Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2016, 05:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 05:16 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 12:35 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism.

""Well, I can't conceive of the Universe being caused, therefore I believe it was not caused."
Thats usually not how claims are evaluated.
Not accepting one belief does not automatically mean to accept the opposite belief.

When we have two claims (i believe the universe to be caused / not caused), the claims are evaluated separately. So for the claim "i believe the universe is caused", you can either believe it or not. That (the latter one) does not adress at all the separate claim of "i believe the universe was not caused (by anything)". This claim is separately evaluated by "i believe" or "i dont believe".

It is done the same way in law: When the prosecution claims that (the indicted person) is guilty, we do not evaluate the two prongs thats he is guilty or innocent (two separate prongs), but we evaluate "he is guilty". Therefore the judgement is "guilty" or "not guilty", and not "guilty" or "innocent". The innocence claim is a different one and evaluated separately.

We dont say "i dont think hes guilty, therefore i think he is innocent" in court.

So if TBD doesnt believe one claim, it is a straw man to suggest he (indirectly) claimed to hold the opposing belief. TBD may say "i dont know" to both claims, making GoingUps response indeed a red herring.

No one seems to understand my position.

I was agreeing with him.

That is why I said, "Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism."

Both are arguments from ignorance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 05:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No one seems to understand my position.

I was agreeing with him.

That is why I said, "Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism."

Both are arguments from ignorance.

I always liked this contemporary account.

[Image: 9368cca5fd8137a1ae12c3300d218ddc.jpg]

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, 09:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles.

LOL
You forgot the part about how he hallucinated meeting Jesus.
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 02:53 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 04:56 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 03:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
You cannot even muster up and adequate response to my post.


You are asking me to respond to your post about how shitty my whole book is, and how I'm ruining the world, how insignificant I am, and how I don't know a scrap about history. What would be the point? You have revealed your true colours...you are a dyed in the wool Jeebus fan. You are paranoid about all atheists and their arguments. You cannot stick to an interesting discussion of the history without 1. repeating your tired arguments again and again, 2. abusing people who don't agree with you.

That is why this discussion has degenerated.

No, this discussion degenerates because those of you who have no clue about actual history continue to insist that you have some kind of a viable argument against the evidence and a large body of professionals in unanimity.

It degenerates because it is glaringly obvious that the motives for your withholding validation of the consensus has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever, and instead it has everything to do with your extreme bias against that religion. This makes you a DENIALIST to such an extreme that the truth- or the best approximation of it- is completely irrelevant to you.

All that matters to you is your burning desire to put an end to Christianity, no matter what. You will fabricate your own version of Christianity history. You will rail against all the scholars who do not support your position. They are all wrong as far as you are concerned, because it is absolutely imperative that you be right.

You who is a doctor- who learns virtually on a daily basis from other doctors who represent a consensus of professionals- put all your trust into those professionals because you have learned that the chances of them being correct is exceedingly high.

Yet, you have a problem with me- another professional- who also trusts a consensus of professionals because it is my experience that the chances of them being correct is also exceedingly high?

Now you can see why I say that you have absolutely no interest in history, nor any interest at all in representing it properly, because it is clearly obvious that you have absolutely no respect for it whatsoever.

Drinking Beverage

"....against the evidence and a large body of professionals in unanimity."

80.

"Yet, you have a problem with me- another professional- who also trusts a consensus of professionals ..."

81.

Yawn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 03:13 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2016 03:58 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Contemporary:

1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time:

2. of about the same age or date

3. of the present time; modern:

4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

5. a person of the same age as another.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/contemporary

Paul lived during the time of Jesus, and whether or not he ever met him has nothing to do with the fact that he was a contemporary.

Nuff said.

Big Grin

He provides no contemporary evidence for Jesus (the entire point of the thread). So simply citing Paul as "evidence" and saying he was a contemporary, is asinine and another red herring.

Paul's date of birth isn't the question or point. The lack of contemporary evidence is.

Thankyou. You make an essential point. Paul was a contemporary of a (probable) Jesus, yet he writes virtually nothing about Jeebus.

An analogy. I'm a "contemporary" of John Lennon. In fact, I'm a fan. If I were to write a biography about the Beatles, and all I wrote about John was "he was around, then he died," my readers would rightly conclude I knew fuck all about John Lennon.

Paul knew fuck all about Jesus Christ.

Most reading this will appreciate what a mockery that fact makes of the supposed details of Jeebus' life in the gospels. Paul didn't know he knew fuck all about Jesus, because "Jesus" hadn't yet been created by the gospels' authors.

Another analogy. Mickey Mouse is a funny animal cartoon character and the official mascot of The Walt Disney Company. He was created by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks at the Walt Disney Studios in 1928. Noone in 1918 had ever heard of Mickey Mouse. They knew the name "Mickey," and knew what a Christ... oops I mean a mouse was...but "Mickey Mouse" meant nothing to them. Paul dreamed about "Mickey Mouse," but no one knows what his dream was about, and it wasn't the cartoon character we see on our televisions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 04:19 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2016 05:45 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 01:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  He provides no contemporary evidence for Jesus (the entire point of the thread). So simply citing Paul as "evidence" and saying he was a contemporary, is asinine and another red herring.

Paul's date of birth isn't the question or point. The lack of contemporary evidence is.

Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles. He also became a follower of Jesus, so he says.

He provides heaps of contemporary evidence.

You don't have to like it, but it is exactly what it is.

"He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles. He also became a follower of Jesus, so he says. He provides heaps of contemporary evidence. You don't have to like it, but it is exactly what it is."

Yes.. we know. The evidence is there. Ain't it great! It's almost too much! Paul was a real fanboy of Jesus. He set up a facebook page, that has survived to this very day, on which all the people who knew Jeebus got together and exchanged anecdotes. There is heaps of contemporary evidence from primary sources. James, his brother, Jude his other brother, Mary his mum, the other Mary (his on again off again girl,) Peter, John, and all his other drinking buddies rabbeted on together into the early hours of the night with stories about Jeeby. Open up any of Paul's letters, and it's all there in black and white. Ain't we lucky that Paul could read and write in Greek, whereas everyone else who knew Jeeby couldn't? What a lucky coup...Paul's "memoirs of Christ," all beautifully documented for future generations. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 04:55 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2016 05:21 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles.

LOL
You forgot the part about how he hallucinated meeting Jesus.
Facepalm

A large body of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus. Scripture tells us this not once, but twice! This is history... the written evidence, not to mention the archaeological evidence ( can you deny Damascus existed? Surely it had a road? How da fuck could people get there if there was no road?) The mythers and atheists who want to destroy the faith of children are denying the existence of roads, ghosts and Jesus! Unbelievable! I'm highly trained, and I believe I know a road, and a ghost, in context, when I see it. The vast majority of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.

If you don't want to believe there was a Damascus or a road or a ghost, that's fine by me , but a consensus of professionals acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.
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
03-08-2016, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2016 05:31 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles.

LOL
You forgot the part about how he hallucinated meeting Jesus.
Facepalm


Attached File(s)
.html  Paul smoking Mj.html (Size: 33.88 KB / Downloads: 15)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 07:48 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 05:23 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 01:41 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually, he does provide contemporary evidence for Jesus. He talked to his brother James frequently, and other apostles. He also became a follower of Jesus, so he says.

He provides heaps of contemporary evidence.

You don't have to like it, but it is exactly what it is.

My understanding of the myth is that Jesus was already dead and gone when Paul was on the road to Damascus and A blinding light got to him. ANd further in the fable was that Jesus spoke to him from the dead. SO how could he have met Jesus while alive if his story was to be believed?

Who ever claimed Paul met Jesus while he was alive? That's not what "contemporary" means. I never met Elvis or JFK either (nor have I met Obama), but I'm a contemporary of all of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-08-2016 04:55 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LOL
You forgot the part about how he hallucinated meeting Jesus.
Facepalm

A large body of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus. Scripture tells us this not once, but twice! This is history... the written evidence, not to mention the archaeological evidence ( can you deny Damascus existed? Surely it had a road? How da fuck could people get there if there was no road?) The mythers and atheists who want to destroy the faith of children are denying the existence of roads, ghosts and Jesus! Unbelievable! I'm highly trained, and I believe I know a road, and a ghost, in context, when I see it. The vast majority of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.

If you don't want to believe there was a Damascus or a road or a ghost, that's fine by me , but a consensus of professionals acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.

I'm generally a fan of yours, Mark, but I think you're being a bit unfair here. It's quite possible to believe that there is an element of history both in the Gospels and in Acts (i.e., people like Jesus and Paul did exist, and did do some of the things attributed to them in those books) without accepting all of the miracles, etc. I myself think that Paul's "vision" on the road to Damascus is either a made-up story, or has some natural explanation (maybe an epileptic fit?), and that the miracles of Jesus (including the Resurrection) are bullshit, but I am willing to accept that Jesus and Paul were probably real historical people (and that Jesus really was from Nazareth -- it's the Bethlehem stuff that smells like bullshit to me). GoingUp has never said, or even suggested, that he thinks Paul saw the ghost of Jesus. Keep in mind that this entire thread is only about whether or not Jesus existed, not about his divinity or the truth of Christianity. The subject here is history, not theology or apologetics.

Also, the "consensus of professionals" thing can sound like a cop-out, but consider an analogous situation. You are a professional biologist (like, say, RocketSurgeon), and some creationist who thinks that evolution is bullshit keeps challenging you to provide a list of specific scholars who support evolution. Well, they all do! Where would you even start? The question is just silly. I'm not blindly accepting all of GoingUp's arguments, but if he is a professional in this field (history), and virtually all the other professionals in the field agree with him, it's perfectly reasonable for him to find this continual demand for citations irritating (especially since he has provided some citations).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: