Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-06-2016, 11:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-06-2016 09:36 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you want to believe that you can lecture me on critical thinking?

Yes. Nothing you said had any relevance.

It does not matter that multiple authors wrote the bible.

Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.

Quote:In any event, the bible is treated as one book.

Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.

Quote: The fact that other holy books had single or multiple authors does not matter in the least. That is a non-sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.

Quote:If you accept that the bible is true because the bible says it is true, then how can you discount the other religions whose holy books say the same thing?

Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And nothing you said here even remotely addresses the point of my post.

My point was that all of those bibles have different books in them. None of them use the same collection of texts. Kind of odd for a compilation inspired by an omnipotent deity, don't you think?

I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And virtually all well versed scholars agree that virtually all manuscripts available in regards to Jesus speaks of Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Since virtually all the manuscripts are of christian origin, this is not surprising.

Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Now to demonstrate the holes in your position, I will ask you to do something that you will either ignore (typically) or attempt to circumvent:

Wait. Before I read any further, let me guess. You're going to shift the burden of proof...

(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Can you find me one other "Jesus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate and whom could possibly be at the centre of the Christian religion?

I just want you to find one other possible candidate.

Yep. Shifting the burden of proof. Speaking of typical.

You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.

Quote:So, you want one other "jesus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate and who could be the focus of the christian religion...

Jesus Pantera who grew up two streets over from Jesus of Nazareth. They went to school together and their identities got mixed up all the time.

And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?

Quote:Prove me wrong.

If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.

Quote:Oh, if you've read the entire thread, I've already stated that I'm ambivalent about the whole mythicist position. I think that it has merit, but I also think that there is enough evidence that jesus did exist, at least partially as depicted in the bible.

The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yet, the issue here is the commonalities between- not only those 4 gospels- but also the rest of the NT, and also the numerous other historical documents dating anywhere from some 60 - 90 years or less from the crucifixion.

You can't water this down to 4 gospel records alone, when the truth is known about all the other documents.

Don't strawman.

Prove the strawman accusation.

Quote:I'm not watering it down to the gospels.

Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:

Quote:Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke were based off of him. John was written decades later, last, and has the most extravagant miracles.

One account, two plagiarisms and one extremely different account do not make commonality.

You mentioned nothing else.

Quote:I already mentioned Paul's letters and their authorship.

Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  If that's the way you prefer to view this subject, there's really nothing I can do about it. Some people have a bone to pick with religions- militant atheists especially- and will intentionally apply irrationality to the critical thinking process in regards to this subject, for whatever reason.

Are you assuming I am a militant atheist?
Because I ask questions?
Because I raise issues with the holy texts?

You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Now, I am not some fire & brimstone hard-core Christian fundamentalist with some whacked-out agenda to preach a message to you just so I can get myself into the good graces of whatever may exist that is greater than I am. Not all people who believe in something greater than what is currently known to exist walk around thumping people over the head with a religious book.

Yet you are here, aren't you? You definitely aren't interested in hearing our ideas. Before you object, we've heard your arguments before, from other theists.

Now, I will say that you are much nicer about it than some, so that counts for something.

I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you know this for a certainty? What is your source for this?

Bart Erhman. Read "Misquoting Jesus".

However this is probably a better link:
wiki

But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.


Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So where did you get the idea that they were being ascribed to illiterate fisherman?

The gospels state that they are "according to" the apostles, most of which were fishermen. At least one of them straight up said he was "unlettered". Additionally, literacy rates in those days were pretty much nil. And before you ask, Erhman and the other scholars talk about that too.

You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No one says it does, and that is non sequitur to the point. The point is that all available evidence indicates that the Jesus of the Christian religion once existed- at the very least as a mere human being- and was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Excuse me? No one says jesus was the son of god?

Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I won this point, obviously.

I'm sure you think that. Pointing out inconsistencies does not amount to cherry-picking.

It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.

Quote:
(30-06-2016 07:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Firstly, prove to me where Paul says anything about his conversion on the road to Darnasus.

I want to see it in Paul's own words.

Paul says he saw jesus:
1 Corinthians 9
1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?


Paul says he saw jesus after the crucifixion:
1 Corinthians 15
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


Except he didn't see him, but was struck blind:
Acts 9
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Are you testing me or did you seriously not read this stuff?

Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:31 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 02:04 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 09:36 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes. Nothing you said had any relevance.

It does not matter that multiple authors wrote the bible.

Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.

Quote:In any event, the bible is treated as one book.

Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.

Quote: The fact that other holy books had single or multiple authors does not matter in the least. That is a non-sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.

Quote:If you accept that the bible is true because the bible says it is true, then how can you discount the other religions whose holy books say the same thing?

Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.

Quote:My point was that all of those bibles have different books in them. None of them use the same collection of texts. Kind of odd for a compilation inspired by an omnipotent deity, don't you think?

I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.

Quote:Since virtually all the manuscripts are of christian origin, this is not surprising.

Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:Wait. Before I read any further, let me guess. You're going to shift the burden of proof...


Yep. Shifting the burden of proof. Speaking of typical.

You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.

Quote:So, you want one other "jesus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate and who could be the focus of the christian religion...

Jesus Pantera who grew up two streets over from Jesus of Nazareth. They went to school together and their identities got mixed up all the time.

And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?

Quote:Prove me wrong.

If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.

Quote:Oh, if you've read the entire thread, I've already stated that I'm ambivalent about the whole mythicist position. I think that it has merit, but I also think that there is enough evidence that jesus did exist, at least partially as depicted in the bible.

The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.

Quote:Don't strawman.

Prove the strawman accusation.

Quote:I'm not watering it down to the gospels.

Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:

Quote:Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke were based off of him. John was written decades later, last, and has the most extravagant miracles.

One account, two plagiarisms and one extremely different account do not make commonality.

You mentioned nothing else.

Quote:I already mentioned Paul's letters and their authorship.

Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.

Quote:Are you assuming I am a militant atheist?
Because I ask questions?
Because I raise issues with the holy texts?

You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.

Quote:Yet you are here, aren't you? You definitely aren't interested in hearing our ideas. Before you object, we've heard your arguments before, from other theists.

Now, I will say that you are much nicer about it than some, so that counts for something.

I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.

Quote:Bart Erhman. Read "Misquoting Jesus".

However this is probably a better link:
wiki

But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.


Quote:The gospels state that they are "according to" the apostles, most of which were fishermen. At least one of them straight up said he was "unlettered". Additionally, literacy rates in those days were pretty much nil. And before you ask, Erhman and the other scholars talk about that too.

You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.

Quote:Excuse me? No one says jesus was the son of god?

Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.

Quote:I'm sure you think that. Pointing out inconsistencies does not amount to cherry-picking.

It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.

Quote:Paul says he saw jesus:
1 Corinthians 9
1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?


Paul says he saw jesus after the crucifixion:
1 Corinthians 15
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


Except he didn't see him, but was struck blind:
Acts 9
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Are you testing me or did you seriously not read this stuff?

Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.


"Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus,"

Mmmm. Did Paul write those bits in "Paul?" I say no, BECAUSE IF HE MET JESUS (A GHOST, ) PAUL WOULD HAVE DESCRIBED HIM, AND HE DOESN'T. The (very few) "I met Jesus" lines in Paul are interpolations. "Jesus" hadn't been created when Paul wrote. Paul's "Christ" had, but Paul knew nothing of a Jesus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 12:31 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 01:06 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 09:36 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes. Nothing you said had any relevance.

It does not matter that multiple authors wrote the bible.

Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.

Quote:In any event, the bible is treated as one book.

Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.

Quote: The fact that other holy books had single or multiple authors does not matter in the least. That is a non-sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.

Quote:If you accept that the bible is true because the bible says it is true, then how can you discount the other religions whose holy books say the same thing?

Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.

Quote:My point was that all of those bibles have different books in them. None of them use the same collection of texts. Kind of odd for a compilation inspired by an omnipotent deity, don't you think?

I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.

Quote:Since virtually all the manuscripts are of christian origin, this is not surprising.

Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:Wait. Before I read any further, let me guess. You're going to shift the burden of proof...


Yep. Shifting the burden of proof. Speaking of typical.

You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.

Quote:So, you want one other "jesus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate and who could be the focus of the christian religion...

Jesus Pantera who grew up two streets over from Jesus of Nazareth. They went to school together and their identities got mixed up all the time.

And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?

Quote:Prove me wrong.

If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.

Quote:Oh, if you've read the entire thread, I've already stated that I'm ambivalent about the whole mythicist position. I think that it has merit, but I also think that there is enough evidence that jesus did exist, at least partially as depicted in the bible.

The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.

Quote:Don't strawman.

Prove the strawman accusation.

Quote:I'm not watering it down to the gospels.

Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:

Quote:Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke were based off of him. John was written decades later, last, and has the most extravagant miracles.

One account, two plagiarisms and one extremely different account do not make commonality.

You mentioned nothing else.

Quote:I already mentioned Paul's letters and their authorship.

Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.

Quote:Are you assuming I am a militant atheist?
Because I ask questions?
Because I raise issues with the holy texts?

You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.

Quote:Yet you are here, aren't you? You definitely aren't interested in hearing our ideas. Before you object, we've heard your arguments before, from other theists.

Now, I will say that you are much nicer about it than some, so that counts for something.

I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.

Quote:Bart Erhman. Read "Misquoting Jesus".

However this is probably a better link:
wiki

But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.


Quote:The gospels state that they are "according to" the apostles, most of which were fishermen. At least one of them straight up said he was "unlettered". Additionally, literacy rates in those days were pretty much nil. And before you ask, Erhman and the other scholars talk about that too.

You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.

Quote:Excuse me? No one says jesus was the son of god?

Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.

Quote:I'm sure you think that. Pointing out inconsistencies does not amount to cherry-picking.

It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.

Quote:Paul says he saw jesus:
1 Corinthians 9
1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?


Paul says he saw jesus after the crucifixion:
1 Corinthians 15
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


Except he didn't see him, but was struck blind:
Acts 9
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Are you testing me or did you seriously not read this stuff?

Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.


"So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus"

Yes. The "road to Damascus" story is pure fiction. It was made up by the author of Acts, probably in the early second century, in an attempt to provide a link between Paul's Christ and the Jesus of the gospels ie the author was trying to make out they were the same person. They weren't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 01:59 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 02:03 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 09:36 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes. Nothing you said had any relevance.

It does not matter that multiple authors wrote the bible.

Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.

Quote:In any event, the bible is treated as one book.

Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.

Quote: The fact that other holy books had single or multiple authors does not matter in the least. That is a non-sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.

Quote:If you accept that the bible is true because the bible says it is true, then how can you discount the other religions whose holy books say the same thing?

Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.

Quote:My point was that all of those bibles have different books in them. None of them use the same collection of texts. Kind of odd for a compilation inspired by an omnipotent deity, don't you think?

I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.

Quote:Since virtually all the manuscripts are of christian origin, this is not surprising.

Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:Wait. Before I read any further, let me guess. You're going to shift the burden of proof...


Yep. Shifting the burden of proof. Speaking of typical.

You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.

Quote:So, you want one other "jesus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate and who could be the focus of the christian religion...

Jesus Pantera who grew up two streets over from Jesus of Nazareth. They went to school together and their identities got mixed up all the time.

And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?

Quote:Prove me wrong.

If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.

Quote:Oh, if you've read the entire thread, I've already stated that I'm ambivalent about the whole mythicist position. I think that it has merit, but I also think that there is enough evidence that jesus did exist, at least partially as depicted in the bible.

The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.

Quote:Don't strawman.

Prove the strawman accusation.

Quote:I'm not watering it down to the gospels.

Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:

Quote:Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke were based off of him. John was written decades later, last, and has the most extravagant miracles.

One account, two plagiarisms and one extremely different account do not make commonality.

You mentioned nothing else.

Quote:I already mentioned Paul's letters and their authorship.

Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.

Quote:Are you assuming I am a militant atheist?
Because I ask questions?
Because I raise issues with the holy texts?

You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.

Quote:Yet you are here, aren't you? You definitely aren't interested in hearing our ideas. Before you object, we've heard your arguments before, from other theists.

Now, I will say that you are much nicer about it than some, so that counts for something.

I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.

Quote:Bart Erhman. Read "Misquoting Jesus".

However this is probably a better link:
wiki

But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.


Quote:The gospels state that they are "according to" the apostles, most of which were fishermen. At least one of them straight up said he was "unlettered". Additionally, literacy rates in those days were pretty much nil. And before you ask, Erhman and the other scholars talk about that too.

You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.

Quote:Excuse me? No one says jesus was the son of god?

Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.

Quote:I'm sure you think that. Pointing out inconsistencies does not amount to cherry-picking.

It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.

Quote:Paul says he saw jesus:
1 Corinthians 9
1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?


Paul says he saw jesus after the crucifixion:
1 Corinthians 15
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


Except he didn't see him, but was struck blind:
Acts 9
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Are you testing me or did you seriously not read this stuff?

Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.

"Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?"

???????????????????????????????????????????????

Consider a hypothetical analogy.

In 1650, a publishing house writes a short novel about a magic man, let's call him Mervin the magician, who supposedly did magic things 40 years earlier. Ten - twenty years later, another 2 publishers pinch the ideas and themes from the novel, and write their own versions. Ten years later the act is repeated. One hundred odd years down the track names are attached to the four authors....let's call them Huey, Louie, Dewey and John. Two hundred odd years later, in 1950, all the stories are rewritten by the Constantine publishing house and they develop a cult following.

Were there " multiple personal attestations" of the existence of Mervin the magician?

FUCK NO. Mervin was, and is, and always will be, a comic book character.

Did Huey, Louie, Dewey and John exist?

FUCK NO. They too were fictitious.

Did "Huey," "Louie," "Dewey" and "John" attest independently?

FUCK NO! They all copied "Huey," and Huey, who had a very active imagination, had never met Mervin, and had a political agenda of his own.

Conclusion? "Jesus of Nazareth," as per the gospels, is a fiction, a construct, a tool used to control a gullible public.

Here endeth today's lesson.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
01-07-2016, 02:23 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 03:52 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 09:36 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes. Nothing you said had any relevance.

It does not matter that multiple authors wrote the bible.

Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.

Quote:In any event, the bible is treated as one book.

Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.

Quote: The fact that other holy books had single or multiple authors does not matter in the least. That is a non-sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.

Quote:If you accept that the bible is true because the bible says it is true, then how can you discount the other religions whose holy books say the same thing?

Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.

Quote:My point was that all of those bibles have different books in them. None of them use the same collection of texts. Kind of odd for a compilation inspired by an omnipotent deity, don't you think?

I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.

Quote:Since virtually all the manuscripts are of christian origin, this is not surprising.

Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:Wait. Before I read any further, let me guess. You're going to shift the burden of proof...


Yep. Shifting the burden of proof. Speaking of typical.

You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.

Quote:So, you want one other "jesus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate and who could be the focus of the christian religion...

Jesus Pantera who grew up two streets over from Jesus of Nazareth. They went to school together and their identities got mixed up all the time.

And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?

Quote:Prove me wrong.

If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.

Quote:Oh, if you've read the entire thread, I've already stated that I'm ambivalent about the whole mythicist position. I think that it has merit, but I also think that there is enough evidence that jesus did exist, at least partially as depicted in the bible.

The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.

Quote:Don't strawman.

Prove the strawman accusation.

Quote:I'm not watering it down to the gospels.

Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:

Quote:Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke were based off of him. John was written decades later, last, and has the most extravagant miracles.

One account, two plagiarisms and one extremely different account do not make commonality.

You mentioned nothing else.

Quote:I already mentioned Paul's letters and their authorship.

Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.

Quote:Are you assuming I am a militant atheist?
Because I ask questions?
Because I raise issues with the holy texts?

You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.

Quote:Yet you are here, aren't you? You definitely aren't interested in hearing our ideas. Before you object, we've heard your arguments before, from other theists.

Now, I will say that you are much nicer about it than some, so that counts for something.

I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.

Quote:Bart Erhman. Read "Misquoting Jesus".

However this is probably a better link:
wiki

But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.


Quote:The gospels state that they are "according to" the apostles, most of which were fishermen. At least one of them straight up said he was "unlettered". Additionally, literacy rates in those days were pretty much nil. And before you ask, Erhman and the other scholars talk about that too.

You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.

Quote:Excuse me? No one says jesus was the son of god?

Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.

Quote:I'm sure you think that. Pointing out inconsistencies does not amount to cherry-picking.

It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.

Quote:Paul says he saw jesus:
1 Corinthians 9
1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?


Paul says he saw jesus after the crucifixion:
1 Corinthians 15
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


Except he didn't see him, but was struck blind:
Acts 9
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Are you testing me or did you seriously not read this stuff?

Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.

It's a bit hard to know what your agenda is. I find it hard to reconcile this....



"The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity."


"I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks."

"The fact that we have numerous documents from various sources all attesting to the existence of Jesus is indeed excellent anecdotal evidence to warrant a fortification of faith."

With this....

"1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter."


You are not explaining your position at all well. I open the door to you.
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
01-07-2016, 03:48 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 05:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

We have the same for this. The witnesses are better educated, and FAR FAR better evidence :

The Governor of the state in question became involved.
A court was established.
Witnesses were carefully examined and cross-examined, by the best experts of the day.
Evidence was gathered.
Many people confessed in public to the officials of the court.
The entire proceeding was documented with thousands of sworn affidavits, court documents, interviews and related proceedings.
Sufficient evidence was established by intelligent men and women of good faith, that the declarations of the witnesses were true, and that these declarations should in all reasonableness result in the established legal consequences that reasonable good adult men and women thought were perfectly legitimate.

What evidence did they have that the assertions concerning what they said they saw and were convinced of were really true ?

1. Hundreds if not thousands of people were involved in concluding that what they said they saw and concluded was actually true.
2. The witnesses provided sworn testimony in court, sworn affidavits which we can look at today, and affirmed they were completely utterly convinced that what they were saying was totally completely true.
3. The witnesses came from all social strata, and every diverse background, including the most highly educated of the day.
4. These witnesses included judges, magistrates, the governor of the state, and family members of those about whom the assertions were made.
5. Many involved had much to lose if the assertions were to be found true. The consequences would impact many in very personal ways, if found to be true, thus had no conflict of interest, or reasin to lie. Many could lose beloved spouses and family members and friends about whom they cared a great deal.
6. The proceedings were thorough, exhaustive investigations. They deliberately gathered evidence. They made every effort to sort out truth from fallacy. They went to every possible length to actually discern the facts.
7. There are numerous artifacts from the time, and many documents from the proceedings we can review in person today.
8. These proceedings happened, not 2000 years ago, but a mere few hundred years ago. The literacy rate was far far higher than in ancient Israel.
9. For claimed events from 2000 years ago, there are no actual original documents of any kind. None at all. Only copies from centuries later.
10. For the events in question we have sworn documented court testimony, not just word of mouth transmission.
11. A truck full of documents from the proceedings exist at the University of Virginia Library. You can go see the testimony of the eye-witnesses for yourself, today.
12. By any measure or method, the quantity and quality of the evidence for the events in question FAR FAR FAR outweigh the quality of the evidence for the events in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
13. Anyone who claims they have good evidence to support belief in Jesus, his death, and resurrection, or any miracle thought to have happened today, IF they are in any way a consistent, honest, logical and a reasonably thoughtful person, they MUST also accept : That of the 250 people accused, 19 women in Salem Massachusetts, including Sarah Goode, and Rebekah Nurse, The Witches of Salem, really were actually witches, and were justly condemned and executed for performing demon magic.

Too bad. You lose GoingDown.

Are we to also believe the sun danced ? Many more "witnesses" for that :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Quote:"The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

Then you should easily be able to "flush" the arguments of Carrier and Price.
So far, you haven't even started.
Good luck, you're gonna need it.

And when you're done, you can START to address the translation questions of Christian seminary professor Dr BB Scott (and Bart Ehrman) .... are they also just "angry militants" ??...on the previous page. Since you know no Greek, you can't even start that. And BTW, what's wrong with "militants" ? You fools get to "evangelize" and "be zealous for the Lord". You think you're the only ones that get to be crazy ?

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
01-07-2016, 07:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
This is getting tiresome.

Multiple Authors vs Individual
Addressed by Mark Fulton above. He did a better job than I did, so read that again.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.

Which you don't, at least according to the posts you've made.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.

Eye witness testimony is the least reliable. Eye witness testimony that disagrees wildly with other eye witness testimony is thrown out of court. 2000+ year old eyewitness testimony is laughable.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.

Please try to grasp the point. The bible says the bible is true. All holy books say that they are true. The point is that just because a text says that it is true doesn't make it true. You need outside sources. Which we are talking about elsewhere.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.

Please state your position clearly, and at the beginning of your discussion. I've been following your lead in what you are posting.

You are also making assumptions, like assuming I am a Mythicist, even after I directly refuted that.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.

That's splitting hairs. You are clearly trying to shift the burden by turning the tables. You are assuming that I am a mythicist and asking me to show other candidates.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?

Merely a poor joke in reference to a poor attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

You do not recognize that historians acknowledge that the name jesus was common.
You do not recognize that the culture of the time included many street preachers and prophets of doom.
You do not recognize that accredited historians and scholars of our time have acknowledged that the jesus character could be a composite of multiple characters.
You do not recognize that I have already stated I am not a proponent of the mythicist position.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.

The only mythicist movement I am aware of started with Carrier and his comrades. Please cite previous ones.

This is actually used against the Mythicists, the fact that no one in antiquity questioned christ's existence. So, again, please cite names.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Prove the strawman accusation.

You are stating that I am using only the gospels in this conversation. I have already mentioned other books in the bible, other versions of the bible and even books in other religions. I am not confining myself to only the four gospels.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.
Apparently not.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.
Considering that you are also assuming I am a mythicist, I would take your viewpoint with a grain of salt.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.

And now you are stepping into the realm of dishonesty.

Once again, I am open to the possibility that jesus did not exist as described, but I do think he was a mortal person. That's the third or fourth time I've posted that in this thread. I will not do it again.

Stating that the people in that region spoke Aramaic is stating an historical fact. If you are stating it is not, cite the sources for your knowledge.

Discussing the possible existence of a person, and including a discussion of what language they would have spoken, as part of the original discussion, is not silly.

It's called critical thinking. Analyzing all parts of an account and seeing which are true and which do not add up.

Once again, this proves that you have no familiarity with critical thinking.

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.

Then how can you consider them valid?

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:I'm sure you think that. Pointing out inconsistencies does not amount to cherry-picking.

It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.

Interesting. Isn't that what you are doing directly below:

(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are ignoring some texts, accepting others, and essentially:

Cherry-picking.

Point.

Made.

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
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
01-07-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 09:36 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Yes. Nothing you said had any relevance.

It does not matter that multiple authors wrote the bible.

Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.

Quote:In any event, the bible is treated as one book.

Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.

Quote: The fact that other holy books had single or multiple authors does not matter in the least. That is a non-sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.

Quote:If you accept that the bible is true because the bible says it is true, then how can you discount the other religions whose holy books say the same thing?

Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.

Quote:My point was that all of those bibles have different books in them. None of them use the same collection of texts. Kind of odd for a compilation inspired by an omnipotent deity, don't you think?

I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.

Quote:Since virtually all the manuscripts are of christian origin, this is not surprising.

Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:Wait. Before I read any further, let me guess. You're going to shift the burden of proof...


Yep. Shifting the burden of proof. Speaking of typical.

You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.

Quote:So, you want one other "jesus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate and who could be the focus of the christian religion...

Jesus Pantera who grew up two streets over from Jesus of Nazareth. They went to school together and their identities got mixed up all the time.

And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?

Quote:Prove me wrong.

If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.

Quote:Oh, if you've read the entire thread, I've already stated that I'm ambivalent about the whole mythicist position. I think that it has merit, but I also think that there is enough evidence that jesus did exist, at least partially as depicted in the bible.

The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.

Quote:Don't strawman.

Prove the strawman accusation.

Quote:I'm not watering it down to the gospels.

Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:

Quote:Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke were based off of him. John was written decades later, last, and has the most extravagant miracles.

One account, two plagiarisms and one extremely different account do not make commonality.

You mentioned nothing else.

Quote:I already mentioned Paul's letters and their authorship.

Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.

Quote:Are you assuming I am a militant atheist?
Because I ask questions?
Because I raise issues with the holy texts?

You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.

Quote:Yet you are here, aren't you? You definitely aren't interested in hearing our ideas. Before you object, we've heard your arguments before, from other theists.

Now, I will say that you are much nicer about it than some, so that counts for something.

I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.

Quote:Bart Erhman. Read "Misquoting Jesus".

However this is probably a better link:
wiki

But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.


Quote:The gospels state that they are "according to" the apostles, most of which were fishermen. At least one of them straight up said he was "unlettered". Additionally, literacy rates in those days were pretty much nil. And before you ask, Erhman and the other scholars talk about that too.

You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.

Quote:Excuse me? No one says jesus was the son of god?

Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.

Quote:I'm sure you think that. Pointing out inconsistencies does not amount to cherry-picking.

It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.

Quote:Paul says he saw jesus:
1 Corinthians 9
1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?


Paul says he saw jesus after the crucifixion:
1 Corinthians 15
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


Except he didn't see him, but was struck blind:
Acts 9
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


Are you testing me or did you seriously not read this stuff?

Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.

Quote: If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Yeah......rrrrright. So in 1917 40 thousand people claim they saw the sun dance in the sky. Here's a photo from the event.

[Image: Fatima-Miracle%20of%20the%20Sun-002.jpg]

Here's the crowd of people who witnessed this event.

[Image: Miracle-of-the-Sun.jpg?1367535045?interp...size=640:*]

So these people claim the sun defied all the natural physics of the universe and moved around for 10 minutes right before their eyes. Interesting that no astronomers anywhere around the world reported any movement of the sun. No one outside of Portugal noticed it. Yet these people swear this is what they saw.

Also, isn't it interesting that Catholics tend to see the Virgin Mary so often. Buddhists see visions of Buddha. Hindu's see the Lord Shiva. American Indians see mountain spirits.

What's the matter with you? Do you believe in magical shit that superstitions people claim is true? If you do you're an idiot.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
01-07-2016, 09:57 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 12:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.


Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.


It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.


Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.


I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.


Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.


You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.


And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?


If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.


The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.


Prove the strawman accusation.


Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:


You mentioned nothing else.


Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.


You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.


I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.


But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.



You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.


Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.


It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.


Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.
The (very few) "I met Jesus" lines in Paul are interpolations. "Jesus" hadn't been created when Paul wrote. Paul's "Christ" had, but Paul knew nothing of a Jesus.

Yes, this tired argument again which has absolutely 0% evidence for support.

Moving on ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 02:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.


Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.


It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.


Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.


I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.


Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.


You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.


And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?


If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.


The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.


Prove the strawman accusation.


Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:


You mentioned nothing else.


Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.


You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.


I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.


But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.



You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.


Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.


It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.


Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.

It's a bit hard to know what your agenda is. I find it hard to reconcile this....



"The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity."


"I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks."

"The fact that we have numerous documents from various sources all attesting to the existence of Jesus is indeed excellent anecdotal evidence to warrant a fortification of faith."

With this....

"1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter."


You are not explaining your position at all well. I open the door to you.

My position is quite simple. I accept as reasonable that a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: