Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 08:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 07:51 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Listen, when all who stand up and claim there was corruptness in the Christian church, I am he who stands at the front of the line screaming bloody murder louder than anybody else.

But this fucking bullshit- such as this Eusebius crap- that the Jesus Mythers try to pass of as if its some kind of truth is so far beyond ridiculousness that it amazes me that anybody would actually embarrass themselves by believing it.

I mean the fact that it can be so easily refuted makes it so fucking obvious that it's completely undeniable.

You're hopelessly gone. You can't even mount a coherent reply.

Oh it's coherent enough, but you have it blocked as a means of preserving your position. That's exactly the same thing religionists do.

Quote:How can you group "Jesus mythers" with people who may have a particular opinion about Eusebius? You are clearly just mouthing off abuse at anyone who disagrees with you.

Because that kind of crap begins with Jesus Myther's and historicity deniers and if you are going to spread the same shit, you will get lumped in with the rest of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 08:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 07:00 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 05:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for the bullshits spiel The fact is, Eusebius wrote

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;"

Eusebius was trying to justify lying...something he was remarkably proficient at.

No ... he wasn't. And all your whacked-out attempts to distort history will never change the reality of the past. Here it is again:

PRAEPARATIO EVANGELICA - BOOK XII, CHAPTER XXXI: THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY SOMETIMES TO USE FALSEHOOD AS A REMEDY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO REQUIRE SUCH A MODE OF TREATMENT.

PLATO- "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver (who is to be of ever so little use) could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their own good, is there any falsehood that he could have told that would be more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by being forced to do it, but instead willingly?

"Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men with it."



1. The header at the top says absolutely nothing about what Christians should do in regards to their religion.

2. It is a header, and what it does is provide a brief description of the quote of Plato that follows. This is completely consistent with all the chapters in the book.

3. Now the text that follows is a quote of Plato in which Plato presents an example of how a falsehood (lie) can be beneficial when used to entice people to willingly do whatever is required of them for their own good.

4. Plato's quoted text is 100% consistent with what the header says, demonstrating that the header is intended to preface the text of Plato. Every single chapter of this massive tome does exactly the same thing with their headers.

5. Plato's text demonstrates that it was Plato's opinion that sometimes a lie will work better than the truth at persuading people to do things.

6. Therefore, the header is a preface of the Plato text that follows regarding the comments of Plato, and does not reflect the sentiments of Eusebius.

Very well done, GoingUp.

Don't be so hard on these guys though, they aren't bad people or anything. They just believe what they believe for some reason or another.

*Note to all. I have NOT actually returned. Just checked in briefly as I was watching this discussion from the peanut gallery from time to time and thought it worth tipping my hat to this particular post because it is very well done.

I will leave now, but leave something behind for Bucky:

Do you still not have a cunt|?

Laugh out load

Cyas

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
06-08-2016, 03:25 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 04:29 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 07:51 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 07:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Why do you think Eusebius put it there?

Take a big breath. Why are you so anal about largely irrelevant details.? Just drop your guard for a minute. Look at what I've written, what the historians have written, what the church fathers have written, and just get it. Be a "big picture" man.

THERE WAS A CORRUPT CULTURE IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

These people were unscientific, pathetic empire builders. They fought vehemently amongst themselves. They destroyed nearly all literature that wasn't Christian. The great library at Alexandria was lost to the world forever because of Christianity.

The ruling classes, by and large, considered them a joke... until they became politically useful.

You are reading their pathetic books with reverence. People who do that are an embarrassing stain on human integrity... just like the so called "Muslim scholars" who read the Koran with rose coloured glasses.

Listen, when all who stand up and claim there was corruptness in the Christian church, I am he who stands at the front of the line screaming bloody murder louder than anybody else.

But this fucking bullshit- such as this Eusebius crap- that the Jesus Mythers try to pass of as if its some kind of truth is so far beyond ridiculousness that it amazes me that anybody would actually embarrass themselves by believing it. In fact, as a teacher, it horrifies me that this kind of misinformation/disinformation is being passed off to our young people as if it actually provides a valid education, when in reality all it does is poison the minds of our young, and entraps them into another belief system that has nothing to do with approximating the truth.

I mean the fact that it can be so easily refuted makes it so fucking obvious that it's completely undeniable. It stands as a traitor to reason, and an affront to the development of honest skepticism.

...when in reality all it does is poison the minds of our young, and entraps them into another belief system... Huh

" and.... entraps.... them.... into..... another.... belief.... system."

Oops. Another slip of the pen? What is this "belief system," to which there is "another" you refer to?

What makes you think I, or people like me, have a "belief system" we promote to kids?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:01 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 08:15 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 08:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You're hopelessly gone. You can't even mount a coherent reply.

Oh it's coherent enough, but you have it blocked as a means of preserving your position. That's exactly the same thing religionists do.

Quote:How can you group "Jesus mythers" with people who may have a particular opinion about Eusebius? You are clearly just mouthing off abuse at anyone who disagrees with you.

Because that kind of crap begins with Jesus Myther's and historicity deniers and if you are going to spread the same shit, you will get lumped in with the rest of them.

What is this "kind of crap" you refer to?

There are no such people as "historicity deniers" (other than perhaps in some religious circles.) As best I can tell, you are labelling anyone who disagrees with you as this, and spitting expletives against them in the same breath. If you were in a history class at a real university, you would be laughed at, and, if you didn't shut up, escorted from the class.

Edward Gibbon thinks Eusebius was dishonest. I'm not sure if you know who Edward Gibbon was, but for your information he devoted 12 years of his life (from 1776-1788) to writing his classic work about Roman history. It is a work of love...the man spent all his spare time in those years sitting in a library. He is universally respected amongst historians. To label his opinion as "that kind of crap," particularly without saying why, only demonstrates your lack of taste and your ignorance. Shame on you for your loud mouthed buffoonery.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:09 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I would like to raise the standard of the discussion.

Does anyone out there agree or disagree with me about the so called "church fathers" and other early Christians?

Have I got things wrong? Were they
- intellectually honest?
- devoted to improving the lives of the people?
- peace loving, open minded humanitarians?

All opinions are valued...if they are backed up by some evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 06:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 05:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That was edited by me. Ignore it.

Fine, but nothing else you said in the post in any way offers a challenge to my obviously correct demonstration of what the text actually says, and it doesn't say what you claim it says regarding Eusebius.

Also ..

Quote:Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – 339 CE)
“[Eusebius was] the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

Jakob Burckhardt

Great ... an art historian specializing in the Renaissance with absolutely no experience in religious history whatsoever. Been dead now for about 120 years.

Quote:“Not until the mass of inventions labeled ‘Eusebius’ shall be exposed, can the pretended references to Christians in Pagan writers of the first three centuries be recognized for the forgeries they are.”

-Edwin Johnson

Surely you jest? this guy has the same conspiracy mind as you have. He claims the "Dark Ages" between CE 700 and CE 1400 had never actually occurred, and that it was actually some sinister Christian plot that had been invented by Christian writers who created imaginary characters and events. Therefore, any and all history that has been recorded during the dark ages is 100% a Christian plot, according to him. He's also been dead for over 100 years.

What the fuck Mark?

Consider

Jakob Burckhardt[/quote]

Great ... an art historian specializing in the Renaissance with absolutely no experience in religious history whatsoever. Been dead now for about 120 years.


Poor attempt at an ad hominem there GU. You need to dig a little deeper. This, from wiki, gives us a better idea of who he was...

"Carl Jacob Christoph Burckhardt (May 25, 1818 – August 8, 1897) was a Swiss historian of art and culture and an influential figure in the historiography of both fields. He is known as one of the major progenitors of cultural history.[1] Sigfried Giedion described Burckhardt's achievement in the following terms: "The great discoverer of the age of the Renaissance, he first showed how a period should be treated in its entirety, with regard not only for its painting, sculpture and architecture, but for the social institutions of its daily life as well."[2] Burckhardt's best known work is The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860).

The son of a Protestant clergyman, Burckhardt was born and died in Basel, where he studied theology in the hope of taking holy orders; however, under the influence of Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, he chose not to become a clergyman. He finished his degree in 1839 and went to the University of Berlin to study history,[3] especially art history, then a new field. At Berlin, he attended lectures by Leopold von Ranke, the founder of history as a respectable academic discipline based on sources and records rather than personal opinions. He spent part of 1841 at the University of Bonn, studying under the art historian Franz Theodor Kugler, to whom he dedicated his first book, Die Kunstwerke der belgischen Städte (1842). He taught at the University of Basel from 1843 to 1855, then at the Federal Polytechnic School. In 1858, he returned to Basel to assume the professorship he held until his 1893 retirement. He started to teach only art history in 1886. He twice declined offers of professorial chairs at German universities, at the University of Tübingen in 1867 and Ranke's chair at the University of Berlin in 1872."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 11:23 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:...when in reality all it does is poison the minds of our young, and entraps them into another belief system... Huh

" and.... entraps.... them.... into..... another.... belief.... system."

Oops. Another slip of the pen? What is this "belief system," to which there is "another" you refer to?

What makes you think I, or people like me, have a "belief system" we promote to kids?

Regardless whether people have extremely strong beliefs or extremely strong disbeliefs, both sides to this coin can have a propensity to create extremists. In this sense, the atheist can be subjected to extremism virtually the same way as a religionist.

We see all kinds of zealous religious freaks coming here who will absolutely deny all the evidence for evolution, Big Bang, and other scientific discoveries. They will maintain that the earth is 6000 years old, and nothing we say to them can make one single dent. Despite us providing a massive consensus of the world's best scientific minds, they will find a couple of religiously bias scientists who believe in intelligent design.

Yet we all know they are full of shit. How do we know? We know because we have learned from this massive consensus of scientists that evolution is virtually a slam dunk, and the Big Bang model is what best explains the nature oif existence according to the available evidence. We also know because they cannot provide good evidence for any of their claims including the existence of God, or the 6000 year old earth.

1. They deny ignore the consensus of the experts.
2. They either deny and ignore the evidence, or attempt to contest it with exceptionally improbable and improvable arguments.
3. They constantly use logical fallacies, and then deny it even when it's conclusively proven.
4. They claim victory for their arguments in the face of utter defeat, denying that their positions have been defeated.
5. Based upon their own conjecture, they manufacture evidence that doesn't actually exist in reality.

They are virtually hopelessly trapped into a belief system because they believe they have a credible support system for it.

Now people who do what you do with history are doing exactly the same thing as those religious zealots.

1. You deny and/or ignore the consensus of the experts.
2. You deny and/or ignore the evidence, or attempt to contest it with exceptionally improbable and improvable arguments.
3. You constantly use logical fallacies, and then deny it even when it's conclusively proven.
4. You claim victory for your arguments in the face of utter and obvious defeat, denying that your positions have been defeated.
5. Based upon your own conjecture, you manufacture evidence that doesn't actually exist in reality.

Like the religionist, you are so trapped into what you believe that nothing gets through to you. You will even deny everything I posted here, because your beliefs in what you think you know are so strong that you are incapable of even considering the possibility that everything you believe regarding Christian history could possibly be wrong.

You see people like me as an affront to your position, so you then accuse me of being a theist (exactly the same way a theist says, "You can't understand because you are an atheist"), because you are not capable of understanding why I disagree with your position, and that I can disagree from the position of a human secularist. Therefore you falsely conclude, "He must be a theist."

And then you go on your merry way writing your version of history and influencing the young minds who's happenstance brought them to your writings, and your "belief system" spreads to them and believe it or not, you gain a following ... just like a Christian church.

When I say you are absolutely no different than the likes of Rene Salm, Kenneth Humphreys and Earl Doherty- all proponents of conspiracy theories regarding Jesus and the Christian religion- it is said because you are attempting to do the exact same thing as they are doing. Not one of them is a professional in the field of history, yet they all- including you- attempt to pass themselves off as some kind of an authority when the truth is they have 0% formal education.

If you want to create a belief system regarding history, the least you could do is go get a formal education so that you can understand why your current position is so off-the-wall as to be regulated to the abyss of ridiculous conspiracy theories already in existence, and poisoning the minds of the young and and easy influenced. At least when you understand your error, perhaps then you can actually contribute something to history that can actually be supported with evidence as opposed to the outlandish conjecture built upon a foundation of even more outlandish conjecture.

But I already know that everything I said here is a waste of time with you. I simply hold out for a glimmer of hope that one small thing I said here might make you stop and think by planting a seed of reason which can grow into a crop of real provable knowledge.

But I already sense all hope is lost. You are in too deep to back out now. You are ensnared by your own belief system.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 09:42 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:What is this "kind of crap" you refer to?

There are no such people as "historicity deniers" (other than perhaps in some religious circles.) As best I can tell, you are labelling anyone who disagrees with you as this, and spitting expletives against them in the same breath. If you were in a history class at a real university, you would be laughed at, and, if you didn't shut up, escorted from the class.

Edward Gibbon thinks Eusebius was dishonest. I'm not sure if you know who Edward Gibbon was, but for your information he devoted 12 years of his life (from 1776-1788) to writing his classic work about Roman history. It is a work of love...the man spent all his spare time in those years sitting in a library. He is universally respected amongst historians. To label his opinion as "that kind of crap," particularly without saying why, only demonstrates your lack of taste and your ignorance. Shame on you for your loud mouthed buffoonery.

You are mistaken to think that this is about you and me. It isn't about me at all.

It's all about you railing against the evidence and the consensus of qualified experts, which and whom I merely agree with.

Edward Gibbon was very irreligious. He railed against religion much the same as you do. His view of Eusebius was tainted by his disdain for religion, and all he seen was the header, and utterly failed to correlate that header with the text that follows, which I demonstrated in previous posts. As respected as he was during and after his time, he was equally prone to making misjudgments the same as anyone else. His scholarship is now greatly outdated, as modern scholarship and techniques far surpass his abilities from some 240 years ago.

So yes, in regard to his position on Eusebius, it definitely was "that kind of crap," as I clearly demonstrated from my own work in previous posts. He made the classical logical error of false attribution (taking out of context) by examining only the header, and reaching a conclusion, without ever considering the text that the header was intended to preface. All anyone has to do is fairly examine Eusebius' work, and they will see that for every chapter in each book- which number in the hundreds- a header is used to preface the text that follows. It is so consistent (100%) and so obvious as to be unmistakable.

Hence, that crazy argument against that text of Eusebius has been soundly refuted.

I am not saying Eusebius didn't have his faults, as I find him to be an arrogant pompous bastard, who gives himself too much credit for intellect, more than he deserved.

But the text in question is not evidence at all of his sentiments, and should never be propagated as such. That's just wrong historically.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 09:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 04:09 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I would like to raise the standard of the discussion.

Does anyone out there agree or disagree with me about the so called "church fathers" and other early Christians?

Have I got things wrong? Were they
- intellectually honest?
- devoted to improving the lives of the people?
- peace loving, open minded humanitarians?

All opinions are valued...if they are backed up by some evidence.

Mark, even if all that was true about them, it is what it is. But what it isn't is evidence that they all conspired a total fabrication. They were extremely religious, more so than modern religionists.

They would defend their beliefs with far greater zeal than any modern young earther could ever hope to accomplish. We are talking about a period of time in which rational skepticism and sound reasoning were quickly kicked to the curb in favor of religious beliefs. To them, "doubt" was a death sentence.

But none of their "beliefs" regarding Jesus can, in any way, fully mask the realistic portrait that history can paint. History doesn't make outlandish claims, but instead it works with the evidence and a collective of intelligence to arrive at the best approximation of whatever the truth may be.

And it does not favor the idea that the Jesus whom the Christians follow was a complete myth. Instead, it merely points to a crucified man who's life was embellished by his followers after the fact.

Historicity is by and large the best explanation. The concept of total fabrication is utterly destroyed not only by all the available evidence that has been previously discussed, but also by a consensus of experts all in agreement on what that evidence indicates.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  History doesn't make outlandish claims, but instead it works with the evidence and a collective of intelligence to arrive at the best approximation of whatever the truth may be.

And it does not favor the idea that the Jesus whom the Christians follow was a complete myth. Instead, it merely points to a crucified man who's life was embellished by his followers after the fact.

In other words, it comports precisely and exactly with each and every one of your opinions.

Laugh out load .. Laugh out load .. Laugh out load

Amazing how that works. Thumbsup

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: