Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 08:13 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Nope, don't have to prove Q existed, just have to point out that scholars (Christian ones at that) have determined that Luke and Mark are derived from the same earlier work. We don't know who wrote Luke either, and we can't "prove" this mysterious writer existed. In fact, the writer of Luke and Q might have been the same person. We don't know. It doesn't matter. The origins of the text are what matter, and Mark and Luke are derivative of an earlier work we call Q. Fin.

Marketing and luck explain the Jesus character's popularity. First off, no, the people of the time really couldn't refute something that happened nearly 70 years ago (when Mark and Luke appear to have been written). Keep in mind, not many people lived past 30 back then, and the only people who could possibly have remembered anything about Jesus by that point were 80+ years old. Essentially no eyewitnesses, so no one to refute the various claims made about the character.

As for why Jesus in particular made it big, it was because -- gasp! -- Matthew and others made up details that were palatable to a Roman audience, thus the Jesus cult hit it big in Rome. Also Saul's alterations to Jesus' philosophy meant that *everyone* was saved, including gentiles, while most messiahs kept with the notion of only the Jews being saved. Note that the Jesus cults in Judea and Alexandria and Greece never really made it big. They stuck around, but they didn't explode like the Roman one did. It was only the Roman branch that grew and thrived; and once one of these Christian cultists became emperor and made it the state religion, well, there she wrote.
I don't understand your double standard. The earlier document scholars claim existed has never been found, despite finding thousands of copies of the gospels from the first few centuries. But you believe this source document exists based on textual "evidence" only. (But then you turn and say the texts are invalid witnesses of truth because they speak of the miracles of Christ.) Please explain more regarding your beliefs how something without any empirical evidence existed... I'm ALL ears now and so are all of your empiricist colleagues. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 08:20 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Either we take the biblical history as truth or we do not accept any historical proof. Nice false dichotomy.
Not at all. You're misunderstanding my point, which is... Since we accept many historical events from documents only, without empirical evidence, we must move forward to admit that we have a confirmatory bias regarding metaphysical historical events. For example, we could say there are no miracles today but still be scientific in allowing for miracles to have occured at some earlier point in time and perhaps be natural phenomena we don't quite understand, yet. Now we have to go back to the texts, again without a confirmatory bias. Do you agree?

Quote:Instead why do you offer equal evidence. Give us an actual picture of god, video of god, and a forum account for god. Oh wait that standard is way to high for god, yet a human being can meet it with ease. Is your god willing but not able?
A loaded question to be sure. But that's fine. The last time I checked, the Bible was writen by 40 authors and runs over 2,000 pages in English versions. You have less evidence for the existence of any ancient historical figure you care to name. The issue is you are currently demanding video evidence and not textual evidence. What's the difference between you watching TV all day and those of us who have attended university classes and read books (besides literacy)? You have a classic of literature in front of you but you want a Gangnam Style video, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 09:51 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
It's not a "classic of literature". It's a collection of texts, which were capritiously , NON-UNANIMOUSLY, VOTED into a canon, by HUMANS who had as their criteria, that "there were four winds, and four pilars on which the Earth stood". You call THAT a "classic of literature" ? Eusebius, working for Constantine, thought there were too many gospels floating around. So Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."
Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2
http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml He could not cough up a complete list of the canon, and even if he could he admitted he was a liar. Thay ALL were liars. They would do anything which allowed them to advance the interests of growing their new cult.

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
08-03-2013, 09:56 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
But we might do the same today, make a vote on a canon and lie or tell the truth. Eusebius no more invalidates the truths of scripture than you do by denying them or I do by being, well... me. By the way, when the canons were formed, there were already non-Christian Jewish authorities who had said the inter-testamental apocrypha was just that... false writing. And I've read much of the lost gospels and pseudopigrapha and so on. It's somewhat simple to determine which are correct based on four or five attributes...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 10:21 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(08-03-2013 09:56 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But we might do the same today, make a vote on a canon and lie or tell the truth. Eusebius no more invalidates the truths of scripture than you do by denying them or I do by being, well... me. By the way, when the canons were formed, there were already non-Christian Jewish authorities who had said the inter-testamental apocrypha was just that... false writing. And I've read much of the lost gospels and pseudopigrapha and so on. It's somewhat simple to determine which are correct based on four or five attributes...

There are no "truths of scripture". It's all propaganda, written by biased men with an agenda. You have no proof of any of it. It's a lot worse than just "Jewish" people denying it. The Christians also were fighting about it, and indeed the gospels themselves do not agree with each other in many important ways. They are totally inconsistent. Luke made up his infancy narrative, and got some important dating wrong. The geneologies are impossible to reconcile, even IF one is Mary's. There are too many generations in one. Even Matthew, in trying to fabricate his, quoted the WRONG "prophet", 27:9-10, is not Jeremiah, it's Zechariah, 11:3. They disagree on which day he died. In one Jarius' daughter was dead, in one not. In some in the trial, (which never happened BTW, as no Jewish peasant would have a trial before Roman aristocrats), it says Jebus was silent. In John he gives a long speech. Which is it ? There would have been no witnesses, as thay all say his disciples ran away. Obviously they made it up. Matthew's resurrection account with split rocks, zombies rising, an earthquake, and the temple curtain is totally unbelieveable, and not mentioned by the others, nor any historian who wrote about all such natural phenomena of the time. Pauls jouries are impossible to reconcile in acts and his own letters. In one place he says he gets his gospel from the apostles, in another from no one. Sorry SexuallyPJTroll,, you're up a creek, with no paddle. ANd I repeat, Jebus cannot be said to be seen as a messiah. He failed to do the ONE thing a messiah was expected to do.

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
08-03-2013, 10:46 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(08-03-2013 09:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 09:56 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But we might do the same today, make a vote on a canon and lie or tell the truth. Eusebius no more invalidates the truths of scripture than you do by denying them or I do by being, well... me. By the way, when the canons were formed, there were already non-Christian Jewish authorities who had said the inter-testamental apocrypha was just that... false writing. And I've read much of the lost gospels and pseudopigrapha and so on. It's somewhat simple to determine which are correct based on four or five attributes...

There are no "truths of scripture". It's all propaganda, written by biased men with an agenda. You have no proof of any of it. It's a lot worse than just "Jewish" people denying it. The Christians also were fighting about it, and indeed the gospels themselves do not agree with each other in many important ways. They are totally inconsistent. Luke made up his infancy narrative, and got some important dating wrong. The geneologies are impossible to reconcile, even IF one is Mary's. There are too many generations in one. Even Matthew, in trying to fabricate his, quoted the WRONG "prophet", 27:9-10, is not Jeremiah, it's Zechariah, 11:3. They disagree on which day he died. In one Jarius' daughter was dead, in one not. In some in the trial, (which never happened BTW, as no Jewish peasant would have a trial before Roman aristocrats), it says Jebus was silent. In John he gives a long speech. Which is it ? There would have been no witnesses, as thay all say his disciples ran away. Obviously they made it up. Matthew's resurrection account with split rocks, zombies rising, an earthquake, and the temple curtain is totally unbelieveable, and not mentioned by the others, nor any historian who wrote about all such natural phenomena of the time. Pauls jouries are impossible to reconcile in acts and his own letters. In one place he says he gets his gospel from the apostles, in another from no one. Sorry SexuallyPJTroll,, you're up a creek, with no paddle. ANd I repeat, Jebus cannot be said to be seen as a messiah. He failed to do the ONE thing a messiah was expected to do.



Agreed, the stories don't make any sense. Nobody does anything rationally, nobody acts like you'd expect them too give them historical and social context. Richard Carrier agrees, and says as much during his Skepticon 2 presentation. It's all most likely myth, and most definitely cannot be taken as fact.





[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 11:54 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:There are no "truths of scripture". It's all propaganda, written by biased men with an agenda.
I can parse each of your statements and defend against them, but let's look at your main assertion. What was their agenda? Marytrdom from Rome or their own people? Poverty? The desire to end human suffering and heal people? The evil desire to promote the love of God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Further, I'd love to hear from you, BB, and other freethinkers, about which parts of the Bible are commendable, elegant, poetic, pithy, witty, etc. Is every sentence frothy trash to you or what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(08-03-2013 11:56 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Further, I'd love to hear from you, BB, and other freethinkers, about which parts of the Bible are commendable, elegant, poetic, pithy, witty, etc. Is every sentence frothy trash to you or what?
Ezekiel 25:17 said in Samuel L. Jackson's voice Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 12:06 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2013 09:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(08-03-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:There are no "truths of scripture". It's all propaganda, written by biased men with an agenda.
I can parse each of your statements and defend against them, but let's look at your main assertion. What was their agenda? Marytrdom from Rome or their own people? Poverty? The desire to end human suffering and heal people? The evil desire to promote the love of God?

Their agenda was to increase the numbers of their adherents, just like any cult. Just like Muslims who kill themselves by flying planes into buildings. Your assumptions of what their motives were, (which you have no proof of, and we know they were into deception), prove nothing. There were many "healers", and "miracle workers". They were into self-promotion. Nothing else. Good people do good things. No gods needed. It's deflection, and an irrelevant point. Their "agenda" proves nothing about anything. You actually have no idea WHAT they were promoting. The "god" you say they were promoting was quite the jerk.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: