Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2016, 06:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-07-2016 03:16 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(12-07-2016 02:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  For once we agree.



What anti-xtian rhetoric would that be? The first significant anti-xtian commentary we have comes from Celsus late in the 2d century.

Actually Celsus was early 2nd century. Origen discussed him later in that century.

Quote:Oh, and your boyfriend "paul" never heard of fucking nazareth, either.

You spoke to Paul did you? And from this conversation he told you that Nazareth never existed, did he?

No? Well how do you know he never heard of Nazareth? Ohhhhh yes ... you are using the time and tested mythicist method of applying the fallacious unqualified "argument from silence" here.

So let's see if you have the intellectual capacity to qualify your argument from silence as having any validity at all, by asking you a question:

Q: For what reason would Paul need to mention Nazareth?
A: ?

Go!

Big Grin

Q: For what reason would Paul need to mention Nazareth?
A: ?


If the gospels' stories about a Jesus are to be given any credibilty, then Paul needs to have mentioned Nazareth. And give a description of Jesus, and discuss Jesus, his teachings, his miracles etc. What do we get about this from Paul.? Zilch. Nothing.

What do we get about this from second century writers pretending to be Paul? Zilch. Nothing.

This is very compelling evidence that the Jesus in the gospels is a comic book man. A creation. A fabrication. A joke.

That's the significance of Paul not mentioning Nazareth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2016 06:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Inasmuch as Matthew specifically talks about the importance of Nazareth as the birthplace, and John has "INRI" placed above him on the cross, the specific town is of greater importance than any other place mentioned, it seems. They were making a specific statement about a specific place. If it wasn't really a town, it doesn't help the cause of those who makes claims for historicity.

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
13-07-2016, 07:06 PM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2016 07:10 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 06:30 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-07-2016 03:16 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually Celsus was early 2nd century. Origen discussed him later in that century.


You spoke to Paul did you? And from this conversation he told you that Nazareth never existed, did he?

No? Well how do you know he never heard of Nazareth? Ohhhhh yes ... you are using the time and tested mythicist method of applying the fallacious unqualified "argument from silence" here.

So let's see if you have the intellectual capacity to qualify your argument from silence as having any validity at all, by asking you a question:

Q: For what reason would Paul need to mention Nazareth?
A: ?

Go!

Big Grin

Q: For what reason would Paul need to mention Nazareth?
A: ?


If the gospels' stories about a Jesus are to be given any credibilty, then Paul needs to have mentioned Nazareth. And give a description of Jesus, and discuss Jesus, his teachings, his miracles etc. What do we get about this from Paul.? Zilch. Nothing.

That do we get about this from second century writers pretending to be Paul? Zilch. Nothing

But my part in this discussion has nothing to do with Jesus performing any miracles, or anything to do with any supernatural aspects of his embellished life.

So if you are going to argue with me, then you need to acknowledge my position as one of historicity as opposed to one of religious faith.

There is nothing superstitious about Jesus originating in Nazareth. There is nothing superstitious about him merely existing as a human being. There is nothing superstitious about him being crucified by Pilate.

Quote:This is very compelling evidence that the Jesus in the gospels is a comic book man. A creation. A fabrication. A joke.

But this position you hold is fallacious, and known as Fallacy of Exclusion:

Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".

Since you are excluding the more plausible explanation that the Jesus of the Gospels had his life embellished by his followers, and failing to consider all the evidence supporting his existence as an ordinary man, then you are employing this logical fallacy and not following the honorable principle of total evidence. And you are also excluding my argument regarding the existence of other towns, which I will relate to you next in response to your next quote below.

Quote:That's the significance of Paul not mentioning Nazareth.

And like I said, many other towns are listed in the gospel narrative that Paul never mentioned, including Bethlehem. But that does not mean they, and Bethlehem, never existed. The Gospels state the birth place of Jesus as Bethlehem, and go on with the miraculous nativity scene. Bethlehem is far more prominent to the embellished life of Jesus than Nazareth could ever be, so should we think Bethlehem never existed as well?

And that's the significance of utilizing the principle of total evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 07:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
It's perfectly legitimate to ask why the place names were used. Bethlehem was used, (in the FAKE census story) as they needed him to be born in the "city of David". The gospels made up the birth narratives. If they are false, what else is made up ? No one questions the existence of Bethlehem .. whether it plays an important role in the story or not. The census WAS a pious fraud. There is no question of that.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-07-2016, 07:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 07:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's perfectly legitimate to ask why the place names were used. Bethlehem was used, (in the FAKE census story) as they needed him to be born in the "city of David". The gospels made up the birth narratives. If they are false, what else is made up ? No one questions the existence of Bethlehem .. whether it plays an important role in the story or not. The census WAS a pious fraud. There is no question of that.

Sure, but many other places are also named in the Gospels narratives, so should we think they were also all made up as some kind of a pious fraud also?

That's what is so stupid about this "Nazareth never existed" thing. Nazareth is merely the place where Jesus supposedly grew up. Nothing special about that. In fact, the gospels say that when Jesus returned to Nazareth he didn't even perform any miracles there.

But when you look at the miracles he is claimed to have performed in other towns, should we then say that because the miracles are obviously bullshit that, by golly, the towns he supposedly performed them in are all fake too?

So what's the big deal about Nazareth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 07:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 07:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Sure, but many other places are also named in the Gospels narratives, so should we think they were also all made up as some kind of a pious fraud also?

That's what is so stupid about this "Nazareth never existed" thing. Nazareth is merely the place where Jesus supposedly grew up. Nothing special about that. In fact, the gospels say that when Jesus returned to Nazareth he didn't even perform any miracles there.

But when you look at the miracles he is claimed to have performed in other towns, should we then say that because the miracles are obviously bullshit that, by golly, the towns he supposedly performed them in are all fake too?

So what's the big deal about Nazareth?

The "big deal" is they *needed* it to claim prophesy fulfillment. They *needed* Bethlehem to claim the Davidic reference. The POINT is, the census was a fraud, NOT that Bethlehem was a fraud. It makes no difference if the non-important places existed or not. It DOES matter if there was a census, and if there was a Nazareth. Your comparison to other towns is invalid. The point is, if the birth narratives were fake, the census is fake, so much else is fake, then where does the fakery end ? The references in Greek myths to real places doesn't make them real history. There is so much bullshit, there is no way to 'tease out" the (possible) core of truth.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-07-2016, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2016 08:08 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 07:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 06:30 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Q: For what reason would Paul need to mention Nazareth?
A: ?


If the gospels' stories about a Jesus are to be given any credibilty, then Paul needs to have mentioned Nazareth. And give a description of Jesus, and discuss Jesus, his teachings, his miracles etc. What do we get about this from Paul.? Zilch. Nothing.

That do we get about this from second century writers pretending to be Paul? Zilch. Nothing

But my part in this discussion has nothing to do with Jesus performing any miracles, or anything to do with any supernatural aspects of his embellished life.

So if you are going to argue with me, then you need to acknowledge my position as one of historicity as opposed to one of religious faith.

There is nothing superstitious about Jesus originating in Nazareth. There is nothing superstitious about him merely existing as a human being. There is nothing superstitious about him being crucified by Pilate.

Quote:This is very compelling evidence that the Jesus in the gospels is a comic book man. A creation. A fabrication. A joke.

But this position you hold is fallacious, and known as Fallacy of Exclusion:

Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".

Since you are excluding the more plausible explanation that the Jesus of the Gospels had his life embellished by his followers, and failing to consider all the evidence supporting his existence as an ordinary man, then you are employing this logical fallacy and not following the honorable principle of total evidence. And you are also excluding my argument regarding the existence of other towns, which I will relate to you next in response to your next quote below.

Quote:That's the significance of Paul not mentioning Nazareth.

And like I said, many other towns are listed in the gospel narrative that Paul never mentioned, including Bethlehem. But that does not mean they, and Bethlehem, never existed. The Gospels state the birth place of Jesus as Bethlehem, and go on with the miraculous nativity scene. Bethlehem is far more prominent to the embellished life of Jesus than Nazareth could ever be, so should we think Bethlehem never existed as well?

And that's the significance of utilizing the principle of total evidence.

"So if you are going to argue with me, then you need to acknowledge my position as one of historicity"

I haven't heard one piece of evidence from you that Nazareth existed in the first century. All you have is the gospels. Please present your evidence.

"And like I said, many other towns are listed in the gospel narrative that Paul never mentioned,"

This is irrelevant. Paul mentioned his Christ over 200 times. If his Christ was from Nazareth, Paul would have mentioned Nazareth.

"Since you are excluding the more plausible explanation that the Jesus of the Gospels had his life embellished"

Huh? Your imagination about what I think is out of control.

"and failing to consider all the evidence supporting his existence as an ordinary man,"

Huh? I have written a whole chapter on him being an ordinary man. The "evidence" you have presented for his existence is a lot weaker than mine.

Bethlehem is far more prominent to the embellished life of Jesus than Nazareth could ever be, so should we think Bethlehem never existed as well?

Pathetic argument. You should be embarrassed you wrote this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 07:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 07:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Sure, but many other places are also named in the Gospels narratives, so should we think they were also all made up as some kind of a pious fraud also?

That's what is so stupid about this "Nazareth never existed" thing. Nazareth is merely the place where Jesus supposedly grew up. Nothing special about that. In fact, the gospels say that when Jesus returned to Nazareth he didn't even perform any miracles there.

But when you look at the miracles he is claimed to have performed in other towns, should we then say that because the miracles are obviously bullshit that, by golly, the towns he supposedly performed them in are all fake too?

So what's the big deal about Nazareth?

The "big deal" is they *needed* it to claim prophesy fulfillment. They *needed* Bethlehem to claim the Davidic reference. The POINT is, the census was a fraud, NOT that Bethlehem was a fraud. It makes no difference if the non-important places existed or not. It DOES matter if there was a census, and if there was a Nazareth. Your comparison to other towns is invalid. The point is, if the birth narratives were fake, the census is fake, so much else is fake, then where does the fakery end ? The references in Greek myths to real places doesn't make them real history. There is so much bullshit, there is no way to 'tease out" the (possible) core of truth.

But what prophecy was fulfilled with Nazareth? You know as well as I do that there is no known ancient prophecy concerning Nazareth, or that anyone would come to be known as a Nazarene.

It would seem quite plausible to me that the prophesy concerning Nazareth/Nazarene was made up because Jesus came from Nazareth, and no actual prophecy existed.

He came from some obscure town called Nazareth, and therefore the Gospel writers were stuck with that, and invented a prophecy because no such prophesy ever proclaimed a messiah coming out of Nazareth.

So the POINT here could easily be- and far more believable- that the prophecy was a fraud, NOT that Nazareth was a fraud.

You can't just eliminate a town from history because Paul never mentioned it. You, Mark, and I all know that Paul's embellished concept of Jesus barely resembles the embellished Jesus of the Gospels, and that Paul barely ever quotes anything from those gospels. So why would Paul refer to him as Jesus of Nazareth like the gospels do?

No, just because someone doesn't mention Nazareth by no means eliminates it from history. That is sofa king we todd it.

Besides, I can tell by your passive argumentation on this issue that you don't fucking believe Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century anyways. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 07:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 07:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's perfectly legitimate to ask why the place names were used. Bethlehem was used, (in the FAKE census story) as they needed him to be born in the "city of David". The gospels made up the birth narratives. If they are false, what else is made up ? No one questions the existence of Bethlehem .. whether it plays an important role in the story or not. The census WAS a pious fraud. There is no question of that.

Sure, but many other places are also named in the Gospels narratives, so should we think they were also all made up as some kind of a pious fraud also?

That's what is so stupid about this "Nazareth never existed" thing. Nazareth is merely the place where Jesus supposedly grew up. Nothing special about that. In fact, the gospels say that when Jesus returned to Nazareth he didn't even perform any miracles there.

But when you look at the miracles he is claimed to have performed in other towns, should we then say that because the miracles are obviously bullshit that, by golly, the towns he supposedly performed them in are all fake too?

So what's the big deal about Nazareth?

Sure, but many other places are also named in the Gospels narratives, so should we think they were also all made up as some kind of a pious fraud also?

Oops, you've said this twice now, and you can't edit me quoting you. That's embarrassing for you.

So what's the big deal about Nazareth?

As already explained to you, there is no evidence that Jesus grew up there. The significance of that is that it throws more doubt on the legitimacy of the Jesus in the gospels.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 08:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  He came from some obscure town called Nazareth, and therefore the Gospel writers were stuck with that, and invented a prophecy because no such prophesy ever proclaimed a messiah coming out of Nazareth.

The emperor Julian referred to xians as "Galilaeans". From his works it seems he considered the cult regional in origin only. Although it is said on his deathbed he referred to Jesus as Nazarene.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: