm) puts the carbon dating of the shroud many centuries after Jesus reported death.
The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390
And yes, yes. We know that lots of Catholic "researchers" are up in arms about puported problems with the radiocarbon dating. Take it away again RationalWiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Technical_problems).
There are many articles[9] online that say two scientists, Giulio Fanti, and Saverio Gaeta, have reexamined the shroud, and found it to be from around the time Jesus existed.
There are three problems with this pronouncement.
First, just because the shroud is from that time does not mean it was necessarily the shroud of Jesus. Yes, the shroud looks like the man was crucified, but it is widely accepted that crucifixion was the most common way to execute people during the First Century CE. Also the 14C-based date of the material doesn't mean the object was manufactured at that time, it is the date when the plants used to weave the cloth were alive. These usually correspond to the same approximate date within the error range of 14C dating unless the weaver is using unusually old plant material or the cloth being used was already old when it was used.
Second, both scientists are Catholics. I think we all know the track record of claims by Christians in matters of the faith. Also, there might be some motivation for Catholics to want to prove the shroud is real in that Pope Benedict XVI declared it the "official burial shroud of Jesus".
Third, the methods used. Infrared rays are able to determine the age of something very recent, and not the ancient past. The other method was spectroscopy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the object.
...
Of course some "Shroudies" will claim the skeptics and critics are in denial. However, they seem to have forgotten all the times they've been questioning the Shroud just because of the "right date". The reasons the carbon dating didn't work was for the nitpickiest of reasons. So it's tested again on the "right date", and we find something wrong with that test. Suddenly it's the skeptics and critics who are being nitpicky! It's not uncommon for Christian fundies to do this, rather it's a pretty standard M.O.: Calling critics closed-minded for not subscribing to fundie mumbo jumbo, while at the same time denying evolution even when the evidence for it is presented, and evolution denialists' claims to falsify evolution have never held water.
Which is of course the central problem with arguing with the religious in general, there's only ever a problem with the evidence when it works against their confirmation bias. It's prettied up as an argument about facts but really it's an argument about faith and you can't shake someone's faith if they don't want it shaken regardless of what the facts are.
Ok, I concede that the Earthquake in Nicea is not the same one as the one in Jerusalem, however the article I linked, gives an explanation for why the Shroud is dated to 1260-1390 which is that the Earthquake distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating.