Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2016, 09:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 08:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Except when you got your ass handed to you, when you suggested Bonhoeffer was an atheists. You weren't prepared to have someone who had his works readily available, debunk your idiotic suggestion here, with the relevant context, and passages. Yet you sit here pathetically continuing on with your now deflated argument, like a typical weasel.

"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, 09:25 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 09:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Thanks for yet again demonstrating you HAVE NO education in, or understanding of Hebrew culture. The entire calendar, and festival year was built around the celebration of Passover. Hoards of people came to Jerusalem to celebrate it. Yet all you can do is this utterly ignorant crap of relegating THAT understanding to "another day of the week". You REALLY are an ignoramus. The fact is, the Sanhedrin would have had to be called into session on Passover weekend. No Jew ever mentions that happening. Never once. In all of Jewish history.

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, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 10:08 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 08:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LMAO. I get you have no reply, and are incapable of writing one. You have NEVER
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 ONCE written ONE thing here that makes us think you have any grasp of anything "theological". All you can do, is put down atheists.
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.

Except when you got your ass handed to you, when you suggested Bonhoeffer was an atheists. You weren't prepared to have someone who had his works readily available, debunk your idiotic suggestion here, with the relevant context, and passages. Yet you sit here pathetically continuing on with your now deflated argument, like a typical weasel.

Tomato, the singular of the word "atheist", has no "s" at the end. You CONSTANTLY make that idiotic error. He was "an ATHEIST", not "an atheists".

Bonheoffer said we must live as if there were no god. That is a "practical atheist". You have "handed" no one's ass to anyone. I have read his works, and I have proven that. YOU chose to interpret the parts that support your bullshit, the way you need to.

BTW, despite all your huffing and puffing, you have never once written anything here that demonstrates you have any understanding of the "theological nuances" of anything. You have a Fundamentalist concept of "theism vs atheism" which YOU CONSTANTLY affirm, and go on about and imply by your constant "drawing of the line" when you refer to "atheists this, and atheists that" .. The nuanced understanding of that, (which you utterly lack) might include Tillich or Barth, but you have never once mentioned it, or why that might be relevant. Yet you are totally incapable of telling us what it is about theism that compels us to do anything different, or act any differently than we already do. Your theism is worthless and irrelevant. Your (imaginary) Jesus, who you said you don't need, invites/draws you to nothing you can actually tell us has any practical or qualitative difference. Your fake Christianity has no practical moral imperative, and worst of all, you are incapable of even beginning a discussion of the matter.

Since you are SO obsessed with atheism/atheists as discrete classes of people, with objective and important boundaries, how about you define here, what each are. What do you affirm as a "theist" that makes you not an a-theist. Then when you're done with that little assignment, tell us how it relates to Tillich's concepts of the same, (as expounded in his "Dynamics of Faith"), and why he did not exclude atheists (as opposed to what you do, despite claiming to not be a Fundamentalist) from his concept of "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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2016, 09:51 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 09:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 09:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Thanks for yet again demonstrating you HAVE NO education in, or understanding of Hebrew culture. The entire calendar, and festival year was built around the celebration of Passover. Hoards of people came to Jerusalem to celebrate it. Yet all you can do is this utterly ignorant crap of relegating THAT understanding to "another day of the week". You REALLY are an ignoramus. The fact is, the Sanhedrin would have had to be called into session on Passover weekend. No Jew ever mentions that happening. Never once. In all of Jewish history.

It wasn't kosher!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 09:18 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

What I noticed is that you're attempting to project what you see as significant here onto Jews at the time. The Talmud disputes your suggestions that date of ad hoc trial and execution would have been significant. The Jewish writers of the Talmud placed no significance on the date on the death or trial occurring during the time of passover. What you and bucky see as significant in regards to this part, was not particularly significant for Jews at the time, which the Talmud treatment of the passover death and likely trial, of Jesus reveals.

And Jews of the first-century did tell the Romans what to do, regardless if the Romans complied with their request or not, such as when appealing to Rome when it came to idols in the temple, or the appointment of Herod Archelaus. In fact in the James passage it indicated that the Jews at the time had to get permission from Rome to execute someone, and this is part of the reason why James' death was illegal, because it lacked Roman consent.

As far as a messiah claimant, judging that Rome tended to be the primary executioner of such types, it's not hard to see why it was the Roman's who ended up executing Jesus, even if it was the some Jews that brought them to them.

"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, 10:59 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 11:44 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I noticed is that you're attempting to project what you see as significant here onto Jews at the time. The Talmud disputes your suggestions that date of ad hoc trial and execution would have been significant. The Jewish writers of the Talmud placed no significance on the date on the death or trial occurring during the time of passover. What you and bucky see as significant in regards to this part, was not particularly significant for Jews at the time, which the Talmud treatment of the passover death and likely trial, of Jesus reveals.

Sorry Tomato.
You are totally incompetent to even begin this discussion. You know nothing about Jewish culture, and you certainly know nothing about the editions of the Talmud, who wrote them, and when and how they were assembled and edited. You're a fraud. The Babylonian Talmud specifically says "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the even of the Passover.” The Babylonian Talmud, vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a (That specifically refutes the stories in the gospels).

The Gospels lied. There was no trial. (They are totally inconsistent about it, anyway. One says he was silent so as to promote the "lamb to the slaughter" idea, in the fiction "John" created, he gave a long speech). He also gave a long speech at the Passover meal in John, that reflects highly developed Christian theology "placed in his mouth' ... a literary device ... that would have come from centuries later, yet no institution of the Eucharist ... very odd.

There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble-makers. If he existed and was executed, it happened because Rome executed thousands of trouble-makers with no trial, and no fuss.

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/Sanhedrin
"They could meet on any day except the Sabbath and holy days, and they met from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice until that of the evening sacrifice. The meetings were conducted according to strict rules and were enlivened by stirring debates. Twenty-three members formed a quorum. While a bare majority might acquit, a majority of two was necessary to secure condemnation, although if all seventy-one members were present, a majority of one was decisive on either side. To avoid any hasty condemnation where life was involved, judgment was passed the same day only when it was a judgment of acquittal. If it was a judgment of condemnation, it could not be passed until the day after. For this reason, cases involving capital punishment were not tried on a Friday or on any day before a feast. A herald went before the condemned one as he was led to execution and cried out: “So-and-so has been found worthy of death. If anyone knows anything to clear him, let him come forward and declare 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
07-07-2016, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2016 11:32 AM by Grasshopper.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 09:18 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

What I noticed is that you're attempting to project what you see as significant here onto Jews at the time. The Talmud disputes your suggestions that date of ad hoc trial and execution would have been significant. The Jewish writers of the Talmud placed no significance on the date on the death or trial occurring during the time of passover. What you and bucky see as significant in regards to this part, was not particularly significant for Jews at the time, which the Talmud treatment of the passover death and likely trial, of Jesus reveals.

And Jews of the first-century did tell the Romans what to do, regardless if the Romans complied with their request or not, such as when appealing to Rome when it came to idols in the temple, or the appointment of Herod Archelaus. In fact in the James passage it indicated that the Jews at the time had to get permission from Rome to execute someone, and this is part of the reason why James' death was illegal, because it lacked Roman consent.

As far as a messiah claimant, judging that Rome tended to be the primary executioner of such types, it's not hard to see why it was the Roman's who ended up executing Jesus, even if it was the some Jews that brought them to them.

The bit of Talmud that you quoted earlier said nothing about the trial, only the death. Romans could execute someone whenever they wanted. The Passover meant nothing to them. The Jews would not and did not convene the Sanhedrin during Passover. You can't possibly be so stupid as not to get that. So I will conclude that you're deliberately trying to minimize its significance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And Jews of the first-century did tell the Romans what to do, regardless if the Romans complied with their request or not,

That is not 'telling them what to do. Facepalm

Quote: such as when appealing to Rome when it came to idols in the temple, or the appointment of Herod Archelaus. In fact in the James passage it indicated that the Jews at the time had to get permission from Rome to execute someone, and this is part of the reason why James' death was illegal, because it lacked Roman consent.

How is asking permission of Rome the equivalent of telling the Romans what to do?

You make less an less sense as time goes on.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-07-2016, 12:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-07-2016 10:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 09:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Of course it is grossly biased. But there's more to it than just bias. Originally I didn't even have a link, but later I decided after a Google search to add that one in particular, among many other non biased sites.

My point here was that many atheists are viewed as per the description in that link. The people who created that Conservapedia are clearly bias Christians who went through the trouble of expressing their views in great detail regarding militant atheists.

We all know that much of the stuff on there is total bullshit, and much more is partly bullshit, but the reality is that it is not all bullshit.

So why do they have those views? What are some of people in the atheist community doing to warrant such harsh criticism?

Atheists are not immune to misrepresenting the truth in a position in favor of the fact that they just don't fucking like it. When that happens, I see absolutely no difference between an atheist who denies the most likely truth and a Christian who does the same thing. Rationality goes out the window in discussions on such things as Jesus in favor of complete and utter denial, and for what purpose?

If atheists present themselves as liars by denying the obvious, how the fuck are they any different than a religionist who does exactly the same thing?

Atheism is not immune to extremist views.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 11:01 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The bit of Talmud that you quoted earlier said nothing about the trial, only the death.

No, the Talmud passage isn't speaking about the Romans conducting this trial of Jesus, but the jews themselves, holding him accountable for trying to lead Israel astray, and into apostasy. They were not describing the sort of charges the Romans would have held him on. They go over the allegations, the request for other to speak on their behalf, if that's not a description of a trial, or makeshift trial, i'm not sure what it is then.

Unless they held him in some sort of makeshift prison for some period of time, it's safe to assume that the trial and execution took place during the passover.

Secondly the Talmud source is written about 500 years later, while it's possible they were using earlier sources of their own, it seems more likely they were also going by the information readily known by that period. So no particular significant as you suggest was placed by these writers on the date in which the death and trial were said to have occurred, they appear to take those points at face value.

The points you and others raise that would have been significant for them, were relegated to insignificances by the jews you want to speak on behalf of here.

"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: