Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2016, 05:37 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 05:30 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 05:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I read Philo, and it's only Philo that's relevant here. You claimed he was in Jerusalem 6 years after Jesus death. Philo makes no such claim, nothing in his writing is supportive of you claim that he was in Jerusalem at this time

So when you claim this, you are lying. Call it lying for atheism. I would have dismissed it as a careless mistake on your part, but your lack of ownership begs otherwise. At this point it's is not a matter of you being too busy, it's just matter of you being dishonest. Perhaps you know at this point you were wrong in making this claim, but don't want to lose face here by admitting that, to someone you referred to as ignorant on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well my good ineducable buddy, since that information was derived from multiple scholarly sources, and multiple people with PHDs in philosophy and theology assert that little factoid, I will take that collective wisdom over your opinion any day. Let's agree to disagree shall we pumpkin? Good.

Now back to our regularly scheduled ass beating.


So not from Philo himself? You derived the claim from other sources, whom you to took their word on?

So you haven't actually read Philo, you just read other people who supposedly read Philo.

You don't have to take my word that Philo didn't visit Jerusalem a few years after Jesus's death, you can just can go back and read the portion of Philo you references like the Embassy to Gauis which isn't that long.

But clearly you don't care to correct yourself, and will like to repeat you lie here.

So if making false claims is your idea of an ass beating, I guess I am getting my ass best then, lol.

But it just shows to me the level of honesty and accountability that is to be expected in parts like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
26-06-2016, 05:41 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 05:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But it just shows to me the level of honesty and accountability that is to be expected in parts like this.

More generalizations about atheists. Yet NOT ONE argument of Carrier or Price addressed.

What the fuck are you doing here again Church Lady ... oh wait we know. It's to tell atheists they are polluted and warped.

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
26-06-2016, 05:48 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 05:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So not from Philo himself? You derived the claim from other sources, whom you to took their word on?

Whatever that mess actually means ...
but YES. You, Tommy Boy, FAIL to get that someone from OUTSIDE your cult, (whose member admitted that deceit was "good for people") has fundamentally DIFFERENT value, and is more reliable than from someone INSIDE your cult of believers.

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
26-06-2016, 05:52 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 11:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong again, Preacher Man. If a non-believer (Philo) mentioned him, it would count for a lot. You have no first or even second hand reliable accounts.

Really? If Josephus's account of James is unreliable, because he wasn't there to witness James's death. I'm not sure how Philo would be deemed reliable since he also wouldn't have been a witness to the events.

What folks like yourself will likely do so is claim interpolation, complain about it being based on hearsay, etc..., and claim your doubts are a matter of rational skepticism.

Quote:It would't matter. Not one bit. He didn't get the job of a messiah done.

It seems to matter a great deal to many unbelievers, willing to go full retard to believe that Jesus did not exist.

Quote:YOU are emotionally dependent on this outcome, and if you're wrong it shatters your world.

I'm not emotionally dependent on a historical Jesus, my religious beliefs aren't dependent on a historical Jesus, even if he didn't exist they'd be fine. Of course for fatbald these kindof statements means that I'm not a Christian according to him, but that's beside the point.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
26-06-2016, 06:33 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
27 pages and now most of it is littered yet again with tomato-trash. Drinking Beverage how many more threads to going to preach-fuck before abandoning, tomato? At what point do you think your religious insecurity will subside enough for you to fuck off? Or do you think you might grow a spine and start being honest at any point? Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2016, 07:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not emotionally dependent on a historical Jesus, my religious beliefs aren't dependent on a historical Jesus, even if he didn't exist they'd be fine. Of course for fatbald these kindof statements means that I'm not a Christian according to him, but that's beside the point.

That would be according to the actual christians. But, if you want to redefine your terms, go for it.

We're used to it now. Your standard shtick: You start with a dissenting opinion and a couple of links. People disagree with you and provide counter examples. You ignore them and tell us what our views are and what our arguments should be. This continues back and forth, with the more learned posters here (excluding myself) increasingly proving their points. You latch onto one point and proceed to beat it into the ground, ignoring everything else. Eventually the thread dies out. Although, in this case, someone must have hit a nerve, since you played the race card. That seems to be your tactic of last resort.

But I digress.

Neither you nor I get to define what a christian is or is not. You can say that you believe that jesus christ was a mortal, non-divine lunatic but that you believe his teachings. There would be precedent to say that, but it would not mean the same thing as what the vast, vast majority of the christians say.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
26-06-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 11:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong again, Preacher Man. If a non-believer (Philo) mentioned him, it would count for a lot. You have no first or even second hand reliable accounts.

Really? If Josephus's account of James is unreliable, because he wasn't there to witness James's death. I'm not sure how Philo would be deemed reliable since he also wouldn't have been a witness to the events.

What folks like yourself will likely do so is claim interpolation, complain about it being based on hearsay, etc..., and claim your doubts are a matter of rational skepticism.

Wait, wut?

You're claiming that our discounting of Josephus, who wasn't born until 37 C.E., as an eyewitness to the time of Jesus' ministry, is the same as the accounts of Philo, who was a full-grown adult in the city of Jerusalem on his way to Rome in 39-40 C.E. ?

What we're trying to point out is that on one hand, you have someone who wasn't born until 1868 and didn't write about President Lincoln's assassination until the 1900s versus a guy who was a political writer in Washington D.C. in 1870 who somehow didn't hear about the demise of President Lincoln. If the only writings we had about Lincoln's killing were from the 1900s, while a major political writer was in D.C. in 1870 and didn't mention it, and nobody seems to have mentioned it until the 20th century, then it would be a reasonable conclusion that the assassination story was probably made up.

"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
[+] 10 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-06-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-06-2016 11:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 03:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  the first hand account of Paul is to be distrusted.
Paul in general should be distrusted being either a fraud or mentally unbalanced person pron to hallucinations.

Yes it is. He never met Jesus. It's (therefore) NOT a "firsthand account".
There are two very different Paul's at play in the NT, not just one. They have very different philosophies. The "record" of his journeys are impossible as claimed. Everyone knows this who has taken NT 101. Supposedly he was a student of Gamaliel. Yet not one Jew mentions that such a prominent scholar left Judaism, and was a follower of Jesus.

Your constant generalizations about atheists is really old, and all you can basically cook up, and posit it's a psychological thing about atheists needing him not to have existed ... it's also presumptuous bullshit. If a source WERE reliable, it would be accepted. It doesn't matter. If he existed, he was one of the dime-a-dozed apocalyptic preachers of the day.


Quote:Atheists here point to Philo not mentioning Jesus, yet if Philo did mention Jesus they would just claim he's not to be trusted, that he wasn't there to witness any of it. That he relied on hearsay. Because that's the pattern here.

Wrong again, Preacher Man. If a non-believer (Philo) mentioned him, it would count for a lot. You have no first or even second hand reliable accounts.

(25-06-2016 03:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's the pattern of thought borrowed from the birthers and creationist. You provide a birth certificate, and they go about the unreliability of short form birth certificates.

Bullshit. Nice try. Fail. Your lame attempt to discredit REAL reasons for doubt is crap. YOU STILL HAVE never once taken on the REAL points of Carrier or Price. All you can do is is make these lame deflections and talking around the subject, but NEVER ADDRESS actual points. It's REAL skepticism. It's "borrowed" from nothing, you dishonest troll.

STILL WAITING for the "plethora of oral and written sources".
How long do we have to wait for this "plethora" Tommy Boy ?

Since you can't actually address any actual point, all you can do is go down the "atheists have a psychological problem" route. How fucking lame. eal with the problems raised or shut the absolute fuck up with your cray baby

(25-06-2016 03:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's it driven more out of a desire for Jesus to not exist, than reason.

It would't matter. Not one bit. He didn't get the job of a messiah done. So no. More presumptuous self-righteous crap. But then, we know you think anyone who doesn't agree with your presuppositionalist garbage is "polluted" and "warped" etc etc. The fact is, you're obviously terrified your little fake Jebus world may just fall apart if no Jebus existed.

Quote:YOU are emotionally dependent on this outcome, and if you're wrong it shatters your world.

^^^^^^^ THIS. This is Tommy's problem.

The fact is, the only reason we know about the Christian cult, is that Constantine chose to use it to unify his empire. It was a political decision. Just like Alexander the Great did, just like the Persian emperor Artaxerxes did with Judaism, just like the Arabic empire did by cooking up Islam to unify their growing empire. Using religion for political reasons is a ''thing".

There were all kinds of texts, gospels and apocryphal writings that TOTALLY contradict the story that eventually "fell out" in the gospels they use today, when the church decided to cut WAY down the number of texts and gospels, to stop all the confusion. These many discarded texts were obviously just made up, (like this one : http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm ) Making up shit was the MO of the day.

Tommy Boy's ranting about our demand for reliability betrays his COMPLETE ignorance of the period and all the other obviously BS texts. But then we knew that, as he can't tell us about his "plethora". Hi smaking up this "psych" stuff betrays his desperation.

Clap

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2016, 08:38 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 08:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Really? If Josephus's account of James is unreliable, because he wasn't there to witness James's death. I'm not sure how Philo would be deemed reliable since he also wouldn't have been a witness to the events.

What folks like yourself will likely do so is claim interpolation, complain about it being based on hearsay, etc..., and claim your doubts are a matter of rational skepticism.

Wait, wut?

You're claiming that our discounting of Josephus, who wasn't born until 37 C.E., as an eyewitness to the time of Jesus' ministry, is the same as the accounts of Philo, who was a full-grown adult in the city of Jerusalem on his way to Rome in 39-40 C.E. ?

What we're trying to point out is that on one hand, you have someone who wasn't born until 1868 and didn't write about President Lincoln's assassination until the 1900s versus a guy who was a political writer in Washington D.C. in 1870 who somehow didn't hear about the demise of President Lincoln. If the only writings we had about Lincoln's killing were from the 1900s, while a major political writer was in D.C. in 1870 and didn't mention it, and nobody seems to have mentioned it until the 20th century, then it would be a reasonable conclusion that the assassination story was probably made up.

Brilliant analogy.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
26-06-2016, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2016 11:21 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Really? If Josephus's account of James is unreliable, because he wasn't there to witness James's death. I'm not sure how Philo would be deemed reliable since he also wouldn't have been a witness to the events.

"If Josephus's account of James is unreliable, because he wasn't there to witness James's death" is a dependent clause, and is meaningless in the English language.
Just as i said, you fail to understand the qualitative differences in sources.

Quote:What folks like yourself will likely do so is claim interpolation, complain about it being based on hearsay, etc..., and claim your doubts are a matter of rational skepticism.

Hypothetical biased irrelevant presumption. No one has done that, and IF Philo said something about him, the context and reliability would be evaluated by historians.
I just said that it would count for something. You don't get to make up shit.

Quote:It seems great deal to many unbelievers, willing to go full retard to believe that Jesus did not exist.

Name them. It matters not a bit to us. WE have told you it makes not a shred of difference TO US. WE are the ones talking here, not some nebulous set of people you imagined, and can't demonstrate.

The fact is, Jesus, if he existed or not, places NOT ONE unique moral or existential demand on anyone. His message was not unique. He was not unique. YOU cannot demonstrate he makes any difference to us, or makes any practical demands on anyone here today. YOU refuse to tell us what sort of religionist you are. So as far as we know, he makes NO DEMANDS on you or life either. You're a fraud, Tommy Boy. You don't even have the balls to tell us what you believe, or why. You're like Peter, denying him, three times.

Quote:I'm not emotionally dependent on a historical Jesus, my religious beliefs aren't dependent on a historical Jesus, even if he didn't exist they'd be fine. Of course for fatbald these kindof statements means that I'm not a Christian according to him, but that's beside the point.

No. That's precisely the point. You have told us you are a presuppositionalist.
Explain IN DETAIL, what the word "Christian" means in the absence of a real Jesus.
Apparently you have invented some sort of new cult for yourself. (You can't and won't. You don't have the balls.)

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: