Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2016, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2016 01:18 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:
Quote:I consider what I showed you to be reasonably good evidence.

I believe you that YOU think the gospels are "reasonably good evidence."

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are, in fact, a bible thumping Christian who merely pretends he is an objective historian.

Your pro babble bias is not the only thing that gives your game away. The fact you never get other people's points, and that you repeat yourself ad nauseum, and that you're a lazy thinker, all points to a mind that has been indoctrinated with Christianity.

Why don't you go back to church, where you belong? You can't mix it with the smart people.

Yes, aside from your ad hominems, your hypocrisy has become increasingly clear. Here you attempt to admonish me about using 2 Gospel quotes for my argument when THIS POST of yours- a single post- uses ALMOST 50 FUCKING BIBLE QUOTES to get your point across.

If you want to call me a bible thumper just because you don't like your arguments being ripped apart at the seams, knock yourself out.

But dude, I can call you out as a fucking hypocrite and actually prove it.

Big Grin

Quote:
Quote:I have spent a lifetime analyzing words, and I am trained to intensely view things.

You have great trouble understanding the very simple concept that there are truths, some half truths and many outright lies in these writings.

And you don't have the first clue how to analyze ancient texts if that is how you view them. You, with an atheistic agenda to destroy Christianity as you previously stated ad nausium, are incapable of seeing these ancient texts from the perspective of a non bias historian.

All you WANT to look for are what you perceive to be lies so you can then attack the beliefs of the Christians. You are not looking for any truth whatsoever. In fact, you have consistently demonstrated your hypocrisy by cherry-picking Gospel verses, and proclaiming them to have historical merit if and only if they work with your utterly whacked out theory.

You have absolutely no interest in history whatsoever. None.

Big Grin

Quote:You go to great length explaining what you think the "correct" context is, by which you mean what you think the authors wanted you, the reader, to believe. You are shocked when someone else like me claims he sees through the fabrications and prejudice in the texts and puts forward a hypothesis of what he thinks really happened, not what the author wants the reader to believe happened. That sort of commentary is so far removed from your world you dismiss it without even making the effort to understand it.

Again, how do you think you have any kind of hypothesis when you fabricate the evidence? There is not one single stitch of historical evidence in existence that states that the Roman Empire in any way whatsoever manipulated anything or anyone to create the religion of Christianity back in the 1st century.

Zero. Squat. Fuck-all.

Your stupid theory, in fact, goes against all the actual evidence we have in which we read from Pliny, Trajan, and Tacitus, let alone the numerous Christian records, of how the Romans constantly persecuted the Christian movement. So if the Romans were somehow behind the creation of Christianity in the 1st century, how is it that we can have an emperor and two high ranking statesmen not know anything about it? And why would they be persecuting the very people of the Christian religion that they supposedly created? How the fuck does this even make sense?

Will you now explain this by inventing some fucked up secret society similar to the Illuminati?

No Mark, your house of cards easily collapses for the simple reason that you are not even playing with a full deck.

Big Grin

Quote:Yet what I try to do is is what all real historians do when discussing literature. They place themselves in the shoes of the author(s) so as to understand why they wrote what they wrote, which means understanding the social, political, economic and religious beliefs of the author and the other players he writes about. That takes effort and time.

You haven't done this...you take nearly everything you read in the bible at face value, and then claim anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand it. Yes, you have "spent a lifetime analyzing words," yet you have not understood the history.

You think you can place yourself in the shoes of a historian when you fabricate shit that doesn't even have a shred of evidence to support your even BIGGER pile of shit? Tell me you are not fucking serious?

Dude, your book is a fucking joke, and that is exactly why it doesn't sell and why it will never be worthy enough of even being noticed by a qualified scholar, let alone be reviewed by one. I can already see the look of disgust on the face of any scholar who actually would try to read your book, and know they would be trashing it before they got through the first 100 pages.

You are too far immersed in your pet theories and have no way out. Stick to your medical practice, because history will never be a field you can even begin to understand, let alone write about.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 11:15 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Who the fuck are these "scholars" to whom you keep referring? Last time you made a list of them, it turned out that most of them made no claims of the sort, and/or were simply parroting the claims of Dr. Dark and/or Bart Ehrman.

I keep seeing you reference the same two people (or those who simply cite to the same two individuals), time and again, while the rest only say that they tentatively accept it was there, and overtly say that their basis is tenuous and based on supposition about the rate at which the city was likely to have been built. The evidence itself does not support the active claim. Do you think that if you keep repeating the phrase "all the scholars", it will become true?

And I'm not "trusting" Rene Salm. I first heard of Rene Salm in this thread... he just happens to have come to some of the same conclusions I did, and for several of the same reasons. I do, however, trust Amnon ben Tor, when he says that there is a great deal of misinformation spread by pious frauds who are more interested in proving the Gospel stories aren't just stories than in doing good archaeology.

Again, and again, I say: I have read the reports, by Dr. Alexandre and others who have reported on the finds there, and I see nothing in the actual finds (or the reports) that says anything demonstrating conclusively that the village in which the Gospel stories are claimed to have taken place was at this location, at the time of Jesus.

So when you say "every known professional scholar relative to the field", you are leaning not upon evidence but upon arguments from authority-- and not even the arguments the actual authorities are actually making, but on the additional claims of Ken Dark beyond what is shown by the evidence. I am indeed attacking you for trying to repeat your dishonest "every known professional scholar relative to the field" in spite of what we have shown you about the actual data, as if you think that it will become true by repetition.

I can only conclude that you are a dishonest person, delusional, or simply get an emotional kick out of counting yourself superior to skeptics.

"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
01-08-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 11:15 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Who the fuck are these "scholars" to whom you keep referring? Last time you made a list of them, it turned out that most of them made no claims of the sort, and/or were simply parroting the claims of Dr. Dark and/or Bart Ehrman.

You just cant get over it, can you? Despite the fact that 2 pages ago I randomly selected 6 of those scholars and gave you the links to their reports, all of who agree. Since you will see them all agreeing, of course it will appear like they are parroting each other. When people agree, should they not say something similar to each other?

Go back to your Rene' Salm conspiracy theorist crap. He'll have the answers you so desperately seek. After all, everybody knows how "great" a scholar he is, right?

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 01:28 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
You gave me six scholars, eh? I saw two and a couple of bloggers repeating the same crap.

Then after I read each of the "reports" you linked to, and showed you that they either didn't say anything on the subject, or were parrots of the same report-- not separate examinations of the same material, but rehashes of the same report of the material, you still have the gall to claim you linked six scholars?

What I can't get over is the combination of your arrogance and outright dishonesty.

It's in how you present this information, including your repeated slurs against Salm, about whom I couldn't give two shits, rather than the problems with the information that is being presented. You can call it a "conspiracy theory" all day; I call it critical examination of the evidence actually presented, and not jumping to unfounded presuppositionalist conclusions about that data which are not supported by said data.

If there was a town there, prior to 70 CE, fine. I look forward to evidence of this appearing in the record, rather than evidence which allows a full first and second century range of dates. But it's not a finding supported by the current state of the archaeological knowledge, and requires suppositions to be made which I am not willing to accept in light of an equally-plausible explanation.

"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
01-08-2016, 02:02 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2016 02:16 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 01:28 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What I can't get over is the combination of your arrogance and outright dishonesty.

Dude, either you really are as stupid as the impression you are giving me, or you really are intentionally ignoring the evidence.

1.

Quote:Bart Ehrman - "Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources."

2.

Quote:Yardena Alexandre - "The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means," said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.

3.

Quote:Ken Dark - Based on the number of tombs found previously, many conclude that it was a small agricultural hamlet of about 50 houses, although Ken Dark suggests it may have been a little larger.

Note: How could Ken Dark suggest that 1st century Nazareth may have been larger than 50 houses if he didn't think it existed?

4. & 5.

Quote:Stephan Pfann & Yehudah Rapuano - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report.

Note: Aside from the obvious title "Nazareth Village Farm Report," all you needed to do was actually read the report where they constantly allude to the existence of Nazareth in the early 1st century.

6.

Quote:Justin Bass - This is a guest post by Dr. Justin W. Bass regarding his recent debate with well-known atheist, Dan Barker. The debate topic was “Jesus of Nazareth: Lord or Legend?”

1.) Did Nazareth Exist during the Lifetime of Jesus?

However, archaeological discoveries have definitively proven that Nazareth did, in fact, exist at the time of Jesus.

Enough fucking said. You didn't even bother to investigate the information on those links and then dismissed it wholesale in atypical Jesus Mythicist fashion.

Now either do your fact checking with some fucking semblance of intellectual honesty or get out of the game because now you are just becoming an annoyance.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 12:34 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-08-2016 11:15 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Who the fuck are these "scholars" to whom you keep referring? Last time you made a list of them, it turned out that most of them made no claims of the sort, and/or were simply parroting the claims of Dr. Dark and/or Bart Ehrman.

You just cant get over it, can you? Despite the fact that 2 pages ago I randomly selected 6 of those scholars and gave you the links to their reports, all of who agree. Since you will see them all agreeing, of course it will appear like they are parroting each other. When people agree, should they not say something similar to each other?

Go back to your Rene' Salm conspiracy theorist crap. He'll have the answers you so desperately seek. After all, everybody knows how "great" a scholar he is, right?

Big Grin

Hi Q.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
01-08-2016, 02:46 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-08-2016 01:28 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What I can't get over is the combination of your arrogance and outright dishonesty.

Dude, either you really are as stupid as the impression you are giving me, or you really are intentionally ignoring the evidence.

Think that's what's going on, here? Okay, Q, I'll bite:

(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  1.

Quote:Bart Ehrman - "Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources."

Yes, I acknowledged that Ehrman said this. The "multiple sources" he's referring to are Biblical, which is his field of expertise. I happen to think he is incorrect about his reading of the archaeology, in which he is as amateur as you or I.

(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  2.

Quote:Yardena Alexandre - "The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means," said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Yes, this is the article to which you keep referring. However, she does not say that this definitively dates from the time of Jesus, only that it dates to the era. It's "the kind of" place he would have lived, she says in another video I saw. There's nothing else here, other than your attempt to reference Dr. Alexandre's point that they have found first- or second-century artifacts and a house there. Nothing here at all that I am arguing with, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it except that you're stupid enough to read into this statement something that you think supports your case.

Strike two.

(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  3.

Quote:Ken Dark - Based on the number of tombs found previously, many conclude that it was a small agricultural hamlet of about 50 houses, although Ken Dark suggests it may have been a little larger.

Note: How could Ken Dark suggest that 1st century Nazareth may have been larger than 50 houses if he didn't think it existed?

Ken Dark does think that it existed. He's the primary source for all of this, and I have repeatedly acknowledged this. He's why I keep asking for other experts who back up your claim, instead of any experts.


(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  4. & 5.

Quote:Stephan Pfann & Yehudah Rapuano - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report.

Note: Aside from the obvious title "Nazareth Village Farm Report," all you needed to do was actually read the report where they constantly allude to the existence of Nazareth in the early 1st century.

No they don't. I just read the fucking thing for the second time, as I addressed in my previous post about it. In fact, the entire report makes it clear that they only date the materials to a range of possible dates that at its very low end would include the time of Jesus... a point I have made repeatedly. Nothing there is evidence of a turn-of-the-millennium city of the size Dark contends was there (without evidence).

(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  6.

Quote:Justin Bass - This is a guest post by Dr. Justin W. Bass regarding his recent debate with well-known atheist, Dan Barker. The debate topic was “Jesus of Nazareth: Lord or Legend?”

1.) Did Nazareth Exist during the Lifetime of Jesus?

However, archaeological discoveries have definitively proven that Nazareth did, in fact, exist at the time of Jesus.

You mean Dr. Justin W. Bass, the theology professor and lead pastor of the 1042 Church of The Colony, Texas? (Yes, it's really called that.) Yes, I'm sure he's an objective expert to describe what "all the experts" say on that subject!

Laugh out load

(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Enough fucking said. You didn't even bother to investigate the information on those links and then dismissed it wholesale in atypical Jesus Mythicist fashion.

Now either do your fact checking with some fucking semblance of intellectual honesty or get out of the game because now you are just becoming an annoyance.

Except I did investigate it, and pointed out the flaws in your echo-chamber and in the presentation of the data. I broke down each part of it with a serious reply, which you are now pretending doesn't exist... amusing, since you like to quote me when you think it serves your purpose.

So the intellectual dishonesty here is not on my part, but yours.

No doubt having to ignore my tireless efforts at pointing this out to you gets exhausting, when you go to repeat the same bullshit, again and again. I feel for you, but as I always say, "Lying for Jesus is still lying."

"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
01-08-2016, 02:48 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2016 02:53 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
On another note, I recommend everyone follow that link to the 1042 Church's website... the declarations of faith that scroll across the main page are pretty amusing.

It's a well-built website, I'll grant them that. Must have co$t quite a bit.

Edit to Add: it's called the "1042" Church because of Acts 10:42, which says "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead."

"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
01-08-2016, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2016 08:03 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 02:46 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yes, I acknowledged that Ehrman said this. The "multiple sources" he's referring to are Biblical, which is his field of expertise. I happen to think he is incorrect about his reading of the archaeology, in which he is as amateur as you or I.

Since the archeology works with his scholarship, he uses it to confirm his own professional opinion. Why is he incorrect? Please point out specifically what he is incorrect about.

Quote:Yes, this is the article to which you keep referring. However, she does not say that this definitively dates from the time of Jesus, only that it dates to the era. It's "the kind of" place he would have lived, she says in another video I saw. There's nothing else here, other than your attempt to reference Dr. Alexandre's point that they have found first- or second-century artifacts and a house there. Nothing here at all that I am arguing with, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it except that you're stupid enough to read into this statement something that you think supports your case.

Strike two.

Selective reading, are you? here ...

Quote:"This may well have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with," Alexandre said.

Source Here:

Homerun, out of the fucking ballpark.

Big Grin

Quote:
(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Note: How could Ken Dark suggest that 1st century Nazareth may have been larger than 50 houses if he didn't think it existed?

Ken Dark does think that it existed. He's the primary source for all of this, and I have repeatedly acknowledged this. He's why I keep asking for other experts who back up your claim, instead of any experts.

Ummm ... Ken Dark works with Alexandre. It was Alexandre who suggest 50 houses, and that is why Dark suggested it may be more than 50 houses.

Quote:
(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  4. & 5.


Note: Aside from the obvious title "Nazareth Village Farm Report," all you needed to do was actually read the report where they constantly allude to the existence of Nazareth in the early 1st century.

No they don't. I just read the fucking thing for the second time, as I addressed in my previous post about it. In fact, the entire report makes it clear that they only date the materials to a range of possible dates that at its very low end would include the time of Jesus... a point I have made repeatedly. Nothing there is evidence of a turn-of-the-millennium city of the size Dark contends was there (without evidence).

Obviously you glossed over it looking only for something to refute. But you didn't see this:

The pottery from L44 was almost exclusively Early Roman with potential dates ranging from the first century BC to the third century AD.

A small amount of material dated to the Early Roman period of the first century BC to first century AD was found in Areas A-1, A-2, and C-1.

The pottery recovered from L10 included two everted-rim bowls evidently both of the earlier type, without the distinguishing characteristic of a carinated upper body, dating from the mid-first century BC to mid-second century AD

Fig. 37:5 is the slightly everted rim and cup-shaped neck of a storage jar dating to the mid-first century BC to mid-first century AD

Fig. 42:8 is evidently the body and base of a piriform unguentarium. This form first appeared toward the end of the first century BC and continued to be produced throughout the first century AD


That's just 5 that demonstrate that some of the materials they found dated to the 1st century BCE, let alone the 1st century CE. And there are many many more.

This should suffice to refute your claim of otherwise.

Big Grin

Quote:
(01-08-2016 02:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  6.

You mean Dr. Justin W. Bass, the theology professor and lead pastor of the 1042 Church of The Colony, Texas? (Yes, it's really called that.) Yes, I'm sure he's an objective expert to describe what "all the experts" say on that subject!

Laugh out load

I have atheists, Jews, and 1 Christian all fairly represented. Dr Bass is a scholar of theology and religious history, and is an Adjunct Professor.

Quote:Except I did investigate it,

On the contrary, as I have just demonstrated, you obviously didn't.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 04:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Selective reading, are you? here ...

Quote:"This may well have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with," Alexandre said.

Source Here:

Homerun, out of the fucking ballpark.

That's exactly what I said she said, "may well have". Are you high?

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Obviously you glossed over it looking only for something to refute. But you didn't see this:

Bullshit.

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The pottery from L44 was almost exclusively Early Roman with potential dates ranging from the first century BC to the third century AD.

Another way to say this is "a range of dates" with only "the low end including the time of Jesus", which is what I have been saying all along.

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  A small amount of material dated to the Early Roman period of the first century BC to first century AD was found in Areas A-1, A-2, and C-1.

Another way to say this is "a range of dates" with only "the low end including the time of Jesus", which is what I've been saying all along.

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The pottery recovered from L10 included two everted-rim bowls evidently both of the earlier type, without the distinguishing characteristic of a carinated upper body, dating from the mid-first century BC to mid-second century AD

Another way to say this is "a range of dates" with only "the low end including the time of Jesus", which is what I've been saying all along.

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Fig. 37:5 is the slightly everted rim and cup-shaped neck of a storage jar dating to the mid-first century BC to mid-first century AD

Another way to say this is "a range of dates" with only "the low end including the time of Jesus", which is what I've been saying all along.

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Fig. 42:8 is evidently the body and base of a piriform unguentarium. This form first appeared toward the end of the first century BC and continued to be produced throughout the first century AD[/i]

Another way to say this is "a range of dates" with only "the low end including the time of Jesus", which is what I've been saying all along. (And I'm starting to sense a pattern, here.)

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  That's just 5 that demonstrate that some of the materials they found dated to the 1st century BCE, let alone the 1st century CE. And there are many many more.

I see you have a reading comprehension problem.

(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I have atheists, Jews, and 1 Christian all fairly represented. Dr Bass is a scholar of theology and religious history, and is an Adjunct Professor.

You quoted a Texas preacher and theology professor.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: