Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2012, 12:08 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 12:40 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(03-11-2012 11:44 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:No definition of "qualified expert". More deflection.
No proof of "worldwide" anything.
100% Bullshit.
This is NOT about consensus.
Totally misunderstands what this is about.
No one said this was about "determining" worldwide consensus.
Wiki is NOT "worldwide" consensus, just because Wiki asserts it.
Attempts to appear as expert with use of "worldwide consensus" the admits he is not.
If worldwide consensus was the standard we would still think the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe.

Pointless bickering. Nothing useful to discuss.

Good night

More deflection. No attempt to address substance.
More dismissive, arrogant, patronizing behavior.

Good night Your Majesty. Bowing

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 05:52 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Fucking Bucky. Shoulda been "Wrecking Ball." Such a thorny bastard sometimes. Big Grin

Tacitus seems like a decent source, but the problem comes down to "which Jesus." As far as I'm concerned, the Paul who wrote the epistle to the Romans was speaking of an ideal rather than a flesh-and-blood being.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 08:17 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 05:52 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking Bucky. Shoulda been "Wrecking Ball." Such a thorny bastard sometimes. Big Grin

Tacitus seems like a decent source, but the problem comes down to "which Jesus." As far as I'm concerned, the Paul who wrote the epistle to the Romans was speaking of an ideal rather than a flesh-and-blood being.


People keep coming up with "which Jesus." The problem with that is that they do not provide one stitch of evidence of any other Jesus who was considered to be the Christ by many Jews, and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Can you, or anyone else, find a record of anyone else named Jesus, who was called Christ, and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate? No you cannot. You see, it's very easy to assert things in some effort to cast doubt, but all it takes to destroy the assertion is to ask for one shred of evidence to substantiate it.

And that's why people like Bucky will never make the grade in the scholarship community. Using his tactics, we can assert anything ridiculous we like and then watch how ignorant and gullible people eat it up like candy.

Not sure what you are seeing in Romans, but I can't see how an "idea" can be crucified.

Quote:Rom 6:3 - 6:6 - Do you not know that as so many of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ, were also baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death so that just like Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also planted in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing that our old form of man is crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, therefore henceforth we should not serve sin.

It's quite clear that Paul is mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus in the above verses from Romans.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:13 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 08:17 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 05:52 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking Bucky. Shoulda been "Wrecking Ball." Such a thorny bastard sometimes. Big Grin

Tacitus seems like a decent source, but the problem comes down to "which Jesus." As far as I'm concerned, the Paul who wrote the epistle to the Romans was speaking of an ideal rather than a flesh-and-blood being.


People keep coming up with "which Jesus." The problem with that is that they do not provide one stitch of evidence of any other Jesus who was considered to be the Christ by many Jews, and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Can you, or anyone else, find a record of anyone else named Jesus, who was called Christ, and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate? No you cannot. You see, it's very easy to assert things in some effort to cast doubt, but all it takes to destroy the assertion is to ask for one shred of evidence to substantiate it.

And that's why people like Bucky will never make the grade in the scholarship community. Using his tactics, we can assert anything ridiculous we like and then watch how ignorant and gullible people eat it up like candy.

Not sure what you are seeing in Romans, but I can't see how an "idea" can be crucified.

Quote:Rom 6:3 - 6:6 - Do you not know that as so many of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ, were also baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death so that just like Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also planted in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing that our old form of man is crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, therefore henceforth we should not serve sin.

It's quite clear that Paul is mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus in the above verses from Romans.

Nope. Absolutely false.

It's "quite clear" he's talking about the "cosmic" *metaphorical* raising of HIS "Anointed One".
Saul of Tarsus used entirely metaphorical concepts in that sentence. "Baptizing into Jesus" is not a literal thing, "baptized into a death" is not a literal thing, "buried with him by baptism into death" is not literal, "raised up", (or "exalted" which the actual meaning of the Greek verb and the Biblical context), "glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life", is metaphor, and NOT historical.

"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we
shall be also planted in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing that
our old form of man is crucified with him so that the body of sin might
be destroyed, therefore henceforth we should not serve sin" is metaphor, and NOT "historical". Free's is a 21st Century over-read using a 21st Century worldview of an ancient text that did not have that intent, or meaning.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:50 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 11:03 AM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:It's quite clear that Paul is mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus in the above verses from Romans.



Nope. Absolutely false.

It's "quite clear" he's talking about the "cosmic" *metaphorical* raising of HIS "Anointed One".

Can you find any scholarly consensus to support this assertion? Or are you merely asserting an improbable and unsupported opinion of what you THINK Paul is talking about?

As far as I can see, you are making up stories similar to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" or Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle." Just like your story, both are fantasies.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 11:04 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 10:50 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Nope. Absolutely false.

It's "quite clear" he's talking about the "cosmic" *metaphorical* raising of HIS "Anointed One".

Can you find any scholarly consensus to support this assertion? Or are you merely asserting an improbable and unsupported opinion of what you THINK Paul is talking about?
I don't need "scholarly consensus". THAT is not what I'm arguing from. The words speak for themselves.
This IS the "liberal" view. Apparently all you know is the Fundie conservative view.
This view has been widely written, including by Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott of the Tulsa Seminary.
It's only "improbable" to you because you never heard it before". There is no way to establish "probability".
Bayesian Probability does not operate here.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 11:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 10:50 AM)Free Wrote:  Can you find any scholarly consensus to support this assertion? Or are you merely asserting an improbable and unsupported opinion of what you THINK Paul is talking about?
I don't need "scholarly consensus". THAT is not what I'm arguing from. The words speak for themselves.
This IS the "liberal" view. Apparently all you know is the Fundie conservative view.
This view has been widely written, including by Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott of the Tulsa Seminary.
It's only "improbable" to you because you never heard it before". There is no way to establish "probability".
Bayesian Probability does not operate here.
No, anybody with a clue can see what you are promoting here. You are trying to help out Earl Doherty's "new religion" established with his book known as The Jesus Puzzle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

His views are often the joke of many learned professionals. Are you sure you want to be his follower?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 11:29 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 11:20 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 11:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't need "scholarly consensus". THAT is not what I'm arguing from. The words speak for themselves.
This IS the "liberal" view. Apparently all you know is the Fundie conservative view.
This view has been widely written, including by Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott of the Tulsa Seminary.
It's only "improbable" to you because you never heard it before". There is no way to establish "probability".
Bayesian Probability does not operate here.
No, anybody with a clue can see what you are promoting here. You are trying to help out Earl Doherty's "new religion" established with his book known as The Jesus Puzzle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

His views are often the joke of many learned professionals. Are you sure you want to be his follower?

Nope. You obviously only know things from very one sided perspective. You need to get out more.
http://westarinstitute.org/Events/JSORs/...o2012.html
The fact that you don't see this in a larger perspective, is proof of you lack of exposure to this topic, in general.
It's quite common though, for Americans, who are only exposed to Fundie stuff.
There exists a totally completely "other" view of things, in mainline academia, that the public is generally unaware of.

In the introduction to "Jesus Interrupted", Bart Ehrman said "
"Scholars of the Bible have made significant progress in understanding
the Bible over the past two hundred years, building on archaeological
discoveries, advances in our knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek
languages in which the books of scripture were originally written and
deep and penetrating historical, literary and textual analyses. This is a
massive scholarly endeavor. Thousands of scholars just in North America
alone continue to do serious research in the field, and the results of
their study are regularly and routinely taught, both to graduate
students in universities and to prospective pastors attending seminaries
in preparation for the ministry. Yet such views of the Bible are
virtually unknown to the population at large."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+texts

You just have no exposure to the field in general.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 11:32 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 11:29 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 11:20 AM)Free Wrote:  No, anybody with a clue can see what you are promoting here. You are trying to help out Earl Doherty's "new religion" established with his book known as The Jesus Puzzle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

His views are often the joke of many learned professionals. Are you sure you want to be his follower?

Nope. You obviously only know things from very one sided perspective. You need to get out more.
http://westarinstitute.org/Events/JSORs/...o2012.html
The fact that you don't see this in a larger perspective, is proof of you lack of exposure to this topic, in general.
It's quite common though, for Americans, who are only exposed to Fundie stuff.
There exists a totally completely "other" view of things, in mainline academia, that the public is generally unaware of.

In the introduction to "Jesus Interrupted", Bart Ehrman said "
"Scholars of the Bible have made significant progress in understanding
the Bible over the past two hundred years, building on archaeological
discoveries, advances in our knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek
languages in which the books of scripture were originally written and
deep and penetrating historical, literary and textual analyses. This is a
massive scholarly endeavor. Thousands of scholars just in North America
alone continue to do serious research in the field, and the results of
their study are regularly and routinely taught, both to graduate
students in universities and to prospective pastors attending seminaries
in preparation for the ministry. Yet such views of the Bible are
virtually unknown to the population at large."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+texts

You just have no exposure to the field in general.
More assertion. And I'm not American.

I completely destroyed the Christ Myth Theory years ago. It's a joke in the scholarly field.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 11:35 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 11:32 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 11:29 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. You obviously only know things from very one sided perspective. You need to get out more.
http://westarinstitute.org/Events/JSORs/...o2012.html
The fact that you don't see this in a larger perspective, is proof of you lack of exposure to this topic, in general.
It's quite common though, for Americans, who are only exposed to Fundie stuff.
There exists a totally completely "other" view of things, in mainline academia, that the public is generally unaware of.

In the introduction to "Jesus Interrupted", Bart Ehrman said "
"Scholars of the Bible have made significant progress in understanding
the Bible over the past two hundred years, building on archaeological
discoveries, advances in our knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek
languages in which the books of scripture were originally written and
deep and penetrating historical, literary and textual analyses. This is a
massive scholarly endeavor. Thousands of scholars just in North America
alone continue to do serious research in the field, and the results of
their study are regularly and routinely taught, both to graduate
students in universities and to prospective pastors attending seminaries
in preparation for the ministry. Yet such views of the Bible are
virtually unknown to the population at large."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+texts

You just have no exposure to the field in general.
More assertion. And I'm not American.

I completely destroyed the Christ Myth Theory years ago. It's a joke in the scholarly field.
That was not assertion, that was a statement about the field with a quote and references to an acknowledged and respected Biblical scholar.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: