Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2016, 01:17 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.

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.

Hey, he called me "old man".

Bucky is the Donald Trump of religious revisionism. He is going to tear down religion because it is all "lies" and everyone he comes across is a "liar". And then he's going to create a new understanding of religion, a better better understanding... and make Judaism great again....

That's ok at the beginning. He has enough about him to pull it off until you give him a real issue to deal with and then he melts down into Trumpic abuse and more "lies, lies, all lies". Everyone is a liar, everyone. Just face it.

If you look at Christianity as largely influenced by Hellenistic thought and a product of Roman dissatisfaction with religious zealotry in the Near East, it doesn't matter if Jesus is real or not, but there is a real character and real events which roughly parallel the Jesus story.

The problem with people like Bucky, and also Carrier is that they have put tight straps around their heads, compressed their brains, written lots and lots about this in small rooms with not enough fresh air or nutrition and when they emerge from their cells, they discover that some former airline pilot or computer geek have figured out a new and much more interesting theory about who Jesus was, and then they blow a fuse...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
14-08-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 10:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 10:05 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Then what the fuck was the original response to my quote all about? It was STILL non sequitur. That is my contention here. Your response with the verse in Acts had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So here is the quote again, and now YOU tell me how your response related to my statement:


Facepalm

It is not, you idiot.
If the apostles expected a messiah (as PROVEN BY THEIR QUESTION), to cause the re-establishment of the kingdom, then the FACT he never got the job done, means something ELSE has to be invented.

Nawwww ... you are making this shit up as you go along. Your quote of Acts was, and still is, completely non sequitur no matter how you so desperately try to spin it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 08:54 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 11:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 09:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus. I'm not saying it can't be true, but only there's not enough good evidence to make it a plausible alternative to the conventional historical view.

Reza Asian might be a good read, despite his bad reviews. I actually watched the Fox interview in which Fox embarrassed themselves with this guy.


Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus.


Well...that's just your opinion. Perhaps you could read either Peter Cresswell's or Reza's book (it is available as an ebook) and you would be more qualified to comment.

What is this "conventional historical view" you refer to?

The conventional historical view is actually incredibly simple:

Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.

Source Here.

Believe it or not, that's it. That's all. No big deal whatsoever. It amazes me that anybody could possibly have a problem with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 09:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 10:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 09:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus. I'm not saying it can't be true, but only there's not enough good evidence to make it a plausible alternative to the conventional historical view.

Reza Asian might be a good read, despite his bad reviews. I actually watched the Fox interview in which Fox embarrassed themselves with this guy.

It is a good read, so is Peter Cresswell's book.

Don't concern yourself with the "bad reviews" thing...we all know why they exist.

Actually Mark, some reviews are valid.

Dale Martin, the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, faults Aslan for presenting early Christianity as being simply divided into a Hellenistic, Pauline form on the one hand, and a Jewish, Jamesian form on the other. Martin says that this repeats 19th-century German scholarship which now is mostly rejected.

Elizabeth Castelli, the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of Religion at Barnard College and a specialist in biblical studies and early Christianity, argued that Aslan largely ignores the findings in textual studies of the New Testament, and relies too heavily on a selection of texts, like Josephus, taking them more or less at face value (which no scholar of the period would do). Near her conclusion, she writes: "Zealot is a cultural production of its particular historical moment—a remix of existing scholarship, sampled and re-framed to make a culturally relevant intervention in the early twenty-first-century world where religion, violence and politics overlap in complex ways. In this sense, the book is simply one more example in a long line of efforts by theologians, historians and other interested cultural workers."

Craig A. Evans, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor at Acadia Divinity College, writing in Christianity Today, states that Aslan made many basic errors in geography, history and New Testament interpretation. He said it "relies on an outdated and discredited thesis," consistently fails to engage the relevant historical scholarship, and is "rife with questionable assertions."

Stephen Prothero, the professor of religion at Boston University, who said Aslan’s perspective as a Muslim may have influenced his writing as he found the picture of Jesus in Zealot seems more like a failed version of the Prophet Muhammad than the figure depicted in the Bible; yet Prof. Prothero agreed that biographies of Jesus citing alternative sources are often controversial since "outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus"

Darrell Gwaltney, dean of the School of Religion at Belmont University, concurred and commented "Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he was... And they were eyewitnesses."


What I get from all these scholars (and there are others) is that Aslan's scholarship relies on outdated 19th century scholarship (something I have constantly pointed out as being used by you and others in this thread), he overly simplifies the competing sects as only being Pauline and Jamesian (when you and I both know it's far more than that), and also that Aslan actually fabricates a biography of Jesus because Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he was, and also outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus.

These are massive flaws, Mark.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 09:58 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2016 10:26 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 01:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 10:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Hey, he called me "old man".

Bucky is the Donald Trump of religious revisionism. He is going to tear down religion because it is all "lies" and everyone he comes across is a "liar". And then he's going to create a new understanding of religion, a better better understanding... and make Judaism great again....

That's ok at the beginning. He has enough about him to pull it off until you give him a real issue to deal with and then he melts down into Trumpic abuse and more "lies, lies, all lies". Everyone is a liar, everyone. Just face it.

If you look at Christianity as largely influenced by Hellenistic thought and a product of Roman dissatisfaction with religious zealotry in the Near East, it doesn't matter if Jesus is real or not, but there is a real character and real events which roughly parallel the Jesus story.

The problem with people like Bucky, and also Carrier is that they have put tight straps around their heads, compressed their brains, written lots and lots about this in small rooms with not enough fresh air or nutrition and when they emerge from their cells, they discover that some former airline pilot or computer geek have figured out a new and much more interesting theory about who Jesus was, and then they blow a fuse...

I cannot disagree with this. His view is one dimensional and if anyone else's view doesn't agree with his, well then ... that person is a liar, or uneducated, or something of the sort. And people will absolutely require the divine intervention of every god in history if they ever make a spelling error, or use a word in an unusual way in which Mr. Ball is not accustomed to.

For example, in your quote above regarding "atypical" he doesn't seem to understand that it also means "unusual."

His version of Mythicism is unusual, as opposed to the usual garden variety, and also the conventional historical view. He couldn't grasp the idea that what I was saying was "Totally unusual Mythicist bullshit ..." because he takes it to such an extreme with all his denialism that it can't even be compared to what Carrier and Price propagate in regards to mythicism.

At least Carrier and Price will admit to the shortcomings of mythicism, but Mr Ball goes straight off the deep end and does a swan dive into the abyss of complete and utter insanity.

It's a train wreck.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 03:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 08:54 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 11:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus.


Well...that's just your opinion. Perhaps you could read either Peter Cresswell's or Reza's book (it is available as an ebook) and you would be more qualified to comment.

What is this "conventional historical view" you refer to?

The conventional historical view is actually incredibly simple:

Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.

Source Here.

Believe it or not, that's it. That's all. No big deal whatsoever. It amazes me that anybody could possibly have a problem with that.

I have no issue with Jesus being baptized and crucified. If that's what you think is all we know for sure...I agree. My hypothesis involves what being baptized meant and why he was crucified.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 09:13 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 10:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It is a good read, so is Peter Cresswell's book.

Don't concern yourself with the "bad reviews" thing...we all know why they exist.

Actually Mark, some reviews are valid.

Dale Martin, the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, faults Aslan for presenting early Christianity as being simply divided into a Hellenistic, Pauline form on the one hand, and a Jewish, Jamesian form on the other. Martin says that this repeats 19th-century German scholarship which now is mostly rejected.

Elizabeth Castelli, the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of Religion at Barnard College and a specialist in biblical studies and early Christianity, argued that Aslan largely ignores the findings in textual studies of the New Testament, and relies too heavily on a selection of texts, like Josephus, taking them more or less at face value (which no scholar of the period would do). Near her conclusion, she writes: "Zealot is a cultural production of its particular historical moment—a remix of existing scholarship, sampled and re-framed to make a culturally relevant intervention in the early twenty-first-century world where religion, violence and politics overlap in complex ways. In this sense, the book is simply one more example in a long line of efforts by theologians, historians and other interested cultural workers."

Craig A. Evans, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor at Acadia Divinity College, writing in Christianity Today, states that Aslan made many basic errors in geography, history and New Testament interpretation. He said it "relies on an outdated and discredited thesis," consistently fails to engage the relevant historical scholarship, and is "rife with questionable assertions."

Stephen Prothero, the professor of religion at Boston University, who said Aslan’s perspective as a Muslim may have influenced his writing as he found the picture of Jesus in Zealot seems more like a failed version of the Prophet Muhammad than the figure depicted in the Bible; yet Prof. Prothero agreed that biographies of Jesus citing alternative sources are often controversial since "outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus"

Darrell Gwaltney, dean of the School of Religion at Belmont University, concurred and commented "Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he was... And they were eyewitnesses."


What I get from all these scholars (and there are others) is that Aslan's scholarship relies on outdated 19th century scholarship (something I have constantly pointed out as being used by you and others in this thread), he overly simplifies the competing sects as only being Pauline and Jamesian (when you and I both know it's far more than that), and also that Aslan actually fabricates a biography of Jesus because Even people who were present in the life of Jesus couldn’t make up their minds about who he was, and also outside of the Bible there’s not enough historical evidence to write about a modern biography of Jesus.

These are massive flaws, Mark.

It's a great read.

These people have positions to maintain. He is too real for them. His ideas expose Christianity for what it is...a massive fraud. They will never, ever, admit to that. Some of them might lose their jobs if they did.

Why don't you read it? It will only cost you ten bucks.

Tell me more about the "outdated 19th century scholarship"
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
14-08-2016, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2016 04:50 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 09:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 01:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Hey, he called me "old man".

Bucky is the Donald Trump of religious revisionism. He is going to tear down religion because it is all "lies" and everyone he comes across is a "liar". And then he's going to create a new understanding of religion, a better better understanding... and make Judaism great again....

That's ok at the beginning. He has enough about him to pull it off until you give him a real issue to deal with and then he melts down into Trumpic abuse and more "lies, lies, all lies". Everyone is a liar, everyone. Just face it.

If you look at Christianity as largely influenced by Hellenistic thought and a product of Roman dissatisfaction with religious zealotry in the Near East, it doesn't matter if Jesus is real or not, but there is a real character and real events which roughly parallel the Jesus story.

The problem with people like Bucky, and also Carrier is that they have put tight straps around their heads, compressed their brains, written lots and lots about this in small rooms with not enough fresh air or nutrition and when they emerge from their cells, they discover that some former airline pilot or computer geek have figured out a new and much more interesting theory about who Jesus was, and then they blow a fuse...

I cannot disagree with this. His view is one dimensional and if anyone else's view doesn't agree with his, well then ... that person is a liar, or uneducated, or something of the sort. And people will absolutely require the divine intervention of every god in history if they ever make a spelling error, or use a word in an unusual way in which Mr. Ball is not accustomed to.

For example, in your quote above regarding "atypical" he doesn't seem to understand that it also means "unusual."

His version of Mythicism is unusual, as opposed to the usual garden variety, and also the conventional historical view. He couldn't grasp the idea that what I was saying was "Totally unusual Mythicist bullshit ..." because he takes it to such an extreme with all his denialism that it can't even be compared to what Carrier and Price propagate in regards to mythicism.

At least Carrier and Price will admit to the shortcomings of mythicism, but Mr Ball goes straight off the deep end and does a swan dive into the abyss of complete and utter insanity.

It's a train wreck.

Drinking Beverage

but Mr Ball goes straight off the deep end and does a swan dive into the abyss of complete and utter insanity.

It's a train wreck.


Whereas you remain calm and objective, always stick to the topic, never use ad hominems and other logical fallacies, never make unwarranted assumptions about others, never become histrionic, and are polite to everyone. If only Bucky was more like you!Facepalm
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
14-08-2016, 04:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 03:40 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 09:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  I cannot disagree with this. His view is one dimensional and if anyone else's view doesn't agree with his, well then ... that person is a liar, or uneducated, or something of the sort. And people will absolutely require the divine intervention of every god in history if they ever make a spelling error, or use a word in an unusual way in which Mr. Ball is not accustomed to.

For example, in your quote above regarding "atypical" he doesn't seem to understand that it also means "unusual."

His version of Mythicism is unusual, as opposed to the usual garden variety, and also the conventional historical view. He couldn't grasp the idea that what I was saying was "Totally unusual Mythicist bullshit ..." because he takes it to such an extreme with all his denialism that it can't even be compared to what Carrier and Price propagate in regards to mythicism.

At least Carrier and Price will admit to the shortcomings of mythicism, but Mr Ball goes straight off the deep end and does a swan dive into the abyss of complete and utter insanity.

It's a train wreck.

Drinking Beverage

but Mr Ball goes straight off the deep end and does a swan dive into the abyss of complete and utter insanity.

It's a train wreck.


Whereas you remain calm and objective, always stick to the topic, never use logical fallacies, never use ad hominems, never make unwarranted assumptions about others, never become histrionic, and are polite to everyone. If only Bucky was more like you!Facepalm

Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

Pretty much everybody who has engaged in this thread and significantly contributed to it is guilty of all those offenses, including me, you, Mr. Ball, RocketSurgeon, etc.

Not one of us can pretend to be any kind of white knight in shining armor here. We are all as guilty as the day is long.

My contention with Mr. Ball is that his arguments- such as his claims about Eusebius and Jerome- are very amateuristic and seriously, they are actually laughed at by historians because they are so ridiculously easy to expose as fraudulent claims.

If he wants to be taken seriously he will need to put away the kiddie shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 04:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-08-2016 03:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-08-2016 08:54 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The conventional historical view is actually incredibly simple:

Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.

Source Here.

Believe it or not, that's it. That's all. No big deal whatsoever. It amazes me that anybody could possibly have a problem with that.

I have no issue with Jesus being baptized and crucified. If that's what you think is all we know for sure...I agree. My hypothesis involves what being baptized meant and why he was crucified.

Then you are in agreement with historians on what they accept as actually being factual; that Jesus/Yeshua, who was called Christ/Messiah, was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: