Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2016, 10:07 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 10:14 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 09:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No Christian semonizer could read what he said in his letters and remain in their job, and you know it, delusional one.

" He said : "the concept of God as a "supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness," was a "spurious conception of transcendence," and that "God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, and science ... should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated" ! That ain't no Christian. (He also denied the Virgin Birth, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 215). He was an evolutionist (No Rusty Swords, p. 143), and believed that the book of Genesis was scientifically naive and full of myths (Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3). He denied the "verbal-plenary" inspiration of scripture, believing that the Bible was only a "witness" to the Word of God and becomes the Word of God only when it "speaks" to an individual; otherwise, it was simply the word of man/men (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 9, 104; Sanctorum Communio, p. 161). To Bonhoeffer, the Bible was meant "to be expounded as a witness, not as a book of wisdom, a teaching book, a book of eternal truth" (No Rusty Swords, p. 118). He also believed in the value of higher criticism/historical criticism, which is a denial of the inerrancy and authenticity of the Bible (Christ the Center, pp. 73-74). He had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. Bonhoeffer believed the "historicity" of the Resurrection was in "the realm of ambiguity," and that it was one of the "mythological" elements of Christianity that "must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith." He also believed that "Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death," and that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ were "mythological conceptions" as well (Christ the Center, p. 112). "

YOU still have never once presented ONE paper/written work here, on ANY subject.

He also believed in the resurrection, but believed it wasn't a question of history, that the very idea of it being able to be verified by such means, would negate faith. He had faith in the resurrection, that was the point. He didn't subscribe to an evidentialist-like position on it.

You hear certain terms, and this triggers the dishonest quote mining tendency in you, leading you to make a variety of patently false claims, such as claiming he's an atheist. And like the dishonest atheist you are, even when these claims are shown to be false, quoting a variety of passages from his final letters, you continue on with your lies. All it suggests to me is that you desire that Bonhoeffer is an atheists, perhaps because you admire in, regardless of the facts here in relationship to his beliefs.

And also Bonhoeffer's writing on the virgin birth, the resurrection you cite, are not from his Letters in Prison, but from Christ the Center, which was about 15 years prior to when he was inprisoned, when he was teaching, and is from a restructure of his teaching notes at the time. So not only did he hold these views, but was teaching them to future pastors and theologians at one of the most prestigious theological schools in the country, Union Theological, which churned our folks like Reinhold Niebuhr , Walter Wink, Marcus Borg.

So that holds as problematic for your death bed atheism claim.

At best you might have an argument that he would fall more in line with liberal Christian views, than orthodox views, which you seem to be moving the goal post too. But your claim that he was an atheists, is patent lie you continue on with, even when disproven with his own words.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 10:27 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 09:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No Christian semonizer could read what he said in his letters and remain in their job, and you know it, delusional one.

" He said : "the concept of God as a "supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness," was a "spurious conception of transcendence," and that "God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, and science ... should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated" ! That ain't no Christian. (He also denied the Virgin Birth, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 215). He was an evolutionist (No Rusty Swords, p. 143), and believed that the book of Genesis was scientifically naive and full of myths (Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3). He denied the "verbal-plenary" inspiration of scripture, believing that the Bible was only a "witness" to the Word of God and becomes the Word of God only when it "speaks" to an individual; otherwise, it was simply the word of man/men (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 9, 104; Sanctorum Communio, p. 161). To Bonhoeffer, the Bible was meant "to be expounded as a witness, not as a book of wisdom, a teaching book, a book of eternal truth" (No Rusty Swords, p. 118). He also believed in the value of higher criticism/historical criticism, which is a denial of the inerrancy and authenticity of the Bible (Christ the Center, pp. 73-74). He had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. Bonhoeffer believed the "historicity" of the Resurrection was in "the realm of ambiguity," and that it was one of the "mythological" elements of Christianity that "must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith." He also believed that "Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death," and that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ were "mythological conceptions" as well (Christ the Center, p. 112). "

YOU still have never once presented ONE paper/written work here, on ANY subject.

He also believe in the resurrection, but believed it wasn't a question of history, that the very idea of it being able to be verified by such means, would negate faith. He had faith in the resurrection, that was the point. He didn't subscribe to an evidentialist-like position on it.

He said what he said. He said NOTHING like what you said. He said it was a MYTH. He said the resurrection and ascension were myths.
He did NOT "believe in the resurrection'. He said he didn't. making up shit which contradicts his words, doesn't fly here.
And you can fucking stop with the "atheists like you" bullshit. Your insulting unsupported self-righteous generalizations are crap, Church Lady. You are not a Christian.

Quote:You hear certain terms, and this triggers the dishonest quote mining tendency in you, leading you to make a variety of patently false claims, such as claiming he's an atheist. And like the dishonest atheist you are, even when these claims are shown to be false, quoting a variety of passages from his final letters, you continue on with your lies. All it suggests to me is that you desire that Bonhoeffer is an atheists, perhaps because you admire in, regardless of the facts here in relationship to his beliefs.

Care to re-write that in English so we can understand it ?
You can spare me you patronizing presumptuous bullshit analysis, Tomato.
You have NOT in any way shown ANY of the things I said about him to be false. You NEED them to be false. He said what he said. You can't handle it.

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
05-07-2016, 10:49 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 10:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  He also believe in the resurrection, but believed it wasn't a question of history, that the very idea of it being able to be verified by such means, would negate faith. He had faith in the resurrection, that was the point. He didn't subscribe to an evidentialist-like position on it.

He said what he said. He said NOTHING like what you said. He said it was a MYTH. He said the resurrection and ascension were myths.
He did NOT "believe in the resurrection'. He said he didn't. making up shit which contradicts his words, doesn't fly here.
And you can fucking stop with the "atheists like you" bullshit. Your insulting unsupported self-righteous generalizations are crap, Church Lady. You are not a Christian.

Quote:You hear certain terms, and this triggers the dishonest quote mining tendency in you, leading you to make a variety of patently false claims, such as claiming he's an atheist. And like the dishonest atheist you are, even when these claims are shown to be false, quoting a variety of passages from his final letters, you continue on with your lies. All it suggests to me is that you desire that Bonhoeffer is an atheists, perhaps because you admire in, regardless of the facts here in relationship to his beliefs.

Care to re-write that in English so we can understand it ?
You can spare me you patronizing presumptuous bullshit analysis, Tomato.
You have NOT in any way shown ANY of the things I said about him to be false. You NEED them to be false. He said what he said. You can't handle it.

I've quoted him numerous times in the letters from prison, in his final letter debunking your suggestion that he was an atheists. How frequently are you gonna lie here.

And clearly you haven't read Christ the Center, from which he speaks of the resurrection. If you did, you wouldn't be claim that he said no such thing. See attachment for the relevant passage.


Attached File(s)
.pdf  Screen Shot 2016-07-05 at 12.34.31 PM.pdf (Size: 470.35 KB / Downloads: 8)

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 11:20 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 10:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 10:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He said what he said. He said NOTHING like what you said. He said it was a MYTH. He said the resurrection and ascension were myths.
He did NOT "believe in the resurrection'. He said he didn't. making up shit which contradicts his words, doesn't fly here.
And you can fucking stop with the "atheists like you" bullshit. Your insulting unsupported self-righteous generalizations are crap, Church Lady. You are not a Christian.


Care to re-write that in English so we can understand it ?
You can spare me you patronizing presumptuous bullshit analysis, Tomato.
You have NOT in any way shown ANY of the things I said about him to be false. You NEED them to be false. He said what he said. You can't handle it.

I've quoted him numerous times in the letters from prison, in his final letter debunking your suggestion that he was an atheists. How frequently are you gonna lie here.

And clearly you haven't read Christ the Center, from which he speaks of the resurrection. If you did, you wouldn't be claim that he said no such thing. See attachment for the relevant passage.

"Christ the Center" was written a decade earlier, before the war. He changed. He said so. No amount of your bullshit obfuscation can erase WHAT HE SAID at the end of his life.
So what's wrong with this picture ? YOU, Tomato don't need a Jebus to call yourself a Christian, but it's important that Bonheoffer did buy into the resurrection and other cultic BS ?
Consider

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
05-07-2016, 11:37 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 10:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 10:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I've quoted him numerous times in the letters from prison, in his final letter debunking your suggestion that he was an atheists. How frequently are you gonna lie here.

And clearly you haven't read Christ the Center, from which he speaks of the resurrection. If you did, you wouldn't be claim that he said no such thing. See attachment for the relevant passage.

"Christ the Center" was written a decade earlier, before the war. He changed. He said so. No amount of your bullshit obfuscation can erase WHAT HE SAID at the end of his life.
So what's wrong with this picture ? YOU, Tomato don't need a Jebus to call yourself a Christian, but it's important that Bonheoffer did buy into the resurrection and other cultic BS ?
Consider


You idiot Christ the Center is what you're referring to when he speaks of history and the resurrection, as well as the virgin birth. You apparently don't even know what sources your citing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 11:47 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 05:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then, after they go to all the trouble to somehow engage the Romans in a trial which was totally unnecessary, (he caused a ruckus in the temple, for which he was liable for execution anyway in the Pax Romana), there are reports he was re-animated, THE first human in all of history ..... and despite all the trouble to get the execution accomplished, not one Roman or Jewish posse is assembled to go to try to find this remarkable brother of yours. He must have been some dude. Facepalm

No he's not the first human in all of history whose been claimed to have been re-animated. A preacher named Reinhold Benke, even raised a Nigerian man from the dead, so did Robby Dawkins, and others. Yet it didn't make front page news.

Reinhold Benke or Reinhard Bonnke? Facepalm
And my forum name isnt Deesse23 but Dildo45. Who cares anyway, right? We are talking about resurrections, so why bother with details/facts like names, etc?
Bonnke may have resurrected someone, but he also couldnt be stopped from invoking a preaching event in a militant islamist area which let to riots and the death of hundreds, which in turn made Nigerian government declare him "persona non grata". Is his heavenly score "S" S = y - 300 + 1 ? (y = number of africans "saved")

Robby Dawkins:
Quote:As Dawkins began to preach Matt Catlow’s face contorted and his hands withered up. Matt’s mother immediately called for help and Dawkins ran over to pray. He says: “I rushed over to him, putting my hand on his chest and forehead and began to bind demonic power and command the body to be loosed in Jesus’ name.”

Despite the evangelist’s continued prayers, Mr Catlow's pupils dilated and he stopped breathing, turning blue.

“I began to declare the resurrection life of Jesus Christ over him…I could hear his breathing start to recover and his colour starting to return.”
So he started praying before Catlow "died". Weird how praying couldnt prevent him from dying, but was able to bring him back. Anyhow....how long was he dead? Minutes? There have been people being clinically dead for up to 20 minutes or so and it was possible to reanimate them.

Wait, there is another transmisison coming in, hold on....

Quote:Although I wasn't there at the meeting, my mother and many extended family and friends were.'

She goes on to dispute the idea that her brother died at the meeting, writing: 'Regarding the 'death'... what Robby is telling everyone is not true. It has since been medically proven that Matthew had suffered an epileptic seizure which often can display similar signs of someone dying. Two nurse family friends of ours both had their hands on Matthew throughout and not once lost his pulse. So no, Matthew did not die.
Eyewitness account that states that his pulse never stopped!

Am i right that you are one of those who love eyewitness account? Popcorn

Meh, but what to expect from someone who has a degree from a university that looks like a barn? Rolleyes

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 10:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU, Tomato don't need a Jebus to call yourself a Christian, but it's important that Bonheoffer did buy into the resurrection and other cultic BS ?
Consider

It's not important to me what Bonhoeffer believed. He could have converted to Islam for all I care. But unlike you, I've actually read Bonhoeffer, so it's quite easy to spot when someone such yourself peddles bullshit.

What is interesting to me, is your claims of his death bed confession of atheism, your lying for atheism. Your pathetic attempt to deflect from confessing that your assertions of him were false, even when provided quote after quote, even from his final letters to Eberhard.

This is not a question of ambiguity here, your position is unequivocally false. Either you're too stupid to realize that, or you're just a liar. You pick.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 02:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 01:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I don't doubt there was a record of the time period of Tiberius' reign (probably many such), and that a chronicler of the Emperors would be as familiar with those dates as a Presidential Historian today would be familiar with when Taft or Kennedy was President of the United States.

That is still a separate question from whether Tacitus is simply explaining that the Christians were people who claim their Lord was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (as it says in Luke), to which Tacitus would have said "sure, why not?" and simply recorded it that way because he had no reason to care about the specific detail of it, or whether he was working from an alleged document about the Crucifixion (one which somehow manages a major anachronism about rank that does not fit the timeline in question) written at the time of the Crucifixion. You continue to conflate these points.

"A plethora of documents" does not equal "he had record of the trial, recorded at the time of the trial, in Judea, and sent to Rome where Tacitus could read it".


What makes you think I have no other issues with the lines in Annals, other than the bit about Christ and the crucifixion? (Or that I would not, if we were discussing another section.)

You are trying to impugn my character here by stating that I have some bizarre anti-Christian bias (you Christians and your martyr complexes!) that makes me argue over it and no other. Hogwash.

But you're quite right about one thing-- reading only one text and considering only what that one text says is not how we determine history to be true. We compare what is known from all records, and from political affiliations/motives we suspect, and from things like the laws of physics (such as our knowledge of the positions of stars and comets, seasons, etc.), and develop an overall picture from many diverse elements.

The story of Jesus as attested to by the Christian culture has many elements which are clearly fraudulent. For instance, there is no record made by people we'd expect to make such records (from anyone outside of the Christian cult) talking about a three-hour eclipse/darkness, the splitting of the veil, and the appearance of walking zombies from the graves of Jerusalem. We know that there is no record among Jewish documents about the trial and execution of Jesus, in which the Sanhedrin council was somehow illegally convened on the eve of a Sabbath for the first time in history.

These sorts of things place a very high bar on any claim to be made that it did indeed happen as related in the Bible, and I simply do not think that Tacitus counts as sufficient evidence to meet that bar.


You mean no evidence other than my proof, in his own words, that he was a member of a council whose job it was to investigate new cults coming to Rome, and keep track of them?


"A few scribbles"? Heyyyyy, you're not trying to poison the well, there, are you?

And no. I expect him to have read what he could find about the arson trials he was writing about, and to be familiar with the scriptures and other claims of the cult he was writing about.


I disagree with your assertion that it is accepted "virtually unanimously" among scholars, especially if we ignore the ones with clear and outspoken bias, such as those among the conservative Christian theological circles, who bend over backward to claim everything in the Bible is literal and to back that with whatever they can throw at it. It is the reason I haven't/don't read the Mythicists... I don't trust their objectivity enough to do more than consider some of the arguments I hear of theirs, related in other contexts.

I also think you are a liar about not being a Christian. I can see no other reason you'd accuse me of anti-Christian bias, using the terms you did, instead of understanding (or accepting) my statement that I would not care if we were discussing claims about the historicity or Lord Krishna or the Buddha or Quetzalcoatl [Edit: or Robert Christ]. Or Attila the Hun, for that matter.

"But you're quite right about one thing-- reading only one text and considering only what that one text says is not how we determine history to be true. We compare what is known from all records, and from political affiliations/motives we suspect, and from things like the laws of physics (such as our knowledge of the positions of stars and comets, seasons, etc.), and develop an overall picture from many diverse elements.

The story of Jesus as attested to by the Christian culture has many elements which are clearly fraudulent. For instance, there is no record made by people we'd expect to make such records (from anyone outside of the Christian cult) talking about a three-hour eclipse/darkness, the splitting of the veil, and the appearance of walking zombies from the graves of Jerusalem. We know that there is no record among Jewish documents about the trial and execution of Jesus, in which the Sanhedrin council was somehow illegally convened on the eve of a Sabbath for the first time in history."


BowingBowingBowingBowingBowing

Just thought I'd put the above in big letters so GU can read it again.

It's meaningless, since my position has always been about Jesus being but a mere man, and that the gospel stories embellish the life of that same mere man. Therefore, of course there is not going to be any external records of a 3 hour eclipse, walking zombie, et al.

If people want to think that we need to see external records of those crazy embellishments to ascertain that he may have existed as a mere man, then obviously he wouldn't have existed as a mere man, now would he?

His position has been presented as if the only position regarding Jesus must, by necessity, employ the embellishments of his life.

It has nothing to do with my position, or the position of the vast majority of scholars. It's apples and oranges.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 06:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 03:22 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Oops! I think you got your dates confused. James was executed in 62 CE, many decades after your (possible) Jeebus.

No, I think you're confused, because I didn't say anything about dates.

Well, you wrote this...

"They illegally convened to execute James as well, according to Josephus, so it wasn't the first time they illegally convened."

which sounds like you are saying they convened at James' execution prior to Jeebus'

Whatever.
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
05-07-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 12:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 02:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
"But you're quite right about one thing-- reading only one text and considering only what that one text says is not how we determine history to be true. We compare what is known from all records, and from political affiliations/motives we suspect, and from things like the laws of physics (such as our knowledge of the positions of stars and comets, seasons, etc.), and develop an overall picture from many diverse elements.

The story of Jesus as attested to by the Christian culture has many elements which are clearly fraudulent. For instance, there is no record made by people we'd expect to make such records (from anyone outside of the Christian cult) talking about a three-hour eclipse/darkness, the splitting of the veil, and the appearance of walking zombies from the graves of Jerusalem. We know that there is no record among Jewish documents about the trial and execution of Jesus, in which the Sanhedrin council was somehow illegally convened on the eve of a Sabbath for the first time in history."


BowingBowingBowingBowingBowing

Just thought I'd put the above in big letters so GU can read it again.

It's meaningless, since my position has always been about Jesus being but a mere man, and that the gospel stories embellish the life of that same mere man. Therefore, of course there is not going to be any external records of a 3 hour eclipse, walking zombie, et al.

If people want to think that we need to see external records of those crazy embellishments to ascertain that he may have existed as a mere man, then obviously he wouldn't have existed as a mere man, now would he?

His position has been presented as if the only position regarding Jesus must, by necessity, employ the embellishments of his life.

It has nothing to do with my position, or the position of the vast majority of scholars. It's apples and oranges.

You STILL haven't explained your stance. What's the big deal whether Jeebus existed or not? Remove the supernatural/ridiculous part of the spiel, and you're left with nothing that means anything, so why is it so important to you?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: