Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 10:18 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

So you say and I agree. HOWEVER, you use it with an agenda and try to hide that agenda, pushing xianity, within the subject heading "History"

The only "history" I have seen you use is biblically based.

I've seen nothing in depth about the Flavians, not later how Constantine could be a Christian due to his heritage. It's all focused around the bible.

Drop the agenda. The minute you refer to proper unbiased history I will join in. Just don't try the tricks I recognise.

Otherwise it's a pathetic joke.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
11-08-2016, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 11:19 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 10:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:32 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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:


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):


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

It's indefensible. He's been exposed intentionally attempting to deceive. Full stop.

Quote: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.

Because I have seen all his typical tactics many many times being used by Jesus Mythicists all over the internet for years. This is nothing new to me at all.

He may say he is not a Jesus Mythicist, yet his statements, dishonest tactics, and who he respects- Richard Carrier and Robert Price who are both inclined to Jesus Mythicism- only demonstrate the furtherance of his lies.

He's a Mythicist, and a proven liar. He hides behind a veil of denial to protect himself from exposure, but there's no hiding his hallmark signs which scream "I am a Mythicist" loud and clear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Fuck off, Tomato.

I'm no longer participating in the argument because of emotional reactions just like that one.

So get bent.

"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
11-08-2016, 11:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 11:15 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 10:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I will leave it to Bucky to defend his methods

It's indefensible. He's been exposed intentionally attempting to deceive. Full stop.

Quote: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.

Because I have seen all his typical tactics many many times being used by Jesus Mythicists all over the internet for years. This is nothing new to me at all.

He may say he is not a Jesus Mythicist, yet his statements, dishonest tactics, and who he respects- Richard Carrier and Robert Price who are both inclined to Jesus Mythicism- only demonstrate the furtherance of his lies.

He's a Mythicist, and a proven liar. He hides behind a veil of denial to protect himself from exposure, but there's no hiding his hallmark signs which scream "I am a Mythicist" loud and clear.
These are only conclusions that someone so insistent labels matter and is hung up in black and white defining would conclude.

Do labels or thisorthat scenarios develop the thought much? ... it's massive wastes of mental capacities to bemoan these factors.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
11-08-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
GoingUp -

If you can repeatedly cite to fundamentalist/evangelical Christian theology proponents whom you respect, without being a Christian yourself, then they can cite Price and Carrier's arguments without agreeing with every aspect of their position.

It is the emotionalism of your arguments that give me pause, just like Tomato's.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
11-08-2016, 11:34 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 10:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

And you can provide evidence to suggest that Paul got his "Jesus" from somewhere else?

Let's see this. This should be good. I'll get popcorn and watch the comedy show.

Big Grin

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

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.

Really? Carrier and Price both say there's nothing in the NT that has any historical truth?

Please, by all means, quote where either of them says any such thing.

(Be very careful, because I am armed to the teeth with quotes from both that conclusively demonstrate otherwise.)

Big Grin

Quote:
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.

Here, I will just make a liar out of you again by quoting you again:

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

Quote:
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.

No .. no ... no.

THIS POST HERE conclusively reveals who the fraud here actually is, because it nails you to the proverbial cross, exposed for the whole world to see, and there's not a god damn thing you can do about it.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 11:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  GoingUp -

If you can repeatedly cite to fundamentalist/evangelical Christian theology proponents whom you respect, without being a Christian yourself, then they can cite Price and Carrier's arguments without agreeing with every aspect of their position.

It is the emotionalism of your arguments that give me pause, just like Tomato's.

The thing is, being secular, I cite to everyone, INCLUDING Carrier and Price. I just did it with you a few pages back regarding Carrier's position on the existence of Nazareth.

The 'emotionalism" you see is carried on all sides of this debate. You get emotional, Mr. Ball, Tomato, me, everybody.

No one is immune, except maybe Chas because he's got this, "Fuckoff I don't really give a shit" attitude, and I believe him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 11:52 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 11:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you can provide evidence to suggest that Paul got his "Jesus" from somewhere else?

Paul got his Jesus from Jewish Apocalyptic literature. A hero. I already resented a paper on it. YOU, on the other hand, have never once presented a paper on anything. We "seen'' that. If Christians today KNEW (as Martin clearly says at the end of Lecture 14), what Paul actually thought, and how little it relates with what the think today, they would be shocked. It's why Ehrman says the public has no clue what goes on in real academic centers.

Quote:Really? Carrier and Price both say there's nothing in the NT that has any historical truth?

I never said that. Liar. Since you have nothing else, all you can do is make up exaggerations and lies about what people say. You actually have never presented anything that leads us to think you even know what they say. You also said Crossan didn't say what I proved he DID say. So if you claim people lie, you can getr in the same "god damn" line. Tongue You have no clue about the current state of discussions in the field. I stand by everything I said about Martin. People can watch it, and decide for themselves.

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
11-08-2016, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 12:48 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 11:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 11:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you can provide evidence to suggest that Paul got his "Jesus" from somewhere else?

Paul got his Jesus from Jewish Apocalyptic literature.

Right, now please produce this "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature which uses a variation of Jesus (Yeshua) and show me where:

1. He was crucified, as Paul says.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as Paul says.
3. He had 12 apostles, as Paul says.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as Paul says.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.
6. He had a brother named James, as Paul says.

Let's see this Jewish Apocalyptic literature with those elements included within it, Mr. Ball.

And then you will need to demonstrate with evidence how the Gospel writers the NT all speak of a Jesus as;

1. He was crucified, as the Gospels say.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as the Gospels say.
3. He had 12 apostles, as the Gospels say.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as the Gospels say.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as the Gospels say.
6. He has a brother named James, as the Gospels say.

Do you think these 4 Gospel writers were actually all Paul? Did they also use the same "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature as Paul did? Or are these comparisons all just some incredibly improbable coincidence?

What do you think, Mr. Ball?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 11:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 10:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...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.

And you can provide evidence to suggest that Paul got his "Jesus" from somewhere else?

You have to be careful with a phrase like "Jesus of the Gospels". Assuming that Jesus was a real person, I'm pretty sure that "Jesus of the Gospels" is a highly embellished exaggeration of that real person. To say that Paul's Jesus was the "Jesus of the Gospels" is like saying that an 1870 biographer of Abraham Lincoln got his Abraham Lincoln from "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter". Nonsense -- it didn't exist yet, and neither did the Gospels when Paul was writing. We have covered this before. Paul and the Gospels may have based their Jesus on the same historical person, but Paul didn't get Jesus from the Gospels. They weren't written yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: