Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 07:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 07:29 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Bucky has provided such a list several times, including at least once in this thread. I don't know how to link a post in another post, but the most recent example I could find is in post #1938 of this thread.

Your second point doesn't address my point at all. I don't care how often Eusebius uses a header and a quote to preface his own text. My claim is that, whenever and however often he does that, he has a reason for doing it -- and that reason is most likely because the header and quote have some relevance to the text that follows them. He's not just pulling random quotes out of nowhere. You claim that the quote from Plato has nothing to do with Eusebius's own feelings, opinion, and teachings, and that makes no sense at all. Why would he use that quote if it had no relevance to his text?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-08-2016, 07:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 10:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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.)

I though you left Felecia? I guess you couldn't stay away for too long.

I'm still waiting on you tell me how you conclude that Jesus existed, and that Nazareth existed during his time, yet claim there is no evidence for any of these things. Please explain to why you believe these two things, with supposedly no evidence in support of this belief of yours?

Your inability to answer this question, speaks more about your dishonesty than GoingUp's.

Why not start the discussion with what you do belief, rather than in arguing in support of a contrary position which you do not hold, and then getting upset when people associate you with that position.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 08:45 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(10-08-2016 07:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Totally atypical Mythicist bullshit that not one reputable scholar on the planet agrees with.

ALL AGREE THEY HAVE CERTAIN DEGREES OF HISTORICAL VALUE. ALL.

And so the entire world should just ignore the highly trained skills of every scholar in the field and listen to ... what? Some fucking anonymous fool named Bucky Ball screaming bloody murder on some obscure forum in the abyss of the internet?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

The Christian faith "finds it's origins" in Jesus of the Gospels. This is exactly the same person whom Paul modeled his doctrine upon, regardless if he never met him.

I have 100% of the scholars on my side. Who do you have? A bunch of fucking weirdos on the internet!

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load


Quote: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.

Now you are changing your fucking argument because you have been caught lying.

Listed below are 2 of your previous quotes:

Bucky Ball Wrote: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.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1044240

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.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1044336


The impression you are giving here is that Martin is saying that Acts is not reliable at all, and that the class must decide to use Paul's letters instead of Acts because Acts is not a reliable source.

Martin gives us no such impression whatsoever.

Martin Lecture Session 14, 29:00 - 31:00 says no such thing whatsoever, nor does he allude to it. Now you are simply a bare faced liar, AGAIN. What he says is exactly what I have been saying. He says,

"We must first look at 1st Thessalonians, and not depend upon Acts."

His quote clearly says exactly what I have been saying all along, that the best source of the information is from Paul's letters as opposed to Acts. What he DOESN'T say nor even allude to is:

You: "Martin is very clear that the two texts cannot both be true"

You: "one has to decide which one is reliable. Obviously Acts is making up shit."


What he does encourage his student to do is "doubt" some of the things in Acts regarding Paul, but not once does he ever give the impression that what we see in Acts are lies, or "making up shit," or anything of the sort. Here are his two quotes on doubt:

Martin Wrote:As I've tried to get you to see, there are a lot of things in the Acts of the Apostles that we should doubt their historicity, especially when it comes to Paul.

There will be other things about Paul that I'll talk about today from Acts that I at least believe we should doubt whether they're historical, or at least we can't use them in any kind of dependable way as providing a biography of the Apostle Paul.

And doubt is a healthy approach on all of this stuff, but he does not ever- not even once- instruct his class that Acts is a completely unreliable source, or that it is full of lies as you so dishonestly positively claim.

You, Mr. Ball, are bare faced lying about what Dr. Martin is saying, and putting words into his mouth that he neither spoke, nor even alluded to. He does not give the impression that Acts is "making up shit," or that people must decide that only one is reliable as per your insistence, nor does he imply that one (Acts) cannot be true. He said no such thing nor gives the impression of it.

You Mythicists are fucking disgusting liars.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 08:33 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 07:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I don't know how to link a post in another post, but the most recent example I could find is in post #1938 of this thread.

The easiest way I've found is to right-click the post number and copy the link

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1042211

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 08:53 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 08:33 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 07:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I don't know how to link a post in another post, but the most recent example I could find is in post #1938 of this thread.

The easiest way I've found is to right-click the post number and copy the link

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1042211

OK, thanks. It's one of those things that I see other people doing, but couldn't quite figure out how to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:02 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Why does it even matter if Jesus existed or not? I have no problem with the idea that an actual Jesus that the myth is based upon was real, but it takes a gigantic leap in logic (or lack of rather) to say that then say "So he's the Son of God".

One of the reasons I finally left is it NEVER made sense to me that the all powerful God's plan for everyone to become his "children" was.....anonymous letters made into a book with claims that can't be proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
11-08-2016, 09:32 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 10:41 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 07:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 07:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Bucky has provided such a list several times, including at least once in this thread. I don't know how to link a post in another post, but the most recent example I could find is in post #1938 of this thread.

Your second point doesn't address my point at all. I don't care how often Eusebius uses a header and a quote to preface his own text. My claim is that, whenever and however often he does that, he has a reason for doing it -- and that reason is most likely because the header and quote have some relevance to the text that follows them. He's not just pulling random quotes out of nowhere. You claim that the quote from Plato has nothing to do with Eusebius's own feelings, opinion, and teachings, and that makes no sense at all. Why would he use that quote if it had no relevance to his text?

Let me give you just one example of what Mythicists such as Mr. Ball actually try to do to the average reader such as yourself. I will quote the relevant text from that link:

GoingUp Wrote:
Bucky Ball Wrote:It is not. It is an unverified claim. You choose to accept as evidence. Evidence of gospels would be the writing itself, that we could see. It was an era of pious fraud.

You continue to make the positive claim of "pious fraud" to insinuate that everything written was fraudulent.

Prove it.

It is obvious that Bucky Ball is speaking directly to the era of when the Gospels were written ie; the age of the early church fathers et al.

So he brings up Jerome who was writing near the beginning of the 5th century (hardly in the era we were discussing, but whatever):

Bucky Ball Wrote:"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."

Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

The first thing you should be made aware of his Bucky's typical Mythicist method of quoting out of context, then stringing parts of a quote together to give you the wrong impression. Below is the relevant text in its entirety:

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul, whose words seem to me, as often as I hear them, to be not words, but peals of thunder. Read his epistles, and especially those addressed to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, in all of which he stands in the thick of the battle, and you will see how skillful and how careful he is in the proofs which he draws from the Old Testament, and how warily he cloaks the object which he has in view.

His words seem simplicity itself: the expressions of a guileless and unsophisticated person-one who has no skill either to plan a dilemma or to avoid it. Still, whichever way you look, they are thunderbolts. His pleading halts, yet he carries every point which he takes up. He turns his back upon his foe only to overcome him; he simulates flight, but only that he may slay.

He, then, if any one, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: "The proofs which you have used against the Jews or against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your epistles. We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory which in the volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all."

May he not reply to us in the words of the Saviour: "I have one mode of speech for those that are without and another for those that are within; the crowds hear my parables, but their interpretation is for my disciples alone?"

The Lord puts questions to the Pharisees, but does not elucidate them. To teach a disciple is one thing; to vanquish an opponent, another.

"My mystery is for me," says the prophet; "my mystery is for me and for them that are mine."


Source Here:


What Jerome is doing here is providing a hypothetical scenario in which he takes on the position of an antagonist to Paul. He uses a hypothetical accusation beginning with "The proofs which you have used ..." (hence, the quoted text) and then creates a hypothetical response from the "Saviour" who defends Paul beginning with, "I have one mode of speech for those ... ."

All through that historical letter Jerome raves about the Apostle Paul, and how his writings silenced his opponents. Here, Jerome is giving us a hypothetical situation in which he plays the part of the antagonist in an effort to demonstrate how Paul may be defended by the Saviour, presumably Jesus.

Now do you see what I am saying about these fucking Mythicists? They quote out of context, then string parts of a quote together to give you a completely different version of what is actually being said, and if you don't actually check it out you may actually believe their lies. They have an agenda to misinform the average Joe in an effort to discredit Christianity.

Mythicists have absolutely no respect for history whatsoever, as they constantly purposely misquote ancient historical documents to intentionally mislead the readers.

But as you can see, when we put Mr Ball's intentionally misleading quote right back into it's proper context, it becomes very clear what the truth here actually is. Mr. Ball is trying to give you the impression that Jerome himself is accusing Paul of being some kind of a liar, when the truth is that Jerome is demonstrating his belief that Paul's words make fools of all who accuse him of specific things.

You will see this same bullshit from him over, and over, and over. The lies just never end. Mr Ball knows that it is very time consuming for people to expose his bullshit, and hopes that people won't bother to do it.

But as a historian, I find his actions to be completely dishonest, and I have respect enough for actual history to go the hard yards to expose his never ending series of complete and utter bullshit.

I am hopeful that you and others will see the points I am making here in the interests of genuine history, and also begin to see the intentionally dishonest tactics of those whose hatred of religion skews the truth into some completely ridiculous effigy of itself insomuch as it no longer represents the truth whatsoever.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 09:02 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  Why does it even matter if Jesus existed or not? I have no problem with the idea that an actual Jesus that the myth is based upon was real, but it takes a gigantic leap in logic (or lack of rather) to say that then say "So he's the Son of God".

One of the reasons I finally left is it NEVER made sense to me that the all powerful God's plan for everyone to become his "children" was.....anonymous letters made into a book with claims that can't be proven.

To a historian, it's just a part of history. It explains the origin of Christianity, and then how Christianity influenced the entire world later in history.

History is important, for even the fossil record represents a history of evolution. The Big Bang theory- if true- represents a history of existence.

History provides insight into why some things today are the way they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 08:20 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Totally atypical Mythicist bullshit that not one reputable scholar on the planet agrees with.

Yeah we "seen" that. If it's ATYPICAL, then it's NOT TYPICAL, you fucking idiot. You have no advanced degree. You can't even write in English.

Quote:The Christian faith "finds it's origins" in Jesus of the Gospels. This is exactly the same person whom Paul modeled his doctrine upon, regardless if he never met him.

Nope. Paul made up his bullshit. There is no "Jesus of the gospels". Most Christians have no clue where they get their bullshit, or when, or by whom, it was cooked up.

Quote:
I have 100% of the scholars on my side. Who do you have? A bunch of fucking weirdos on the internet!

LMAO. Except the ones who don't. Your idiotic exaggerations belie a personality disorder. Carrier and Price and many others do not agree with you, AND they are more educated than you are.

Quote:The impression you are giving here is that Martin is saying that Acts is not reliable at all, and that the class must decide to use Paul's letters instead of Acts because Acts is not a reliable source.

Martin gives us no such impression whatsoever.

You made that shit up. All they have to do is listen to the lecture, and hear what he says. I stand by everything I said. At the end of lecture 14, he says the Christianity of Paul is NOT what Christians today think it is.

Quote:You, Mr. Ball, are bare faced lying about what Dr. Martin is saying, and putting words into his mouth that he neither spoke, nor even alluded to. He does not give the impression that Acts is "making up shit," or that people must decide that only one is reliable as per your insistence, nor does he imply that one (Acts) cannot be true. He said no such thing nor gives the impression of it.

Nope. You, a fucking fraud, makes up shit, puts it in people's mouths, and then says they are lying by using your fake straw man that YOU MADE UP. You NEED to do this as you are fundamentally mentally ill, and insecure about your lack of education. You are no historian. No real historian is as dogmatic and fundamentalist as you are. You are a fraud.

Calm down dear. Old people like you that get so excited might have a stroke.

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
11-08-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 09:32 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 07:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Bucky has provided such a list several times, including at least once in this thread. I don't know how to link a post in another post, but the most recent example I could find is in post #1938 of this thread.

Your second point doesn't address my point at all. I don't care how often Eusebius uses a header and a quote to preface his own text. My claim is that, whenever and however often he does that, he has a reason for doing it -- and that reason is most likely because the header and quote have some relevance to the text that follows them. He's not just pulling random quotes out of nowhere. You claim that the quote from Plato has nothing to do with Eusebius's own feelings, opinion, and teachings, and that makes no sense at all. Why would he use that quote if it had no relevance to his text?

Let me give you just one example of what Mythicists such as Mr. Ball actually try to do to the average reader such as yourself. I will quote the relevant text from that link:

GoingUp Wrote:You continue to make the positive claim of "pious fraud" to insinuate that everything written was fraudulent.

Prove it.

It is obvious that Bucky Ball is speaking directly to the era of when the Gospels were written ie; the age of the early church fathers et al.

So he brings up Jerome who was writing near the beginning of the 5th century (hardly in the era we were discussing, but whatever):

Bucky Ball Wrote:"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."

Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

The first thing you should be made aware of his Bucky's typical Mythicist method of quoting out of context, then stringing parts of a quote together to give you the wrong impression. Below is the relevant text in its entirety:

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul, whose words seem to me, as often as I hear them, to be not words, but peals of thunder. Read his epistles, and especially those addressed to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, in all of which he stands in the thick of the battle, and you will see how skillful and how careful he is in the proofs which he draws from the Old Testament, and how warily he cloaks the object which he has in view.

His words seem simplicity itself: the expressions of a guileless and unsophisticated person-one who has no skill either to plan a dilemma or to avoid it. Still, whichever way you look, they are thunderbolts. His pleading halts, yet he carries every point which he takes up. He turns his back upon his foe only to overcome him; he simulates flight, but only that he may slay.

He, then, if any one, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: "The proofs which you have used against the Jews or against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your epistles. We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory which in the volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all."

May he not reply to us in the words of the Saviour: "I have one mode of speech for those that are without and another for those that are within; the crowds hear my parables, but their interpretation is for my disciples alone?"

The Lord puts questions to the Pharisees, but does not elucidate them. To teach a disciple is one thing; to vanquish an opponent, another.

"My mystery is for me," says the prophet; "my mystery is for me and for them that are mine."


Source Here:


What Jerome is doing here is providing a hypothetical scenario in which he takes on the position of an antagonist to Paul. He uses a hypothetical accusation beginning with "The proofs which you have used ..." (hence, the quoted text) and then creates a hypothetical response from the "Saviour" who defends Paul beginning with, "I have one mode of speech for those ... ."

All through that historical letter Jerome raves about the Apostle Paul, and how his writings silenced his opponents. Here, Jerome is giving us a hypothetical situation in which he plays the part of the antagonist in an effort to demonstrate how Paul may be defended by the Saviour, presumably Jesus.

Now do you see what I am saying about these fucking Mythicists? They quote out of context, then string parts of a quote together to give you a completely different version of what is actually being said, and if you don't actually check it out you may actually believe their lies. They have an agenda to misinform the average Joe in an effort to discredit Christianity.

Mythicists have absolutely no respect for history whatsoever, as they constantly purposely misquote ancient historical documents to intentionally mislead the readers.

But as you can see, when we put Mr Ball's intentionally misleading quote right back into it's proper context, it becomes very clear what the truth here actually is. Mr. Ball is trying to give you the impression that Jerome himself is accusing Paul of being some kind of a liar, when the truth is that Jerome is demonstrating his belief that Paul's words make fools of all who accuse him of specific things.

You will see this same bullshit from him over, and over, and over. The lies just never end. Mr Ball knows that it is very time consuming for people to expose his bullshit, and hopes that people won't bother to do it.

But as a historian, I find his actions to be completely dishonest, and I have respect enough for actual history to go the hard yards to expose his never ending series of complete and utter bullshit.

I am hopeful that you and others will see the points I am making here in the interests of genuine history, and also begin to see the intentionally dishonest tactics of those whose hatred of religion skews the truth into some completely ridiculous effigy of itself insomuch as it no longer represents the truth whatsoever.

Facepalm

I will leave it to Bucky to defend his methods, but if he "has an agenda", he's not the only one.

By the way, why do you continue to refer to everyone who opposes you as a mythicist, even when they have explicitly stated that they are not? That is just as annoying as people calling you a theist when you have repeatedly stated that you are not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: