Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 07:19 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Fucking insane ...

Facepalm

Yeah we know. We've been reading your texts. Big Grin

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
10-08-2016, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 07:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 06:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Totally biased bullshit. They don't each "attest" to anything. Jesus never said he was starting a new religion. That proves you actually know nothing about the period. He was not the "origin" of the Christian faith. He BECAME the OBJECT of part of the Christian faith which his followers cooked up. You really are clueless about origins, and you can teach us NOTHING about Jewish Apocalypticism.

Martin Lecture Session 14, 29:00 - 31:00, (and other places)... Martin does indeed tell the class they cannot depend on Acts. Also at the end of that lecture, is one of the examples, there was no "Christianity" for Jesus to be the "origin" of. There were MANY versions of it, cooked up by many different people, (as you well know Ehrman discusses) .... what eventually over centuries morphed into the "Christian" cults pointed to a Jesus .... he was in fact NOT the origin of any of them. In fact he said "Not a jot or tittle shall pass away etc". The members of the Way sub-sect were JEWS for centuries, until THEY cooked up Christianity.

Your dogmatic apologetics suck. You really are neurotic about this patronizing shit you carry on with. There was no such thing as "orthodoxy" ... the many variants of it were as different as they could possibly be. The origins of ChristianitY, (singular) was the Roman emperor, who called the council. He didn't care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed on something.

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, 08:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Orthodoxy was created in 1057 after some Iconoclasm crap. And various other arguments and disagreements.

Christians NOTE: When you can all agree, get back to us.

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
10-08-2016, 08:21 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Somewhere the fucktard put out his boyhood hero "Polycrap" as some sort of proof. Let's see how that holds up.

Quote:This paper will explore the assumptions at work in scholarly arguments
for the integrity, authenticity, and dating of MPol (Martyrdom of Polycarp) . It proposes that, while the account cannot be dated with absolute certainty to any particular period,it seems likely that the extant version was composed in the early third century. Moreover, given the importance of MPol in constructions of early Christian history, the difficulty and uncertainty surrounding the dating of
the account should be reflected in both scholarly treatments ofMPol and
in the histories of early Christian phenomena that the text is used to support.


On the Dating of Polycarp: Rethinking the Place of the Martyrdom of Polycarp in the History of Christianity

Candida Moss.

Now I suppose we will hear that she is not a "real scholar" either, eh 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
10-08-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 08:21 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Somewhere the fucktard put out his boyhood hero "Polycrap" as some sort of proof. Let's see how that holds up.

Quote:This paper will explore the assumptions at work in scholarly arguments
for the integrity, authenticity, and dating of MPol (Martyrdom of Polycarp) . It proposes that, while the account cannot be dated with absolute certainty to any particular period,it seems likely that the extant version was composed in the early third century. Moreover, given the importance of MPol in constructions of early Christian history, the difficulty and uncertainty surrounding the dating of
the account should be reflected in both scholarly treatments ofMPol and
in the histories of early Christian phenomena that the text is used to support.


On the Dating of Polycarp: Rethinking the Place of the Martyrdom of Polycarp in the History of Christianity

Candida Moss.

Now I suppose we will hear that she is not a "real scholar" either, eh Mark?

She also wrote a great book about how Christians cooked up "The Myth of Persecution". 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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-08-2016, 09:10 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 05:42 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 07:19 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  In fact, I can teach YOU all about it. Guaranteed.

All you can do is parrot your biased opinions and insults. You are no educator. Do you wave your finger around like Trump when you make your guarantees ?

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

I'm not a mythicist. I ask questions. You have no answers. Clement DOES say that he feels perfectly comfortable in telling what his FAITH tells him is the truth. THAT is a problem.


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.

[quote]
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.

LOL. Ordination does not magically change anyone.

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
10-08-2016, 09:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 08:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 08:21 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Somewhere the fucktard put out his boyhood hero "Polycrap" as some sort of proof. Let's see how that holds up.


Now I suppose we will hear that she is not a "real scholar" either, eh Mark?

She also wrote a great book about how Christians cooked up "The Myth of Persecution". Thumbsup

Indeed she did. Sure better than that fucking bible!

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
10-08-2016, 10:00 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 10:05 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I'm pretty sure the only Mythicist here is Minimalist.

The fact that you nevertheless keep referring to us all as Mythicists shows your agenda.

You're as dishonest as Paul... the fact that you really seem to believe this shit doesn't make it any better, any more true, or any less morally culpable.

You're one of the most thoroughly unpleasant people I've ever seen on this board, and that's taking asshole theists who come here deliberately to proselytize to us into account.

There are plenty of honest ways to have a discussion on these topics; you don't seem to know any of them. All you do is emotionally react and bash anyone with whom you disagree. (Edit to Add: It begs the question of why you're so personally attached to these topics that you'd get emotional and insulting in the first place, when simply discussing people who read into the evidence differently than you do. It's why we suspect you of being a religionist, despite your denials.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
11-08-2016, 07:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 06:22 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 03:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

1. The post you reference deals with one and only one of Bucky Ball's long list of examples. It absolutely does not "conclusively refute" any of the others. It doesn't even mention them.

2. It also fails to make its case regarding that single example. You claim repeatedly that the header has nothing to do with Eusebius's own opinions. However, that raises the question of why he would use that header if it wasn't relevant to the rest of his text. You could have cleared that up by quoting the rest of the text, but you didn't. You will excuse me if I remain unconvinced. In general, when someone prefaces his own text with a header and a quotation, there is a reason why he does that. The header and quotation tend to have some relevance to the main text. If you claim that this is a glaring counterexample to that general rule, you need to produce some evidence to establish that. You have failed to do so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-08-2016, 07:33 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 07:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 06:22 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

1. The post you reference deals with one and only one of Bucky Ball's long list of examples. It absolutely does not "conclusively refute" any of the others. It doesn't even mention them.

2. It also fails to make its case regarding that single example. You claim repeatedly that the header has nothing to do with Eusebius's own opinions. However, that raises the question of why he would use that header if it wasn't relevant to the rest of his text. You could have cleared that up by quoting the rest of the text, but you didn't. You will excuse me if I remain unconvinced. In general, when someone prefaces his own text with a header and a quotation, there is a reason why he does that. The header and quotation tend to have some relevance to the main text. If you claim that this is a glaring counterexample to that general rule, you need to produce some evidence to establish that. You have failed to do so.

1. Point them out.

2. The header you see is just one example among hundreds - literally hundreds- that demonstrate the exact same method; it prefaces the text to follow. In this case, it prefaces the quote of Plato, which is then followed by comments from Eusebius.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: