Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:Well now, aren't you just desperate to dispense ad hominems?

If this is your attitude "kid," I am very proficient with the ignore feature on these forums, so if you want any kind of discussion with me, the next excessively negative response from you will dictate what form of action I will take.

it's up to you.

So you will demonstrate the integrity needed to address me with some degree of respect before I respond to this, or be ignored.

Simple enough?

In other words, gramps has nothing to say in reply, so the "huff-n-puff" starts up.
Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

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
01-07-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 01:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:59 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I cant decide if you are more stupid or dishonest. I will lay out why:

1) Dishonesty
You link to the experiment of the Bonn team, an experiment that does not support your claim at all. When i call your BS out about your "interpretation" of this experiment you refer to "link further down that continues the story". In fact its another Team (Heidelberg) with a different experiment, at a different time (2011 opposed to 2015). If you wanted us to read the Heidelberg Article, why link the Bonn article?
Because i called out your BS and you quickly looked for something....at the very same website. The second link was on the website as a "related story".
Dishonest and fucking lazy. I just love that combination

2) Lack of reading comprehension/scientific education
The results of the Heidelberg team were exactly the same as the ones of Bonn.


You are starting to insult my intellect, kid. If you want to promote your bullshit, you at least could honour us by putting in more effort.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your demonstration how a being can "exist" without space and time Drinking Beverage

Well now, aren't you just desperate to dispense ad hominems?

If this is your attitude "kid," I am very proficient with the ignore feature on these forums, so if you want any kind of discussion with me, the next excessively negative response from you will dictate what form of action I will take.

it's up to you.

So you will demonstrate the integrity needed to address me with some degree of respect before I respond to this, or be ignored.

Simple enough?

Oh no, not the dreaded ignore! I'll bet he's pissing himself in fear. What's next, the soft pillows?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
01-07-2016, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 01:50 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 01:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:59 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I cant decide if you are more stupid or dishonest. I will lay out why:

1) Dishonesty
You link to the experiment of the Bonn team, an experiment that does not support your claim at all. When i call your BS out about your "interpretation" of this experiment you refer to "link further down that continues the story". In fact its another Team (Heidelberg) with a different experiment, at a different time (2011 opposed to 2015). If you wanted us to read the Heidelberg Article, why link the Bonn article?
Because i called out your BS and you quickly looked for something....at the very same website. The second link was on the website as a "related story".
Dishonest and fucking lazy. I just love that combination

2) Lack of reading comprehension/scientific education
The results of the Heidelberg team were exactly the same as the ones of Bonn.


You are starting to insult my intellect, kid. If you want to promote your bullshit, you at least could honour us by putting in more effort.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your demonstration how a being can "exist" without space and time Drinking Beverage

Well now, aren't you just desperate to dispense ad hominems?

If this is your attitude "kid," I am very proficient with the ignore feature on these forums, so if you want any kind of discussion with me, the next excessively negative response from you will dictate what form of action I will take.

it's up to you.

So you will demonstrate the integrity needed to address me with some degree of respect before I respond to this, or be ignored.

Simple enough?


Ooh, did that hurt? You dont expect people to usually critically examine your BS, you are just used to baffle em with science (which doesnt support your position at all, but hey, they usually are too baffled to read what you actually link to), dontcha?
Do you really think i do care a fuck what a dishonest stupid cunt threatens me with on a fucking forum? A fucking stupid cunt who doesnt even know what an ad hominem is? I didnt say you are wrong because you are stupid, i said you are stupid because you are wrong. I didnt attack your character but the content of your post which was
1) dishonest
and
2) uneducated
demonstrably so

You claimed that
Quote:This certainly is evidence that can be used to accept as possible that somethings can indeed defy natural explanation.
while both links you provided just show that two teams of scientists demonstrated how counter intuitive quantum mechanics is. Nothing "defies natural explanation" but maybe your dishonesty, stupidity, and butthurtery.

YOU first show some respect by being honest and getting some education first before you engage here. My points still stand on the topic (team Bonn and team Heidelberg) of quantum superposition. I am sure others will follow up if you decide to ignore me.

Now you have a couple of reasons to put me on ignore, kid.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
01-07-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 01:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:55 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Not true.

I reject attestations that people claim to have seen magic performed because it is unreasonable to accept the existence of magic.

I accept attestations that people claim of the mere existence of a man because it is perfectly reasonable to accept the mere existence of a man.

The difference is exceptionally obvious.

Totally true. You're still committing the Historian's Fallacy.
You pick and chose what you witnesses you chose to call reliable, not based on what THEY thought was what they were seeing. You totally miss the point, (or reject it as it's inconvenient).
It's not about what YOU reject. The educated witnesses in Salem testified to what they saw. The witnesses of Jesus, who also claimed IN THE SAME breath, he did miracles, walked on water etc. etc. were far less educated and far less reliable. You chose to accept the less educated and less reliable, as you are desperate to maintain your delusions.

You're attempting to create a difference with no distinction.

It's obvious you are misusing the Historian's Fallacy position, as it appears you do not understand how it applies.

"The historian's fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision."

That simply does not apply here at all.

My point has not even been addressed by you, as it would appear you are only merely attempting to circumvent it because you have no real answer for it.

it's all about an evaluation of evidence pertaining to what is reasonable, and what is not reasonable.

It is not reasonable to accept that people actually observed the practice of real witchcraft magic.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept that people claim that another person existed as a mere human being.

Using your standard, should we then claim that nobody was ever executed in Salem because witchcraft isn't real, and thereby those supposedly executed persons didn't exist?

Therefore, because Jesus was claimed by some of his followers to be some kind of a magic man, we therefore must conclude that he didn't exist at all?

What's the difference here? You accept that those people in Salem existed despite being claimed to be some kind of magic persons, yet you reject the existence of Jesus just because he was also claimed to be some kind of magic person?

Your double standard is very obvious, and indicative of your extreme distaste for religion insomuch as your judgement is clearly flawed.



Quote:
Quote:No, it is virtually unanimous that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by Pilate.

Then prove it.
You have no poll of "objective" scholars, and you know it.
You don't even know the current names, books, and arguments of current scholars, and in fact refuse to even address them.

Still waiting for the definition of "eternal".

From the scholars themselves:

"In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[14] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[15] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[16] James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[17] Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[18] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[19]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#cite_note-exist-25
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 01:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  It's obvious you are misusing the Historian's Fallacy position, as it appears you do not understand how it applies.

It applies perfectly, and you are committing it. YOU are slapping YOUR view of witchcraft onto the 16th Century.

Quote:It's all about an evaluation of evidence pertaining to what is reasonable, and what is not reasonable.

Exactly. Reasonable to YOU. THAT IS THE HISTORIANS Fallacy.

Quote:It is not reasonable to accept that people actually observed the practice of real witchcraft magic.

For YOU. It doesn't matter what YOU think about it.
THEY thought it was. THEY thought they had evidence for it. Just as some thought they had evidence for a miracle working Jebus. You utterly FAIL to grasp the points here.

Quote:It is perfectly reasonable to accept that people claim that another person existed as a mere human being.

But that's not all they said they witnessed, and you know it.
They said the saw FAR MORE that was unreasonable in the same context.

Quote:Using your standard, should we then claim that nobody was ever executed in Salem because witchcraft isn't real, and thereby those supposedly executed persons didn't exist?

There is BETTER evidence for Salem witches than there is for Jesus. Yet you reject the better evidence. THAT is a dishonest standard. My point stands. If you reject witches which has BETTER evidence than Jebus, you must reject Jebus.
You're really quite clueless here.

Quote:Your double standard is very obvious, and indicative of your extreme distaste for religion insomuch as your judgement is clearly flawed.

More lying judgmental Church Lady presumptuous crap. You have no clue what I think about religion. You fools always go to that garbage, about how atheists "hate religion".

"In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[18] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted."

1977 ? Really ? Really ? Carrier is a damn serious scholar. A PhD from Columbia. FAR more educated than YOU. Yet you didn't even know his name. You have no poll of contemporary scholars. 25 or 50 years ago the OT was held as true. Now it's totally debunked. There are many good reason to doubt that any Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. All you have is the biased testimony from believers, decades and decades later.

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
01-07-2016, 03:35 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 12:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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 ...

"
[i]Yes, this tired argument again which has absolutely 0% evidence for support."[/i]

There is lots of evidence that Paul never knew Jesus or Jesus' ghost. If you're genuinely interested in discussing this, I'll present it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 03:43 PM
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.

"And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate"

You keep saying this, yet you haven't explained who these "multiple authors" are. Feel free to do that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 03:53 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 09:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 02:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

"I accept as reasonable that a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists."

Evidence please. Just one tiny skerrick will do.

Please also explain why you are so antagonistic towards atheists.

Please also explain why you are so antagonistic towards mythicists, as you have yet to provide any evidence for Jesus' existence...and, yes, I have read your posts carefully.
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, 04:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:18 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 01:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.

And here comes the correction to your reasoning.

The first mistake you made was this:

"Ten - twenty years later, another 2 publishers pinch the ideas and themes from the novel,"

"Ten years later the act is repeated."

Your analogy fails because it incorporates nothing more of a re-writing of an original story as decades and centuries passed.

It does not compare to The Gospels, Paul's Letters, the rest of the NT, and other documents written as a close contemporary to Jesus by multiple persons, and in which many of these documents do not share much in common other than the existence of this same Jesus.

We all know how vastly different Paul's experience with Jesus is from the Gospel records, and from other records. Yet, ALL these different records point at one commonality; Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by Pilate.

Explain that.

"Your analogy fails because it incorporates nothing more of a re-writing of an original story as decades and centuries passed."

No. My analogy is correct for this very reason.

"It does not compare to The Gospels," Why not?

"Paul's Letters," Ah ha! Here is your chance to prove to the readers that Paul thought Jesus existed. There is a little evidence that might be true...so I'll look forward to hearing you present it.

"the rest of the NT" Interesting! You have evidence that other NT authors thought Jesus of Nazareth existed? Please present it, although please don't bother regurgitating the book of Acts, which is almost universally recognised as a work of fiction.

"and other documents written as a close contemporary to Jesus by multiple
persons,
"

HOLY SHIT BATMAN!!!!You have this!!! We're going to create history here folks! Can't wait to read these!!!

By the way, I happen to think there may have been a Yeshua (not "of Nazareth"). I have my reasons for that, none of which you have as yet mentioned. I also think it is equally likely "he" never existed at all. I await your fact filled reply.
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, 04:19 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 11:00 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Mark's analogy is quite applicable to the Gospels. The three synoptic Gospels share many passages that are word-for-word identical -- not just speaking of the same events, but doing so in the exact same words. This means that they either copied from each other, or they all copied from a common source, or both. And that fits Mark's analogy.

To the Gospels ALONE, perhaps. But the problem with his analogy is that it excludes all other texts that are not gospels.

And that is exactly why it fails.

My analogy only referred to the gospels. Please, go ahead and tell us about how these "other texts" prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The ball is in your court.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: