Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Oh Q. Give it up. The writing style, the personality, we know it's you.

Why is it you cannot stay away from us atheists? Is it because you are perhaps losing your faith and these are vain attempts at clasping onto it?

Give it away Q. There is no god. It's all fiction dreamed up by ancient ignorant peoples.

To quote Yury Gagarin, "I see no god up here."

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
01-08-2016, 05:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 04:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(01-08-2016 03:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Selective reading, are you? here ...


Source Here:

Homerun, out of the fucking ballpark.

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

And since she mentions Jesus, alluding to his time, how does that not tell you that in her opinion Jesus may have actually seen the very building(s) their excavation is working on? How does that not tell you that she believes that what she's working on dates to the time of Jesus?

Why would she say that if she didn't think they dated to the time of Jesus?


Quote: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.

Now you are really desperate. The dates range from 50 years before the first century to 50 years into it, and if we simply find the average we have evidence of a settlement there in CE 1.

This is hilarious.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load


Quote:
(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.

Justin W. Bass has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary in New Testament Studies.

He's a biblical scholar. He's debated Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, and upcoming Robert Price. They all respect him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 04:27 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Oh Q. Give it up. The writing style, the personality, we know it's you.

Why is it you cannot stay away from us atheists? Is it because you are perhaps losing your faith and these are vain attempts at clasping onto it?

Give it away Q. There is no god. It's all fiction dreamed up by ancient ignorant peoples.

To quote Yury Gagarin, "I see no god up here."

Too much Star Trek: TNG here?

You're right, there is no god. Never was. It's all fiction dreamed up by ancient ignorant peoples.

So?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 09:19 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
GoingUp /' Wrote:  You're right, there is no god. Never was. It's all fiction dreamed up by ancient ignorant peoples.

So?

Why are you arguing then???

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
02-08-2016, 03:03 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 04:14 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 08:40 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 11:37 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  These are your "all the experts"? You're doing it again, citing to the same couple of guys (and those who copy-paste their opinions as gospel), and representing their claims as if they are universal.

The first part you plagiarized ("these last two discoveries...") comes from that blogger I mentioned, earlier, who is neither an expert nor someone who is objective by the same standard you applied to me. You might as well quote from my blog and call it valid. And yet again, it cites to the work of Ken Dark but ignores what has actually been found. If you look at the link Mr. Blogger cites to for the claim you mention, the "Biblical Archaeology Review" magazine, it's a you'll see it's a Christian (not scholarly) periodical published by no other than this guy:

Hershel Shanks (born March 8, 1930, Sharon, Pennsylvania, United States) is the American founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society and the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review and has written and edited numerous works on Biblical archaeology including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Shanks communicates the world of biblical archaeology to general readers through his magazines, books, and conferences. Hershel Shanks is "probably the world's most influential amateur Biblical archaeologist," wrote New York Times book critic Richard Bernstein. [...] He used the pseudonym "Adam Mikaya" for a few articles published in the Biblical Archaeology Review.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershel_Shanks (Emphasis mine, of course.)

Yeah, he "published" in his own magazine. Neat trick. I thought you hated amateurs?

As to the citation of Bart Ehrman, I don't care what he says there in the slightest, since I can see for myself that the claims he's casually making don't match the published data in the way he is claiming. I can read the actual reports and SEE that none of the data actually supports the claims being made by Dr. Ehrman, in a field (archaeology) that I will note is not his area of expertise. However, he does have a book to promote, and I don't blame him for doing so.

But before you keep berating me for accepting the arguments made by Mr. Salm, which I find more consistent and convincing than the work of Dr. Dark, I will leave you with Salm's description of "pious fraud" and the trouble with those who cite to Dr. Alexandre's unpublished work on the subject:

In biblical archaeology, there is a considerable looseness of terminology regarding what constitutes an “archaeologist.” Regarding those who have actually dug at Nazareth we may ask: How extensive was their scientific training? How rigorous was that training? These are not idle questions for, over and over, we find that the excavators on Catholic Church property have failed to observe standard guidelines of stratigraphy, documentation, publication, and preservation.

Amnon ben Tor, a respected Israeli archaeologist and the author of the well-known reference work, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, notes the pervasive need in some circles to validate scripture, a desire which he finds corrosive of archaeological integrity. He observes that many archaeologists active in the Land of Israel “received a large part of their education at various theological seminaries, while their archaeological training was often deficient.” Ben Tor adds: “This is particularly evident among American archaeologists.” He notes that “This state of affairs has given biblical archaeology a reputation for amateurism in some archaeological circles. Modern scientific excavation is so complex that those who have not received adequate training (which is the case with most of those educated at theological seminaries) cannot conduct” an excavation properly (MoN p. 9).

The excavators digging in the ground at Nazareth have by-and-large been seminary-trained priests, pastors, and ministers intent on seeking out “evidence” that corroborates the gospel accounts. On this basis, their work must be characterized as tendentious. “Tendentious” means that they present data lacking adequate foundation in the material evidence and conforming to preconceived conclusions. I call this “pious fraud.”


(Emphasis my own.)

So you just can't handle the fact that your argument against the existence of Nazareth is refuted by every known professional scholar relative to the field, and you attack ME for that?

I am satisfied with my argument for its existence before, during, and after the 1st century. I trust all the pros involved with it.

But who are you trusting? Some nut-job conspiracy theorist named Rene Salm who has no credentials whatsoever, and who has been completely refuted by all the professionals.

So I am satisfied with who I am siding with, and everybody can see who you are satisfied with. We've both made that abundantly clear.

So why do you insist on continuing this discussion? You need to get the fuck over it, dude. Accept what you believe and move on, before you bore our readers into oblivion.

Big Grin

I trust all the pros involved with it. But who are you trusting?

And, it is clear, you just need someone to trust, someone to follow!

How about, instead, thinking for yourself? Examining the evidence, and coming to your own conclusions? That's what everyone else here has done...except you. I wonder why that might be so? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqlsVZ1zxMk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 03:07 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 07:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You're still doing it! After reading all of these,


Except that Ehrman did a bad job, here. He mentions that it "dates to the time of Jesus", but it does not. It dates to a range that at its low end includes the time of Jesus, if you actually read Yardena Alexandre's report. The only other piece of evidence Ehrman mentions is the coins from just prior to/during the time of Jesus, which are not evidence that pins the site to a specific date... I have coins in my pocket right now that date from the 1970s... but it's 2016.

Ehrman does, however, do an amazing job of trying to validate Dark's work by throwing shade on "lack of qualifications", even though that is not a standard held to when assessing well-documented work by people who confirm the presuppositions in that field of study, as Mark has already shown you in previous posts. Salm has tried repeatedly to get Dark to address the issues, rather than simply attack his lack of qualifications, and he will not do so.


Yes, Ehrman mentions this, too. But he points out that we see wealthy tombs are from after/around the 70 CE date, which validates my hypothesis that people were emigrating there in the wake of the destruction of other cities... and the relative absence of "poor person" tombs Ehrman excuses as being irrelevant because they weren't buried in a way that was preserved. It's hand-waving to excuse the absence of the evidence.


Cool! It's what I've been saying all along. Thanks!



A blog by this guy:

"My name is Eric Hatfield (aka unkleE) and I live in Sydney, Australia. I have worked in environment protection, studied and read widely in theology, New Testament history, philosophy and some areas of science (cosmology, DNA and neuroscience), and have a keen interest in ethics and beliefs in our 21st century culture. I believe in God, try to follow the way of Jesus, and prefer to connect with people of different beliefs rather than argue with them."

Really?!? You do know that repeating the same two peoples' arguments a whole bunch of times doesn't turn it into a more legitimate argument, right?


You made me re-read (yes, I had already read it) a 78 page report only to find yet again that it repeatedly states exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that the pottery dates to a period with a range of possible dates, and that this range only just barely covers the time Jesus was alleged to be growing up there, at the very low end?

The closest thing it says to evidence of earlier habitation is this:

The surface finds include examples at either extreme of the chronological
range of our site. A single potsherd of an Early Bronze Age III platter (Fig.
37:1), with a thickened, incurved rim, represents the earliest find at the
Nazareth Farm. It is finished with a typical burnished net pattern on its
interior surface. To date, no Early Bronze occupation has been recognized
and this is the only artifact recovered from this period at the site.


(Emphasis mine.) So, like my 1970s coins, they had an artifact from earlier, probably some sort of heirloom, which was out-of-date with the main material found there, from the first-to-third-century-C.E. period.


This is the same thing. They are co-authors on the same paper, which still says nothing that supports your contention.


All this does is re-quote Bart Ehrman. This seems to be a theme with you and your "sources".


Well, technically, Jesus would have been dead by 34 C.E., but I get what you're saying. And it's neat that it dates to "the middle of the 1st century", since that's what I've been fucking saying all along.

At some point, are you planning to present actual evidence that we're wrong, or are you going to just keep repeating stuff I've already read like there'll be something else in it, next time?

Dude, if you want to believe that the possibility that Nazareth didn't exist in the early part of the first century is a big enough possibility to warrant substantial doubt, then by all means believe what you like.

I will finish this with a note from the Israel Antiquities Authority:

The conclusions of the archaeologists:

These last two discoveries were seen by the Israel Antiquities Authority and others (The Guardian, the Huffington Post, the Biblical Archaeological Review and New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist right through the first century, and before. 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.

Bart Ehrman has written: René Salm’s claim that Nazareth did not exist in the days of Jesus is dead wrong and is rejected by every recognized authority – whether archaeologist, textual scholar, or historian; whether Jewish, Christian, agnostic, or other.


So go ahead and maintain your doubts, for whatever reason you deem necessary.

Big Grin

"So go ahead and maintain your doubts,.."

You don't like doubt, do you? Better replace it with faith, wouldn't you agree?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 03:27 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 04:27 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Oh Q. Give it up. The writing style, the personality, we know it's you.

Why is it you cannot stay away from us atheists? Is it because you are perhaps losing your faith and these are vain attempts at clasping onto it?

Give it away Q. There is no god. It's all fiction dreamed up by ancient ignorant peoples.

To quote Yury Gagarin, "I see no god up here."

Why is it you cannot stay away from us atheists? Is it because you are perhaps losing your faith and these are vain attempts at clasping onto it?


Nice observation. I've read no further, but your (and our) chance of getting an honest reply are a million to one. Christianity is not about the truth, it's all about pretense.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 04:07 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 06:27 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 09:28 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote: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: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


And you don't have the first clue how to analyze ancient texts if that is how you view them

And you do, right? You wouldn't, by any chance, consider yourself rather an authority on hermeneutics? Does anyone in your world really know how good you are at that?

Here is your big chance, on an atheist forum, to finally get some credit for all the years of swallowing bullshit. You must think this is your chance to regurgitate the spiel, and be the big man.

What a shame for your fragile ego it ain't working out like you hoped... Reputation: 0 GaspWeeping

Chin up. Please keep posting. Throw in some "fucking's" ( to make you sound more authentic) and please tell us all about the "consensus of historians..." just one more time. Never mind the 78 repeats and noone gets you. There may be one or two people out there who just need to be told again.

I'll admit it, you are so good for my ego. I don't want you to go away.
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
02-08-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 09:19 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
GoingUp /' Wrote:  You're right, there is no god. Never was. It's all fiction dreamed up by ancient ignorant peoples.

So?

Why are you arguing then???

This argument, and this topic, have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a god exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 10:22 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:
Quote:I trust all the pros involved with it. But who are you trusting?

And, it is clear, you just need someone to trust, someone to follow! How about, instead, thinking for yourself? Examining the evidence, and coming to your own conclusions? That's what everyone else here has done...except you.

So here we have Dr. Mark Fulton, who implies that he doesn't need to trust anyone, and doesn't need to learn anything from anyone ... and yet you are a doctor?

Should any of your patients trust you? How could they trust you if you did not follow the teachings and the instruction of doctors who came before you? Or, were you born with a stethoscope in your hand?

You should be more careful what you say, because it is exceptionally easy to take your very own words and watch you eat them.

Quote:
Quote:And you don't have the first clue how to analyze ancient texts if that is how you view them

And you do, right?

Yes I do.

Quote:You wouldn't, by any chance, consider yourself rather an authority on hermeneutics?

I am very well versed and experienced in the general interpretation of texts.

Quote:Does anyone in your world really know how good you are at that?

Yes they do. It's part of the reason why I have a job in the history department ... and why you don't.

Quote:
Quote:"So go ahead and maintain your doubts,.."

You don't like doubt, do you? Better replace it with faith, wouldn't you agree?

Doubt always exists with any historian. However, like a judge in a court of civil law who must make a decision of judgment based upon the evidence, historians likewise come to conclusions based upon the evidence. The evidence in this case does not need to be slam dunk. For example, a sign that says "Welcome to Nazareth. The year is CE 34. Jesus lived here" is not required because absolute proof cannot be achieved. With the evidence the truth is always only approximated, and when that evidence is evaluated by a very large body of professional "judges" who all reach the same conclusion that the evidence is more than good enough to warrant existence, then that should be respected.

Sure, we can look at the evidence and come to our own conclusions, or people like you can look at the evidence and either ignore it, or twist it into something so hilarious as to be far beyond the ability to believe and onto the point of ridicule. People such as Rene Salm and Ken Humphreys create web sites, and find a niche of controversy, and write books about it. Then, suckers like you and a few others get drawn into their conspiracy theories and gobble them up like a starving mutt eating out of the garbage bin in a back alley.

You wrote a book all about some Roman conspiracy to create Christianity. You, like many others here, are predisposed to conspiracy theories and other things so far out on the fringe that hardly anybody else knows, or cares to know. You are predisposed with a hatred and extreme bias against Christianity, and therefore the truth regarding history is completely irrelevant to you. The only "truth" acceptable to you is what you so desperately attempt to manufacture; a facade that is impoverished due to the absence of a single brick or cornerstone required to support it. You will make absolutely no difference in the world, and will never further the education of the world in any way, shape, or form in regards to history.

In regards to actual history, you simply don't matter and never will.

Instead, you, Rene Salm, Ken Humphreys, and many other conspiracy theorists will only serve to poison the minds of the young and the gullible and possibly destroy the futures of those who- before they heard of you and got sucked into the fallacious world of conspiracy theorists- could have added something of quality substance to the world.

And to a teacher like me, people who do what you, Salm, and Humphreys do ... are very disgusting.

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