Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2013, 03:49 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 12:38 AM by Doctor X.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(25-03-2013 03:49 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  Weeelllllll . . . now to be fair . . . he did not actually write that letter!

Is that revelation going to conjure a Stool Tsunami [As seen on National Geographic!--Ed.] from PleaseJunior?

--J.D.

Exactly. It's one of the reasons we know it couldn't have been him. If he were THAT James, he would have said something.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 12:38 AM by Doctor X.)
Tongue RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 04:45 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 05:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Since coming here, I have changed my mind a lot about the historical dude.
Mark Fulton has some very interesting stuff to say about this. For me, in the end, I think it wouldn't make sense to start a cult, and then fight about everything, (like they do in Acts). I suspect somewhere in there is an historical kernal. My theory revolves around the temple, and the Jerusalem economy. It's almost impossible to remember how important the temple was to the economy of that city. The ENTIRE economy was built on the festivals, and sacrificial buying and preparing and fee structures for ritual bathing, and staying over-night for visitors, and eating and money handed to the priests to do their thing, raising, feeding, breeding hundreds of thousands of sheep and goats, and slaughtering animals, and burning their carcasses, and changing the Roman currency into Hebrew for ritual purposes. Then along comes Jebus, and he pulls his stunt in the temple. He was a trouble-maker, and they just got rid of him. No trial. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers.

Saul of Tarsus did change eveything, however. SPJJT really practices Paulianity. He just doesn't know it.

Mark has a different view, that he may have actually been a revolutionary. And that most of what was cooked up was a Roman conspiracy. (See his tape by Joseph Atwill). That makes a lot of sense to me. In the end, it doesn't matter.

Christianity in no way "flows" culturally from Hebrew culture. After examining the origins of the OT, no one can make "ultimate claims" about it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-03-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:Not according to Isaiah 9, son. Rather human figure. Also, does not fit the description of Junior.
Son? How old are you, Dad? My daughter is awaiting her response to her Yale application now. Could you possibly be more smarmy and supercilious? You're rather rude, aren't you? Don't you worry about furthering the stereotype of Atheists as arrogant, mean people? Isaiah 9 says MIGHTY GOD. Your Hebrew knowledge is poor. Use a concordance, please.
Quote:Not according to the NT texts. He is merely "a son of a god"--though Mk considers him a son of a particular god--and I do not question the implicit monotheism of Mk but then you have to deal with "daemons" which were . . . well . . . "small gods." He is certainly important to Mk, but unlike Jack Gurney, the 13th Earl of Gurney, when he prays he does not find he is talking to himself. Recall, Big Daddy rather talks to him. Go forward to Jn and you have a denial that he is Big Daddy which is especially remarkable given that Jn's Junior is the most godlike Junior of The Big Four. And before you try to spout Trinitarianism, that be a late apology to deal with the then problem of a separate Big Daddy and Junior--not to mention the Spook!
This last reads as incomprehensible drivel but a rank novice in Christianity can see that unable to accuse Christ justly, the Pharisees condemned Him for blasphemy; equating Himself with God.
Quote:None of it in the HB, son. Sorry.
What is an HB, please? Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:36 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:Since coming here, I have changed my mind a lot about the historical dude.
Mark Fulton has some very interesting stuff to say about this. For me, in the end, I think it wouldn't make sense to start a cult, and then fight about everything, (like they do in Acts). I suspect somewhere in there is an historical kernal. My theory revolves around the temple, and the Jerusalem economy. It's almost impossible to remember how important the temple was to the economy of that city. The ENTIRE economy was built on the festivals, and sacrificial buying and preparing and fee structures for ritual bathing, and staying over-night for visitors, and eating and money handed to the priests to do their thing, raising, feeding, breeding hundreds of thousands of sheep and goats, and slaughtering animals, and burning their carcasses, and changing the Roman currency into Hebrew for ritual purposes. Then along comes Jebus, and he pulls his stunt in the temple. He was a trouble-maker, and they just got rid of him. No trial. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers.

Saul of Tarsus did change eveything, however. SPJJT really practices Paulianity. He just doesn't know it.

Mark has a different view, that he may have actually been a revolutionary. And that most of what was cooked up was a Roman conspiracy. (See his tape by Joseph Atwill). That makes a lot of sense to me. In the end, it doesn't matter.

Christianity in no way "flows" culturally from Hebrew culture. After examining the origins of the OT, no one can make "ultimate claims" about it.
BB, I agree with the first part of your post. Even a tithe of a tithe was lots of gelt by the time hundreds of thousands of pilgrims were in town for a festival. However, it still seems like special pleading to me: Paul created a new cult using lies and half-truths to cover for a political/economic rebel for whom author authors pled He fulfilled prophecy from books written after events happened to claim foresight to cover books from four sources that were compiled to create a backstory for a culture that unlike its surrounding cultures, lacked a chief or particular deity. Also, brothers of the rebel then aligned their writings to Paul the liar... it just starts to sound like a 1,000-year conspiracy. It sounds as kooky as some of the religions and cultures out there! Please explain your rationale as to why and how over one dozen NT authors (not even including apocrypha and pseudopigrapha authors) were all in this conspiracy, and your rationale for the OT switcheroos also. I am sincerely and genuinely interested to learn more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 08:25 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(26-03-2013 07:36 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Since coming here, I have changed my mind a lot about the historical dude.
Mark Fulton has some very interesting stuff to say about this. For me, in the end, I think it wouldn't make sense to start a cult, and then fight about everything, (like they do in Acts). I suspect somewhere in there is an historical kernal. My theory revolves around the temple, and the Jerusalem economy. It's almost impossible to remember how important the temple was to the economy of that city. The ENTIRE economy was built on the festivals, and sacrificial buying and preparing and fee structures for ritual bathing, and staying over-night for visitors, and eating and money handed to the priests to do their thing, raising, feeding, breeding hundreds of thousands of sheep and goats, and slaughtering animals, and burning their carcasses, and changing the Roman currency into Hebrew for ritual purposes. Then along comes Jebus, and he pulls his stunt in the temple. He was a trouble-maker, and they just got rid of him. No trial. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers.

Saul of Tarsus did change eveything, however. SPJJT really practices Paulianity. He just doesn't know it.

Mark has a different view, that he may have actually been a revolutionary. And that most of what was cooked up was a Roman conspiracy. (See his tape by Joseph Atwill). That makes a lot of sense to me. In the end, it doesn't matter.

Christianity in no way "flows" culturally from Hebrew culture. After examining the origins of the OT, no one can make "ultimate claims" about it.
BB, I agree with the first part of your post. Even a tithe of a tithe was lots of gelt by the time hundreds of thousands of pilgrims were in town for a festival. However, it still seems like special pleading to me: Paul created a new cult using lies and half-truths to cover for a political/economic rebel for whom author authors pled He fulfilled prophecy from books written after events happened to claim foresight to cover books from four sources that were compiled to create a backstory for a culture that unlike its surrounding cultures, lacked a chief or particular deity. Also, brothers of the rebel then aligned their writings to Paul the liar... it just starts to sound like a 1,000-year conspiracy. It sounds as kooky as some of the religions and cultures out there! Please explain your rationale as to why and how over one dozen NT authors (not even including apocrypha and pseudopigrapha authors) were all in this conspiracy, and your rationale for the OT switcheroos also. I am sincerely and genuinely interested to learn more.

You really need to learn the definition of "special pleading". Dodgy
They were not in A conspiracy, the AGE was one of pious fraud. The ends justified the means.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
(26-03-2013 07:30 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  What is an HB, please? Thank you.

[Image: roflcopter.jpg]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Quote:You really need to learn the definition of "special pleading". [Image: dodgy.gif]
They were not in A conspiracy, the AGE was one of pious fraud. The ends justified the means.
[/url][url=http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church
Um]http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church[/quote]Um, Special pleading, also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment,[1] is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.[2]
The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.
"It was an age of pious fraud" meets the above definition. We're talking about 40 authors here over hundreds of years (and even more authors if you include JEDP, Q and apocrypha). Special pleading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 10:15 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, and Isaiah are "essentially" the same thing
Edit, IdiotJebus is lacking the intellectual skills required for a rational discussion. It's the goddamn opposite of "special pleading". They were NOT the exception to pious fraud. They were memebers of the cult in question. They were 100% non-objective. They all had reasons to lie. You have in no way EVEN addressed the question of the CONTENT of what they said. Just thrown numbers. You are too stupid to even continue talking to. I'm done here. You failed. Your fucking messiah failed to do THE ONE THING he was supposed to do to BE the fucking messiah. Yet you idiots dance around the fact that he did NOT restore the kingdom and the temple. There is not a shred of evidence that Jebus did anything they said he did. Humanity is no different. The writers of everything we have were in no position to know anything for sure, and there is no way to know if they were lying, and MANY of their numbers admitted it. See the damn link. How does 40 non-eyewitnesses over "hundreds of years" ALL of whom have a REASON to lie prove anything ? It's completely worthless. Just like your arguments. Go away SexuallyPleasingJebusTroll. You have done nothing but make a fool of yourself and your cult. I can get 10,000 non-eye witness members of a cult to say anything the cult teaches. Does THAT prove something ? No. Your logic is worthless. It's called the ad populum argument.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: