Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Being a Pharisee was based on personal opinion and preference more than anything. You did not need any kind of education to become a Pharisee and no "degree" required like with a doctor.

I didn't say it WAS a degree, I said "think of it as" a degree. (a comparative example) The disciples of it followed around their particular Rabbi for numerous years, learning directly from them personally, just like Jesus and His disciples. Paul specifically was trained by Gameliel, the head of the Sanhedrin.



So to say there was "no education" is bullocks, they disciple followed the Rabbi continuously for several years. It was daily, and there wasn't an off time, the ate when the rabbi ate, slept when the rabbi slept, followed him everywhere.

a reply to: Akragon

To Paul ALL flesh is sinful...

You are correct, except that of Christ. Let's not make Paul a Gnostic. lol Paul clearly understood the significance of the virgin birth.

a reply to: Entreri06
a reply to: noeltrotsky

I made a thread about Tacitus a while back, one of the only historical accounts of Christ.

==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a few more historical accounts, like Josephus, but it's a fools game trying to prove or disprove Jesus being mentioned or treated by the historians. Current paradigm says Jesus was indeed a historical person and as far we know he is indeed mentioned in the historical data. But like I said, it's a fools game trying to prove anything based on this one way or the other.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Grimpachi

As far as your request for historical accounts you will not find that anything was documented during his lifetime. It was decades later before that happened and none were first person accounts.

Yet we accept the historical accounts of Alexander the Great and no historical records of him exist except those written 400 years after he died.

Sorry, this is not entirely true. There are several surviving inscriptions and fragments from the Alexanders lifetime. What it would be correct to say is that there are no surviving recordings or writings of Alexanders life and campaigns. However, there are numnerous references throughout ancient history to these writings, such as Callithsenes, Ptolemy, etc. These writings are also referenced in later Roman works, sometimes from source rather than from copies.

Finally, Alexanders tomb in Alexandria was a place of pilgrimage for many high ranking Romans and is often referenced. This includes descriptions of his mummified corpse within a glass sarcophagus. This was visited and written about for centuries before the body and the tomb "disappeared".

All in all, that is some pretty effective evidence for Alexander - there is just nothing like the same body of evidence for Jesus. That isn't to say he didn't exist, perhaps he did.

There has been so much corruption of the tale of Jesus over the years that perhaps we shall never know the truth. A simple example is Christmas Day. Pretty basic, huh? Except the first mention of Jesus and Christmas isn't until 336 AD, nearly 3 and a half centuries after it allegedly happened.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It's nothing like a degree so your analogy doesn't work. Once you broke your vow you were no longer part of the Pharasaic community, Paul broke his vow on many different levels, at least according to the bible he did.

Once you associated with gentiles you were no longer a Pharisee because you broke your vow, Paul associated with gentiles. Once you stopped following the "clean food" practices of the Pharasaic vow you were no longer a Pharisee, Paul broke that by saying all food is clean to eat.

Paul broke so many of the Pharasaic vows that it makes you wonder why he still considered himself one. Your analogy about the doctor doesn't work. Once a doctor breaks the law while in his practice, his title is taken away. And like I said before, the title of doctor and Pharisee are nothing alike.

Paul broke his vows, he was no longer a Pharisee by any stretch off the imagination, yet he still calls himself one? Doesn't make any sense. Being accepted as a Pharisee was based on you keeping the Pharasaic vows for a certain amount of time , not who you studied under. My previous post highlights that part of the initiation.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You don't get it, and i don't think any further explanation will help you. So believe as you wish I suppose. I dunno what else to say. I can explain it to you, but It's impossible for me to understand it for you. I gave it the best run I could.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Once you associated with gentiles you were no longer a Pharisee because you broke your vow, Paul associated with gentiles. Once you stopped following the "clean food" practices of the Pharasaic vow you were no longer a Pharisee, Paul broke that by saying all food is clean to eat.

I don't think that's true. I recall a recount of an incident with Hillel the Elder, who died right around the time that Jesus would have been born.

The Gentile made the mistake of approaching Shamai. 'I want you to convert me,' he told Shamai, 'but only on condition that you appoint me High Priest.' Shamai rebuffed the man, pushing him away with a builder's measuring rod.

Then he went to Hillel with the same proposition. Amazingly, Hillel agreed to convert him. Hillel, however, gave the man some advice. 'If you wanted to be king, you would need to learn the ways and customs of the royal court. Since you aspire to be the High Priest, go study the appropriate laws.'

So the new convert began studying Torah. One day, he came across the verse, "Any non-priest who participates [in the holy service] shall die" (Num. 3:10). 'To whom does this refer?' he asked. Even King David, he was told. Even David, king of Israel, was not allowed to serve in the holy Temple, as he was not a descendant of Aaron the kohen.

The convert was amazed. Even those born Jewish, and who are referred to as God's children, are not allowed to serve in the Temple! Certainly, a convert who has just arrived with his staff and pack may not perform this holy service. Recognizing his mistake, he returned to Hillel, saying, 'May blessings fall on your head, humble Hillel, for drawing me under the wings of the Divine Presence.'
ravkooktorah.org...

a reply to: windword

I may be wrong, I'm no expert but from the little studying I did on the subject Pharisees took a vow of Levitical cleanliness, and that included not associating with the spiritually unclean gentiles or eating any food that was considered "impure" by Levitical law. Paul broke both from what I can tell.

The fact that Paul said that all food is clean goes against Levitical code and thus his Pharasaic vow.

I'll have to look into it some more.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't know about dietary laws. You might be right about that. I just know that Hillel would take on gentile, while others would not.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I get what you're saying, I just don't think it fits in with the Pharasaic law of the time. Pharisees and Sadducees were both Jewish just like Methodists and Catholics are both Christian but you don't see a Methodist convert from Catholicism saying that they still Catholic after their conversion.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I get what you're saying, I just don't think it fits in with the Pharasaic law of the time. Pharisees and Sadducees were both Jewish just like Methodists and Catholics are both Christian but you don't see a Methodist convert from Catholicism saying that they still Catholic after their conversion.

Paul was only appealing to Pharisees on common ground for the purpose of evangelism. He wasn't continuing in his capacity and functions as a Pharisee after conversion.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Then he should have stated "was" a Pharisee not"am". He uses present tense when describing his affiliation with the Sanhedrin.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I may be wrong, I'm no expert but from the little studying I did on the subject Pharisees took a vow of Levitical cleanliness

Basically in a rough nutshell a Pharisee was someone who adhered to a very strict and perfect working of the Law, and likewise they held onto Rabbinical teaching on equal par or even superceding the Torah. Jesus calls them out on this in Mark, how they have elevated traditions of men to the level of God's law. That was their problem and what Jesus hated, saying "you have made the commandments of God to none effect."

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Then he should have stated "was" a Pharisee not"am". He uses present tense when describing his affiliation with the Sanhedrin.

He is simply saying: "I'm one of you, hear me out for a second on this."

In general when discussing the validity of historical evidence of any person aka Jesus Christ living and doing the things the Gospel and Paul said he did; it's well worth keeping in mind that:

Jesus was convicted for being "King of the Jews" and crucified by the Romans for being a threat to Roman superiority, and the rule with Rome concerning such "traitors" was 'Damnatio Memoriae' or "Damnaton of Memory" -- they [the Romans] erased the person (i.e. "Jesus") from history removing and destroying all evidence of the person's historical or intellectual whereabouts.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You don't get it, and i don't think any further explanation will help you. So believe as you wish I suppose. I dunno what else to say. I can explain it to you, but It's impossible for me to understand it for you. I gave it the best run I could.

Thank you for putting up the good fight and defending our Lord.
It affects my day to much, in a negative way, the way people hate the thought of Jesus.
But he did say we would be hated just like he IS.
Some will never accept Him no matter what, it would me an extreme paradigm shift.
You know, what he taught was so bad for society. /sarc

I blame Religion mostly. They totally turned it away from being a personal relationship with Christ.
God Bless NOTurTypical

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And yet, Josephus, an historian for the the Flavians, recorded the deeds and deaths of many "zealots" of the time.

a reply to: stosh64

Paul is not Jesus and I haven't said anything hateful toward Jesus. I'm a follower of Jesus, well the red words at least. I love Jesus so you assuming I hate him is totally wrong and a knee- jerk reaction.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you.
Peace
Steve

eta: I apologize for quoting his reply to you, it was just his last post. Wasn't directed at your contributions to the thread.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

crucified by the Romans for being a threat to Roman superiority

I don't think you can claim that, 7 different times Pilate declared Jesus innocent and he found no fault in Him. He agreed to the murder because of fear of revolt by the Jews and that would look bad on him in the eyes of Caesar.