Contemporary writers of Jesus

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
DerekKMartin's picture
Contemporary writers of Jesus

Hi, I'm new here, looks an interesting site. I have a small dilemma, I was debating some guy on youtube about god and all that when I made the statement that there are no contemporary writings about Jesus. He mentioned Paul. And seeing Paul did live around the time of JC could be considered a contemporary. Does anybody have something I can use? Much appreciated, regards Derek

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Travis Hedglin's picture
As far as I am aware, Paul

As far as I am aware, Paul neither lived around nor met Jesus(outside of a "vision" he supposedly had), and wrote many years after his supposed crucifixion based on the oral traditions of the Christians in his area. This makes him a suspect source at best...

cmallen's picture
First of all, don't let this

First of all, don't let this person get away with using the bible to prove the bible; that's not how verification works. Second, Paul never met Jesus and didn't become a Christian until after Jesus' death. There are no known contemporary writers who talk about Jesus. If your fellow debater brings up Josephus, tell him that even the church has admitted that it is either an interpolation or a forgery.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
When talking about paul one

When talking about paul one must know that about 95% of scholars agree that only 7 of Paul letters are probably authentic, the rest are forgeries by later Christians.

There was a debate between Richard carrier and William Lane Craig about this and Richard Carrier does kick his ass on the historicity of Jesus and he also talks a lot about Paul's letters..

So I think you would gain a lot from viewing that debate.

I would also suggest to watch another video of Richard carrier where he shows "Why the Gospels Are Myth":

Watch that and you have most of the information you could possibly use.

ThePragmatic's picture

In the debate between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier, I actually feel sorry for Craig despite how much I dislike that man. He looks like he is there to take a very important test, but realizes he has studied the wrong subject.
I have to check out Carrier's work now.
Thanks Jeff.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Welcome, and you are right he

Welcome, and you are right he was completely not in the same league.

About Richard Carrier, there is one of his speeches where he describes the religions of the first century and compares them to Christianity.
I think that without knowing this knowledge about the history of that era, one cannot truly understand the origin of Christianity.

Richard starts 24:52 in the shortest of his presentations:

After understanding how allegory is made then one can understand why I think that the people who published Christianity and the ones who are creating the myth are the current ruling power of that era.


If you are interested I think that this is the HOW and WHY Christianity was created:

cmallen's picture
Good call with the video,

Good call with the video, thanks.

Pitar's picture
There are no period records

There are no period records of the biblical cast of characters. The Bible and it's prodigy are the work of a pope of the church some 182 years after the stated period. Nothing to refute about that. The journalists of the time did not record, or make mention of a JC character, his entourage or the events supposedly chronicled in the bible. There isn't even a written (period) record of the town of Nazareth. No one knows whence that name came.

It's very easy to say one of the other biblical personages was a contemporary but it's invalidated if that personage is supported only by the biblical tale. Also, and it's very well documented, that writings of actual contemporaries of the time (journalists, et al) have been altered by persons unknown to add contemporary accounts of the JC story. This is evidenced by the differences in writing styles and the physical nature of the writings themselves, let alone the vast age differences of the inks used during the period and those found in the altered writings. In other words, certain period records of high-profile period writers were made to look as if the biblical account of a JC character was in written factual evidence outside the bible itself. Look no further than the church, theists and theologians for evidence of a biblical truth. Look outside that sphere and piece together you own account.

None of this matters, anyway. Death does not speak to life about truth. It only supports nothingness as all that is important in life is stripped away.

mysticrose's picture
I'm really impressed with how

I'm really impressed with how the new testament was made without strong historical evidences. The dreams of Paul will never be strong enough to tell us that Jesus really existed.

Stephered74's picture
Writing high-quality content

Writing high-quality content is always important for everyone to get good quality grades at any level. Most of the students prefer to get the best essay writing service that can provide real assignment writing options to many students who want to get good quality of writing work online.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.