Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2016, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 10:28 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 09:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Be that as it may, RocketSurgeon never said anything about their Jewishness, or any stereotypes associated with that.

And I never said Rocketsurgeon said anything about their Jewishness, or appealed to any stereotypes about them. I did.

When I was thinking of why I shouldn't trust these archaeologists working for the public sector here, than any other archaeologists or scientist working in other countries like the US, I remembered that they were Jews, than it made sense to me, as to why they shouldn't be trusted.

Rocketsurgeon didn't associate their untrustworthiness with their Jewishness, but then again he didn't provide any real reason as to why I should distrust them in the first place, any more so than any other researcher in the public sector.

Quote:Or it might already be too late for that. You can't win an argument by being an asshole. It just makes the other person conclude that you're not worth arguing with. Stick to the facts and use a bit of tact, and you might get somewhere.

Being an asshole on occasions here, makes some people's nonsense semi palpable.

"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
26-07-2016, 10:41 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 09:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Be that as it may, RocketSurgeon never said anything about their Jewishness, or any stereotypes associated with that.

And I never said Rocketsurgeon said anything about their Jewishness, or appealed to any stereotypes about them. I did.

When I was thinking of why I shouldn't trust these archaeologists working for the public sector here, than any other archaeologists or scientist working in other countries like the US, I remembered that they were Jews, than it made sense to me, as to why they shouldn't be trusted.

Rocketsurgeon didn't associate their untrustworthiness with their Jewishness, but then again he didn't provide any real reason as to why I should distrust them in the first place, any more so than any other researcher in the public sector.

Quote:Or it might already be too late for that. You can't win an argument by being an asshole. It just makes the other person conclude that you're not worth arguing with. Stick to the facts and use a bit of tact, and you might get somewhere.

Being an asshole on occasions here, makes some people's nonsense semi palpable.

Dream on. Mostly, it just makes you an asshole. You can point out nonsense in a polite way. Or you can be a dick about it. Lately, you take the low road every time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
26-07-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Except I did point out why other researchers behave the same way. I have experience with it in my own field, when I was doing environmental science and field biology for a government agency, but we were under pressure from interested groups that had heavy financial control over our state legislators and economy (due to my state's economy being so heavily based on farming and related agribusiness), so that our pure results were always in the report-- but the version that was released for public consumption and/or the presentations to the state legislators were worded in such a way that our funding was not at risk of being cut. In one case, where we overtly pointed out that our largest mega-corporation's operational sites were heavily correlated with areas of our river systems that were seeing large scale ecological collapse (and asking for funds to demonstrate causation instead of mere correlation), we did see half our department's funding slashed, leaving everyone in the organization concerned about their jobs and severely curtailing our ability to perform scientific research. It was an unwise move on our part to be so overt.

I gave the specific example, previously, of anthropologists whose reports on hominid finds don't wholly support the sensationalist versions that are released in various media and/or their organization's public relations release... this is because all of those groups have to encourage sponsorship, placate those who provide funding, justify our jobs, and make money in order to operate. A government-sponsored researcher is particularly sensitive to these effects in cases where the interests of that government's leaders are involved, even in the American Midwest.

I guess we're all Jews. Rolleyes

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-07-2016, 11:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 10:41 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Dream on. Mostly, it just makes you an asshole. You can point out nonsense in a polite way. Or you can be a dick about it. Lately, you take the low road every time.

Is being an asshole/dick that bothers you here, or is the fact that this assholish/dickness is directed towards individuals who you see yourself sharing some allegiance too?

I don't personally recall being a dick towards you, and since you're taking an issue with my attitude with someone whom I share a history with here, not sure if you go around policing everyone dickishness here or not to others.

Yes, I've decided to shift gears a bit, quit being polite, and behave more like the romans do in Rome. I can see why it's appealing now.

"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
26-07-2016, 11:50 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 10:41 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Dream on. Mostly, it just makes you an asshole. You can point out nonsense in a polite way. Or you can be a dick about it. Lately, you take the low road every time.

Is being an asshole/dick that bothers you here, or is the fact that this assholish/dickness is directed towards individuals who you see yourself sharing some allegiance too?

I don't personally recall being a dick towards you, and since you're taking an issue with my attitude with someone whom I share a history with here, not sure if you go around policing everyone dickishness here or not to others.

Yes, I've decided to shift gears a bit, quit being polite, and behave more like the romans do in Rome. I can see why it's appealing now.

"...since you're taking an issue with my attitude with someone whom I share a history with here, not sure if you go around policing everyone dickishness here or not to others."

It's not a matter of you picking and choosing who to be a dick to, you're just a dick. It'd be one thing to be a dick and own up to it, but once again, your dishonesty is claiming to above being a dick, while being a dick, dick.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-07-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 11:03 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Except I did point out why other researchers behave the same way. I have experience with it in my own field, when I was doing environmental science and field biology for a government agency, but we were under pressure from interested groups that had heavy financial control over our state legislators and economy (due to my state's economy being so heavily based on farming and related agribusiness), so that our pure results were always in the report-- but the version that was released for public consumption and/or the presentations to the state legislators were worded in such a way that our funding was not at risk of being cut. In one case, where we overtly pointed out that our largest mega-corporation's operational sites were heavily correlated with areas of our river systems that were seeing large scale ecological collapse (and asking for funds to demonstrate causation instead of mere correlation), we did see half our department's funding slashed, leaving everyone in the organization concerned about their jobs and severely curtailing our ability to perform scientific research. It was an unwise move on our part to be so overt.

I gave the specific example, previously, of anthropologists whose reports on hominid finds don't wholly support the sensationalist versions that are released in various media and/or their organization's public relations release... this is because all of those groups have to encourage sponsorship, placate those who provide funding, justify our jobs, and make money in order to operate. A government-sponsored researcher is particularly sensitive to these effects in cases where the interests of that government's leaders are involved, even in the American Midwest.

I guess we're all Jews. Rolleyes

No, you don't have any basis to accuse the archaeologist for lying about their discovery. They don't work for the tourism industry. All you have is the fact that they are funded by the Israeli government. There's no reason to distrust them, anymore so than to believe every scientist, archaeologist, historian, working for both the private and public sector, is dishonest. You can paint all them with an agenda in similar broad strokes.

But this is a pattern for your types here, when the research, or evidence works against your position, appeal to distrust. Israeli archaeologist can't be trusted, because their funded by the government, who instructs them to lie about their discovery to encourage tourism. Scholars and historians, christian or otherwise, who hold to Jesus existing, are not be trusted, because of Christianity's supposed hold on religious scholarship. Accounts by Christians can't be trusted, because their written by christians. Josephus and Tacitus can't be trusted because of their own agenda.

Suggest that we shouldn't trust Jews, and people's panties get tied up in a knot, and your accused of anti-semitism. For fucks sake.

On a lighter note, I am still waiting on you to answer, why you believe Nazareth existed in the 1st century, yet claim there's no actual evidence to support it's existence in the 1st century.

"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
26-07-2016, 12:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 10:41 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Dream on. Mostly, it just makes you an asshole. You can point out nonsense in a polite way. Or you can be a dick about it. Lately, you take the low road every time.

Is being an asshole/dick that bothers you here, or is the fact that this assholish/dickness is directed towards individuals who you see yourself sharing some allegiance too?

I don't personally recall being a dick towards you, and since you're taking an issue with my attitude with someone whom I share a history with here, not sure if you go around policing everyone dickishness here or not to others.

Yes, I've decided to shift gears a bit, quit being polite, and behave more like the romans do in Rome. I can see why it's appealing now.

I don't see it as "policing" (we have moderators for that, when/if it's needed), but yes, when someone is being a dick -- especially when they're being a racist or "ethnicist" dick -- I will point it out, regardless of the religious beliefs of the poster. I have done this with as many atheists as theists on this forum. I'm not trying to force anything here -- you can do whatever you like -- just trying to help you out. Because occasionally, you make a good point. But nobody's going to pay any attention to your good points if they're buried in dickishness.

I guess it depends on what your objectives are. If you want to win the argument (or better yet, find the truth, even if that means losing the argument), the best way to do that is to present your facts and arguments, allow the opponent to also do that, and may the better argument win. If all you want to do is "have fun", and being a dick is fun, then go for it. Be a dick. But don't expect anyone here to like you or respect you for it. And certainly don't expect to win any arguments -- unless "I can be a bigger dick than you" is your whole argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 12:37 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 10:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 08:20 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  What did "multitude" mean in the days of Luke? 100? 300? 500? To me, it doesn't matter. I view most of the Gospels as embellishments as opposed to outright fabrications. In fact, most of the shit Luke and the others talk about likely didn't even happen.

But when it comes to Nazareth... this one is definitely how they portrayed it, eh? They really thought it was important to portray the perfect historical record, in this one instance? They couldn't have had another (more likely) motive to assign characteristics to their Jesus the Annointed One which made the Christ into the prophesied Messiah, which his followers had thought he was during his lifetime, by tacking on extra "evidence"?

But you can do the exact same thing for any town listed in the Gospels. So why single out Nazareth? The Gospels depict Jesus performing miracles all over the god damn place in numerous towns, so does that mean that those town's existence also need to be questioned?

Yet, here he supposedly comes from Nazareth, a town the depicts him as being unable to perform miracles due to their lack of belief, and you make a big deal over this town as opposed to others?

This argument isn't even about history, in case you haven't noticed. This argument is all about the attempt to destroy anything to do with Christianity. Christians say Jesus came from Nazareth, and those who stand against Christianity are trying to destroy the supposed origins of Jesus of Nazareth.

It has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever. it's an argument against religion, and that's why history is so disregarded.

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:20 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  As far as the archeology is concerned, you are aware that as buildings crumble with time, newer ones are built on the same land? And you are aware that the Catholics currently have large churches built upon the oldest sections of Nazareth?

Holy crap! How do we ever find anything!?

But yes, that's why one of the primary archaeologists who has worked on the subject of Nazareth is a Catholic.

They are finding plenty of stuff; more than enough to determine the existence of Nazareth before, during, and after the 1st century.

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:20 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  They have started new digs, and its only a matter of time before they start digging up house after house. But all they will manage to do is reconfirm what we already know.

And that will be cool. And that will be evidence. However, I don't think it will happen, and I think the evidence is sparse but clear enough to me, at this point, to show that the Luke passages are mythology rather than history.

If the Luke passages were 100% mythology, we would not have so many actual historical persons listed, as well as historical places and things. This alone tells us that not everything Luke wrote about is myth.

The reality of the Gospels is that if you decide to look at them from a purely mythical point of view, then you are going to see what you want to see.

But me and other historians see something else. We see a history of the early beliefs and religious origins of Christians in all it's glory. It's not even a matter of whether or not the events in the Gospel occurred, but rather quite simply a matter of the history of the Christian belief system.

So instead of choosing to view it from a wholly mythical perspective, we see it for what it is; a belief system that merely embellishes the life of a historical person with some tall tales regarding his actions in an around 1st century Judea, including Nazareth.

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:20 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  In Judaic teachings regarding priestly courses, the head of the family (priest) is the elder, and his family are all of his offspring. The elder could have sons who were also priests. This can represent a rather large extended family, that could include everybody from a Great Grandpa to a new-born.

A priestly course could be anything from 1 person to any reasonable number such as 40 or 50. But it could be more.

All true. But we have no reason to suspect your "horde", and there is no positive indication that they were sent there in the year 70, as opposed to the later revolt, let alone that there were large numbers of them. The Hapizzez (18th Course) line was not a wealthy/famous one like the 17th Course was, the Hezir line, for instance, where we could expect larger numbers.

It could be a horde, which merely means a crowd, but we just don't know. Yes, there's no positive confirmation the year was CE 70.

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:20 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yep, YOU. Here are your own words:


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1031641

Do you wish to now retract that statement?

Why? Your version does not encompass my argument. Assigning this town, in writing, to be Jesus' hometown during the years in the immediate aftermath of the rebellion, when Matthew and Luke were written, would have indeed happened in the years it was growing, following the upheavals of the revolt. We have no doubt the Jesus-legend was growing rapidly during the years prior to the writing of the Gospels, and we see the tale grow taller, the later the year of authorship of the Gospel (to the point that John doesn't even mesh completely with the theme of the first three, prompting the term "synoptic" for the non-John Gospels).

Let me show you my contention. Here's my quote with you responding to it.

Quote:
Quote:Fourthly, we have Justin Martyr in CE 140 mentioning the existence of Nazareth.

Neato! What does that have to do with pre-diaspora villages where Nazareth would one day be?

This implies that the town named "Nazareth" did not exist before the war of CE 70. Your argument here is that you believe that when Justin mentioned Nazareth in CE 140, he was referring to Nazareth post-dispora.

The implication here is that you are saying that the town of Nazareth was not named Nazareth before CE 70, and instead are referring to it as a collection of small unnamed villages.

Now the problem I am having here is that the priestly courses name the town as being Nazareth BEFORE they went there in CE 70, a strong indication of a town named Nazareth pre-existing CE 70, and therefore by necessity pre-existing the accepted dating of the Gospel records.

How do you reconcile this with your position?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 09:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 09:19 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Because other things that he mentions only once are pretty ordinary things. Meeting the brother of God incarnate (what Paul believed Jesus to be) is not an ordinary thing, and would seem to be worth more than a single passing mention in one of the letters. If I met God's brother, you couldn't get me to shut up about it. That's why it seems odd that he only mentions it once.

Exactly! Bowing

So you agree with Grasshopper's position here. However, if it was widely known that James was the brother of Jesus, who would Paul need to boast about it to?

Also, Paul mentions James 4 times in his letters, so it's not as if this is a one-off statement regarding the person of James.

Paul does not regard Jesus as being "God the Father." He does allude to Jesus as being somewhat equal to God- although he doesn't directly state it- but does not regard him as being the "Supreme Deity" so to speak.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 01:03 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 12:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I guess it depends on what your objectives are. If you want to win the argument (or better yet, find the truth, even if that means losing the argument), the best way to do that is to present your facts and arguments, allow the opponent to also do that, and may the better argument win.

You must be new here. You don't win arguments here, you just find ways to weasel out of losing an argument. People desire more to save face, and not concede that they were wrong, than they desire what is true.

People are more inclined to protect the vulnerable egos of their homies here, engage in groupthink, than concede to opponents who they don't particularly like all that much.

Why else has Rocketsurgeon spent several days worth of posts arguing in support of others who suggest that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century. Claiming like they do, that there's no actual evidence in support of it's existence. While at the same time believing it did exist at the time.

Apparently he can't even complete his own thoughts, as to how he derives that existed at the time, while claiming there's no actual evidence for it's existence at the time. This is a circus, not a venue for an honest discussion.

You know how I know that I won an argument? when my opponents begin to whittle into the absurd, to the point where they begin to become embarrassed of it.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: