SlowTrainComing

I posted the definition about ten minutes ago.

Um, you, in this very post. If not posting it, then STRONGLY implying it. If I'm mistaken about your implications, please clear it up.

funinspace

Notice in the above definition, it implies overlapping reigns, with both monarchs living as adults at least for a short period of time.

Now you use a pretty vague term "within a few decades", which doesn't really agree with the above definition you quoted. So if it quacks, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck…

Definitions really aren't this tough….

You seam to be the only talking about 6 years not being contemporary...

SlowTrainComing

The 10th Century? Try late 1st.

What would you accept as historical accounts? Only the original manuscripts? You mean, like, the ancient relics themselves?

SlowTrainComing

Let's recap. I was asked to present historical accounts of Christ's existence due to the BIZARRE argument of "Jesus was never alive!!" with which I've been presented. Since then, I've been told:

a) Internet repostings of such writings don't count. Only the original historic scrolls will be accepted.

b) My definition of "contemporaneous" is unacceptable, because enemies of Christianity decided to help the Christian cause along by making up a fake person named Jesus.

Just to ease this along... what evidence WILL be accepted?

Keith&Co.

STC, ALL i've asked is for your definition of contemporary. Not even a cutting remark. If i'd said anything at all like 'Six years? You call that contemporary?' then you'd have some sort of argument about attacking or strongly implying.

I've made no implications. What you infer is entirely in your head. Your immediate response to the straightforward question was to accuse me of moving goalposts. All i did was ask how you're meaning a word that you're using.

For the record, six years is certainly contemporary. If that's the only question about a reference, then there's no question about the reference.
But that's not the only reference you've offered.

And your posted definition is still vague. How big a period of time? Within a decade? A generation? Three? The period "the time of the dinosaurs" covered millions of years, but T-Rex was not contemporary with dimetrodon.

SlowTrainComing

For the record... I was indeed mistaken, 39 A.D. was the incorrect date.

Toto

It is generally agreed that Josephus wrote in the late first century. It is generally agreed that his manuscript was copied by Christians, and that there were a few interpolations and alterations.

So if you are going to claim that you have the original of a highly disputed section such as the one that you quote, yes, you do need the original manuscript, which you call an ancient relic.

funinspace

In the dictionary they provide a very good reference to the meaning of contemporary in the same context, if you (STC) want to stick to dictionary references:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/contemporary
These adjectives mean existing or occurring at the same time. Contemporary is used more often of persons, contemporaneous of events and facts: The composer Salieri was contemporary with Mozart.

Here are their lives:
Salieri 1750-1825
Mozart 1756-1791

For example, this would argue that Tacitus is clearly not a contemporary reference.

Toto

So what exactly are you claiming?

SlowTrainComing

Obviously, it's subjective. I'm personally willing to consider something within a few decades of Christ's lifetime to be contemporaneous with His life. The kicker is that a handful of these references were made by ENEMIES of Him and of His faith. I fail to see why they would record His existence if He had never existed and they wished to squash His following.