Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2016, 09:52 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 03:41 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 09:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 05:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So does it have to be two or three gospel authors who say something before it becomes "good evidence?" Let's just say that Jesus was closely associated with John then. All four gospels have Jesus being baptised by John or something similar. John was murdered. That would've pissed Jesus off.

The Gospel accounts show Jesus using the death of John to his advantage to promote his religious belief system. It was like he won the lottery.

Quote:Yes I do respect the gospels for some degree of historical value. Yet as Bucky points out they are documents of faith, and they have to be read with a very critical eye.

They are more than just documents of faith. They do have some degree of historical value, as they depict belief systems of the early Christians.

Quote:Yes. Yet it really doesn't quite ring true. Why would Paul, a Pharisee, be persecuting the Nazarenes? Jews didn't really do this to each other, even 2000 years ago. It's a bit like Jehovah witnesses and Catholics today, they might dislike each other, but they don't go around killing each other as a rule.

I think the author of Acts made a big deal out of the antagonism between Paul and the Nazarenes because there was a lot of angst between them, and the author could make out but that was before Paul saw the light and became a Jesus fan.

He persecuted them because he was lead to believe that they posed a threat to the security of the Jewish people of Israel. Like I said in earlier posts, Jesus was being proclaimed as being a Messiah, which carries the connotation of him also being a King. If Caesar thought for one moment that the Jews had made somebody a king without his approval, he would view it as an act of war and send in the Roman legions to destroy them all. The thought of the Roman legions bearing down on Jerusalem to destroy the Jews would undoubtedly invoke great fear among the people, so they needed to stamp out the Nazarenes as proof to Caesar that the problem was eradicated.

But you can't keep a good man down, can you? Hence, the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ took flight, a well played ploy by his followers to demonstrate to the persecuting Jews that they (the Jews) were wrong, and that Jesus had come back from the dead and would destroy all who opposed him and his followers. This story spread like wildfire, and was potent enough to scare many persecuting Jews away from the sect ... including Paul, who believed the resurrection story and out of fear and guilt of his actions, converted.

And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun.

Thumbsup

And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun.


Dunning Kruger. Again.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 10:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 09:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 09:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The Gospel accounts show Jesus using the death of John to his advantage to promote his religious belief system. It was like he won the lottery.


They are more than just documents of faith. They do have some degree of historical value, as they depict belief systems of the early Christians.


He persecuted them because he was lead to believe that they posed a threat to the security of the Jewish people of Israel. Like I said in earlier posts, Jesus was being proclaimed as being a Messiah, which carries the connotation of him also being a King. If Caesar thought for one moment that the Jews had made somebody a king without his approval, he would view it as an act of war and send in the Roman legions to destroy them all. The thought of the Roman legions bearing down on Jerusalem to destroy the Jews would undoubtedly invoke great fear among the people, so they needed to stamp out the Nazarenes as proof to Caesar that the problem was eradicated.

But you can't keep a good man down, can you? Hence, the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ took flight, a well played ploy by his followers to demonstrate to the persecuting Jews that they (the Jews) were wrong, and that Jesus had come back from the dead and would destroy all who opposed him and his followers. This story spread like wildfire, and was potent enough to scare many persecuting Jews away from the sect ... including Paul, who believed the resurrection story and out of fear and guilt of his actions, converted.

And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun.

Thumbsup

And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun.


Dunning Kruger again.

If you think my post does not reflect a decent approximation of history according to the available evidence, please demonstrate how.

If you can't, then the Dunning Kruger effect is all on you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 10:59 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 08:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:As most Essenes were celibate, Yeshua may not have had a family of his own. Nor would he have been bothered with accumulating wealth. He was a man with an altogether different agenda. I think he made a career out of preaching about his political aspirations for Israel. Yeshua was young, poor, oppressed, and almost certainly a religious idealist.

Yeshua was part of the underdog class, and lived in a time and in a place that was a hotbed of political unrest. He had the right pedigree to be a zealot; he talked, lived, and associated with zealots, and he was killed as a zealot, (discussed shortly) so he obviously was a zealot. I think he fashioned himself as the head of a gang of Galilean militants, men who resented the fact that Romans were rulers in God’s holy land. They wanted to free their people from foreign command and create an illustrious Israel. Much of the evidence for this is in the bible.

Yeshua’s stature grew as time went by. The two of them might have planned that once they had established political power in Palestine, John, the heir of Aaron, was to be the new high priest and Yeshua, the descendent of David, the new king of Israel.

This is entire speculation, and has little to no evidence for support. Meaning no offense, but this is a prime target for the meme, "Cool story, bro."

Quote:Consider Jesus’ attitude to violence:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword

Consider the whole of that in its context Matthew Chapter 10.

He is giving his disciples instructions on spreading his message through Israel. He does not give instructions on waging a war. In fact, he tells his disciples in Mat 10:14 "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" and then he says in Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves."

And then he tells them in Mat 10:23 that if they are persecuted "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another." He tells them to flee, not to fight. He is instructing his disciples to bring his message, and if that message is rejected, to be "as harmless as doves" He is telling you that his message will cause arguments and fights, and will be rejected by many. He was comparing his message to a sword because it will cause people to fight with each other.

He goes on to tell us in Mat 10:35 that his message will "set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be those of his own household."

You just can't take stuff out of context and rework what its true meaning is so that it works with your theory. That's not history at all. That's a total fabrication.

Quote:Consider Jesus’ attitude to the rich:

“Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:24, NJB.)

In Jesus’ day the wealthy were in bed with the Romans.

This message has nothing to do with the Romans. The point of this message is that if people worship their possessions more than they worship God, then they will not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. It's just that simple.

Quote:Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free

If I didn't know better, I would say you have read "Yeshua: A Model for Moderns" By Leonard Swidle.

Again, you are using the bible as though it depicts history. However, this section of Luke is one of the parts I have flagged as being only the beliefs of the author, and does not depict an actual event.

Quote:Herod was wary of a coup commanded by John, so had him killed. The Gospel authors deliberately didn’t detail the real reason for John’s death, because it didn’t fit with their invented image of John and Jesus as pacifist evangelists. Josephus also points out that John had criticized Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, which wouldn’t have endeared him to Herod. John’s death in early 28 CE must have been a serious setback.

The Gospel writers could have had it right also. It doesn't make Josephus wrong if the Gospel writers were right. Both stories could be two parts to the same truth.

According to the Gospel writers, Herod had John arrested and thrown in prison, but it wasn't until John was in prison for some time that Herod beheaded him. But the Gospel records do not actually say why John was thrown in prison, but only say he was beheaded because of Herodias.

Josephus tells us why John was thrown in prison, for fear that his popularity could be used to incite Jews to take up arms against Herod. Josephus doesn't tell us John was only killed to fend off a possible rebellion, but also so "that to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself (Herod) into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late."

As you stated, Josephus also points out that John had criticized Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, which wouldn’t have endeared him to Herod. This in Josephus could easily also have factored into why Herod killed John, just as the Gospel records also state.

Both the Gospel records and Josephus are actually almost in perfect harmony regarding the arrest and death of John the Baptist, and this is another fine example of my position that many things in the Gospel records are events that actually happened, which completely contradicts the Mythicists position of total myth.

Quote:These rally calls weren’t what everyone wanted to hear. Some of his fellow Jews

“rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30, KJV.) Why such an angry reaction? Yeshua called for the overthrow of the social structure, and that didn’t suit everyone. There were some powerful people making more than a good living just the way things were. Some of the people would have been petrified at the prospect of a war with Rome.

Complete speculation again, and this speculation finds absolutely no support in that chapter of Luke. And again you are taking it out of context. This story begins in Luke 4:16. It relates that Jesus came into his hometown of Nazareth, read from the Torah, and proclaimed himself to be a prophet.

The people there who knew him question his claim of a prophet because they knew his father. He explained that a prophet is without honor or belief among his own kindred, and gave examples how such respected prophets such as Elijah and Elisha were also not believed among their own people, and how those prophets went out to other people and helped them instead of their own people in Israel.

His point here was that he claimed to be a prophet, and since the people of his own hometown questioned his prophet-hood, he would leave them and go help people someplace else.

That pissed off the people in the synagogue and they basically tried to throw him out of town, literally. That's all it says. Stop reading into this stuff. You'll go mad. It's already right there in black and white.

The rest of what you wrote is far too massive of a wall of text that I am not interested in refuting it for the next 2 or 3 days, but since it continues the same theme as what I have already addressed, then the same analysis of it applies.

You are taking things out of their context and inventing an entirely different story, for whatever reason remains a total mystery to me. Very little of what you wrote has any supporting evidence whatsoever, and any claims that the gospel records somehow verifies your position leaves you facing numerous problems since you are, without question, forced to concede the historical accuracy of those gospel verses if you really believe your own claims.

Not only that, but the very verses of the gospel you are using are all taken out of context, and then you attach an interpretation of them that has absolutely nothing to do with them when they are placed back into their actual original context.

Please discontinue these massive walls of text, and find a way to make your posts get to the gist of what you are trying to say in as few words as possible. Seriously Mark, nobody has the time to address a 7,350 word post, which works out to 17 pages in my Microsoft Word program.

"You just can't take stuff out of context and rework what its true meaning is so that it works with your theory. That's not history at all. That's a total fabrication."

I can look at the bare facts of a story and work out what really happened. You can't. You have to believe what they (the authors) are trying to sell you, what you call the "true meaning," just like a good little sheep.

Take a big breath, stretch your legs, and come back to the real world. This is not rocket science.

A Jewish peasant from an unruly backwater of Palestine, Galilee, wandered the countryside for a year or so with a following of fellow young men, all poor Jews, talking to crowds. His cousin, or his mate, had been executed for being a potential zealot. He, too, had to watch his back. At Passover, he entered Jerusalem, and the Jewish crowds got excited. The chief priests, allies of Rome, knew he was a zealot. He was captured by Roman troops, and crucified between two zealots. All this happened at a time when Palestine was a teaming hotbed of Jewish, and particularly Galilean, discontent at the Roman occupation.

Years later, after a large war with the Jews, anonymous pro Roman authors wrote stories about "him." They turned him into the Jewish messiah...but one that had already been and gone, as by that time, Rome was getting pissed off with wannabe messiahs. They made him half Jewish, and half something else. They pretended he was a pacifist preacher, and had the audacity to blame the Jews, his own people, for his death. They even made out that he was somehow the son of the Jewish God. They claimed he embraced Gentiles, that he heaped shit on his fellow Jews, and that he made fun of their beliefs.

All of this reeks of propaganda and crowd manipulation. The government was clever...using ideas and beliefs was much cheaper and easier than having to use the military...or so they thought. Jewish people never bought any of this nonsense...there was another messiah and a second war in 132-6.

I suggest you wipe the cobwebs out of your thinking, along with your smug self righteousness, and put some down to earth thought into the history.

And...you don't get to tell me what I post. Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 11:17 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 04:09 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 09:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 05:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So does it have to be two or three gospel authors who say something before it becomes "good evidence?" Let's just say that Jesus was closely associated with John then. All four gospels have Jesus being baptised by John or something similar. John was murdered. That would've pissed Jesus off.

The Gospel accounts show Jesus using the death of John to his advantage to promote his religious belief system. It was like he won the lottery.

Quote:Yes I do respect the gospels for some degree of historical value. Yet as Bucky points out they are documents of faith, and they have to be read with a very critical eye.

They are more than just documents of faith. They do have some degree of historical value, as they depict belief systems of the early Christians.

Quote:Yes. Yet it really doesn't quite ring true. Why would Paul, a Pharisee, be persecuting the Nazarenes? Jews didn't really do this to each other, even 2000 years ago. It's a bit like Jehovah witnesses and Catholics today, they might dislike each other, but they don't go around killing each other as a rule.

I think the author of Acts made a big deal out of the antagonism between Paul and the Nazarenes because there was a lot of angst between them, and the author could make out but that was before Paul saw the light and became a Jesus fan.

He persecuted them because he was lead to believe that they posed a threat to the security of the Jewish people of Israel. Like I said in earlier posts, Jesus was being proclaimed as being a Messiah, which carries the connotation of him also being a King. If Caesar thought for one moment that the Jews had made somebody a king without his approval, he would view it as an act of war and send in the Roman legions to destroy them all. The thought of the Roman legions bearing down on Jerusalem to destroy the Jews would undoubtedly invoke great fear among the people, so they needed to stamp out the Nazarenes as proof to Caesar that the problem was eradicated.

But you can't keep a good man down, can you? Hence, the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ took flight, a well played ploy by his followers to demonstrate to the persecuting Jews that they (the Jews) were wrong, and that Jesus had come back from the dead and would destroy all who opposed him and his followers. This story spread like wildfire, and was potent enough to scare many persecuting Jews away from the sect ... including Paul, who believed the resurrection story and out of fear and guilt of his actions, converted.

And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun.

Thumbsup

"the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ took flight, a well played ploy by his followers to demonstrate to the persecuting Jews that they (the Jews) were wrong,"


I agree, of course, that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. Yet I've never found one iota of evidence that the original followers of Jesus made it up. Paul (who never met Jesus)... yes, although I think he was referring to his Christ, not to the Jesus of the gospels.

It was the gospels' authors that made out that Jesus rose from the dead, and they most definitely were not the original disciples of Jesus.

In fact it can be argued that the original Mark's gospel, the first of the four to be written, had no resurrection story in it at all...that it was only interpolated into that Gospel at a later date. It is quite possible that the resurrection stories in the other gospels were added in later too. Those authors did, after all, use "Mark's" gospel (minus a resurrection appearance of Jesus) as a template. I don't know if that was the case, but it is a possibility. If so, it would've been in the second century after Paul's nonsense about a resurrected Christ was popular, that a resurrected Jesus would then have been incorporated into the gospel stories to create Christianity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
There is only one gospel story. What is euphemistically known as gMark. Matty and Luke are expansions of the original (fanfics with some added content that they made up) and 'john' is a complete re-write.

But there is only one bullshit story no matter how many times it was modified to suit local conditions.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
31-07-2016, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 03:55 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 10:07 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 09:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun.


Dunning Kruger again.

If you think my post does not reflect a decent approximation of history according to the available evidence, please demonstrate how.

If you can't, then the Dunning Kruger effect is all on you.

"If you think my post does not reflect a decent approximation of history according to the available evidence, please demonstrate how."

Sure. You wrote

"But you can't keep a good man down, can you? Hence, the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ took flight, a well played ploy by his followers to demonstrate to the persecuting Jews that they (the Jews) were wrong, and that Jesus had come back from the dead and would destroy all who opposed him and his followers. This story spread like wildfire, and was potent enough to scare many persecuting Jews away from the sect ... including Paul, who believed the resurrection story and out of fear and guilt of his actions, converted."

1. Please read my post above. If you have any evidence, and I mean good evidence, that any of the original followers of Jesus thought he had risen from the dead, please post it. In this particular instance, quotations from the gospels or from the book of Acts will not do, as both you and I know Jesus didn't rise from the dead, so these authors were creating a myth ie lying.

2. Please provide some good evidence that Paul believed a resurrection story about the gospel's Jesus. I grant you there is one line in one of his letters that suggests a risen Jesus appeared to him, (and I think it is an interpolation.) If Jesus had appeared to Paul, Paul would've taken the trouble to describe his appearance. Paul didn't. If Paul genuinely believed that a Jesus had risen from the dead he would have written more about this. All he wrote about was his ghost, his Christ, who rose from the dead. Not the Jesus we know from the gospels. We have copies of none of Paul's original letters, so we can't be sure "Jesus" wasn't written it to the spiel after the gospels were written. Think about it with an open mind.

3. Paul did not "convert" to anything. He had "revelations" ie he made his own stuff up. He says so, many times. He thought the pillars had "nothing to add to the news I preach." You, however, imply he joined and learned from the Nazarenes. Please provide the smallest bit of evidence that Paul learned anything about Jesus from any of Jesus' original disciples or family.

These are some of the reasons I think your posts do not reflect a "decent approximation of the history."

You missed the point about Dunning Kruger. It is not just about getting the history wrong, but about being so damn sure you are right because you don't know enough to realise your own deficiencies.

You come across as self righteous and arrogant...for example

"And now you just learned how a historian can view the evidence. Try it, it's more rewarding and far more fun."

You are making out that you are the historian and I'm not, whereas in fact, you just have a different opinion to mine. That's Dunning Kruger.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 03:40 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 08:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:As most Essenes were celibate, Yeshua may not have had a family of his own. Nor would he have been bothered with accumulating wealth. He was a man with an altogether different agenda. I think he made a career out of preaching about his political aspirations for Israel. Yeshua was young, poor, oppressed, and almost certainly a religious idealist.

Yeshua was part of the underdog class, and lived in a time and in a place that was a hotbed of political unrest. He had the right pedigree to be a zealot; he talked, lived, and associated with zealots, and he was killed as a zealot, (discussed shortly) so he obviously was a zealot. I think he fashioned himself as the head of a gang of Galilean militants, men who resented the fact that Romans were rulers in God’s holy land. They wanted to free their people from foreign command and create an illustrious Israel. Much of the evidence for this is in the bible.

Yeshua’s stature grew as time went by. The two of them might have planned that once they had established political power in Palestine, John, the heir of Aaron, was to be the new high priest and Yeshua, the descendent of David, the new king of Israel.

This is entire speculation, and has little to no evidence for support. Meaning no offense, but this is a prime target for the meme, "Cool story, bro."

Quote:Consider Jesus’ attitude to violence:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword

Consider the whole of that in its context Matthew Chapter 10.

He is giving his disciples instructions on spreading his message through Israel. He does not give instructions on waging a war. In fact, he tells his disciples in Mat 10:14 "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" and then he says in Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves."

And then he tells them in Mat 10:23 that if they are persecuted "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another." He tells them to flee, not to fight. He is instructing his disciples to bring his message, and if that message is rejected, to be "as harmless as doves" He is telling you that his message will cause arguments and fights, and will be rejected by many. He was comparing his message to a sword because it will cause people to fight with each other.

He goes on to tell us in Mat 10:35 that his message will "set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be those of his own household."

You just can't take stuff out of context and rework what its true meaning is so that it works with your theory. That's not history at all. That's a total fabrication.

Quote:Consider Jesus’ attitude to the rich:

“Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:24, NJB.)

In Jesus’ day the wealthy were in bed with the Romans.

This message has nothing to do with the Romans. The point of this message is that if people worship their possessions more than they worship God, then they will not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. It's just that simple.

Quote:Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free

If I didn't know better, I would say you have read "Yeshua: A Model for Moderns" By Leonard Swidle.

Again, you are using the bible as though it depicts history. However, this section of Luke is one of the parts I have flagged as being only the beliefs of the author, and does not depict an actual event.

Quote:Herod was wary of a coup commanded by John, so had him killed. The Gospel authors deliberately didn’t detail the real reason for John’s death, because it didn’t fit with their invented image of John and Jesus as pacifist evangelists. Josephus also points out that John had criticized Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, which wouldn’t have endeared him to Herod. John’s death in early 28 CE must have been a serious setback.

The Gospel writers could have had it right also. It doesn't make Josephus wrong if the Gospel writers were right. Both stories could be two parts to the same truth.

According to the Gospel writers, Herod had John arrested and thrown in prison, but it wasn't until John was in prison for some time that Herod beheaded him. But the Gospel records do not actually say why John was thrown in prison, but only say he was beheaded because of Herodias.

Josephus tells us why John was thrown in prison, for fear that his popularity could be used to incite Jews to take up arms against Herod. Josephus doesn't tell us John was only killed to fend off a possible rebellion, but also so "that to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself (Herod) into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late."

As you stated, Josephus also points out that John had criticized Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, which wouldn’t have endeared him to Herod. This in Josephus could easily also have factored into why Herod killed John, just as the Gospel records also state.

Both the Gospel records and Josephus are actually almost in perfect harmony regarding the arrest and death of John the Baptist, and this is another fine example of my position that many things in the Gospel records are events that actually happened, which completely contradicts the Mythicists position of total myth.

Quote:These rally calls weren’t what everyone wanted to hear. Some of his fellow Jews

“rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30, KJV.) Why such an angry reaction? Yeshua called for the overthrow of the social structure, and that didn’t suit everyone. There were some powerful people making more than a good living just the way things were. Some of the people would have been petrified at the prospect of a war with Rome.

Complete speculation again, and this speculation finds absolutely no support in that chapter of Luke. And again you are taking it out of context. This story begins in Luke 4:16. It relates that Jesus came into his hometown of Nazareth, read from the Torah, and proclaimed himself to be a prophet.

The people there who knew him question his claim of a prophet because they knew his father. He explained that a prophet is without honor or belief among his own kindred, and gave examples how such respected prophets such as Elijah and Elisha were also not believed among their own people, and how those prophets went out to other people and helped them instead of their own people in Israel.

His point here was that he claimed to be a prophet, and since the people of his own hometown questioned his prophet-hood, he would leave them and go help people someplace else.

That pissed off the people in the synagogue and they basically tried to throw him out of town, literally. That's all it says. Stop reading into this stuff. You'll go mad. It's already right there in black and white.

The rest of what you wrote is far too massive of a wall of text that I am not interested in refuting it for the next 2 or 3 days, but since it continues the same theme as what I have already addressed, then the same analysis of it applies.

You are taking things out of their context and inventing an entirely different story, for whatever reason remains a total mystery to me. Very little of what you wrote has any supporting evidence whatsoever, and any claims that the gospel records somehow verifies your position leaves you facing numerous problems since you are, without question, forced to concede the historical accuracy of those gospel verses if you really believe your own claims.

Not only that, but the very verses of the gospel you are using are all taken out of context, and then you attach an interpretation of them that has absolutely nothing to do with them when they are placed back into their actual original context.

Please discontinue these massive walls of text, and find a way to make your posts get to the gist of what you are trying to say in as few words as possible. Seriously Mark, nobody has the time to address a 7,350 word post, which works out to 17 pages in my Microsoft Word program.

Both the Gospel records and Josephus are actually almost in perfect harmony regarding the arrest and death of John the Baptist,

No. The gospels left out the bit that John was a political threat to Herod.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 04:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 09:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 05:57 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  And what fucking evidence would that be?

All the evidence put forth by a consensus of historians who can run circles around your education while disrobing themselves, greasing themselves up, and then having sex with 10 other people at the same time while giving you just the finger.

They would just tease you, but you would never be invited to the orgy.

Big Grin


"All the evidence put forth by a consensus of historians who can run circles around your education while disrobing themselves, greasing themselves up, and then having sex with 10 other people at the same time while giving you just the finger.

They would just tease you, but you would never be invited to the orgy.
"

This is pathetic.

You were asked for evidence of a claim, and you respond with a cheap ad hominem and ( for the hundredth time, ) your "consensus of historians" line, rather than the evidence.
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
31-07-2016, 07:54 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Good luck, Mark. I gave up after I quoted one of the experts he listed, saying that some of the experts are beginning to discuss the possibility that there was no Nazareth in the first half of the First Century, and he continued to use that "consensus of the historians" line anyway.

I guess he feels that if he asserts it forcefully and emotionally enough, it will overcome the fact that (as I have repeatedly pointed out) the experts do not agree entirely on this point, and that the evidence he has cited still does not definitively point to an early FC town (only that it admits to the possibility, which is what you see when you read their reports rather than the public-consumption versions), let alone the other things he is asserting, but that it must be inferred from the speed at which it is presumed, by the experts he is quoting, that a town can be built up under normal circumstances (ignoring the abnormal circumstances of the single greatest event of that century in that region happening right about the time the city shows up in the record).

Despite all the protestations about being interested only in the history, and in intellectual honesty, I have seen little in the way of that other than appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks against our character, intelligence, etc.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
31-07-2016, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 10:34 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-07-2016 10:59 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:"You just can't take stuff out of context and rework what its true meaning is so that it works with your theory. That's not history at all. That's a total fabrication.

I can look at the bare facts of a story and work out what really happened.

No, what you are doing is taking quotes out of context from the gospel- which you have consistently stated is a complete myth- and then fabricate a story around that quote.

You do not even have any evidence for your fabrication.

Quote:You can't.

I do it all day long. In fact I did it regarding why Paul persecuted the followers of Jesus, and also with how the resurrection story took hold. I did it by using the evidence without extracting a single quote out of context.

Why? Because that is how a historian does things.

Quote:You have to believe what they (the authors) are trying to sell you, what you call the "true meaning," just like a good little sheep.

Says the wannabe historian who claims the gospel records are fake, yet uses them to further his agenda as if they were history. Just like you can't have it both ways, you also shouldn't be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:A Jewish peasant from an unruly backwater of Palestine, Galilee, wandered the countryside for a year or so with a following of fellow young men, all poor Jews, talking to crowds. His cousin, or his mate, had been executed for being a potential zealot. He, too, had to watch his back. At Passover, he entered Jerusalem, and the Jewish crowds got excited. The chief priests, allies of Rome, knew he was a zealot. He was captured by Roman troops, and crucified between two zealots. All this happened at a time when Palestine was a teaming hotbed of Jewish, and particularly Galilean, discontent at the Roman occupation.

And where did you get this information from? The "fake" gospel record?

Facepalm

Quote:Years later, after a large war with the Jews, anonymous pro Roman authors wrote stories about "him." They turned him into the Jewish messiah...but one that had already been and gone, as by that time, Rome was getting pissed off with wannabe messiahs. They made him half Jewish, and half something else. They pretended he was a pacifist preacher, and had the audacity to blame the Jews, his own people, for his death. They even made out that he was somehow the son of the Jewish God. They claimed he embraced Gentiles, that he heaped shit on his fellow Jews, and that he made fun of their beliefs.

All of this reeks of propaganda and crowd manipulation. The government was clever...using ideas and beliefs was much cheaper and easier than having to use the military...or so they thought. Jewish people never bought any of this nonsense...there was another messiah and a second war in 132-6.

And where did you get this information from? Is it evidenced in ancient historical documents, or did you fabricate this all in your head?

Facepalm

Quote:I suggest you wipe the cobwebs out of your thinking, along with your smug self righteousness, and put some down to earth thought into the history.

If you think what you are writng is "down to earth," then perhaps you could explain to me why no one in the scholarly community takes your book seriously enough to even bother reviewing it?

They won't even read it, and for good reason. It's rubbish.

Quote:And...you don't get to tell me what I post. Big Grin

Well then waste your time by inflating your ego with another 17 page post that only continues to demonstrate that you can fabricate history far better than any ancient ancient writer could ever hope to accomplish.

Even the writings of the ancient believers are far more believable than anything you are writing.

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