New Testament History revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2016, 06:08 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
(19-10-2016 01:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 11:37 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  What is sad is that in coming to an understanding of something which troubles atheists, and which is why this forum is here, as a place for atheists to come to find an understanding of why they are in the position they are, that one has to be harassed psychologically all the way along one's journey. It's sad and it reflects badly on the mindset of those doing the harassing.

Making up fake shit is no comfort or help to anyone. It's not AT ALL a help to any group, least of all to us, you and your false "help to atheism" nonsense.
The crap you cook up and post is NO LESS false than the garbage theists cook up and imagine.
You, pretending to know anything about History, is what is REALLY sad.
You seem to think that somehow we are supposed to just accept your bullshit, which has NO FOUNDATION, no references and no historical exposition, no facts.
You crap about "Sumerians from Ur" is 100 % false. Archaeology KNOWS when and where and by whom Canaan was settled. You do not have a clue.
The fact that in the MYTHS in Genesis, Ur was referenced when they made up the story, is NO indication that the people assembling the stories about the (mythical) Abraham
actually KNEW that there was one, (Abraham) or knew where he came from. In the videos you have been provided with multiple times, but cannot bother to learn anything from,
it points out that a journey from Ur to Canaan at the time it was posited, was not possible. Travel by non-royal herders, by camel, had not begun yet. There is not a shred of archeological evidence that journey happened or genetic or any other kind of evidence, for that migration. They MADE IT UP, and you repeat those FAITH CLAIMS as fact, and using the myth as part of the foundation for your FICTIONAL bullshit, is NO assistance to anyone. Least of all to atheists who don't buy the Biblical bullshit, in the first place. So stop pretending you have the "moral high-ground" here. You're as much of the problem as any religious fool is, who preaches their made-up crap.


Here we go again.

"it points out that a journey from Ur to Canaan at the time it was posited, was not possible. Travel by non-royal herders, by camel, had not begun yet. There is not a shred of archeological evidence that journey happened or genetic or any other kind of evidence, for that migration. They MADE IT UP, and you repeat those FAITH CLAIMS as fact,"

No I did not. You are posting a falsehood.

I have not once said that the Old Testament is true. I don't believe it is true. I believe it to be a co mpilation of fictionalized, legendary allegory. So, take that statement back.

What I have said is the mainstream Judaism has accepted it as fact...right? Do you understand that?

Apart from that, there is another Ur, isn't there, Bucky? There is the Ur from where Muslims say Abraham came from and that is now called Sanliurfa which is in southern Turkey which was exactly where Josephus says the Jews came from, ie., Mesopotamia. Right?

Answer that. I insist. You have called me some horrendous names on the basis of complete distortions and lies on this forum so I insist you answer this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 06:11 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
Wiki: The history of Şanlıurfa is recorded from the 4th century BC, but may date back at least to 9000 BC, when there is ample evidence for the surrounding sites at Duru, Harran and Nevali Cori.[4] Within the further area of the city are three neolithic sites known: Göbekli Tepe, Gürcütepe and the city itself, where the life-sized limestone "Urfa statue" was found during an excavation in Balıklıgöl.[5] The city was one of several in the upper Euphrates-Tigris basin, the fertile crescent where agriculture began.

According to Jewish and Muslim tradition, Urfa is Ur Kasdim, the hometown of Abraham. This identification was disputed by Leonard Woolley, the excavator of the Sumerian city of Ur in 1927 and scholars remain divided on the issue. Urfa is also one of several cities that have traditions associated with Job.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 06:18 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
Have you even read the New Testament, Bucky? Have you even heard of Feuerbach? If so, what is your opinion on his view about what "god" is: "Thus God is nothing else than human: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of a human's inward nature. This projection is dubbed as a chimera by Feuerbach" Wiki
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 06:26 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
(19-10-2016 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The Romans fought the "Jews" for a hundred years...

Well as a man who has studied Roman history for 36 years, this is news to me.

Are you sure you are not confusing the Jews with the Carthaginians?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
19-10-2016, 06:29 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
I want to add this to the thread because it is highly relevant to the abusive smearing of my perceived "persona" here. There is a perception on this forum that "peer review" is the only sort of information that can be relied upon. However, reliance on peer review itself has been criticized and "dangerous".

"The absence of peer review hardly supports the inference that a study or an evaluation of studies is not reliable, unless of course we also know that the authors have failed after repeated attempts to find a publisher. In today’s world of vanity presses, a researcher would be hard pressed to be unable to find a journal in which to publish a paper. As Drummond Rennie, a former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (the same journal, acting as an amicus curiae to the Supreme Court, which oversold peer review), has remarked:

“There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Drummond Rennie, “Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review,” 256 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 2391 (1986); D. Rennie, A. Flanagin, R. Smith, and J. Smith, “Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research”. 289 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 1438 (2003)

Other editors at leading medical journals seem to agree with Rennie. Richard Horton, an editor of The Lancet, rejects the Goodstein view (from the Reference Manual) of peer review as the “sacred pillar of the scientific edifice”:

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
.
... you always have to use your own judgement in life. You have to ignore the fact that something is "peer reviewed". It is irrelevant that an author has found other people who "might" agree with him. Peer review does not involve analyzing the truth of a theory. Peer review only looks at stylistic issues and plausibility. Peer reviewers do not analyze the underlying evidence even in scientific papers.

"The fact is that peer review is not very good in detecting fraud or error in scientific work. Ultimately, the scientific community must judge the value of the work, but in some niche areas, only “the acolytes” are paying attention. These acolytes cite to one another, applaud each others’ work, and often serve as peer reviewers of the work in the field because editors see them as the most knowledgeable investigators in the narrow field. This phenomenon seems especially prevalent in occupational and environmental medicine. See Cordelia Fine, “Biased But Brilliant,” New York Times (July 30, 2011) (describing confirmation bias and irrational loyalty of scientists to their hobby-horse hypotheses).."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 06:48 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
And where does this take us in looking at ancient religious beliefs? I mean, man, its ridiculous to think in terms of "peer review" in looking at religious issues. Richard Carrier is the first person, I believe, to have written a PhD thesis on Christian mythicism. All "peers" reviewing religious works at universities in Europe have come from religious backgrounds up until the modern times. What atheistic "peer reviewed" papers is anyone going to find on a topic which asks about the imagery and motifs in the New Testament and pre-Christian religious beliefs, other than the accepted cant that "Jesus was a Jew"...

So, if he was, then why don't "Jews" worship a messiah figure? Why are Jews so skeptical of all Jesus' miracles? Why does Jesus walk on water, heal people, raise Lazarus from the dead? The Jews who Jesus is supposedly preaching to don't announce that he is some kind of heretic. This is right up their alley and they are all "witness to it". lol Why did Jewish women talk to each other about having been impregnated by God? Was this concept of virgin birth a Jewish notion? Is that what Jews believed, that their god could make a woman pregnant? Why does Jesus ask, on the cross, why his god "Eloi" has forsaken him? So, Eloi was the god of the Jews, then? Who is Eloi? Allah? The moon god? Why is Jesus a Nazarene? The Nazar is the eye of Horus, the moon. So Jesus was from a place where they worshipped the moon? Or maybe just a place named after the moon, or the eye of Horus, the Nazar? Jews worshipped the Nazar? Or was he born in Nazareth? Except there was no Nazareth, so it seems. Lets find a peer reviewed work showing us that Nazar was a town where Jesus could have been born...

"James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century CE. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea."[39] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ as "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to "a maximum of about 480."[40] In 2009, Israeli Christian archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre claimed to have excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Unfortunately this has not been corroborated by the IAA[41] or any other reliable archaeological sources. Alexandre reported this find first to the news media and told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth.".[42] However to date, and despite the importance of such a find, Alexandre has produced no archaeological scholarly work on the matter, no artifacts excavated during this discovery have been presented, and no confirmation that such a find was actually made has been undertaken. The area has subsequently been filled with concrete, leveled and a building 'The Mary of Nazareth International Center' which opened in 2011 placed above it. Other sources state that during Jesus' time, Nazareth had a population of 400 and one public bath, which was important for civic and religious purposes.[43]

However of the artifacts uncovered from the area of the bathhouse and dated by historians, or by using radiocarbon dating, none are known to predate the 2nd century AD. All artifacts are either Byzantine design (7th and 8th century AD). Some construction, although not radiocarbon dated, may extend as far back as the late Roman Era (2nd and 3rd century AD).

The Gospel of Luke says; "[And they led Jesus] to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong".[Lk" wiki.

Can we find a peer reviewed paper somewhere which explains the Judaism which accepts these feats as something a Jew would expect of a messiah? I must insist, however, that it is a peer review by secularists as we would not want to muddy the waters with religious bias. And, I would like to see peer review where the peers actually say they have read the primary sources for the paper and not just stuck their names on the list of editors page.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 06:55 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
(19-10-2016 06:26 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The Romans fought the "Jews" for a hundred years...

Well as a man who has studied Roman history for 36 years, this is news to me.

Are you sure you are not confusing the Jews with the Carthaginians?

Can you tell us about Epicureanism in the late Republic? I would be interested in your views on its significance in relation to, for instance, gnosticism.

The Jewish–Roman wars were a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean against the Roman Empire between 66 and 136 CE. Wiki

Seventy years then if you insist on being pedantic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 06:56 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
(19-10-2016 06:55 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 06:26 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Well as a man who has studied Roman history for 36 years, this is news to me.

Are you sure you are not confusing the Jews with the Carthaginians?

The Jewish–Roman wars were a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean against the Roman Empire between 66 and 136 CE. Wiki

Seventy years then if you insist on being pedantic.

Years in total do NOT reach one hundred. At war over various period during the course of a century is very different.

We're not talking about the Punic wars here.

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
19-10-2016, 07:09 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
I want to emphasize this part of my post on peer review: "But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

Which pretty much ties in with the behaviour of the posters here who bang on about only wanting to read material from peer reviewed works.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 07:23 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
Getting back to the point of this thread, the issues relating to Jesus being a member of a religion which came from Egypt aren't relevant in the broad sense of what is being taught in the New Testament. One can discard that without losing anything. What I am saying is that this is a "hook" to get the interest of the people of the time who would have recognized these motifs? So , who were they? Obviously people who believed that their "divinity" whoever it was, walked on water, healed people, rose from the dead after three days. If these people weren't Jews because this religion is not what Judaism was, then Jesus wan't a Jew...

Anyway. Putting that aside, there are two themes in the New Testament in terms of what it means personally to people. One is the moral message based on "god" being the Word or Logos and leading to a moral philosophy of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". The other theme is that one can achieve personal "redemption" by accepting this and "go to heaven" to be with "god". The first theme is easy to understand but the second is problematic. Jesus comes back to life. Gods were considered to "live" forever. Of course the Egyptian idea was that the Pharoah was put in a tomb with all his possessions so he could have a good time when he came back to life. So, is this aspect of Christianity just offering the same type of "after-life" to believers? Is this really a suggestion that there is a metaphysical world inhabited by "spirits" of deceased people?

For my part, I think this concept of redemption means a personal awareness and acceptance of this morality as leading to a better life and to "atonement" in the sense of being "at one" with oneself, which is more like a Buddhist view of achieving inner peace. It's an inner peace we get when we stop sacrificing children, coveting our neighbour's goat and begin treating each other kindly, not blaspheming on internet forums etc. That is as far as I would take that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: