Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 07:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote: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: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: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


"So here we have Dr. Mark Fulton, who implies that he...doesn't need to learn anything from anyone"

Oh the irony.Big Grin

"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,"

79

Instead, you, Rene Salm, Ken Humphreys, and many other conspiracy theorists will only serve to poison the minds of the young and the gullible

Oh the irony Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:And, it is clear, you just need someone to trust, someone to follow! How about, instead, thinking for yourself?

Wait...wait, I have to make sure I have this right.

Is a religious fucktard actually saying that someone else "blindly follows" instead of thinking for himself?

I don't know how you can put up with this moron, Mark.

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
02-08-2016, 11:23 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 11:03 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:And, it is clear, you just need someone to trust, someone to follow! How about, instead, thinking for yourself?

Wait...wait, I have to make sure I have this right.

Is a religious fucktard actually saying that someone else "blindly follows" instead of thinking for himself?

I don't know how you can put up with this moron, Mark.

He (GoingUp) has claimed repeatedly in this thread that he is not a theist. However, in his intro post, he claimed to be "a believer". Banjo thinks he's Q. I don't know what to think, except that he's not very polite. But then again, neither are some of his opponents in this debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
02-08-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 10:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 07:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.


Yes I do.


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


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


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


"So here we have Dr. Mark Fulton, who implies that he...doesn't need to learn anything from anyone"

Oh the irony.Big Grin

"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,"

79

Instead, you, Rene Salm, Ken Humphreys, and many other conspiracy theorists will only serve to poison the minds of the young and the gullible

Oh the irony Facepalm

That's what I mean; you don't even know nor understand the ramifications of what you are doing. You cannot even muster up and adequate response to my post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 11:54 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 11:03 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:And, it is clear, you just need someone to trust, someone to follow! How about, instead, thinking for yourself?

Wait...wait, I have to make sure I have this right.

Is a religious fucktard actually saying that someone else "blindly follows" instead of thinking for himself?

I don't know how you can put up with this moron, Mark.

Is that what you think, idiot?

Or, in typical myther fashion, are you twisting what I say into something that no longer resembles the truth?

And because I maintain that Nazareth existed, I am somehow then some kind of religious person?

Is that how a myther's logic works?

Oh but of course it does! When a myther has absolutely no hope whatsoever of supporting their arguments- because their arguments are almost as stupid as the myther is- they then throw in the "He must be religious" card onto the table.

You are so fucking predictable that we can see you, and smell you, coming from miles away.

Fuck off you're a joke.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 12:20 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 11:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 11:03 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Wait...wait, I have to make sure I have this right.

Is a religious fucktard actually saying that someone else "blindly follows" instead of thinking for himself?

I don't know how you can put up with this moron, Mark.

He (GoingUp) has claimed repeatedly in this thread that he is not a theist. However, in his intro post, he claimed to be "a believer". Banjo thinks he's Q. I don't know what to think, except that he's not very polite. But then again, neither are some of his opponents in this debate.

Here's my introduction post:


Quote:Not much I can say about myself other than I believe that there must be something great in existence to explain the First Cause argument, so yeah I'm a believer.

If there ever was a First Cause, then there naturally would have to be something to exist as being the First Cause.

So yes, in that respect, I am a believer.

But that First Cause does not mean it's some kind of a god. All it means is that I favor Determinism over Indeterminism, albeit just slightly.

PS: What is this "Q" thing I keep seeing here? Some other poster? He thinks I am a sock puppet? The mods already verified that I am not way back about 130 pages ago HERE.

What is it with you people and your paranoia about socks?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 12:24 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 11:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 11:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  He (GoingUp) has claimed repeatedly in this thread that he is not a theist. However, in his intro post, he claimed to be "a believer". Banjo thinks he's Q. I don't know what to think, except that he's not very polite. But then again, neither are some of his opponents in this debate.

Here's my introduction post:


Quote:Not much I can say about myself other than I believe that there must be something great in existence to explain the First Cause argument, so yeah I'm a believer.

If there ever was a First Cause, then there naturally would have to be something to exist as being the First Cause.

So yes, in that respect, I am a believer.

But that First Cause does not mean it's some kind of a god.

PS: What is this "Q" thing I keep seeing here? Some other poster? He thinks I am a sock puppet? The mods already verified that I am not way back about 130 pages ago HERE.

What is it with you people and your paranoia about socks?

For the record, Banjo is on heavy meds, and I do not think you are a Q sock. Q was a fundamentalist evangelical Christian type who was constantly preaching to us. He "lost a bet" here and left the forum as a result. In my opinion, you are nothing like him. I'm not sure what similarity Banjo sees.

However, those who accept the First Cause argument are generally at least deists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
The First Cause argument...also known as an argument from ignorance.

"Well, I can't conceive of the Universe being uncaused, therefore I believe it has a cause."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The First Cause argument...also known as an argument from ignorance.

"Well, I can't conceive of the Universe being uncaused, therefore I believe it has a cause."

Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism.

""Well, I can't conceive of the Universe being caused, therefore I believe it was not caused."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 12:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 12:24 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  However, those who accept the First Cause argument are generally at least deists.

The problem with deism is that there doesn't appear to be any defined god, unlike normal religionists.

Personally I have no beliefs in any kind of god. If something does exist to explain the 1st cause argument, it could be anything, and certainly not specifically a god.

We just don't know what it could be, if it even exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: