First Baby Step

[member11491]

Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Stay Cool!

:pray:

[BronzeArcher]

You actually should justify your own views before you come expecting people to rush to answer your questions.

"It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died."

Why is this odd? Could you contextualize this assumption, and show that it is expected that a person in Jesus' context be immediately written about? Discussion of who had access to writing materials, who could write, and the relative significance of Jesus' region compared to Roman politics would be a good start.

[lao tzu]

Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Stay Cool!

:pray: Greetings, member,

Welcome to TWeb.

If you're serious about looking for answers to your question, I can only suggest you look elsewhere. JPH is anything but a professional apologist, and his intended audience is the already convinced. He has no concern whatsoever for the unbeliever. As such, any questions from outside the camp are unlikely to receive a cogent response here. As intimated, JPH's purpose with such questions is not education.

As ever, Jesse

[jpholding]

Well, BA, you're asking the impossible, because Dum Dum here is a member of forums over at "jesusneverexisted.com" where he operates under the name, "Jesus". :rofl:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=200.0

He's about as interested in honest discussion as Ernesto and Julio Gallo are interested in reenacting Prohibition.



I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

Do tell us, "Jesus," how exactly you arrive at the determination of authorship for a document. For example, explain to use how you know Tacitus wrote the Annals. Then use the same criteria to show us why these "letters" (whichever ones they are) are actually "anonymous".

Unless you're also one of these stool pigeons who thinks the Annals were forged. Then we'll just start the laugh track on the right as well as the left.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Yep. That's the plan.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have?

He's already read my material on the secular references so he knows darned well what the answer is. Here's the only thing that came in reply to that:

Tacitus and Josephus are laughable. The Tacitus quote is disputed and was written 60 years after JC died, a thousand miles away. The Josephus passage you are referring to is also highly disputed, and definitely not contemporary with the life of JC.

Good night, what frightening stupidity! I answered this all in my articles.

1) The Tacitus quote is NOT disputed. Not by ANYONE, other than 19th century freethinkers that the real scholars laugh at.

2) Tacitus writes about stuff that happened even longer ago and/or farther away than that in his works (Agricola, Annals, Histories) but not one historian ever uses that as an excuse to dismiss what he writes.

3) I gave detailed info on the Josephus quote and what is NOT disputed in it. Your answer? NONE!

As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

If you're after earnest faith, then Krusty the Klown is President of the United States.


I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

I imagine we'll get a few yuks out of you before you realize you're in over your head and then either leave or sink into infamy as yet another in our collection of fundy atheists we regularly give Screwball Awards to.

[jpholding]

If you're serious about looking for answers to your question, I can only suggest you look elsewhere. JPH is anything but a professional apologist, and his intended audience is the already convinced.

You wanna endorse the Christ myth too, there, Jesse? :rofl:

I'll be glad to add that to your list of embarrassing bungles -- Mr. Studdock. :hehe:


Don't even try it, Minny. You're over your head.

[Trout]

Greetings, member,

Welcome to TWeb.

Hi member.


If you're serious about looking for answers to your question, I can only suggest you look elsewhere.

J P Holding posts here, it sounded like in the OP he wanted to talk to JP.


JPH is anything but a professional apologist, and his intended audience is the already convinced.

Says you.


He has no concern whatsoever for the unbeliever.

Says you.


As such, any questions from outside the camp are unlikely to receive a cogent response here.

Says you.


As intimated, JPH's purpose with such questions is not education.

As ever, Jesse

I like my well poisoned with Jack Daniels; can you help me out?

[lao tzu]

Hi member. Hi "Trout"!

J P Holding posts here, it sounded like in the OP he wanted to talk to JP. It sounded to me like he was looking for someone other than JP, but that comes from this awful habit of actually reading OPs.
"I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith."
See what I mean? The OP clearly assumes no meaningful response will be forthcoming from JPH. It's even *gasp* polite, a clear signal that it's intended for someone, anyone, other than JPH.

Says you. Yeah, I do my own writing.

Says you. Pithy.

Says you. Analysis.

I like my well poisoned with Jack Daniels; can you help me out? Sorry, I don't drink. But JPH's track record when dealing with those "outside the faith" has been well documented elsewhere, if it wasn't already glaringly obvious right here in this thread. His interest with unbelievers, many times revealed, lies solely in finding victims to humiliate, a practice so obviously in agreement with my comments it is no wonder your above pithy analysis is as entirely lacking in substance as JPH's own.

:cheers:

As ever, Jesse

[Trout]

Hi "Trout"!

Those quotation marks are to be used exclusively when addressing the "Gerbil", any attempt at using them differently could result in immediate violent diarrhea.


Sorry, I don't drink. But JPH's track record when dealing with those "outside the faith" has been well documented elsewhere, if it wasn't already glaringly obvious right here in this thread. His interest with unbelievers, many times revealed, lies solely in finding victims to humiliate, a practice so obviously in agreement with my comments it is no wonder your above pithy analysis is as entirely lacking in substance as JPH's own.

:cheers:

As ever, Jesse

I've read quite a lot of JP's work, and I have come to a different opinion. But yours is obviously superior to mine. As far as my "poisoning the well" analysis, I think it was spot on.

And taoist, you know I love you man.

[Rusty T]

And here I thought this joker was starting to put away $1000 on an emergency fund. . .

[One Bad Pig]

But JPH's track record when dealing with those "outside the faith" has been well documented elsewhere, if it wasn't already glaringly obvious right here in this thread. His interest with unbelievers, many times revealed, lies solely in finding victims to humiliate...
You may not have noticed, but JPH does not hesitate to take Christians to task either. He attacks poor arguments, regardless who formulates or propagates them. He also does not solely argue by smackdown; he was quite polite to Doubting John, for example, until it became clear that DJ wasn't really interested in discussing specifics. Sometimes I think he's a little quick to pound someone, but he does debate nicely with those with (what he sees as) honest questions and a demonstrated willingness to learn.

[Johnny MacManky]

Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Stay Cool!

:pray:

Hi Member11491,

I'm not a 'trained apologist', but I am a Christian with a genuine interest in helping sincere seekers onto the "path to faith". I was a Christian when I was younger, but became disillusioned in my late teens. Prior to my return to faith over the last ten years, I did a lot of critical examination of the historical evidence and nature of 'personal faith'. I also spent many years examining the historical appearance and rise of the Christian Church, which obviously must have had some historical reason for coming into existance.

I'd be glad to have a civilised dicussion with you, but I am not interested in 'debating'.

Perhaps a good place to start would simply be getting to know each other a little bit, finding out where we both are at, and then we could take it from there.

Cheers

:johnny:

[OldManZangetsu]

You may not have noticed, but JPH does not hesitate to take Christians to task either. He attacks poor arguments, regardless who formulates or propagates them. He also does not solely argue by smackdown; he was quite polite to Doubting John, for example, until it became clear that DJ wasn't really interested in discussing specifics. Sometimes I think he's a little quick to pound someone, but he does debate nicely with those with (what he sees as) honest questions and a demonstrated willingness to learn.

taoist seems a little bitter :hehe:

Maybe it would make him feel better about himself if we poisoned his well so he could scream at us for making a logical mistake?

[One Bad Pig]

taoist seems a little bitter :hehe:
He's an ex-nuke. I can understand that. :hehe:

Maybe it would make him feel better about himself if we poisoned his well so he could scream at us for making a logical mistake?
I'd rather help him clean his out.

[NJon]

Hello,

I am writing this by invitation of JP Holding. I had written Mr. Holding on the evidence of a historical jesus. It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

For this question, Mr. Holding called me a screwball and told me to come here where he would publicly humiliate me.

Here is his exact email to me:
Congratulations! You win a Screwball Award!
Come see me at theologyweb.com and I'll be glad to heap some public humiliation on you.

I wasn't exactly looking for public humiliation, instead I was just looking for an answer to my question. What other historical evidence do we have? As a non-believer, how can I start my path to faith without some reasonable explaination for the basis of this faith?

I hope you people here will be more patient then Mr. Holding in explaining the historical roots and basis of your faith.

Like I said at this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1670866#post1670866), the nature of your initial letter to Mr. Holding seemed to have a sharp tone to it. Are you really here seeking answers, or are you here because you're trying to make Christians look stupid? If I recall, owlafaye (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=83928) was the last person to attemp the latter; he ended up fleeing within about 48 hours.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .Are you really here seeking answers, or are you here because you're trying to make Christians look stupid? . . ..

When will those folks who think they can make Christians look stupid realise that I'm quite capable of making myself look stupid.

Look, here's Johnny Nazarene doing a wee dance :jn: Nuff said.

[lao tzu]

Those quotation marks are to be used exclusively when addressing the "Gerbil", any attempt at using them differently could result in immediate violent diarrhea. "Fuzzy and evil" one, I believe you should immediately check your avatar as you seem otherwise unaware of the source of my, admittedly rather obscure, use of the Gerbil-reserved caution quotes.

I've read quite a lot of JP's work, and I have come to a different opinion. But yours is obviously superior to mine. As far as my "poisoning the well" analysis, I think it was spot on. I can only say that JPH's work is likely to strike a different chord were you to read it as one "outside the faith". From the inside, it may be simple to pass over the gross proportion of his analyses devoted to little more than scatalogical references to his ideological opponents. I do not share your need to grant him a brother-in-christ benefit of the doubt. Were these comments included in any other field of study, they would be scholastically unacceptable. If they are not specifically designed to put off nonbelievers, then I can only say that he has a vast talent for doing so unconsciously.

While I can't say I've read more than a tiny fraction of his work, and almost certainly less than yourself, on those few occasions I've actually bitten the bullet and searched out his commentary on a few verses I wished to consider, I've come away feeling like I've wasted my time due to both the lack of substance and the amount of material it's necessary to sift through to discover that lack of substance. It's quite disappointing.

More, as one who's gone out of my way to engage theists with sincere, though often naive, questions, I can think of no other christian who's been less forthcoming with honest answers. As to my poisoning his well, I can only say that JPH's work is a well already poisoned by JPH, an issue I've brought up with him politely on more than one occasion, only to be repeatedly brushed off, to put it mildly. If he wishes to see me as an enemy, or some emissary of Satan, that's his look out. As far as I'm concerned, we share the same humanity, and if this earth is all there is, it would be best if we acted as if we're all in it together.

And taoist, you know I love you man. Aw heck, Trout, I love you too. You're one of my favorite "virtual" christians, despite your penchant for fixing elections. Now, about that avatar ...

As ever, Jesse

__________

taoist seems a little bitter :hehe: He's an ex-nuke. I can understand that. :hehe:
Hey, I resemble that remark.

Anchors aweigh, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Are you really here seeking answers, or are you here because you're trying to make Christians look stupid? Greetings, NJon,

I don't really see why that should matter. How you treat the questions can easily act as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Answer them as if they were sincere, and even if they were not intended that way, it may well be that the original motivation will change. More, it's easy to forget that the majority of those reading your responses are not actively participating in the thread. Never forget the lurkers. Even if the OP is not sincere, it's a sure bet that someone else reading your words will be.

As ever, Jesse

[Kelp]

Sometimes I think he's a little quick to pound someoneThat amy be true.

but he does debate nicely with those with (what he sees as) honest questions and a demonstrated willingness to learn.
Taoist, five words, "Kyle Gerkin and Peter Kirby". It seems to me that JPH is very nice to people who don't act like pompous jerks. I've corisponded with him of and on over the past year or so and he always treated me with the utmost respect, even when I've aked, what look in retrospect, like really dimb questions. I see a lot of struting and meaness among a lot of the atheists here and seems to me that if in the process of pointing out the sillyness of their arguments, JP can give them a dose of humility, it can only do them good.

[lao tzu]

That amy be true.


Taoist, five words, "Kyle Gerkin and Peter Kirby". It seems to me that JPH is very nice to people who don't act like pompous jerks. I've corisponded with him of and on over the past year or so and he always treated me with the utmost respect, even when I've aked, what look in retrospect, like really dimb questions. I see a lot of struting and meaness among a lot of the atheists here and seems to me that if in the process of pointing out the sillyness of their arguments, JP can give them a dose of humility, it can only do them good. Greetings, Kelp,

I can't help but notice that little yellow cross up in your postbit, if you catch my drift. His politeness to your questions, as a member of the flock, merely accentuates my earlier points. His reluctance to call out the "Casey Powell's", even when other christians are pointing out the obvious flea in the flock, accentuates them further. Who knows, perhaps someday I'll be graced with a polite response from JPH, but I'm not holding my breath.

As to Kyle Gerkin, you'll find him referenced in the IIDB library, complete with links to his exchange with JP Holding, a courtesy JP Holding does not return, including this characteristic paragraph.Ladies and gentleman [sic], may I direct your attention to the center ring, for the premier performance of 'The Amazing Gerkin'! See him pick up and hurl elephants with ease! Watch as he flounders like a fish through Ancient Near Eastern social data! Observe as he scrupuolously [sic] ignores scholarship and blithely dimisses [sic] those with twenty times his learning! Yes, folks, you couldn't pay enough for this type of performance -- not since the Osmonds!
This does not advance your case.

To be fair, JP Holding does indeed tone down his responses later in the exchange, but only due to Kyle bending over backwards to accommodate these juvenile displays. In the vernacular sense, the infidel is the only one acting with christian compassion here. And for crying out loud, even if he can't be bothered to enlist the services of an editor, couldn't JP Holding at least go to the trouble of running his material through a spell checker? A serious apologist would be embarassed to see these rudimentary spelling errors in print. So long as he's asking others to support this work financially, it seems he has some obligation to put out a quality product.

I note your suggestion that a dose of humiliation from JPH may do a skeptic good, but I don't believe you've really thought it through. Be that as it may, I'm always willing to leave room for another to change their behavior, and I don't wish to back JPH into a corner where he has no choice but to react unpleasantly. He falls into that response easily enough as it is, without encouragement.

As ever, Jesse

[NJon]

Greetings, NJon,

I don't really see why that should matter. How you treat the questions can easily act as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Answer them as if they were sincere, and even if they were not intended that way, it may well be that the original motivation will change. More, it's easy to forget that the majority of those reading your responses are not actively participating in the thread. Never forget the lurkers. Even if the OP is not sincere, it's a sure bet that someone else reading your words will be.

As ever, Jesse

The reason that I asked that question was to delve deeper into the basis of why Holding may have been a bit harsh with him. I'm going to sound like my mother for saying this, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Point-in-case, if he came here with a patronizing attitude, he's probably going to get some cynical responses. If he came here to sincerely inquire, he'd be much better off in his search.

I appreciate your observation, though.

[lao tzu]

The reason that I asked that question was to delve deeper into the basis of why Holding may have been a bit harsh with him. Understandable enough, NJon, and thanks for the clarification. I've done a bit of searching myself since then, and there was another exchange in one of JPH's screwball *ugh* threads. Apparently these two have something of a history.

I'm going to sound like my mother for saying this, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Point-in-case, if he came here with a patronizing attitude, he's probably going to get some cynical responses. If he came here to sincerely inquire, he'd be much better off in his search.

I appreciate your observation, though. You're most welcome. Of course, the honey and vinegar works both ways, and I'm sure your mother, assuming you grew up in a christian household, didn't neglect another aphorism I remember from my own youth, "the gentle answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger" ... a quick google later, Proverbs 15:1. There's a lot of wisdom in that holy book of yours, and a lot of good advice.

As ever, Jesse

[jpholding]

Were these comments included in any other field of study, they would be scholastically unacceptable.

:bawl: Yeah...cry, baby, cry! :hehe:

If you don't like trench fighting, stay in the mess hall.

And when I get opponents who make scholastically acceptable arguments, they'll get scholastically acceptable responses. Hint: The Christ myth isn't an example of one of those...

While I can't say I've read more than a tiny fraction of his work

What's that saying about a speck in the eye....


More, as one who's gone out of my way to engage theists with sincere, though often naive, questions, I can think of no other christian who's been less forthcoming with honest answers. As to my poisoning his well, I can only say that JPH's work is a well already poisoned by JPH, an issue I've brought up with him politely on more than one occasion, only to be repeatedly brushed off, to put it mildly.

And you really don't know why. Try comparing these last two paragraphs of yours I quoted and see if you can figure out the contradiction. :lmbo:

If he wishes to see me as an enemy, or some emissary of Satan,

As a preterist I believe Satan is bound. That's yet another example of you talking out of your hat about things you don't know anything about, which is why you won't get any respect from me.

As for "enemy," to be an enemy you have to be competent at what you do. "Nuisance" would be a better word.

As far as I'm concerned, we share the same humanity, and if this earth is all there is, it would be best if we acted as if we're all in it together.


Nothing like an appeal to emotion when you can't handle the argument.

Apparently these two have something of a history.

You're right this time, and that's why you should have withheld judgment before. There's no honest inquiry in someone who:

1) Uses "Jesus" as his forum name (as he does on jesusneverexisted forums)
2) Sends email under the username "ultimate ultimate" (!)
3) Signs in here as "holding_jp"

Now to correct some of your other presumptive idiocies:


As to Kyle Gerkin, you'll find him referenced in the IIDB library, complete with links to his exchange with JP Holding, a courtesy JP Holding does not return, including this characteristic paragraph.

Kyle doesn't play stupid "I want a link" crybaby games. I presented his material in a fair and complete way and he was satisfied with that. We corresponded extensively for an extended period. He's been too busy with personal stuff more recently but the bottom line is he hasn't complained one bit. It's desperate distractors like you who make an issue of this sort of thing because you're not competent to answer the arguments.

To be fair, JP Holding does indeed tone down his responses later in the exchange, but only due to Kyle bending over backwards to accommodate these juvenile displays.

Wrong. He and I began to correspond and we understood each other. Stop speaking on behalf of people you don't know.


couldn't JP Holding at least go to the trouble of running his material through a spell checker? A serious apologist would be embarassed to see these rudimentary spelling errors in print.

Focus on trivia like this to the exclusion of real arguments is the signal of the frustrated...Mr. Studdock. :hehe: Get your own house in order before you start cleaning everyone else's.

So long as he's asking others to support this work financially, it seems he has some obligation to put out a quality product.

"Darn. His point about Greco-Roman rhetoric in 1 Cor. 15 can't be right -- he transposed the R and the H." :lol:

What a shallow person you are.

and I don't wish to back JPH into a corner where he has no choice but to react unpleasantly. He falls into that response easily enough as it is, without encouragement.

Keep up the passion-agression, Mr. Studdock. :thumb: I'll keep stepping on it.

And there's more proof shortly of this rube's insincerity.

[jpholding]

He didn't have the nerve to post it here, but here's "Jesus" with his latest comment on jesusneverexisted.com:

EDIT: I was partly wrong. He posted some of what is below in the Screwball thread, where it doesn't belong.

Although JP was very combative in his last letter, he's actually a bit nervous. I can imagine his stomach twists when he thinks about how he can answer this troubling question. My experience in life is this: if something is true, people will willingly give you the proof. If something is not true, people will always get very nervous and angry when you ask. Anyway here is my reply

This has to be the worst case of Dunning's Syndrome I've ever seen!

First of all, I want to feel I have participated now fully in the christian style of debating. I have asked a few logical questions, and I have apparently been "given the beating I deserved". I've always heard that in christian circles this happens, but I finally got to experience some of the culture. Thank you!

Now that my "virtual beating" has been administered, I was wondering if you were going to attempt to answer any of my questions. To reiterate, please answer this:

All of "this" is stuff I've answered before.

During the life of Jesus, not a single person made note of his existence, even though he did very public things (resurrected dead people, healed the sick, overturned tables in the temple of Jeruselem, etc). Decades later, these stories started circulating by anonymous authors, in a time when pius, allegorical fiction such as this was very popular.

I have articles addressing Remsberg's list (the essence of the first matter) and the authorship of the Gospels, and he won't touch them. This isn't an honest inquirer.

When is "Jesus" going to show us what persons needed to note Jesus' existence that didn't?

When is he going to answer my points about the ones that did (Tacitus, etc)?

When is he going to give us his criteria for determining the authorship of ancient documents, and then do a comparative study between a secular document like the Annals and the documents of the NT?

There's no truth to the claim that "pius [sic], allegorical fiction such as this was very popular." The Gospels are Greco-Roman bioi and there are no contemporary examples of bioi as "pius" fiction.


So what I would like to know is do we have ANY evidence that demonstrates Jesus was a concrete, living person.

I'm very willing to listen, despite your behavior so far. I also understand that this line of questioning is a bit frightening for you. This may be why your initial reaction to my questions were a bit combative. But if you have the facts on your side, you have nothing to fear!

Yeah...I'm "frightened" of a guy who can't even spell "Jerusalem" or "pious" correctly. :hehe:


I assure you I indeed would like a serious answer, and I am willing to listen.

Thank you JC

Anyone still think this lunatic is sincere?



And if you're still reading, there, "Jesus" -- tell your loony friend "enquiring mind" that 1) I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered Indepedent; 2) the strongest Republican I know personally is an atheist.

[OldManZangetsu]

In the vernacular sense, the infidel is the only one acting with christian compassion here.

Mind telling us where the Bible instructs us to be "compassionate" to people who

1. Oppose God
2. Are pompous about it

A pompous question will get an "un-Christian" response, no matter who you are. We're not instructed to show "compassion" to people who could care less about what the answers are.

What a whiner. Life's tough, not everyone is going to be nice to you, suck it up and be a man and look to the meat of the arguments instead of complaining about politeness.

[jpholding]

Notice the title of the thread on jesusneverexisted.com:

An Open Letter to J. P. Holding - very funny read

It's all a joke to "Jesus," and taoist is making himself the only butt by defending him. :rofl:

[OldManZangetsu]

First of all, I want to feel I have participated now fully in the christian style of debating. I have asked a few logical questions, and I have apparently been "given the beating I deserved". I've always heard that in christian circles this happens, but I finally got to experience some of the culture. Thank you!

Now that my "virtual beating" has been administered, I was wondering if you were going to attempt to answer any of my questions. To reiterate, please answer this:

Fully? He made what... two posts here? JP, you didn't give him a beating, you barely got a chance to lay a hand on him, IMO. What a whackjob.

He still hasn't explained just who it is that argues over Josephus and Tacitus, has he? I'm willing to place bets that it's the voices in his head.

I also find it telling that even when Johnny offered to be polite to him, he didn't pursue a conversation with him (or did he, behind the scenes, Johnny?) The same goes with BronzeArcher, BA only asked an honest question back.

[lao tzu]

Mind telling us where the Bible instructs us to be "compassionate" to people who

1. Oppose God
2. Are pompous about it

A pompous question will get an "un-Christian" response, no matter who you are. We're not instructed to show "compassion" to people who could care less about what the answers are.

What a whiner. Life's tough, not everyone is going to be nice to you, suck it up and be a man and look to the meat of the arguments instead of complaining about politeness. You want me to quote your scripture to you? Okay, no trouble for me.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye), and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew) 5:38-42, NIV)
And I'd like to thank you once again, sincerely, for your fine christian testimony. There's nothing that makes life easier for an atheist than knowing we don't have to spend time in the company of hypocrites like you. Keep up the good work.

As ever, Jesse

[jpholding]

"Jesus " is licking his wounds with his friends over there and assuring them that you're all (Trout, OldMan, etc) a bunch of teenagers. :lol:

One of his friends "Leo" said:

Hi Jesus, why do you waste your time on brainwashed scum like this guy? He will NEVER accept the Jesus myth theory, he´s afraid from fiery hell and he thinks he will ascend to heaven in the upcoming rapture!!!I think it would be easier for you to accept the "gawdman" as your personal savior!!!

I told "Jesus' by email to tell his stupid friend Leo that I don't believe in a fiery hell OR in a rapture!

This is who Jesse is defending with his blood. :hehe:

You want me to quote your scripture to you? Okay, no trouble for me.

Sorry, Jess -- that's a rule for interpersonal relations, not public confrontation. You have a LOT of trouble.

Hey, if you don't like it, go join the people over on jesusneverexisted.com. They're obsessing over my picture now -- really getting into the facts about the authroship of the Annals and such, ya know? :rofl:

[Bill the Cat]

They're obsessing over my picture now

Man, I should start charging for the use of that pic I took. It sure has made you the popular one, hasn't it? :hehe:

[lao tzu]

:bawl: Yeah...cry, baby, cry! :hehe: Make an effort not to flatter yourself.

If you don't like trench fighting, stay in the mess hall. Really, it's okay, JPH. I don't need more proof. My original contribution said it all, you have no concern whatsoever for those "outside the flock".

And when I get opponents who make scholastically acceptable arguments, they'll get scholastically acceptable responses. Hint: The Christ myth isn't an example of one of those... Hint? In some bizarre alternate reality in which Zen Buddhism is somehow mystically transformed into Taoism, it's just possible that you'll find an alternate-taoist who falls into the christ-myth camp. Here in the real world, however, we prefer to treat people's positions as they're actually held.

What's that saying about a speck in the eye.... It's your holy book, you follow it. I know, honest admissions simply don't fit into your worldview of Satan-inspired enemies of the one true religion. But they do exist, no matter how hard you close your eyes, plug your ears and fill the air with gibberish. So, what happened to the rest of that quote, JPH? Is cherry picking the best you can do?

And you really don't know why. Try comparing these last two paragraphs of yours I quoted and see if you can figure out the contradiction. :lmbo: There's a possibility that the articles I've seen were uncharacteristic.

As a preterist I believe Satan is bound. That's yet another example of you talking out of your hat about things you don't know anything about, which is why you won't get any respect from me. Sauce for the goose. You'd previously shown little interest in following a serious discussion despite sincere efforts on my part. How many chances do you suppose I should give you? Seventy times seven?

As for "enemy," to be an enemy you have to be competent at what you do. "Nuisance" would be a better word. A nuisance is brushed aside by socially secure humans. Note the contradiction.

Nothing like an appeal to emotion when you can't handle the argument. I can't believe the author of "Welcome, ladies and gentleman" could write that without choking on his own spittle.

__________

You're right this time, and that's why you should have withheld judgment before. There's no honest inquiry in someone who:

1) Uses "Jesus" as his forum name (as he does on jesusneverexisted forums)
2) Sends email under the username "ultimate ultimate" (!)
3) Signs in here as "holding_jp"



Whoa, a serious point, and I almost missed it, and would have missed it if I hadn't, against clear examples to the contrary, kept searching for something meaningful to respond to. Still, if you've read my response to NJon, you know my position. But let me reiterate the converse, given a serious question, a flippant response predicated on the assumption that it is not serious, can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now to correct some of your other presumptive idiocies: And it's right back to the substanceless and meaningless responses that just waste my time. What is the point of this characterization if it's not to boost a shaky confidence in your own abilities. JPH, I've seen, inbetween all this useless claptrap with which you pepper your articles, the actual possibility of a serious apologist in development. You're wasting your talent by giving in to these impulses.

Kyle doesn't play stupid "I want a link" crybaby games. I presented his material in a fair and complete way and he was satisfied with that. We corresponded extensively for an extended period. He's been too busy with personal stuff more recently but the bottom line is he hasn't complained one bit. It's desperate distractors like you who make an issue of this sort of thing because you're not competent to answer the arguments.

Pay attention this time, JPH. My complaints are about having to wade through ad hominems in order to find the substance of your articles, never quite knowing if they'll ever appear. This post is a perfect example. On other occasions, having gone to the trouble of following a broken link you yourself have offered, and then using the rather primitive search capabilities of your site, it's just plain frustrating to find the actual article that comes up in the search is more than half-filled with attacks on somebody I've never heard of, leaving the actual issue I've come to your site to study short-changed in the process.

Wrong. He and I began to correspond and we understood each other. Stop speaking on behalf of people you don't know. JPH, I read his response. Enough said? No? Well, then, here it is:

Holding overruled (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/failing.html)
Holding starts out with ad hominem attacks, lampooning me as an author in an effort to denigrate my credibility. These are cheap rhetorical tricks, that have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the propositions laid out in my article. This is certainly not the tone of an objective analysis.
Focus on trivia like this to the exclusion of real arguments is the signal of the frustrated...Mr. Studdock. :hehe: Get your own house in order before you start cleaning everyone else's. Oh come on. Use a spell checker. It's not that much to ask. Misspellings such as these interrupt the flow of reading, for no good reason given the software available to prevent it.

"Darn. His point about Greco-Roman rhetoric in 1 Cor. 15 can't be right -- he transposed the R and the H." :lol:

What a shallow person you are. Try writing in Word with the option to highlight spelling errors turned on. This isn't rocket science or some absurd question of transpositions. You're taking money like you're a professional, so why not act like one? Why are you squirming away from a such a simple suggestion?

Keep up the passion-agression, Mr. Studdock. :thumb: I'll keep stepping on it.

And there's more proof shortly of this rube's insincerity. Well and good. You're so thoroughly sucked up into your bubble that you can't see an honest and sincere response when it slaps you in the face. Fine. I've got endless patience, and from time to time I suppose I'll find occasion to treat you to some more of it.

As ever, Jesse

[Kelp]

[QUOTE=jpholding]
Yeah...I'm "frightened" of a guy who can't even spell "Jerusalem" or "pious" correctly. :hehe:[QUOTE/]
JP, I've seen you do this before. First you accuse the other guy of judging the soundness of you're argument on the basis of your spelling ability. Then you turn around and play the exact same game on him. What's up with that?

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .I also find it telling that even when Johnny offered to be polite to him, he didn't pursue a conversation with him (or did he, behind the scenes, Johnny?) . . ..

Not yet guys, but it was less than 24hrs ago I made the post.

As for the discussion above: I've not encountered as many trolls as the more experienced apologists here on Tweb (and Tweb Paltalk) have. Sometimes I feel very uncomfortable with the way I perceive some Christians are responding.

Perhaps I understand the following passage somewhat differently from other 'defenders of the faith'. May God give me the grace to continue to speak with gentleness and in a manner that will put the slanderers to shame and show to all that I have a true hope.

1 Peter 3:15b Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (TNIV)

:johnny:

[lao tzu]

Hey, if you don't like it, go join the people over on jesusneverexisted.com. They're obsessing over my picture now -- really getting into the facts about the authroship of the Annals and such, ya know? :rofl: Well, let me take a moment to at least clear this point up. Yes, I'm interested in the Jesus Myth arguments, but more as counterexamples of valid criticisms than otherwise. There's a tendency in any camp, theist or atheist or something in between, to nod heads and agree for the sake of some meaningless amity.

The gospels we have in today's new testament describe a number of incidents in the life of a man named Jesus. Some seem clearly mythical, for example, walking on water, water into wine, wise men following stars. Others seem reasonably accurate, for example, the sermon on the mount, the parables, the turning of the crowd against him, the execution. But the idea that no actual character (or perhaps characters) inspired these stories is simply not parsimonious. It's far more likely that these cloths were draped over a real person than assembled out of nothing.

As ever, Jesse

[Kelp]

Well, let me take a moment to at least clear this point up. Yes, I'm interested in the Jesus Myth arguments, but more as counterexamples of valid criticisms than otherwise.I believe that that is JP's point. He thinks the Christ myth is an idioc fringe theory of the same calibur as the theory that the Kennedys killed Marilyn. If you think otherwise(and he doesn't agree with your argument for it) then you are quite simply braindead and he doesn't feel like he has time for you. Taoist, I don't think that you have read JP very closely. There really are not that many alleged ad homs to wade through and most of his targets appear to be cantankerous souls like Farrel Till or Dan Barker or are quite hostile to CHristianity already. Besides, I can count on one hand the number of times that I have actually found an argument of JP's hard to understand because of the personal attacks.




Some seem clearly mythical, for example, walking on water, water into wine, wise men following stars. That could be considered a form of well poisoning, taoist. The term myhtical is very loaded.

[jpholding]

Well, let me take a moment to at least clear this point up. Yes, I'm interested in the Jesus Myth arguments, but more as counterexamples of valid criticisms than otherwise.

I don't hear, "Oops....I was defending these people"?

an effort not to flatter yourself.

I don't. Your continued response amounts to a form of flattery.

Really, it's okay, JPH. I don't need more proof. My original contribution said it all, you have no concern whatsoever for those "outside the flock".

Not those "outside the flock" -- those who try to kill sheep.

Here in the real world, however, we prefer to treat people's positions as they're actually held.

Your point being what? Do you plan also oin giving credibility to the one that says Jews were behind 9/11 next?



It's your holy book, you follow it. I know, honest admissions simply don't fit into your worldview of Satan-inspired enemies of the one true religion.

I already told you I was a preterist, so Satan isn't inspiring any of this. Actually he'd come up with a lot better stuff.

So, what happened to the rest of that quote, JPH?

It contained nothing I had any issue with. Is pretending it did the best you can do?


Sauce for the goose. You'd previously shown little interest in following a serious discussion despite sincere efforts on my part

I haven't seen a single instance of sincerity from you -- only manipulative passive-aggressive tactics.

A nuisance is brushed aside by socially secure humans.

That rule came out of what nether region? :hehe: It's made up on the spot for your own insecurities, no doubt.


Whoa, a serious point, and I almost missed it, and would have missed it if I hadn't, against clear examples to the contrary, kept searching for something meaningful to respond to. Still, if you've read my response to NJon, you know my position. But let me reiterate the converse, given a serious question, a flippant response predicated on the assumption that it is not serious, can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Seems like a lot of dodging and ducking to avoid the admission that you're standing behind and defending an obvious troll and fell into your own presumption trap.

If you'd so much as admit one error like this, you might be surprised what happens. As it is, that I had to twist your arm to get you to admit an error about something much simpler (Ransom vs Studdock), you've already shown where you stand.


And it's right back to the substanceless and meaningless responses that just waste my time.

In other words, correction of your errors you don't want to admit.


Pay attention this time, JPH. My complaints are about having to wade through ad hominems in order to find the substance of your articles, never quite knowing if they'll ever appear.

Yet another dodge in order to avoid admitting an error.

and then using the rather primitive search capabilities of your site,

That's rich. PicoSearch is "primitive". :lol: It's not. I know search engines and how they work, and have worked with online databases. The more likely problem is that you have no idea how to do a search.

leaving the actual issue I've come to your site to study short-changed in the process.

Thou protesteth too much. 90% of the articles by volume have no such thing in them.


JPH, I read his response. Enough said? No?

No, because it's not informed by the dozens of email exchanges we had afterwards.


Oh come on. Use a spell checker. It's not that much to ask.

Oh come on. Lose the focus on trivia. And take a course in concentration.

You're taking money like you're a professional, so why not act like one? Why are you squirming away from a such a simple suggestion?

Golly you're right. I'm reading the latest Harry Turtledove novel, and it had a typo in it: "United Sates". That's it, I paid good money for that book, I don't care how good a writer Turtledove is. His book is out the door and so is he and his publisher.

While you're at it, grow up! :lol:

You're so thoroughly sucked up into your bubble that you can't see an honest and sincere response when it slaps you in the face

If you mean "Jesus" and his nonsense, then what's clear is that you need a lesson in discernment.

[jpholding]

Man, I should start charging for the use of that pic I took. It sure has made you the popular one, hasn't it? :hehe:

They're obsessing over the one that was asked for under false pretenses, not yours. :hehe:

[jpholding]

[QUOTE=jpholding]
Yeah...I'm "frightened" of a guy who can't even spell "Jerusalem" or "pious" correctly. :hehe:[QUOTE/]
JP, I've seen you do this before. First you accuse the other guy of judging the soundness of you're argument on the basis of your spelling ability. Then you turn around and play the exact same game on him. What's up with that?

If you look back you'll see I say that it is wrong to focus on spelling to the EXCLUSION of arguments. (Post 22) It's OK to get on it once you have dealt with the arguments, especially when the other person is making a show of being an expert.

Jesse is harping on trivia while dodging my arguments.

[jpholding]

Not yet guys, but it was less than 24hrs ago I made the post.

As busy as he has been at jesusneverexisted.com, he's had time to respond if he had an honest interest.


Perhaps I understand the following passage somewhat differently from other 'defenders of the faith'.

Yes. Contextually Peter was addressing a situation in which Christians were helping pagan neighbors (such as when they were sick). In that time to do a favor for someone usually meant you'd expect to be paid back somehow. Christians didn't ask for any favor in return because they had their reward in heaven. But the pagans assumed that they were refusing the return favor because they had ulterior motives -- like maybe they planned to save up the favor and ask for something big. Or else they took it as an honor insult. So the pagans were slandering Christians for doing what was right (that's the why behind v. 14, they suffer because they are righteous, and v. 16, their good behavior is spoken against).

The unfortunate fact is that 1 Peter 3:15 has as much to do with apologetics as 1 Kings 17:1. The word "apologia" (defense) is used, but that's about it.

[Johnny MacManky]

Right, I'm gonna say something about my personal faith, which may, or may not, say something about my intellect and whether or not I qualify as a tektonidiot!

I was, I believe, sincerely seeking the true path to God. Okay, let's put aside the argument that it is not us who seek God, but God who seeks us. I had been raised in a Christian home, and like so many teens, left the church.

About 10 years ago, in my early thirties, I began by examining the 'historical evidence'. Unfortunately, I'm not a university graduate, I'm just an average person, with a slightly higher than average IQ (about 102~105, depending on my mood. Once I scored 140, but that surely was a fluke!)

I checked out all the Roman historical references to Jesus and Christianity. I was the first person ever at the local reference library to ask to see their copy of The Twelve Caesars! It took the assistant nearly 20 minutes to dig it out. I 'borrowed' a lot of books, inc. The Complete Works of Josephus, and became familiar with the various arguments regarding the Ant' 18 passage. I became familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls, even to the point of actually learning my first Hebrew letters from an actual DSS fragment (There was an exhibition in Glasgow). I looked at all sides of the DSS controversy (This was before the full texts were made available) reading Eisenman, Vermes, Schiffman and many others.

Then I discovered the Nag Hammadi Library and the Gnostics. I read Robinson, Pagels et al and I began to examine all of the Mithraic, etc. Mystery religions and eventually read that daft Freke and Gandy book, The Jesus Mysteries.

Okay, I now know that it's a daft book, but it set me back about 5 years in my quest. To the uninformed layman, Christian or otherwise, the 'Jesus Myth' can and does provide a major stumbling block.

The question I still can't answer is exactly where to draw the line between mythology and actual historical events. Few Christians would insist that every letter and word of the Bible depicts literal History... so where do we draw that line?

...to be continued.

[jpholding]

Right, I'm gonna say something about my personal faith, which may, or may not, say something about my intellect and whether or not I qualify as a tektonidiot!

Only if you mean that in the sense that Rush Limbaugh has "dittoheads". :hehe:

Your path, especially this:


I checked out all the Roman historical references to Jesus and Christianity. I was the first person ever at the local reference library to ask to see their copy of The Twelve Caesars! It took the assistant nearly 20 minutes to dig it out. I 'borrowed' a lot of books, inc. The Complete Works of Josephus, and

...so far makes you a man after my own heart.

I looked at all sides of the DSS controversy (This was before the full texts were made available) reading Eisenman, Vermes, Schiffman and many others.

Good for you. I never tell people not to read such things. I tell them to read both sides if they read them. I always read them.


Okay, I now know that it's a daft book, but it set me back about 5 years in my quest. To the uninformed layman, Christian or otherwise, the 'Jesus Myth' can and does provide a major stumbling block.

Yes. That's why I consider it so important to answer such things, even if they are daft.


The question I still can't answer is exactly where to draw the line between mythology and actual historical events. Few Christians would insist that every letter and word of the Bible depicts literal History... so where do we draw that line?

For people involved in lit study, the matter of genre identification resolves most such issues. The Gospels are Greco-Roman bioi. That means overall they are to be read as literal history unless there's some reason not to (eg, as in Jesus' hyperbole in a parable).

Perhaps think of how today one identifies hyperbole and discerns it from literal expression. How do we know "raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech? How do we draw that line? The answer is the same -- it's not always easy but in most cases it is.


...to be continued.

You'll be fine unless Part 2 begins, "And then I joined the Hare Krishnas..." :hehe:

[OldManZangetsu]

Sorry, Jess -- that's a rule for interpersonal relations, not public confrontation. You have a LOT of trouble.

Hey, if you don't like it, go join the people over on jesusneverexisted.com. They're obsessing over my picture now -- really getting into the facts about the authroship of the Annals and such, ya know? :rofl:

JP, you forgot to add spelling errors to your response! We need to be lifting taoist up in spirit, remember? Give a few errors he can wine about so he isn't left feeling like his OCD is ruining his judgment.

[Doubting John]

You may not have noticed, but JPH does not hesitate to take Christians to task either. He attacks poor arguments, regardless who formulates or propagates them. He also does not solely argue by smackdown; he was quite polite to Doubting John, for example, until it became clear that DJ wasn't really interested in discussing specifics. Sometimes I think he's a little quick to pound someone, but he does debate nicely with those with (what he sees as) honest questions and a demonstrated willingness to learn.

Specifics? What are those?

But don't you believe a word OBG said. It's disingenuous. While I don't mind throwing barbs back and forth with him now, Holding treats people with distain, like a child with a temper tantrum waiting to happen. :bawl: And he has a lot of immature followers who think this is the way to treat people who disagree with him.

He and his pied pipers will take you to task as some kind of initiation right to TWEB. It's not worth the insults to bother having a decent conversation with him. They're just waiting to pounce as soon as he gives the word.

He's not as important as he thinks he is, either. He knows a few things in some selected areas, this is true. But the areas he's ignorant about are the most important areas for a proper understanding of how best to evaluate his claims, which leaves his whole case in the dust.

Watch 'em now. They'll go on the attack. :eek:

[Johnny MacManky]

. .You'll be fine unless Part 2 begins, "And then I joined the Hare Krishnas..." :hehe:

Dons orange robe and goes off chanting...

"Hairy Christians, hairy christians..." :whistle:

[OldManZangetsu]

Watch 'em now. They'll go on the attack. :eek:

:lol: :fight:

[Bill the Cat]

DJ,

I don't think I have ever said a bad word to you, and I am also a "fan" of JP. He knows how to find information, and that is a very useful talent. You shouldn't throw the blanket over us all just because you don't personally prefer the debating methods of some. We are a diverse group with differing styles. I think I have only gotten nasty with one or two here... both Mormon if I recall, and that is after I was given the nasty treatment first. That being said, just be careful you don't blanket us all as having the same debate techniques as the others.

Bill

[jpholding]

Specifics? What are those?

Of course you don't know. :hehe:

And he has a lot of immature followers who think this is the way to treat people who disagree with him.

You really need to get an "outsider view" of your own POV, you know that?

They're just waiting to pounce as soon as he gives the word.

I also have a lock on the Masonic Lodge.

He's not as important as he thinks he is, either.

I'm not sure how important you think I think I am. How important is that, exactly?

He knows a few things in some selected areas, this is true. But the areas he's ignorant about are the most important areas for a proper understanding of how best to evaluate his claims, which leaves his whole case in the dust.

Precisely. Like DJ, you have to be well versed in shouting, "You're missing the forest for the trees!" repeatedly.

Watch 'em now. They'll go on the attack. :eek:

He's so depserate to be right about something he goes for self-fulfilling prophecy. :hehe:

Hey, since you and the Curry Bros. are getting a Gold Screwball Award tomorrow, I'm drawing a new toon for it. You say you wanna be a cowboy? Guess what I already had in mind......

[Doubting John]

DJ,

I don't think I have ever said a bad word to you, and I am also a "fan" of JP. He knows how to find information, and that is a very useful talent. You shouldn't throw the blanket over us all just because you don't personally prefer the debating methods of some. We are a diverse group with differing styles. I think I have only gotten nasty with one or two here... both Mormon if I recall, and that is after I was given the nasty treatment first. That being said, just be careful you don't blanket us all as having the same debate techniques as the others.

Bill

Okay, you're right. But their name is "Legion."

[Darth Executor]

I don't know who they are but praetor sounds much cooler so that's what I am.

[Doubting John]

Hey, since you and the Curry Bros. are getting a Gold Screwball Award tomorrow, I'm drawing a new toon for it. You say you wanna be a cowboy? Guess what I already had in mind......

Gee, if could only draw like you do....then I could win any argument! :smile:

[jpholding]

Gee, I could only draw like you do....then I could win any argument! :smile:

Well, you need some sort of help to win one, that's for sure. :bonk:

[One Bad Pig]

Specifics? What are those?

But don't you believe a word OBG said. It's disingenuous.
:no: Not everyone thinks like you do, DJ. Quit projecting yourself on others. I see no need to trick someone into seeing things my way, and prefer directness to misdirection.

While I don't mind throwing barbs back and forth with him now, Holding treats people with distain, like a child with a temper tantrum waiting to happen. :bawl: And he has a lot of immature followers who think this is the way to treat people who disagree with him.

He and his pied pipers will take you to task as some kind of initiation right to TWEB. It's not worth the insults to bother having a decent conversation with him. They're just waiting to pounce as soon as he gives the word.
Read the last quote in my signature. It's one I agree with 100%. I think it applies well to this situation.

Watch 'em now. They'll go on the attack. :eek:
Nice passive-agressive statement meant to shame people into not responding the way you do. :thumbd:

[Doubting John]

Well, you need some sort of help to win one, that's for sure. :bonk:

Do you offer drawing classes?






How much do you pay people to take 'em?

[jpholding]

Do you offer drawing classes?

That, and quartering classes too. We've used you as a demo subject, remember?

How much do you pay people to take 'em?

Hey, when you get three pros in the field to say your artwork has high-level marketing potential...you can start talkin'. :hehe:

[lao tzu]

I believe that that is JP's point. He thinks the Christ myth is an idioc fringe theory of the same calibur as the theory that the Kennedys killed Marilyn. If you think otherwise (and he doesn't agree with your argument for it) then you are quite simply braindead and he doesn't feel like he has time for you. Hiya, Kelp,

I think it's an interesting concept in the sense that it forces us to examine the very roots of christianity. By examining the question, we can see exactly what the basis is for our belief in a man behind the gospel accounts. Becoming vested in the defense of such a view, however, rather than merely considering it academically, leads to absurdity. Similarly, responding with attacks rather than simply answering the basic question says there is meat on the grill getting scorched. It's the dog that's bit that howls.

Why the nonexistence of an historical Jesus behind the accounts should be important is simply beyond me. I'm assuming that it is to some, but I can't get my head around that mindset. Going off on a wire, I'd say that it might be characteristic of persons so seriously antagonistic to christianity that they cannot accept anything less than a totally fictional basis for the faith. I'm philosophically opposed to this. There are good aspects of christianity I'd rather not see taken from our community culture. Mercy, forgiveness, a path away from escalation of conflict ... just to name a few. Still, the personality that could feel the need to deny his whole existence, just imagining that feeling is uncomfortable to me. Anyway, let me get on with the rest of your post.

Taoist, I don't think that you have read JP very closely. There really are not that many alleged ad homs to wade through and most of his targets appear to be cantankerous souls like Farrel Till or Dan Barker or are quite hostile to CHristianity already. Besides, I can count on one hand the number of times that I have actually found an argument of JP's hard to understand because of the personal attacks. Again, of course not. They're directed toward people you have a vested interest in seeing attacked, those who question your faith. But the plain and simple fact is that these remarks make the articles unpublishable in a serious tome because they cast doubt on the objectivity of the scholarship. An attack on an opponent is always read as weakness in your own arguments in any kind of academic setting.

That could be considered a form of well poisoning, taoist. The term mythical is very loaded. Well, it shouldn't be. The term has a well known academic reading. Certainly, I'm aware of how often it's misconstrued to be read as "untrue" but that is a false reading of the term.

As ever, Jesse

[member11491]

Hiya, Kelp,
Why the nonexistence of an historical Jesus behind the accounts should be important is simply beyond me.

Hi Taoist,

I read this sentence a few times trying to make sure I understood what you are saying. You can't understand why people are interested in the origins of the only person in history who apparently did an array of supernatural feats? That's odd.

I think Jesus is a fascinating topic, and up until recently I believed that the stories were based on an actual, historical figure. This was before I actually read the bible, and did research on the origins of the bible.

After reading the bible in the order it was written (that is letters of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts, and Revelation) that clearly there is an evolution of this christ-figure. First as a spiritual being, then man, then god-man born of a virgin, then angry god-man coming back to earth to bring judgement.

It's also strange that nearly all the elements of christianity were pre-existing. Human sacrifice of sins (Mithras), born of virgin (Mithras), water to wine (Dionysus), trinity (not mentioned specifically in the bible but definitely was present in the religion of Osiris.) I could mention hundreds of more similarities as well. None of this new religion was original.


I'd say that it might be characteristic of persons so seriously antagonistic to christianity that they cannot accept anything less than a totally fictional basis for the faith.


Unfortunately no. History is simply an interest of mine. I would be equally interested if I discovered there was no historical basis for Alexander the Great, Buddha or any other major figure like that.

I'm sure you don't believe Paul Bunyon was a historical figure - but imagine there was a group dedicated to the teaching of Paul Bunyon, they would probably think you are a lunatic and a hater of their beliefs. When in reality, you simply smile and reflect on how this situation may have evolved over time.

[member11491]

Not yet guys, but it was less than 24hrs ago I made the post.

As for the discussion above: I've not encountered as many trolls as the more experienced apologists here on Tweb (and Tweb Paltalk) have. Sometimes I feel very uncomfortable with the way I perceive some Christians are responding.

Perhaps I understand the following passage somewhat differently from other 'defenders of the faith'. May God give me the grace to continue to speak with gentleness and in a manner that will put the slanderers to shame and show to all that I have a true hope.

1 Peter 3:15b Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (TNIV)

:johnny:
Hi Johnny,

Sorry, I see your post earlier. I was only checking the "screwball of October 2006" thread. I would definitely like to have a rational conversation, and find out the christian explanation of some of the questions I have.

I can install an instant messenger, so we could have a real-time chat, or perhaps we could start a new thread.

Thank you!

[Trout]

I can install an instant messenger, so we could have a real-time chat, or perhaps we could start a new thread.

Thank you!

member,

There's a forum here at Tweb where 1 on 1 discussions can take place without all the background noise:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=54

That might be a good place for the discussion.

[lao tzu]

I don't hear, "Oops....I was defending these people"? What is this fiction and where did it come from? I've done nothing of the kind. Throughout this thead and in all of my other exchanges with you I have argued for answering these questions as if they were written for a larger audience. See, for example, my earlier response to NJon here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1671059#post1671059).

I don't. Your continued response amounts to a form of flattery. Whatever.

Not those "outside the flock" -- those who try to kill sheep. And those you feel might just possibly in some alternate universe be willing to think about killing sheep. This issue is a real and continuing concern of mine. My brother is a Lutheran minister, Missouri Synod seminary trained, and it would be tragic if something I said had an influence on his livelihood or the welfare of his children. I keep this in mind with all of my conversations with christians.

Your point being what? Do you plan also oin giving credibility to the one that says Jews were behind 9/11 next? My point being that the discussion is stopping at the point where you refuse to believe I'm being honest about my motivations.

I already told you I was a preterist, so Satan isn't inspiring any of this. Actually he'd come up with a lot better stuff. I'm color blind in that range. All I know about preterism is that it's based on the idea that some of the prophecies listed in the new testament have already been fulfilled. This is the first I've heard about a bound Satan included.

It contained nothing I had any issue with. Is pretending it did the best you can do? Does pretending you didn't strip the context from that phrase make you feel more like a man?

I haven't seen a single instance of sincerity from you -- only manipulative passive-aggressive tactics. Then you're misreading me entirely.

That rule came out of what nether region? :hehe: It's made up on the spot for your own insecurities, no doubt. Whatever.

Seems like a lot of dodging and ducking to avoid the admission that you're standing behind and defending an obvious troll and fell into your own presumption trap. No, again. I can keep repeating this forever if necessary. It's not really that much trouble.

Pay attention this time, JPH. My complaints are about having to wade through ad hominems in order to find the substance of your articles, never quite knowing if they'll ever appear.

If you'd so much as admit one error like this, you might be surprised what happens. As it is, that I had to twist your arm to get you to admit an error about something much simpler (Ransom vs Studdock), you've already shown where you stand. More fiction. Immediately following your pointing out my error I acknowledged it. Immediately, as in the very next post. At the very top of the next post. This "arm-twisting" is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

Link (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1510104#post1510104).

Where do you get this stuff?

In other words, correction of your errors you don't want to admit. Projection.

Yet another dodge in order to avoid admitting an error. It's the plain and simple statement of my position, a position I've held consistently throughout our exchanges. If it doesn't fit in with your own narrow presumptions, then I suggest you try expanding them a bit.

That's rich. PicoSearch is "primitive". :lol: It's not. I know search engines and how they work, and have worked with online databases. The more likely problem is that you have no idea how to do a search. Is this a recent upgrade? I don't remember seeing this before.

Thou protesteth too much. 90% of the articles by volume have no such thing in them. Well, let me do a test. Hmm, seems you've changed your layout. Okay, here goes. First link, top left. Another Garage Sale Gospel (http://www.tektonics.org/garagesale.html)
Perhaps the media would get happy if some of us provided some "diversity" by suggesting that Richard Nixon did nothing wrong with Watergate but was in fact framed by Bob Woodward.

Okay, so maybe this is merely in the 10 percent.

Second link, middle, second from the top. Christ Myth Refuted (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html)

It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News
Two for two. Third link, right column, third from the top. Returning Japanese (http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html)

... I could use profitably to draw some parallels and maybe put some sense in some Skeptical heads, or at least make them look more foolish than usual when they issue denials.

Three for three, JPH, and I'll stop there. Your thesis is appearing less likely. Possibly your home page is not characteristic of most of your work, but I'm not up to doing a exhaustive search for an article that contains no ad homs. There may not be any. At this point, I want to see three links from you to provide evidence that such a search wouldn't be entirely futile.

No, because it's not informed by the dozens of email exchanges we had afterwards. After your initial unjustified ad hominem attacks, which were gracefully passed over, you later managed to unscrew whatever was wired up your backside and decided to act like a human being? There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

Oh come on. Lose the focus on trivia. And take a course in concentration. Golly you're right. I'm reading the latest Harry Turtledove novel, and it had a typo in it: "United Sates". That's it, I paid good money for that book, I don't care how good a writer Turtledove is. His book is out the door and so is he and his publisher. Pretend I didn't have to "twist your arm" and just use a spellchecker.

While you're at it, grow up! :lol: Whatever.

If you mean "Jesus" and his nonsense, then what's clear is that you need a lesson in discernment. Non sequitur.

As ever, Jesse

[Johnny MacManky]

Hi Johnny,

Sorry, I see your post earlier. I was only checking the "screwball of October 2006" thread. I would definitely like to have a rational conversation, and find out the christian explanation of some of the questions I have.

I can install an instant messenger, so we could have a real-time chat, or perhaps we could start a new thread.

Thank you!

You're welcome.

A new thread would be best. I'm in the U.K., so time differences would knacker up real time chat, plus I prefer the luxury of thinking & source checking time between posts! Either, as Trout suggested, in the Basketball court, or if you stipulate in the Opening Post that you wish to engage only with certain folks, then decorum should accomodate us.

I don't have all the answers, and I tend to lean more towards a fideist viewpoint concerning Christian apologetics.

PM me and let me know where and when you've posted.

Cheers

:johnny:

PS. Do you have a screenname I can use. Member11491 is a bit impersonal. If you want, Trout can change your Tweb name.

[Darth Executor]

bla bla bla


Another dolt who thinks insult = "ad hom"

:lol:

[lao tzu]

Hi Taoist, Hi member,

Feel free to make use of my given name. Otherwise, I prefer my username lower-cased, "t-aoist". It's a running inside TWeb joke that the only "member" allowed to upper case my name is the moderator Teallaura.

I read this sentence a few times trying to make sure I understood what you are saying. You can't understand why people are interested in the origins of the only person in history who apparently did an array of supernatural feats? That's odd. I'm interested myself, what I don't see is why it should be considered "important". None, one, or more than one figures inspired the gospel accounts. I think the "none" hypothesis could act as a lever for an interesting discussion. But what's this about "the only person in history" to perform supernatural feats? These stories grow up around every religious figure, from Mother Theresa to Nostradamus.

I think Jesus is a fascinating topic, and up until recently I believed that the stories were based on an actual, historical figure. This was before I actually read the bible, and did research on the origins of the bible.

After reading the bible in the order it was written (that is letters of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts, and Revelation) that clearly there is an evolution of this christ-figure. First as a spiritual being, then man, then god-man born of a virgin, then angry god-man coming back to earth to bring judgement. That could just as easily be a construct of the exegetical process. The normal evolutionary process we see in biology translated into the language of memes would suggest fragmentations to fill separate cultural niches. I suggest this more naive rendering you ascribe is akin to the linear ordering of giraffe precursors we now know were more properly aligned on nearby branches of a single tree.

It's also strange that nearly all the elements of christianity were pre-existing. Human sacrifice of sins (Mithras), born of virgin (Mithras), water to wine (Dionysus), trinity (not mentioned specifically in the bible but definitely was present in the religion of Osiris.) I could mention hundreds of more similarities as well. None of this new religion was original. This is a bit more in depth than I should be treating, as my own views really aren't at issue here, but those of actual adherents to the religious tradition. Let me say merely that I'm likely to consider coincidence used as evidence of syncretic traditions rather skeptically.

Unfortunately no. History is simply an interest of mine. I would be equally interested if I discovered there was no historical basis for Alexander the Great, Buddha or any other major figure like that.

I'm sure you don't believe Paul Bunyon was a historical figure - but imagine there was a group dedicated to the teaching of Paul Bunyon, they would probably think you are a lunatic and a hater of their beliefs. When in reality, you simply smile and reflect on how this situation may have evolved over time. At this point I'm going to take my own advice given to NJon and welcome you again to the board on the assumption, real or assumed, that you're willing to carry on a considerate discussion.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

:lol: *insert unread response here*

Consider yourself flattered, kid.

[One Bad Pig]

Similarly, responding with attacks rather than simply answering the basic question says there is meat on the grill getting scorched. It's the dog that's bit that howls.
If there were any emotion behind the smackdowns, you'd have a point. However, anyone who's actually met JPH knows that he delivers these things absolutely deadpan. He uses the language in a purely tactical sense to quickly dispose of nuisances who might sway those poorly grounded in biblical knowledge.

That said, I much prefer reading his scholarly works, such as this (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html), this (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html), and this (http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/tulipsum.html).

[aikidoka]

Maybe it would help those wanting information from Holding if he had a search function at his site, a topic index, a verse index, an index of short answers to questions... oh wait.

Kind of like the dork I've corresponded with Holding about recently. Just a few days ago he had this to say to someone in a myspace group:

A problem arises when Jesus says to ask the Father for anything and it will be done. Also, he describes the powerful ability of prayer by stating that it could move mountains. Jesus never mentions a "God's Will" clause, which is what those sites are demonstrating.

What's funny is this kid and I have bumped heads a number of times and he knows I reference Holding and Glenn Miller often. You would think he might take a moment to go down the topic list and see if Holding deals with prayer on this issue before throwing around such idiocy.

[Johnny MacManky]

Maybe it would help those wanting information from Holding if he had a search function at his site, a topic index, a verse index, an index of short answers to questions... oh wait.
. . ..

:lol: Due to extreme boredom, I've been having a look at takenotonics tonight, and had just used JP's rather pretty search function when I popped back to Tweb and read this. For a moment I was gonna call ya a dork... and then realised . . . :thumb:

[Kelp]

I think it's an interesting concept in the sense that it Well, than I think that the idea that the earth is a flat disc held up by 10,000 elephants on the back of the great cosmic turtle is an interesting theory in that it forces us to rexamine the very roots of cosmology. If the Christ myth is a cheesy, discredited theory that belongs on the back of a supermarket tabloid, then it deserves no more than a snigger and a dismisal. If JP has proven that it is so, then it is idiotic for you and this "Jesus"( way to be tolerant and unoffending, G!) fellow to keep harping on it the way you have. So read the articles, give your conclusion, and stop whining about a bit of spicy retoric.
By examining the question, we can see exactly what the basis is for our belief in a man behind the gospel accounts. Becoming vested in the defense of such a view, however, rather than merely considering it academically, leads to absurdity.Which JP has done, he is not a fideist, he has quite readily admitted on a number of occasions that he is willing to abandon Christianity if it does not accord to reason.
Similarly, responding with attacks rather than simply answering the basic question says there is meat on the grill getting scorched. It's the dog that's bit that howls.So if JP were a lousy debater and a bad person that would mean that the Christ myth is more likely to be true?
He doesn't respond with attacks instead of arguments except in a case were someone is presenting a theory that he has already discussed ad nauseum. He responds with attacks in addition to arguments when the person really does not seem to be sincere, is showing signs of not having done the very simplest of reading on the topic(usually if a debater and not a simple questioner), or is simply not listening to obvious reason.

Why the nonexistence of an historical Jesus behind the accounts should be important is simply beyond me. I'm assuming that it is to some, but I can't get my head around that mindset. If Jesus never walked to earth, He could not have atoned for the sins of humanity with his death, if He never attoned for the sins of humanity with His death, He could not have been raised to life.

As it says in 1 Cor. 15:17, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

If the man of Nazareth never lived, if he was never a real man, than Christianity is a dead worldview. It's as simple as that. We might as well be out looking for antipodes.


Again, of course not. They're directed toward people you have a vested interest in seeing attacked, those who question your faith.First of all, thank you for assuming that I'm some sort of vindictive nut who has a need to see guys like Barker mocked.

Second of all, that's hardly the point I was trying to make. The amount of polemic in Tekton articles is quite small compared to the actual argumentation. You act as though whole articles are made up of "Farrel Till is a big fat doo doo head!" over and over again. Titles and asides are a few and far between compared to actual analysis.



But the plain and simple fact is that these remarks make the articles unpublishable in a serious tome because they cast doubt on the objectivity of the scholarship. An attack on an opponent is always read as weakness in your own arguments in any kind of academic setting. Hmm, I'm not so sure of that, I've come accross several pieces of academic lit in my time that, in somewhat veiled fashion, dismiss the other persons argument as stupid or sophomoric.

Nevertheless, I suppose I'm beginnig to see where you are coming from. Holding's insults are catered to his specific clientele( 9/10 I misspelled that lol), believers.

Although, I also agree with Holding that you shouldn't focus on these things while you ignore his actual arguments. Is there a problem with the scholarship he presents? Then what is it? Trust me, I'm not that bright, but if I can see past the comparitively tiny bit of polenic that Holding employs( at Tekton that is, read his material for CRI or The Creation Research Journal, it's highly professional in tone), to the meat of his actual arguments, anyone can.


Well, it shouldn't be. The term has a well known academic reading. Certainly, I'm aware of how often it's misconstrued to be read as "untrue" but that is a false reading of the term.

Okay, the way you were using it sounded as though you saying "this could not possibly be true because it sounds mythical". The miracles of the Gospels may sound far fetched at first blush. But if there is sound evidence for them and if there is sound evidence for there being a God than there is no reason to reject them.

I'm color blind in that range. All I know about preterism is that it's based on the idea that some of the prophecies listed in the new testament have already been fulfilled. This is the first I've heard about a bound Satan included.
Revelation 20:2-3 "He[an angel] seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devi, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over hm, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."

Preterists link this to the fall of Jerusalem to the army Titus Vespasianus in 70AD( I am not sure precisely how) thus there can be no minions of Satan in a literal sense and no demonized people. Although, JP, I don't see why you couldn't have conceded the usage of the term in the sense of one who is in rebellion and is a minion of Satan ideologically.


Consider yourself flattered, kid.So what do you call that? Couldn't the "insulting" way that you just addressed Darth insteading of explaining to him how you think he is wrong be read as a weakness in your own contention that insults do equal ad homs?

[Kelp]

If there were any emotion behind the smackdowns, you'd have a point. However, anyone who's actually met JPH knows that he delivers these things absolutely deadpan. He uses the language in a purely tactical sense to quickly dispose of nuisances who might sway those poorly grounded in biblical knowledge.Hence the term calculated contempt?

[One Bad Pig]

Hence the term calculated contempt?
:yes:

[lao tzu]

If there were any emotion behind the smackdowns, you'd have a point. However, anyone who's actually met JPH knows that he delivers these things absolutely deadpan. He uses the language in a purely tactical sense to quickly dispose of nuisances who might sway those poorly grounded in biblical knowledge. Deadpan doesn't work in print. JPH's penchant for issuing invitations to these "nuisances" he wishes to "quickly dispose of" contradicts your claim, as does the time he spends cartooning same.

That said, I much prefer reading his scholarly works, such as this (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html), this (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html), and this (http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/tulipsum.html). The first and last have little interest for me, but that's a matter of personal taste. I'm much more interested in history than in exegetics. The second, as you might guess, is much more my style, if a bit overenthusiastically punctuated, though correcting that is little more than an hour's work for a competent editor. I don't fail to note it links to another article on inerrancy that deals with questions I'd seen JPH avoid previously in an exchange with familyof5. I can't imagine why he failed to cite it. And yes, these are the kinds of examples I was looking for. Much appreciated, my thanks.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Well, than I think that the idea ... Please avoid this kind of quote chopping. You eliminated not some, but all, of the context. Try reading it again.

...

Okay? Now here's the point. This most basic question, "Did Jesus exist" allows you to look critically at all of the reasons you believe Jesus did exist and afterwards enables you to summon them up at will. For an adherent, this is likely to include information you're likely to have passed over as the existence of Jesus, an important issue, is rarely treated at any length. Looking closely at basic questions is always useful, as it provides a grounding that allows you to branch out strongly upon those new aspects of your faith you had not previously considered.

As an analogy, an entry level course in abstract mathematics begins with examining simple binary operations, such as the "+", and "*" you're familiar with in the arithmetic of the real numbers. But when we examine these structurally, it opens up a whole world of structure in which we can recognize the essential unity of these operations and other operations you'd never otherwise consider in the same thought, e.g., set union, set intersection, function composition, convolution integrals, et. al.

From there it is simple to see how the "0" of "+", the "1" of "*", the null set of set union, the universal set of set intersection, the "y=x" of function composition, the exponential function of differential and integral operators ... all fulfill the same role in acting as identities for these widely disparate operations.

But had we passed over the basic question naively, none of these opportunties to see clearly would have arisen. Never despise a simple question, as they are most often the questions you've failed to capitalize upon.

By examining the question, we can see exactly what the basis is for our belief in a man behind the gospel accounts. As above, this barely skims the surface of the utility of an examination of this question.

Which JP has done, he is not a fideist, he has quite readily admitted on a number of occasions that he is willing to abandon Christianity if it does not accord to reason. I have no reason to give credence to this statement. This is not to say that I believe it untrue, but that I take it on principle to remain skeptical of any claim which aligns with a prior incentive. It is in JPH's interest to say this, and so I factor this interest into my reading of the statement. He has a horse in this race.

Consider instead Glenn Morton's position in relation to YEC. He had every reason to continue his decades of writing and participating in the YEC movement. He paid a large price in his personal, social and religious life for his abandonment of the position. In this case, Glenn had a horse in the race, and he ended up shooting it. I'd like to be able to say that JPH would be capable of paying the same price, but it's not something I can accept unconditionally.

So if JP were a lousy debater and a bad person that would mean that the Christ myth is more likely to be true? I'm beginning to get tired of repeating myself on this one. There are only so many ways I can say I am not a christ myther without tiring of the challenge of presenting it in a fresh manner. To your question, was it rhetorical?, of course the answer is no.

He doesn't respond with attacks instead of arguments except in a case were someone is presenting a theory that he has already discussed ad nauseum. He responds with attacks in addition to arguments when the person really does not seem to be sincere, is showing signs of not having done the very simplest of reading on the topic (usually if a debater and not a simple questioner), or is simply not listening to obvious reason. Go ahead, pull the other one. JPH begins with ad hom attacks, as I demonstrated in his exchange with Kyle and as he has demonstrated in his exchanges with me on this thread and others. With patience he might possibly be chided into a more mature discussion, but the onus is on his respondent to put up with his fits and frenzies long enough to pierce his shell.

If Jesus never walked to earth, He could not have atoned for the sins of humanity with his death, if He never attoned for the sins of humanity with His death, He could not have been raised to life.

As it says in 1 Cor. 15:17, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

If the man of Nazareth never lived, if he was never a real man, than Christianity is a dead worldview. It's as simple as that. We might as well be out looking for antipodes. I disagree strenuously with this thesis. If the lessons you draw from your faith are not useful in your interactions in this life, then their usefulness in some future life is itself called into question. And given a usefulness in this life, that is sufficient cause to call for adherence, at least to the principles of behavior expounded by your faith. Note that this assumes the utility of these principles, a position I do not hold true.

First of all, thank you for assuming that I'm some sort of vindictive nut who has a need to see guys like Barker mocked. If I choose to create a phrase with carefully selected terms designed to calm passions, it is unlikely that you will find me appreciating your attempt to rephrase them as an attempt to do the opposite. I did not call you a vindictive nut, and I will thank you for withdrawing that statement. It is a blatant misrepresentation, and not indicative of good faith.

Second of all, that's hardly the point I was trying to make. The amount of polemic in Tekton articles is quite small compared to the actual argumentation. You act as though whole articles are made up of "Farrel Till is a big fat doo doo head!" over and over again. Titles and asides are a few and far between compared to actual analysis. This is hyperbole. I act as if his asides would not be accepted for serious consideration in an academic setting, and I do so because it's true. On the other hand, were I to consider his work entirely without merit, be assured I would not be spending time engaging him at all.

Hmm, I'm not so sure of that, I've come accross several pieces of academic lit in my time that, in somewhat veiled fashion, dismiss the other persons argument as stupid or sophomoric.

Nevertheless, I suppose I'm beginnig to see where you are coming from. Holding's insults are catered to his specific clientele( 9/10 I misspelled that lol), believers. While it may seem the distance between "Your argument is idiotic" and "You're an idiot" is small, it marks a very real boundary between what squeaks in under the door and what bounces off the knocker.

Although, I also agree with Holding that you shouldn't focus on these things while you ignore his actual arguments. Is there a problem with the scholarship he presents? Then what is it? Trust me, I'm not that bright, but if I can see past the comparitively tiny bit of polenic that Holding employs (at Tekton that is, read his material for CRI or The Creation Research Journal, it's highly professional in tone), to the meat of his actual arguments, anyone can. Ugh. Wander over by Nat Sci some time and we can go a few rounds dissecting CRI. Let's just say my position is that "CRI" and "highly professional" do not belong in the same sentence. JPH hasn't presented any actual arguments here in this thead. I've gone to some trouble following his posts in this thread hoping against hope to find them, and they haven't shown up.

Okay, the way you were using it sounded as though you saying "this could not possibly be true because it sounds mythical". The miracles of the Gospels may sound far fetched at first blush. But if there is sound evidence for them and if there is sound evidence for there being a God than there is no reason to reject them. In truth, "mythical" references a message communicated independent of the truth or falsehood of its subject matter. I know of no other word that serves the same purpose, so I'll continue to use it when I want to speak beyond the argument of the literal truth of a claim. For example, the truth of an actual Jesus is irrelevant to the wisdom found in the parable of the sower. The parable itself is myth in the same sense, though we can positively state it was intended to be read as untrue. Yet even a nontheist like myself would deny that it fails to communicate a "true" message, and so succeeds as myth.

I don't believe the miracles occurred, but that's really a minor issue for me, as it doesn't interfere with my appreciation of the sacred text. In a sense, they actually add spice.

Revelation 20:2-3 "He [an angel] seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devi, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over hm, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."

Preterists link this to the fall of Jerusalem to the army Titus Vespasianus in 70AD( I am not sure precisely how) thus there can be no minions of Satan in a literal sense and no demonized people. Although, JP, I don't see why you couldn't have conceded the usage of the term in the sense of one who is in rebellion and is a minion of Satan ideologically. Okay, but where does the fall of Jerusalem come in? Oh, and are you a preterist, or are you just describing it for me as a courtesy?

So what do you call that? Couldn't the "insulting" way that you just addressed Darth insteading of explaining to him how you think he is wrong be read as a weakness in your own contention that insults do equal ad homs? What, Darthie? Pay it no mind. That's how you play with kids. If we whack each other from time to time, that doesn't mean anything. He's a youngster who reminds me a lot of what I was like at his age. And like a lot of kids, he bounces from extreme to extreme. You caught him on the fiesty side. The last time he posted at me, he was on the other side of the swing and we had a good exchange. Given the context, though it may seem paradoxical to onlookers, it would have been rude had I failed to acknowledge him, and that's all he was wanting. When he wants to be taken seriously, it'll be obvious from his style. I've watched him post for years.

Besides, you don't want me accusing you of supporting the brat that killed Santa Claus, now do you? He was totally unapologetic about it, too.

:wink:

As ever, Jesse

[jpholding]

Before I respond to older stuff here, this is the latest from Jesse's best friends.

"Jesus" read my review of The God Who Wasn't There:

Since JP considers you "stupid" if you haven't read all his articles, I started reading a few more. I came across an article he wrote about "The God Who Wasn't There", regarding the silence of Paul on the life of Jesus. 80,000 words, and barely a reference to a historical jesus. Now the obvious answer is Paul didn't write about the life of Jesus, because that particular bit of the story hadn't been written yet. Let's see how our friend answers this:

He quotes me:

3. Paul had absolutely no reason to mention any of these things in much of his correspondence.
4. Paul did mention many of these things, but it takes a ream of excuses to explain them away.
5. Paul was a member of a "high context society" in which broad background knowledge could be taken for granted.

And out comes the following lunacy:


3. Huh? Excuse me? Absolutely no reason to mention the founder of the entire religion? A man who (according to JP) thought jesus was god? Whose earthly life was suppsed to set an "example" for us all? WTF? Is this guy on crack?

Um, it's not mention "the founder" but things like what burg he happened to live in, context-specific teachings that would be useless to a Corinthian with a different problem, etc.

4. Oh, He did talk about them! (kind of invalidates previous point, but whatever).

Uh, yeah. Paul has a lot of letters, and so only one reason could possibly apply. :hehe:

5. Paul was a card-carrying member of the "high context society" (nevermind he was trying to make coverts of pagans who had no idea who jesus was). They all already knew all of jesus's sayings and earthly lesson. Wow, that explains it.

The ignorance speaks for itself. Never mind too that Paul in his letters was not "trying to make converts of pagans who had no idea who Jesus was" but
was speaking to converts who had known who Jesus was for 10 or more years.

If this isn't proof that the xtian side has ABSOLUTELY NO VALID POINTS to make regarding a historical jesus, I don't know what is. I mean, what else is there to say?

Not much other than, "stupid is as stupid does." :lolo:

[jpholding]

Oh, he was here soiling the rug too, eh?


It's also strange that nearly all the elements of christianity were pre-existing. Human sacrifice of sins (Mithras), born of virgin (Mithras),

Both baloney.

Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)

I see no references anywhere in the Mithraic studies literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying, for that matter [Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras" -- Gor.IV, 96] and so of course no rising again and no "resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!) to celebrate.

Someone apparently thinks Acharya S is a reliable source. :hehe: Your friend, Jesse. Defend him.

water to wine (Dionysus),

More baloney.

I have to love this one, because while doing research for my project on The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, I found a few tart words from a secular scholar who would like to know where people who make this argument have put their heads. Bowersock [Bow.FH, 125-8] notes, as we have above, that this story about D is known from evidence later than the Gospels; yet he notes how this story "is exploited by exegetes of the New Testament in a curious way" as the source, Tatius, is "assumed to provide reliable evidence about an otherwise unknown rite" which is then assumed to have pre-dated Jesus! Remarking on Morton Smith's advance of this thesis, Bowersock calls it "a reckless way to handle evidence that belongs indisputably to a time at least a century or so after the life of Jesus." We wonder whether Freke, Gandy, or Ms. S have the temerity to take on a professional historian like Bowersock!

Acharya in a later essay claims that the "ruins of the water-to-wine sluice used by Greek priests at Coirnth" proves that this miracles predates Christianity. But to seal the coffin, let's add this material from the ThinkTank's copycat savior piece:

...the motif of changing water to wine is not present in the Dionysus legends; the jugs of Elis, for example, were not filled with water but were empty, and the fount of wine in Andros did not replace one of water...Most writers acknowledge that in the Johannine narrative there is an implicit contrast between water used for Jewish purificatory rites and the wine given by Jesus; the former is characteristic of the old order, the latter of the new...in the ancient literature Plutarch says that there was a spring at Haliartus with clear, sparkling, wine-colored, very pleasant-tasting water in which the newly born Dionysus was bathed. Also, Pliny says that at Andros, on the festival known as Theodosia, a spring in the temple of Bacchus flowed with wine. Pausanias says that at Elis the priests of Dionysus placed three large empty cauldrons in a sealed room to find them filled with wine when they returned the next day. And Ovid says that Liber, the Italian god identified with Bacchus, gave the daughters of the Delian king Anius the power to turn things into wine, a story associated with Dionysus...However, from these references it is obvious that there are significant differences between the Dionysus legend and the story in John 2: the spring at Haliartus flowed with water, and the one at Andros flowed with wine, not water that had once been wine; and the empty cauldrons in the Elis temple were filled with wine rather than water subsequently changed into wine, key elements in John's story.

There is no "water to wine" sluice, though there may well be a sluice that flowed alternately with water and wine, the latter of which was not changed from the former.

And the last bit of nonsense:

trinity (not mentioned specifically in the bible but definitely was present in the religion of Osiris.)

Um, ever hear of pre-NT Jewish hypostatic Wisdom?

There was no "trinity" in Osiris' religion.


I could mention hundreds of more similarities as well.

And every one of them is likely just as bogus. :hehe:

[jpholding]

Now as for you...


What is this fiction and where did it come from? I've done nothing of the kind.

If you mean defend "Jesus", yes you have. You've pontificated circuitously about the right of the Christ myth thesis to be heard, thereby giving it defense and a credibility no scholar gives it.


And those you feel might just possibly in some alternate universe be willing to think about killing sheep. This issue is a real and continuing concern of mine.

"Whatever."

Once again, though, you dodge answering my point directly, which is your errorneous reading of my intent and practice.



My point being that the discussion is stopping at the point where you refuse to believe I'm being honest about my motivations.

"Whatever."

I don't care about your honesty of lack thereof. The point is you're giving place to "Jesus" to run his mouth, which you may as well also do for Holocaust deniers.


This is the first I've heard about a bound Satan included.

"Whatever."

No, it's at least the second time I've told you, and you didn't pay attention the first time.


Does pretending you didn't strip the context from that phrase make you feel more like a man?

"Whatever."

Then prove what I left out would have altered my answer instead of sitting on your haunches whining about it.


Then you're misreading me entirely.

"Whatever."

I have you pegged, having known countless people like you before.



Pay attention this time, JPH. My complaints are about having to wade through ad hominems in order to find the substance of your articles, never quite knowing if they'll ever appear.

"Whatever."

No, that isn't your point, it is the point you've morphed to in order to stave off the embarrassment of defending a troll like "Jesus". It's also not validated by the stats of my site, and one you admit not being able to defend since you admit you haven't read more than a smattering of what I have written.


More fiction. Immediately following your pointing out my error I acknowledged it.


No, it took at least two posts. You tried to post some summary of THS to "prove" your claim, and I had to correct you again.


Is this a recent upgrade? I don't remember seeing this before.

Horse flies. It's been on the front page for at least 4 years now. :doh:

Well, let me do a test. Hmm, seems you've changed your layout.

Good night. That layout has been that way for years too.

Okay, here goes. First link, top left. Another Garage Sale Gospel

Perhaps the media would get happy if some of us provided some "diversity" by suggesting that Richard Nixon did nothing wrong with Watergate but was in fact framed by Bob Woodward.
Okay, so maybe this is merely in the 10 percent.

You have GOT to be kidding.

You think THAT is a problem?

May I suggest that you try a different brand of laxative sometime soon?

Second link, middle, second from the top. Christ Myth Refuted

It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News

For Pete's sake. THIS sort of thing bothers you? You're hopeless.

not up to doing a exhaustive search for an article that contains no ad homs.

Um, excuse me, but remember I said also "by volume". One "ad hom" (read: place you're too humorless to laugh at) doesn't dispose of a whole article.


Pretend I didn't have to "twist your arm" and just use a spellchecker.

"Whatever."

Don't be such a baby and start looking past the spot on your nose when you turn it up 90 degress like that.

Deadpan doesn't work in print

That doesn't constitute negative evidence of Gerbil's point.

JPH's penchant for issuing invitations to these "nuisances" he wishes to "quickly dispose of" contradicts your claim, as does the time he spends cartooning same.

Good grief man...the people I invite waste my time by email, and getting the, here is a way of stopping that, so that more than I can deal with them and put them down as nuisances. Get it?

As for the time I spend drawing, as if you would know. I spend 98% of my drawing time on Sheila and her friends. And of that 2% left, come on -- the item I did today for the Screwball feature, showing DJ and his cow hands, took me all of 3 minutes to draw and 5 minutes to color. Wow. 8 solid minutes. How obsessed I am. :lolo:

Why don't you just learn to stop speaking about things you know absolutely nothing about?

if a bit overenthusiastically punctuated, though correcting that is little more than an hour's work for a competent editor.

There's that OCD at work again.

I don't fail to note it links to another article on inerrancy that deals with questions I'd seen JPH avoid previously in an exchange with familyof5. I can't imagine why he failed to cite it.

I can't recall. Chances are I probed first to see if it would be worth the trouble. With a fundy atheist like Fo5 it usually isn't.

I'd like to be able to say that JPH would be capable of paying the same price, but it's not something I can accept unconditionally.

Being a preterist and a non-Calvinist has cost me plenty, thanks, Mr. Know-Nothing.

Your constant appeals to self-servingness in others seems to hide a great deal of insecurity. How's that?

JPH begins with ad hom attacks, as I demonstrated in his exchange with Kyle and as he has demonstrated in his exchanges with me on this thread and others.

Yeah, sure. I don't read their articles first and come up with counter arguments first. :ahem:

JPH hasn't presented any actual arguments here in this thead

Good heavens, you're delusional. My very first post (#4) is full of actual arguments. Clean your glasses off!


Do tell us, "Jesus," how exactly you arrive at the determination of authorship for a document. For example, explain to use how you know Tacitus wrote the Annals. Then use the same criteria to show us why these "letters" (whichever ones they are) are actually "anonymous".


1) The Tacitus quote is NOT disputed. Not by ANYONE, other than 19th century freethinkers that the real scholars laugh at.

2) Tacitus writes about stuff that happened even longer ago and/or farther away than that in his works (Agricola, Annals, Histories) but not one historian ever uses that as an excuse to dismiss what he writes.

3) I gave detailed info on the Josephus quote and what is NOT disputed in it.



There'd be more if "Jesus" had said more, but, um, I guess I was distracted by these fine "arguments" of his:


Tacitus and Josephus are laughable. The Tacitus quote is disputed and was written 60 years after JC died, a thousand miles away. The Josephus passage you are referring to is also highly disputed, and definitely not contemporary with the life of JC.

It seems odd that our only historical knowledge of Jesus comes for a few anonymous letters written decades after he supposedly died.

Take an Ex Lax and call me in the morning.

[jpholding]

is, read his material for CRI or The Creation Research Journal, it's highly professional in tone), to the meat of his actual arguments, anyone can.


And worse, just read my book on the Mormons. It's as dull as I can get. :hehe:


Although, JP, I don't see why you couldn't have conceded the usage of the term in the sense of one who is in rebellion and is a minion of Satan ideologically.

I'd find that too broad to use as a classification. I also don't know of anyone who uses the sort of term as Jesse did (eg, "tool of Satan" or the equal) to mean something that subtle.

[Crow]

I also don't know of anyone who uses the sort of term as Jesse did (eg, "tool of Satan" or the equal) to mean something that subtle.

JPH, I have to tell you that I have seen that very thing done, and specifically directed toward taoist, on another board. It does happen, although it's not the norm for Christians.

[jpholding]

JPH, I have to tell you that I have seen that very thing done, and specifically directed toward taoist, on another board. It does happen, although it's not the norm for Christians.

OK, thanks. Too subtle for me. :sad:

[lao tzu]

OK, thanks. Too subtle for me. :sad: Deb's point cuts both ways. We all tend to react toward others in the ways we've become accustomed to reacting. Tye, (the other location offender), dogged my heels the entire time I spent on the board. Seriously, from my first post there. I think his favorite phrase was "God-hater", but the seasoning "tool of Satan", and of special interest to you perhaps, "betrayer of the sheep" were phrases I came to know and love.

And so perhaps I'm just as guilty in seeing your posts through the shade of past experience. For that, I apologize. We all deserve to be damned for our own sins, rather than those of others.

As ever, Jesse

[jpholding]

Accepted.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . . This most basic question, "Did Jesus exist" allows you to look critically at all of the reasons you believe Jesus did exist and afterwards enables you to summon them up at will. For an adherent, this is likely to include information you're likely to have passed over as the existence of Jesus, an important issue, is rarely treated at any length. Looking closely at basic questions is always useful, as it provides a grounding that allows you to branch out strongly upon those new aspects of your faith you had not previously considered.

Hi Jesse,

This is a good example of one of the first principles of exegesis I was taught. Such deconstruction and reconstruction is a useful tool in overcoming the inherent presuppositions that we all carry.

[Darth Executor]

I've watched him post for years.


I don't think I've been here for years.

PS: The rest of your post (minus the part that I was caught on my feisty side) is wrong. :rasberry:

[lao tzu]

I don't think I've been here for years. Time flies when you're having fun ... proof by contraposition.

PS: The rest of your post (minus the part that I was caught on my feisty side) is wrong. :rasberry: You certainly were unapologetic. You even posted pics of his grave.

[dizzle]

Hmmm "member" originally posted here using a variation of JP's screenname which is why he has the generic name he has now. Does that indicate a desire to have honest and reasoned dialog without stirring up trouble? It doesn't to the leadership.

[Kelp]

Please avoid this kind of quote chopping. You eliminated not some, but all, of the context. Try reading it again.I apologize for any decontextualization that may have occured.

...

Okay? Now here's the point. This most basic question, "Did Jesus exist" allows you to look critically at all of the reasons you believe Jesus did exist and afterwards enables you to summon them up at will. For an adherent, this is likely to include information you're likely to have passed over as the existence of Jesus, an important issue, is rarely treated at any length. Looking closely at basic questions is always useful, as it provides a grounding that allows you to branch out strongly upon those new aspects of your faith you had not previously considered.

As an analogy, an entry level course in abstract mathematics begins with examining simple binary operations, such as the "+", and "*" you're familiar with in the arithmetic of the real numbers. But when we examine these structurally, it opens up a whole world of structure in which we can recognize the essential unity of these operations and other operations you'd never otherwise consider in the same thought, e.g., set union, set intersection, function composition, convolution integrals, et. al.

From there it is simple to see how the "0" of "+", the "1" of "*", the null set of set union, the universal set of set intersection, the "y=x" of function composition, the exponential function of differential and integral operators ... all fulfill the same role in acting as identities for these widely disparate operations.

But had we passed over the basic question naively, none of these opportunties to see clearly would have arisen. Never despise a simple question, as they are most often the questions you've failed to capitalize upon.

As above, this barely skims the surface of the utility of an examination of this question.

The comparison between the exsistance of JC to the fundamentals of math is quite apt. It is a good thing to deconstruct down to the basics. I don't know if any one is disputing that. But what would you think of the person constant inquired as to the truth of these statements, constantly ignoring the proofs that you present, all the while responding with ridiculous, sophomoric objections. No suppose that this person exibits very trollish behavior, and displays an obviously mocking and ridiculing attitude in the face of something that is so well attested in academic circles(like the foundational axioms of mathematics and unlike the Christ myth) the denial of it is so absurd as to be compared to Holocaust denial. What would you think of such a person? This is the way in which this "Jesus" fellow certainly seems to be behaving.

I have no reason to give credence to this statement. This is not to say that I believe it untrue, but that I take it on principle to remain skeptical of any claim which aligns with a prior incentive. It is in JPH's interest to say this, and so I factor this interest into my reading of the statement. He has a horse in this race.

Fair enough, perhaps. What sort of proof would you accept for it? We all have our in groups and out groups. JP is generally demonized or looked down apon by: Futurists, Calvinists, OVTs, Word-Faith, Carismatics, OECs, James White, various small groups with abberant doctines, hyper-preterists, and certain Christians who have a problem with his use of satire.

I'm beginning to get tired of repeating myself on this one. There are only so many ways I can say I am not a christ myther without tiring of the challenge of presenting it in a fresh manner. To your question, was it rhetorical?, of course the answer is no. The question was rhetorical and I don't think that you are a Christ myther. It just seemed like you were implying that if JP is, as you claim a jerk wad, then his arguments against the Christ myth must not be very strong.

I disagree strenuously with this thesis. If the lessons you draw from your faith are not useful in your interactions in this life, then their usefulness in some future life is itself called into question. And given a usefulness in this life, that is sufficient cause to call for adherence, at least to the principles of behavior expounded by your faith. Note that this assumes the utility of these principles, a position I do not hold true.So in other words, it doesn't matter if it's true, it matters if it is useful? And what does "uesful" mean here anyway? If I'm a mob hit man, what is useful to me might be a way to kill my clients faster, and evade the cops without fall. I have no use for the commandment about adultery of the heart. Suppose I am a rapist. The principles that I would find useful would be the one's that let me get away with my rape.

Second, the heart of Christianity is that man must be redeemed and put in right relationship to God, before his interactions can even be meaningful. Jesus the aphorism spitter, totally divorced form his radical claims and the philosophical dimmension of Christianity, is no different from Ammenope, Musonius Rufus, or Confusious. Christianity might as well not even exsist.


If I choose to create a phrase with carefully selected terms designed to calm passions, it is unlikely that you will find me appreciating your attempt to rephrase them as an attempt to do the opposite. I did not call you a vindictive nut, and I will thank you for withdrawing that statement. It is a blatant misrepresentation, and not indicative of good faith.You said that i had a vested interest in seing them attacked not their arguments. Seems like that is an implication that I have something wring with me.

This is hyperbole. For some reason, I didn't think it was, sorry.

I act as if his asides would not be accepted for serious consideration in an academic setting, and I do so because it's true. On the other hand, were I to consider his work entirely without merit, be assured I would not be spending time engaging him at all.

While it may seem the distance between "Your argument is idiotic" and "You're an idiot" is small, it marks a very real boundary between what squeaks in under the door and what bounces off the knocker.You sure about that? Are you sure it is not something like, "How can someone who represents himself as having enough erudition to participate in intelligent disscourse hold such a demonstarbly brain dead idea."?

Ugh. Wander over by Nat Sci some time and we can go a few rounds dissecting CRI. Let's just say my position is that "CRI" and "highly professional" do not belong in the same sentence. Ok, I will sometime. But I was talking about the tone of the articles, not the arguments therein.

JPH hasn't presented any actual arguments here in this thead. I've gone to some trouble following his posts in this thread hoping against hope to find them, and they haven't shown up. He's been pointing to arguments that he has already made.

In truth, "mythical" references a message communicated independent of the truth or falsehood of its subject matter. I know of no other word that serves the same purpose, so I'll continue to use it when I want to speak beyond the argument of the literal truth of a claim. Do you believe that something that communicates a "mythical" message oculd have actually occured?

For example, the truth of an actual Jesus is irrelevant to the wisdom found in the parable of the sower. The parable itself is myth in the same sense, though we can positively state it was intended to be read as untrue. Yet even a nontheist like myself would deny that it fails to communicate a "true" message, and so succeeds as myth.

I don't believe the miracles occurred, but that's really a minor issue for me, as it doesn't interfere with my appreciation of the sacred text. In a sense, they actually add spice. If they did not actually occur, than the text is full of lies and hardly an example of something you ought to look at for moral lessons.

Okay, but where does the fall of Jerusalem come in? Oh, and are you a preterist, or are you just describing it for me as a courtesy? I'm not a preterist, I was just clarifying:smile:

[member11491]

Hi All,

I have a quick question (for what be my final post here since this post will probably get me banned or something). What if one night you tried to be as objective as you could manage, and actually examined a portion of the overwhelming mountain of evidence (that y'all ignore) that Jesus was really a synthesis of previously existing god-men, and it finally "clicks". You finally realize in a moment of enlightenment that it's true. It's happened to many people throughout history, and it could happen to you! Yes you!

What would you do? Would you try to force the evidence out of your brain and go back to your old ways? Would you try to convince your co-religionists? Would you apologize to those who you lead astray?

Of course, you who say "it would never happen because...." well, i'm not talking to you. I'm talking to those who still have a shred of bravery to look at the facts as they are, and not have to look only at the world through the distorting lens provided to you by professional apologists.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

you getting banned? what for? death by laughter perhaps...I'm certainly having a giggle.

:rofl: :lmbo:

Hi All,

I have a quick question (for what be my final post here since this post will probably get me banned or something). What if one night you tried to be as objective as you could manage, and actually examined a portion of the overwhelming mountain of evidence (that y'all ignore) that Jesus was really a synthesis of previously existing god-men, and it finally "clicks". You finally realize in a moment of enlightenment that it's true. It's happened to many people throughout history, and it could happen to you! Yes you!

What would you do? Would you try to force the evidence out of your brain and go back to your old ways? Would you try to convince your co-religionists? Would you apologize to those who you lead astray?

Of course, you who say "it would never happen because...." well, i'm not talking to you. I'm talking to those who still have a shred of bravery to look at the facts as they are, and not have to look only at the world through the distorting lens provided to you by professional apologists.

[lao tzu]

I apologize for any decontextualization that may have occured. Good enough for me, thanks.

The comparison between the exsistance of JC to the fundamentals of math is quite apt. It is a good thing to deconstruct down to the basics. I don't know if any one is disputing that. Well, that takes care of my issue, let's move on to yours then.

_________

But what would you think of the person constant inquired as to the truth of these statements, constantly ignoring the proofs that you present, all the while responding with ridiculous, sophomoric objections. No suppose that this person exibits very trollish behavior, and displays an obviously mocking and ridiculing attitude in the face of something that is so well attested in academic circles(like the foundational axioms of mathematics and unlike the Christ myth) the denial of it is so absurd as to be compared to Holocaust denial. What would you think of such a person? This is the way in which this "Jesus" fellow certainly seems to be behaving. I'd think that person would be quickly inhabiting my quick-scroll list (aka ignore list). I only write for people who read. Sometimes that's just the lurkers. And I keep the most extensive "quick-scroll" lists of anyone I know.

Now let's cut out the hypotheticals. "member", well, I'd like to leave him room to change his behavior. DX has mentioned the screen name issue, JPH has quoted the sideshow action, and I personally have issues with regurgitated argument in general. None of these particulars are positive. Then again, I've seen amazing turnarounds here on the web. I remember one group of board busters who descended on IH (not a family friendly board) only to find they liked it enough to stick around and become regulars.



Fair enough, perhaps. What sort of proof would you accept for it? Some things can only be tested under fire, and the claim made sounded like one of them to me.

We all have our in groups and out groups. JP is generally demonized or looked down apon by: Futurists, Calvinists, OVTs, Word-Faith, Carismatics, OECs, James White, various small groups with abberant doctines, hyper-preterists, and certain Christians who have a problem with his use of satire. I don't recognize "Word-Faith" or "James White", but I take your meaning.

The question was rhetorical and I don't think that you are a Christ myther. It just seemed like you were implying that if JP is, as you claim a jerk wad, then his arguments against the Christ myth must not be very strong. I find arguments that give evidence of having been formed with an axe to grind almost impossible to read, and extremely difficult to take seriously. It's my journalism background. Ad homs in an article are a clear admission that only one side of the case will be presented, and that the author has limited interest in treating the subject critically. As such, the research becomes self-defeating, as it will only be cited by those already in agreement.

An honest researcher begins by setting his personal feelings aside, at least in the fields I work with. In serious academic settings, any hint of bias is enough to ruin a reputation. The aim of most researchers I know is to make their work as generally relevant as possible, and to do so it must be apparent to all sides that it is only the truth that matters in the mind of the writer.

So in other words, it doesn't matter if it's true, it matters if it is useful? And what does "uesful" mean here anyway? If I'm a mob hit man, what is useful to me might be a way to kill my clients faster, and evade the cops without fall. I have no use for the commandment about adultery of the heart. Suppose I am a rapist. The principles that I would find useful would be the one's that let me get away with my rape. Wow, you're all over the place on this one. Do Aesop's fables lack value because animals don't really talk? Does the interaction between Paris and Helen have added flavor because Troy actually existed? We need a term that speaks to the message contained in these stories whether they are based on true events or not, and the word used is "myth".

To continue, consider more closely Homer's Iliad. In one sense, It has a use as morality play, and that use is examined in mythology. In another sense, there are hints within the tale that speak of the location of an actual city, and following those hints, Heinrich Schliemann discovered the physical location of this mythical Troy. The truth of the tale was important in its use by Schliemann and irrelevant in our analysis of the Homeric characters.

Your examples conflate usefulness with ethics and morality. Does morality enter into Schliemann's archeology digs? No. Does it enter into Aesop's fables? Yes. Are both useful? Certainly. Does the usefulness of deceit imply that deceit is ethical? Of course not. These are separate issues, and a valid treatment needs to keep them separate.

The morality of most of our activities on a given day is meaningless. In between your moral acts, such as how you treat your wife or coworker, there are thousands of actions with no moral value at all, scratching your chin, watching an insect cross the glass of your window, adding cream to your coffee, adjusting your tie, and on and on.

We define these separate terms — myth, usefulness, morality, ethics, truth, beauty — because they are separate. There is nothing inherent in any of them that justifies the concept that each must imply or be implied by another.

Second, the heart of Christianity is that man must be redeemed and put in right relationship to God, before his interactions can even be meaningful. Jesus the aphorism spitter, totally divorced form his radical claims and the philosophical dimmension of Christianity, is no different from Ammenope, Musonius Rufus, or Confusious. Christianity might as well not even exist. Let me introduce you to the "old man". He was a writer, well, no, he was only an editor. And he followed a mystic tradition that drew upon thoughts and discoveries that had been refined over the course of over a thousand years, expressed and handed down in short poems that were revised again and again as if in a purifying fire. He, like the mystics who came before him, felt the principles that had gone through this process were more important than any author. More, he felt leaving them under the name of an author would actually detract from the more important emphasis on the principles.

The work he put down into writing is known as the Tao Te Ching, (in English as "The Way of Life") and those who study those principles are known as Taoists. Do you still wonder that I find the wisdom attributed to Jesus more important than Jesus himself? To me, it seems natural.

You said that i had a vested interest in seing them attacked not their arguments. Seems like that is an implication that I have something wring with me. My politics make it easy for me to gloss over cheap shots at Rush Limbaugh. Does that imply there's something wrong with me? I don't share your need to go beyond identifying bias and actually judging it as right or wrong.

Many times, in a previous career, I was assigned stories featuring people or subjects I had strong feelings about. Denying one's feelings in such instances is useless, as they won't obey, trust me on this. By facing up to our known biases we can examine our reactions for signs of how these feelings have affected our actions. This is how both journalistic and academic objectivity is developed in practice.

(At the same time, it's sometimes necessary to put a check on the counter reaction of being "too" fair. For example, on occasion I've noted how posts by atheists here on this board are sometimes given a pass by moderators I would not have given them myself.)

For some reason, I didn't think it was, sorry. No need to apologize. I've looked at the paragraph again. I withdraw my original comment, the word was poorly chosen.

You sure about that? Are you sure it is not something like, "How can someone who represents himself as having enough erudition to participate in intelligent disscourse hold such a demonstarbly brain dead idea."? This is a non sequitur. It is not a response to the minimal difference between addressing an argument and the one making that argument. But let me use it for a further example.

First, note how your above example is a clear ad hom. The subject of the sentence is "someone", with the "idea" held by that someone placed into a subordinate clause. In the spirit of my prior paragraph, it could be recreated to say the same thing without the ad hom however. Here I've rephrased to bring the comment right up to the borderline.

"This demonstrably brain dead idea is not characteristic of sufficient erudition to participate in intelligent discourse."

Ok, I will sometime. But I was talking about the tone of the articles, not the arguments therein. I caught that.

He's been pointing to arguments that he has already made. I did find the arguments he cited in post 4. The post began with a lengthy sequence of ad homs and I just stopped reading there. "Dum Dum", "Ernest and Julio Gallo", "stool pigeons" ... who would think there'd be something substantive after all that?

Do you believe that something that communicates a "mythical" message oculd have actually occured? Of course. Such has been demonstrated with the Iliad.

If they did not actually occur, than the text is full of lies and hardly an example of something you ought to look at for moral lessons. Well, there goes Aesop. Sorry, Jesus, but we're tossing all those parables, too. No, not really.

More fully, there are, in my both opinion, both good and bad moral lessons in the bible. I would say the majority of the interpersonal lessons are valuable, even today. I would also say the majority of the self-serving priestly fables would be generally considered immoral today, even by christians. I don't hear a lot of christian calls for taking the priesthoods of other religions down to the river to have their throats slit, do you?

I'm not a preterist, I was just clarifying:smile: My thanks once again, then. As Dee Dee's a preterist, I feel some kind of urge to examine the position, but I just can't push myself into developing enough interest. I wish someone from that side of the border would put out a pamphlet for me, because I think it's going to be a long time before I can force myself to slog through a major article.

Anyway, have a great weekend. It's been fun chatting with ya. (Don't tell Dee Dee, but I'm heavily involved in a couple threads elsewhere ... yeah, of course, it's another muslim site. But I finally found a guy who's both reasonable, and fluent in English, and I'm drawing him out. I'm beginning to suspect he's a heretic, though.)

As ever, Jesse

[Kelp]

Hi All,

I have a quick question (for what be my final post here since this post will probably get me banned or something). What if one night you tried to be as objective as you could manage, and actually examined a portion of the overwhelming mountain of evidence (that y'all ignore) that Jesus was really a synthesis of previously existing god-men, and it finally "clicks". You finally realize in a moment of enlightenment that it's true.That's right, beg that question, beg it till it cries for mercy! It's happened to many people throughout history, and it could happen to you!. Has it now? Got a few names?

What would you do? Would you try to force the evidence out of your brain and go back to your old ways? Would you try to convince your co-religionists? Would you apologize to those who you lead astray?In other words, what would I do if I found out that aliens from the Trilateral commission have kidnapped my parents and all of human exsistence is really...?

The Christ myth is a dead theory, man. And I'm still waiting for someone like you to enlighten us as to why not if not.

Of course, you who say "it would never happen because...."I would happen if the Christ myth were actually true, but we're all still waiting for the brilliant "member thesis" that will prove other wise. Instead of asking question bagging rhetirical questions, why don't you :$

I'm talking to those who still have a shred of bravery to look at the facts as they are, and not have to look only at the world through the distorting lens provided to you by professional apologists.How about you instead tell us you're brilliant thoughts on JP's articles on the alledged pagan copycat parallels? You can start with the posts that he has made about them in this very thread. You can even do it from the comfort and safety of your Beddru, if that makes you feel better.

[lao tzu]

Hi All,

I have a quick question (for what be my final post here since this post will probably get me banned or something). What if one night you tried to be as objective as you could manage, and actually examined a portion of the overwhelming mountain of evidence (that y'all ignore) that Jesus was really a synthesis of previously existing god-men, and it finally "clicks". You finally realize in a moment of enlightenment that it's true. It's happened to many people throughout history, and it could happen to you! Yes you!

What would you do? Would you try to force the evidence out of your brain and go back to your old ways? Would you try to convince your co-religionists? Would you apologize to those who you lead astray?

Of course, you who say "it would never happen because...." well, i'm not talking to you. I'm talking to those who still have a shred of bravery to look at the facts as they are, and not have to look only at the world through the distorting lens provided to you by professional apologists. Tell me, member, what would you do if tonight Jesus himself were to materialize through your wall, and sit still long enough for you to interview him, maybe make a videotape, let you take samples of his hair and fingernails, let you put your fingers in his hand and side and answer all of the questions you might care to have answered?

What would you do? Would you try to force the evidence out of your brain and go back to your old ways? Would you try to convince your fellow non-religionists? Would you apologize to those you'd mocked?

Of course, you who say "it would never happen because ..." well, I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to ...

___________

Give us all a break, member.

People who go through life changing experiences see their lives changed. Your entire post boils down to just that. Look, there are sincere christians here who'd be happy to sit down and tell you about their doubts and their confidence in their faith, about how they view their sacred texts as errant, inerrant or something in between, how their beliefs accord with or are opposed to the theory of evolution, how they feel about the applicability of the old testament canon, how they approach the apostolic apologetic, how and why they have chosen the faith they espouse. Why waste your time and ours by ignoring them?

Either find somebody to speak with on this board, seriously, or be branded a troll. Johnny's a good guy, I suggest you start with him. Or just leave. As it is, to this point you've been nothing but a waste of bandwidth.

As ever, Jesse

[member11491]

Hi Jesse and taoist (notice the small "t"?) :teeth: ,


how their beliefs accord with or are opposed to the theory of evolution, how they feel about the applicability of the old testament canon, how they approach the apostolic apologetic, how and why they have chosen the faith they espouse. Why waste your time and ours by ignoring them?


I understand your point, Jesse. I think though that the historical nature of Jesus is pretty important. But you're right, I'm wasting my time here. I'm not going to get a satisfactory answer to my questions.

By the way, I read some of JC's comic strips. Artistically, they aren't too bad. Some were pretty strange.


Tell me, member, what would you do if tonight Jesus himself were to materialize through your wall, and sit still long enough for you to interview him, maybe make a videotape, let you take samples of his hair and fingernails, let you put your fingers in his hand and side and answer all of the questions you might care to have answered?



No, I think even if I saw even the faintest sign that Jesus exists, I'd definitely pay attention. I think the implication here is that I am demanding way too much proof here, and that I could never be satisfied.

That is not at all what I am saying. It seems that the entire life of Jesus is only corroborated by a few anonymous short stories. There are church traditions as to who wrote them, but in historical terms, they are anonymous.

Then it became the state religion of the Roman empire, where to question it meant death. The death penalty for questioning these stories lasted for the next 1500 years.

So to believe in walking on water, water to wine, bringing people back to life, resurrecting oneself, sending demons into a herd of pigs, dragons, four spirit horsemen, etc all based on anonymous stories to me demands a little proof be offered. But somehow that qualifies me as someone who denies the sun comes up in the morning or something.

Well, I think I've gotten about as much from you guys as I'll get. After being chastised by "JP" for not being familiar his entire body of work, I went back and read some of his refutations on evidence which points out the lack of historical evidence for Jesus. Like before, he picks his points very selectively, answers only the questions where he can raise a little doubt, but doesn't really answer anything.

After reading all those, I saw there are no answers to be found here. No offense or anything, even to JP, but I think most of these questions need to be answered by an actual historian with a strong knowledge of the bible and see if they'll literally sit down with me physically and talk.

If JP or one of you guys would actually look at the evidence presented and deal with it in a reasonable, historical way, without name calling, hyperbole, etc, then I'd be pretty impressed. If anyone wants to volunteer, come find me at jesusneverexisted.org


See y'all in the afterlife!

-member

[member11491]

That's right, beg that question, beg it till it cries for mercy! Has it now? Got a few names?

The Christ myth is a dead theory, man. And I'm still waiting for someone like you to enlighten us as to why not if not.


Hi Kelp,

I didn't notice your reply earlier. A good name of someone who would fit the bill may be Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University. I've posted a bit of a documentary he made recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPaD6D54L4o

You may enjoy it!

[member11491]

Part 2 is even better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGeL1yFeK6I

[lilpixieofterror]

I have a quick question (for what be my final post here since this post will probably get me banned or something).

That's nonsense... I have seen plenty of debates where not one person get's banned, most of those who get banned is because they make puppet accounts of disobey the rules.

What if one night you tried to be as objective as you could manage, and actually examined a portion of the overwhelming mountain of evidence (that y'all ignore) that Jesus was really a synthesis of previously existing god-men, and it finally "clicks".

I have, and guess what, it fails to explain away Jesus or the Bible. JPH has done extensive research to debunk those stupid claims of yours and I have had a debate or two about it, and guess what? No searious Christian scholar takes them seariously. Plain and simle.

You finally realize in a moment of enlightenment that it's true. It's happened to many people throughout history, and it could happen to you! Yes you!

Too bad it doesn't fit the evidence...

What would you do? Would you try to force the evidence out of your brain and go back to your old ways? Would you try to convince your co-religionists? Would you apologize to those who you lead astray?

You have to prove it first buddy and guess what... so far people have failed horribly to prove otherwise. I do enjoy a fun debate though.

Of course, you who say "it would never happen because...." well, i'm not talking to you.

Than ignore those of us who have done our proper research and come to the conclusion that the 'Pagan Christ Theory' fails to explain known facts.

I'm talking to those who still have a shred of bravery to look at the facts as they are, and not have to look only at the world through the distorting lens provided to you by professional apologists.

Isn't it convient that anyone who disagrees with you is looking 'at the world through the distorting lens provided to you by professional apologists' I do find that mighty convient. Unfortionaly, I did not become a Christian without first examing the facts and comming to the conclusion that the 'Pagan Christ Theory' is a total failure. However; you want to have the faith to believe it... go ahead.

Crystal

[jpholding]

blah blah blah blah

So anyway, we have just the usual from "Jesus" -- he won't address my arguments 95% of the time, and the other 5% of the time, he brings up something I've already addressed in articles he claims to have read.

And off he runs to the safety of jesusneverexisted.

I doubt if Dawkins has the acumen to consider the questions with any credibility. He's a biologist....not a historian.

[Darth Executor]

IIRC, Dawkins thought Ezekiel was raising the dead (night of the living dead style) in "The Blind Watchmaker". :lolo: Getting his opinion on Christianity is like asking Farrell Till to map Israel.

[jpholding]

I only write for people who read.

Uh HUH.

Now see if this makes sense.

Does it occur to you that people like you are not who I write for, but rather, for those who want reading that is vibrant, colorful, AND fact-filled?

If I had to judge my reader reaction, my current style wins hands down over my more mundane material. By FAR.

I tried "riposte free" versions of articles. The traffic stats show they bombed.

Don't attend croquet matches as one looking down his nose at those who prefer "arena football". Especially since you're probably in the minority.


Ad homs in an article are a clear admission that only one side of the case will be presented, and that the author has limited interest in treating the subject critically.

Perhaps what you mean is, if YOU used "ad homs", it would be because YOU were only presenting one side?

The aim of most researchers I know is to make their work as generally relevant as possible

Including adopting an in your face style?

Hmm. Confrontational talk radio seems awful popular....


I did find the arguments he cited in post 4. The post began with a lengthy sequence of ad homs and I just stopped reading there. "Dum Dum", "Ernest and Julio Gallo", "stool pigeons" ... who would think there'd be something substantive after all that?

A fair-minded person who didn't judge by appearances.

[lao tzu]

Uh HUH.

Now see if this makes sense.

Does it occur to you that people like you are not who I write for, but rather, for those who want reading that is vibrant, colorful, AND fact-filled?

If I had to judge my reader reaction, my current style wins hands down over my more mundane material. By FAR.

I tried "riposte free" versions of articles. The traffic stats show they bombed.

Don't attend croquet matches as one looking down his nose at those who prefer "arena football". Especially since you're probably in the minority.

Perhaps what you mean is, if YOU used "ad homs", it would be because YOU were only presenting one side?

Including adopting an in your face style?

Hmm. Confrontational talk radio seems awful popular....

A fair-minded person who didn't judge by appearances. Let me first of all congratulate you on taking my words as they were meant, as it's almost with a sense of relief that I find no issue with your representation of my beliefs here. Further, having harped on ad homs ceaselessly, it remains to congratulate you on avoiding them in this post.

This specific audience, well, I've already said it, finds "arguments that give evidence of having been formed with an axe to grind almost impossible to read, and extremely difficult to take seriously." I've been through the ranks of copy editor, reporter, investigative reporter, section editor, and managing editor in print before moving on to work as a research director in broadcast. You can't just dump fifteen years of judging the material coming across your desk for bias first without making a supreme effort.

I'm well aware of the Nielsen and Arbitron successes Newscorp and Clearchannel Communications have achieved by narrowcasting to the audience that best appreciates abrasive commentary. Nor would I object except for the clear fact that these commentaries do not fare well when subjected to fact-checking. They take advantage of the call to emotion in order to grow their audience at the expense of critical examination, and it shows. The same could be said for the opposite style, the "happy talk" of major network news that seeks to befriend the viewer at the expense of informing them of facts that might disturb their prejudices.

So let me ask you in turn — if your own "audience" is markedly larger due to the in-your-face style of commentary, is it the analysis or the ripostes that are shared in the community? To ask it differently, are these additional hits composed of "readers" or just fight fans? (Yes, this is intended as rhetorical.)

__________

"Does it occur to [me] that people like [me] are not who [JPH writes] for ..." ... "especially since [I am] in the minority."

*recovers from jaw-drop*

Well, yes, I've mentioned this a few times, beginning with my first post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1670503#post1670503) in this thread where I tried, unsuccessfully, to steer "member" toward the more representative christians posting this board. Your own style, I'm sure you'll admit, lies far from the center of TWeb christian responses, and this subforum does not do justice to the diversity one finds on this board. Having made that point for the third time to "member", and seeing it passed over without interest, well, there's plenty of room left on that "quick-scroll" list. My independent judgment is that he had no intention in coming here other than acting the troll, and that he has no intention of changing that behavior in the near term.

Your "colorful and vibrant" additions to the serious points of your articles have been addressed endlessly in my commentary on this thread. Were facts filling those spaces, I'd imagine we'd be spending our time discussing those instead. If it's coming off your own keyboard, maybe you're finally getting the point.

___________

I never lose track of the fact that skeptics such as myself are in the minority, and I take care in my personal and professional life about who I share my skepticism with because of it. I take pains to misdirect anyone performing a search on my online persona in order to allow myself the freedom to post without fear of some random jihadist showing up at my doorstep to "cut our my tounge" [sic]. The name and permanent address provided to my ISP is of an old friend from the special forces who, on the other hand, would like nothing better.

*chuckle*

Turning and reversing questions about my own religious beliefs is so well-practiced as to be almost unconscious. I've a wealth of personal anecdotes I've collected due to my circumspection that I've no doubt would have been stifled had they known I was in the group they were so casually demonizing. This is the group I've mentioned, the group directed away from your articles, deliberately or unintentionally, by your choices of "colorful and vibrant" commentary. Your insertion of such at the beginning of your articles, (yes, I've read a few more and see the pattern), serves as a filter. It is no wonder that those skeptics who choose to engage you are culled from the activist fringe. Were you not so conspicuous on a site I value for other reasons, I'd never have given you a second thought.

__________

Well, that's as much time as I care to spend on this issue, and I do hope we'll have a chance to discuss the "more mundane" material in your articles at some time, moving beyond these "baby steps." I've spent a bit more time than I really intended here, in part because I feel that many of my comments have been echoed by other skeptical TWebbers without acknowledgement, and I wished to see if there was some way to see our objections phrased in enough detail to give a sense of where we're coming from.

As ever, Jesse

[jpholding]

Let me first of all congratulate you on taking my words as they were meant, as it's almost with a sense of relief that I find no issue with your representation of my beliefs here. Further, having harped on ad homs ceaselessly, it remains to congratulate you on avoiding them in this post.

Don't get too congratulatory. It's mainly because I'm finding you a bore. :wink:

You can't just dump fifteen years of judging the material coming across your desk for bias first without making a supreme effort.

That depends on one's level of self-control and discernment, doesn't it?

Nor would I object except for the clear fact that these commentaries do not fare well when subjected to fact-checking.

Well, there's a good market niche then for those that *do* do well in that area, isn't there? I'm glad I thought to take advantage of it.

I did think that fact-checking ought to come before any judgment on any other basis, but I must have been wrong. Oh well.

The same could be said for the opposite style, the "happy talk" of major network news that seeks to befriend the viewer at the expense of informing them of facts that might disturb their prejudices.

So the only way to be sure someone is a valid source is if they constantly speak in a dull monotone?

Wow. That would sure open the door for someone with a bias to fool people, wouldn't it?

So let me ask you in turn — if your own "audience" is markedly larger due to the in-your-face style of commentary, is it the analysis or the ripostes that are shared in the community?

I didn't say it was larger "because of" the style. My stats indicate that most people find the site via search engines, and then the letters tell me that stick around because of the amount of solid data and research. A portion of those say as well that they find the color in specific venues to be a bonus. It makes them laugh, mostly.

Here is a typical letter that just came in:

I just want to say thanks for your article on Mithraism. I'd just
heard about Mithraism being a forerunner of Christianity, and though
I still believed in God, I have to admit my faith was shaken, but not
too badly. I was a little worried, but God led me to your site and I
am now back on track.

Thanks very much,

XXXX


The Mithra article has some color of the sort you seem to get undie bunches over. The above is typical of letters I get on it (and other items) -- thanks for the solid research. No whinging about things I say in it like:

It appears that the real "bull" here is this lame (no word would do better) attempt to throw together assertions without basis and yell "Shazam!" to keep people from noticing that nothing has actually been proved.

Now how is it that these people don't have Undie Bunch like you do? You're smarter, maybe? They're too dumb to realize that comments like these mean I must be full of bulldada, no matter how many Mithraic studies sources I cite? Maybe people like this need your help with discernment, no?

To ask it differently, are these additional hits composed of "readers" or just fight fans? (Yes, this is intended as rhetorical.)

It shouldn't be. I divvied off stuff into the toon site that was most colorful. That's where the fight fans would go now, by your thesis. It hasn't reduced my stats one bit for the main site.

My independent judgment is that he had no intention in coming here other than acting the troll, and that he has no intention of changing that behavior in the near term.

You would have realized that a lot sooner had you considered al the data.

Your insertion of such at the beginning of your articles, (yes, I've read a few more and see the pattern), serves as a filter.

I agree. It keeps me having to deal with those prone to snap judgments and who let emotion, rather than fact, color their views.

It is no wonder that those skeptics who choose to engage you are culled from the activist fringe.

Like, um, Kyle and Peter. And a handful of others (I have nearly started a group called "Atheists for JP Holding"). :lol: No....I attract the fringe from both ends. The very crazy and the very intelligent. Precisely as I'd like. The ones in the middle don't have any challenge to offer and aren't concerned with facts.

It's becoming clear that you have biases (as you admit) that force you into snap, surface judgments. Just as well. That means you wouldn't have the patience to read through the Mithra article or anything like it and make a sound judgment, even if it were done in Monotone Dull.


Well, that's as much time as I care to spend on this issue, and I do hope we'll have a chance to discuss the "more mundane" material in your articles at some time, moving beyond these "baby steps."

Somehow I don't think you'll find any article of mine to your satisfaction based on the goalpoast you've raised.

[lao tzu]

Don't get too congratulatory. It's mainly because I'm finding you a bore. :wink: *chuckle*

Well, there's a good market niche then for those that *do* do well in that area, isn't there? I'm glad I thought to take advantage of it. There's a great market niche for porn, too. I've actually seen that done in broadcast news, especially during sweeps. They called it an exposé on strip clubs. Yeah, right. There's this thing called "credibility". Maybe you've heard of it?

I did think that fact-checking ought to come before any judgment on any other basis, but I must have been wrong. Oh well. Hey, we all make mistakes. Yeah, you meant it sarcastically, but it's the truth. Fact checking comes first for the writer and last for the editor. It comes from working against deadlines. At that, it's a specialized job, and you run it like a commercial production process, by taking samples.

So the only way to be sure someone is a valid source is if they constantly speak in a dull monotone? Not even you believe that.

Wow. That would sure open the door for someone with a bias to fool people, wouldn't it? Care to give an antecedent?

I didn't say it was larger "because of" the style. Yes, you did. I tried "riposte free" versions of articles. The traffic stats show they bombed.
My stats indicate that most people find the site via search engines, and then the letters tell me that stick around because of the amount of solid data and research. A portion of those say as well that they find the color in specific venues to be a bonus. It makes them laugh, mostly. Let's see, first you try fooling a mathematician with a self-selecting sample ...

Here is a typical letter that just came in: ... and then you offer anecdotal data! I'm just bemused.

The Mithra article has some color of the sort you seem to get undie bunches over. The above is typical of letters I get on it (and other items) -- thanks for the solid research. No whinging about things I say in it like: See above.

Now how is it that these people don't have Undie Bunch like you do? You're smarter, maybe? They're too dumb to realize that comments like these mean I must be full of bulldada, no matter how many Mithraic studies sources I cite? Maybe people like this need your help with discernment, no? Or maybe people like yourself should get busy and go to the effort of finding ways to make the articles accessible to serious scholars as well as those looking to them for a reason to remain secure in their prior convictions? I'd just heard about Mithraism being a forerunner of Christianity, and though I still believed in God, I have to admit my faith was shaken, but not too badly.
In other words, "thanks for giving me a reason not to think for myself." By the way, I've seen this kind of letter manufactured before, specifically from the general manager at the San Antonio affiliate after a network revamp of our format (that eventually bombed). Not saying that's the case here, just mentioning prior experience that might bias my judgment of its value.

It shouldn't be. I divvied off stuff into the toon site that was most colorful. That's where the fight fans would go now, by your thesis. It hasn't reduced my stats one bit for the main site. Care to take a wild guess as to whether I've ever read a single one of your cartoons?

You would have realized that a lot sooner had you considered al the data. I considered all the data available to me as it became available. So which is it, do you want me to rush to judgment or not?

I agree. It keeps me having to deal with those prone to snap judgments and who let emotion, rather than fact, color their views. Rank hypocrisy. You can do better than that.

Like, um, Kyle and Peter. And a handful of others (I have nearly started a group called "Atheists for JP Holding"). :lol: No....I attract the fringe from both ends. The very crazy and the very intelligent. Precisely as I'd like. The ones in the middle don't have any challenge to offer and aren't concerned with facts. Such as Casey Powell? Hey, to each their own, but that's not a audience I'd be targetting.

It's becoming clear that you have biases (as you admit) that force you into snap, surface judgments. Just as well. That means you wouldn't have the patience to read through the Mithra article or anything like it and make a sound judgment, even if it were done in Monotone Dull. We all have biases. It's unavoidable. And because it's unavoidable, it makes sense to treat them openly. There's been a big push recently in political commentators remembering to do what they should have been doing all along, citing their connections with their sources or the subjects they're treating, under the principle of "full disclosure."

Somehow I don't think you'll find any article of mine to your satisfaction based on the goalpoast you've raised. Speaking of snap judgments, I didn't make that comment until after I'd searched out and read a couple of your articles for CRJ. One of them, dealing with the documentary hypothesis, actually interested me.

As ever, Jesse


ps: And with that, I'm bidding adieu to this thread. My thanks to all who've spent time composing replies.

[jpholding]

There's a great market niche for porn, too.

As well as for health food. Nothing like a begged question of equivalance, is there? :hehe:

There's this thing called "credibility". Maybe you've heard of it?

Based on feedback I have a great deal of it, yes.

Fact checking comes first for the writer and last for the editor.

I expect as much. I have found overall that editors are jerks. Miller at CRJ has been the exception. But whether it has been in trying to publish Christian material or cartoons, my experience has otherwise been uniform that editors are persons of average ignorance who couldn't keep jobs at fast food joints, so they became editors. They consistently fail to recognize what works. The cartooning industry is rampant with stories of editors who turned down what became smash hits elsewhere. "Garfield" is a good example. So is "Calvin and Hobbes". The Christian publishing field produces similar effects.

It comes from working against deadlines.

Then maybe its time to change the way the field works.

Not even you believe that.

I think you do.


Care to give an antecedent?

I wasn't suggesting I had one. I thought it was a good idea. But perhaps PBS is an example. :hehe:


I didn't say it was larger "because of" the style.
Yes, you did.

I tried "riposte free" versions of articles. The traffic stats show they bombed.

That's a very poor reading of that. This does not say my readership was larger "because of" the style. It says that the readers already present didn't care for the other versions.

Let's see, first you try fooling a mathematician with a self-selecting sample ...

Let's see, when defeated in your argument by evidence, just accuse of bias....


Here is a typical letter that just came in:
... and then you offer anecdotal data! I'm just bemused.

The data is far from "anecdotal" in the way it is used even if it is anecdotal by genre. You've been rousted and can't admit it.


Or maybe people like yourself should get busy and go to the effort of finding ways to make the articles accessible to serious scholars as well as those looking to them for a reason to remain secure in their prior convictions?

Undie Bunching again? I've had articles of mine used in college courses by profs. Seems again you're the one with the problem. It seems to involve narcissism.


In other words, "thanks for giving me a reason not to think for myself."

Oh please. :lol: The sound of the gored ox.

By the way, I've seen this kind of letter manufactured before,

Oh, so now you wish to accuse me of making it up? You've already turned tail from this thread, but if you ever come back, I'll offer this deal. We pick one each from TWeb we trust --a Christian and an atheist. I'll ask the person who wrote me the message to write them and verify that it is theirs.

If you're wrong, you leave TWeb forever. If I'm making the letter up, I do.

Deal?

Not saying that's the case here, just mentioning prior experience that might bias my judgment of its value.

Oh sure. Trying to have your cake and eat it too. :rofl: Manipulation game.


Care to take a wild guess as to whether I've ever read a single one of your cartoons?

Non sequitur in context. But perhaps you should. A bombshell heroine-adventurer like Sheila might serve well to get those undies of yours unbunched.

So which is it, do you want me to rush to judgment or not?

I want you, actually, to stop judging in ignorance. But I realize that editors tend to use ignorance as their main criteria of judgment.


Rank hypocrisy.

Solid truth. I need do nothing more to satisfy the anal-retentive.



Such as Casey Powell? Hey, to each their own, but that's not a audience I'd be targetting.

No, you wouldn't. Editors I have met usually have poor social skills as well and an inability to relate to the common man.


We all have biases. It's unavoidable.

YOU do. They are to you because you lack self-control.

Speaking of snap judgments, I didn't make that comment until after I'd searched out and read a couple of your articles for CRJ. One of them, dealing with the documentary hypothesis, actually interested me.

Um, that one was for CENTJ, not CRJ.

And you're an EDITOR? Good grief. :doh: Please quit your job.

[Kelp]

Hi, taoist. You make some excellent points about bias and such. JP, I respect the information in your articles that I have been able to fact check but I must suspend judgment on you integrity, use of ad homs, etc. until I have looked into things more carefully. This is all I have to say on that part of the matter at this time.

[QUOTE=taoist]Some things can only be tested under fire, and the claim made sounded like one of them to me.

I don't recognize "Word-Faith" or "James White", but I take your meaning. Just one more comment on this. Don't you think that JP has suffered at least as much as Glen Morton has for his views? Why wouldn't that help convince you of his integrity?


Wow, you're all over the place on this one. Do Aesop's fables lack value because animals don't really talk? Does the interaction between Paris and Helen have added flavor because Troy actually existed? We need a term that speaks to the message contained in these stories whether they are based on true events or not, and the word used is "myth".

To continue, consider more closely Homer's Iliad. In one sense, It has a use as morality play, and that use is examined in mythology. In another sense, there are hints within the tale that speak of the location of an actual city, and following those hints, Heinrich Schliemann discovered the physical location of this mythical Troy. The truth of the tale was important in its use by Schliemann and irrelevant in our analysis of the Homeric characters.Fair enough.

Your examples conflate usefulness with ethics and morality. Does morality enter into Schliemann's archeology digs? No. Does it enter into Aesop's fables? Yes. Are both useful? Certainly. Does the usefulness of deceit imply that deceit is ethical? Of course not. These are separate issues, and a valid treatment needs to keep them separate.

The morality of most of our activities on a given day is meaningless. In between your moral acts, such as how you treat your wife or coworker, there are thousands of actions with no moral value at all, scratching your chin, watching an insect cross the glass of your window, adding cream to your coffee, adjusting your tie, and on and on.Okay.

Let me introduce you to the "old man". He was a writer, well, no, he was only an editor. And he followed a mystic tradition that drew upon thoughts and discoveries that had been refined over the course of over a thousand years, expressed and handed down in short poems that were revised again and again as if in a purifying fire. He, like the mystics who came before him, felt the principles that had gone through this process were more important than any author. More, he felt leaving them under the name of an author would actually detract from the more important emphasis on the principles.

The work he put down into writing is known as the Tao Te Ching, (in English as "The Way of Life") and those who study those principles are known as Taoists. Do you still wonder that I find the wisdom attributed to Jesus more important than Jesus himself? To me, it seems natural.And because Lao Tzu thought this way, you just accept it. Of course you can mine any book for useful quips and annecdotes beyond any other consideration. I realize now that I did not state myself to clearly on that. What I was trying to say is that this would not be Christianity, this would be the words attributed to Jesus being scan for their usefullness and simply taken as is. But Christianity is about the cross. The text is quite unified on this. If you take away the supernatural and simply reduce Jesus to another aphorism man, you cut the heart out of anything that could legitimately be called Christianity. Sorry for the unclarity, that is all I was trying to say.

First, note how your above example is a clear ad hom. The subject of the sentence is "someone", with the "idea" held by that someone placed into a subordinate clause. In the spirit of my prior paragraph, it could be recreated to say the same thing without the ad hom however. Here I've rephrased to bring the comment right up to the borderline.I was not trying to attack you.


Well, there goes Aesop. Sorry, Jesus, but we're tossing all those parables, too. No, not really. The Bible does not separate the miraculous deads of Jesus form his parables. To try to bifurcate the two is to kill Christianity and leave oneself with an esoteric pseudoJesus. If you want to make the case that the text can be so seperated you'll have to refute the work of scholars such as Metzger and Witherington, not just make vague appeals to the alleged evolution of ideas.

I would also say the majority of the self-serving priestly fables would be generally considered immoral today, even by christians. And just what ones do you think that we should consider immoreal?

I don't hear a lot of christian calls for taking the priesthoods of other religions down to the river to have their throats slit, do you?I wouldn't slit their throats, I would tell them that they are wrong.

With respect,

Kelp

[Bill the Cat]

Hi All,

I have a quick question (for what be my final post here since this post will probably get me banned or something). What if one night you tried to be as objective as you could manage, and actually examined a portion of the overwhelming mountain of evidence (that y'all ignore) that Jesus was really a synthesis of previously existing god-men, and it finally "clicks". You finally realize in a moment of enlightenment that it's true. It's happened to many people throughout history, and it could happen to you! Yes you!

What would you do? Would you try to force the evidence out of your brain and go back to your old ways? Would you try to convince your co-religionists? Would you apologize to those who you lead astray?

Of course, you who say "it would never happen because...." well, i'm not talking to you. I'm talking to those who still have a shred of bravery to look at the facts as they are, and not have to look only at the world through the distorting lens provided to you by professional apologists.

Why would THIS get you banned from TWeb?? Nothing in it is against forum decorum.

[dizzle]

Why would THIS get you banned from TWeb?? Nothing in it is against forum decorum.

Some atheists have a huge persecution complex.

[member11491]

Some atheists have a huge persecution complex.

No, it was more closely related to the fact that my first post here was deleted, and my name was changed because it resembled a pseudo-name of another member.



wait, did I just walk into a parallel universe where xtians are saying atheists have persecution complexes???? :lol:

[Darth Executor]

No, it was more closely related to the fact that my first post here was deleted, and my name was changed because it resembled a pseudo-name of another member.



wait, did I just walk into a parallel universe where xtians are saying atheists have persecution complexes???? :lol:

Any chance you can take some time out of your busy schedule and answer this post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1670831&postcount=23

[member11491]

Any chance you can take some time out of your busy schedule and answer this post:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1670831&postcount=23

Hi Darth,

I looked over the post in question, and I'm not sure what I am to answer. I could sit here and give you link after link of evidence, but it's quite clear to me that the fundamentalists on this board simply wave their hand and dismiss anything that doesn't match their opinion.

The reason it's impossible to actually come to any conclusion is this: your mind is already made up. You've been trained to reject any evidence to the contrary out of hand, and simply attack. This is the difference between us. Currently, I believe that the tradition of Jesus comes from pre-existing traditions of "god-men" who came down from heaven and died to redeem humanity through sacrifice. To me, it seems quite logical when you start to see the hundreds of parallels between christianity and these cults. Before you say "what parallels", i've copied and pasted a few below. But my mind could be changed by evidence. The reason I subscribe currently to the mythical jesus hypothesis is I haven't seen any reasonable evidence to the contrary. I've seen arguments put up against it, but clearly since there are no contemporary accounts of people actually seeing jesus, all these arguments simply try to raise a reasonable doubt and don't even succeed in doing that.

Also, I think the site "jesusneverexisted.com" does an excellent point in showing many parallels between the gospels and the works of Josephus. That to me was the most damning point of christianity. There are exact parallels between the history recorded by Josephus and the "history" of the new testament.

As you know, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans around the time the new testament was being composed. How could anyone go back and verify anything? It would be similar to someone in 60 years saying that before the destruction of New Orleans, there lived a magician.... and made up a story. And originally, as it seems evident to me (but not you, nor many others admittedly) that they wouldn't even have to face challenges like this because as I said earlier, the entire work of Mark was probably distributed as pious fiction. The literal truth as we know it today was not known in the roman times.

Finally, our objectives are quite different. I enjoy studying history of humanity, and try to resolve issues which don't quite make sense to me. I look for the most probable explaination based on the evidence I'm given, and I don't emotionally attach myself to any. My goal is to simply work out the truth, for my own benefit.

Darth, it seems your goal is to defend the stories in the bible, despite any evidence to the contrary. Apologists don't look for the most probable answer, they (in my opinion) look for any answer that can justify their point of view. Evidence that is too overwelming is simply dismissed.

Well, it was quite interesting to interact with real fundamentalists. I think I've learned what I came to learn, and it was quite informative. For anyone else out there reading this post, who haven't yet made their mind up about christianity, I would suggest at least visiting the web site jesusneverexisted.com and expose yourself to an extremely compelling argument for the origins of christianity.

:pray: :pray: :pray:


----from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth----
---I noticed JP snuck himself in to this article as a bible scholar, that little rascal!--

The most prominent narratives in Christianity alleged by advocates of the Jesus as Myth theory to be copied from traditions of Osiris-Horus are mostly centred around the earlier part of Jesus' life:


Christ as a title - when treated as a partial merge of Osiris and Horus, Osiris-Horus was sometimes referred to as the embalmed Horus, describing Horus taking the place of Osiris in the death parts of the narrative. The embalmed Horus was written in Egyptian as HR KRST (probably pronounced har karast), and although Christ has a highly plausible etymology making it a cognate with Chrism (ointment), as a Greek attempt at translating the Hebrew term Messiah, a number of advocates of the Jesus as myth theory, including theology professor Tom Harpur, argue that this was just a happy co-incidence, and the term is actually derived from the Karast title of Horus. Use of this title, rather than directly copying any of the other titles of Horus, is argued by advocates of the Jesus myth, to be due to the convenient implications of its false cognate Chrism. If this is true, rather than covered in ointment, i.e. anointed, the literal meaning of Christ would really be covered in balm, i.e. embalmed.

Parentage
By the first century the identity of Osiris had absorbed that of Ptah (with early stages of this absorption being known as Ptah-Seker-Osiris), the great creator deity. In traditional egyptian religion Osiris had become seen as the father of Horus, and hence Horus was the son of the creator deity, like Jesus was seen as son of God the Father.

By the first century Isis was seen as the mother of Horus. She was traditionally known as Meri, meaning beloved, which is phonetically near-identical to Mary, the name of the mother of Jesus, and was the most common recipient of the epithet - if Meri was used without a particular deity being mentioned it usually referred to Isis.

Pharaohs sometimes portrayed themselves or their children as an incarnation of Horus. The mother involved was usually referred to as Meri (i.e. beloved), and was human, hence giving a semi-human incarnation of Horus a human mother called Meri.

The Nativity of Jesus - some of the more detailed versions of the birth of Horus have been argued to parallel the Nativity of Jesus, namely the versions of Horus' birth that derive from when Horus' mother was said to be Neith (whose identity later became absorbed into that of Isis). This is most obvious in a set of pre-Christian carvings from a temple in Luxor portraying Akhenaten as an incarnation of Horus, according to which:
The future birth of Horus was announced in advance (an annunciation) by Thoth, whom the Greeks identified as Hermes and was in the first century seen as the messenger of the Gods, a role taken by the Archangel Gabriel in Jewish thought.

The mother became pregnant by virtue of the breath of life being sent into her. The breath of life in question was Kneph, a concept depicted anthropomorphically (like Mediaeval depictions of death) rather than a deity, which Plutarch states had the same meaning to the Egyptians as Pneuma had to the Greeks. Pneuma translates as spirit, so one can argue that the mother is being depicted as becoming pregnant by the holy spirit, which Christians usually argue is how Mary became pregnant.

The mother became pregnant while remaining a virgin (particularly as Neith was believed to have given birth to the first males, and hence existing before them). The doctrine of Virgin Birth is prominent in early Christianity.

The mother is human (at least in the Luxor carving)

There is a star which signifies his birth. In the Jesus narrative this is the Star of Bethlehem, which isn't identified very clearly and there is much debate as to what it was meant to refer to. In the Osiris-Horus narrative this is Sothis, a not-completely identified star generally thought to be the same as Sirius. Sirius gained its importance in relation to Osiris-Hours as its first appearance each year co-incides with the date of the annual Nile flooding. Sirius reaches its highest Zenith on January 6th, the day that some ancient Christian traditions (including modern Eastern Orthodox churches) believe Jesus was born.

Three visitors aim for a star, indicating where the birth is, and after the birth the three visitors each give gifts; in the Jesus narrative there are three gifts and an unidentified number of visitors (who are Magi), the number of visitors simply being a very long-standing tradition; in the Osiris-Horus narrative the three visitors are anthropomorphisms of the three stars in the belt of the constellation Orion, which point directly towards Sirius,[11] and were named Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak (more accurately, consonant-only records name them as MNTK, ANLM and ALNTK, and Egyptologists estimate the full spelling).

Being placed in a manger - according to luke 2:7 Jesus rested in a manger shortly after his birth. Horus was also said to have been placed in a manger as a baby, though in earlier times the feature had been attributed to Ra instead, having transferred to Horus when the identities of Horus and Ra merged as Ra-harakhty; the belief originated due to the Egyptian word for manger, Apta, being a homonym for the Egyptian word for mountain peak, a location that Ra, as a solar deity, was considered to have been born at. The Egyptian belief concerning Horus/Ra's birth in a manger was so prominent that mangers were for a time annually paraded around the streets in a festival celebrating the Sun.[12]

Birth town - Horus was, by the first century, considered to have been born at Heliopolis, the main centre of his cult. Heliopolis had been the Egyptian capital and winter grain store, and hence was regarded as the house of bread (several copies of the Book of the dead refer to it by this name). In Hebrew, house of bread is Bethlehem, the same name as the town that Jesus was said to have been born in. The narratives explaining why Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem but didn't grow up there are often regarded by critical scholars as peculiarly contrived (and don't seem to agree), suggesting non-historicity, particularly as a number of archaeologists think that the Palestinian Bethlehem didn't even exist during the first century.

The feeding of the multitude - a similar narrative is told of Horus in some versions of the Book of the Dead, as Horus was the patron deity of Heliopolis, at one point the Egyptian capital, and hence grain store, the source of bread in winter and poor harvests.

The raising of Lazarus - many versions of the Legend of Osiris and Isis see Horus as having raised Osiris from the dead. However, Elijah raised a child from the dead according to an account in Kings, so such an event also had origins in Judaism.[13]
In Egyptian Osiris was named A-S-R (as a consonantal language, vowels were not written down), thought to be pronounced Aser or Asar (Osiris is the Greek version of the name), and by merely adding Hebrew theophory to convert it to a normal Hebrew name, and adding a standard Greek suffix to then convert it to the Koine Greek of the New Testament, one arrives at Elazaros; by a standard Elision this turns into Lazaros (Lazarus is how this was translated into Latin for the Vulgate, on which early English translations were based)

The location of the resurrection of Osiris is Heliopolis (a Greek name), which the Egyptians called Annu (and the Hebrew Bible refers to as On). Treating Annu as a proper name, and regarding house of Annu as the place, this becomes BethAnnu in Hebrew. This is phonetically near-identical to Bethany in first century Hebrew (u and y being difficult to distinguish, in the same way as modern Japanese speakers find r and l difficult to distinguish), which is where Jesus is said to have raised Lazarus.

The divine opponent - the similarity in name between Satan, the adversary of Jesus in the narrative of his temptation, and Set, the adversary of Horus, has not been lost on advocates of the Jesus as myth position. Among the narratives describing the contest between Horus and Set for the crown of all Egypt (thought to be based on the historic rivalry between Upper and Lower Egypt) are a number of narratives in which Set tempts Horus to renounce his claim in return for various gifts. Although conservative Christians and Jews argue that Judaism, and hence the idea of Satan, developed completely independently of Egyptian religion, the fact that the ancient Egyptian Empire extended into the Levant during the New Kingdom has lead a number of scholars to argue that a total lack of influence on Judaism from the Egyptian religion is implausible.


The most prominent narratives in Christianity alleged by advocates of the Jesus as Myth theory to be copied from traditions of Dionysus are, conversely, centred on later aspects of Jesus' life:


The Marriage at Cana, during which the New Testament states that Jesus turned water into wine, is similar to a narrative concerning Dionysus, who was originally the god of wine. In the pre-Christian Dionysus version, priests attending to a wedding at which Dionysus is present bring vessels of water to a building, which is then sealed, and when later reopened the water has been turned to wine. As the earliest surviving record of this miracle of Dionysus is from the late first century writings of Tatius, Christian apologists have argued that it was copied from Jesus' actions. However, as Jesus' miracle is only reported by the Gospel of John, which is dated by most scholars to 95-115 AD, advocates of the Jesus myth counter that the earliest surviving evidence, of a water into wine at a wedding miracle, concerns Dionysus not Jesus.[14] In the case of Dionysus it is his own marriage to Ariadne, which differs from the traditional explanation of Jesus simply being a guest at the Cana wedding, though a minority of modern scholars (and a few notable fiction writers) have suggested the Cana marriage was actually that of Jesus to Mary Magdalene.

The Passion of Jesus has a number of features which are argued by Jesus-Myth-theory advocates to be borrowed from Dionysus. Just before his actual crucifixion, the narrative portrays Jesus as being tortured - during which his captors make him wear a purple robe and crown of foliage, both of which were said to be ordinarily worn by Dionysus (due to being imperial symbols). According to Christian apologists the temporary similarity is co-incidental and due to universals,[15] but advocates of the theory that Jesus was derived from myth contend that although temporary, the similar appearance during the torture scene was a deliberate reference by the early gospel writers to Dionysus, in a similar manner to plays and dramas when an actor breaks the fourth wall and reveals their disguise to the audience.
Apologists would argue that the resurrection of Dionysus/Bacchus was different than that of Jesus, because Bacchus had the help of Pegasus to escort him to heaven.[16]

In nearly all Christologies, Jesus is a mortal man, but in some way also divine (the most popular Christologies in modern Christianity, including Trinitarianism, argue that he was also fully a deity, while even docetism and adoptionism argues that the divine possessed the mortal). In the play, Dionysus, a deity, comes to earth as a fully mortal man, claiming to have done so in order to make his Godhead manifest to the mortals.

The return to Jerusalem, subsequent Trial of Jesus before Pilate, and execution, have supposed parallels with an account of Dionysus in a pre-Christian play named The Bacchae. In both the Gospels and the play, the central character (Jesus/Dionysus) rides into the royal town on the back of a donkey and is greeted by crowds waving foliage, is soon after arrested by the authorities, put on trial before the ruler, during which he mostly avoids answering the questions, and is condemned and executed, before returning from the dead. Unlike the later Gospels, the play argues that Dionysus willingly let these things happen in order to later humiliate (and ultimately kill) Pentheus, the ruler who tried him; though some Christian apologists argue that this purpose invalidates the parallel, it is perfectly possible for the Gospel writers to simply have dropped this purpose in order to adopt the narrative for their own aims. It is also possible that Euripides, the author of the play, based his narrative on stories from the Dionysus mystery religion, but, in order to keep the actual teachings of the mystery religion a mystery, and to improve the dramatic appeal, changed the reasoning behind it.

Christian apologists have also argued that since the foliage waved during entry into the town (in Jesus' case being Jerusalem) were palm fronds, rather than the ivy of The Bacchae, this is merely a universal narrative, especially as ivy are plants of religious significance to the Dionysus mysteries, while palms are of national significance to Judaism;[15] their opponents contest that the intertwining of religion and nation in Judaism has meant that the palms are simply the plants which Judaism gives the same religious significance to as the Dionysus religion gave to ivy. Donkeys, and mules, also were strongly associated with Dionysus, in particular due to the Sileni, but they have very little significance to Judaism, and are merely a form of transport.

Mithraism, according to the Jesus-as-myth theory, adds to these further elements of the nativity. While the alleged Osiris-Horus parallels mostly concern the nativity according to the Gospel of Matthew, the alleged Mithras parallels mostly concern the version of the nativity in the Gospel of Luke; this somewhat reflects the groups who appear to be these Gospels' intended audiences - Matthew's audience being closer to Egypt (where Osiris-Horus was prominent), and Luke's being the Hellenic world (where Mithras was more significant):


Birth in a cave - although modern traditions depict the event happening in a free-standing structure, in early Christian tradition Jesus was depicted as being born in a cave, and the official location of his birth in Roman Catholicism, Islam, and Eastern Orthodoxy, remains the particular cave which lies at the heart of the 4th century Church of the Nativity. This early tradition is thought to derive from the Bible, which does not mention a stable, but instead only refers to the location with a term ambiguously meaning either gathering room (which was an upstairs room) or cave. In Mithraism, Mithras was said to have been born in a cave, which scholars think was an allegory for the universe, as well as a meta-reference to Plato's Allegory of the cave.

Birth in a stable - though the Bible does not specifically mention an inn or a stable, Jesus is traditionally depicted as having been born in a stable. Though it would be odd for a stable to be placed in a gathering room (an upstairs meeting-room), in Roman Palestine, caves (which are common in the region) often housed stables, and it is plausible that the association between caves and stables lead to the tradition of Jesus being born in a stable. An alternative origin for the tradition is that advocated by supporters of the Jesus-as-myth theory, namely that it originates with the belief that Mithras was born in a stable. Mithras was considered, allegorically, to be a solar deity, and hence was said to have been born during the winter solstice (the darkest point of the year); in the classical era the winter solstice occurred when the sun was in the constellation that was then known as the Augean Stable (and is now named Capricorn). Early Christian apologists admitted the parallel involved, Justin Martyr, for example, stated that Jesus was born when the sun had its birth in the Augean Stable.

Ox and Ass - Traditionally Jesus' birth is depicted as being accompanied by an ass and an ox, and though this is not mentioned in the canonical Gospels, the tradition is long-standing and has its first written mention in the Arabic Infancy Gospel. Mithras was also, metaphorically, said to be born in the company of an ass and an ox, as aside from Capricorn, the Augean Stable, Auriga was also known as a stable, since in classical times this was the constellation in which the sun reached the summer solstice (the other point on the ecliptic at which the sun's zenith appears to rest for about 3 days); either side of Auriga are constellations that the classical world named Taurus, meaning bull, which in a more feminine scene is depicted as an ox, and Ass of Typhon (now known as Ursa Major). In Mithraism they had a greater significance - the bull was the one which Mithras was destined to slay (and was considered to be a meta-reference to Mithras himself), and Typhon was the closest figure in Greek mythology to Satan, hence his Ass was seen as a sort-of spy.

Burial in a cave, and subsequent resurrection. The Gospels state that after his death, Jesus was buried in a cave, and subsequent narratives state that after this tomb was found to be empty, Jesus was seen to be resurrected. Mithraism also sometimes held that after the death of Mithras, he was buried in a cave, from where he was resurrected; this is thought by scholars to derive from the earlier idea that Mithras had been born from a rock, an allegory for the universe as seen from outside it, while the cave represented the universe from the inside, hence the death in the cave being the in-universe equivalent to the birth from the rock - thus birth coming from death.

[dizzle]

No, it was more closely related to the fact that my first post here was deleted, and my name was changed because it resembled a pseudo-name of another member.

And you think that was appropriate when signing onto a forum? Or your blatant advertising? (which will be moderated, but no, you won't be banned). If you want to know how you can legimately slip in the link for your site, ask any moderator, they will tell you.

wait, did I just walk into a parallel universe where xtians are saying atheists have persecution complexes???? :lol:

Sorry if that gaze in the mirror hurt you.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Member,

I find it amusing that you
1) claim to read up on history yet know nothing about historical method (or how to apply it) and
2) cite jesusneverexisted.com. ("an extremely compelling argument for the origins of christianity."!)

I've just bought the book by Kenneth Humphreys....it's a joke.

Do you really want me to take your post to pieces?

[Kelp]

Do you really want me to take your post to pieces?

I wouldn't mind seing that, lol.

[lilpixieofterror]

I've just bought the book by Kenneth Humphreys....it's a joke.

I wrote Kenneth Humphreys a few months ago about a few errors I found in one of his articles (as I recall it was about how Nazareth never existed). And his response was to send me a link so I could 'buy' his book. After reading the stupidity of his web site, writing him about his errors and lack of basic study skills, to get no response back. I decided that his web site and book was not worth a dime. I do doubt our little friend (member11491) has taken the time to do some study work (such as quoting wikipedia, like that web site disproves FF Bruce or NT wright... :ahem:). I do find fundy atheist to be quite a riot and irrating them is a barell of laughs! Do enjoy yourself Punkish...

Crystal

[Darth Executor]

Hi Darth,

I looked over the post in question, and I'm not sure what I am to answer. I could sit here and give you link after link of evidence, but it's quite clear to me that the fundamentalists on this board simply wave their hand and dismiss anything that doesn't match their opinion.

My questions were rather simple. I'm not sure why you would have to give me "link after link".

The reason it's impossible to actually come to any conclusion is this: your mind is already made up. You've been trained to reject any evidence to the contrary out of hand, and simply attack. This is the difference between us. Currently, I believe that the tradition of Jesus comes from pre-existing traditions of "god-men" who came down from heaven and died to redeem humanity through sacrifice. To me, it seems quite logical when you start to see the hundreds of parallels between christianity and these cults. Before you say "what parallels", i've copied and pasted a few below. But my mind could be changed by evidence. The reason I subscribe currently to the mythical jesus hypothesis is I haven't seen any reasonable evidence to the contrary. I've seen arguments put up against it, but clearly since there are no contemporary accounts of people actually seeing jesus, all these arguments simply try to raise a reasonable doubt and don't even succeed in doing that.

Thank you for your mind reading session. I am not sure what my unwillingness to change my mind has anything to do with any of this, and I'm not sure what the point of this paragraph is other than to pontificate on how objective you are and what a dumb fundy I am.

Also, I think the site "jesusneverexisted.com" does an excellent point in showing many parallels between the gospels and the works of Josephus. That to me was the most damning point of christianity. There are exact parallels between the history recorded by Josephus and the "history" of the new testament.

My post had nothing to do with these many parallels between the gospels and the works of Josephus, so I'm not sure why you would bring this up.

As you know, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans around the time the new testament was being composed. How could anyone go back and verify anything?

Jerusalem was destroyed roughly 40 years after Jesus died. Why isn't that enough time to go back and "verify anything"?

It would be similar to someone in 60 years saying that before the destruction of New Orleans, there lived a magician.... and made up a story.

Yeah. It's too bad all the inhabitants of New Orleans and Jerusalem were killed. :lmbo:

And originally, as it seems evident to me (but not you, nor many others admittedly) that they wouldn't even have to face challenges like this because as I said earlier, the entire work of Mark was probably distributed as pious fiction. The literal truth as we know it today was not known in the roman times.

I have asked you what this has to do with the subject before. An intelligent man explains what it has to do with the subject (the subject was the requirement of writings about Jesus from his lifetime in case you can't remember). An intelligent man does not simply repeat his irrelevant claim.

Finally, our objectives are quite different. I enjoy studying history of humanity, and try to resolve issues which don't quite make sense to me. I look for the most probable explaination based on the evidence I'm given, and I don't emotionally attach myself to any. My goal is to simply work out the truth, for my own benefit.

What benefit?

Darth, it seems your goal is to defend the stories in the bible, despite any evidence to the contrary.Apologists don't look for the most probable answer, they (in my opinion) look for any answer that can justify their point of view. Evidence that is too overwelming is simply dismissed.

A fascinating insight into my subnormal brain, no doubt, but still irrelevant to my original post.

Well, it was quite interesting to interact with real fundamentalists.

It is impossible for me to be a "fundamentalist" for a number of reasons I won't go into detail here.

I think I've learned what I came to learn, and it was quite informative. For anyone else out there reading this post, who haven't yet made their mind up about christianity, I would suggest at least visiting the web site jesusneverexisted.com and expose yourself to an extremely compelling argument for the origins of christianity.

This is also irrelevant to my original post.

The most prominent narratives in Christianity alleged by advocates of the Jesus as Myth theory to be copied from traditions of Osiris-Horus are mostly centred around the earlier part of Jesus' life:


Christ as a title - when treated as a partial merge of Osiris and Horus, Osiris-Horus was sometimes referred to as the embalmed Horus, describing Horus taking the place of Osiris in the death parts of the narrative. The embalmed Horus was written in Egyptian as HR KRST (probably pronounced har karast), and although Christ has a highly plausible etymology making it a cognate with Chrism (ointment), as a Greek attempt at translating the Hebrew term Messiah, a number of advocates of the Jesus as myth theory, including theology professor Tom Harpur, argue that this was just a happy co-incidence, and the term is actually derived from the Karast title of Horus. Use of this title, rather than directly copying any of the other titles of Horus, is argued by advocates of the Jesus myth, to be due to the convenient implications of its false cognate Chrism. If this is true, rather than covered in ointment, i.e. anointed, the literal meaning of Christ would really be covered in balm, i.e. embalmed.

I am unsure how a similarity between words proves Jesus never existed. I don't even know if your claim is true (a quick google search gives me Christ Myth web sites who just copy off each other and no real primary sourcet).

Parentage
By the first century the identity of Osiris had absorbed that of Ptah (with early stages of this absorption being known as Ptah-Seker-Osiris), the great creator deity. In traditional egyptian religion Osiris had become seen as the father of Horus, and hence Horus was the son of the creator deity, like Jesus was seen as son of God the Father.

Let me see if I got this straight:

Jesus had a father.
Horus had a father.

Therefore Jesus ripped off Horus.


:lmbo:


By the first century Isis was seen as the mother of Horus. She was traditionally known as Meri, meaning beloved, which is phonetically near-identical to Mary, the name of the mother of Jesus, and was the most common recipient of the epithet - if Meri was used without a particular deity being mentioned it usually referred to Isis.

Wow, it's phonetically near-identical to an English name. Not Maria or Mariam. Oops.

Pharaohs sometimes portrayed themselves or their children as an incarnation of Horus. The mother involved was usually referred to as Meri (i.e. beloved), and was human, hence giving a semi-human incarnation of Horus a human mother called Meri.

Please substantiate this claim. I know pharaohs portrayed themselves as having a divine lineage, but that's about it.

The Nativity of Jesus - some of the more detailed versions of the birth of Horus have been argued to parallel the Nativity of Jesus, namely the versions of Horus' birth that derive from when Horus' mother was said to be Neith (whose identity later became absorbed into that of Isis). This is most obvious in a set of pre-Christian carvings from a temple in Luxor portraying Akhenaten as an incarnation of Horus, according to which:
The future birth of Horus was announced in advance (an annunciation) by Thoth, whom the Greeks identified as Hermes and was in the first century seen as the messenger of the Gods, a role taken by the Archangel Gabriel in Jewish thought.

Are they also pre-jewish because the messiah's coming was announced long before Christianity.

The mother became pregnant by virtue of the breath of life being sent into her. The breath of life in question was Kneph, a concept depicted anthropomorphically (like Mediaeval depictions of death) rather than a deity, which Plutarch states had the same meaning to the Egyptians as Pneuma had to the Greeks. Pneuma translates as spirit, so one can argue that the mother is being depicted as becoming pregnant by the holy spirit, which Christians usually argue is how Mary became pregnant.

I have no idea where you got this from. Isis got pregnant by having sex with Osiris.

The mother became pregnant while remaining a virgin (particularly as Neith was believed to have given birth to the first males, and hence existing before them). The doctrine of Virgin Birth is prominent in early Christianity.

See above. It would be nice if you could provide some Egyptian scholars as sources for these claims.

The mother is human (at least in the Luxor carving)[/quote

Isis is a goddess.

[quote]There is a star which signifies his birth. In the Jesus narrative this is the Star of Bethlehem, which isn't identified very clearly and there is much debate as to what it was meant to refer to. In the Osiris-Horus narrative this is Sothis, a not-completely identified star generally thought to be the same as Sirius. Sirius gained its importance in relation to Osiris-Hours as its first appearance each year co-incides with the date of the annual Nile flooding. Sirius reaches its highest Zenith on January 6th, the day that some ancient Christian traditions (including modern Eastern Orthodox churches) believe Jesus was born.

Three visitors aim for a star, indicating where the birth is, and after the birth the three visitors each give gifts; in the Jesus narrative there are three gifts and an unidentified number of visitors (who are Magi), the number of visitors simply being a very long-standing tradition; in the Osiris-Horus narrative the three visitors are anthropomorphisms of the three stars in the belt of the constellation Orion, which point directly towards Sirius,[11] and were named Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak (more accurately, consonant-only records name them as MNTK, ANLM and ALNTK, and Egyptologists estimate the full spelling).


Please substantiate these claims. There is one reference link in the second paragraph which points to some web site by a "Raymond Hewitt" whose credentials are glaringly invisible.

Being placed in a manger - according to luke 2:7 Jesus rested in a manger shortly after his birth. Horus was also said to have been placed in a manger as a baby, though in earlier times the feature had been attributed to Ra instead, having transferred to Horus when the identities of Horus and Ra merged as Ra-harakhty; the belief originated due to the Egyptian word for manger, Apta, being a homonym for the Egyptian word for mountain peak, a location that Ra, as a solar deity, was considered to have been born at. The Egyptian belief concerning Horus/Ra's birth in a manger was so prominent that mangers were for a time annually paraded around the streets in a festival celebrating the Sun.[12]

:lmbo: I can't go on anymore. The source for this (presumably) is a pseudo-nazi who died over 100 years ago.

[member11491]

Hi Darth,

I started answering your points, instead of focusing on your single question, which was:


They weren't "anonymous". Do you have any evidence that the claims made by the early church in regard to their authorship was ever challenged in that time?


My answer is:
There is zero evidence on who wrote the gospels. If you have any proof, I'd love to see it.



Thank you for your mind reading session. I am not sure what my unwillingness to change my mind has anything to do with any of this, and I'm not sure what the point of this paragraph is other than to pontificate on how objective you are and what a dumb fundy I am.


Having a discussion with a fundamentalist who doesn't use reason is pointless. So, your unwillingness to change your mind has everything to do with it. I think the fact you offered the bible as your evidence that jesus was a living man speaks for itself.


My post had nothing to do with these many parallels between the gospels and the works of Josephus, so I'm not sure why you would bring this up.


Your post offered the bible as evidence. Ken's site shows the amazing number of parallels between the books of the new testament and the works of Josephus. That's why I brought it up.


Jerusalem was destroyed roughly 40 years after Jesus died. Why isn't that enough time to go back and "verify anything"?


What the heck are you talking about? Jerusalem was destroyed before the gospels were written. That's why there wasn't enough time to verify anything!


Yeah. It's too bad all the inhabitants of New Orleans and Jerusalem were killed.


You don't think the inhabitants of Jerusalem were killed? LOL! Besides, even those who escaped didn't believe in "jesus".


I have asked you what this has to do with the subject before. An intelligent man explains what it has to do with the subject (the subject was the requirement of writings about Jesus from his lifetime in case you can't remember). An intelligent man does not simply repeat his irrelevant claim.


Thank you "Darth Executor" for your opinion on how an intelligent man should act. As for your comment, let me break it down for you:
1. I say jesus never existed
2. you offer the bible as proof
3. I respond telling you that pious fiction was popular in that time

In case you still don't get it, the first gospel of the bible (mark) was not meant to be a historical event. It was pious fiction (get it?)


What benefit?


Ah, at last an honest question! Here is the benefit: all humans have a right to ponder the origins of the universe, the meaning of our existence, and so forth. Religions claim to offer answers to these questions, so it's my duty as a human to evaluate these claims and see if there is any truth to them. The benefit derived is a more complete human experience.

lilangelofterror, as for your comment, where is the evidence there was a city called Nazareth during the 1st century?

Jedi Punkish, did you really buy Ken's book? Because it's quite hard to imagine you would buy it. If you did, I commend you for actually doing a bit of inquiry. Would you mind telling me the first word on page 53?

Gerbil Xena, I wasn't hurt by your comments, nor do I think having posts deleted is "persecution". I assumed you are a christian board, and probably don't enjoy having alternative views posted here. Also, my first post was deleted, so there is justification for having thought this one would be deleted as well.

Thank you all!

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Member,

I really did buy Kenneth Humphrey's book. I own a number of Christ myth and skeptical works actually...since doing inquiry is what I believe is the right thing to do. I'm not a fundamentalist btw.

page 53, hmm. do you mean "Holy Sex Change" above the icon in the margin, or "Like the 'Shepherd of Hermas' and the 'Didache'..."? The edition I have is from Iconoclast press, November 2005.

[lilpixieofterror]

My answer is:
There is zero evidence on who wrote the gospels. If you have any proof, I'd love to see it.

Nonsense, you want evidence? Why don't you try reading real historians such as FF Bruce, NT Wright or Craig Bloomberg? Lay off the trash sites, ok... :lol:

Having a discussion with a fundamentalist who doesn't use reason is pointless.

You are a fundy atheist and getting you to read what real historians say is like trying to train a dog to go in the toilet.

So, your unwillingness to change your mind has everything to do with it. I think the fact you offered the bible as your evidence that jesus was a living man speaks for itself.

I have seen zero evidence that Darth or many of the Christians in here are 'fundy' anything. On the other hand, I have yet to see you quote an actual historian.

Your post offered the bible as evidence. Ken's site shows the amazing number of parallels between the books of the new testament and the works of Josephus. That's why I brought it up.

Ken's work comes from non historians, theologians, and people who have not done their proper research into what they say. I have personaly adressed Ken upon some of the errors of his web site and the response I received was a link to buy his book after seeing the quality of his web site, I'm sure his book is just as trashy.

What the heck are you talking about? Jerusalem was destroyed before the gospels were written.

Might want to go tell NT Wright, FF Bruce, or Craig Bloomberg that one :ahem: . After all, why listen to real historians when you can read 'Jesusneverexisted.com'?

That's why there wasn't enough time to verify anything!

Wrong again, over 140 parts of the NT have been proven to be historical accurate and over 30 confirmed historical figures are mentioned. Legonds and myths don't have that type of historical backing. Do try again.

You don't think the inhabitants of Jerusalem were killed?

Some were, others were not (just like historical accounts and historians tell us). More examples of why fundy atheist can not read.

LOL! Besides, even those who escaped didn't believe in "jesus".

Wrong again, there were several Christians in that area of the world. Again, confirmed to exist by historical accounts and historians. Do try reading...

1. I say jesus never existed
2. you offer the bible as proof
3. I respond telling you that pious fiction was popular in that time

And where is your proof that 'pious fiction' was popular at that time? Claiming something is one thing, you need to offer proof. Prove that the Bible is fiction, I'll be waiting.

In case you still don't get it, the first gospel of the bible (mark) was not meant to be a historical event.

Where is your proof?

It was pious fiction (get it?)

Your evidence is? Yep, why read the works of historians when you can read jesusneverexisted.com... :ahem:

Ah, at last an honest question! Here is the benefit: all humans have a right to ponder the origins of the universe, the meaning of our existence, and so forth.

Exactly, and I have a right to ask you for evidence for your outlandish claims. Now give your proof.

Religions claim to offer answers to these questions, so it's my duty as a human to evaluate these claims and see if there is any truth to them. The benefit derived is a more complete human experience.

And I have a duty to see if your questions are even valid or your 'evidence' is true. So far it isn't.

lilangelofterror, as for your comment, where is the evidence there was a city called Nazareth during the 1st century?

Here you go:

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."

For my source, click here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nazy.html).

Thank you all!

You are very welcome, I do hope you do this 'study' thing next time.

Crystal

[Teallaura]

Let me see if I get the argument thus far:

1) Jesus never existed

2) This cool website says so

3) So do I - nyahh!

4) You won't change your mind because you are too biased/stupid to see the truth

5) I'm right no matter how biased/stupid my argument - so nyahh!






Wake me if he comes up with anything actually resembling evidence.... :sleep:

[Darth Executor]

Hi Darth,

I started answering your points, instead of focusing on your single question, which was:



My answer is:
There is zero evidence on who wrote the gospels. If you have any proof, I'd love to see it.

I just told you. The early church. Members of which knew the apostles. :duh:


Having a discussion with a fundamentalist who doesn't use reason is pointless. So, your unwillingness to change your mind has everything to do with it. I think the fact you offered the bible as your evidence that jesus was a living man speaks for itself.

What you don't seem to understand is that using the bible for evidence that Jesus existed is something any scholar (IE: nobody you read) would do.



Your post offered the bible as evidence. Ken's site shows the amazing number of parallels between the books of the new testament and the works of Josephus. That's why I brought it up.

Ken's site shows his assertions and the fabrications of Christ myth con artists who are snorting coke with the money they get off morons like you.



What the heck are you talking about? Jerusalem was destroyed before the gospels were written. That's why there wasn't enough time to verify anything!

Most of the people in that time were illiterate. Writing was secondary to oral tradition. Even if your authorship assertion is true, it doesn't matter, because they knew the stories in the bible before they wrote them. Writing was more like an afterthought when they got old.



You don't think the inhabitants of Jerusalem were killed? LOL! Besides, even those who escaped didn't believe in "jesus".

Really? Did you ask them if they believed in Jesus?



Thank you "Darth Executor" for your opinion on how an intelligent man should act. As for your comment, let me break it down for you:
1. I say jesus never existed
2. you offer the bible as proof
3. I respond telling you that pious fiction was popular in that time


As JP pointed out already, the gospels were ancient biographies, not "pious fiction" (whatever the crap that is). That's their genre. That's where scholars in the field place them in, not your whacky genre.

In case you still don't get it, the first gospel of the bible (mark) was not meant to be a historical event. It was pious fiction (get it?)

No, I don't "get it". All I have is your assertion that it was "pious fiction".



Ah, at last an honest question! Here is the benefit: all humans have a right to ponder the origins of the universe, the meaning of our existence, and so forth. Religions claim to offer answers to these questions, so it's my duty as a human to evaluate these claims and see if there is any truth to them. The benefit derived is a more complete human experience.

Complete human experience? That sounds like sentimental garbage. The kind you said you didn't engage in. :ahem:

Gerbil Xena, I wasn't hurt by your comments, nor do I think having posts deleted is "persecution". I assumed you are a christian board, and probably don't enjoy having alternative views posted here. Also, my first post was deleted, so there is justification for having thought this one would be deleted as well.


:lmbo:

TWEB is a Christian owned board but it has a non-theist section and a bunch of sections for other religions. Why would they "not enjoy having alternative views posted here"?

[jpholding]

Since I don't have a lot of time this week, just a few comments, esp. since everyone else is giving Dum Dum his meds....



----from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth----
---I noticed JP snuck himself in to this article as a bible scholar, that little rascal!--

Not me.

embalmed Horus was written in Egyptian as HR KRST (probably pronounced har karast), and although Christ has a highly plausible etymology making it a cognate with Chrism (ointment), as a Greek attempt at translating the Hebrew term Messiah, a number of advocates of the Jesus as myth theory, including theology professor Tom Harpur, argue that this was just a happy co-incidence, and the term is actually derived from the Karast title of Horus.

Sorry, but real Egyptologists disagree. KRST is the word for 'burial' ('coffin' is written 'KRSW') and there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title 'Christos,' or Hebrew 'Mashiah.'

This is most obvious in a set of pre-Christian carvings from a temple in Luxor portraying Akhenaten as an incarnation of Horus, according to which:

Sorry, but your atheist friend Richard Carrier debunked this connection:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm

In conclusion, the Luxor narrative has some parallels with the Christian narrative, but also with dozens of other narratives that would have been more familiar to the Christians (such as those surrounding Alexander the Great), though none present a complete or particularly startling parallel. Granted, the key narrative signposts are present at Luxor: there is a divine conception, a divine annunciation, a birth of a Son of God, then a divine adoration and confirmation (all leading eventually to a coronation). The inversion of conception and annunciation is necessary because of Egyptian moral standards--whereas the Jewish version could turn them around, because a Jewish audience would not countenance sex with God anyway, so there was (unlike in Egypt) no impropriety in the fact that Mary learned of it before it happened (and that fits more with the Jewish cultural tradition of prophecy, and, more importantly, the legend of Sarah). But, again, the parallels to Hellenistic kingship-theology are the same here, and yet chronologically and culturally closer to Christianity. And yet the Christian narratives are, like most myths, very much original creations (that's why the two versions--in Matthew and Luke--are so radically different from each other). Understanding their background and cultural and historical context is certainly helpful, and necessary, but it doesn't lead to any plagiaristic scandal of the sort Acharya S wants there to be. She may still be right that what we are told is actually a myth about Jesus, not historical fact, but that is a conclusion that requires a lot more evidence than what we find at Luxor.


Since Dum Dum won't even answer what I posted in reply on Mithras and Dionysus before, and even repeats the same argument I already refuted on water-to-wine, I feel safe in ignoring the rest on Osiris and Dionysus. And remember....


Mithraism also sometimes held that after the death of Mithras, he was buried in a cave, from where he was resurrected;

"...there is NO DEATH of MITHRAS." -- Gordon, a Mithraic scholar and not a hack like Dum Dum here

[drachronicler]

Revelation 20:2-3 "He[an angel] seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devi, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over hm, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."

Preterists link this to the fall of Jerusalem to the army Titus Vespasianus in 70AD( I am not sure precisely how) thus there can be no minions of Satan in a literal sense and no demonized people. Although, JP, I don't see why you couldn't have conceded the usage of the term in the sense of one who is in rebellion and is a minion of Satan ideologically.




It is highly unlikely REV 20:2-3 could have anything to do with Titus and and siege of Jerusalem, for it is obvious John of Patmos was plagiarizing a much older Zoroastrian myth in his vision of Satan's defeat and incarceration.

In the Zoroastrian version there is also an evil dragon, only his name is Ahriman, and he and his angels are defeated by Ahurah Mazda and his angels and he is bound up and cast into an identical abyss.

The Ahriman dragon must stay cooped up for 3000 years instead of the Satan dragon's 1000, but they both get out, only to rebell again and both end up in a fiery lake.

If that were not coincidence enough, both "Revelations" state that fire breathing monsters will destroy a third of the human race. The Zoroastrian version says they are dragons, John of Patmos calls them fire breathing, sharp toothed "horses" with snake like tail. Hmmmmm, I think a dragon by any other name is still a dragon. Interesting that they both stated an identical one-third of the human race.

[jpholding]

It is highly unlikely REV 20:2-3 could have anything to do with Titus and and siege of Jerusalem, for it is obvious John of Patmos was plagiarizing a much older Zoroastrian myth in his vision of Satan's defeat and incarceration.

So is Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry movies. :doh:

Those Zoroastrian texts all date well past the Christian era. Don't even try it.

[member11491]

Hi JP,

Thank you for the cute nickname "dum dum"! It shows I am learning from a true scholar (which is appropriate since you are not one) :teeth:

I think you guys misunderstood. I previously told you I copied and pasted an article from wikipedia in here, and y'all though it was my thoughts.

Hey "JP", sorry I didn't see your Mithras/Dionysus argument before. From your article I like this (about Dionysus:

He is depicted sometimes as a maniacal, destructive figure, and at other times as an innocent child; sometimes as a bearded man, other times as an effeminiate youth.

How is this not Jesus? Rev. 1:14:
His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;


Well, we have maniacal and destructive. Certainly Jesus was depicted as youth in some portions of the bible, (I would also argue effeminiate)

"Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him." – Mark 14.45

"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." – Mark 14.51,52


In almost all paintings, jesus is depicted to be bearded, except his child paintings.

SOUNDS LIKE A MATCH TO ME

and that was just the first bit of your article. I hate to think what else is in there.



Sorry, but your atheist friend Richard Carrier debunked this connection:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm


Ha. You and your little gang like to point to apologetics sites for evidence. Reminds me of some scientologsts I once spoke to who used dianetics as "evidence".


Since Dum Dum won't even answer what I posted in reply on Mithras and Dionysus before, and even repeats the same argument I already refuted on water-to-wine, I feel safe in ignoring the rest on Osiris and Dionysus. And remember....


You mean how you claim the water to wine was post christian? Strange how jesus would create more wine for a croud who had already been drinking much on the one hand, and on the other hand Paul warned against drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18). The "miracle" sounds pretty pagan to me, but I'll take your "research" at face value and assume you found some point to agree with you and printed it. I would bet there are contrary positions (yes yes, go find them one of your drones will say).



"...there is NO DEATH of MITHRAS." -- Gordon, a Mithraic scholar and not a hack like Dum Dum here


Well "JP", I don't have gordon's book in front of me, so I can't verify that claim. But here's a reference to Gordon comparing Christianity to Mithras worship.

[I]t is more likely that similarities in practise go back to a common background in the Mediterranean world in the 1st century BC to 1st century AD. - Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras", tr. Richard Gordon

So he says there is a link.


Hey, I discovered where you guys get your debate training:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCdT9dfrb-Q

Have a great day!

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .
I think you guys misunderstood. I previously told you I copied and pasted an article from wikipedia in here, and y'all though it was my thoughts. . . .

Hi Member,

Just in case no one else has said, unless you enclose the entirety of your quotes from articles in a quote box, it will be assumed the work is being presented as your own.

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in the 'Jesusneverexisted' site. Many of those posting seem to be more into bitter rejection of religion, rather than an objective critique.

As one who is seriously interested in examining fresh evidence for the existance (or non existance) of Jesus, it added nothing to what I have previously seen. (I refer also to the partner site and the 'book')

Are you still interested in asking me any questions?

Cheers

:johnny:

[member11491]

I doubt if Dawkins has the acumen to consider the questions with any credibility. He's a biologist....not a historian.

Oh man, this is the biggest laugh of all. A petty little wanna-be like yourself questioning the credentials of Dawkins!!! Wow, I've really been arguing with a lunatic. Sorry but your "Masters degree in Library Science" doesn't quite cut it. I'm sure you rock at the dewey decimal system, but I don't see much else you can offer.

Hey Crystal, NT Wright, FF Bruce and Craig Bloomberg arn't who I would go to first for independent sources. You may as well go to Tom Cruise for an unbiased look at his cult. Same for your "source" (christian-thinktank.com!) :lol: Even that biased source could only find one stone tablet to prove the existance of an entire city! So an entire city, but only one stone tablet to prove it? Does that make any logical sense to you?

I'm sure you are a well meaning yet misled kid, it's too bad you are in here with a guy like "JP". You aught to read his wikipedia entry - it pretty much confirms my initial feelings about this guy.

Bye all. JP, please respond to this so you don't lose face in front of the kiddies (aka your customers).

Yours,
"Dum Dum" :smile:

[lilpixieofterror]

Anyone want to guess how many scholary sources member11491 will ignore today? Just wait till you guys get a load of this:


Hey Crystal, NT Wright, FF Bruce and Craig Bloomberg arn't who I would go to first for independent sources.

Oh, Yet you'll go to Dawkins or Jesusneverexisted.com for your 'independent sources' :tongue: I guess they are only bias if they disagree with your opinion. Let's ask this question little one, who's the historians? The people I named or the ones you use for refrences... :blush:

You may as well go to Tom Cruise for an unbiased look at his cult.

I'm sorry, but Tom Cruise is not an historian, NT Wright, Craig Bloomberg and FF Bruce are (they have these degree things, you know things you ignore)... yet again you show us that you only think 'unbiased' means they must agree with you.

Same for your "source" (christian-thinktank.com!) :lol:

What's the problem, he quotes scholars who disagree with you!? I see now... it's only 'bias' if a Christians says it... let's see who shall I listen to... Paul Barnett - an historian and theologian or jesusneverexisted.com and Wikipeda who are written by hobbiest who get their info from cerel boxes... decisions.. decisions... :ahem:

Even that biased source could only find one stone tablet to prove the existance of an entire city! So an entire city, but only one stone tablet to prove it? Does that make any logical sense to you?

Yes, that's what we use to prove the existance of other cities (and non Christian historians accept it), plus on the site where modren day Nazareth is today... there is 1st century remains. I should note to you, these guys here (http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=217424) don't seem to have a problem with agreeing with the Bible on this point. Yet, your friend at Jesusneverexisted.com uses ONE SOURCE to 'disprove' the existance of Nazareth, yet again we see the double standards fundy atheist present foward.

I'm sure you are a well meaning yet misled kid, it's too bad you are in here with a guy like "JP".

I'm not a kid little one, I'm 22 years old and don't live at home with my mommy and daddy. Been living on my own for about 3 years...

You aught to read his wikipedia entry - it pretty much confirms my initial feelings about this guy.

Oh yeah... Wikipedia is a great source of information... the only thing I have seen Wikipedia give in terms of useful and correct information is Star Trek info, other than that... it's a waste of server space. When I'm studying something, I use books (you know those things you never read) by people who are well versed in that subject (which again is something you have no grasp of). FYI I have, do try again little one. :ahem:

Bye all. JP, please respond to this so you don't lose face in front of the kiddies (aka your customers).

Sorry dingy, I don't donate money to JPH, I donate to other charaties along with many of his other readers. BTW, how much money do you give to atheist web sites a year? :blush:

Crystal

FYI if you want to see another one of your hero's errors, here it is:

There are actually some 200 gospels, epistles and other books concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Writing such material was a popular literary form, particularly in the 2nd century. The pious fantasies competed with Greek romantic fiction.

200 Gospels and epistles? Liar, here is a refrence from an atheist were you can see and read these 'other gospels' and epistles here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com). Perhaps your friend over ther wants to get more specific on what he refers to as 'gospels and epistles. I should also note to you, much of those 2nd century writings quote the gospels and epistles if you don't believe me, take a look at some scholars (you know those people you don't read) and the web site I gave you as a refrence. Keep putting your faith in a web site that get's his info from pop tart boxes. :lol:

[lilpixieofterror]

SOUNDS LIKE A MATCH TO ME.

Oh, So you take paintings, Bible verses out of context, paste them all together, and puff your illusion comes true! In that case I'll 'prove' Lincon and FDR are the same person!

1. Both were presidents of the US.
2. Both were presidents during a critical time in us history.
3. Both died in office.
4. Both have shorten versions of their names (Abe and FDR).

Therefore, following your logic, FDR and Lincon are the same person (just ignore the thousands of facts that prove otherwise). We see fundy atheist logic at work again... :rofl:

Crystal

[jpholding]

Thank you for the cute nickname "dum dum"!

You're not worth a more creative effort.

Hey "JP", sorry I didn't see your Mithras/Dionysus argument before.

There's a lot of stuff you haven't seen before. That's why you're stupid.


He is depicted sometimes as a maniacal, destructive figure, and at other times as an innocent child; sometimes as a bearded man, other times as an effeminiate youth.

How is this not Jesus? Rev. 1:14:
His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;

Yeah. It's also Genghis Khan, Chairman Mao, General MacArthur, George W. Bush, and ten thousand other people who had an army at their disposal. :doh:

Certainly Jesus was depicted as youth in some portions of the bible, (I would also argue effeminiate)

Isn't that cute. He thinks his kiddie picture Bible goes back to the first century. :kiss:

"Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him." – Mark 14.45

You think this is "effeminate"??? You moron -- in Eastern cultures men kiss each other as a sign of friendship! Next up: The king of Saudi Arabia was Yasser Arafat's gay lover! :rofl:

"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." – Mark 14.51,52

Um, yeah, what about this? This isn't Jesus. :doh:


In almost all paintings, jesus is depicted to be bearded, except his child paintings.

Um, yeah. Kids usually don't grow beards. :doh: But a beard was standard for Jews of the first century.


SOUNDS LIKE A MATCH TO ME

Sounds like you've been inhaling kerosene fumes to me!

and that was just the first bit of your article. I hate to think what else is in there.

Too dumb to be scared. Yep.

Ha. You and your little gang like to point to apologetics sites for evidence.

Um, yeah. That article was written by an atheist who wrote it for the apologetics site, you moron. :doh: Crystal gigged you otherwise on this sort of idiotic thinking.

You mean how you claim the water to wine was post christian?

Bingo! So now he changes the subject:

Strange how jesus would create more wine for a croud who had already been drinking much on the one hand, and on the other hand Paul warned against drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18).

You idiot. Nothing says that the crowd had been drinking too much. Ancient wine was so weak it would take hours of steady drinking to get drunk on it.


The "miracle" sounds pretty pagan to me, but I'll take your "research" at face value and assume you found some point to agree with you and printed it.

Yeah. A credentialed Grec-Roman historian (Bowersock).

I would bet there are contrary positions

Yes. Hacks like Acharya S with no relevant credentials.

Well "JP", I don't have gordon's book in front of me, so I can't verify that claim. But here's a reference to Gordon comparing Christianity to Mithras worship.

Which says exactly nothing in support of your point. The "link" has to do with universals of forms of worship in ALL of the Mediterranean world. In other words, to practical necessity of the background. Not one group borrowing from another.

Good night, you are stupid. And you don't even know how stupid you are.



Oh man, this is the biggest laugh of all. A petty little wanna-be like yourself questioning the credentials of Dawkins!!!

As a historian, yes. But I guess you're so dumb you think he's God.

[Darth Executor]

I think you guys misunderstood. I previously told you I copied and pasted an article from wikipedia in here, and y'all though it was my thoughts.


I didn't. I had to go to the wikipedia article to check out some of the sources (which are woefully inadequate, if present at all).

By the way, quoting Dawkins on history is like asking Isaac Newton to perform a heart transplant. Being an expert in one area doesn't make him an expert in all areas.

[lilpixieofterror]

Isn't that cute. He thinks his kiddie picture Bible goes back to the first century. :kiss:

Actually, I think he's using 'The Brick Testment' as refrences. :ahem:

You think this is "effeminate"??? You moron -- in Eastern cultures men kiss each other as a sign of friendship! Next up: The king of Saudi Arabia was Yasser Arafat's gay lover! :rofl:

As you said JPH, he's stupid. I've been to the Middle East and can tell everyone here that men do kiss one another and hold hands in public as a: SIGN OF FRIENDSHIP, in fact many European countries do this too. Got to love stupid people, they are entertaining.

Um, yeah. Kids usually don't grow beards. :doh: But a beard was standard for Jews of the first century.

They don't :stunned:! I wonder if he's just understanding this knowledge of you have given him? Do you think next he'll look at pictures of me at 7 years old and today and say that it's not me because I have more curves today than I did than. :rofl:

Sounds like you've been inhaling kerosene fumes to me!

Actually, it's paint thinner...

Um, yeah. That article was written by an atheist who wrote it for the apologetics site, you moron. :doh: Crystal gigged you otherwise on this sort of idiotic thinking.

Got to remember, if it does not agree with his opinion and hero, it's wrong, simple as that... :ahem:

Crystal

[jpholding]

They don't :stunned:! I wonder if he's just understanding this knowledge of you have given him? Do you think next he'll look at pictures of me at 7 years old and today and say that it's not me because I have more curves today than I did than. :rofl:



I wouldn't doubt it. I suspect his dating life amounts to the time he tried match.com and they paired him with a '57 Chevy. :hehe:

[lilpixieofterror]

I wouldn't doubt it. I suspect his dating life amounts to the time he tried match.com and they paired him with a '57 Chevy. :hehe:

Did the Chevy sue match.com for having to date an 'oxygen thief'? :rofl:

Crystal

[Teallaura]

Okay, someone has to do it. I like Wikipedia! :smile:

There, I said it... :yes:


















Of course, it's only good for general info and esoteric pop culture stuff.... :ahem:

But it's so cute! :hug:

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay, someone has to do it. I like Wikipedia! :smile:

There, I said it... :yes:

Of course, it's only good for general info and esoteric pop culture stuff.... :ahem:

But it's so cute! :hug:

Wikipedia is great for researching things such as Star Trek (like you said), but it's no place to do in depth Bibical research. And yes, it is almost as cute as me :hug: (JK, I don't have that kind of ego, just having some fun).

Crystal

PS where do you get those cute cat pictures? I want one :frown:

[Teallaura]

Yeah, I was trying to be funny... Guess not... :shrug:

I got most of them here, actually. You can save any picture or smilie. Just left click on it: Save image. From there you can download it as an attachment (big stuff);[attachment=1]

avatar (if small enough) [attachment=2]

or a custom smilie (really small) :cat2:. When it doesn't fit, I beg for help in the Rec Room.

My current avatar is actually a pic of Piebald's cat as a kitten. He pm'd me - I'd forgotten! :doh:

[drachronicler]

So is Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry movies. :doh:

Those Zoroastrian texts all date well past the Christian era. Don't even try it.
Jp,
Just as there are virtually no original pre Christian era scriptures, so too, there are virtually no Zoroastrian ones. However, there can be no doubt that the "Good Ahura Mazda vs bad Ahriman Dragon" story was already well known because Persian wall reliefs at Persipolis, prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great clearly depict this story.

Also, Satan does not become the opponent of God in Jewish theology until the Babylonian captivity and exposure to Zoroastrian dualism. The Enochian literature was a direct result of this trend towards dualism, but then Judaism reappraised these ideas and largely dispensed with them. No so Christianity.

It should be understood that John of Patmos' plagiarism of Zoroastrian mythology does not negate the authenticity of Jesus. Revelation is obviously not inspired for the book is very clear in its stating that those events were supposed to take place "very soon".

Jesus' mission was to save the Pagan world, and to do this he disdained his prophesized role as the Jewish Messiah. This was the real reason Satan came to Jesus, to fullfill the OT prophesies which Jesus refused to do.

His birth was ochestrated at the moment of a heavenly conjunction to woo the pagans intended to flock to the new religion, certainly not the Jews who considered such things a pagan abominaton.

The similarity of his birth to that of Alexander the Great was also no coincidence.

All of these pagan abominations were necessary if Jesus was to save the pagan classical world. This is why John of Patmos imitated Zoroastrian mythology. It was all far more palatable to the pagan target audience. But the Jews could not stomach any of this abomination and rejected it.

But what was more important? Accepting Satan's offer to make Jesus the Jewish master of a world pagans would not accept and which would result in millions upon millions of deaths, or betraying the relatively small Jewish population, but in doing so insured virtually the entire "pagan", population of the former Roman empire and surrounding areas would flock to Christianity because it was filled with pagan ideas familiar and acceptable to the pagan world.

The final consensus is that Jesus did the right thing in rejecting his role as the Jewish Messiah and courting the pagans instead with a mythos filled with pagan beliefs, lifted verbatim from hellenistic and persian mythology, He essentially saved the otherwise doomed mass of pagan humanity that populated the classical world. Nor could God fault the Jews for rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, for he clearly chose to the the "Pagan Messiah" instead, for we gentiles. So everybody wins, except the authentic Satan, who would have dealy loved to be loosed upon the world as Jesus command to destroy the pagan world as Jesus should have permitted if Jesus chose in fact, the true Jewish Messiah of Biblical prophecy.

[jpholding]

Just as there are virtually no original pre Christian era scriptures, so too, there are virtually no Zoroastrian ones. However, there can be no doubt that the "Good Ahura Mazda vs bad Ahriman Dragon" story was already well known because Persian wall reliefs at Persipolis, prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great clearly depict this story.

Yes indeed. A wall relief that manages not to be as specific as the text, and is therefore worthless for your argument.

Also, Satan does not become the opponent of God in Jewish theology until the Babylonian captivity and exposure to Zoroastrian dualism.

Of course one has to date the book of Job very late to say that. And also pretend that good vs evil was something invented by the Zoros that the Jews were too stupid to come up without them. And also, Satan is never seen as God's dualistic equal in any Jewish text. Got any more bonehead comments?

Revelation is obviously not inspired for the book is very clear in its stating that those events were supposed to take place "very soon".

They did. I see someone needs a course in "preterism". :hehe:

Jesus' mission was to save the Pagan world, and to do this he disdained his prophesized role as the Jewish Messiah.

Ow. Where's that from? The Gospel of Thomas the Tank Engine?


The similarity of his birth to that of Alexander the Great was also no coincidence.

Oh wow. His mom was impregnated by a snake?

Please see about adding some extra restraints to your straitjacket....and please do some homework.

[Johnny MacManky]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Many of us here will, no doubt, have made use of Peter Kirby's excellent site. The above link may be of some interest to Member##### in reading some sources a bit more scholarly than Humphries.

[drachronicler]

QUOTE=jpholding: Yes indeed. A wall relief that manages not to be as specific as the text, and is therefore worthless for your argument.


DRAC: No serious archaeologist doubts the Persipolis Frieze represents Ahura Mazda vs. the dragon Ahriman. Likewise, no serious scholar save for deluded apologists would dream to suggest the far more ancient Zoroastrian faith, copied the "dragon binding and incarderation" incident from a circa 90 AD Christian scripture. The notion is absolutly absurd and unsupportable.


JP: Of course one has to date the book of Job very late to say that. And also pretend that good vs evil was something invented by the Zoros that the Jews were too stupid to come up without them. And also, Satan is never seen as God's dualistic equal in any Jewish text. Got any more bonehead comments?

DRAC: Dualism does not neccesarily mean the "evil" force is equal to the good, but that there is a constant battle between the two. Obviously the Zoros didn't think so, or Ahriman would not have been "bound and cast into the Abyss" and later cast into the fire as their theology maintains, exactly like the Christians. And Job is a poor choise of books for you to cite, becasue here we see Satan still counted as one of the "Sons of God", whom God considers his representative on Earth. This Satan may have exercised poor judgement in human nature regarding the fidelity of Job, but he remains obedient to God and cannot harm Job, or anyone else without God's permission. This is clearly not the same evil dualistic "Christian" Satan that rebelled from God and was clearly inspired by Ahriman dragon of Persian Zoroastrianism.

You must be aware the OT states that it is God Himself responsible for good and evil, and not a "rebellious" Persian Dragon which Christians would identifiy as the OT obedient servant creature, Satan.



JP:They did. I see someone needs a course in "preterism". :hehe:

DRAC: There is absolutely no doubt the Gospel writers believed, and wrote that Jesus would return in their generation, and they were obviously wrong. One can hold no stock in preterism, unless somehow we have missed in the historical record an event in which millions of fire breathing, sharp toothed, snake tailed monster horses (simply called dragons in the Zoroastrian text which John plagiarized), destroyed/consumed one third of the world population. I think something that dramatic would have been recorded if it already happened.



JP: Ow. Where's that from? The Gospel of Thomas the Tank Engine?


DRAC: Possibly, but if so, the writer came to the most obvious conclusion. The message of Jesus, and his birth, life and death, so filled with pagan iconography was rejected by the Jews as blasphemous, but embraced by the pagan Greco-Roman world, because it so so familiar to them. And the simple fact that Jesus did not overthrow the Roman world (as Satan came to him to do), proves fairly conclusively that Jesus was not the Messiah of the Jews. Read your Old Testament messiah prophesies and decide if Jesus made Israel the greatest nation in the world and defeated here Secular enemies as the Messiah was promised to do. If anything, Jesus became the "Messiah" of the pagan Greco-Roman world, but not the Messiah of the former, Chosen people of Israel.



JP: Oh wow. His mom was impregnated by a snake?

DRAC: No, the ancient sources are very specific that she was impregnated by the supreme God in the form of a heavenly "drakone of extraordinary size", which is usually a winged reptilian creature that serves the God Head, guarding sacred places, and pulling chariots across the sky, exactly like the "fiery flying serpents" (Cherubim and Seraphim) of Hebrew, and early Christian theology.. This is where the modern word "dragon" is derived from, and is used to describe Satan, probably because he is a Seraphim, which is esentially what the word means in Hebrew, and interestingly, also in ancient Egyptian. Satan is never described as an "angel", creatures that appear exactly like men, unlike the monstrous and reptilian Seraphim and Cherubim, and the Gospel accounts all suggest a draconic, rather than human/angelic form.

These heavenly "dragons" appear in a good deal of early Christian literature and artwork, such as guarding the gates of heaven and devouring sinners in scenes of heavenly judgement. In some cases God is actually sitting on a throne of the coiled tails of these dragons, whose huge bodies loom on each side, and known in Hebrew as the "covering Cherubs".

There can be no doubt then, that many early Christains recruited from Greek paganism saw the connections between the two greatest men in their culture, Alexander and Jesus, both being "Sons" of the supreme God. And although the Gospels are not as "explicit" as the chroniclers of Alexander, we can be sure that in the minds of many, if not all of the earliest Greco-Roman Christains, that Mary was undoubtedly also impregnated by God in the form of a heavenly Drakone. While this may seem bizarre and even abhorrent to modern Christians. Anyone familiar with the Greco Roman world of the the 1st and 2nd centuries AD understands this.

And if winged seraphim/dracones are indeed heavenly creatures as the Bible clearly states, perhaps one did indeed rape the mother of Alexander to establish a precedent for the coming of Jesus, just as it was also planned for Jesus to be born at the moment of a significant astronomical event (most astronomers suggest was a planetary conjunction),which would cause pagans seeped in blasphemous astrology to herald Him as a great man.


JP: Please see about adding some extra restraints to your straitjacket....and please do some homework


DRAC: I assure you I have done my homework. My upcoming book on this subject is complete with ancient scriptures and Christian artwork that documents and supports everything I have said. And if you wish to further discuss this subject, I would hope that you will refrain from your "trademark" , usual, immature behavior such as your insults here. These childish attacks only weaken you arguments, feeble as they are in light of the historical evidence. And please remember, I am not disputing the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, but merely stating that your Roman Popes and emperors may not have neccesarily "got it right" in selecting which Christian Scriptures you must believe in, and which ones are heretical. No Christian should take seriously scripture stolen almost verbatim from Persian Zoroastrian mythology, even if the writer claims to be the apostle John.

[lilpixieofterror]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Many of us here will, no doubt, have made use of Peter Kirby's excellent site. The above link may be of some interest to Member##### in reading some sources a bit more scholarly than Humphries.

I already gave him that web site Johnny, but thanks for the help. :teeth:

Crystal

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, I was trying to be funny... Guess not... :shrug:

Sorry, I had a feeling you were, I sometimes like to be ultra serious when somebody tries to be funny (you don't have the voice hints in here to tell others that). Sorry for stealing your thunder Teal :uneasy:

My current avatar is actually a pic of Piebald's cat as a kitten. He pm'd me - I'd forgotten! :doh:

Thanks for the picture, I think I can make good use of it! And that's such a cute kitten :hug:

Crystal

[Teallaura]

Naw, forget it - sometimes they just fall flat. :shrug:

So I see - Kelp asked to use it, too. Karate Kitty rides again! :teeth:

[jpholding]

DRAC: No serious archaeologist doubts the Persipolis Frieze represents Ahura Mazda vs. the dragon Ahriman.

And no serious scholar thinks it has anything to do with Revelation either. Otherwise you may as well appeal to the Chinese restaurant menu down the road that has a dragon on it as influenced by Revelation.

What nonsense. You see a depiciton of a dragon being fought and the parallelomania runs wild.

Likewise, no serious scholar save for deluded apologists would dream to suggest the far more ancient Zoroastrian faith, copied the "dragon binding and incarderation" incident from a circa 90 AD Christian scripture.

Sorry, I'lll inform Edwin Yamauchi that he's deluded despite his doctorate which exceeds your GED certificate.

Dualism does not neccesarily mean the "evil" force is equal to the good, but that there is a constant battle between the two.

That makes drawing a comparison even stupider, then, since one may as well appeal to certain manga publications as influenced by Zoroastrianism. Or maybe Revelation.

Obviously the Zoros didn't think so, or Ahriman would not have been "bound and cast into the Abyss" and later cast into the fire as their theology maintains, exactly like the Christians

As attested only in the Avesta, a late document. Not on your wall relief. Hence of no use to you. Try again.

And Job is a poor choise of books for you to cite, becasue here we see Satan still counted as one of the "Sons of God", whom God considers his representative on Earth.

Hard to see why this is a problem. Maybe because you don't know anything. Satan in Revelation is counted as a fallen angel and therefore is no different, qualitatively, than in Job.


This Satan may have exercised poor judgement in human nature regarding the fidelity of Job, but he remains obedient to God and cannot harm Job, or anyone else without God's permission.

If you pay attention to Revelation a little more closely, you will see that God is the one who pronounces judgments and allows destruction on the earth. So there's no difference there either, and your fantasy of a "dualist" Satan in Revelation and not Job is a result of re-defining "dualism: so conveniently that it reeks.

You must be aware the OT states that it is God Himself responsible for good and evil,

The word is more properly translated "calamity" and does not refer to moral evil. Try to pull that on someone less informed next time.


One can hold no stock in preterism, unless somehow we have missed in the historical record an event in which millions of fire breathing, sharp toothed, snake tailed monster horses (simply called dragons in the Zoroastrian text which John plagiarized),

Yep. You're definitely ignorant about preterism. It requires no such thing. Care to do some homework and try again?


JP: Ow. Where's that from? The Gospel of Thomas the Tank Engine?

DRAC: Possibly, but if so,

Good Zeus. He actually thinks that's a real document. :nc:

The message of Jesus, and his birth, life and death, so filled with pagan iconography was rejected by the Jews as blasphemous, but embraced by the pagan Greco-Roman world, because it so so familiar to them.

More baloney. I'll bet you think the Trinity is pagan, don't you? Go ahead -- say so and give me an excuse to apply more mustard. :hehe:

Read your Old Testament messiah prophesies and decide if Jesus made Israel the greatest nation in the world and defeated here Secular enemies as the Messiah was promised to do.

Yep. He just did it the Gandhi/Martin Luther King way rather than the Malcolm X way. Did you happen to notice that Rome, um, FELL? :hehe: He also did it by properly regarding Israel not as an ethnic group but as those loyal in covenant.

Ever study ancient ingroup psychology? It would keep you from making so many mistakes on this.

No, the ancient sources are very specific that she was impregnated by the supreme God in the form of a heavenly "drakone of extraordinary size", which is usually a winged reptilian creature that serves the God Head,

And is thus nothing like what is depicted in the NT, other than by you mangling language. Thank you.


I assure you I have done my homework.

No. You haven't. What you've done is uncritically lifted material from equally uncritical and/or out of date sources.

Your silence will be taken as evidence of defeat. How's that for stacking the deck? :hehe:

[member11491]

Hi all,

just dropped in to post this article

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

A bit off topic, but a good read! I would have made it a new thread, but I was apparently banned from doing that (so much for my "persecution complex"!)

cheers!

[member11491]

Oh one more thing. This weekend I watched an excellent documentary called who wrote the bible

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7785317849743909385&q=who+wrote+the+bible

He interviews professors from harvard, yale, oxford and they all come the same conclusion. The jesus we all know and love was basically a myth. The all stop short of saying he was entirely mythical, but it still justifies nearly everything I've written here.

even though I just discovered this recently, it seems it's pretty well known fact jesus was just a myth.

cheers all

[jpholding]

Hi all,

just dropped in to post this article

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

A bit off topic, but a good read!

You idiot. Why do you assume everyone here supports Bush?

The most die-hard Republican I know is an atheist. :hehe:

Oh one more thing. This weekend I watched an excellent documentary called who wrote the bible

That's your problem. Too much boob tube, not enough serious research.

As if anyone here had time to watch these soap operas of yours. :lol: Either post an argument or go dive into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades. :whistle:

[Darth Executor]

Hi all,

just dropped in to post this article

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

A bit off topic, but a good read! I would have made it a new thread, but I was apparently banned from doing that (so much for my "persecution complex"!)

cheers!

A former aide. Talk about credible. :ahem:

[Darth Executor]

The most die-hard Republican I know is an atheist. :hehe:


The most fanatical Republican I've ever seen is also an atheist. I'd post a link to his site but I don't want to get banned.

[Johnny MacManky]

The most fanatical Republican I've ever seen is also an atheist. I'd post a link to his site but I don't want to get banned.

Aw, go on Darth. Post it. We don't mind you gettin' banned. :teeth:

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh one more thing. This weekend I watched an excellent documentary called who wrote the bible

May I ask who was interviewed? (I can't get the web site to load, stupid .mil computers)

Did you read both sides of the story such as this below:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

As you can tell, anyone can make a video and claim it as true. The question we need to ask, is it true because they agree with you?

He interviews professors from harvard, yale, oxford and they all come the same conclusion. The jesus we all know and love was basically a myth.

That's nice, did they interview William Lane Craig? How about NT Wright? FF Bruce? No? So just because they are from Harbard, Yale, and Oxford and agree with your opinions, why are they correct?

The all stop short of saying he was entirely mythical, but it still justifies nearly everything I've written here.

Wow one video that agrees with you! My my, such scholarly sources you have! Were they theologians or historians that were interviewed?

even though I just discovered this recently, it seems it's pretty well known fact jesus was just a myth.

Might want to go tell this guy your findings:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

You might also want to tell these guys too:
http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=213201

All of these sources seem to agree with me that Jesus DID exist and that your video is wrong! Than again, I disagree with your opinion so the only logical conclusion (in your twisted world) is that I'm wrong.

Crystal

[lilpixieofterror]

You idiot. Why do you assume everyone here supports Bush?

Because he's stupid, I'm a regerstered Democrat; however; I tend to vote whatever side I think is doing the best job (I didn't vote for Bush either).

The most die-hard Republican I know is an atheist. :hehe:

I know tons of Republicans that are not Christians, stats and reality is not something that comes to our friend's brain (been reading too many jesusneverexisted.com articles and watching too many Michael Moore movies). He'd rather watch pretty videos with cute pictures and sayings than read real books on the topic written by experts, not by somebody writing or speaking outside their field(s) of study.

Crystal

[member11491]

The most fanatical Republican I've ever seen is also an atheist. I'd post a link to his site but I don't want to get banned.

Why would they ban you for that? If you don't get banned for having a picture of Adolph Hitler in your profile, you probably won't get banned for a simple link!

[Darth Executor]

Why would they ban you for that? If you don't get banned for having a picture of Adolph Hitler in your profile, you probably won't get banned for a simple link!

They won't ban me but I'll get in trouble. The link in question contains rather questionable language.

[One Bad Pig]

Hi all,

just dropped in to post this article

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

A bit off topic, but a good read! I would have made it a new thread, but I was apparently banned from doing that (so much for my "persecution complex"!)

cheers!
Why do you think you can't start a new thread?

[Teallaura]

Why do you think you can't start a new thread?Because he thinks he'll get banned for doing anything within decorum.... :hrm:


Now why he thinks that is beyond me... :shrug:

[aikidoka]

So in the first 12 minutes of this video the guy accepts Finkelstein's dating without question? :ahem:

Hardly an impressive beginning. Also, the guy in the video seems more concerned about black political/cultural power and misses that little thing the apostle Paul said:

Col 3:9 ...seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Oh brother, now he's appealing to the "two contradictory creation accounts" claim. :lol:

and

How did Moses write about his own death? and the JEDP view :rofl:

geeze thanks for wasting about 15 minutes of my time. Old material that Christians have dealt with, I see no reason to waste more of time on such drivel.

[member11491]

Because he thinks he'll get banned for doing anything within decorum.... :hrm:


Now why he thinks that is beyond me... :shrug:

Hmm.. Well, here is what I see at the bottom of my screen

You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts


yeah, it's beyond me why I would think that! More xtian doublespeak.

[Johnny MacManky]

Hmm.. Well, here is what I see at the bottom of my screen

You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts


yeah, it's beyond me why I would think that! More xtian doublespeak.

Member, that's only in this particular forum. These same posting rules apply to most of us in Tektonics. If you go to Apologetics, or other forums around Tweb, the posting rules vary, like, some places are for Christians only, others are for non christians only.

[One Bad Pig]

Hmm.. Well, here is what I see at the bottom of my screen

You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts


yeah, it's beyond me why I would think that! More xtian doublespeak.
Sorry about that. As an AA I can post anywhere, and I don't always remember what general members can or can't do in an area. The fora in this area of Theologyweb are for sites affiliated with Theologyweb, and are specially restricted so only the owner of the affiliated site may start threads in their forum.

[lilpixieofterror]

Hmm.. Well, here is what I see at the bottom of my screen

You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts


yeah, it's beyond me why I would think that! More xtian doublespeak.

Wow, instead of getting all the facts before you say something, you show us that you don't care about the facts. I can't post new threads in here either, it's locked, only AA's or JPH can make new threads in this form, same goes for all of the forms of the same genra. This is one reason why I do not show you respect, because of things like this.

Crystal

[member11491]

Hi Crystal,

Well, your point in entirely silly. After all, I was able to make THIS VERY THREAD, but now the ability to make new threads are gone.

Now what were you saying about not getting all of one's facts straight silly girl?

I just dropped by since I found this blog about JP:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002146.html

apparently he admitted there is no historical "jesus"? JP, is this right, or have you been taken out of context?

[Johnny MacManky]

Hi Crystal,

Well, your point in entirely silly. After all, I was able to make THIS VERY THREAD, but now the ability to make new threads are gone.

Now what were you saying about not getting all of one's facts straight silly girl?

I just dropped by since I found this blog about JP:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002146.html

apparently he admitted there is no historical "jesus"? JP, is this right, or have you been taken out of context?

He was not only taken out of context, but even Mr Johnny 'Liberal' Nazarene does not agree with the 'Statement of Belief'. To sign the Statement would, in effect, deny that there was a historical Jesus who was in any way alike to the figure described in the New Testament.

I'm not sure if the Statement of Belief is a 'false dicotomy' or a 'non sequitar', or some other fancy term I'm not really familiar with. Piffle will suffice for me.

Just for your info Member, I'm not a huge fan of JPH's style. I'm certainly not one of his 'minions', but that article you linked to is just crap.

[lilpixieofterror]

Hi Crystal,

Well, your point in entirely silly. After all, I was able to make THIS VERY THREAD, but now the ability to make new threads are gone.

That's because you were given special permission to make one. If you really have your heart set on making a new thread on this board, try either asking JPH or one of the mods. There is tons of boards on here, I bet you can start new threads on.

Now what were you saying about not getting all of one's facts straight silly girl?

That's because this board is normaly locked, you have to be given special permission to start a thread on this board. If you go to the home page, when you see a blue or white dot, you can post new threads. Red dots mean you can't. Normal memebers can not make new threads on Intra-Varsity Relations. I can't either...

I just dropped by since I found this blog about JP:

Maybe you should go read JPH's entery on his web site on this issue. I bet you there is more to it than that... :teeth:

apparently he admitted there is no historical "jesus"? JP, is this right, or have you been taken out of context?

It's JPH's job to defend himself, not mine. Chances are it's just another attempt to try to destroy his credibility or something taken out of context. I shall enjoy watching you be made a fool and disappear for a few days.

Crystal

[jpholding]

apparently he admitted there is no historical "jesus"? JP, is this right, or have you been taken out of context?

Let's just say that Brian "Chicken Boy" Flemming has no concept of "sarcasm". :no:

[rolandpibb]

Long time lurker, 1st time poster. Hello.

Another dolt who thinks insult = "ad hom"

:lol:

I'm confused, I thought ad hominem was a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion

Are insults to someones intelligence not attacking the person?

[Darth Executor]

I'm confused, I thought ad hominem was a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion

It isn't. It's attaking the person AND not dealing with the argument presented.

Ad hominem:
Man 1: 1+1=3
Man 2: You're an idiot.

Not ad hominem
Man 1: 1+1=3
Man 2: 1 + 1 =2, you idiot

[rolandpibb]

It isn't. It's attaking the person AND not dealing with the argument presented.

Ad hominem:
Man 1: 1+1=3
Man 2: You're an idiot.

Not ad hominem
Man 1: 1+1=3
Man 2: 1 + 1 =2, you idiot

Gotcha.

Whether ad hominem or not, wading through insults to find pearls of wisdom is quite frustrating.

[One Bad Pig]

Hi Crystal,

Well, your point in entirely silly. After all, I was able to make THIS VERY THREAD, but now the ability to make new threads are gone.

Now what were you saying about not getting all of one's facts straight silly girl?

Yes, you were able to make THIS VERY THREAD. However, you made it in a different forum; it was moved here by an AA.

Now who looks silly?

[One Bad Pig]

Gotcha.

Whether ad hominem or not, wading through insults to find pearls of wisdom is quite frustrating.
I suggest you get acquainted with the ignore feature, then. It'll save you quite a bit of frustration.

Welcome to Tweb, btw.

[lao tzu]

... Welcome to [the Tektonics section of] Tweb, btw. Ditto, with gusto.

Hey, rolandpibb, step over to the regular TWeb forums and introduce yourself. We can always use another reasonable atheist around the Apologetics subforum. And don't miss the Nat Sci forum either, our own private section where we can kick back in full view of the theists and exchange kitten-roasting recipes.

Don't take it personally, but considering the number of times I've fruitlessly suggested that to "genericmember", I figure it bears repeating. This TWeb subforum is JPH's little cul-de-sac.

As ever, Jesse

[Frogwarrior]

Gotcha.

Whether ad hominem or not, wading through insults to find pearls of wisdom is quite frustrating.
How long did it take you to find "1+1=2" in that example?

[OldManZangetsu]

Whether ad hominem or not, wading through insults to find pearls of wisdom is quite frustrating.

I agree. I usually read books or articles before getting involved in discussions/debates about stuff; that way, wading through the insults is easier. But then again, I'm a very patient person.

[Teallaura]

Just to be annoying: Technically an ad hom is dealing with the problem presented by insulting the person instead of addressing the problem...

:teeth:




(Actually, DE's explanation pretty well said as much.... )

[member11491]

Let's just say that Brian "Chicken Boy" Flemming has no concept of "sarcasm". :no:


So you were sarcastically saying jesus never existed? I'm sure you'll be forgiven as long as you didn't deny the holy spirit.

I was reading the bible again this weekend and it seemed quite insane to me that anyone can take it seriously. I found the story about elijah and the she-bears and the children. For those of you who arn't familiar with the story (probably all of you) some kids were insulting Elijah's bald head, Elijah curses them in the name of the "lord" and a couple of bears come out of the woods and maul 40+ of the kids! This is in addition of a "flaming chariot" taking him up to heaven! :lol:

Also, a little more reading of the NT convinced me that all of you are not really christians at all. Can you drink deadly things and not be harmed? How about handling serpents? That is supposedly the mark of a true believer. How many of you have given all your possessions away? How many of you have gouged your own eyes out rather than sinning?

[Johnny MacManky]

Member,

Just what do you hope to achieve by posting such stuff? Do you hope perhaps to open the eyes of one or two and 'save' them from wasting their lives by following Christ?

I was wondering recently about what atheists hope to achieve by debating with Christians in the manner which you do. What is your purpose?

[Frogwarrior]

Also, a little more reading of the NT convinced me that all of you are not really christians at all. Can you drink deadly things and not be harmed? How about handling serpents? That is supposedly the mark of a true believer. How many of you have given all your possessions away? How many of you have gouged your own eyes out rather than sinning?Wow! This sounds familiar! It's almost like someone talking about the bit of Mark that textual evidence pretty solidly shows wasn;t in the original text!

Hey, wasn't there a Tektonics article addressing this issue? Why, there is (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html)! And, unusally, the argument isn't full of ad hominems!

Oh, the irony!

[jpholding]

So you were sarcastically saying jesus never existed?

:no:

Dumber than a box of rocks.


I found the story about elijah and the she-bears and the children. For those of you who arn't familiar with the story (probably all of you)

It was Elisha, not Elijah. What's the about none of us being familiar with the story?

We know it like you know the back of our hands, plus http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html stuff like that which tells us why you talk through your hat.

Snoooore....

[Johnny MacManky]

:snoopy:

[lilpixieofterror]

So you were sarcastically saying jesus never existed? I'm sure you'll be forgiven as long as you didn't deny the holy spirit.

:duh: That's all the response you need here.

I was reading the bible again this weekend and it seemed quite insane to me that anyone can take it seriously. I found the story about elijah and the she-bears and the children. For those of you who arn't familiar with the story (probably all of you) some kids were insulting Elijah's bald head, Elijah curses them in the name of the "lord" and a couple of bears come out of the woods and maul 40+ of the kids! This is in addition of a "flaming chariot" taking him up to heaven! :lol:

:duh: Well, did you bothered to read these commarities or book things. You would of learned.

1. They were not children, they were about 11 to as old as their early 20's.
2. They were surrounding him attempting to kill him.
3. No body died.

Now that you are done looking like a complete fool, I'll sit here and laugh at you. :rofl:

Also, a little more reading of the NT convinced me that all of you are not really christians at all.

This should be intresting to hear.

Can you drink deadly things and not be harmed?

Do you know who Jesus was talking to?

How about handling serpents?

Like Paul did? :lol:

That is supposedly the mark of a true believer. How many of you have given all your possessions away?

Do you understand a hyperbole is or who Jesus was talking to? :ahem:

How many of you have gouged your own eyes out rather than sinning?

Do you know what a hyperbole or figurative lanuage is? :duh:

Crystal

[Spheniscine]

Like Paul did? :lol:
I can see it now; Apostle Paul: The Pharisee Hunter :lol:

[lilpixieofterror]

I can see it now; Apostle Paul: The Pharisee Hunter :lol:

Wow, sounds like one of those reality TV shows. On a more serious note: I made that comment because of the last few chapters in Acts were Paul was bitten by a snake, plus like you said, his sometimes harsh words towards the Pharisees. I doubt our friend would get the refrences... I'm sure he's over on the 'jesusneverexisted' forms licking his wounds telling himself, 'They are stupid Christians' while assuming the fetal postion sucking on his thumb.

Crystal

[Spheniscine]

Well in that case,
3 And Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laying them on the fire, a viper came out of the heat. But Paul deftly avoided its strikes, and picked it up with a stick, while exclaiming, "Crikey, she's a beaut', mate! Just look at the size of those fangs!" 4 And when the foreigners saw the creature hanging from the stick, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a god!"
:lol:

[lao tzu]

Member,

Just what do you hope to achieve by posting such stuff? Do you hope perhaps to open the eyes of one or two and 'save' them from wasting their lives by following Christ? I'd say that's a fairly generous interpretation, Johnny. Given that


he will not, despite repeated urgings, take part in the broader discussions in this board, and
he first registered here as holding_jp, and
he's repeatedly mentioned his interest in bringing back tales of christian intolerance, and
he is forever getting caught in misinterpretation with no hint of an acknowledgement

I'd say his primary purpose is to troll.

I was wondering recently about what atheists hope to achieve by debating with Christians in the manner which you do. What is your purpose? I've often said on a statistical basis that god's primary purpose according to christian beliefs is to populate hell. Using the same metric, I'd say member's primary purpose is to create a poor impression of atheists.

Or he could be a christian apologist in atheist drag. This is the net, after all.

As ever, Jesse

[rolandpibb]

It was Elisha, not Elijah. What's the about none of us being familiar with the story?

We know it like you know the back of our hands, plus http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html stuff like that which tells us why you talk through your hat.

Snoooore....

It seems like there's quite a lot of assuming in the article that was linked;

The harmless "teasing" was hardly that--they were direct confrontation between the forces of Baal and the prophet of YHWH that had just healed the water supply

And

"A careful study of this incident in context shows that it was far more serious than a "mild personal offense." It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive towards respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course. "

We’ve got a couple of hasty generalizations there and with an assumption of “large numbers”. These assumptions are not the definitive answer that "The young men openly mocked god, so they deserved it."

Also, if we do assume that the young men were mocking god, why is it so hard to infer that from the passage?

If I did not have access to apologetics and texts other than the bible, such as;

Hard Sayings of the Bible, Kaiser/Davids/Bruce/Brauch, IVP:1996.
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, Zondervan: 1982
NIV Study Bible notes

Would the natural assumption be that these kids got eaten by bears for calling someone names?

[jpholding]

It seems like there's quite a lot of assuming in the article that was linked;

No, there was a lot of relevant information from credible scholarship.

If you have credible scholarship to the contrary, present it. Otherwise stop blowing smoke.


We’ve got a couple of hasty generalizations there and with an assumption of “large numbers”.

No, we do not. The facts stated are perfectly in line with the social world of the Ancient Near East and what is said in the text.

Tell us, how much do you know about the ancient world, about dyadic and collectivist societies?


Also, if we do assume that the young men were mocking god, why is it so hard to infer that from the passage?

Could it be that you're, um, you know...

NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH?

If I did not have access to apologetics and texts other than the bible, such as;

Hard Sayings of the Bible, Kaiser/Davids/Bruce/Brauch, IVP:1996.
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, Zondervan: 1982
NIV Study Bible notes

Would the natural assumption be that these kids got eaten by bears for calling someone names?

Sounds like a sound, credible argument against the facts and arguments stated to me! :doh: "I'm iggorent. That means whut I think hapened is whut hapened. D'oh."

[rolandpibb]

No, there was a lot of relevant information from credible scholarship.

If you have credible scholarship to the contrary, present it. Otherwise stop blowing smoke.

The “relevant information” you linked to contained assumptions and I listed them. One does not have to provide “credible scholarship” to the contrary to see that a number of things were assumed.

And why does the article say anything about gangs and ghettos in America? It has nothing to do with the passage. There is no proof listed that “packs of 50 or more” roamed around.

I post some simple questions based on anothers post, and you feel you have to insult me on a number of occasions.

And you have not answered my question.

I asked that if I did not have access to apologetics and texts other than the bible, would the natural assumption be that these kids got eaten by bears for calling someone names? (I assumed that you would think that the I in the question, was a layman-not a debating atheist or apologetic)

Why is the haziness of this passage of no concern to you? Most christians I know do not have access to apologetics, or even know what apologetics is. They have their bible, and a preacher who reads some choice passages.

Why would the word of god be so convoluted that unless we possess education about the "ancient world, dyadic and collectivist societies", we would not be able to understand it?

[jpholding]

The “relevant information” you linked to contained assumptions and I listed them.

And I told you you were wrong based on what is known of the social world of the OT. Sticking your head up your bum isn't an answer.

There is no "assumption" in saying that Baal and YHWH were theological rivals in that day and place and that Elisha was hard on to a cult center of Baal. That is fact. If you wish to offer an excuse that these people were very conveniently members of the local non-theists club with no interests in any god at all, feel free to entertain your own delusions in that regard.

There is no "assumption" in supposing that further violence was possible. That is borne out by the social history of gangs and roving bands, as well as by the social conditions. If you wish to speculate that after meeting Elisha, they planned to disband and form local flower arranging clubs, do feel free to entertain your fantasies to the hilt.

Bottom line: It is not that there are "assumptions," it is simply that you are STUPID.


And why does the article say anything about gangs and ghettos in America? It has nothing to do with the passage.

I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand the need for an analogy.

There is no proof listed that “packs of 50 or more” roamed around.

No, I guess the numbers magically stopped at 42. :doh: Anytime anyone tried to add a 43rd member to any band, large boogo-worms came out of the earth and ate them until there were 42 left.


I post some simple questions based on anothers post, and you feel you have to insult me on a number of occasions.

And you have not answered my question.

I've answered just fine. You're simply stupid. That is a fact.

I asked that if I did not have access to apologetics and texts other than the bible, would the natural assumption be that these kids got eaten by bears for calling someone names?

Conclusions arrived at in ignorance by persons unwilling to do a little homework are of absolutely no relevance to what is indicated in a history.

(I assumed that you would think that the I in the question, was a layman-not a debating atheist or apologetic)

I don't care if the "I" was Grover Cleveland. Anyone who thinks reading a text devoid of its contexts allows one to arrive at a suitable interpretation is simply stupid.

Why is the haziness of this passage of no concern to you?

Because it isn't "hazy" to anyone but the ignorant. Last I checked, Jesus didn't say, "Blessed are those who sit on the couch and watch TV" and "discipleship" had a significant learning component. :doh:

They have their bible, and a preacher who reads some choice passages.

Sad, but of no relevance.

Why would the word of god be so convoluted that unless we possess education about the "ancient world, dyadic and collectivist societies", we would not be able to understand it?

Why is God responsible for the irrational stupidity of people like you who spend more time watching "Desperate Housewives" or whatever is on the boob tube this week (or doing whatever little hobby you do) than you ever would looking up things about the ancient world?

[rolandpibb]

If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more
And
there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel

These are assumptions, and as such, are taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Nowhere in the “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” that the writer quoted as source for his belief, does it provide proof that violence was imminent.

I do understand the need for an analogy. In this case, it’s when you want to dump your presuppositions on someone. There is no proof of a gang of 50 that was going to inflict violence, so the reader was put into that state of mind by including irrelevant material.

And when asked again about the need to be a scholar to just get a clear picture of the bible, I’m given;

Because it isn't "hazy" to anyone but the ignorant. Last I checked, Jesus didn't say, "Blessed are those who sit on the couch and watch TV" and "discipleship" had a significant learning component.
And
Why is God responsible for the irrational stupidity of people like you who spend more time watching "Desperate Housewives" or whatever is on the boob tube this week (or doing whatever little hobby you do) than you ever would looking up things about the ancient world?

Why must one “look up things about the ancient world” in order to understand the supposed word of god? It is clear, that this passage is unclear. If this passage is so clear, why have there been a number of apologetics articles penned about it?

What is clear, is that your style is suited to "internet apologetic". The way you answer questions would not go over well face to face.

[jpholding]

These are assumptions, and as such, are taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.

No, stupid. You act like the word "if" is some sort of qualifier rather than a matter of narrative conversation.

Nowhere in the “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” that the writer quoted as source for his belief, does it provide proof that violence was imminent.

Oh of course. Like I said, these gangs formed chess clubs after haranguing a prophet and all that. :doh:


I do understand the need for an analogy. In this case, it’s when you want to dump your presuppositions on someone. There is no proof of a gang of 50 that was going to inflict violence, so the reader was put into that state of mind by including irrelevant material.

Oh I see. All of scholarship is a conspiracy to fool you. :lolo: In fact, ancient nations like Egypt never actually existed and a whole market of books and scholarship was created just to fool poor old you.

The simple-minded can just as readily run through any work of historical scholarship and yell over and over, "Assumption!" and "There's no proof!" It's the way you have to do things when you're too stupid to provide negating arguments. I understand.


Why must one “look up things about the ancient world” in order to understand the supposed word of god?

Why does it being the Word of God require that it bow to an ignorant simpleton like you and cut everything down to a kindergarten level? Is this some rule you made up while sitting in the living room in your undershirt swilling Miller Lite?

It is clear, that this passage is unclear.

Nah. You're just stupid. :thumb:

The way you answer questions would not go over well face to face.

It's worked nicely so far.

[lao tzu]

What is clear, is that your style is suited to "internet apologetic". The way you answer questions would not go over well face to face. There are other TWebbers, outside this Tektonics cul-de-sac, who would probably be interested in answering your questions rather than lobbing insults in an attempt to cover the fact they've got no real answer. Let me suggest again that you take your questions over to this subforum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=15), where you'll be free to start up threads of your own. We all know bears don't come swarming out of the woods to protect prophets in the real world. We know fires don't come falling out of heaven to consume naysayers gathered about their altars, either. These things don't happen now, and they didn't happen then.

The real shame in these apologetics for inerrancy is that they serve to distract from the real lessons to be learned from the texts. These stories speak to our universal desires to see our beliefs affirmed by miraculous visitations. They also spread a message of caution to those who speak against religious authority, shining a light on the foibles of faith-based revelations. Though these cautionary tales are intended for adherents, the wider lessons are only available to those of us who can see them without the blinders. It's interesting to note that this does not exclude all christians, or even all christians among the voluntary staff of TWeb.

It does, however, exclude JPH.

As ever, Jesse

[jpholding]

There are other TWebbers, outside this Tektonics cul-de-sac, who would probably be interested in answering your questions rather than lobbing insults in an attempt to cover the fact they've got no real answer.

I know you're stupid too, Jesse. :thumb: And just as unable to see answers thanks to Editor ADD.



We all know bears don't come swarming out of the woods to protect prophets in the real world.

Just like tropical princes know ice doesn't exist....in their narcissistic, "only me" world.


The real shame in these apologetics for inerrancy is that they serve to distract from the real lessons to be learned from the texts. These stories speak to our universal desires to see our beliefs affirmed by miraculous visitations.

There's nothing like starting with an assumption of your own innate superiority in order to make texts say what you want them to say, right? :hehe:

As usual, for you, "exegesis" is governed by your delusions.

[rolandpibb]

:doh: "I'm iggorent. That means whut I think hapened is whut hapened. D'oh."

Sticking your head up your bum isn't an answer.

you are STUPID.

you're too stupid

You're simply stupid.

the irrational stupidity of people like you

No, stupid.

you're too stupid

an ignorant simpleton like you

You're just stupid.

JP, I couldn’t figure out why you were so hostile until I read a few more of your posts.

You act this way, throwing out juvenile insults, hoping that the few actual scholars who come through here will get so frustrated, that they’ll either make a mistake or leave, so you can “win”, usually by “default”. I don’t need an understanding of psychology to see that it’s a power play, probably stemming from a lack of power or control in your life away from the computer.

If I’m ever insulted (which hasn’t happened since I was in grade 11 back in 1987-thanks for the memories), I always consider the source. You are an “internet apologist” with a “degree” in “library sciences”. Your insults don’t bother me in the slightest.

I understand there are no “negating arguments” when it comes to the mind of your god. He does what he wants. 42 “young men” eaten by a bear does not have to be justified. I did not ask you to justify, I simply wrote that there were assumptions and generalizations in the article that you quoted. You responded by insult, and then told me to study more about the ancient world, and dyadic and collectivist societies.

You have skirted around my question for a third time. This last time, you equated not being able to come up with a clear picture of how a bible verse is supposed to be read, by equating god with being an elitist.

Why does it being the Word of God require that it bow to an ignorant simpleton like you and cut everything down to a kindergarten level?

The average IQ is 100. A “kindergarten” level is not needed, just a clear understanding. The reason many Christians become atheists (myself included) is due to a lack of clarity when it comes to how a passage is “supposed to be read”. Being an “internet apologetic”, I’m sure that you disagree with how some other apologetics come up with their understanding. There is no consensus on the final “meaning” of god.

My question still stands. Why does the bible require scholars (or in this case, an “internet apologetic”) to help interpret it’s meaning? Wouldn’t a clearer understanding of the bible be in “god’s best interest”?

[rolandpibb]

Let me suggest again that you take your questions over to this subforum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=15), where you'll be free to start up threads of your own.

Thanks for the invite.

[OldManZangetsu]

My question still stands. Why does the bible require scholars (or in this case, an “internet apologetic”) to help interpret it’s meaning? Wouldn’t a clearer understanding of the bible be in “god’s best interest”?

Because we're 2000 years removed from the scene and also in a culture that is on the opposite end of the spectrum from theirs. We use the word "gay" vastly different than it was used just 100 years ago. Can't think of any other words or phrases at the moment, but have you ever tried to study Old English? It's English, but when you read it it doesn't look like it. And Old English was just under 1000 years ago.

Imagine how differently words and phrases were used 2000 years ago. Not only that, you have the problem of translating these ideas across language and culture barriers. The ideal thing to do would be to look at the reason why whoever translated whatever Bible you choose chose that particular way of translating the message, and then delving into cultural studies to determine the exact meaning of it. Our language is also much more complex then theirs was. They had several different words to mean "love", we only have one.

Look at John 21:15-17. In our translations we have "love" used every time with both Jesus and Peter. At first glance it would appear that Jesus is insulting Peter by asking Him three times (because of Peter's three denials), but then the second half of 17 doesn't make much sense, "Peter felt hurt because He said to him the third time, "Do you love me?"" Because saying, "because He said to him the third time" implies that Jesus said something different. To read it the other way that sentence would have to read, "because He said to him a third time". With just the Bible you'd have no idea what that meant. But get out a concordance and you see that when Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him the first two times, he uses the word 'agape', and when Peter responds all three times he uses the word 'phileo'. The third time Jesus uses the word 'phileo'. That changes the meaning entirely.

All that requires a scholar of some sort who knows his business in translating ideas, and spends the proper amount of time and effort into doing so. A translator's job, though, is only to translate, not explain. Just because a translation was chosen doesn't mean it exactly represents what was going on, because our cultural practices and mindsets are vastly different. That's where people like JP come in, because for the most part us normal folk would be left hanging dry. Yes, a clear understanding would be in God's best interest, and thanks to Him we have had as many scholars as we've had who worked on all this for us over the years.

[rolandpibb]

OldManZangetsu, thanks for answering

Our language is also much more complex then theirs was. They had several different words to mean "love", we only have one.

I would say that this points out that “their” language is more complex than “ours”

All that requires a scholar of some sort who knows his business in translating ideas, and spends the proper amount of time and effort into doing so. A translator's job, though, is only to translate, not explain. Just because a translation was chosen doesn't mean it exactly represents what was going on, because our cultural practices and mindsets are vastly different. That's where people like JP come in, because for the most part us normal folk would be left hanging dry. Yes, a clear understanding would be in God's best interest, and thanks to Him we have had as many scholars as we've had who worked on all this for us over the years.

That’s one of the reasons why I can’t see the bible as the actual inerrant word of god. If it requires faith in others to come up with the “real” translation, that’s where faith in god falls apart for me.

I can’t imagine god saying to himself that he’s going to get man to write the book of the universe, but in it’s original context and language, it’s only going to be good for a few dozen years before it's message has to be
revisited and rewritten.

[Frogwarrior]

So, what, exactly, is God supposed to do, then? Make sure every person until the end of time has a thorough education in Hebrew and Greek?

The reason why you need to study ancient cultures to understand what the Bible is saying is that it was written in an ancient culture. Just because it's the Word of God doesn't mean it wasn't written a long time ago in a different language by people in a different culture. You might as well try to understand some piece of Japanese literature by slapping it through Babelfish.

[OldManZangetsu]

I would say that this points out that “their” language is more complex than “ours”

No, because the words agape, phileo, eros, etc would already have ideas imprinted with them, there would be no need for a lengthy explaination (among adults, at least). Whereas we only have one word to explain a whole spectrum of "types of love". Today 'love' is usually interpreted to have to do with a feeling (a reason so many guys have a hard time telling each other "I love you"), whereas 'agape' would have meant a love that cuts through all things, that you would take your enemy to the hospital if he was dying, or that you punish your child not because you hate them but because you want them to learn, or in Peter's case with Jesus, to love Him above all things, even in face of persecution; etc.

Phileo would be brotherly love, frienship, or buddies; and eros would be the type of love seen in marriages. I've forgotten the others.

Also, we have a lot more words than they did, such as car, hamburger, etc, which would include new phrases to describe their various functions, similes or metaphors to accompany them... the list goes on.


That’s one of the reasons why I can’t see the bible as the actual inerrant word of god. If it requires faith in others to come up with the “real” translation, that’s where faith in god falls apart for me.

I can’t imagine god saying to himself that he’s going to get man to write the book of the universe, but in it’s original context and language, it’s only going to be good for a few dozen years before it's message has to be
revisited and rewritten.

Opinions in interpretation don't affect MAJOR Christian doctrine, such as salvation and the event that Christianity is based upon, the resurrection. I would read this article (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html).

All that doesn't detract from the Bible's innerancy, it just requires a little more work to decipher it. But rest assured that other dedicated people have already done most of the hard work for you, you just have to look for the information. If it makes you feel better, no one in Biblical history (with the exception of Solomon) instantly got all the wisdom they needed from God. They had to work for it, so you're not alone in the fight.

[member11491]

Opinions in interpretation don't affect MAJOR Christian doctrine, such as salvation and the event that Christianity is based upon, the resurrection. I would read this article (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html).

All that doesn't detract from the Bible's innerancy...

Old Man, what are you smoking? As far as I know, MAJOR christian doctrine is pretty fractured. After all, the largest christian demnomination believes faith+good works, while the minor demoninations believe in faith only. The bible demands a lot more in any event, like giving away everything you own, drinking poison, handling snakes, etc. "JP" was trying to argue that the end of Mark wasn't really part of the bible or some such nonsense, which seems to argue directly against your belief in the bible's (sic)innerancy. Some other girl was arguing that "paul" handled a snake in acts proved he was a true christian - is that supposed to suffice for everyone?

As for the article you linked to, it is laughable! I liked #1

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?

It argues why would anyone believe in a crucified deity? What nonsense! Ask the egyptians, who believed that Horus was torn to pieces and resurrected. Or the Indians, who believed that Ganish had his head ripped off by his dad which was replaced by the head of an elephant! Or nearly every other cult!

The same goes for the #14 - xtians seem to think embarassing details = true account. Tell that to hercules who killed his whole family! Or zeus who cheated on his wives all the time, along with all the other fantasies.

The article rambles on and on about similar such nonsense, it's almost laughably stupid. I can only read a bit of "JP"'s stuff. It's like listening to a rambling, insane wino who thinks by yelling and cursing he's making a point. This "JP" is like the Jerry Springer of apologists, except much much less successful.

Like all the christ peddlers, out looking for a little xtian gold.

I'm still waiting for a little evidence nazareth existed during the time of jesus. And 1 obscure tombstone doesn't cut it, when there is supposed to be an entire city there.

[Frogwarrior]

The bible demands a lot more in any event, like giving away everything you own, drinking poison, handling snakes, etc.Wha? Yeah... I'm supposed to give away everything I own because... what? Jesus told one certain person to do so, because he knew that was the one thing that was keeping that person from truly valuing the Kingdom of God? Is that the encounter you're referring to?
And the snakes and poison thing, I'm guessing you're referring to the last few verses in Mark, 16:9-20, which... weren't in the original text! Oh snap.
GOOD job.
It argues why would anyone believe in a crucified deity? What nonsense! Ask the egyptians, who believed that Horus was torn to pieces and resurrected. Or the Indians, who believed that Ganish had his head ripped off by his dad which was replaced by the head of an elephant! Or nearly every other cult!Sigh. Do you understand that being torn to pieces, or having your head ripped off, would NOT carry the INCREDIBLE shameful connotations that crucifixion did? Did you even read the rest of the article?
And for the #14, this apparently isn't something that JP pulled out of his rear... seing that, according to the erticle, this is something recognized by "scholars of all persuasions..."
It's like listening to a rambling, insane wino who thinks by yelling and cursing he's making a point.WHAT the heck? I don't think that article had any, or at least very little, of any sort of inflammatory rhetoric. Seriously! Unless you'd get enraged at the hateful rhetoric in a math textbook.
I'm still waiting for a little evidence nazareth existed during the time of jesus. And 1 obscure tombstone doesn't cut it, when there is supposed to be an entire city there.Do you know for a fact that the establishment of the existence of non-major cities requires much more than a single plaque? Have you actually studied? Do you know of any respectable scholars who know of such things who say that that isn't enough? Or are you just saying "I think there should be more!!!" without any kind of education on the subject whatsoever?

[jpholding]

After all, the largest christian demnomination believes faith+good works, while the minor demoninations believe in faith only.

There's someone who got his knowledge of Catholicism out of a Chick tract....


As for the article you linked to, it is laughable!

Translation: It's above his head. :lolo:


Ask the egyptians, who believed that Horus was torn to pieces and resurrected.

No, that was Osiris, not Horus, and he was not resurrected, but pieced back together like a Frankenstein monster, and his death wasn't shameful.


I'm still waiting for a little evidence nazareth existed during the time of jesus. And 1 obscure tombstone doesn't cut it, when there is supposed to be an entire city there.

When you show us that cities of similar size and nature in rural Galilee consistently left behind more evidence, we'll talk about whether there really is a "problem".

[jpholding]

You act this way, throwing out juvenile insults, hoping that the few actual scholars who come through here

YOU think you are an "actual scholar"? :lolo: :lmbo:

No, you're just stupid. That's why you get insulted.

I don’t need an understanding of psychology to see that it’s a power play, probably stemming from a lack of power or control in your life away from the computer.

Sure thing, Dr. Fraud. :lol: And your reaction is the result of horrifying insecurities caused by lack of intimate performance. How's that?

I did not ask you to justify, I simply wrote that there were assumptions and generalizations in the article that you quoted.

And in that you were shown to be 100% wrong. All you do is throw around the words "assumptions" and "generalizations" because you got them out of some third grade book on logic, and like a kid with a new RC truck you drive them all over the place because you can't play with more intelligent toys.

You have skirted around my question for a third time. This last time, you equated not being able to come up with a clear picture of how a bible verse is supposed to be read, by equating god with being an elitist.

I answered it directly and in the same way everyone else has to you after that. Only those with insecurities refer to a demand for discipleship as "elitist".

The reason many Christians become atheists (myself included) is due to a lack of clarity when it comes to how a passage is “supposed to be read”.

I'll give that some credence when you tell me you did some real homework instead of watching "Touched by an Angel" and thinking that was discipleship.


Being an “internet apologetic”, I’m sure that you disagree with how some other apologetics come up with their understanding. There is no consensus on the final “meaning” of god.

What a bunch of hokum. "Spectre of diversity" is nothing but a dodge for being unable to answer arguments.

Wouldn’t a clearer understanding of the bible be in “god’s best interest”?

Wouldn't not being uneducated be in YOUR best interest?

How much time do you spend in serious study?

Do you vegetate in front of the boob tube when you could be improving yourself?

It's obvious that you're just playing games and looking for excuses. OMZ has said the same thing I have, and you're being just as incorrigibly dense.

[OldManZangetsu]

Wouldn't not being uneducated be in YOUR best interest?

How much time do you spend in serious study?

Do you vegetate in front of the boob tube when you could be improving yourself?

I concur. I don't mean to sound rude, but from my perspective (and I don't study nearly as seriously as JP does) you sound like a whiner. Just study something and study it with honesty. Treat the Bible the same way you would treat any other text, or otherwise throw all knowledge you have of antiquity to the wind.

[OldManZangetsu]

There's someone who got his knowledge of Catholicism out of a Chick tract....

:lmbo:

[rolandpibb]

JP, for someone who holds themselves in such high regard, it is troubling to see how much you do not understand the English language.

Let’s look at one of your posts...

There is no "assumption" in supposing that further violence was possible.

Let's use a synonym (a word having the same meaning as another word) in your sentence, shall we?

There is no "assumption" in assuming that further violence was possible

That doesn't make sense. I would suggest that you return to grade school to brush up on your language skills. And please pick up one of those "third grade logic" books for me, sounds fascinating.

Onto what the author wrote;

there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted

And you're saying that is not an assumption?

It doesn't matter if that same group was proven to have committed a violent act before and after, the author states they might have inflicted violence. The word might is used here to show the possibility that the violence may or may not have occurred. If there is no direct proof that violence happened, you must assume one way or the other.

Throw out as many insults as you like, put happy smiley faces everywhere, and say as you have done before; that I'm wrong. But just saying I'm 100% wrong doesn't make it so. The usage of the English language shows that I am right and you are 100% wrong.

And your game of pop psychology is way off.

Assuming that someone who replies to those that have opposing opinions with mostly insults is a power play, is well within the confines of the psychological realm. However, your knee jerk reaction to insult yet again, but this time try and turn it around with a vulgar examination of your own that has absolutely no basis in psychology is quite laughable.

Although, my first assumption on why you insult continually and often use the term stupid, was slightly off. You hold a "degree" in "library sciences", correct? The insults, especially the over use of the word "stupid" probably stems from pent up aggression dating back to when you had to deal with those nasty old "high school jocks". Since a "leopard doesn't change it's spots", you were probably mouthy back then too, and tried to get out of situations by using your "intellectual prowess", However, the jocks wouldn't take to being called stupid, so they probably wrote stupid on your forehead, or forced you eat your jockstrap with stupid written on it.

That's an assumption. Probably right on the money, but an assumption none the less. Learn from it.

[Darth Executor]

Let's use a synonym (a word having the same meaning as another word)

syn‧o‧nym 
a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language

[rolandpibb]

syn‧o‧nym 
a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language

sup·pos·ing

Assuming that: Supposing rolandpibb's right, what should we do?

[Darth Executor]

sup·pos·ing

Assuming that: Supposing rolandpibb's right, what should we do?


4. to think or hold as an opinion
5. to require logically;


Opinion

3. The formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

Since it is JP who is using the words, he gets to pick which definition he meant.

[member11491]

Hey Roland,

You'll have about as much success trying to reason with "JP" as you would with your average guest on Jerry Springer. This is a guy who has been known to troll around other web sites posting pretending to be a woman, and who applies auto-mechanic level of thinking to works of antiquity and thinks he's a genius (no offense to auto-mechanics). His reasoning ability is simplistic and purile.

If you try to suffer though his writings (ramblings more like) and find yourself utterly unconvinced, it's "over your head". Any evidence you supply is brushed off, and whatever he manages to scrounge up off the top of his head is taken as fact by the kiddies on this site.

I did read one sane post on this web site tonight, the kid who commented on the added ending to the book of Mark. I'm surprised he knew that much.

Well kids, if you are willing to admit that part of the bible is forged (the ending of mark) then you may not be entirely hopeless. Now go ahead and learn how much more of the last official religion of the Roman empire was also forged.

[lilpixieofterror]

You'll have about as much success trying to reason with "JP" as you would with your average guest on Jerry Springer.

JP actually ask for these 'explination' and 'research' things. I know that it's been a while since you did that, after all you prefer your coloring book, but give it a shot! It does wonders, trust me.

This is a guy who has been known to troll around other web sites posting pretending to be a woman, and who applies auto-mechanic level of thinking to works of antiquity and thinks he's a genius (no offense to auto-mechanics).

I am an auto-mechanic, there is alot of logic and reasoning involved in finding problems in a mechanical or electrical sysem. Not much different than there is in doing a research project. Next time your car breaks, fix it yourself and you'll see that it's not easy.

His reasoning ability is simplistic and purile.

No it isn't. :lol: He uses world class historians and theologians for his research. You on the other hand realy on jesusneverexisted.com, who got his info from a cereal box. Who do you think I should listen to?

If you try to suffer though his writings (ramblings more like) and find yourself utterly unconvinced, it's "over your head".

I think it is over your head, you still haven't answered me, and I didn't quote or use his site once.

Any evidence you supply is brushed off, and whatever he manages to scrounge up off the top of his head is taken as fact by the kiddies on this site.

I'm not a kid dummy (like I already told you). I have taken the time (unlike yourself) to research some of JP's article and found them to be accurate and useful. Just because I take the time to study and do my homework before I open my mouth, does not mean anything.

I did read one sane post on this web site tonight, the kid who commented on the added ending to the book of Mark. I'm surprised he knew that much.

:lol: Yep, act like Christians are stupid, that's alot easier than proving anything (just ignore that the majority of modren Bibles say 'Not found in oldest manuscripts'. Anybody who has basic reading skills, can tell you that. Thanks for showing us that you are clueless yet again.

Well kids, if you are willing to admit that part of the bible is forged (the ending of mark) then you may not be entirely hopeless.

:sigh: That's not a fogery. Do you know the difference between adding something and a forgery? Nope, thanks for showing us how clueless you are.

Now go ahead and learn how much more of the last official religion of the Roman empire was also forged.

As soon as you answer my questions and actually prove my research wrong (which I doubt you will) I have no reason to believe you, in other words, I don't have enough faith to believe your ideas.

Crystal

[Frogwarrior]

I did read one sane post on this web site tonight, the kid who commented on the added ending to the book of Mark. I'm surprised he knew that much.Don't you patronize me! :wink:
And guess how I knew that? That's right - by doing my homework. Because, as a Christian, I care about these things. Makes sense, no?

Well kids, if you are willing to admit that part of the bible is forged (the ending of mark) then you may not be entirely hopeless. Now go ahead and learn how much more of the last official religion of the Roman empire was also forged.
And you were doing so well. How much do you know of textual criticism, or of the method by which texts were passed down?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (or confirm me if I'm right) but I remember from my discussions on textual criticism that there were cases where a copyist would scribble a footnote in the margins, and someone copying that manuscript would think that was part of the original. And then we, much later, can follow the trail of evidence and piece back together what the original text was.

And, if I recall correctly, a forgery implies deliberate intent to obfuscate, no? Do you have any evidence implying that was the case? Even if it was deliberate, which I doubt you could find evidence for if you tried, would that somehow detract from our ability to reconstruct the original text?

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (or confirm me if I'm right) but I remember from my discussions on textual criticism that there were cases where a copyist would scribble a footnote in the margins, and someone copying that manuscript would think that was part of the original. And then we, much later, can follow the trail of evidence and piece back together what the original text was.

Spot on Froggy.

[Teallaura]

:argh: No, no, no guys! 'Textual criticism' means taking a paraphrase of the Bible, forget that it was written 2000 years ago in a very different culture, pretend that context doesn't matter and compare it to what your sweet, well-meaning, but clueless Sunday School teacher taught you when you were five - and if the Bible doesn't say exactly what you thought your Sunday School teacher implied, toss the entire religion and start arguing on websites with anyone who says different and has the gall to actually study the Bible intelligently.

That's textual criticism, guys! All this reading historians and referring to the manuscripts is just time-consuming, boring drivel that makes you miss way too much Nickelodeon!

Stupid scholars! :brood:






































































*This dripping sarcasm has been brought on by a lack of sleep, irritation with totally stupid arguments and the number 10.

[Johnny MacManky]

The number 10 is certainly an essential resource concerning Literary Criticism, but you are comparing bananas with potatoes by applying the number 10 to Textual Criticism. As for bringing Sunday School teachers into the equation, well, that's just infantile. All Sunday School teachers at my church (which is the one true church and all others are false) are required to have a MD in Theology, a PhD in either Greek or Hebrew and a minimum of 70 years of silent contemplation in a monastery or convent before they are even allowed to teach 'Mr Noah 101'.

Oh, and you're a woman! :eek:

[jpholding]

JP, for someone who holds themselves in such high regard, it is troubling to see how much you do not understand the English language.

You're the one with terminal stupidity here, jack. Playing musical chairs with words is the endgame of someone who can't answer the actual argument.

As Darth well perceived, my use of the word "supposing" has to do with a decision based on the collection of data, not on "assumption".


And you're saying that is not an assumption?

No, it is simple conversational narrative which you're harping on obsessively in order to prevent yourself from having to weigh the arguments and the data and decide whether the weight of it indicates that further violence would happen. The data of the story itself, along with the principles of honor and shame, of public challenge, and of the psychological nature of gang-style activity, completely indicate that further violence does not need to be "assumed" but is a FACT of what would have happened, barring interference.

The simple fact is that you are profoudly ignorant to the point that you can't answer such things, and so you resort to silly little kiddie games in which you place a thesaurus on your head trying to play Johnny Carson with an envelope.

The usage of the English language shows that I am right and you are 100% wrong.

You're a desperate little man without brains. Apply synonyms to that. :lol:

And your game of pop psychology is way off.

Ha! Your response is a clear case of denial, which shows I was right on the money. :hehe: Your knee jerk reaction to deny yet again, but to this time try and turn it around with another bare denial that has absolutely no basis in psychology is quite laughable.

See how easy it is to sound just like you?

The insults, especially the over use of the word "stupid" probably stems from pent up aggression dating back to when you had to deal with those nasty old "high school jocks".

The ones who needed my help with their homework? You bet. Poor guys would never have passed in some cases without me. :lol:

So to sum up: You and the likes of "dumber11491" have serious problems with self-esteem, exacerbated by having to deal with intelligent Christians here who find your "arguments" as impressive as hog slop. You'd never crack open a serious work of scholarship to save your life, and are profoundly "incompetent and unaware of it".

And those aren't assumptions. They're proven fact. :thumb:

[Teallaura]

The number 10 is certainly an essential resource concerning Literary Criticism, but you are comparing bananas with potatoes by applying the number 10 to Textual Criticism. As for bringing Sunday School teachers into the equation, well, that's just infantile. All Sunday School teachers at my church (which is the one true church and all others are false) are required to have a MD in Theology, a PhD in either Greek or Hebrew and a minimum of 70 years of silent contemplation in a monastery or convent before they are even allowed to teach 'Mr Noah 101'.

Oh, and you're a woman! :eek:

:hmph: Everyone knows that the number 10 is the base for any good Textual Criticism and that Literary Criticism uses pi. It is also common knowledge that the very best Sunday School teachers are the ones who've never seen a copy of the Bible, let alone read it. And your church has been universally considered heretical since you committed the heinous blasphemy of lifting both the pinkie and the ring finger when drinking tea.

Heathens! This is why we civilized Christians only let men think they run the church - otherwise they mess everything up!




:grin:

[Frogwarrior]

And your church has been universally considered heretical since you committed the heinous blasphemy of lifting both the pinkie and the ring finger when drinking tea.What? Barbarians! And to think I respected him!

[member11491]

So to sum up: You and the likes of "dumber11491" have serious problems with self-esteem, exacerbated by having to deal with intelligent Christians here who find your "arguments" as impressive as hog slop. You'd never crack open a serious work of scholarship to save your life, and are profoundly "incompetent and unaware of it".

And those aren't assumptions. They're proven fact. :thumb:

Oh man, you are brain damaged. Although you are oblivious to it, and so are the kiddies on this site, you are a total fool. We would never crack open a serious work of scholarship to save our lives? Proven fact?

Hopefully the sane people who may be lurking here have been exposed to what your brand of "scholarship" is like. Hopefully some of them realize that nearly every single thing concerning christianity requires "special pleading". My favorite is how you even have to cut things out of the bible to make sense of it all.

"Jesus" said to bless those who curse you. The fruitcakes on this site simply attack jerry springer style anyone who proves them wrong. It's like a trailer park shouting match here.


JP actually ask for these 'explination' and 'research' things. I know that it's been a while since you did that, after all you prefer your coloring book, but give it a shot! It does wonders, trust me.


I'm not sure you were speaking english here, lilangel, but if you were trying to indicate that JP does research and all who disagree with him do not, I think your brain is fried.

Look, I wanted some evidence that

1. Nazareth existed during the 1st century. None provided.
2. Why xtianity mirrors other pagan religions. "JP" claims they don't, even though early christian writers admitted it does.
3. Any evidence "jesus" ever existed. I got a bunch of speculation (he went through small towns - never mind the bible says thousands followed him even after he "came back to life").

What you guys gave me was a bunch of insults, arguments like "go read JP's work" as if he's some kind of an authority, and no facts.

[JB]

Greetings, Member 11491. I don't believe we've spoken previously, but I might as well make my contribution to this thread, meager though it may undoubtedly be.


Look, I wanted some evidence that

1. Nazareth existed during the 1st century. None provided.

I'm rather under the impression that this matter has been done several times. I believe that Glenn Miller wrote a few paragraphs on the matter, for example. For me, my evidence that Nazareth existed in the first century is that it is mentioned in some first-century documents: the gospels. However, might I also simply ask for your criterion as to determining whether a village existed at a point in the ancient past? I mean, if the criterion cannot be extended fairly and reasonably to other villages and yield consistent and reasonable results, I'd say that the criterion itself needs to undergo re-evaluation. That may be what some have been getting at by requesting another village of Nazareth's size and the evidence for it. A comparison case to confirm or reject the criterion. The challenge has been made, but I'm afraid you haven't provided one. :shrug:

So my question is, what standards do you use to evaluate the historical existence of a village of Nazareth's size?

2. Why xtianity mirrors other pagan religions. "JP" claims they don't, even though early christian writers admitted it does.

JP appears to have done a great deal of work on this topic. I'll reserve the remainder for what I wish to say in connection with this for a moment.

3. Any evidence "jesus" ever existed. I got a bunch of speculation (he went through small towns - never mind the bible says thousands followed him even after he "came back to life").

I'm sorry, but it strikes us as utterly historically implausible that the course of history could have followed the path that it did without some sort of historical Jesus. It does so to me, at least. I endeavor to avoid speaking on behalf of others.

Might I ask the criteria you apply to any historical person to determine their existence? I'd like to see how they apply to other historical figures. If they seem to be a good, solid rule, then maybe you've got a point and we really should expend more effort to make our case for the existence of Jesus, though I think that JP has already done a good job with this one too. However, if the rule proves to be unreliable, then maybe it isn't due to a lack of evidence that the existence of Jesus doesn't seem to have been demonstrated; perhaps it's simply a flaw in the method of evaluation.

What you guys gave me was a bunch of insults, arguments like "go read JP's work" as if he's some kind of an authority, and no facts.

Have you read JP's work? It's a serious question, how much of it have you thoughtfully examined? It seems (and I speak as one who has watched at least a fair portion of the exchange between you two) that you've come here asking for what JP's already written. That doesn't seem reasonable to me unless you've found yourself able to provide powerful rebuttals to his arguments. If you have, I'd sure like to see them. If you haven't, then the appropriate response on his part would be largely what has transpired: direct you to the articles, and if you aren't willing to read them, regard you as dishonest. If you have read them and simply don't find them convincing, we want to hear why. If you've done any critiques, I'd like to know where so that I can compare the two.

As for JP being an authority, he's using scholarship properly. That's all we ask: responsible handling of real scholarship. What I'd personally like to see is for you to point out flaws in his logic (and be rigorous about it, so that it's plainly exposed) and muster a presentation of evidence that defeats his case. Well, I'd at least like to see you make the attempt. Maybe you have, and I've missed it. If so, I only request that you let me know where, and I'll gladly go check it out.

With that all said, I wish you a good day.

God bless,

JB

[Teallaura]

Extremely lazy scholarship - emphasis on 'lazy' and 'scholarship' to be understood as an exaggeration of term.

As specified, only evidence (technically reference to) is provided. No interpretation or analysis of same - I've got enough sense to know my limits.

1) http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html Seems there are extra Biblical proofs.

2) Too vague for easy research - I did mention the emphasis was on lazy, didn't I? Also not specific enough to verify claim (which early Christian writers?).

3) The New Testament (Hey, he said evidence - and did not specify extra Biblical!) Oh, okay - and a bunch of historians who think the extra Biblical references probably do confirm His physical existence. http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

(Um, should we tell him that he provided evidence for the existence of the Incarnate Christ himself? If you accept the account that thousands followed Him, you kinda have to accept that they followed Someone who actually existed....)








Now, real scholarship involves me getting up and going to a library and/or doing a ton of reading on the subject. That's the kind of thing these guys have been talking about. To counter their arguments you can't just say 'prove it' - you actually have to show evidence of your own that their claims/analysis is wrong.

I showed you evidence on two of the three without even trying - found the stuff on the first page of both Google searches. Either you hadn't even done that much, or you're a nitwit. You pick.

[member11491]

Extremely lazy scholarship - emphasis on 'lazy' and 'scholarship' to be understood as an exaggeration of term.

As specified, only evidence (technically reference to) is provided. No interpretation or analysis of same - I've got enough sense to know my limits.

1) http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html Seems there are extra Biblical proofs.



After all the big talk around here about credible sources, and you give me A GEOCITIES PAGE?? And look at the arguments on it:

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C.,

and

By comparison, Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares, Pfann said. The homes later were razed by invaders: What remains are several basement caves, cisterns and silos excavated in the late 1950s during reconstruction of the Church of the Annunciation.

Now, let's see what the bible says:

Luk 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Luk 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)


So the page you provides says it was a village (although even of this, no archeological proof is offered). Well, the bible says it was a CITY.

The BIBLE IS WRONG. There was no CITY CALLED NAZARETH.




2) Too vague for easy research - I did mention the emphasis was on lazy, didn't I? Also not specific enough to verify claim (which early Christian writers?).


Have you ever heard of Justin Martyr?

CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.




3) The New Testament (Hey, he said evidence - and did not specify extra Biblical!) Oh, okay - and a bunch of historians who think the extra Biblical references probably do confirm His physical existence. http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/


The New Testament is evidence? Then how about all early christian writings? Because the list goes on and on, hundreds of gospels. Are they all true? Do you even know the events that lead up to the compilation of the New Testament? Of course not.

And over 1/2 the book was written by "Paul" (and people writing in his name), who never had contact with the godman at all! He had a "vision" of the whole thing! How wacky can you get?

With that kind of logic, I should accept Atlantis, since it was spoken about by Aristotle. I guess I should accept the Illiad as fact too, huh? What about your "extra Biblical references probably do confirm His physical existence". That sounds pretty uncertain to me. A few brief sentences all written decades after this supposed godman's death? Not a single person wrote about him during his life?


(Um, should we tell him that he provided evidence for the existence of the Incarnate Christ himself? If you accept the account that thousands followed Him, you kinda have to accept that they followed Someone who actually existed....)


Thousands followed who? Unfortunately, you don't know much about the early christians. A complete mismash of beliefs, with tens of sects (that we know of) that we know about believing very different things. What did they have in common, Jesus? Not even! Some early christians claimed the Phoenix was their proof, others said they were christians because they were "annointed with oil". Jesus is not even mentioned is all the early christian texts! The details of his supposed "life" got more and more fantastic as the decades wore on! I'm sorry, but that is not history! That is storytelling. The supposed "jesus" is a retelling of the same stories that had been floating around in the Roman world for some time.

Now what were you saying about scholarship?


I showed you evidence on two of the three without even trying - found the stuff on the first page of both Google searches. Either you hadn't even done that much, or you're a nitwit. You pick.


Thanks a lot for the geocities page. That was a real careful check of facts. Did you even read the arguments listed on that page, or did you just paste it in immediately?

So I ask again, any proof? How about even a sliver of proof that would meet any normal historical test? I didn't think so. You guys should get together and join a bowling league or something, because you stink at trying to hobble together some "evidence" for your phantom godman.

[Frogwarrior]

What word, exactly, is used in the original text to refer to Nazareth?
Can you show me that said word can never, in any circumstance, refer to a village?
You'll notice that even in English words like "town" are versatile enough to refer to really small farmland towns, OR cities of significant size. Have you studied enough to say it is not at all possible that the word translated "city" could not refer to something small?



And it is good to see that you have abandoned your shallow pretense of "just seeking after the truth" or "just wanting to get the facts."

[jpholding]

I see dumber is bringing up the usual canards. Have fun with him. I'll just shove one brick in his ear:


Have you ever heard of Justin Martyr?

CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.



Yeah. We've had stupid Skeptics throw that at us 1000 billion times here. Bad news for you: It proves the opposite of what you want.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm#2.3



Let's look at one of the quotes that Flemming provides (my emphasis):

For when they say that Dionysus arose again and ascended to heaven, is it not evidence the devil has imitated the prophecy?"
- Justin Martyr, church father. [22:55]

Notice that Justin says that the devil has "imitated the prophecy". We will look at the actual prophecy in the next section, but for now we can see that Justin doesn't really have the devil looking into the future to copy Christ at all. According to Justin, Greek myths were inspired by the devil from the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets. Justin was playing up two themes here: (1) the Hebrews actually had beliefs that were older than the Romans (via Greek poets); and (2) the devil inspired some of the Greek myths. At the top of this article I mentioned how the Romans would have been impressed by the antiquity of Hebrew writings - Justin was trying to play on that in order to emphasis Christianity's own 'antiquity'.



But there was one problem: the parallels were so weak that the pagans didn't recognise them. Justin had to plead that "we propound nothing new or different" to the pagans (see 2.4 below). So, Justin had to explain away why the pagans didn't see the parallels. His answer: the devil got them wrong. As Justin writes:

And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain. [First Apology]

So, Justin was NOT trying to explain away the parallels at all. In a time when Christianity was regarded as a barbarous new religion, Justin was trying to convince the pagans that parallels existed, and that pagan myths were misunderstood copies of stories in Hebrew writings. It was those pesky demons who misunderstood, of course - the same ones who had framed Socrates and created lurid tales about Jupiter.



Here Justin is trying to convince a skeptical pagan audience that there were parallels between pagan myths and the Christ story. It was the pagans who didn't see this, as explained above. However, the parallels that Justin gives aren't between Christianity and pagan ideas, they are between Hebrew writings and pagan myths. But what actual examples did he use?



Let's look at some of the parallels listed in Justin's "First Apology", and see how convincing they sound. These are all taken from Chapters 32 and 33. Notice how Justin is tying back to Hebrew prophecies (my emphasis below):

The prophet Moses, then, Was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape." The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.

Remember Price's comment about what the pagans were saying: "What you say about Jesus we’ve been saying about Dionysus and Hercules all the time". Well, ironically, Justin is actually saying, "What you say about Bacchus/Dionysus the Hebrews were saying about Jesus all this time". Would a pagan have accepted that similarity as valid, do you think?



Jesus Mythers who use Justin rarely show that Justin is showing the similarities between pagan myths and Hebrew ones. But if there is a similarity between Christianity on the one hand, and the Bacchus myth and Moses passage on the other hand, then the most obvious candidate for copying would have been from the Hebrew writings (Though I suspect that some Jesus Mythers may even claim that Christians copied from both the Moses passage in the Old Testament AND the Bacchus myth).



Justin gets into a bit of a tangle with this next parallel, believing the pagans have confused the story of Jesus riding a foal and ascending into heaven to produce the tale of Bellerophon ascending to heaven on a flying horse:

And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of "foal" could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus.

Here you can see that Justin is stretching to find the parallel between Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek myth. Another example:

And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of.

This is a closer parallel. There are only one or two gods "born of a virgin" outside of Christ (despite the numerous claims otherwise around the internet). Perseus is one of those. His mother had been locked away since she was a young girl, and Jupiter had come down in a golden shower to impregnate her.



Probably Justin's weakest example:

And when they [the demons] knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies [of the Hebrew prophets] written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth.

Again, Justin is stretching to create the parallel. And again, it isn't between Christianity and pagan religion, but between Hebrew writings and pagan religions.



A final example from that chapter:

And when, again, [the demons] learned that it had been foretold that [Christ] should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Aesculapius.

This at least sounds a closer parallel. Aesculapius was a physician who was killed by a lightening bolt, but was able to ascend to heaven due to his good works.



There are other examples that Justin gives, both weak and strong. (The strongest one in my opinion is Justin's comment on Mithras worshippers' rites, see Note 1). Could pagan myths like the stories of Aesculapius and Perseus have influenced Christianity? It is certainly possible. A closer examination of the myths and how they were viewed by the people of the day would be required, which is outside the scope of this article. But if appealing to Justin for support of this idea, two things need to be noted:

1.

Most of Justin's parallels were between pagan myths and Hebrew writings, not pagan myths and Christianity.
2.

Justin was not trying to explain away the similarities, but to try to convince a disbelieving pagan public that the similarities existed.

Sorry, dumber1149271.2. One more stupid nail in your idiot coffin.

[Teallaura]

After all the big talk around here about credible sources, and you give me A GEOCITIES PAGE?? And look at the arguments on it:

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C.,

and

By comparison, Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares, Pfann said. The homes later were razed by invaders: What remains are several basement caves, cisterns and silos excavated in the late 1950s during reconstruction of the Church of the Annunciation.

Now, let's see what the bible says:

Luk 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Luk 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)


So the page you provides says it was a village (although even of this, no archeological proof is offered). Well, the bible says it was a CITY.

The BIBLE IS WRONG. There was no CITY CALLED NAZARETH.





Have you ever heard of Justin Martyr?

CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.





The New Testament is evidence? Then how about all early christian writings? Because the list goes on and on, hundreds of gospels. Are they all true? Do you even know the events that lead up to the compilation of the New Testament? Of course not.

And over 1/2 the book was written by "Paul" (and people writing in his name), who never had contact with the godman at all! He had a "vision" of the whole thing! How wacky can you get?

With that kind of logic, I should accept Atlantis, since it was spoken about by Aristotle. I guess I should accept the Illiad as fact too, huh? What about your "extra Biblical references probably do confirm His physical existence". That sounds pretty uncertain to me. A few brief sentences all written decades after this supposed godman's death? Not a single person wrote about him during his life?



Thousands followed who? Unfortunately, you don't know much about the early christians. A complete mismash of beliefs, with tens of sects (that we know of) that we know about believing very different things. What did they have in common, Jesus? Not even! Some early christians claimed the Phoenix was their proof, others said they were christians because they were "annointed with oil". Jesus is not even mentioned is all the early christian texts! The details of his supposed "life" got more and more fantastic as the decades wore on! I'm sorry, but that is not history! That is storytelling. The supposed "jesus" is a retelling of the same stories that had been floating around in the Roman world for some time.

Now what were you saying about scholarship?




Thanks a lot for the geocities page. That was a real careful check of facts. Did you even read the arguments listed on that page, or did you just paste it in immediately?

So I ask again, any proof? How about even a sliver of proof that would meet any normal historical test? I didn't think so. You guys should get together and join a bowling league or something, because you stink at trying to hobble together some "evidence" for your phantom godman.


:lmbo: Thank you for proving my point! You are not only a troll, but a reading comprehension challenged one!

There's plenty of proof - you're just not willing to look. How do I know that last bit? Because you did not read my post! I answered every objection you just made before I even pasted the first link!

If you can't follow something that incredibly blatant, little wonder you can't argue with JP or the others. All you can do is holler 'Proof! Proof! Proof!' like some kind of backwards child, always asking for a ball but never recognizing it.


Pathetic.

[member11491]

I see dumber is bringing up the usual canards. Have fun with him. I'll just shove one brick in his ear:

Yeah. We've had stupid Skeptics throw that at us 1000 billion times here. Bad news for you: It proves the opposite of what you want.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm#2.3

Sorry, dumber1149271.2. One more stupid nail in your idiot coffin.

Yeah, JP that article really "proved" a lot. Some anonymous guy on the web "GakuseiDon" whose opinion is that Justin Martyr is really talking about the old testament compared to paganism, not Jesus. Well "JP", the quote is:

When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."

So although he may make further comparisons to paganism and the old testament, he is clearly talking about the godman Jesus in the aforementioned quote. Sorry, but your anonymous internet source "GakuseiDan" is pretty lame. Tell that guy to keep studying.

And I noticed you tried to ignore everything concerning Nazareth. Well, that's understandable considering there was no Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

I think your quote here is telling:


It proves the opposite of what you want.


this shows what kind of a moron you are. I don't "want" anything other than the truth. You people are so far gone that you will pervert logic a million ways as long as the conclusion matches the NT. I take the facts as they come. You people really seem devoid of any true humanity or ability to think critically. I hope anyone reading this will see there is absolutely nothing to back up the claims of the bible, and it is time for people like you and your little kiddies here to start facing life as it is without spending all your time reading fairy tales.

And it is especially time for all of you to stop claiming there is physical proof for these stories when you know there is none.

So to summarize:
1. Zero evidence for nazareth existing during the time of jesus
2. Admission that other religions similiar to xtianity pre-dated it.
3. Proof in the fact you are not even following the precepts of christianity, as you do not give all your money away, you cannot drink poisons and remain unharmed, and you cannot handle serpents and not be bit.

Reality kind of sucks compared to the fairy tales, huh?

[jpholding]

Yeah, JP that article really "proved" a lot. Some anonymous guy on the web "GakuseiDon" whose opinion is that Justin Martyr is really talking about the old testament compared to paganism, not Jesus.

As opposed to an "anonymous guy on the web" who goes under "Jesus" or sometimes "member11491"? :lolo: :lol:

So although he may make further comparisons to paganism and the old testament, he is clearly talking about the godman Jesus in the aforementioned quote. Sorry, but your anonymous internet source "GakuseiDan" is pretty lame. Tell that guy to keep studying.

In other words, his answer that Justin is trying to convince pagans who see no parallels stumps you. Got it. :thumb:

And I noticed you tried to ignore everything concerning Nazareth.


Forgive me for not wasting time on a debate I've had with others twice now. I'll leave it to Teal; she's kicked you to sleep soundly on that.


So to summarize:

1. You are an ignorant jerk who can't answer our arguments.

Yep.

[member11491]

1. You are an ignorant jerk who can't answer our arguments.
Yep.


Translation: We don't have answers now go away because I'm trying to do some business here.

[lilpixieofterror]

Translation: We don't have answers now go away because I'm trying to do some business here.

We have answered you 10,000 times over and you still contuine to show you are ignorant and/or too stupid to understand the answers. I'm still waiting for you to answer me.

Crystal

[member11491]

We have answered you 10,000 times over and you still contuine to show you are ignorant and/or too stupid to understand the answers. I'm still waiting for you to answer me.
Crystal

Hello lilangel,

Do you realize JP's reply "scholarly" reply to my question was just some web page from geocities by a guy named "gakuseidan"? And it was just a rambling stream of the guys thoughts? And I was supposed to just accept this?

I love how you guys think someone is "stupid" for not immediately and blindly accepting your unbelievably weak arguments. If I applied the logic you people have for "jesus" I would believe in bigfoot, UFOs and anything else a handful of people claim to have seen.

It would probably be better for your case if you just came out and said "hey, there is no evidence Jesus ever existed and we accept that, but we still have faith" instead of these incredibly lame excuses like "nazareth was only a tiny little place" or "the word city and village are interchangable" or "that ending to mark was just tacked on" or "no one wrote about jesus during his lifetime because he hung out in the countryside".

Don't even you guys get sick of defying logic and making weak argument after weak argument? This is not to even get into the fact the bible claims dead saints rose from their graves when "jesus" died, or there was an earthquake, or a building collapsed, or the sun went out for 24 hours, etc. Still no one recorded it.

Below is something similar to what I was looking for. Below is some scholars explanation on why nazareth didn't really exist during the 1st century.


SCHOLARS

"If our reasoning is correct, they [ the Essenes] were not left out [of the Gospels], but appeared under the name nazoraioi, a word which has been mistakenly assumed to refer to the little town of Nazareth in Galilee (and never mentioned in the Old Testament)...Accordingly, ' Jesus of Nazareth' would be a mistranslation of 'Jesus the Nazorean' or grecicised, Jesus the Essene." (Ellegard, 1999, p. 241)

"For Christians brought up on the gospel stories, it might seem obvious that 'Nazarene' should mean 'of Nazareth'. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Although modern NT translations repeated references to 'Jesus of Nazareth', 'Jesus the Nazarene' is the more common form of words in the original Greek version. And one problem rarely appreciated by Christians is that, according to one school of thought, Nazareth may not have even existed in the first century AD." (Wilson, 1984, p. 67)

"There is no such place as Nazareth in the Old Testament or in Josephus' works, or on early maps of the Holy Land." (Holley, 1994, p. 190)

"...[people in Nazareth were] living in wretched caves...from about 900 BC to about 600 AD." (Keller, 1980, p. 337)

"...architectural elements and decorations suppose the construction of a "public" building...a church-synagogue.....before the Council of Ephesus (431)" (Bagatti, 1955)

"We cannot be totally sure that Jesus ever lived in the very tiny Galilean village of Nazarus, for the gospel reference to this may derive from the authors' mistaking the description Jesus the Nazarene for a reference to Nazareth." (Wilson, 1999, p. 217)

"To associate a Nazarite with the town of Nazareth was the kind of data a scribe, trained in the tradition of midrash, would employ" (Spong, 1992, p. 96)

"...none of the ceramic material accompanying them...suggests a date earlier than the third or fourth century. Even if it were a synagogue, it could not have been from the time of Jesus but centuries later...(Crossan & Reed, 2001, p. 25)."

"[the population of Nazare that the time of Jesus] lived in hovels and simple peasant houses (Crossan & Reed, 2001, p. 32)."

"The prophecy [that Jesus is a Nazarene from Nazareth] is based on Matthew's total misunderstanding of a passage from Isaiah (11:1), where the Messiah is called a nezer (branch); in other words, a branch from Jesse's (father of David) "stump". Matthew reads into "nezer" the city of Nazareth... (Ranke-Heinemann, 1994, p. 22)."

"...six oil lamps were discovered in a Nazareth tomb, and have been used in the scholarly literature as proof of a village at Nazareth in Hellenistic times, as early as III BCE. In fact, the six lamps date from the Middle Roman to the Late Roman periods, long after the time of Christ. Gross misdatings of the primary evidence, sometimes involving discrepancies of up to 500 years, are frequently encountered in the Nazareth literature (Salm, 2006, Chapter 3)."


From: http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=4

[lilpixieofterror]

Hello lilangel,

Do you realize JP's reply "scholarly" reply to my question was just some web page from geocities by a guy named "gakuseidan"? And it was just a rambling stream of the guys thoughts? And I was supposed to just accept this?

You need to give proof it is wrong. Better get started.

I love how you guys think someone is "stupid" for not immediately and blindly accepting your unbelievably weak arguments.

I have personaly researched much of JPH's words, and guess what. They are accurate. Don't you find it funny that the ONLY people who say Jesus never existed are those who are non historians?

If I applied the logic you people have for "jesus" I would believe in bigfoot, UFOs and anything else a handful of people claim to have seen.

You are an idiot eh? Here is a list of 'historians' who say you are wrong.

1. NT wright
2. Craig Bloomberg
3. Howard Marshall
4. Michael Grant
5. Rudolf Bultmann

How many historians are you going to ignore before you come to the conclusion that your postion is incorrect? Even Richard Carrier makes no claim that Jesus never existed. The reality is that you have nothing but a web site written by a man who can't even get the basic facts right, let alone be a good source of information. Here is what a real historian has said about those who say Jesus never existed:

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.

How many historians are you going to ignore?

It would probably be better for your case if you just came out and said "hey, there is no evidence Jesus ever existed and we accept that, but we still have faith" instead of these incredibly lame excuses like "nazareth was only a tiny little place" or "the word city and village are interchangable" or "that ending to mark was just tacked on" or "no one wrote about jesus during his lifetime because he hung out in the countryside".

It might be better for you to stop ignoring REAL historians, archelogist, ect who tell us otherwise. Than again, why read the words of historians when we have Ken, who can't even get basic facts right (such as their being over 200 Gospels and letters). Real historians agree with me, why not you?

Don't even you guys get sick of defying logic and making weak argument after weak argument?

Do you get tired of ignoring the words of historians such as Michael Grant (a Roman history historian)? Here is what he said about your stupidity:

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

I might add Michael Grant is an ATHEIST, so he has no axe to grind for Jesus. Reality is, you are fighting a loosing battle against world class historians in which you will contuine to ignore in favor of non historians.

This is not to even get into the fact the bible claims dead saints rose from their graves when "jesus" died, or there was an earthquake, or a building collapsed, or the sun went out for 24 hours, etc. Still no one recorded it.

Let's cover these in detail:

1. The dead saints - how many saints rose from the dead? 10? 15? Do you really claim that any historian is going to say that a few dozen people rose from the dead? Here is more info here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/oddrise.html).

2. Earthquakes and building collapsed - Isn't it amazing that an earthquake would cause a building to collapse? The Middle East is known for earthquakes, you really think an historian is going to cover every little earthquake that happened 2,000 years ago?

3. Sun went out for 24 hours - ever hear of a solar eclipse? As I recall reading, somebody did record a solar eclipse happened during the 1st centery AD (about the time Jesus was on the cross).

Reality is, you have nothing, you are just grasping at straws at this point with nothing for support but assumptions.

Below is something similar to what I was looking for. Below is some scholars explanation on why nazareth didn't really exist during the 1st century.

:lol: you call those scholars? I'm sorry but other historians I have quoted (who have these degree things) say otherwise. From what I'm finding... Ellegard is not even an historian! As for the others, can you give some refrences (name of the book, first and last time, ect) so I can look them up? I gave you that much, I'd expect the same from you.

Crystal

[One Bad Pig]

3. Sun went out for 24 hours - ever hear of a solar eclipse? As I recall reading, somebody did record a solar eclipse happened during the 1st centery AD (about the time Jesus was on the cross).
a) it was dark for 3 hours, not 24.

b) a solar eclipse lasts on the order of 10 minutes (usually less).

Whatever caused the darkness, it was almost certainly not a solar eclipse.

[lilpixieofterror]

a) it was dark for 3 hours, not 24.

b) a solar eclipse lasts on the order of 10 minutes (usually less).

Whatever caused the darkness, it was almost certainly not a solar eclipse.

Sorry OBP, not my area of study that and I was in a rush to post. My bad, got anything to add to 'problem' number 3? One thing I might think of, perhaps dense cloud cover? I'm guessing that is one of those moments were it would of been intresting to be the fly on the wall.

Crystal

[One Bad Pig]

Sorry OBP, not my area of study that and I was in a rush to post. My bad, got anything to add to 'problem' number 3? One thing I might think of, perhaps dense cloud cover? I'm guessing that is one of those moments were it would of been intresting to be the fly on the wall.

Crystal
Dense cloud cover's probably the best explanation. Volcanic ash could do the same thing, but I don't know if it's plausible for that area then.

[lilpixieofterror]

Dense cloud cover's probably the best explanation. Volcanic ash could do the same thing, but I don't know if it's plausible for that area then.

I found this map here (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/region.cfm?rnum=0300) and it does show there is volcanic activity in the Middle East in modren day Syria and Saudi Arabia, rather or not this had anything to do with what was recorded 2,000 years ago, I guess we'll never know, but I do think it makes it at least plasable. Thanks for the input OBP :thumb:.

Crystal

[jpholding]

Hello lilangel,

Do you realize JP's reply "scholarly" reply to my question was just some web page from geocities by a guy named "gakuseidan"? And it was just a rambling stream of the guys thoughts? And I was supposed to just accept this?

Yeah sure. Accept "jesuspolice" instead. :hehe:

And use the likes of AN Wilson (a journalist) and Spong (a mere bishop) as "scholars".


"...none of the ceramic material accompanying them...suggests a date earlier than the third or fourth century. Even if it were a synagogue, it could not have been from the time of Jesus but centuries later...(Crossan & Reed, 2001, p. 25)."

"[the population of Nazare that the time of Jesus] lived in hovels and simple peasant houses (Crossan & Reed, 2001, p. 32)."

Um, you do notice that these guys say that Nazareth EXISTED, right? And Crossan, for all I find to disagree with him, IS a scholar. :lol:

He just gets stupider with every post.

[member11491]

Um, you do notice that these guys say that Nazareth EXISTED, right? And Crossan, for all I find to disagree with him, IS a scholar.


JP, stop stuffing your face with twinkies and pork rinds for a few seconds and try using your brain. The bible said Nazareth was a city. The quotes I provided show there was NO SUCH CITY! A few pesant hovels on that land does not equal A CITY NAMED NAZARETH. Do you understand the word 'city'? And lighten up a bit on the insults, I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly.

[Frogwarrior]

JP, stop stuffing your face with twinkies and pork rinds for a few seconds and try using your brain. The bible said Nazareth was a city. The quotes I provided show there was NO SUCH CITY! A few pesant hovels on that land does not equal A CITY NAMED NAZARETH. Do you understand the word 'city'? And lighten up a bit on the insults, I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly.
BAHAHAHAHA!
OK. What word exactly is used to refer to Nazareth? I mean the original word, in the original language.
OK. Next, I want to see a list of places, Biblical and otherwise, showing where that word is used.
I then want to see it follow in an obvious manner from that that Nazareth as we know it could not have been described by that word.

Do that, and you'll have a case. Using the English word "city," in addition to not understanding what a "city" meant to the people then and there, proves only that you have no clue what you're talking about.

[lilpixieofterror]

JP, stop stuffing your face with twinkies and pork rinds for a few seconds and try using your brain.

Might want to try doing that yourself... :ahem:

The bible said Nazareth was a city.

We have a KJVO! Do you own a Greek to English dictionary? Perhaps a Strong Numbers version? Perhaps some common sense? :ahem:

The quotes I provided show there was NO SUCH CITY!

City can mean a viarity of things. In that era, cities were not that big, only in the past few years had cities reached 1 million and that was Rome and Alexanderia. You are also forgetting, this isn't Rome or America, Gailee was a far off providence in the Roman Empire... the wild-west of it's era. Also, when the KJV Bible was translated, cities were not all that big... So it does not suprise me that the KJV translators used 'city'. In the Greek the word we find translated to 'city', 'town', or 'village' to our lanuage is:

Polis - one's native city, the city in which one lives
So doesn't seem that bad of a word for what Luke or Matthew to use.

So when we coincider the times, the area, and the word useage. The only 'problem' is one you create.

A few pesant hovels on that land does not equal A CITY NAMED NAZARETH.

I've been to plenty of places in the Mid-west where cities are small and just a few thousand... And where I'm from (cali) we would not call that a city. So depending on where you lived... Nazareth may or may not be called a 'city'.

Do you understand the word 'city'?

Do you understand that city can mean several things according to a viarity of factors? Such as population density... It is really sad that you play this word game while never going and using a Strong version of the NT or a Greek to English dictionary nor using some common sense. Is this your last defense before you admit you and your 'hero' is downright wrong?

And lighten up a bit on the insults, I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly.

My my, might want to check yourself out the mirror before you open your mouth...

Crystal

[Teallaura]

My 'city' has a pop of 500. It's legally incorporated so it is correct to call it a city. Legally, in modern American, incorporation, not size, determines the correct usage of 'city'.

[jpholding]

JP, stop stuffing your face with twinkies and pork rinds for a few seconds and try using your brain. The bible said Nazareth was a city. The quotes I provided show there was NO SUCH CITY!


Look stupid,

The word used by Luke was "polis".

I've had this out before with a Skeptic here 200000 times smarter than you, and even he had to concede that it was an inconclusive matter.

As Frog challenged, unless you can show that the use of "polis" was restricted to ancient settlements of a certain nature, your objection is just a bunch of bovine manure!

If YOU had a brain instead of a skull stuffed with Twinkies and pork rinds, you'd have done what I ALREADY did -- looked into uses and definitions of "polis".

And you know what, stupid?

As of yet, there is STILL no definitive finding as to when the word could be used appropriately! If anything, the most detailed study shows that the use of the term was and could be highly subjective!

Here's something for your third-grade mind to read -- careful, it's by people with doctorates and it uses some BIG words, like "inventory" and "symposia".

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1997/97.07.16.html

The Copenhagen Polis Centre (CPC) was founded at the initiative of Mogens Herman Hansen in order to compile an inventory of the archaic and classical Greek poleis, i.e., of the communities and settlements referred to by ancient sources as poleis. The ultimate aim of the project is to answer the question "what is a polis?" A team of specialists from various countries is currently involved in this project, and preliminary results of their research are being presented in the acts of the symposia organized in Copenhagen (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre) and in collections of essays (Papers of the Copenhagen Polis Centre). Each series has produced, hitherto, three volumes. The two books under review here -- abbreviated as Acts 3 and Papers 3 -- are the most recent volumes of these two series. They contain both general articles on the project, its method, its sources, and its scope, and papers on specific questions concerning poleis of certain regions (Arkadia, Achaia, Boiotia, Crete, and the colonies of the west coast of the Black Sea, Italy, Sicily, and Egypt). Several important questions recur in both volumes, but also the other publications of the CPC: In what sense was the term polis used in archaic and classical sources? Are ethnic names a reliable criterion for the polis-status of a community or a site? Is autonomia (not "autonomy" or "independence") a requirement for polis identity? Are urbanization and town-planning essential elements in polis-formation? Are kingship and polis-ness mutually exclusive? Another common -- and very welcome -- feature of both volumes is the focus on hitherto neglected geographical areas.

Among the theoretical articles of the volumes, Mogen Herman Hansen's essay "POLLAXW=S PO/LIS LE/GETAI (Arist. Pol. 1267a23). The Copenhagen Inventory of Poleis and the Lex Hafnienis de Civitate" (Acts 3, pp. 7-72) occupies a central position. I have to treat it in more detail, since it is both programmatic and revealing about the perspectives and the limitations of the project. "One of the main objectives of the CPC is to build up an inventory of every single archaic and classical settlement which is explicitly called polis in contemporary sources. The main purpose of this investigation is to find out what the Greeks thought a polis was, and to compare that with what modern historians think a polis is. The concept of polis found in the sources and in modern historiography ought, of course, to be the same" (p. 7). In review of an earlier volume of the CPC (Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart 1995, BMCR 96.10.11) Simon Goldhill has already raised two reasonable objections to this approach. Firstly, an inventory of the attestations of a word can raise important questions, but it cannot automatically reveal the term's meaning -- even less so when the CPC discards all attestations of the term used in a general way, i.e., without reference to a particular site (p. 12). Secondly, the concept of polis found in the sources -- if we assume that there is only one concept -- should not necessarily be the same with that found in modern historiography. Why ought the concept of modern historiography on the ancient Greek polis to be identical with that of Pseudo-Skylax, who uses the word polis when referring to the river Tyris in Skythia, or with that of the author of an Oropian decree (SEG XXXI 415-416) who uses to word polis to designate the place of origin of the visitors of the Amphiareion? A third objection has been raised by Peter Rhodes in M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State, Copenhagen 1995, p. 91f. (quoted in Acts 3, pp. 18f.): "I suspect that we shall find that the Greeks themselves were not wholly consistent in their use of the word...; they were often not as tidy and systematic in their use of the language as a tidy and systematic scholar would wish, and the principle that any political entity which a Greek is known to have called a polis must have been a polis may not be a useful principle on which to base our research." Having read several of the CPC's volumes I find no reason not to share Rhodes' scepticism.


So, in other words, you drooling, slathering, Twinkie-brained moron....your argument is rooted in your incorrigible IGNORANCE. Very deep ignorance, in fact:

Hansen is, of course, conscious of these problems, and in this paper he asks important questions: Is it legitimate to assume that all the Greeks thought the same thing when they were using the word polis? Is there no space for differences between the 6th and the 4th cent., between an historian and an orator, between the author of the decree of a Cretan polis and an Athenian poet? Who guarantees that "the Greeks" used the word polis consistently? Drawing upon the material collected for the inventory Hansen argues that a) the term polis was a loaded term and it did matter to the Greeks whether they lived in a polis or not, b) the Greeks were consistent in the use of the term, c) the concept of the polis did not change substantially between the late 7th and the 4th cent., d) the Athenian idea of a polis cannot have been radically different from what a non-Athenian thought a polis was, and e) in archaic and classical sources the term polis used in the sense of 'town' is applied only to towns which were also the political centers of a polis. Three useful appendices demonstrate the use of polis in the sense of akropolis, county, and town. These conclusions are, in general, persuasive and well founded. Especially, the first point is well taken. Unlike the word demokratia the term polis was not a slogan, but described the status of a community. Thus "its application to named communities seems only very occasionally to have been a bone of contention" (p. 18), and thus the designation of a community as polis certainly provides a reliable criterion for its inclusion in the inventory. To the literary examples of disagreement whether a community was a polis or not I should add a documentary source: in the letter of Nagidos concerning its relations to Arsinoe in Kilikia (SEG XXXIX 1426) the Nagideis cautiously avoid the use of the ethnic name Arsinoeis or of the word polis for Arsinoe, a city whose polis-status they recognized only after the intervention of a Seleucid governor (A. Chaniotis, Epigraphica Anatolica 21 [1993] 36f.).

In other words, you flaming moron, Luke was within his rights to say even a puny Nazareth was a "polis" and his very use of the word was sufficient.

The problems begin only when Hansen declares the common usage of the term polis (a town which is the political center of a polis) to be a law (the "lex Hafniensis de civitate"), thus raising expectations of absolute consistency. Statements such as the following recur in the CPC volumes: "In the Copenhagen Polis Centre we expect every polis in the political sense to have had an urban centre" (p. 33). Unfortunately, not every ancient source complies with this law. Divergencies and variations from the common usage are labeled as "errors" (p. 20: "we have found very few inconsistencies"; "they may not have been wholly consistent, but the margin of error seems to be in the range of one per hundred or less"). We will have to wait for the publication of the inventory to see if inconsistencies are really errors or rather evidence for varieties of usages. Hansen himself, an outstanding interpreter of sources and sagacious in discerning differences, usually avoids generalizations and repeatedly points out that we should take the provenance and the character of the source into account (e.g., Papers 3, p. 185). If some of the collaborators of the project had showed the same prudence and had resisted the temptation to apply CPC's laws in the interpretation of extremely problematic sources, some speculations and circular arguments, which I indicate below, could have been avoided.

Hansen explains in the same paper the method and the procedure applied by the research team in Copenhagen: first, they collect all attestations of the term polis and analyse how the term is used in every single case. Then they create an inventory of the attested poleis, adducing the relevant archaeological evidence as well. The collected material is organized according to forty-seven different criteria, such as, name, location, in what sense the community is called a polis, ethnic names, names for the territory and the population, attestations of tribal affiliation, membership in a federal state or an alliance, civic subdivisions, public architecture, constitution, mint, cults, participation in agons and in colonizations, etc. Hansen and his collaborators should be praised for the broad scope of their investigation. The one example of the database he provides (Tanagra, pp. 55-62) is impressive in its completeness and raises great expectations for the final publication. It is comforting to hear that the CPC is now affiliated with the other monumental project in the field of historical geography, the Atlas of the Greek and Roman World edited by Richard Talbert.

You know, dum dum, the difference between you and people here is this:

We go to credible, scholarly sources like the Bryn Mawr Classical Review.

You on the other hand rely on a non-credentialed dingbat source like "jesusneverexisted.com" by a freak of nature like Ken Humpthy Dumpties who thinks "polis" are "people who eat donuts all day at the coffee shop."

Another theoretical article by Hansen is devoted to "City-Ethnics as Evidence for Polis Identity" (Papers 3, pp. 169-196). He makes a sharp distinction between the "sub-ethnics", which indicate membership in a civic subdivision and always mark the bearer as the citizen of a polis, the "city-ethnics", which denote membership in a polis and are (only) primarily political, and the "regional ethnics", which indicate the inhabitants of a region (e.g., the Cretan, the Arkadian, etc.) and are not necessarily political. Hansen's meticulous study shows that in most cases it is possible to distinguish city-ethnics from sub-ethnics and regional ethnics, and that the attestation of a city-ethnic is a reliable criterion for establishing that a community had the polis-status (cf. the papers of Nielsen and Perlman summarized below). There are, however, several instances of a non-purely political use of city-ethnics (pp. 182-185). He regards as such, among other examples, the cases of persons from poleis that had been destroyed, who "kept on using their city-ethnic in spite of the fact that there was no longer any political community of which they were members" (p. 183). In this point generalizations should be avoided. For the Greeks the destruction of a city did not always mean the destruction of a political community. When the Cretan polis Lyttos was destroyed by Knossos ca. 220 BC, the entire surviving (male) population moved to Lappa, retaining of course the city-ethnic (Polyb. 4,54,1-6); the situation of the Lyttians is comparable to that of the Athenians before the battle of Salamis or the Plataians during the Peloponnesian War. The expatriated Lyttians still formed a "political community", retained their Lyttian citizenship and, presumably, their magistrates; it is even conceivable that they concluded treaties during the war, which finally led, a few years later, to the reestablishment of their city.


You hear that, dum dum? Buildings didn't "make" a polis! And no mention of size as a factor defining it, either!

And you have the nerve to ask, Do you understand the word 'city'? It's YOU who hasn't got the brains given an anteater on this subject! :hehe:

[Leonhard]

ouch...

[member11491]

Look "JP the hutt", I told you to put down the ding-dongs and clear off the pork rinds from your fingers before typing, but you couldn't even do that right!


As of yet, there is STILL no definitive finding as to when the word could be used appropriately! If anything, the most detailed study shows that the use of the term was and could be highly subjective!


This is the height of patheticness - "we don't even know what the word polis really meant". Thanks bill clinton.

"hey, a deserted field with nothing there could be a polis".

The fact you are arguing this point shows the complete weakness of a book you claim to be inspired by the lord of all creation!


Here's something for your third-grade mind to read -- careful, it's by people with doctorates and it uses some BIG words, like "inventory" and "symposia".


I can understand how you and your auto-mechanic crowd here can be confused by words you consider big, but you don't need to worry about me.

What you do need to worry about is this, you illiterate slob - the article you linked to was concerning greek in the 6th-3rd century BC. You might as well be comparing middle english to the terms we use today.

See, you moron, words are used differently over time. Your chosen article is not applicable. Use your dewey decimal skills and try to find one a little closer to our target date and I'll read it over. In the meantime you are just wasting my time.

Ouch is right. Hey, since you like to copy and paste, here's an article you might want to print out:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/10/MNGOI9P0691.DTL&type=science

[lilpixieofterror]

Look "JP the hutt", I told you to put down the ding-dongs and clear off the pork rinds from your fingers before typing, but you couldn't even do that right!

And you wonder you get treated this way. :sigh:

This is the height of patheticness - "we don't even know what the word polis really meant". Thanks bill clinton.

I have no idea what you are rambling about... but polis ACCORDING TO A DICTIONARY can mean a viarity of things.

"hey, a deserted field with nothing there could be a polis".

He didn't say that idiot. :duh:

The fact you are arguing this point shows the complete weakness of a book you claim to be inspired by the lord of all creation!

That what, you are so thick headed that you can't even understand that polis can mean a viarity of things and even in modren day America, cities don't need to be the size of San Deigo or New York to be called cities...

I can understand how you and your auto-mechanic crowd here can be confused by words you consider big, but you don't need to worry about me.

Got to attack me now eh? Care to tell the board why auto-mechanics are stupid? Ever taken an ASE Test or read an auto repair manual? Do you know anything about how electrical systems, computer systems, or mechanical systems work together? I bet you can't even adjust the timing on your car without screwing it up... in fact I doubt you know what a timing belt is...

What you do need to worry about is this, you illiterate slob - the article you linked to was concerning greek in the 6th-3rd century BC. You might as well be comparing middle english to the terms we use today.

Probly because the Bible was written 2,000 years ago! Are you so stupid you don't even know when it was written?

See, you moron, words are used differently over time.

And Teal already told you that the city she grew up in was 500 people and I've been to cities that are about 1 city block. A city only needs to be incorpirated to be coincidered a city, yet again show us that you are too stupid to read or do any critical research.

Your chosen article is not applicable. Use your dewey decimal skills and try to find one a little closer to our target date and I'll read it over. In the meantime you are just wasting my time.

And you are too stupid to understand, that EVEN today... cities DO NOT have to be the size of New York to be coincidered cities. Teal already told you that her hometown (which is a city) is 500 people. Are you so dense and stupid you can't do a simple search to find out cities do not need to be large to be coincidered cities?

Ouch is right. Hey, since you like to copy and paste, here's an article you might want to print out:

I got an article you might want to look up, perhaps a US map with the SMALLEST cities in the US... Look at this web site here that tells us the smallest city in Montana!

Although the ratio of urban to rural dwellers in Montana is nearly 50/50, Montana's urban population is growing. The largest city in Montana is Billings, with 89,847 (2000) inhabitants. Ismay is the smallest city, with 26 inhabitants.

http://montanakids.com/db_engine/presentations/presentation.asp?pid=197

Guess you are going to argue that Ismay is not a city because it has a population of 26 right? Care to tell us anything about Vatican City? What's the population for that? 50 right, yet it's still called a city. Yet again you show us that you are too stupid to do a google search for the smallest cities in the US and world... :duh: Going to wipe the drool off your chin now?

Crystal

[Teallaura]

lilangelofterror[/i]]Got to attack me now eh? Care to tell the board why auto-mechanics are stupid? Ever taken an ASE Test or read an auto repair manual? Do you know anything about how electrical systems, computer systems, or mechanical systems work together? I bet you can't even adjust the timing on your car without screwing it up... in fact I doubt you know what a timing belt is...

:thumb: Auto mechanics rule! Only an idiot would think that diagnosing and repairing something as complex as an automobile could be done by someone who wasn't intelligent...

:doh: Oh, wait, I forgot who we were talking about....



I love this quote:

member11491[/i]]See, you moron, words are used differently over time.


I wonder if it will ever dawn on him that he just conceded the point with that? Even if you granted him 'city' in the modern sense (i.e. his definition of NYC) he's already said the word changed meaning since 'words are used differently over time'. Last I looked, 2000 years was a significant passage of time. Therefore, the word could have meant two people in a shack - he's lost the ability to argue otherwise logically. :grin:

[jpholding]

Look "JP the hutt", I told you to put down the ding-dongs and clear off the pork rinds from your fingers before typing, but you couldn't even do that right!

I wiped you off and put you in the trash just fine. :hehe: As of right now you're rotting and smelling bad just like the banana peels, which is why you're gyrating like a zombie.

This is the height of patheticness - "we don't even know what the word polis really meant". Thanks bill clinton.

I'm sure the credentialed scholars who arrived at this conclusion will appreciate your expert opinion as a dishwasher and cockroach wrangler at IHOP. :rofl:


The fact you are arguing this point shows the complete weakness of a book you claim to be inspired by the lord of all creation!

How that conclusion is arrived at is, it seems, a mystery that will never be revealed. Apparently for Dum Dum, "inspiration" means he gets to sit on his toadstool and eat chips and drink beer. Funny thing how that understanding of inspiration is the one used by...um...fundamentalists.

Are you a fundy, Dum Dum? :lol:


What you do need to worry about is this, you illiterate slob - the article you linked to was concerning greek in the 6th-3rd century BC. You might as well be comparing middle english to the terms we use today.

See, you moron, words are used differently over time.

Oops. As Teal noted, however, with that you just concended your whole argument as being useless. Of course, it would be (ahem) your burden to show any relevant difference in the use of the word polis for the time in question -- not likely something you'll do, since you're still trying to figure out how you put underwear on (no, no -- NOT on your head) -- but it doesn't matter, you're wrong anyway. The article makes no such limits in terms of time for the whole of the study, and so is indeed applicable, despite your manifest ignorance.

Illiterate, indeed. :lol: You're as stupid as the billboards that say ILLITERATE? CALL THIS NUMBER!

Ouch is right. Hey, since you like to copy and paste, here's an article you might want to print out:

For what? It doesn't apply to me, chump:

Wide girth about the middle is the syndrome's most obvious trait, accompanied by high blood pressure and unhealthy levels of cholesterol, triglycerides and glucose in the blood.

My BP is always in the range of 120 over 80, and my cholesterol is below 200. On the other hand your IQ is in the range of 40. :hehe: Which means....

[attachment=1]

[member11491]

Hi JP the hutt

I tried to go through your post to find something to answer to, but as usual it is just a rambling, gelatinous blob of nonsense. Kind of like you.


Oops. As Teal noted, however, with that you just concended your whole argument as being useless. Of course, it would be (ahem) your burden to show any relevant difference in the use of the word polis for the time in question



well, here is where you are dead wrong, loser.

The bible seems to have had a world for "village", much more appropriate than "city" for a place that seems to have left absolutely no acheological evidence.

Mat 21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose [them], and bring [them] unto me.

Mar 11:2 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him].

Luk 9:52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.

Luk 10:38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

Luk 17:12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:

Luk 19:30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against [you]; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring [him hither].

Luk 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem [about] threescore furlongs.

Luk 24:28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.


AND MY FAVORITE:

Luk 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve [were] with him,

Showing a clear distinction between city and village.

Like I said before, there was NO CITY CALLED NAZARETH during the time of Jesus.


Also, for added humiliation on your part:


See, you moron, words are used differently over time.


your response:


As Teal noted, however, with that you just concended your whole argument as being useless.


No, it just proves your point is useless. You've just invalidated every word in the bible, making the whole of it completely indecipherable (since a city could be absolutely anything, so could every other word in the book).

Also, I want to let the kiddies know I have nothing against your hero, "JP the hutt". He's probably not a bad guy. I don't even have anything against your believing in "Jesus". I'll leave the world of fantasy to you guys, the wikkans, the scientologists and all the rest of you loons. It is when you insist against every grain of common sense and historical fact that the stories in your fairytale book really happened that I take offense.

Stay Cool

[lilpixieofterror]

I tried to go through your post to find something to answer to, but as usual it is just a rambling, gelatinous blob of nonsense. Kind of like you.

He already answered you idiot.

well, here is where you are dead wrong, loser.

The bible seems to have had a world for "village", much more appropriate than "city" for a place that seems to have left absolutely no acheological evidence.

You sure are an idiot eh? Even though I thought finding remains of where modren day Nazareth that date from the first century would count as acheological evidence along with a wide-range of unknown towns, villages, and cities found in that area of the world would be enough to convience you that not every city had a sign hanging that said, "Welcome to..." Than again, who are we talking to again... :ahem: As for the verses below... as myself, Teal, and JPH have said, that word was used for a viarity of places from villages to cities, you are the one that is too stupid to understand that...

Luk 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve [were] with him,

Showing a clear distinction between city and village.

If you say so, what translation did you use, if you don't mind me asking? What is the orgional word used for city and village in this verse???

Like I said before, there was NO CITY CALLED NAZARETH during the time of Jesus.

Yet, you refuse to tell us why you think it shouldn't be called a city. Population has NOTHING to do with it and the word that is used for 'city' means the place of one's residence. I already gave you a modren day example of a city that has a population of 26, yet you refuse to see otherwise.

No, it just proves your point is useless. You've just invalidated every word in the bible, making the whole of it completely indecipherable (since a city could be absolutely anything, so could every other word in the book).

:lol: Did the thought occur to you that context of a sentence is what determines what defination of a word we use?

Also, I want to let the kiddies know I have nothing against your hero, "JP the hutt". He's probably not a bad guy. I don't even have anything against your believing in "Jesus". I'll leave the world of fantasy to you guys, the wikkans, the scientologists and all the rest of you loons.

Don't bother to do some critical study.. yep you disagree with us, so obiviously the conclusions is that, we are 'loons.' Mighty big words comming from a person who refuses to answer me on the city that has a population of 26... :ahem:

It is when you insist against every grain of common sense and historical fact that the stories in your fairytale book really happened that I take offense.

So far, you have failed horribly to prove your points and you ignore points that destroy your argument (such as mine and Teal's). The reality is... you have lost and you're too stubbron and pig-headed to admit it. Just as well, you are extremly ignorant and love to ignore post from others that prove you wrong.

Crystal

[jpholding]

Hi JP the hutt

Hey, it's dumber the dumb butt! :lol:

I tried to go through your post to find something to answer to, but as usual it is just a rambling, gelatinous blob of nonsense.

Eg, over your poor little head, as usual. :hehe:

well, here is where you are dead wrong, loser.

The bible seems to have had a world for "village", much more appropriate than "city" for a place that seems to have left absolutely no acheological evidence.


Uh....yeah....so what?

First of all, you have yet to explain to us or show us anything that says what a "polis" is or is not. And you can't.

Second, now you want to become one of the "village people" (you'd do well as the half-nekkid Indian right about now) but you also don't have a definition for "village" either.



No, it just proves your point is useless. You've just invalidated every word in the bible, making the whole of it completely indecipherable (since a city could be absolutely anything, so could every other word in the book).

Actually, all this proves is that you are incredibly stupid. That's been known from Day 1.

Of course, your point would also suggest that all of ancient history is likewise "completely indecipherable," because we don't have a full fix on the meaning of "polis" in any other work either. Which means in your view, secular historians are also a bunch of losers wasting their time poring over wholly "indecipherable" works.

But then, that's the kind of narcissist egotism you need to be a Christ-myther. :lol:

I'm sure historians don't see the word "polis" and think it might mean "absolutely anything". Like what? "Burrito"?

Luk 10:38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

Yeah, for all we know, this really means:

Luk 10:38 The frippers burnt while the Travelocity gnome threw his burrito into the sassafrass tree.

Yeah, you're right. No one will ever figure out any work of history, ever. Too bad we needed your light to tell us that. :hehe: :lmbo:

It is when you insist against every grain of common sense and historical fact that the stories in your fairytale book really happened that I take offense.

If what you offer is "common sense" then may Zeus help us.

PS -- You're kinda big on the "fat jokes" (mighty original -- how many hours does it take you to come up with one?) but from what I find, you're not exactly Slim Dandy yourself. In fact we seem to have found a picture of you standing on the corner waiting for a bus to your local Twinkie Festival:

[attachment=1]

You were right, Crystal, he IS pig-headed....but you forgot about the rest of him being a pig, too.

[aikidoka]

I hate to correct you JP but the only light emitted from a committed Jesus myther would be a blue flamer.

:b_jump:

[OU812]

Luk 10:38 The frippers burnt while the Travelocity gnome threw his burrito into the sassafrass tree.





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[lilpixieofterror]

You were right, Crystal, he IS pig-headed....but you forgot about the rest of him being a pig, too.

Opps my bad... :lol: I don't think he's a pig (pigs have a use on this planet). I think of him as a person who lost all higher brain functions and the brain stem is doing all the thinking, which explains why he can't understand that 'Polis' is a Greek word used for your place of residence and appears it can mean a city, town, or village. It is amusing to watch him ramble on and ignore points that prove him wrong. I'm still waiting for him to argue that Ismay, Montana is not a city because it has a population of 26 (Which I bet Nazareth was about that size).

Crystal

[member11491]

Hi All,

I had to take some time out to laugh at all your responses. You really are a band of fools. You just can't see it.

If there was a city called Nazareth, there is still absolutely NO EVIDENCE OF IT. You can argue that "a city can have a population of 26" or whatever other asine arguments you care to make. It's like saying when the bible reads:

Luk 23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

who knows? A multitude could have been 2-3 people (or in the case of JP the hutt, just him. He's a one man multitude).

The point is you can argue the nuances of words in whatever deceitful way you care to. Even the simplest of you have to realize the desperation in this.

So again
1. No evidence of Nazareth (except the stories in your fable book)
2. No evidence of Jesus (except the stories in your fable book)

You keep saying I'm too stupid to understand (predictably exactly like the scientologists, the mormons, the muslims, when I question their fables too). Well, I say to you, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? You have given me only your moronic conjecture.

Granted, I completely understand why this is so vital to JP the hutt. Without the storybook, he's just an angry, lonely, obese librarian who scribbles cartoons about people he hates.

I want to assure JP the hutt and all of you, even if you wake up and realize the fables in the bible are completely mythical, there is an entire world out there of star trek geeks who will gladly take you in. I can easily imagine you in a heated debate over "kirk vs. picard", with a mouth full of doughnuts.

[jpholding]

Wah wah wah wah wah you hit me wah wah wah wah wah JP is fat fat fat wah wah wah wah wah

Whatever. :hehe: So if we're in sum up mode, let's do it.

1) You've never provided any definition of "polis" to show that Nazareth wouldn't have been one, even if it were (as was likely the case) a very small community.
2) You've never made any sort of comparison to other communities in the ancient world of comparable size, showing that they normally got much more attention or left any more archaeological evidence.
3) You've never answered a word of my article on the secular references to Jesus.
4) You've been piled over with evidence, and all you do is cry and posture.
5) Your view that neither Jesus nor Nazareth existed is completely rejected by credentialed historians and scholars and is held only by dumbbells like Kenny Humpty Dumpty and you who still live with momma at age 52.
6) You can't draw. Except for flies.
7) You weigh so much you can't get up from your computer, which is why you keep replying.
8) You're so dumb you think "Taco Bell" is a Mexican phone company.


I want to assure JP the hutt and all of you, even if you wake up and realize the fables in the bible are completely mythical, there is an entire world out there of star trek geeks who will gladly take you in. I can easily imagine you in a heated debate over "kirk vs. picard", with a mouth full of doughnuts.

1) No, I really don't like doughnuts. I prefer dark chocolate with 85% cacao and the little cacao bean nibs.
2) I got bored with Star Trek years ago. Hearthstone is a lot more interesting.
3) This is you after this thread:

[attachment=1]

This is you after getting an F in history class:

[attachment=2]

This is your hero Farrell Till getting ready to debate me:

[attachment=3]


Have a good time at the Narcissists Anonymous meeting. :hehe:

[lilpixieofterror]

I had to take some time out to laugh at all your responses. You really are a band of fools. You just can't see it.

Oh yeah, yet you still don't tell us what Polis means nor have you answered why Polis is not a proper word to be used for Nazareth, when it appears the proper defination is 'a city of one's residene' Seems like a perfectly reasonable and valid defination.

If there was a city called Nazareth, there is still absolutely NO EVIDENCE OF IT.

Than I'm sure you can explain the 1st century ruins that lie under the modren day city of Nazareth and the inscription found naming Nazareth as a place where a priest settled after the Roman invasion and the destruction of the Temple in the late 1st century AD. The conclusion is that you just prefer to stick your fingers in your ears while saying 'lalalala'....

You can argue that "a city can have a population of 26" or whatever other asine arguments you care to make.

How is it asine? Because there is really a small city that exist? We also might add, you got done telling us that a city with a small population does not exist... :lol:

It's like saying when the bible reads:

Here comes the stupid. :duh:

Luk 23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

who knows? A multitude could have been 2-3 people (or in the case of JP the hutt, just him. He's a one man multitude).

How about we use this thing called a dictionary and a Greek to English dictionary to find out the context of this word? Give you a hint, this verse took place in the largest city in the area that had a population of about 50,000 (and even more during passover, which what was happening at the same time). Yet again you are caught with drool your your chin. :duh:

The point is you can argue the nuances of words in whatever deceitful way you care to. Even the simplest of you have to realize the desperation in this.

:lol: The only desprate person I find is you. You keep saying stupid things and keep getting proven wrong, but just like the idiot you are, you contuine to show everyone you don't have 2 brain cells by such statemenst as below:

So again
1. No evidence of Nazareth (except the stories in your fable book)

Just ignore the inscription found and the 1st century remains found near or in modren day Nazareth.

2. No evidence of Jesus (except the stories in your fable book)

Just ignore non-Christian mentions of Jesus and the fact no one bothered to tell us the tiny detal that he never existed (for 1700 years).

You keep saying I'm too stupid to understand (predictably exactly like the scientologists, the mormons, the muslims, when I question their fables too). Well, I say to you, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? You have given me only your moronic conjecture.

It's been given thoughout this entire thread, you just ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist...

Granted, I completely understand why this is so vital to JP the hutt. Without the storybook, he's just an angry, lonely, obese librarian who scribbles cartoons about people he hates.

Why is it that people say you are hateful or angry when you prove them wrong and like a little humor in your post...

I want to assure JP the hutt and all of you, even if you wake up and realize the fables in the bible are completely mythical, there is an entire world out there of star trek geeks who will gladly take you in.

Got a problem with Star Trek geeks? :brood:

I can easily imagine you in a heated debate over "kirk vs. picard", with a mouth full of doughnuts.

Most Star Trek geeks don't argue about that in anything more than a playing context. I do remember one of my friends and myself discussing what was more realistic... Star Trek or Star Wars.

Crystal

[Goonerman]

even if you wake up and realize the fables in the bible are completely mythical

So, it has finally happened. I once joked to a fundy atheist that one day a sceptic would come along who was so desperate to disprove the Bible that he would say that the Roman Emperors mentioned in the New Testament didn't exist! Sure enough, with a daft statement like 'completely mythical', we are getting dangerously close to such a thing happening!

It reminds me of a debate I had over Quirinius. I was able to use the ancient sources, such as Josephus and Tacitus, et al., in such a way that in another thread, a friend of mine alerted me to the fact that this person I was debating had started telling people that the writings of Josephus and Tacitus were fiction! :lol:

Now, as for the claim that Jesus and Nazareth never existed, well, I'd like to know why the Emperor Claudius had a copy of an edict against tomb-robbing sent to Nazareth! :doh:

Then of course there is the small matter of the original text of Josephus' passage about Jesus being preserved in an Arabic edition, thank you, free from the little additions Christian scribes slotted in to the Greek copies in their misguided acts of piety. So, no cigar for you there either! Plus you're forgetting the account of the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, by the High Priest Ananus! Oooooops! :teeth:

Funny, I remember last year on another website, a sceptic telling me that the story of Jesus was made up in the 2nd century. The only difficulty with this is that the archaeology of Pompeii kind of negates this ever so slightly. How, for example, do you account for the Pater Noster Puzzle? This was a secret sign for a Christian church, so it would seem, containing a word puzzle with the opening words of the Lord's Prayer in Latin and what seems to me to be a reference to the Parable of the Sower. Which means that in AD 79 and before that, in Pompeii the Lord's Prayer and the Parable of the Sower had already been translated into Latin. Then there is the anti-Christian grafitti present as well. It shows a crucified man with the head of a donkey, with a scrawly sentence making fun of Jesus. Apart from the fact that the donkey's head shows the artist's contempt for Jesus and His message and people, it may also reveal that the pagans were aware of the Christians' teaching of the deity of Christ, as the Romans mistakenly thought that an idol of the Biblical God existed in the Temple and was a big golden donkey! While this might not prove the existence of Jesus, that lies with the normal secular sources, JPH mentions and discusses, which you are ignoring as it doesn't suit your viewpoint, well, tough, it certainly puts the story of Jesus back where it belongs. In the FIRST century.

Finally, with regards to the word 'polis'. To say that since the word 'polis' is nebulously defined, this means that 'multitude' can mean anything, is the most idiotic piece of linguistic codswallop that I have ever read! You might as well type flobalobalobalob! I suggest you order from Amazon "The Greeks" by the late Professor HDF Kitto, who gives us the fullest and definitive account of exactly what a polis is. The polis in its original context referred not to just the city but rather the city-state, which was more the administrative municipal unit which governed an area centred on the city, but also contained its villages. Bear in mind that the elected demes in their assemblies could represent the smallest units within the polis too. Now while Jesus did not live in Greece, since the Gospels were written after all in Greek, the word 'polis' was a natural choice for somewhere even as small as Nazareth, for all 'polis' means in this context is the administrative unit for the village of Nazareth. Therefore the word is flexible enough to cover the administrative unit of any settlement, be it a village or a city-state. No matter how small a community is, it will always have some kind of organisation running it! :tongue: