Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2016, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 02:42 PM by OrdoSkeptica.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 02:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 02:09 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  as for your criticisms of Rene once again you place unjustified confidence in the team .(even thou they also have a massive motivation to lie) Just because they were there sorry that's not good enough i'm interested in there justification for there findings. there methods etc and Rene dose a excellent job throughout his site showing there justifications to be weak .

Quote:So a team of Israeli archaeologist, sponsored by the Israeli government, are massively motivated to lie about a dig site more significant to Christians than Jews.

sigh i never said they were dishonest but considering the massive amount of tourist dollars Israeli receives from the site etc it can't be ruled out thou as i said i'm not saying there dishonest

Quote:And instead we're suppose to trust an individual whose not an archaeologist himself,

His background is irrelevant

Quote:[quote]
trying to sell a book he wrote about Nazareth not existing,

him writing a book is not relevant


Quote:whose never actually been to the dig site, ever looked at the items that were dug up,

again not see above


Quote: and bases his own views on the reports of the same individuals you claimed aren't to be trusted?

Where did i say they were not to be trusted ? i said they would have a finical motivation to lie not that they have lied please don't put words in my mouth

As for his reliance on there reports how is he suppose to point out there cases weakness without looking at there reports and critiquing them for inconsistencies etc or methodical sloppiness

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 02:30 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  I know one must read internet comments with a tone of snarky sarcasm, so I think that's how I suppose to read your post but i'm unsure.

I'm curious do you have Aspergers?

I'm trying to understand your lack of confidence in a comment that's clearly "snarky sarcasm".

Do you have trouble in general reading, or even interpreting others in ways other than in a literal sense?

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just curious.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 02:49 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 02:39 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Where did i say they were not to be trusted ? i said they would have a finical motivation to lie not that they have lied please don't put words in my mouth

As for his reliance on there reports how is he suppose to point out there cases weakness without looking at there reports and critiquing them for inconsistencies etc or methodical sloppiness

When you said they have "a massive motivation to lie", even though they're an Israeli organizations, funded by the Israeli government.

You seem to now suggest it's financially driven. How about Salm, you don't see him as having "a massive motivation to lie", to sell his book?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 07:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 06:45 AM)Banjo Wrote:  This is not true. Mark is being very sincere as far as I can tell. A village has not been discovered. Even had it been, it still does not prove anything about Jesus.

Imagine saying "Tiberius was emperor, therefore Jesus existed."

That is basically not enough to prove the existence of another person.

From what I have read, some people have higher standards of evidence than others. This is all

Mark has very high standards when compared to others, such as yourself. Myself? I seem to have even higher standards. I am of the opinion that Jesus is a work of fiction. Whereas Mark thinks he is an actual example.

You clearly are not familiar with much of Marks arguments, where he makes shit up whole cloth, to support his views of Jesus and the early Christians, with hardly any early sources, evidence in support of them.

Mark's denial of Nazareth, is not because of supposed high standard that he has, but because it doesn't work well for his thesis. He used to argue that the earlier Gospel don't speak of Nazareth as a place, only after quoting the earliest Gospel of Mark did he take that argument back.

Quote:You must understand where you are. This is not a religious site where people swallow attempts at evidence rather than evidence itself.

I understand clearly where I am, in this discussion surrounded by severe group think, and a bunch of atheists making silly arguments to save face, not just of themselves, but of the group as a whole they're very protective of. These are you friends, and the last thing you'd care to watch is your friends made fools out of, so it's best to help their idiotic arguments out in such instances.

Quote:You would be better served to actually do some study, stop attacking people, and have real arguments to make.

I think you need to hit the books again. You've also made a variety of bad arguments on this topic, and run far away from them when confronted.

Quote:The focus has shifted from the subject matter of the OP and title of this thread. Some seem to believe if they prove this place existed, proves Jesus existed. This is a false assumption.

And a waste of time.

No, I don't believe that if Nazareth is existed that proves that Jesus existed. I just think those who claim that Nazareth existed are either liars, ignorant, or plain dishonest. I wouldn't even be discussing Nazareth, if one of your pathetic buddies didn't suggest it didn't exist at the time. So don't cry mercy for them now, when their arguments start to fall apart.


"You clearly are not familiar with much of Marks arguments, where he makes shit up whole cloth, to support his views of Jesus and the early Christians, with hardly any early sources, evidence in support of them."

I can't respond to this, as you have no specifics, just another ad hominem.

Mark's denial of Nazareth, is not because of supposed high standard that he has, but because it doesn't work well for his thesis. He used to argue that the earlier Gospel don't speak of Nazareth as a place, only after quoting the earliest Gospel of Mark did he take that argument back.

You haven't understood my writing. I have never claimed any Gospel didn't speak of Nazareth as a place.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-07-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 12:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 12:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Jebus no likey that shit.

Spoken like a true child prodigy attending an Ivy League PhD program, and part time Eileen Ford's model. When do you have the time?

The proper answer would have been:

The existence of jesus is irrelevant to my (very unique and personal) denomination of christianity, and i already told you that Big Grin

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
21-07-2016, 03:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 12:58 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 12:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I do not subscribe to any theology or any religion.

Except for the God of Assholes.

P.S. I've seen pictures of ohio_drg and she looks nothing like a he.

Methinks you have been hiding in the wrong bushes. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ohio_drg's post
21-07-2016, 03:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 08:29 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 04:09 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes."

Oh dear FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm How embarrassing for you that you are so self righteous and patronising, yet you are clearly profoundly ignorant about the history of the Nazarenes. Nazarenism did not fade away after James, as you imply. Here is the real history (with apologies to those who have read this before.)

What Happened to the Nazarenes?

The Nazarenes were Yeshua’s bona fide disciples. Much of their history is missing, probably because early Christians destroyed it. Yet their tale can be pieced together.

Hugh Schonfield points out the Nazarenes were not Christians.

“It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church, which received them, had no other course open than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics.”

It is probable that Paul, the founder of Christian theology, masqueraded as a Nazarene in the 50’s and early 60’s; at least he did so when he was associating with traditional Jews. Once Paul was accepted into Jewish communities, he tried to replace messianic Nazarene doctrine with his own pro government perspective.

To all true Nazarenes, Paul was a heretic and a traitor to Judaism. The cordial relationship between Paul and the Nazarenes described by the author of Acts was merely an attempt to connect Paul with an historical Jesus and was a fiction. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, (d. 236 CE) Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis) and Jerome all confirmed that the Ebionites (as the Nazarenes were later called, see below) opposed Paul as a false Apostle.

The Roman Emperor Nero may have blamed and persecuted the Nazarenes in Rome for the great fire of 64 CE. Christians today often incorrectly call Nero’s casualties Christians. There is a Christian “tradition” that this was when Peter was crucified, but there is no contemporary evidence to confirm the claim.

Hegesippus, (c. 110 - 180 CE) a Christian chronicler of the early Church, who may have been a Jewish convert, writes that after the death of James in 62 CE, the Nazarenes selected Symeon, (aka Simeon) son of Cleophas, to be their new leader. He was one of Yeshua’s relatives, possibly a cousin.

During the first Jewish war of 66 - 70 CE, some of the Nazarenes are said to have fled across the Jordan River to Pella. Yet many of them probably tried to defend Jerusalem and therefore perished. The survivors must have been bitterly disappointed by the defeat. The remaining rebels moved back to Jerusalem in 72 CE. They never regained their pre war status and influence.

Prior to 80 – 90 CE, the Nazarenes were still worshipping in synagogues alongside Pharisees. Yet many of their fellow Jews now viewed them as trouble causers, probably because of their nationalistic ambitions. The Pharisaic Jews referred to them as “minim” (Hebrew for heretic.) A heretic is someone who still remains within the faith, but believes in elements not acceptable to the orthodoxy, so mainstream Jews never considered the Nazarenes as Christians. A deep schism between the Nazarenes and other Jews formed, and by 90 CE, Nazarenes were excluded from some synagogues. It is likely that some Jews opted out of Nazarenism, and others were intimidated by it, because opposing Rome was dangerous.

In his “Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius of Caesaria, the father of early Christian history, wrote of the grandchildren of Jesus’ brother Jude, who were living in Galilee during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, (81–96 CE, Vespasian’s son and Titus’ younger brother.) (book 3, chapter 20.) Eusebius says Jesus’ relatives became dynastic leaders of various “Christian” (a misnomer) churches, and continued to be so up until the time of the Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE.)

Kamal Salibi, at the time an Emeritus Professor at the American University of Beirut, Department of History and Archaeology, wrote that after Symeon’s death, twelve others followed in turn whose names are preserved down to 135 CE (the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.)

So there were fifteen leaders of the Nazarene sect after Jesus, all of who were circumcised Jews and relations of Jesus. The word “Desposyni” was reserved uniquely for Jesus’ blood relatives and literally meant “belonging to the Lord.” They governed the Nazarenes. Each carried one of the names traditional in Jesus’ family: Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Symeon, Matthias, and others, although no later Desposynos was ever called Yeshua.

Sextus Julius Africanus’ reference to the “Desposyni” is also preserved by Eusebius:

“For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account...Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own igno- ble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”
(Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiae, 1:7:11.)

Eusebius also preserved an extract from a work by Hegesippus, (c.110–c.180) who wrote five books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. The extract refers to the period from the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) to that of Trajan, (98–117 CE) and includes the statement that two Desposyni brought before Domitian later became leaders of the churches:

“There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labor. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labor, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.”
(Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiae, 3:20.)

Eusebius also wrote that the Nazarenes did not fight in the second war (132-6 CE) against the Romans, as they considered Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish commander, to be a false messiah.

After this war, the fifteenth Nazarene leader was exiled with the remaining Jewish population when the Emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem.

Over the next few centuries, the Nazarenes headed by Yeshua’s relatives continued as a movement that some Jews joined. They were well respected in their own locales. They moved northeastward, eventually making their way to the Tigris-Euphrates basin, spread- ing throughout Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

The early Christians considered the Nazarenes a heretical sect, so ignored and later suppressed them. Justin Martyr denigrated their beliefs. The developing orthodox Catholic Church deliberately called them the “Ebionites,” “the poor ones” (although Jews did not consider this term derogatory; in fact they used the term to refer to the righteous.) Christians prior to Irenaeus did not use this term.

Irenaeus wrote
“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.”
These men were Gnostics who believed Jesus was a very human teacher. Irenaeus continues:

“They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God” (Against Heresies 1:26.)

The Gospel according to Matthew that Irenaeus refers to was probably the same Gospel that Jerome (342–420 CE) and Epiphanius called the “Gospel of the Nazarenes/Hebrews,” which was written in Aramaic. Jerome mentions that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, no significant part of this Gospel survives today. Some scholars believe that it was loosely linked to canonical Matthew, which fits with Matthew being the most pro-Jewish Gospel of the four. It is possible that this was how some facts about Yeshua the Nazarene insurrectionist made it into the Gospels.

Eusebius considered the Nazarenes heretics because

“... they regarded [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law—that by faith in Christ alone they would never win Salvation” (Ecclesiastical History 3.7.)

Hugh Schonfield would say that it was Eusebius who was the real heretic.
Irenaeus and Eusebius, both fervent Christians, depicted the Nazarenes correctly as a Jewish sect.

Gentile Christians came to refer to the Nazarenes indiscriminately as “Jewish Christians” because of their link with Jesus, yet this was another misnomer, because they never were Christians.

By the beginning of the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church was becoming dominant and there were confrontations with Jews, including the Nazarenes. With the Synod of Elvira, held in 306 CE, prohibitions against eating, marriage, and sex with Jews were enacted in the Roman Empire. Nazarenes were included in this ban, which in effect excluded them from all social and religious association with those in the growing Gentile Christian church.

The Emperor Constantine appointed Sylvester as the head bishop of the Catholic Church in 313 CE. According to the Irish Jesuit historian Malachi Martin,235 a meeting took place in 318 CE in Rome between Pope Sylvester I and the Desposyni. Sylvester provided sea travel for the Nazarene leaders as far as the Roman port of Ostia, thirty kilometers west of Rome. The fact that Sylvester thought it necessary to meet with them suggests that he was curious, yet it is obvious he initiated the meeting with the intention of exerting his pontifical authority over them.

The Nazarene leaders who appeared before Pope Sylvester quite rightly thought they represented Yeshua’s true legacy. They were, after all, his blood relations, part of at least three well-known lines of legitimate blood descent from Yeshua’s family. They were eight in number, and Joses, the oldest of them, spoke on their behalf. They bluntly refused to recognize the Roman church as having any authority, and made the following demands:

(1) That the confirmation of the Christian bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria be revoked;
(2) That these bishoprics be conferred on members of the Desposyni;
(3) That the Law be reintroduced, which included the Sabbath and the Holy Day system of Feasts, and
(4) That Christian Churches resume sending money to the Desposyni Church in Jerusalem, which was to be regarded as the “Mother Church.”

Such bold claims must have come as a surprise to Sylvester, who refused their demands. They were told that the leadership of Jesus’ church had moved to Rome, and that the Nazarenes had no jurisdiction.

Sylvester must have known his church was the impostor, but that did not concern him. The politics of power were more important than the truth. This was the last known formal dialogue between Christian and Nazarene leaders.

A few years later Nazarenes began to surface in southern Upper Egypt. In this remote locale, far from the center of Gentile Christianity, they continued to practice their beliefs.

In 364 CE, the Catholic Council of Laodicea decreed anathema on any “Jewish Christians” who continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Historical references to Nazarenes became scarce thereafter. The few remaining believers petered out.

What is appealing about the real story of Yeshua and the Nazarenes is that modern people can relate to it. We all have major concerns about organizations, and the way the Catholic Church, as an organization, treated the Nazarenes some 1700 years ago is an ancient example of what many people dislike about institutions. Whether an organization is a university, a government department, or a Church, their members often put the survivorship, growth and social standing of the organization in front of any controversial facts, or interesting truths, that may emerge. The Catholic Church today, for example, always protects its power, finances, people, and profile above all else. Embarrassing truths are dealt with professionally so as to leave as little damage to the organization as possible. In the first few centuries of Christianity, the Nazarenes’ claims, and their legacy, were not seen as a real threat to the Church’s autonomy. The Catholic Church barely flinched to deal with the Nazarene’s concerns. Respecting an honorable group of people was not an ethic that drove the early Church when deal- ing with powerless minorities. That legacy and modus operandi is very apparent in understanding the way the Church has operated throughout history and still operates today, for example in the Vatican’s attitude to homosexuality, the way they continue to not totally respect women (half their congregation) and their attitude towards the victims of child sexual abuse perpetrated by their own members.

To summarize, the Nazarenes were a Jewish sect that, at least in the first century, had strong anti Gentile political ambitions. Christianity, something quite separate, rather ironically became a religion for Gentiles. Christianity stole Yeshua the Nazarene’s identity to create Jesus, and reinvented him, not only as its founder, but also as God incarnate and the savior of the world. Christians then suppressed the Nazarenes, who struggled on for about four centuries before they disappeared.

If Yeshua, his family, and his original admirers could speak today, they would be dumbfounded at the distortion of their legacy.

References:
Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to
Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls” Klinghoffer, D. 1965 “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. Doubleday.
United States Of America.
Lockhart, D. 1997 “Jesus The Heretic”. Element Books. Dorset. Lockhart, D. 1999 “The Dark Side Of God”. Element Books. Dorset Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York. Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4kTNS18ses
http://ia600401.us.archive.org/34/items/...shFollower sOfJesusPart1-Ebionites/Podcast3.7JudeanFollowersOfJesusPart1- Ebionites.mp3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ebionites
http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE NAZORAEAN SECT.pdf
http://www.yashanet.com/library/nazarene_judaism.html
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/ebionites.html
http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/nazarenes.htm for the above information.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=b7bnvXrC47AC&pg= PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=Julius+Africanus,+desposyni,&sou rce=bl&ots=SKzFZ8tcXu&sig=cN-lLGGfHPzmMfpnjuvw- W2fqY4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VkzWUMmCEO6ViQePwIHQBg&v ed=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Julius%20Africanus%2C%20 desposyni%2C&f=false
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jVyz...AC&pg=PA29 6&dq=hegesippus,+symeon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jU7WUICTJa-UiQ fp7oGICg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hegesippus %2C%20symeon&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews http://www.conorpdowling.com/library/council-of-elvira http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0370Ebionites.php http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...ippus.html

You just wasted a shit load of time addressing something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You and your false conclusions about what I am talking about continue to demonstrate to me why no one on the planet will ever take anything you write seriously. Ever.

You simply cannot understand what you are reading, and put it into the context of the conversation.

Here's again is what i said:

"They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes."

James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes in regards to being a catalyst in the propagation of their doctrine in its entirety. We can ascertain this by the fact that after his death we do not see anybody else in any kind of state of reverence in regards to the Nazarene school of thought. Nor do we see much else of anything in regards to the doctrine of the Nazarenes, aside from a few mentions from the early church fathers.

Therefore, whatever the entire doctrine of the Nazarene was, it most likely died with James as he was the heir apparent to Jesus.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with how long the Nazarene existed after the death of James. Nothing whatsoever.

Now let's see if you will once again ignore the point of what I said and post a shit load of crap from Wiki again that will have absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.

You are more interested in making yourself look good than in the history.

It is obvious that you didn't understand what I wrote about the Nazarenes, and you particularly didn't get what that means about Christianity. This topic is bigger than you.

The "shit load of crap from Wiki" is not from Wiki...it is information gleaned from years of study that I have put together for others' benefit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-07-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 02:55 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You haven't understood my writing. I have never claimed any Gospel didn't speak of Nazareth as a place.


Our arguments were sometime ago, close to two years ago, so I was working off of memory. But I did manage to dig and find what you previously stated:

"On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene”

And I at the time quoted you verses from all fours Gospels, that clearly indicated that they were referring to a place.

But here's a link, we've had our time at the rodeo, and went over various parts of your views at the time, which for the most part are entirely unevidenced, and based purely on your own imagination, rather than the available early sources.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 04:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 02:30 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 06:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Anybody who goes through intensive study to find God/Jesus already has a disposition of strong belief, and would be better off not wasting his lifetime researching, but rather he should put a bullet through his own head so he can get his stupid ass to heaven and meet his god in an effort to find out once and for all.

I mean, it's only practical, right?

Consider

I think you lost me.

Are you suggesting the only way to truly know God one would have to commit suicide?

I know one must read internet comments with a tone of snarky sarcasm, so I think that's how I suppose to read your post but i'm unsure.

It's just a joke.

Quote:I asked because you are a person that is making the claim that you have a position of authority.

Apparently that is absolutely meaningless here at this forum.

Quote:You have made numerous post about how everyone else is inferior to your level of knowledge and intellect.

No.

I have made posts to demonstrate my qualifications in response to the idiots who launch personal attacks at me and challenge me.

Quote: You said you have a master's in ancient Roman History. (Which school Stanford, Yale, NYU?)

McGill University.

Quote:I'm coming from position of accepted ignorance on the subject. I am neater a mythisit nor a must have been true. Thou I can see points from ether side. I feel that should a man that could be ether attributed to creation of the Jesus character had been alive it most likely was greatly embellished upon. Now why would I think this. What grounds dose a simpleton such as myself have for questioning the divinity of a 2000 year old leader that may or may not have existed.

An example.

This is Vissarion (Russian for He who gives new life) birth name Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop. His claim is that he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

[Image: jesus-of-siberia.jpg]

It has been estimated that he has 10,000 adherents. (if not much more) it's one of the more peaceful cults that I am aware of. He has colonies in Siberia and Germany. His followers call him Christ incarnate. We can see the city he was born in, we can see his "teachings" (personally it sounds to me like the ramblings of a mad man) and we can talk to personal witness's that have seen his magical healing abilities. The push a lot of hippie stuff. like vegetarianism, no vices (drugs, alcohol, cigs), no money (any money earned goes to "Jesus".) and the have strict daily routine.

He is not separated by 2,000 years ether, he's alive right now. He's been running this church/cult since since the early 90's and has been seen as an official religion since 1995. Children have been born and raised in this community and have full acceptance of his divinity. In fact one of his 2 wives was raised from the age of 7 and when she turned 19 they got married.

So my questions would be
Dose this prove his divinity?

There is most probably no such thing as a "divine" anything or anybody. Jesus probably existed, but was not divine in anyway whatsoever.

How is it that you claim to have read this thread, apparently concentrating on me, and only see what you want to see in regards to your belief that I view myself as being intellectually superior to everybody, yet you failed to see and understand what my position is on Jesus?

It would seem to me that the point of this post of yours is yet another ad hominem, since you begin with an insult, and continue as if my position is a position of religious belief when it has been clearly demonstrated it is not.

The rest of what you said has been answered with my statements in this post so no need to address it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 04:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 03:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You are more interested in making yourself look good than in the history.

Another ad hom that avoids my point.

Quote:It is obvious that you didn't understand what I wrote about the Nazarenes, and you particularly didn't get what that means about Christianity. This topic is bigger than you.

Anything you wrote was already known by me if you gleaned it from scholarly articles, and it still has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Quote:The "shit load of crap from Wiki" is not from Wiki...it is information gleaned from years of study that I have put together for others' benefit.

And again you still avoid what i was talking about.

Now how the fuck did I know that was going to happen?

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: