The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Anyway, boys and girls, we must move on.

I do find it interesting that some people here, on an atheistic forum can't appreciate the idea that it might just be the case that Christianity is based on a real life person.

It seems to be "ok" for people to come here and spout on about how it is all a myth. So, none of it is true, it is all just the Horus myth that people made up out of thin air and no one questioned it at all. It has no background, did not flow from an existing, known sect.

It is also ok to say that, well, this Jesus guy, he was probably a guy who was a simple preacher type, one of many, who knows who. Both of these are theories for which there is not one shred of evidence but, hey, it's ok...here...

I have done some googling of Ralph Ellis and this is what I got:

Page 17 of about 11,700 results (0.31 seconds)

So, I gave up at page 17. It may be that he is wrong. It is impossible to take a time machine back. However, I find the idea that the NT is written by a real man about another real man and that it was written in a way so as to create a religion by setting it 30 years earlier, easier to accept as factually possible than that Jesus was the son of god and was resurrected.

I don't understand the mindset of some of the posters here who I find, frankly, incredibly dull and uninteresting. They think they are being witty when they are actually just crudely insulting. They throw up little comments which show they just want to twist what you say. I think it is part of the psyche of the perrenial internet forum addict that they "lulz" people. They like fanning the flames.

Why say "you said such and such and it isn't true" when you could ask "what did you mean" and clarify what a poster meant? It is all part of the tiny mind set of this type. Why let an opportunity pass to trip someone up on a misspelling if it allows you to lean back from your computer screen and feel smug that you have got it over on someone. Hey, after all, who cares about the fact that, maybe, on an atheist website, someone might have come here to talk to Ralph Ellis because they find it makes sense to demystify Jesus. Maybe some people who are atheists are sick of being told they will go to heaven and live forever with god if they believe in total crap. Maybe they like the idea that it is possible to look at the factual history of the7th decate AD and find a real man called Jesus of Gamala who is pretty close to a historical Jesus and explains all this religious BS that one has lived with all one's life.

No, just have another beer...lulz....eh guys?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I do find it interesting that some people here, on an atheistic forum can't appreciate the idea that it might just be the case that Christianity is based on a real life person.

This appears to be something you just made up because it was easier for you to make bad arguments against.

I think there's a phrase for that.

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It seems to be "ok" for people to come here and spout on about how it is all a myth. So, none of it is true, it is all just the Horus myth that people made up out of thin air and no one questioned it at all. It has no background, did not flow from an existing, known sect.

Huh?

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is also ok to say that, well, this Jesus guy, he was probably a guy who was a simple preacher type, one of many, who knows who. Both of these are theories for which there is not one shred of evidence but, hey, it's ok...here...

I have done some googling of Ralph Ellis and this is what I got:

Page 17 of about 11,700 results (0.31 seconds)

So, I gave up at page 17. It may be that he is wrong. It is impossible to take a time machine back. However, I find the idea that the NT is written by a real man about another real man and that it was written in a way so as to create a religion by setting it 30 years earlier, easier to accept as factually possible than that Jesus was the son of god and was resurrected.

Excellent false dichotomy, friend.

At least I think you're attempting to manufacture a false dichotomy. You're not very coherent.

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't understand the mindset of some of the posters here who I find, frankly, incredibly dull and uninteresting. They think they are being witty when they are actually just crudely insulting. They throw up little comments which show they just want to twist what you say. I think it is part of the psyche of the perrenial internet forum addict that they "lulz" people. They like fanning the flames.

You spelled perennial wrong.

But, uh, speaking of "they just want to twist what you say", how about - y'know - all of the above?

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Why say "you said such and such and it isn't true" when you could ask "what did you mean" and clarify what a poster meant? It is all part of the tiny mind set of this type. Why let an opportunity pass to trip someone up on a misspelling if it allows you to lean back from your computer screen and feel smug that you have got it over on someone. Hey, after all, who cares about the fact that, maybe, on an atheist website, someone might have come here to talk to Ralph Ellis because they find it makes sense to demystify Jesus. Maybe some people who are atheists are sick of being told they will go to heaven and live forever with god if they believe in total crap. Maybe they like the idea that it is possible to look at the factual history of the7th decate AD and find a real man called Jesus of Gamala who is pretty close to a historical Jesus and explains all this religious BS that one has lived with all one's life.

Ellis has been here.

His knowledge of just about every relevant field was demonstrably extraordinarily shallow. His "work" is pseudoscientific drivel of the highest order - inferring nonexistent links between unconnected source materials. A broken system of pattern recognition using false positives to string together more false positives - standard MO for conspiracists and woo peddlers.

Blaming his "suppression" on a vast (Masonic?) conspiracy permeating all of academia is not a particularly compelling counterargument to, "why do all the experts think you're crazy?". So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
01-03-2014, 10:40 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 09:23 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I do find it interesting that some people here, on an atheistic forum can't appreciate the idea that it might just be the case that Christianity is based on a real life person.

This appears to be something you just made up because it was easier for you to make bad arguments against.

I think there's a phrase for that.

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It seems to be "ok" for people to come here and spout on about how it is all a myth. So, none of it is true, it is all just the Horus myth that people made up out of thin air and no one questioned it at all. It has no background, did not flow from an existing, known sect.

Huh?

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is also ok to say that, well, this Jesus guy, he was probably a guy who was a simple preacher type, one of many, who knows who. Both of these are theories for which there is not one shred of evidence but, hey, it's ok...here...

I have done some googling of Ralph Ellis and this is what I got:

Page 17 of about 11,700 results (0.31 seconds)

So, I gave up at page 17. It may be that he is wrong. It is impossible to take a time machine back. However, I find the idea that the NT is written by a real man about another real man and that it was written in a way so as to create a religion by setting it 30 years earlier, easier to accept as factually possible than that Jesus was the son of god and was resurrected.

Excellent false dichotomy, friend.

At least I think you're attempting to manufacture a false dichotomy. You're not very coherent.

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't understand the mindset of some of the posters here who I find, frankly, incredibly dull and uninteresting. They think they are being witty when they are actually just crudely insulting. They throw up little comments which show they just want to twist what you say. I think it is part of the psyche of the perrenial internet forum addict that they "lulz" people. They like fanning the flames.

You spelled perennial wrong.

But, uh, speaking of "they just want to twist what you say", how about - y'know - all of the above?

(01-03-2014 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Why say "you said such and such and it isn't true" when you could ask "what did you mean" and clarify what a poster meant? It is all part of the tiny mind set of this type. Why let an opportunity pass to trip someone up on a misspelling if it allows you to lean back from your computer screen and feel smug that you have got it over on someone. Hey, after all, who cares about the fact that, maybe, on an atheist website, someone might have come here to talk to Ralph Ellis because they find it makes sense to demystify Jesus. Maybe some people who are atheists are sick of being told they will go to heaven and live forever with god if they believe in total crap. Maybe they like the idea that it is possible to look at the factual history of the7th decate AD and find a real man called Jesus of Gamala who is pretty close to a historical Jesus and explains all this religious BS that one has lived with all one's life.

Ellis has been here.

His knowledge of just about every relevant field was demonstrably extraordinarily shallow. His "work" is pseudoscientific drivel of the highest order - inferring nonexistent links between unconnected source materials. A broken system of pattern recognition using false positives to string together more false positives - standard MO for conspiracists and woo peddlers.

Blaming his "suppression" on a vast (Masonic?) conspiracy permeating all of academia is not a particularly compelling counterargument to, "why do all the experts think you're crazy?". So there's that.



I am not sure what the point is you are making.

The very simple point which Ellis is making is that there is an historical figure, Jesus of Gamala who was a high priest in Jerusalem during the year of the four Caesars and that he was turned on by other Jewish leaders and crucified. I don't have difficulty in seeing where he makes connections and the evidence on which he bases it. When he says that two people by different names in the historical record are actually the same person, he sets out the documents he is relying on. He doesn't "fudge" and "muddle" things together as is suggested by people here.

I have no problem with him because I understand the basis of what he is saying. Others here seem to be what I would call "intellectual prudes"; people who don't want to associate with someone whose ideas they think might embarrass them. Then, having made various comments without even reading what he is saying or trying to take on board its significance, they hurl abuse at him and anyone who understands what he is saying.

Simple:

1. Jesus, if he existed, was just an ordinary mortal

2. He may have lived at a later date.

3 Some of the things written about him have definitely been fictionalized.



It is not a difficult position to understand. Even at that very basic level, the theory is of interest because it allows an "atheist" to counter fundamtalist Christians by saying, "look, this is what your book is about and it is fiction".

If you want to ignore that and you are happy as others are to 1. throw abuse at people who believe in Christianity 2. abuse mythicists 3. abuse people who think there was a 30 AD Jesus preacher 4. ignore the history of the first century AD and abuse anyone who has an interest in it 5. ignore the teachings of Christianity and all religions as of any philosophical or historical interest and abuse everyone who has an interest in it even if they are an atheist...or any combination of the above....well, hey, it's a free world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 11:44 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Since you clearly know nothing of the real debate, (being yet another amatuer) or the actual culture and history of the period, it's easy to see why you find Jesus of Gamala the one referenced in the gospels. In fact there are a number of other possibilities, including those proposed by actual REAL people with REAL historical credentials, (such as Philo's Jesus, who fits much more closely to the picture in the gospels).
See the work of DR. Richard Carrier. Another good possibility is Simon of Perea. There is no one perfect candidate. There are many.

There are many elements of early Christianity that don't fit, at all, in Hebrew culture. They fit perfectly with Mithraism (which developed from Zoroastrianism), and other Greek influences. One of the centers of Mithraism was Tarsus. The fact that the main inventor of what is today called "Christianity" was from Tarsus, (Saul or his Romanized name they used to insult him .. Paul), and that much of what HE wrote bears significant elements of Mithraism, which are subtly, but really opposed to Hebrew concepts, makes the "Mithra" origins concept much more complex, than just dismissing it as "Oh Jebus was based on Mithra", (or Horus or whomever). The fact is, some of his concepts are very "non-Hebrew". If Saul really was a Jew, (and we know there was more than one person writing using that name), then he was inventing some things, based on HIS origins.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I am not sure what the point is you are making.

That you weren't making one.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The very simple point which Ellis is making is that there is an historical figure, Jesus of Gamala who was a high priest in Jerusalem during the year of the four Caesars and that he was turned on by other Jewish leaders and crucified.

Yes. And very nearly everyone else finds the case tremendously lacking.

Probably because we're all Reptiloids Masons.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't have difficulty in seeing where he makes connections and the evidence on which he bases it. When he says that two people by different names in the historical record are actually the same person, he sets out the documents he is relying on. He doesn't "fudge" and "muddle" things together as is suggested by people here.

He doesn't read any of the ancient languages in question and thus cannot speak directly to primary sources.

He has attempted to draw connections based on chance linguistic similarities in English.

That's not muddled, to you?

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have no problem with him because I understand the basis of what he is saying.

Yes. And?

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Others here seem to be what I would call "intellectual prudes"; people who don't want to associate with someone whose ideas they think might embarrass them.

God forbid we look skeptically at the crazy ideas of a crazy person.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Then, having made various comments without even reading what he is saying or trying to take on board its significance, they hurl abuse at him and anyone who understands what he is saying.

He's posted here at some length. Many of us responded at some length.

Did you read those exchanges?

Your accusations are still wrong, but if you aren't even accounting for context then they're dishonestly wrong.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Simple:

1. Jesus, if he existed, was just an ordinary mortal

2. He may have lived at a later date.

3 Some of the things written about him have definitely been fictionalized.

That is so incredibly far from the extent of what our boy Ellis claimed...

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is not a difficult position to understand. Even at that very basic level, the theory is of interest because it allows an "atheist" to counter fundamtalist Christians by saying, "look, this is what your book is about and it is fiction".

Your point?

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  If you want to ignore that and you are happy as others are to 1. throw abuse at people who believe in Christianity 2. abuse mythicists 3. abuse people who think there was a 30 AD Jesus preacher 4. ignore the history of the first century AD and abuse anyone who has an interest in it 5. ignore the teachings of Christianity and all religions as of any philosophical or historical interest and abuse everyone who has an interest in it even if they are an atheist...or any combination of the above....well, hey, it's a free world.

[Image: tropic-thunder-what-do-you-mean.jpg]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
01-03-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 10:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Since you clearly know nothing of the real debate, (being yet another amatuer) or the actual culture and history of the period, it's easy to see why you find Jesus of Gamala the one referenced in the gospels. In fact there are a number of other possibilities, including those proposed by actual REAL people with REAL historical credentials, (such as Philo's Jesus, who fits much more closely to the picture in the gospels).
See the work of DR. Richard Carrier. Another good possibility is Simon of Perea. There is no one perfect candidate. There are many.



I haven't said there aren't other features which may resemble other real people. Atwill, for instance, shows how the timelines of Jesus and Titus Flavius are nearly identical. It may be there were people in the 30 AD time who resembled the preacher man Jesus figure. Atwill and Ellis say the NT is fiction. I agree so I am not saying the figure in the NT is someone. I am saying it is a fictional story.

As for being "professional", I have a degree in classical politics and religion. I did my degree under some very well known Jesuit trained professors. Oh, and I have a doctorate from one of the world's leading research universities.

Oh and,....no, I won't mention that...not yet....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 12:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 11:46 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Since you clearly know nothing of the real debate, (being yet another amatuer) or the actual culture and history of the period, it's easy to see why you find Jesus of Gamala the one referenced in the gospels. In fact there are a number of other possibilities, including those proposed by actual REAL people with REAL historical credentials, (such as Philo's Jesus, who fits much more closely to the picture in the gospels).
See the work of DR. Richard Carrier. Another good possibility is Simon of Perea. There is no one perfect candidate. There are many.



I haven't said there aren't other features which may resemble other real people. Atwill, for instance, shows how the timelines of Jesus and Titus Flavius are nearly identical. It may be there were people in the 30 AD time who resembled the preacher man Jesus figure. Atwill and Ellis say the NT is fiction. I agree so I am not saying the figure in the NT is someone. I am saying it is a fictional story.

As for being "professional", I have a degree in classical politics and religion. I did my degree under some very well known Jesuit trained professors. Oh, and I have a doctorate from one of the world's leading research universities.

Oh and,....no, I won't mention that...not yet....

"Jesuit trained" .... hahaha.
Maybe you better take 5 minutes, and actually READ what Ellis says.
So, what IS you point ?
From your post about the Gospel of John, and "the word", you appear to have little to NO real knowledge of the time or issues.
Anyone can claim anything. You now appear to be equivocating. Why did you mention the alternatives BEFORE ?
You STILL have not mentioned ONE person with REAL historical credentials.

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
01-03-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 11:21 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I am not sure what the point is you are making.

That you weren't making one.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The very simple point which Ellis is making is that there is an historical figure, Jesus of Gamala who was a high priest in Jerusalem during the year of the four Caesars and that he was turned on by other Jewish leaders and crucified.

Yes. And very nearly everyone else finds the case tremendously lacking.

Probably because we're all Reptiloids Masons.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't have difficulty in seeing where he makes connections and the evidence on which he bases it. When he says that two people by different names in the historical record are actually the same person, he sets out the documents he is relying on. He doesn't "fudge" and "muddle" things together as is suggested by people here.

He doesn't read any of the ancient languages in question and thus cannot speak directly to primary sources.

He has attempted to draw connections based on chance linguistic similarities in English.

That's not muddled, to you?

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have no problem with him because I understand the basis of what he is saying.

Yes. And?

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Others here seem to be what I would call "intellectual prudes"; people who don't want to associate with someone whose ideas they think might embarrass them.

God forbid we look skeptically at the crazy ideas of a crazy person.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Then, having made various comments without even reading what he is saying or trying to take on board its significance, they hurl abuse at him and anyone who understands what he is saying.

He's posted here at some length. Many of us responded at some length.

Did you read those exchanges?

Your accusations are still wrong, but if you aren't even accounting for context then they're dishonestly wrong.

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Simple:

1. Jesus, if he existed, was just an ordinary mortal

2. He may have lived at a later date.

3 Some of the things written about him have definitely been fictionalized.

That is so incredibly far from the extent of what our boy Ellis claimed...

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is not a difficult position to understand. Even at that very basic level, the theory is of interest because it allows an "atheist" to counter fundamtalist Christians by saying, "look, this is what your book is about and it is fiction".

Your point?

(01-03-2014 10:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  If you want to ignore that and you are happy as others are to 1. throw abuse at people who believe in Christianity 2. abuse mythicists 3. abuse people who think there was a 30 AD Jesus preacher 4. ignore the history of the first century AD and abuse anyone who has an interest in it 5. ignore the teachings of Christianity and all religions as of any philosophical or historical interest and abuse everyone who has an interest in it even if they are an atheist...or any combination of the above....well, hey, it's a free world.

[Image: tropic-thunder-what-do-you-mean.jpg]




Gasp

I could say more but you haven't said anything that is remotely interesting so I am ending my dialogue with you.

Feel free to copy my post and add some inane comments if it makes you happy.Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 11:57 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 11:21 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That you weren't making one.


Yes. And very nearly everyone else finds the case tremendously lacking.

Probably because we're all Reptiloids Masons.


He doesn't read any of the ancient languages in question and thus cannot speak directly to primary sources.

He has attempted to draw connections based on chance linguistic similarities in English.

That's not muddled, to you?


Yes. And?


God forbid we look skeptically at the crazy ideas of a crazy person.


He's posted here at some length. Many of us responded at some length.

Did you read those exchanges?

Your accusations are still wrong, but if you aren't even accounting for context then they're dishonestly wrong.


That is so incredibly far from the extent of what our boy Ellis claimed...


Your point?


[Image: tropic-thunder-what-do-you-mean.jpg]




Gasp

I could say more but you haven't said anything that is remotely interesting so I am ending my dialogue with you.

Feel free to copy my post and add some inane comments if it makes you happy.Drinking Beverage

What a joke. You can't muster a reply, so you say he's "uninteresting".
*As if* it was all about you. Grow up.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2014, 12:04 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
This topic does not warrant my involvement due to its nature of crossing the boundary from absurd lunacy to absolutely fucking retarded.

That will be all.

Please continue.

Thank you.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: