Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2016, 10:51 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-07-2016 09:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem not to know what Conservapedia is. Consider

If you did, you would understand that their definition is bullshit.

Oh believe me I knew exactly what I was doing when I linked to Conservapedia.

Big Grin

It is not a credible source. It is grossly biased.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 02:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-07-2016 09:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 12:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I think you have an extraordinary grasp of Rome, and those writing in Rome during the 1st Century, and at least we know you're not biased by religion.

You may be right about how I view this topic in the future, but I still think there are legitimate questions that need to be answered, (no matter whether there was an historical Jesus or not)...such as, why the gospels are constructed with a classical mythological literary structure, and why the content doesn't jive with the period the main character was supposed to have lived in, but do reflect the concerns of Rabbinic Judaism later, after the destruction of the temple.

There are also all sorts of things that defy common sense/closer inspection. We know there were all sorts of "Acts of *this or that* " texts, floating around.
http://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploa...Thecla.pdf
The "Acts of the Apostles" can't possibly be an accurate portrayal of the early Jerusalem community. It has Peter and others saying things that are simply impossible. They spout theological concepts that took decades if not centuries to develop, (supposedly) within weeks of "Pentecost". Those "events" were clearly invented, much later.

There are heaps and heaps of questions that need to be answered, that's for a certainty. In fact, the question of whether or not Jesus actually existed may never be answered with any degree of conclusiveness.

I simply looked at all the evidence and all the arguments and concluded that the argument for historicity is a better argument than wholesale myth. I admit that the historicity argument doesn't prove that Jesus existed, and with the current evidence it never will. The best we can say is that the evidence indicates a reasonable possibility, but falls far short of a slam dunk for a certainty.

I find the arguments for a complete myth lacking any evidence at all to support them. Those who claim that Jesus was a total myth are making a positive claim that requires at least some evidence to support it, but I see a lot of god-of-the-caps problems when a claim of evidence is made. I also see far too may accusations of interpolations that simply defy reason, and are not actually evidenced, aside from supplying conjecture which is not evidence at all.

Certainly the burden of proof is also upon those who make the positive claim of existence, but that burden is not nearly so heavy for those who agree that the available evidence indicates a reasonably good possibility. At least this position has some evidence to work with, and that evidence is good enough to warrant the possibility, and a better possibility than wholesale myth.


Hey GU, it appears as though you have yet to make your mind up about the historicity of Jesus.

The following two statements of yours are irreconcilable....

"The best we can say is that the evidence indicates a reasonable possibility, but falls far short of a slam dunk for a certainty."

ie Jesus probably existed

"I find the arguments for a complete myth lacking any evidence at all to support them."

ie Jesus definitely existed.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 02:25 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 02:35 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-07-2016 10:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 03:40 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Because like anything else that requires one to hold a position, an over-indulgence can only produce extremists."

Agreed. But how ironic that you claim no one here can teach you anything because you already know it allFacepalm and then you have the audacity to write the above.

"I see people such as yourself convincing yourself of things that are so improbable and so poorly supported with actual evidence as it becomes virtually impossible to change your views, or to even consider alternatives with a rational and reasonable mind."

How ironic that you could write this about me, when you demonstrated your ignorance by claiming Jesus spawned Nazarenism and gnosticism. When this was pointed out to you, you had nothing to say. I invited you to comment on my writings about Paul, about whom you appear to know very little, and you didn't respond. It is clear YOU are the one not interested in evidence and not willing to change your views.

"Every single discussion with atheists on atheist forums regrading the existence of Jesus always results in their mockery of the very things they claim to hold so dear, such as reason and rationality."

Bullshit! What da fuck are you talking about? All I have heard from you is an endlessly repeated diatribe of poorly expressed argument about Tacitus. As has already been pointed out to you, multiple times, by different commentators, you don't know what other atheists here (myself included) think about the existence of Jesus. You are labelling all of us atheists with your own biases, and then accusing us all of being narrow minded!

"But I also know from experience that anything I say here will be met with severe derision"

There's 4 reasons for that
1. Everything you write is littered with ridiculous biases against atheists
2. Most of what you write is not particularly interesting
3. You repeat yourself almost ad nauseum
4. You are an arrogant tosser.

Let me just give you something to ponder.

As you probably already know, many towns are so named after the people who settled the town. For example, Fort MacMurray is named after MacMurray, and so on.

Jesus was a Nazarene, not because he came from Nazareth, but because a sect known as the Nazarenes settle there, and the town became known as Nazareth because of them, long before Jesus was ever born. Therefore, Jesus did not spawn Nazarenism, but merely propagated it.

Judging by some statements accredited to Jesus in the gospel records, if true, we can see some startling similarities between those statements and the Essene as described by Josephus. This allows us to reasonably ponder if the Nazarene were a sub-sect of the Essene.

Start with that, Mark.

"Judging by some statements accredited to Jesus in the gospel records, if true, we can see some startling similarities between those statements and the Essene as described by Josephus. This allows us to reasonably ponder if the Nazarene were a sub-sect of the Essene.

Start with that, Mark."


Mmmmm. I find it rather odd that you obviously didn't bother to read my post (601) in this thread, that introduced this very topic. I'll reproduce it here in the hope that you bother to read it this time, or perhaps you won't find the time, as there is nothing you don't already know?


The Essenes
The third important group was the Essenes. We know a fair bit about them, not only from Flavius Josephus, (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/josep...senes.htm) who may have been an Essene, but also from Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, and from the (probably) Essene Qumran community who hid the Dead Sea Scrolls.

They were a heterogeneous group, but some generalizations can be made about them. They were well respected amongst most Jews. Josephus numbered them at about four thousand, and writes they had a strong affection for each other, and lived in groups scattered throughout Judea. They preferred to wear white and were particular about certain bathing rituals, including baptism. Most were celibate, which was quite unusual, as most Jews considered it as living an incomplete life. They rejected the pursuit of pleasure, preached poverty, humility, chastity, loving one’s neighbor, and penitence. They believed in a war between the forces of good and evil, and in the need for God’s grace. They strove to speak gently and quietly, to never swear, and were strong believers in justice and that all Jews were equal. They rejected the accumulation of wealth, and shared all their possessions. They claimed to love the truth and to never steal. Unlike the other Jewish sects, they spurned animal sacrifice. They thought of themselves as healers, to be able to cast out demons and restore the dead to life. They were said to foretell the future and to have little fear of death. They were convinced that after death their souls were destined for paradise, provided they had been righteous.

They deeply resented the Sadducees, so set up their own priesthood separate to the temple. They mistrusted most of the Pharisees, regarding them as corrupt or hypocritical.

Josephus leaves out one important fact about them; that many of them were intensely anti-Roman. We know this from the Dead Sea scrolls. Many authors have unknowingly misled modern readers by stating that Essenes were pacifists, which is true, yet once they’d decided God justified a war —a holy war—they would fight. Josephus was writing for a Roman audience, and was trying to present his countrymen in the best possible light, so this omission is understandable.

Yeshua the Essene

I think Yeshua was an Essene, for the following reasons. (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/018...sene.php).

They had many beliefs in common with those credited to Jesus. Some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (yet his existence is never mentioned in them.) Jesus and his disciples pooled their funds, which were administered by a treasurer, a feature of Essene communities. Many scholars believe John the Baptist, who could have been Yeshua’s cousin, was an Essene. John baptized Yeshua, so Yeshua clearly had the same beliefs as him. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/jlgi/jlgi05.htm).

The Gospel’s writers and editors didn’t mention the existence of the Essenes even once. If it was suggested or implied that Yeshua and the disciples were Essenes, it would have meant they were too fundamentally Jewish and too anti Roman. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...nes.html).
One minor fact that doesn’t fit is that Yeshua and his disciples allegedly ate fish, and the Essenes were strict vegetarians.

There was a particular group of Essenes known as Nazarenes. I believe John, Yeshua, his family, and his disciples were all Nazarenes. Obviously, then, they were an important group, and I will discuss them shortly.

Zealots
Zealots were practitioners of armed military resistance against the Romans. They were a militant political, rather than a religious movement, but their ideals were inspired by their religion.

Galilee was the heartland of zealotry. Judas of Galilee (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot, the disciple - who was also said to be a zealot) was an important zealot figure in 6 CE. This is part of what Josephus had to say about him.

“Judas the Galilean was the author of the fourth branch of Jewish philosophy. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.” (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/mes...s04.html). Josephus didn’t document what happened to Judas, but the author of Acts did;

“And then there was Judas the Galilean, at the time of the census, who attracted crowds of supporters; but he got killed too and all of his followers dispersed” (Acts 5:38, NJB.) The author didn’t mention that Roman soldiers killed Judas, I think because he didn’t want readers drawing parallels with Jesus. We know from other historians that most of Judas’ followers weren’t dispersed; they were killed in battle or captured and crucified.

Zealotry was an attitude that inspired action. There wasn’t one particular group known as “zealots.” Josephus described them as a group of rebels and outsiders who were distinctly separate from all other Jews, because he wanted his Gentile readers to think that most Jews were peace-loving people who were pleased to be part of the empire. In reality, I think most Jews, particularly the poorer ones, had a degree of zealotry in their hearts, but many of them were too afraid to practice it.

Zealots had significant support from sympathizers. In 66 CE, perhaps thirty odd years after Yeshua’s death, several large groups of zealots played the leading roles in a major revolt against the Romans. The uprising occurred throughout most of Judea and included the capital, Jerusalem. The Romans responded by routing Galilee. They then laid siege to Jerusalem in 70 CE, destroyed the temple and massacred an estimated one million Jews. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...olt.html). Josephus quite rightly held zealots responsible for starting the war. Interestingly, he may have originally been a Galilean zealot who defected to the Roman side. If so, he was a traitor. He spent the rest of his life living in Rome and writing pro-Roman history.
It was during this war that Essene zealots at Qumran hid the Dead Sea Scrolls from the invading Roman army.

There are interesting similarities between the ancient zealots and the popular image of today’s al-Quada; a strong belief that they’re being oppressed by foreigners; a firm adherence to religious beliefs; a reckless disregard for personal safety; a preference for violence over peaceful negotiation; and a disregard for human life. Both groups have been willing to kill their countrymen who don’t agree with them. I’m referring to different religions in different eras, but the same self-righteous fanaticism inspired by belief.

The Nazarenes

Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23) but Nazareth the place was probably not the real origin of the term. On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene” (http://www.essene.com/What is a Nazarene.htm.) As mentioned, Nazareth the village probably didn’t exist in Yeshua’s time. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY). Calling him Jesus “of Nazareth” was a ploy to distract from his sectarian affiliations. The bible made it clear the term “Nazarene” referred to a sect, when in the book of Acts, Paul is accused of being a Nazarene.

“The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5, NJB.)

An important religious sect would not have been named after an obscure Galilean village!

Hugh Schonfield, who devoted his life to studying Judaism and Yeshua, claims Nazarenism was an ancient version of Judaism. (http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A”Hugh J.Schonfield” AND subject%3A”Nazarenes”). He thought the original founder of the Nazarene sect may have been a Jewish-Arabian prophet named Essa in approximately 400 BCE. So, if he was right, they were already well established in Jesus’ time.

Many eminent scholars have linked the Nazarenes with the Essenian sect at Qumran. One might consider the Nazarene sect a strongly developed messianic form of “Essenism.” (http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/TrimmNazars.htm).

John the Baptist, Yeshua’s family, disciples and followers were all Nazarenes. The “pillars” Paul refers to (James, Peter, and John) in his second letter to the Galatians, were the leaders and key figures of this group after Yeshua’s death. They too were Jews, not Christians. They practiced circumcision, believed in baptism, and were strict about the Sabbath. They were vegetarians who didn’t approve of the slaughter of animals, either for food or sacrifice. They developed their own “Halacha,” which was their interpretation of the Torah. They were true believers in the power and glory of Israel, saw themselves as God’s chosen people, and were vehemently opposed to the Romans. I think they were zealots, willing to take the Romans on, which was why the Roman world considered a Nazarene “a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over.”

They considered the temple was the house of God, but were opposed to the Sadducees who they regarded as Roman collaborators. They had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. Many ordinary Jews and Pharisees would have considered the Nazarenes brothers in the struggle against Rome.

Yeshua may have became their chief after John the Baptist’s death, and he remained in charge for (probably) a few years. Leadership was inherited from blood relations, which explains it passing from John the Baptist to Yeshua, and after Yeshua’s death, on to James, his brother.

James and the other Nazarenes didn’t think Yeshua was the son of God, or that he needed to die to save anyone from their sins (http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/nazarenes.htm). They believed he was a (human) prophet who they hoped could be Israel’s messiah.

We read very little about this group in the pages of history because mainly Gentiles wrote that history, and the early Christians ignored the Nazarenes, or wrote them off as heretics, or tried to claim that some of them believed in the divinity of Christ. I think the modern reader interested in Jesus should be interested in their story.
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
07-07-2016, 02:47 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-07-2016 10:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 03:40 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Because like anything else that requires one to hold a position, an over-indulgence can only produce extremists."

Agreed. But how ironic that you claim no one here can teach you anything because you already know it allFacepalm and then you have the audacity to write the above.

"I see people such as yourself convincing yourself of things that are so improbable and so poorly supported with actual evidence as it becomes virtually impossible to change your views, or to even consider alternatives with a rational and reasonable mind."

How ironic that you could write this about me, when you demonstrated your ignorance by claiming Jesus spawned Nazarenism and gnosticism. When this was pointed out to you, you had nothing to say. I invited you to comment on my writings about Paul, about whom you appear to know very little, and you didn't respond. It is clear YOU are the one not interested in evidence and not willing to change your views.

"Every single discussion with atheists on atheist forums regrading the existence of Jesus always results in their mockery of the very things they claim to hold so dear, such as reason and rationality."

Bullshit! What da fuck are you talking about? All I have heard from you is an endlessly repeated diatribe of poorly expressed argument about Tacitus. As has already been pointed out to you, multiple times, by different commentators, you don't know what other atheists here (myself included) think about the existence of Jesus. You are labelling all of us atheists with your own biases, and then accusing us all of being narrow minded!

"But I also know from experience that anything I say here will be met with severe derision"

There's 4 reasons for that
1. Everything you write is littered with ridiculous biases against atheists
2. Most of what you write is not particularly interesting
3. You repeat yourself almost ad nauseum
4. You are an arrogant tosser.

Let me just give you something to ponder.

As you probably already know, many towns are so named after the people who settled the town. For example, Fort MacMurray is named after MacMurray, and so on.

Jesus was a Nazarene, not because he came from Nazareth, but because a sect known as the Nazarenes settle there, and the town became known as Nazareth because of them, long before Jesus was ever born. Therefore, Jesus did not spawn Nazarenism, but merely propagated it.

Judging by some statements accredited to Jesus in the gospel records, if true, we can see some startling similarities between those statements and the Essene as described by Josephus. This allows us to reasonably ponder if the Nazarene were a sub-sect of the Essene.

Start with that, Mark.


"Jesus was a Nazarene, not because he came from Nazareth, but because a sect known as the Nazarenes settle there, and the town became known as Nazareth because of them, long before Jesus was ever born. Therefore, Jesus did not spawn Nazarenism, but merely propagated it."

Well....that's novel! " Nazareth" ( the place) was named after the Nazarenes, and it existed before Jesus was born? And the Nazarenes came from this place! In all my years of researching this, I've never heard these things before. Please present your evidence.

You seem to know a lot about these Nazarenes. I'm intrigued. Please tell us more. If Jesus "propagated Nazarenism" it sounds like we should all know about it/them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 06:14 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 09:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  There are heaps and heaps of questions that need to be answered, that's for a certainty. In fact, the question of whether or not Jesus actually existed may never be answered with any degree of conclusiveness.

I simply looked at all the evidence and all the arguments and concluded that the argument for historicity is a better argument than wholesale myth. I admit that the historicity argument doesn't prove that Jesus existed, and with the current evidence it never will. The best we can say is that the evidence indicates a reasonable possibility, but falls far short of a slam dunk for a certainty.

I find the arguments for a complete myth lacking any evidence at all to support them. Those who claim that Jesus was a total myth are making a positive claim that requires at least some evidence to support it, but I see a lot of god-of-the-caps problems when a claim of evidence is made. I also see far too may accusations of interpolations that simply defy reason, and are not actually evidenced, aside from supplying conjecture which is not evidence at all.

Certainly the burden of proof is also upon those who make the positive claim of existence, but that burden is not nearly so heavy for those who agree that the available evidence indicates a reasonably good possibility. At least this position has some evidence to work with, and that evidence is good enough to warrant the possibility, and a better possibility than wholesale myth.


Hey GU, it appears as though you have yet to make your mind up about the historicity of Jesus.

The following two statements of yours are irreconcilable....

"The best we can say is that the evidence indicates a reasonable possibility, but falls far short of a slam dunk for a certainty."

ie Jesus probably existed

"I find the arguments for a complete myth lacking any evidence at all to support them."

ie Jesus definitely existed.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm confused about your views here, I had thought you believed Jesus did exist, since you argue for oridinary Jewishness of the early christians? Did you switch sides or something?

"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
07-07-2016, 06:16 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-07-2016 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

How Christian of you, dear.
I never said he had a "death bed" conversion. You're also lying about my "lying for atheism". self on a pedestal, and play "superior", Mr. "twisted"/"polluted".

No, you claim he became an atheist in the final years of his life, while he was in prison, as supposedly indicated in his final letters.

"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
07-07-2016, 06:19 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-07-2016 06:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 04:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not sure who you were expecting to write about the trial? The Jews? The Jews didn't write of James trial either. They didn't record that either, so why would they have recorded Jesus's ad-box trial?

I would have expected Jewish commentators who commented on all kinds of other mundane events to mention it. You have purposely chosen to ignore the fact it was PASSOVER weekend. If James had a trial, it was not on Passover.

They didn't comment on the mundane death of James, or his illegal trial.

You claim they commented on things like this, yet they didn't. Josephus did, Jewish sources didn't.

"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
07-07-2016, 06:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-07-2016 12:21 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I agree with you that diverse viewpoints are important. It's also why I employ a high degree of skepticism when it comes to things like evidence for something like this.

In his rush to call us "militant atheists", GoingUp seems to have skipped blithely over the fact that I am not a mythicist, and I consider it more probable than not that Jesus (and James) were real people. I do however feel obliged to point out weaknesses in the presumptions that are undertaken when trying to posit these evidences as proofs.

I think your tendency is to support a variety of very bad arguments, you likely normally wouldn't, but do so because the views of mythicist, the arguments from mythicist are popular among people you see as your friends. Notice you spend more time arguing in support of mythicist arguments, though no time at all in defense of the position you actually hold to, that Jesus/James etc.. actually existed.

It's all just one big pile of dog shit, coddled by your group think.

We can see the sort of vitriol directed at those who defend historicity, even when that person is non-religious. Going up has been accused of being a christian because of it, lol. I'd imagine you and others here who do believe that Jesus existed, avoid arguing for the position you hold, for the sake of preserving your friendships, not offending your friends, here etc..

"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
07-07-2016, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 08:15 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 06:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How Christian of you, dear.
I never said he had a "death bed" conversion. You're also lying about my "lying for atheism". self on a pedestal, and play "superior", Mr. "twisted"/"polluted".

No, you claim he became an atheist in the final years of his life, while he was in prison, as supposedly indicated in his final letters.

I realize childish, uninformed minds, such as yours, need the world painted in simplistic black and white terms, (as you have constantly evidenced here, with your constant knee-jerk "atheists this and atheists that', which your Fundie Babble school taught you to do, ... whom who have never even met ... ), but in his letter to Eberhard Bethage from prison, July 16th 1944, he said "We have to live in the world, as if God does not exist .... the God who is with us is the God who forsakes us". Whatever sort of bullshit you religionists may need to cook up about him, and try to slap on top of the development of his thought, he was no orthodox theist, and he proved it with his own words. I said he was a "practical atheists". I realize nuances are not exactly you strong suit, Tomato, but if he would have said that IN ANY pulpit in Germany, then or now, he would have been rejected as a non-believer. Say what ever you like. He had nothing in the final months of his life that even began to resemble, even faintly, what an orthodox Christian would claim, are the essential elements of Christian faith.

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
07-07-2016, 07:54 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 08:03 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 06:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 06:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you claim he became an atheist in the final years of his life, while he was in prison, as supposedly indicated in his final letters.

I realize childish, uninformed minds, such as yours, need the world painted in simplistic black and white terms, (as you have constantly evidenced here, with your constant knee-jerk "atheists this and atheists that', which your Fundie Babble school taught you to do, ... whom who have never even met ... 0, but in his letter to Eberhard Bethage from prison, July 16th 1944, he said "We have to live in the world, as if God does not exist .... the God who is with us is the God who forsakes us". Whatever sort of bullshit you religionists may need to cook up about him, and try to slap on top of the development of his thought, he was no orthodox theist, and he proved it with his own words. I said he was a "practical atheists". I realize nuances are not exactly you strong suit, Tomato, but if he would have said that IN ANY pulpit in Germany, then or now, he would have been rejected as a non-believer. Say what ever you like. He had nothing in the final months of his life that even began to resemble, even faintly, what an orthodox Christian would claim, are the essential elements of Christian faith.


Nuances are not my strong suit? Says the guy who just quote mined the shit out of Bonhoeffer. Thanks for not including the remaining parts of the passage you quoted, in which he says that's how Christ lived, and what the Biblical picture supports, in contrast to other religions:

"Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is
precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps
us. Matt. 8. 1782 makes it quite clear that Christ helps us, not by virtue of his omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and
suffering.

Here is the decisive difference between Christianity and all
religions. Man's religiosity makes him look in his distress to the
power of God in the world : God is the deus ex machina. The Bible
directs man to God's powerlessness and suffering ; only the
suffering God can help. To that extent we may say that the development
towards the world's coming of age outlined above, which
has done away with a false conception of God, opens up a way of
seeing the God of the Bible, who wins power and space in the
world by his weakness."

I get that atheists whose only conception of christian theology is through a fundie evangelical lens, are not particularly good at understanding any form of christian theology outside of that, so your lack of nuance here, would be excusable if not for the fact that this has been pointed out to you numerous times already, in fact it's not the first time I had to quote the letter here you quotemined.

People here wonder why I hold such a low opinion of atheists' understanding of Christianity, exchanges like this demonstrate why.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: