Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 06:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Josephus was in the employ of Rome.
He was an apostate.
He believed Vespasian was the messiah.
He thought all the bullshit in the OT was actual history.
If "they" didn't comment on it, I would assume it never happened, without some other support.
"They" also didn't comment on the temple curtain being torn, or the zombie invasion of Jerusalem.

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, 08:14 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 06:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  .. you 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.

More bullshit generalizations here, by the totally dishonest, self-righteous fraud who says he doesn't need a Jesus to be a Christian. Actually, Tomato, I think with the "fluffy bullshit" you claim as your (unique) "Christianity", you are as much of an atheist as anyone here. You're just too much of a coward to name it and admit 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
07-07-2016, 08:18 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 08:36 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 07:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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."

YOU yourself have repudiated all this. YOU said you need no Jesus. So don't sit there and dishonestly claim, what you INTERPRET to be the positions of others, as your own, when YOU YOURSELF have denied you need them, or find them meaningful. All that (above) means, is that there is no god who acts in the world. And he said so. HE could not have said that in any congregation in Germany, or anywhere else.

Quote: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.

And we get you have no grasp of Christian theology, fundie or not, and have never demonstrated that you do, in any way.

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

No they don't. You just hate theists, period, as you think you are better then they are.
Yet YOU have never ONCE presented any written paper or anything else here that would indicate you have ANY education in the "nuances" which you claim. You are no Christian, and no Christian orthodox community would accept that your heretical bullshit views are in alignment with their own, Mr. I-don't-need-no-Jesus-to-be-a-Christian.

In fact, Bonheoffer is generally regarded as one of the major movers of the "Death of God" movement.
The meaningless "fluffy bullshit" ("God is love") that theology has moved to in the last 150 years, (Tillich, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Kung, etc etc.) has basically laid the foundations for non-belief, as (just as you have done), they have defined religion out of existence, and all it is now is a vestige of the past, .... meaningless sentimental tripe, wrapped up in fluffy bullshit.

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, 08:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 08:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Josephus was in the employ of Rome.
He was an apostate.
He believed Vespasian was the messiah.
He thought all the bullshit in the OT was actual history.
If "they" didn't comment on it, I would assume it never happened, without some other support.
"They" also didn't comment on the temple curtain being torn, or the zombie invasion of Jerusalem.

Ah okay, when a contemporary roman historian, writes of an individual's death, and trial, we're not to see that source as valid.

You folks seems to have a difficult time making up your mind, you complain when there is lack of a contemporary historian's account, than complain when there is one. lol.

"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, 08:26 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 08:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 07:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Yet YOU have never ONCE presented any written paper or anything else here that would indicate you have ANY education in the "nuances" which you claim. You are no Christian, and no Christian orthodox community would accept that your heretical bullshit views are in alignment with their own,
Mr. I-don't-need-no-Jesus-to-be-a-Christian.

Nice dodge, you weasel. I called you out on your bullshit, citing the relevant passages from the letter you mentioned. Rather than being a man and acknowledging your mistakes, you return with this bowl of dung.

"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, 08:47 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 08:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 08:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Josephus was in the employ of Rome.
He was an apostate.
He believed Vespasian was the messiah.
He thought all the bullshit in the OT was actual history.
If "they" didn't comment on it, I would assume it never happened, without some other support.
"They" also didn't comment on the temple curtain being torn, or the zombie invasion of Jerusalem.

Ah okay, when a contemporary roman historian, writes of an individual's death, and trial, we're not to see that source as valid.

You folks seems to have a difficult time making up your mind, you complain when there is lack of a contemporary historian's account, than complain when there is one. lol.

We're to "take it for what it's worth". In this instance, the man writing, is not necessary reliable. ..... or do you also think Vespasian was the messiah ?

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, 08:50 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 08:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yet YOU have never ONCE presented any written paper or anything else here that would indicate you have ANY education in the "nuances" which you claim. You are no Christian, and no Christian orthodox community would accept that your heretical bullshit views are in alignment with their own,
Mr. I-don't-need-no-Jesus-to-be-a-Christian.

Nice dodge, you weasel. I called you out on your bullshit, citing the relevant passages from the letter you mentioned. Rather than being a man and acknowledging your mistakes, you return with this bowl of dung.

LMAO. I get you have no reply, and are incapable of writing one. You have NEVER ONCE written ONE thing here that makes us think you have any grasp of anything "theological". All you can do, is put down atheists.

YOU have never ONCE presented any written paper or anything else here that would indicate you have ANY education in the "nuances" which you claim. You are no Christian, and no Christian orthodox community would accept that your heretical bullshit views are in alignment with their own, Mr. I-don't-need-no-Jesus-to-be-a-Christian.

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, 08:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 06:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Are you really this stupid, or are you deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room? The distinguishing factor about Jesus's trial is that it reportedly happened on Passover weekend -- as Bucky has pointed out over and over. This would be a first in Jewish history, and would be definitely worth commenting on. This factor doesn't apply to James, so why do you keep appealing to James every time this comes up? If the Sanhedrin convened to try a heretic on Passover weekend, it certainly would have been noted by the Jews. It wasn't -- therefore it probably never happened. None of that has anything to do with James. Sheesh!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
07-07-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 08:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Are you really this stupid, or are you deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room? The distinguishing factor about Jesus's trial is that it reportedly happened on Passover weekend -- as Bucky has pointed out over and over. This would be a first in Jewish history, and would be definitely worth commenting on. This factor doesn't apply to James, so why do you keep appealing to James every time this comes up? If the Sanhedrin convened to try a heretic on Passover weekend, it certainly would have been noted by the Jews. It wasn't -- therefore it probably never happened. None of that has anything to do with James. Sheesh!

Ah okay, so they should be writing about it because of the day it took place. If it happened any other day of week, it would be understandable why they didn't mention it, according to you guys.

Of course it doesn't really follow, that the significance of the trial, is predicated not on the trial itself but on the day in which it occurred.

It fact the Jews did get around to commenting on the passover Eve death, of Jesus, in the Babylonian Talmud: "Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve."


Notice, here the passover date is not rendered with any astonishment at the day in which it occurred, the date is treated fairly irrelevantly, unlike yours and Bucky's suggestion, that for the Jews the date would have been a a bigger deal than the trial itself.

"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, 09:18 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 09:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 08:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Are you really this stupid, or are you deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room? The distinguishing factor about Jesus's trial is that it reportedly happened on Passover weekend -- as Bucky has pointed out over and over. This would be a first in Jewish history, and would be definitely worth commenting on. This factor doesn't apply to James, so why do you keep appealing to James every time this comes up? If the Sanhedrin convened to try a heretic on Passover weekend, it certainly would have been noted by the Jews. It wasn't -- therefore it probably never happened. None of that has anything to do with James. Sheesh!

Ah okay, so they should be writing about it because of the day it took place. If it happened any other day of week, it would be understandable why they didn't mention it, according to you guys.

Of course it doesn't really follow, that the significance of the trial, is predicated not on the trial itself but on the day in which it occurred.

It fact the Jews did get around to commenting on the passover Eve death, of Jesus, in the Babylonian Talmud: "Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve."


Notice, here the passover date is not rendered with any astonishment at the day in which it occurred, the date is treated fairly irrelevantly, unlike yours and Bucky's suggestion, that for the Jews the date would have been a a bigger deal than the trial itself.

You're still missing the point. It's of little or no significance that he was hanged on Passover Eve, because the Romans did that. What is significant is that the Sanhedrin convened to try him on Passover Eve. This, if it happened, was unprecedented, and would have been a big deal to the Jews.

The basic point is that Jesus pissed off the Romans and was executed by the Romans. The Jews had nothing to do with it. The whole trial before the Sanhedrin, the personal audience with Pilate, etc. -- that's all fiction. Jews in first-century Palestine didn't tell the Romans what to do and who to execute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: