Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 12:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 10:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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: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: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: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: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: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?

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.

No. This argument is about the historical truth. We want to know what happened.

It is very obvious you have a pathological paranoia about atheists, who you imagine are out to destroy Christianity. I suspect there is some part of you that has a deep rooted affection for the Jeebus story, and you just can't let it go, and it colours everything you write. Hence your abusive ad hominems against "atheists" and "mythicists." It is why you usually ignore other people's arguments and repeat your own so often.

It's your personal psychological issue which you should see a good psychologist about, rather than venting on public forums.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 12:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.


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


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.


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.


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


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?

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.

No. This argument is about the historical truth. We want to know what happened.

It is very obvious you have a pathological paranoia about atheists, who you imagine are out to destroy Christianity. I suspect there is some part of you that has a deep rooted affection for the Jeebus story, and you just can't let it go, and it colours everything you write. Hence your abusive ad hominems against "atheists" and "mythicists." It is why you usually ignore other people's arguments and repeat your own so often.

It's your personal psychological issue which you should see a good psychologist about, rather than venting on public forums.

I think it's the other way around my friend. You have a deep rooted hatred for the Jesus story, and Christianity. Explains your blog, and book, and side trajectory of your life. Did you have some christians early in your life, who did you wrong?

"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, 01:16 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 12:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You, like GoingUp, are equivocating on the meaning of "at that time". RocketSurgeon has pointed this out repeatedly, and yet you both keep doing it. He has never disputed that Nazareth existed in the first century, or at the time the Gospels were written. The question is whether or not it existed at the beginning of the first century -- i.e., when it would have needed to exist in order for Jesus to have grown up there.

You cannot make any progress by arguing against claims that your opponent never made.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
26-07-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 02:18 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ah. Herein lies the essence of the argument. I know you don't have a proper understanding of first century Judaism or first century Rome (the driving force behind the gospels) when you make statements like this. There was a war going on between ideologies. Your Jeebus was, and is, a fiction, possibly based on Yeshua, a Jewish political insurgent. He was a propaganda tool. You need to understand that. Then the penny will drop and you will "get" the birth of Christianity.

No you suggest there was a deep schism between the writers of the Gospels and the Nazarene sect, that was so severe that these writers tried to downplay Jesus association with the Nazarene, by passing him off as coming from a town called Nazareth, that apparently didn't exist at the time these writings were penned.

I'm accusing of making this up whole-cloth. A drama of your invention.


So I'll ask the question I asked earlier again, please outline for us the idealogical differences between the Nazarene sect, and the views expressed in lets say the writer of Mark. Where do the views of Mark Gospels and the Nazarene's diverge, if these ideological differences were so severed that Mark wanted to remove any association with the Nazarenes in his account.

So I'll ask the question I asked earlier again, please outline for us the idealogical differences between the Nazarene sect, and the views expressed in lets say the writer of Mark. Where do the views of Mark Gospels and the Nazarene's diverge, if these ideological differences were so severed that Mark wanted to remove any association with the Nazarenes in his account.

That's an easy one to answer...

The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!

“Christians at all levels of intelligence and capacity are being denied access to vital information concerning their religion, and this curtailment of information helps breed either an attitude of ill-founded complacency, or one of smug self-certainty. Living in a kind of metaphysical dream, the custodians of ‘old fashioned’ Christianity stumble from one futile explanation of New Testament events to another. Jesus was sinless; Jesus was sexless; Jesus was all-knowing; Jesus is the Savior of the whole World; Jesus is God. Such sentiments slip easily from the lips when the mind has been overtaken by spiritual vertigo due to intellectual undernourishment.”
(Douglas Lockhart)

The Jesus of theology has smothered the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind. To discover the truth, one must winnow out the substance from the gloss.

I think Yeshua was a popular potential messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was crazy brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda wasn’t to preach philosophy. A wandering teacher’s pithy observations on life wouldn’t have wooed crowds, nor attracted the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. People were too poor and the times too hard for that.

Christianity only first emerged decades after his death – and became a religion primarily for Gentiles. It used a story about him to create something new that wasn’t Jewish and that he wouldn’t have understood or approved of. His real story has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries concocted many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than Jews.

He didn’t think he was God’s son, and nor did any of his original disciples. He didn’t suppose he was the savior of the world. He wasn’t the meek lamb of God. To sacrifice himself for Gentile sinners wouldn’t have crossed his mind. He never once thought he was the central figure of a new religious cult. He didn’t rise from the dead. The over imaginative Paul of Tarsus put forward all these fictions. Yeshua never met Paul, yet if he had would have despised him for promoting pagan propaganda.

The Romans actually crucified Jesus twice; once in real life, and then again by lying about his legacy in the Gospels.

It seems odd and rather macabre that people have been told to worship a crucifix. As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, isn’t it in poor taste to advertise the fact? If Jesus were somehow alive today, wouldn’t his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

It can be argued that to keep Yeshua trapped in the Christian paradigm is disrespectful to the real man, and, more importantly, confuses people with a web of complex falsehoods. People may ask whether it makes any sense to:
- Worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian

(http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-...ords=reza) and Peter Cresswell

(http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...ll+jesus). Most of them haven’t had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 01:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No you suggest there was a deep schism between the writers of the Gospels and the Nazarene sect, that was so severe that these writers tried to downplay Jesus association with the Nazarene, by passing him off as coming from a town called Nazareth, that apparently didn't exist at the time these writings were penned.

I'm accusing of making this up whole-cloth. A drama of your invention.


So I'll ask the question I asked earlier again, please outline for us the idealogical differences between the Nazarene sect, and the views expressed in lets say the writer of Mark. Where do the views of Mark Gospels and the Nazarene's diverge, if these ideological differences were so severed that Mark wanted to remove any association with the Nazarenes in his account.

So I'll ask the question I asked earlier again, please outline for us the idealogical differences between the Nazarene sect, and the views expressed in lets say the writer of Mark. Where do the views of Mark Gospels and the Nazarene's diverge, if these ideological differences were so severed that Mark wanted to remove any association with the Nazarenes in his account.

That's an easy one to answer...

The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!

“Christians at all levels of intelligence and capacity are being denied access to vital information concerning their religion, and this curtailment of information helps breed either an attitude of ill-founded complacency, or one of smug self-certainty. Living in a kind of metaphysical dream, the custodians of ‘old fashioned’ Christianity stumble from one futile explanation of New Testament events to another. Jesus was sinless; Jesus was sexless; Jesus was all-knowing; Jesus is the Savior of the whole World; Jesus is God. Such sentiments slip easily from the lips when the mind has been overtaken by spiritual vertigo due to intellectual undernourishment.”
(Douglas Lockhart)

The Jesus of theology has smothered the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind. To discover the truth, one must winnow out the substance from the gloss.

I think Yeshua was a popular potential messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was crazy brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda wasn’t to preach philosophy. A wandering teacher’s pithy observations on life wouldn’t have wooed crowds, nor attracted the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. People were too poor and the times too hard for that.

Christianity only first emerged decades after his death – and became a religion primarily for Gentiles. It used a story about him to create something new that wasn’t Jewish and that he wouldn’t have understood or approved of. His real story has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries concocted many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than Jews.

He didn’t think he was God’s son, and nor did any of his original disciples. He didn’t suppose he was the savior of the world. He wasn’t the meek lamb of God. To sacrifice himself for Gentile sinners wouldn’t have crossed his mind. He never once thought he was the central figure of a new religious cult. He didn’t rise from the dead. The over imaginative Paul of Tarsus put forward all these fictions. Yeshua never met Paul, yet if he had would have despised him for promoting pagan propaganda.

The Romans actually crucified Jesus twice; once in real life, and then again by lying about his legacy in the Gospels.

It seems odd and rather macabre that people have been told to worship a crucifix. As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, isn’t it in poor taste to advertise the fact? If Jesus were somehow alive today, wouldn’t his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

It can be argued that to keep Yeshua trapped in the Christian paradigm is disrespectful to the real man, and, more importantly, confuses people with a web of complex falsehoods. People may ask whether it makes any sense to:
- Worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian

(http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-...ords=reza) and Peter Cresswell

(http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...ll+jesus). Most of them haven’t had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.

I though I asked a fairly straight forward questions, I guess not. I'm not interested in your personal beliefs.

I want to know the difference between the idealogical beliefs in Mark's Gospels, and that of the Nazarene sect. Because I don't see much of any.

I.e The writer of Mark believed x and y, while the Nazarene sect in contrast believed w and z.

I want to be able to read the early sources we have regarding what the Nazarene sect believed, and then verify if what views you ascribe to them can be reasonably drawn based on the material in question as well.

The alternative is that you're just making things up as you go along.

"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, 01:38 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

No. This argument is about the historical truth. We want to know what happened.

It is very obvious you have a pathological paranoia about atheists, who you imagine are out to destroy Christianity. I suspect there is some part of you that has a deep rooted affection for the Jeebus story, and you just can't let it go, and it colours everything you write. Hence your abusive ad hominems against "atheists" and "mythicists." It is why you usually ignore other people's arguments and repeat your own so often.

It's your personal psychological issue which you should see a good psychologist about, rather than venting on public forums.

I think it's the other way around my friend. You have a deep rooted hatred for the Jesus story, and Christianity. Explains your blog, and book, and side trajectory of your life. Did you have some christians early in your life, who did you wrong?

What you have just written confirms what I wrote about you.

As to my own biases, I address that in the following way towards the end of my book...

Isn’t the Truth Important?

“The truth, however unwelcome, is not injurious; it is error which raises false hopes, which destroys, degrades and pollutes, and which, sooner or later, must be abandoned.”
(Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian, http://www.atheists.org/Mangasar_Magurdi...gasarian_)

Good philosophy is best determined by considering the truth, which is the accurate depiction of reality; what has happened, and what is happening. Truth is not the depiction of something that never was or isn’t real. Biblical authors knew they were lying. A book based on deliberate lies shouldn’t be revered. No religion is more important than truth. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQJ3sqkdCRE).

A God didn’t write the bible, nor did bona-fide historians, or sincere people who cared about their readers. It was penned by power hungry priests and propagandists; spin-doctors asserting their own authority.

Most educated, objective, people can easily identify the lies in the bible. The bible is awash in false history, magic, deplorable ethics, narcissism and general weirdness, and it’s all written as though it’s telling the truth. It may have impressed uneducated people prior to the Renaissance, yet it doesn’t cut the mustard today. The bible, a product of the petty politics of power-hungry people, is nothing more than a mountain of untrue, immoral, superstitious nonsense.

Author Bias?

These are hard-hitting conclusions, but they’re not new. Most of them have already been made by a host of writers over the centuries.

Some readers will label me as biased or polemical. I am a little. I’ve always suspected that the bible was untrue. As a child, irrational ideas were forced on me, and I have a small chip on my shoulder about that. It annoys me that all those years ago my teachers didn’t respect the truth.

Yet I tried to start my investigations with an open mind and a clean slate. I scoured Christian literature searching for good facts to underpin the conventional Christian position, but they don’t exist. The more I learned, the more obviously untenable and manufactured the “conventional” Christian version of events became.

This book took seven years to research. During that time I showed some of my writing to scores of devout Christians, or had real conversations with them, and invited their comments. What was making them tick? What didn’t I understand? Was I missing the “big picture?” None of them were willing or able to discuss the history in any depth. Some told me they didn’t have time to talk, or ignored me. Some said their faith was unshakeable, so there was no point discussing it. They were out of their depth discussing real history, and what’s more, weren’t genuinely interested in it either! They labeled me as biased, but they weren’t fazed enough to follow up with some fact finding for themselves.

To defend Christianity based on historical truth is impossible! One can’t ignore the history. I haven’t manufactured the holes in the story; they’ve always been there.
I’m not that interesting, so it’s of little consequence if I’m biased, or a too zealous atheist. This isn’t a book about me. It’s a book containing hundreds of facts and concepts, and they each deserve consideration. That’s interesting.

Most Christians are willing to preach or sit in a pew for hours, but not to explore the real history. That strikes me as having too narrow a curriculum. When facts are discussed, most zealous Christians feel uncomfortable, so slink off out of the spotlight or become confrontational. They often question their antagonist’s credentials or motives.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOndIzXAytA). Yet most of them have no idea about the real history of their religion.

Some apologists use logical fallacies to justify their beliefs; for example
- a lot of other people believe too (argumentum ad numerum,)
or they appeal to the testimony of an authority not discussing their speciality. (argumentum ad verecundiam,)
or it’s a very popular belief (argumentum ad populum,)
or it’s a very old belief (argumentum ad antiquitatem,)
or the belief has been repeated often (argumentum ad nauseam,)
or they’re afraid of the consequences of not believing (argumentum ad baculum,)
or it’s not yet been proven false (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
None of these fallacies are based on a rational examination of facts.

I’m not arrogant enough to claim that all my “facts” or opinions are the last word on the way things were. Pick up any historical work and there’ll be multiple different angles proposed, so some historians will disagree with some of my writing. It’s the nature of history.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:16 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You, like GoingUp, are equivocating on the meaning of "at that time". RocketSurgeon has pointed this out repeatedly, and yet you both keep doing it. He has never disputed that Nazareth existed in the first century, or at the time the Gospels were written. The question is whether or not it existed at the beginning of the first century -- i.e., when it would have needed to exist in order for Jesus to have grown up there.

You cannot make any progress by arguing against claims that your opponent never made.

Rocketsurgeon has claimed there is no evidence that Nazareth existed in the first century. Yet he himself states he believe that it did exist at the time. I'm still waiting on him to work that out for me.

Rocketsurgeon in my views lacks a particularly coherent view here, and shuffles between defending the views of others that he doesn't hold personally, as respectable positions, and some set of poorly formed views of his own.

He accused the journalist of sensationalizing the findings of IAA, but when it was pointed out to him, that this was supported by the director of IAA dig himself, he suggested IAA was likely fibbing about their own findings, since they're funded by the Israeli government, for the sake of encouraging tourism.

He appears here mostly serving as some sort of proxy for Mark Fulton's view, but when placed into a corner, confesses to not actually sharing Mark's view. He seems more interested in defending the views of others that he personally doesn't hold himself, than actually defending the views he personally holds.

"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, 02:09 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 02:31 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So I'll ask the question I asked earlier again, please outline for us the idealogical differences between the Nazarene sect, and the views expressed in lets say the writer of Mark. Where do the views of Mark Gospels and the Nazarene's diverge, if these ideological differences were so severed that Mark wanted to remove any association with the Nazarenes in his account.

That's an easy one to answer...

The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!

“Christians at all levels of intelligence and capacity are being denied access to vital information concerning their religion, and this curtailment of information helps breed either an attitude of ill-founded complacency, or one of smug self-certainty. Living in a kind of metaphysical dream, the custodians of ‘old fashioned’ Christianity stumble from one futile explanation of New Testament events to another. Jesus was sinless; Jesus was sexless; Jesus was all-knowing; Jesus is the Savior of the whole World; Jesus is God. Such sentiments slip easily from the lips when the mind has been overtaken by spiritual vertigo due to intellectual undernourishment.”
(Douglas Lockhart)

The Jesus of theology has smothered the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind. To discover the truth, one must winnow out the substance from the gloss.

I think Yeshua was a popular potential messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was crazy brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda wasn’t to preach philosophy. A wandering teacher’s pithy observations on life wouldn’t have wooed crowds, nor attracted the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. People were too poor and the times too hard for that.

Christianity only first emerged decades after his death – and became a religion primarily for Gentiles. It used a story about him to create something new that wasn’t Jewish and that he wouldn’t have understood or approved of. His real story has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries concocted many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than Jews.

He didn’t think he was God’s son, and nor did any of his original disciples. He didn’t suppose he was the savior of the world. He wasn’t the meek lamb of God. To sacrifice himself for Gentile sinners wouldn’t have crossed his mind. He never once thought he was the central figure of a new religious cult. He didn’t rise from the dead. The over imaginative Paul of Tarsus put forward all these fictions. Yeshua never met Paul, yet if he had would have despised him for promoting pagan propaganda.

The Romans actually crucified Jesus twice; once in real life, and then again by lying about his legacy in the Gospels.

It seems odd and rather macabre that people have been told to worship a crucifix. As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, isn’t it in poor taste to advertise the fact? If Jesus were somehow alive today, wouldn’t his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

It can be argued that to keep Yeshua trapped in the Christian paradigm is disrespectful to the real man, and, more importantly, confuses people with a web of complex falsehoods. People may ask whether it makes any sense to:
- Worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian

(http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-...ords=reza) and Peter Cresswell

(http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...ll+jesus). Most of them haven’t had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.

I though I asked a fairly straight forward questions, I guess not. I'm not interested in your personal beliefs.

I want to know the difference between the idealogical beliefs in Mark's Gospels, and that of the Nazarene sect. Because I don't see much of any.

I.e The writer of Mark believed x and y, while the Nazarene sect in contrast believed w and z.

I want to be able to read the early sources we have regarding what the Nazarene sect believed, and then verify if what views you ascribe to them can be reasonably drawn based on the material in question as well.

The alternative is that you're just making things up as you go along.

I want to know the difference between the idealogical beliefs in Mark's Gospels, and that of the Nazarene sect. Because I don't see much of any.


The Nazarenes were fundamentalist Jews, not Christians.

The Nazarenes upheld the Jewish law ...to them there was no such thing as a "new covenant" that replaced their ancient traditions.

The Nazarenes hated Paul's guts, to them he was a heretic. Mark adopted Paul's ideas. Forget the love story portrayed in Acts... This was just early second century propaganda.

The Nazarenes did not think Yeshua was the son of God...that was blasphemy. Jews were, and are, monotheists.

The Nazarenes knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

The Nazarenes did not think Jesus died to save people from their sins, they knew he was executed by the Romans.

The Nazarene's knew Jesus' death was a Roman execution. Marks Gospel made out Jews were responsible for his death.

The Nazarenes were zealots... they were willing to fight against the Romans. Mark's gospel has Jesus saying "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek," "blessed are the meek" and "pay your taxes." No Nazarene would ever say such things.

The Nazarenes were against paying Roman tax, Mark's Gospel has Jesus eating with tax collectors.

The Nazarenes believed the kingdom of God was to be in Israel in the here and now, Mark's Gospel had the kingdom of God in heaven.

In the few centuries after Jesus's death, the Nazarenes were suppressed and persecuted by Christians. The holy Roman Catholic Church, strongly aligned with the Roman government, produced the definitive versions of Mark's Gospel, a Gospel that totally undermined the true history, beliefs and traditions of a proud Nazarene sect. History was written by the winners.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

No. This argument is about the historical truth. We want to know what happened.

It is very obvious you have a pathological paranoia about atheists, who you imagine are out to destroy Christianity. I suspect there is some part of you that has a deep rooted affection for the Jeebus story, and you just can't let it go, and it colours everything you write. Hence your abusive ad hominems against "atheists" and "mythicists." It is why you usually ignore other people's arguments and repeat your own so often.

It's your personal psychological issue which you should see a good psychologist about, rather than venting on public forums.

I think it's the other way around my friend. You have a deep rooted hatred for the Jesus story, and Christianity. Explains your blog, and book, and side trajectory of your life. Did you have some christians early in your life, who did you wrong?

"and side trajectory of your life."

Please explain. I'd like to find out more about me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:16 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You, like GoingUp, are equivocating on the meaning of "at that time". RocketSurgeon has pointed this out repeatedly, and yet you both keep doing it. He has never disputed that Nazareth existed in the first century, or at the time the Gospels were written. The question is whether or not it existed at the beginning of the first century -- i.e., when it would have needed to exist in order for Jesus to have grown up there.

You cannot make any progress by arguing against claims that your opponent never made.

Rocketsurgeon has claimed there is no evidence that Nazareth existed in the first century. Yet he himself states he believe that it did exist at the time. I'm still waiting on him to work that out for me.

Rocketsurgeon in my views lacks a particularly coherent view here, and shuffles between defending the views of others that he doesn't hold personally, as respectable positions, and some set of poorly formed views of his own.

He accused the journalist of sensationalizing the findings of IAA, but when it was pointed out to him, that this was supported by the director of IAA dig himself, he suggested IAA was likely fibbing about their own findings, since they're funded by the Israeli government, for the sake of encouraging tourism.

He appears here mostly serving as some sort of proxy for Mark Fulton's view, but when placed into a corner, confesses to not actually sharing Mark's view. He seems more interested in defending the views of others that he personally doesn't hold himself, than actually defending the views he personally holds.

You are either one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered, or you don't know how to read, or you're just dishonest -- maybe all three. The nation of Israel (as a modern recognized political entity) existed in the 20th century. But it did not exist in the year 1910, even though that year is part of the 20th century. Are you capable of recognizing that distinction? Because you have shown no sign of being so capable. Nazareth could very well have existed "in the first century" (i.e., AD 70) without existing in AD 1. Why do you keep refusing to make that distinction?

Go ahead, run around in circles again and claim that RocketSurgeon (or Mark Fulton or I) said something that we clearly did not say. Twist our words and equivocate -- anything to avoid addressing the actual argument. I'm done communicating with you, you stupid dishonest piece of shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: