Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2016, 12:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 05:36 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(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?

Gotcha!

We both know Catholicism didn't stay in the west, now don't we?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 01:09 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(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.

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).

You misunderstand.

No one is saying "the ancient people never lied."

What we are saying is that we do not view what was written through the lens of truth or lies, because when it comes to religious beliefs in the ancient culture it is unethical to say "Oh he lied" when he is merely expressing himself from a position of beliefs.

This really cannot be compared to the Constantine forgery because the forgery was obviously an intentional act to deceive, and was not founded on religious beliefs. It was founded upon the greed of the Catholic church in which it wanted to enforce control of properties upon various geographical locations.

Again, there is a big difference between an intentional act of deception and an expression of beliefs that we disagree with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 12:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 05:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 01:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.



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.

Oh I see how this works. "Bullshit = lies" to you.

It can't mean anything else, right?

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 03:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 12:39 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 01:09 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  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).

You misunderstand.

No one is saying "the ancient people never lied."

What we are saying is that we do not view what was written through the lens of truth or lies, because when it comes to religious beliefs in the ancient culture it is unethical to say "Oh he lied" when he is merely expressing himself from a position of beliefs.

This really cannot be compared to the Constantine forgery because the forgery was obviously an intentional act to deceive, and was not founded on religious beliefs. It was founded upon the greed of the Catholic church in which it wanted to enforce control of properties upon various geographical locations.

Again, there is a big difference between an intentional act of deception and an expression of beliefs that we disagree with.

Yes, but Bucky Ball has produced numerous quotes from "Church Fathers" in which they freely admitted "lying for Jesus". It wasn't just beliefs. They were deliberately lying, and knew they were lying, and took an "ends justify the means" attitude toward it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
10-08-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 09:10 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The origin of Christianity obviously begins before the sect of Christians actually came into existence.

1. It began in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus.


THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS. If you have any, produce it. I've asked you for this before, and you ignored me, so I'm not holding out any great hope.

"2. After the crucifixion, a rumor was spread that Jesus had risen from the dead, and his followers in Jerusalem- lead by Peter- propagated this rumor, which increased the number of Jews exponentially to the Church of Jerusalem."

You have no evidence for this, either.

The evidence for this has already been discussed to the point of ad nausium throughout this thread. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest that you deny it or reject it.

But you go ahead and continue to believe your pet theories, because nobody else does.

The evidence for this has already been discussed to the point of [i]ad nausium throughout this thread. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest that you deny it or reject it.[/i]

The words are "ad nauseum."

Still waiting for your evidence that Christianity began with Jesus, and that Peter thought Jesus had risen from the dead.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 03:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(09-08-2016 08:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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 very clearly asks the class to determine which they will view as more accurate.
The best chance you have of understanding Paul, (at least the resurrection), is to understand Jewish Apocalypticism, which you do not, AT ALL.

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Golden Mouth'' John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
John Chrysostom

It's very clear, the ends justify their means, no matter what extreme apologists opinions are.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-08-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 12:39 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 01:09 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  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).

You misunderstand.

No one is saying "the ancient people never lied."

What we are saying is that we do not view what was written through the lens of truth or lies, because when it comes to religious beliefs in the ancient culture it is unethical to say "Oh he lied" when he is merely expressing himself from a position of beliefs.

This really cannot be compared to the Constantine forgery because the forgery was obviously an intentional act to deceive, and was not founded on religious beliefs. It was founded upon the greed of the Catholic church in which it wanted to enforce control of properties upon various geographical locations.

Again, there is a big difference between an intentional act of deception and an expression of beliefs that we disagree with.


What we are saying is that we do not view what was written through the lens of truth or lies, because when it comes to religious beliefs in the ancient culture it is unethical to say "Oh he lied" when he is merely expressing himself from a position of beliefs

No. Paul lied. The gospels' authors lied. The church fathers lied. The "traditional" story about the origin of Christianity is a lie.

A 2000 year old lie is still a lie.

You are in the habit of avoiding the truth about these texts.
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
10-08-2016, 06:22 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 07:36 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 03:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 12:39 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You misunderstand.

No one is saying "the ancient people never lied."

What we are saying is that we do not view what was written through the lens of truth or lies, because when it comes to religious beliefs in the ancient culture it is unethical to say "Oh he lied" when he is merely expressing himself from a position of beliefs.

This really cannot be compared to the Constantine forgery because the forgery was obviously an intentional act to deceive, and was not founded on religious beliefs. It was founded upon the greed of the Catholic church in which it wanted to enforce control of properties upon various geographical locations.

Again, there is a big difference between an intentional act of deception and an expression of beliefs that we disagree with.

Yes, but Bucky Ball has produced numerous quotes from "Church Fathers" in which they freely admitted "lying for Jesus". It wasn't just beliefs. They were deliberately lying, and knew they were lying, and took an "ends justify the means" attitude toward it.

Actually, Mr Ball produced nothing of the sort. He gave you a smoke and mirror show that was exploded in his face with THIS POST REGARDING EUSEBIUS.

Now, do not confuse this with me saying that the church fathers didn't lie, for that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the evidence Mr. Ball has been giving you has been analyzed and conclusively refuted right here in this thread.

Follow that link and read for yourself.

Edit: Also examine what I said to his other accusations two posts down from this one. This shit sure is getting old.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 06:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 09:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The evidence for this has already been discussed to the point of ad nausium throughout this thread. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest that you deny it or reject it.

But you go ahead and continue to believe your pet theories, because nobody else does.

The evidence for this has already been discussed to the point of [i]ad nausium throughout this thread. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest that you deny it or reject it.[/i]

The words are "ad nauseum."

Still waiting for your evidence that Christianity began with Jesus, and that Peter thought Jesus had risen from the dead.

Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents, each attesting via a cohesive chain of evidence to Jesus being the origin of the Christian faith.

But I guess the Hell that your Romans created as part of Christianity will freeze over before that happens.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 07:36 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 03:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 08:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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 very clearly asks the class to determine which they will view as more accurate.

He very clearly does not. If you think he does, quote the relevant text.

Quote:The best chance you have of understanding Paul, (at least the resurrection), is to understand Jewish Apocalypticism, which you do not, AT ALL.

Get fucking serious. Any idiot who has ever seriously studied the bible or any other relevant literature knows about it, because there's no fucking mystery to understanding it whatsoever.

In fact, I can teach YOU all about it. Guaranteed.

Big Grin

Quote:"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

And of course a mythicist like you only sees this as an endorsement of lying. It says no such thing.

Clement literally tells you that the opinions of people who proclaim truth may only have the appearance of being true, and that their opinions should not be preferred to the truth that his faith professes. This is quite elementary.

Quote: John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Golden Mouth'' John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
John Chrysostom

It's very clear, the ends justify their means, no matter what extreme apologists opinions are.

Obviously, you have never actually read or studied On the Priesthood. For if you did, you would have known that all your quotes are indeed things he said, but they are things he said before he was ordained.

Book I is John's "history" of his life before the priesthood. It illustrates a dialogue between him and a priest trying to encourage him to let go of worldly things and commit to the priesthood.

For fuck sakes start reading stuff instead of cherry picking shit to further you idiotic Mythicist agenda. It's so fucking easy for you to actually Google for info on this stuff, but you can't even do that much.

Fucking insane ...

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