[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(15-06-2013 06:32 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So much for academia.

Ralph, you were given plenty of opportunities to actually engage our concerns, but all you did was bark that you were right and that we were wrong for no other reason than that you say so. You ignore anything that complicates your claims and flippantly dismiss well established evidentiary standards.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I realized quite quickly that you were entirely unable to engage in a serious and informed discussion of the facts. I wasn't willing to waste my time beating my head against the brick wall of your methodological fallacies and naivety. All you appeared capable of doing was nakedly asserting you were right and using claims of elitism and ignorance on our part as a smokescreen. No one with any really legitimate critical thinking skills could read those threads and come out the other side thinking you ever had the upper hand. I've invited you numerous times to show otherwise, and you've never done anything but assert factoids that you've made up and insist we're all stupid ideologues shackled by the system, which could not possibly be further from the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like maklelan's post
18-06-2013, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2013 09:02 PM by maklelan.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(18-06-2013 05:42 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Do note that some of these academics are from the Brigham Young University in Utah. Now if anyone is going to be pre-indoctrinated, it is the output of a Utah education.

Have you tried inviting Mormon evangelists into your home and debating with them? It is impossible to have a debate, because everything is black and white - the Bible is right (in its most literallist of interpretations) and you (or any rational Lutherian Protestant) is wrong.

I am Atheist, BTW, as I have said before.

Ralph, only one is from BYU, and that's me. You have not the foggiest idea what a degree in ancient Near Eastern studies from BYU constitutes, but I also have degrees from the University of Oxford and Trinity Western University in Canada. I'll stack up my education against yours or anyone you know any day of the week. My religious affiliation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my academic positions. It only takes a brief look at my blog to see that I advocate for no claims that are at all governed or influenced by Latter-day Saint ideology. I've pointed this out numerous times, and I think bears repeating that you obviously did not pay attention to a single word I have said to you if you really believe that I am a religious fundamentalist, or that I think the Bible is inerrant or even historically accurate. I'll also point out the irony of glaring down your nose at fundamentalists who uncritically accept the accuracy of the Bible when you base all your arguments on historical inaccuracies promoted by tendentious writers writing centuries after the events they purport to relate. You then completely dismiss or amend more chronologically proximate--and even contemporary--reports based on your uncritical acceptance of those late sources.

I would point out that your obdurate refusal to even acknowledge, much less engage, any evidence originating outside of your own imagination is the real indicator of "pre-indoctrination."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like maklelan's post
19-06-2013, 12:46 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
"Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look"

I LOVE the subtitle of this book, which is quite another look at the resurrection.

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 07:28 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(18-06-2013 06:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ralph, I'm having great trouble following your train of thought.

You say that King Jesus attacked Jerusalem with 30,000 troops. Who, exactly, was he attacking? Hadn't the Roman garrison in Jerusalem already being driven out in 66 CE?


Jesus was a prince of Syria, who wanted to take over Judaea as a stepping-stone to taking over the Empire.

To that end, he and his mother converted to Nazarene Judaism (as the Talmud relates), and followed the prophesy, to become King of Judaea (as the gospels relate). But obviously, the Jerusalem Priesthood did not go along with this (and nor did Rome, who had banned Jesus' father, King Agbarus, from going out of the Osrhoene - northern Syria).

If you read Josephus 'Life' you will see that Judaea was a maelstrom of unrest in the late AD 60s, with Josephus (ie: Saul) as the Judaean army commander of Galilee, chasing Jesus of Gamala (ie: the biblical Jesus) all over Galilee. And Jesus chasing Josephus, likewise. (Josephus got too big for his boots, so the Jerusalem authorities paid their enemy, Jesus, to prune Josephus' wings a little.)

A part of this general unrest, was the attempt by the Egyptian False Prophet (ie: Jesus) to storm Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives with 30,000 men. But the Roman guard foiled the attack.




(18-06-2013 06:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You say that Josephus asked Vespasian to take King Jesus down off the cross, because King Jesus was one of Josephus' mates. How could Josephus and King Jesus be good friends? Surely they were batting for opposing teams?

You say King Jesus survived crucifixion which is the explanation for the Jeebus of the Bible rising from the dead. Do you have any evidence that King Jesus survived, as written up in secular history?


Sure they were enemies. But they were also related - family.

And what gives the greater pleasure and satisfaction - killing your enemy, or have him kneel at your feet and beg for forgiveness? Especially when Jesus was the senior and Saul-Josephus was by far the more junior. If you read 'Life' and Josephus' account of him: 'grandising himself to the point of glory', you will understand his actions.


And Josephus clearly states that one of the leaders of the Jewish Revolt (i.e.: King Izas-Jesus)** survived the crucifixion.



** There were two leaders of the Revolt, Jesus and Izas. For many reasons, they were the same person.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 07:38 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(18-06-2013 06:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I am wondering what you think of Atwill's idea that Jesus is, in fact, Titus? Have you read his book?


I liked Atwil's book, but it had a few fatal flaws. The primary of these, is that Atwil thinks Jesus was fictional (created by Titus), but the fact of the matter is that the Talmud gets VERY animated about Jesus - wishing that he gets boiled in semen and shite et:

The Talmudic authors would not have got so animated about a fictional character from a fairy story. And the person they were animated about was a prince, a king and a carpenter, while Mary was an adulterer - a familiar story.

Thus the story the Talmud was relating does not fit the idea that this rebel prince was Titus, and nor does it fit the idea that this rebel prince was fictional. And since much of this was penned by Johannan ben Zakkai, this is contemporary 1st century material.

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 07:48 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Quoting my friend Muffsy-boo-boo :
"Good story bro. Needs more dragon."

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
21-06-2013, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 08:30 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(18-06-2013 08:29 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Ralph, you were given plenty of opportunities to actually engage our concerns, but all you did was bark that you were right and that we were wrong for no other reason than that you say so. You ignore anything that complicates your claims and flippantly dismiss well established evidentiary standards.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I realized quite quickly that you were entirely unable to engage in a serious and informed discussion of the facts.


Actually, it was academia who refused to "engage in a serious and informed discussion". Here are a few of the snide comments that were thrown in my direction from the very outset, before any discussion had been sought or engaged:

Ellis’ flagrant lack academic training and discipline is put on display,
the etymological connections he makes are utter nonsense
he stumbles naively over every inch of the linguistic and historical contexts
These wildly speculative links are then used as a foundation
will only fool those uncritical enough to ignore the atrocious cover artwork**, the shameless self aggrandizing, and the conspiracy-theorist framework
showed the breathtakingly poor arguments
his ideas were so full of wrong that it is hard to imagine it was accidental
show that his bankrupt methods continue to make him make even more mistakes and look all the more foolish
Unfortunately, Ellis doesn’t understand plenty
I had to look at what Ellis is up to and get a good laugh
So far it looked like shooting fish in a barrel, so why not get in some easy laughs?
There is absolutely no way you can really be this clueless;
No one would call that travesty a ‘scholarly book'
It has to be a stunt to sell books and con people out of their hard earned cash
you have to be certifiably crazy
Frankly, your ignorant misconceptions and amateurish mistakes don’t impress me
If you thought his previous rants were crazy
(It is) like Frankenstein's monster, sewn together from bits of unrelated..


Is this what you call: "engaging in a serious and informed discussion of the facts"?

No, I'll tell you what this is, this is a concerted academic attack on anyone that dares challenge the status quo (i.e.: everything you thought you understood, but obviously don't.) And then when I engaged in discussion, and demonstrated that all of the many criticism being made were baseless, most of these 'academics' resorted to censorship. Bullying and censorship, that is one hell of a "serious and informed discussion of the facts".



Oh and Steve Caruso's main bitch about my books was that I was having trouble getting Hebrew and Greek fonts to work on Kindle (which is an absolute nightmare). He writes:

Kindle doesn't support Hebrew and Greek?
These ain't jpegs. Note the proper final forms. These are CSS fonts.

He then displayed images of Hebrew font on a Kindle (probably from a pdf, and not an epub book).
http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.nl/2013/0...is-er.html

But Hebrew and Greek are STILL a problem with Kindle, and Kindle replied to me by saying:


From: Kindle Direct Publishing <kdp-*******@amazon.com>
Subject: Your Amazon KDP Inquiry
Date: June 19, 2013 5:05:21 PM GMT+02:00
To: Ellis Ralph <ralph@*******>
Reply-To: kdp-support+*******@amazon.com

Dear Mr Ellis

We can´t guarantee that Hebrew or Greek fonts will be displayed on all the Kindle devices and Apps (e.g. Kindle für iPad or iPhone), as we "officially" do not support Hebrew or Greek....

We are sorry that we can´t provide a more satisfying answer. Currently, there is no other "workaround" other than to include jpeg images instead of fonts.

I hope this helps at least a bit.

Regards,
Stephanie M.
Kindle Direct Publishing



Yes, sure it helps. It means that academics (in this case a translator of Aramaic and Hebrew) have no idea what they are talking about, and simply attempt to belittle anyone who challenges them.


** Dontcha love this one. Your theory is completely wrong, because I don't like the design of your jacket. Ooh, I could use that one on quite a few academic books.... Thumbsup

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 09:04 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Actually, it was academia who refused to "engage in a serious and informed discussion".

That's a demonstrable falsehood. I took a great deal of time to respond to your claims, and the vast majority of my concerns you just outright ignored. You cannot address any of my concerns from a methodologically sound point of view, so your only two options are naked assertion and attempting to undercut my entire argument by characterizing it as a personal attack.

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Here are a few of the snide comments that were thrown in my direction from the very outset, before any discussion had been sought or engaged:

Before I move on to the actual comments, these were responses to your own published work. That work is allowed to be criticized prior to any additional discussion. You are aware of that, are you not?

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Ellis’ flagrant lack academic training and discipline is put on display,
the etymological connections he makes are utter nonsense
he stumbles naively over every inch of the linguistic and historical contexts
These wildly speculative links are then used as a foundation
will only fool those uncritical enough to ignore the atrocious cover artwork**, the shameless self aggrandizing, and the conspiracy-theorist framework
showed the breathtakingly poor arguments
his ideas were so full of wrong that it is hard to imagine it was accidental
show that his bankrupt methods continue to make him make even more mistakes and look all the more foolish
Unfortunately, Ellis doesn’t understand plenty
I had to look at what Ellis is up to and get a good laugh
So far it looked like shooting fish in a barrel, so why not get in some easy laughs?
There is absolutely no way you can really be this clueless;
No one would call that travesty a ‘scholarly book'
It has to be a stunt to sell books and con people out of their hard earned cash
you have to be certifiably crazy
Frankly, your ignorant misconceptions and amateurish mistakes don’t impress me
If you thought his previous rants were crazy
(It is) like Frankenstein's monster, sewn together from bits of unrelated..

Is this what you call: "engaging in a serious and informed discussion of the facts"?

I did nothing but engage in a serious and informed discussion, but you're not quoting just me. You're quoting others as well. You seem to be under the impression that a real scholar doesn't point out a lack of skill or training, and that's simply not true. I am allowed to criticize someone for being woefully unprepared to engage in a high level of academic discourse.

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  No, I'll tell you what this is, this is a concerted academic attack on anyone that dares challenge the status quo (i.e.: everything you thought you understood, but obviously don't.)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with challenging the status quo, Ralph, but I am well aware that hobbyists and fringe pseudo-scholars comfort themselves by assuming that that's the reason their claims are so heavily criticized. The real reason they are criticized, in almost all cases, is that they are fallacious, uninformed, and dogmatic. This is demonstrably the case with your publications, as I've shown quite clearly in my posts. Instead of actually engaging my concerns, you simply turned around and (1) nakedly asserted that your interpretations were accurate and mine were not, and (2) claimed I'm just a bitter and ignorant dogmatist trying to protect my academic territory. You've shown absolutely nothing in the way of actual evidence to support either claim.

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  And then when I engaged in discussion, and demonstrated that all of the many criticism being made were baseless, most of these 'academics' resorted to censorship.

No, you were told that you would be expected to follow simple rules of decorum that you flagrantly ignored, so your posts were deleted. No one is scared of any evidence or argument that you presume to have, they just don't like to waste time and energy on someone who is obviously not going to listen to reason.

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Bullying and censorship, that is one hell of a "serious and informed discussion of the facts".

You're the one who started multiple websites to personally attack a Classics student and then actively emailed libelous and demonstrably false personal attacks to numerous people in his field. You linked in multiple places to a website you created called "Tom Verenna Is A Lying Idiot," although the link looks harmless enough: http://thomasverenna.blogspot.nl/. There you call him a coward, a pervert, a liar, a "rip-off artist," an "intellectual pussy," and you claim his "stupidity is astounding." You can pretend to be an adult when it serves your rhetoric, but obviously you have absolutely no room whatsoever to be critical of someone else's objectivity or demeanor.

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Oh and Steve Caruso's main bitch about my books was that I was having trouble getting Hebrew and Greek fonts to work on Kindle (which is an absolute nightmare).

No, that wasn't his main concern, but the problem is your complete lack of training in the languages on which you pretend to pontificate, not trouble with fonts. It was shown quite clearly that the whole "trouble with the fonts" claim was a dodge. You just don't know the languages. I offered you a simple quiz to prove that very conclusion wrong and you refused. Care to prove me wrong now, or do you really think that just barking "Nu-uh!" is going to convince anyone that you're actually right and I'm wrong?

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  He writes:

Kindle doesn't support Hebrew and Greek?
These ain't jpegs. Note the proper final forms. These are CSS fonts.

He then displayed images of Hebrew font on a Kindle (probably from a pdf, and not an epub book).
http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.nl/2013/0...is-er.html

But Hebrew and Greek are STILL a problem with Kindle, and Kindle replied to me by saying:


From: Kindle Direct Publishing <kdp-*******@amazon.com>
Subject: Your Amazon KDP Inquiry
Date: June 19, 2013 5:05:21 PM GMT+02:00
To: Ellis Ralph <ralph@*******>
Reply-To: kdp-support+*******@amazon.com

Dear Mr Ellis

We can´t guarantee that Hebrew or Greek fonts will be displayed on all the Kindle devices and Apps (e.g. Kindle für iPad or iPhone), as we "officially" do not support Hebrew or Greek....

We are sorry that we can´t provide a more satisfying answer. Currently, there is no other "workaround" other than to include jpeg images instead of fonts.

I hope this helps at least a bit.

Regards,
Stephanie M.
Kindle Direct Publishing


Yes, sure it helps. It means that academics (in this case a translator of Aramaic and Hebrew) have no idea what they are talking about, and simply attempt to belittle anyone who challenges them.

I've shown numerous times over that I certainly do know exactly what I'm talking about. (for instance, here) You are the one refusing to address evidence and instead just accusing people of being jerks.

(21-06-2013 08:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  ** Dontcha love this one. Your theory is completely wrong, because I don't like the design of your jacket. Ooh, I could use that one on quite a few academic books.... Thumbsup

I provided quite detailed explanations of why your arguments were wrong. I brought up the art because I'm an artist and I think the paintings on your books just scream "unprofessional amateur." Once anyone with any academic training cracks the book that impression can be confirmed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like maklelan's post
21-06-2013, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 12:46 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(21-06-2013 09:04 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Before I move on to the actual comments, these were responses to your own published work. That work is allowed to be criticized prior to any additional discussion. You are aware of that, are you not?


That was not criticism, that was ridicule, and you know it.

Would you presume to critique Prof Robert Eisenman in such a fashion? Well would you?

And yet, as you know, Eisenman's writing-style is so opaque that he is often borderline unreadable. Have you ever advised him of this?

Oh, no, silly me, I forgot - he is in your self-serving club.




(21-06-2013 09:04 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm an artist and I think the paintings on your books just scream "unprofessional amateur."

Actually, they were done by one of the UK's finest animal portrait artists.
http://www.stietencron-portraits-gallery...imals.html

Just how many times can you be wrong, and still think you are right?



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2013, 01:12 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(21-06-2013 12:40 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  That was not criticism, that was ridicule, and you know it.

Not a word that came from me was anything but academically appropriate criticism. As much as you wish people weren't allowed to point it out, you are not trained in this field, you are not trained in the languages, you are not familiar with the secondary literature, and you are not applying legitimate methodological standards. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever inappropriate about pointing that out in an academic response to a publication that wants to be considered academic. If you would like to challenge any of these criticisms, then do it directly. Simply insisting that I'm being mean by pointing them out is empty rhetoric and nothing more.

(21-06-2013 12:40 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Would you presume to critique Prof Robert Eisenman in such a fashion? Well would you?

He has credentials, so many of those criticisms wouldn't apply, but yes, I would be happy to point out fallacies and methodological shortcomings if I reviewed his work.

(21-06-2013 12:40 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And yet, as you know, Eisenman's writing-style is so opaque that he is often borderline unreadable. Have you ever advised him of this?

Nope. I've never interacted with him personally or professionally. His positions are quite far from the mainstream.

(21-06-2013 12:40 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Oh, no, silly me, I forgot - he is in your self-serving club.

Actually, they were done by one of the UK's finest animal portrait artists.

He should stick to animals.

(21-06-2013 12:40 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Just how many times can you be wrong, and still think you are right?

Again you completely ignore my concerns to just bark that I'm wrong. How many times do I have to invite you to actually respond to my concerns before you'll actually do it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like maklelan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: