Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2016, 05:47 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 01:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No ... no ... no.

You said "At least one is a lie" when any intellectually honest historian would say "At least one is inaccurate."

A lie is best defined as a deliberate attempt to deceive. What historians see in these ancient texts is not a lot of outright lies, but rather heaps and heaps of inaccuracies.

They also understand the nature of these ancient religious cultures, which bear absolutely no resemblance to modern cultures. You- via the historian's fallacy- will determine it to be lies, but actual historians know precisely what it is.

Acts is simply the works of an author who absolutely believed that the information he gathered was accurate according to his sources, and according to his own experiences. There was no intent to deliberately lie because he actually believed everything he wrote.

Paul's letters are the works of yet another religious person who also completely believed in what he was writing about. Paul may have been somewhat delusional, or motivated out of fear, or wrote what he wrote under the motivation of several different variables. But to say "he lied" only demonstrates a narrow-mindedness in which that is all you want to see, at the expense of what the truth may actually be.

My position is not a position that "somebody lied," but rather the more intellectually honest position that "somebody is inaccurate" for the simple reason that not every time that people make mistakes should they be considered a liar.

If that were the case, then every time you made a mistake on an exam, well by golly, you're nothing but a god damn good for nothing liar, right?

Big Grin

The book of Acts is not full of "mistakes," it is full of lies.

You are sugar coating it. The authors knew they were lying. They lied about Paul, about miracles, and about what people believed. There are scores of lies in Acts. I could reproduce them for you, but you wouldn't read it.

Paul lied too. Often. He wrote about his own delusions. He knew he was lying. It was a means to an end.

They weren't being "inaccurate". They were making up shit for the completely uneducated, who had no possible way to verify what was in the text, or compare it to anything else, as the authors thought it was "for their own good". Pious fraud. In the very lecture that GoingDown claims someone got "slaughtered", Martin tells the class (not Mark or I) says that the two texts are incompatible, and that one has to decide which one is reliable. Obviously Acts is making up shit.

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
09-08-2016, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2016 09:23 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The book of Acts is not full of "mistakes," it is full of lies.

As mentioned earlier, a lie is best defined as an intentional act of deception. However, you don't seem to grasp the difference between what a lie is and what a mistake is.

Nor can you fathom the mindset of ancient historical persons who's strength of belief in gods greatly inhibited their ability to be capable of rationally discerning the difference between fact and fantasy.

You don't seem to understand that we are basically examining the beliefs from what amounts to the minds of people who can be considered to be very close relatives to primitive humans, and you continuously err in judgment because you completely fail to grasp the nature of that ancient culture. You constantly err in viewing the past from the perspective of the present, instead of viewing the past from the perspective of that past. You commit fallacy after fallacy with such a degree of obliviousness that arguing with you is like arguing with a child in Year 1.

And that, Mr Fulton, is precisely why you will never make a dent whatsoever in the field of history, nor ever be taken seriously.

You just don't have what it takes to be credible, nor is there any evidence of the redeeming quality to actually learn.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2016, 08:49 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2016 11:14 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 05:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 09:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The book of Acts is not full of "mistakes," it is full of lies.

You are sugar coating it. The authors knew they were lying. They lied about Paul, about miracles, and about what people believed. There are scores of lies in Acts. I could reproduce them for you, but you wouldn't read it.

Paul lied too. Often. He wrote about his own delusions. He knew he was lying. It was a means to an end.

They weren't being "inaccurate". They were making up shit for the completely uneducated, who had no possible way to verify what was in the text, or compare it to anything else, as the authors thought it was "for their own good". Pious fraud.

Yet we do not see those sentiments from any modern scholar, now do we?

Quote:In the very lecture that GoingDown claims someone got "slaughtered", Martin tells the class (not Mark or I) says that the two texts are incompatible, and that one has to decide which one is reliable. Obviously Acts is making up shit.

Actually, he never says anything about anybody needing to make any choice between the two texts. He points out what can be viewed as being discrepancies between a few things concerning Paul in the two texts. And he never, not once, claims "Acts is making up shit" nor does he ever allude to those sentiments.

He does, however, maintain the exact same position that I do, which is that if you want to have the best chance of understanding Paul, then the best source is Paul's letters rather than Acts. But he never says that Acts has no historical value whatsoever.

What he is doing is asserting the primacy of the Pauline texts over Acts as far as how we should view the history of Paul of Tarsus. And he is correct to do so.

Your sentiments reflect such an extreme bias that you don't want to see history, but rather you want to see something to dispute it, and that's all you are looking for here.

Until you get past that childish phase, you can never go back or forward with actual history. Mind you, I do hold out for far more hope from you rather than Mark, as you have demonstrated a degree of brilliance at certain points in this topic, while Mark has been devoid of anything noteworthy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2016, 11:22 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2016 11:43 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 08:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 05:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They weren't being "inaccurate". They were making up shit for the completely uneducated, who had no possible way to verify what was in the text, or compare it to anything else, as the authors thought it was "for their own good". Pious fraud.

Yet we do not see those sentiments from any modern scholar, now do we?

Quote:In the very lecture that GoingDown claims someone got "slaughtered", Martin tells the class (not Mark or I) says that the two texts are incompatible, and that one has to decide which one is reliable. Obviously Acts is making up shit.

Actually, he never says anything about anybody needing to make any choice between the two texts. He points out what can be viewed as being discrepancies between a few things concerning Paul in the two texts. And he never, not once, claims "Acts is making up shit" nor does he ever allude to those sentiments.

He does, however, maintain the exact same position that I do, which is that if you want to have the best chance of understanding Paul, then the best source is Paul's letters rather than Acts. But he never says that Acts has no historical value whatsoever.

What he is doing is asserting the primacy of the Pauline texts over Acts as far as how we should view the history of Paul of Tarsus. And he is correct to do so.

Your sentiments reflect such an extreme bias that you don't want to see history, but rather you want to see something to dispute it, and that's all you are looking for here.

Until you get past that childish phase, you can never go back or forward with actual history. Mind you, I do hold out for far more hope from you rather than Mark, as you have demonstrated a degree of brilliance at certain points in this topic, while Mark has been devoid of anything noteworthy.

Martin is very clear that the two texts cannot both be true. He asks the class to determine which would be more reliable. One is not true AT ALL. It's perfectly obvious that the authors/editors of Acts made up their content to suit their purpose. You can call that whatever you like, putting lipstick on your pig.

We get that you are an EXTREME apologist for dishonest writing. The supposed "history" in Acts was obviously purposely manufactured. They were aware they were inventing a story. Yet some believers claim every word is true, even though it cannot possibly be so. No one is "disputing history". It's the Fundamentalist views of it that's being disputed, and that is perfectly legitimate.

And you can stop with the patronizing superior shit, any time. We "seen" what you are doing. Tongue
You think that only your opinions and views are legitimate. That is extreme.

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
09-08-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 11:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 08:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yet we do not see those sentiments from any modern scholar, now do we?


Actually, he never says anything about anybody needing to make any choice between the two texts. He points out what can be viewed as being discrepancies between a few things concerning Paul in the two texts. And he never, not once, claims "Acts is making up shit" nor does he ever allude to those sentiments.

He does, however, maintain the exact same position that I do, which is that if you want to have the best chance of understanding Paul, then the best source is Paul's letters rather than Acts. But he never says that Acts has no historical value whatsoever.

What he is doing is asserting the primacy of the Pauline texts over Acts as far as how we should view the history of Paul of Tarsus. And he is correct to do so.

Your sentiments reflect such an extreme bias that you don't want to see history, but rather you want to see something to dispute it, and that's all you are looking for here.

Until you get past that childish phase, you can never go back or forward with actual history. Mind you, I do hold out for far more hope from you rather than Mark, as you have demonstrated a degree of brilliance at certain points in this topic, while Mark has been devoid of anything noteworthy.

Martin is very clear that the two texts cannot both be true. He asks the class to determine which would be more reliable. One is not true AT ALL.

No, he does not say anything regarding the texts being true or false. No, he does not say that "One is not true AT ALL".

In fact he- like any responsible historian- does not declare anything true or false at all. He speaks in terms of what is more or less accurate, not what is true or false.

There is a massive difference between what you think he said, and what he is actually saying. Here are some examples of what he says:

"it's much more likely, we think, that we have more accurate historical material from Galatians then we do from Acts."

If you read it carefully, like any good historian he is very careful not to use definitive words such as "true, false, lies," or even "inaccurate" in relation to his evaluation of the texts.


Quote:We get that you are an EXTREME apologist for dishonest writing.

No, what you are getting is honest historical evaluation. What you expect is dishonest evaluation, and I will not do that.

No historian worth his salt will blatantly say that these ancient authors were liars, or scammers, or whatever it is YOU think they are. We don't do that because we know based upon our education that it only demonstrates bias and is intellectually dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 05:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They weren't being "inaccurate". They were making up shit for the completely uneducated, who had no possible way to verify what was in the text, or compare it to anything else, as the authors thought it was "for their own good". Pious fraud. In the very lecture that GoingDown claims someone got "slaughtered", Martin tells the class (not Mark or I) says that the two texts are incompatible, and that one has to decide which one is reliable. Obviously Acts is making up shit.

Are you talking about the same mindset that leads to "inaccuracies" like forging a document, pretending it to be 500y old? Like pretending (in that document) to have a powerful emperor of a powerful empire (falsely) claim that he will donate his empire to a certain religious organisation and its CEO? Like in showing around this document for the next 700y to substantiate your claims to territory and rule over people? Like waiting another 200y after it was proven to be forged before you even talk to the public about this finding?

Are you talking about this kinda mindset resulting in this kinda "inaccuracies"?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2016, 01:54 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 01:22 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 05:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They weren't being "inaccurate". They were making up shit for the completely uneducated, who had no possible way to verify what was in the text, or compare it to anything else, as the authors thought it was "for their own good". Pious fraud. In the very lecture that GoingDown claims someone got "slaughtered", Martin tells the class (not Mark or I) says that the two texts are incompatible, and that one has to decide which one is reliable. Obviously Acts is making up shit.

Are you talking about the same mindset that leads to "inaccuracies" like forging a document, pretending it to be 500y old? Like pretending (in that document) to have a powerful emperor of a powerful empire (falsely) claim that he will donate his empire to a certain religious organisation and its CEO? Like in showing around this document for the next 700y to substantiate your claims to territory and rule over people? Like waiting another 200y after it was proven to be forged before you even talk to the public about this finding?

Are you talking about this kinda mindset resulting in this kinda "inaccuracies"?

You are speaking of the Constantine forgery, obviously. Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with the lies of the Catholic church some 800 years later. But that is a different era, different culture, and one that persecuted Jews and anyone else that didn't submit to Catholic tyranny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 01:09 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 01:54 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 01:22 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Are you talking about the same mindset that leads to "inaccuracies" like forging a document, pretending it to be 500y old? Like pretending (in that document) to have a powerful emperor of a powerful empire (falsely) claim that he will donate his empire to a certain religious organisation and its CEO? Like in showing around this document for the next 700y to substantiate your claims to territory and rule over people? Like waiting another 200y after it was proven to be forged before you even talk to the public about this finding?

Are you talking about this kinda mindset resulting in this kinda "inaccuracies"?

You are speaking of the Constantine forgery, obviously. Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with the lies of the Catholic church some 800 years later. But that is a different era, different culture, and one that persecuted Jews and anyone else that didn't submit to Catholic tyranny.

I dont see how this religious "culture" is fundamentally different from the one you were talking about.
We are basically talking about "lying for god/jesus". If someone really believes in a omni-everything being that threatends you with damnation if you (and everyone else doesnt bow down), then you cant deny that such persons are very probably going to *lie for the greater good*. A lot of people have done so for much lesser, worldly reasons. So if you want to claim that they didt lie, you have -imho- a somewhat burden of proof, or at least you better have some crosschecks or comparisons at hand to rule the pious fraud part out for some suspicious claimed events. When we look at earlier, already existing, writings of the canon called bible, we can already see that there probably had been lots exaggeration (to put it mildly) and mixing up of real stories with parables. I have little doubt that the people of the time (quite shortly after the discussed time of the 1st century) were following a *good tradition* in their own eyes if and when they continued to do what is being disputed here (comitting pious fraud).

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
10-08-2016, 05:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 01:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 11:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Martin is very clear that the two texts cannot both be true. He asks the class to determine which would be more reliable. One is not true AT ALL.

No, he does not say anything regarding the texts being true or false. No, he does not say that "One is not true AT ALL".

In fact he- like any responsible historian- does not declare anything true or false at all. He speaks in terms of what is more or less accurate, not what is true or false.

There is a massive difference between what you think he said, and what he is actually saying. Here are some examples of what he says:

"it's much more likely, we think, that we have more accurate historical material from Galatians then we do from Acts."

If you read it carefully, like any good historian he is very careful not to use definitive words such as "true, false, lies," or even "inaccurate" in relation to his evaluation of the texts.


Quote:We get that you are an EXTREME apologist for dishonest writing.

No, what you are getting is honest historical evaluation. What you expect is dishonest evaluation, and I will not do that.

No historian worth his salt will blatantly say that these ancient authors were liars, or scammers, or whatever it is YOU think they are. We don't do that because we know based upon our education that it only demonstrates bias and is intellectually dishonest.

You write

1. "No historian worth his salt will blatantly say that these ancient authors were liars, or scammers, or whatever it is YOU think they are."

and

2. "regarding Paul, but that is only if we can sift through his bias and his bullshit, while desperately trying to navigate the narrow passages through his big fat fucking ego."

So...you are undeniably inconsistent.

There were liars and scammers 2000 years ago, and Paul was one such. It is you who (usually) doesn't get that. Historians, the honest ones, know this to be true.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 05:36 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 01:54 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are speaking of the Constantine forgery, obviously. Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with the lies of the Catholic church some 800 years later. But that is a different era, different culture, and one that persecuted Jews and anyone else that didn't submit to Catholic tyranny.

Gotcha! Catholicism began in the west. Helena was living in the east. Jews were also persecuted in the east. Ever heard of Justinian?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: