Issues when debating the historical Jesus

gdon
Theist
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Issues when debating the historical Jesus

I'd like this topic to discuss issues dealing with historicity, in particular involving evaluating the historical Jesus, a topic of interest for quite a few people on both theist and atheist boards.

Peter Kirby has written an interesting article on Historical Criticism here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

While most of the analysis that goes on in popular internet forums is perhaps more "down market", I think that the article can help frame the debate, esp on issues like "Eyewitness Testimony" and "Oral tradition".

Firstly, I'd like to frame the nature of the debate by asking for people's opinions on producing definitions to aid the debate. The primary one IMO is:

1. What do we mean by "Historical Jesus"? If there were an itinerant preacher who was crucified around 30 CE but wasn't called "Jesus", would he be the historical Jesus? IMO, the answer is "yes". For me, an adequate definition for "historical Jesus" is "the person who inspired the birth of Christianity, about whom Paul and the Gospels discussed". Yet I'm aware that even that definition has problems -- what if that person wasn't crucified, or even killed at that time? What if that person was a rebel, or a sorceror, or lived much earlier or much later than the tradition time period? If Paul's Jesus was Jesus of Nun, a contemporary of Moses (I'm still considering a case for this), would that be "the historical Jesus"?

2. What do we mean by "Mythical Jesus"? If the Gospels were inspired by Caesar's life, would "Jesus" best be called "Mythical" or "Fictional" (or even both)? Or does "Mythical" only refer to a belief in a "godman saviour figure" who was believed to have existed yet not on earth?Or perhaps the "William Tell" scenario -- people thought Jesus existed as a person on earth, yet he was only a character in a book?

There is a fair degree of overlap within both categories, and probably even between categories.

I think any discussion will ultimately lead to the evidence itself, which is not a bad thing, and not something I'd like to see avoided, but I would like to see the discussion stay on definitions initially.

My "minimum criteria required" input:

Historical Jesus: the person who inspired Christianity to kick off, and is the person referred to by both Paul and the Gospels. He was killed around the time of Pilate, possibly by crucifixion and possibly for sorcery or insurrection.

Mythical Jesus: a godman/daemon/spirit entity who possibly was thought to have descended from Heaven but never appeared on earth as a person (except in visions)

Fictional Jesus: a person who was thought to have existed at some stage in the past, but never actually did. The belief could have originated out of a character in a book, or as stories that centered on someone who never existed in the first place.

Any comments/disagreements on the definitions?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
elnathan wrote:Quote:I can

elnathan wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

I can continue to prove this all day. You want to continue to debate this point, or will you concede now? I have so much more to draw from. I hope you are honest enough to concede on this.

There is nothing to concede to you.

I wasn't talking to you, you are too ignorant to talk seriously too.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have spouted a great deal of what you may think to be true, but you have only proven that you don’t understand as well as you think you do. Here’s but one example of your misconceptions…

Galatians states that Paul didn’t talk to anybody about his conversion for THREE YEARS during his time in Damascus and outlining regions. (Galatians 1:17) Yet in Acts, Ananias and the other disciples of Jesus were AT Damascus, healed Paul’s sight, and baptized him. A few days later, he was PREACHING about the Lord. (Acts 9:17-20)

Those disciples in Damascus are not the Apostles (Peter, John the rest) that you claim. They are two different groups of different people.

Paul didn't speak to ANYBODY for three years. ANYBODY. Until he arrived in Jerusalem. And to totally destroy your points, which really are quite easy because you're as dumb as a doorknob:

Galatians 1:16-20, "To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."

He didn't speak to ANYBODY for THREE YEARS. Only when he arrived in Jerusalem did he speak to Peter and James...that was it.

In Acts, "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

To further prove how much of a HACK you are, had you bothered to even read the Bible in the first place instead of citicizing me, you'd have noted that Paul HAD seen the APOSTLES in Jerusalem, in fact it's stated in the VERY SAME CHAPTER! (You truely are a twit)

Acts 9:26-30, "When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus."

The contradictions abound here. First Paul is not only seen by the Apostles in Jerusalem, but he also preaches there, and in fact, in acts, he starts preaching in Damascus. Well Paul states by his own hand that he DIDN'T confer with ANYBODY until he got to Jerusalem and met only Peter and James.

If, out of that whole post, this is the only thing you can citicize me on you need to shut up. Seriously.

Quote:
That’s probably why Luke makes no mention of them (Peter, John, and those who hadn’t already been killed) meeting Paul in Damascus. This (the difference between Apostles and disciples) is backed up further in Acts 11:25. I think this would be a good time to ask for your concession?

It would be a good time for you to realize how much I smacked you down...yet again..without breaking a sweat. If you want to mince words, youngin, put your big mouth where your hands are and get your twitiness onto my radio show and we'll debate on air. Then we'll see just how arrogant and cocky you really are.

Quote:
Quote:
And shall I remind you of the fact that Acts has Jesus being hung, not crucified? They are not the same thing. I can go into this at length if you really want to debate me on this subject. I doubt you do.

I believe the quote is refers to being hung on a tree. Which is literally ‘wood’. (You seemed to have overlooked the literal of the word being used in some of your earlier posts regarding this subject--I think you referred to it incorrectly as "tree", when in fact the word used is actually interpreted as "wood.")

The term is not "wood" it's "tree" as is also showed in the Septuigant and other Greek manuscripts. Also, even if it were the case that it was wood, the word for "hung" is literal. Had they been refering to a crucifixion, they would have used the term "stauros" which they did not. Hense it is not the same thing. They are two very different forms of execution.

Further, Acts states that the Jews hung Jesus, not the Romans. Another blatant error and contradiction.

Quote:
I would be curious as to how you hang pictures in your home? It was very apparent and well known how Jesus was executed to those he was talking to in your reference.

Apparently it wasn't as well known as you would like to think.

Quote:
This reference is more of a sarcastic remark than historical accuracy, and was a reference to a well known prophecy.

Please. There is no prophecy in the entire Old Testament that the savior would be crucified. Go back to studying you twit.

Quote:
There are many references to Jesus Christ being crucified. It seem strange that you would pick this one testimony to conflict all the others.

I find it alarming that this testamony is somehow ignored by morons like yourself, being as these were supposedly the origins of your faith.

Quote:
It is yet another example that you don’t understand what is being said in the Bible.

More like another example of you getting another lesson in what the Bible says compared to what you want the Bible to say. Like I said, you are far to ignorant to be taken seriously by anybody. I had a good laugh out of this. Keep them coming, I enjoy making you look foolish.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
User is offlineOffline
What a confused young man

What a confused young man you are. It is no wonder you fit in here so well. You can't even get the simple stuff right with out misconstruing the text. I am glad you had a good laugh. I just sit and shake my head in utter disbelief at your audacity and stupidity.

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers


adamgrant
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Galatians 1:11-12, "γνωριζω δε υμιν αδελφοι το ευαγγελιον το ευαγγελισθεν υπ εμου οτι ουκ εστιν κατα ανθρωπον. ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρωπου παρελαβον αυτο ουτε εδιδαχθην αλλα δι αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου." or, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

He also states over and over again that, "...ουκ απ ανθρωπων ουδε δι ανθρωπου αλλα δια ιησου χριστου και θεου πατρος του εγειραντος αυτον εκ νεκρων." or, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;"

He states fervently that Christ was revealed in him by the Lord God (Galatians 1:16), "αποκαλυψαι τον υιον αυτου εν εμοι ινα ευαγγελιζωμαι αυτον εν τοις εθνεσιν ευθεως ου προσανεθεμην σαρκι και αιματι."

these verses do not prove that Saul never met Christ. They are testifying that what Saul taught is the true gospel, not devised by any natural man, but by Christ.. the God-Man.

Quote:

Paul was very well familiarized with this Gospel, as he cites a line from Thomas in 1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" as in Thomas line 17, "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has no arisen in the human heart."

Saul was quoting from isaiah 64:4! you have absolutely no ground to stand on to claim that Saul was borrowing doctrine from the "gospel of thomas"! as youve correctly noted, saul was a zealous pharisee. he knew the scriptures. he believed them with all of his heart (and knife!) There is no doubt whatsoever that he was quoting Old Testament scripture.

Quote:

More evidence that Paul was aware of the Gnostic ideology, and preached it, can be found in Romans 2:25-29, where he refers to a spiritual circumcision. This is also found in Thomas (53). There is other evidence as well.

Again, Saul did not get the concept of "spiritual circumcision" from the gospel of Thomas or some gnostic perversion of the Gospel. Spiritual Circumcision is just as much in the Old Covenant as it is in the New. DUETERONOMY 10:16: "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer." This is obviously spiritual, not literal.

Quote:

When Paul states in Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” there is no way this could be literal. Being baptized in Christ was to be anointed into the mysteries of the religion Paul preached. (1 Corinthians 4:1) It was to die and be reborn spiritually as Christ had died and been reborn spiritually. Such is seen many times in the writings of Paul. In the very next verse Paul makes my point. That we are crucified WITH Christ, as Christ was, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (6:4) And we should look at what he says in 6:8, “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.”

I have no disagreement here. Of course the 'death' is not pertaining to natural, physical death. it is spiritual in nature, dealing with our souls. but it does effect the physical. and our physical, glorified bodies will live with Christ just as much as our soul. I'm confused as to how any of this is relevant to our discussion on if Saul really met Christ at his conversion or if it was just a vision.

Quote:

Another devastating verse is thus, “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” Romans 15:19. If Christ had just lived and died, and rose again, and had shown himself to all these people, and an earthquake happened at his death, and people had witnessed him being marched down the street….why does Paul need to preach this to the people who witnessed it? Paul never witnessed it. Nor did he receive the information from any person or man but only though God. So how could he know MORE about what happened then those who witnessed the life of Christ?

Christ had not just lived and died and rose again. Saul's letter to Rome was written approx. 24 years after Christ's death. This is not a long time compared to history, but long enough for false gospels and perversions to arise.

You make a false assumption that everyone from "Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum," had personally witnessed the life of Jesus. Saul was the apostle to the gentiles. It was not his misison to preach the gospel to jews. It was mostly the Jews that "witnessed" the Death and Resurrection, not gentiles. Again, he wrote this about 24 years after the fact, giving plenty of time for people that didnt "witness" Christ the need for evangelizing.

Quote:

More damaging is Paul’s disagreements with Peter (Galatians 1) whom supposedly was with Christ from the start of his ministry? Wouldn’t Paul have to submit to Peter’s whim as Peter had surely been there before Paul and yet Paul disagrees completely with Peter on almost everything. Why is that?

You are incorrect that "Paul disagrees completely with Peter on almost everything." Paul never refuted or spoke against the famous sermon Peter is most known for in Acts. Paul actually confirms that God worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the Jews in Gal. 2:8. The only issue at which Paul disagreed with Peter was when Peter became worried about the pressure of the Judaizers and seemed to start compromising the Gospel by teaching that Gentiles needed to be like Jews! Peter knew better than this, but like usual, when push comes to shove, he messes up (example: denying christ 3 times). It was the truth of the gospel, not the personal opinion of Paul that condemned Peter. Hence, Paul was simply keeping Peter accountable and admonishing him to preach the proper Gospel.

Quote:

Another case, to back up my original point, is that Paul is equated in Corinth as the Christ as well, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:12.

you've taken this verse way out of context. in no way does this prove that people thought Paul was Christ (i'm not denying people thought such - if they did, Paul corrected them). However, this verse is talking about believers being sectarian and divisive. Some people started placing too much emphasis on the specific Apostles and teachers, rather than the doctrine they taught.

Quote:

I can continue to prove this all day. You want to continue to debate this point, or will you concede now? I have so much more to draw from. I hope you are honest enough to concede on this.

debate what point?! I don't even know why you brought all this up, it seems like a red herring to me. Maybe you have mistaken me for someone else, because my last post was all about whether or not a man referred to as Jesus ever existed, not about numerous teachings of Paul. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to prove to me.
If you are trying to prove to me that Paul never met the physical Jesus prior to his crucifixtion, then you've wasted your time. I've already agreed that he didnt. If you are trying to prove to me that Paul was a gnostic and didn't believe in a physical Jesus, then you are quite wrong. He agreed with the other Apostles' testimonies and he certainly believed in a literal crucifixion, which would require a physical body.

Quote:

I’ve done it for him. You can either cop-out like you did with my last post and pretend I never wrote a response to you, or you can accept the fact that you are wrong and be honest enough to admit it.

When did you write another response to me? I'll go back and try to find it but I honestly never saw it.

Quote:

I truly hope you correct yourself now. Please have the intellectual honesty to do so. I have respect for you, although I’m not sure of you yet. Prove to me you are an honest individual and admit to this mistake, so we can move on.

I may correct myself to the point that Saul does refer to his conversion in Acts 26 as a "heavenly vision." However, this is the only verse that you are holding onto to prove your point. If that was even what he was referring to. Did he mean his encounter with Christ, or the comission to preach to the Gentiles the forgiveness of sins? verses 19-20 seem to indicate that the "heavenly vision" was to see gentiles grafted in to the kingdom.

Furthermore, his conversion was not mentally induced. This 'experience' resulted from an initiating action external to him. The others with him heard the voice, and saw the light. This was not a 'vision' in the sense that it was soley revealed to Saul, and Saul only, in Saul's mind. It was real. it was physical. it was not in his sub-conscious. Therefore, I still hold to my first argument that Saul did indeed see Christ during this conversion. This would've been the post-resurrected Christ, in his glorified body. If that means that Christ's glory be shown with a radiant, blinding light then so be it. But it was still the real Christ.

Acts 9:17: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road..."
Acts 22:14: "The God of our Fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear his voice."
Acts 26:16: "I have appeared to you for this purpose..."
1 Cor. 9:1: "Have I not seen our Lord?"
1 Cor. 15:8: "Last of all he was seen by me..."


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
elnathan wrote:What a

elnathan wrote:
What a confused young man you are. It is no wonder you fit in here so well. You can't even get the simple stuff right with out misconstruing the text. I am glad you had a good laugh. I just sit and shake my head in utter disbelief at your audacity and stupidity.

This is just like you. Somebody proves you wrong and you attack them for it. You want to put your mouth where your hands are and get on the air and do this? You are but a twig compared to my intellect, and you can be snapped. The thing is, you've already been thrown into the log shredder and distributed over a pile of shit as landscaping for my lawn, and you still think you have something valuable to bring to the table. Hurry up and go pick up the peices of your argument before some small animal runs in and takes the shards back to his nest to hybernate on.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
adamgrant wrote:Rook_Hawkins

adamgrant wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Galatians 1:11-12, "γνωριζω δε υμιν αδελφοι το ευαγγελιον το ευαγγελισθεν υπ εμου οτι ουκ εστιν κατα ανθρωπον. ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρωπου παρελαβον αυτο ουτε εδιδαχθην αλλα δι αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου." or, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

He also states over and over again that, "...ουκ απ ανθρωπων ουδε δι ανθρωπου αλλα δια ιησου χριστου και θεου πατρος του εγειραντος αυτον εκ νεκρων." or, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;"

He states fervently that Christ was revealed in him by the Lord God (Galatians 1:16), "αποκαλυψαι τον υιον αυτου εν εμοι ινα ευαγγελιζωμαι αυτον εν τοις εθνεσιν ευθεως ου προσανεθεμην σαρκι και αιματι."

these verses do not prove that Saul never met Christ. They are testifying that what Saul taught is the true gospel, not devised by any natural man, but by Christ.. the God-Man.

Paul never puts Jesus and God in the same light. In all his works, Jesus is never compared AS God, but as God's son. This is a very different theme then say, the Book of Acts, which was written after the Myth of Jesus developed further and the Orthodox church was becoming more powerful.

In Gnostic thought, Jesus was the Gnostic Revealer, offspring of Sophia and the Demiurge. He was an additional "thought" of the Monad, as is talked about in the "Secret Book of John" written in the early second century CE.

Paul states very clearly no man taught him these things, but rather saw this in a vision. In the vision, he may have seen Jesus in spiritual form, but he never saw Jesus the man. If he had, why isn't the trial mentioned once?

Quote:
Quote:
Paul was very well familiarized with this Gospel, as he cites a line from Thomas in 1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" as in Thomas line 17, "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has no arisen in the human heart."

Saul was quoting from isaiah 64:4! you have absolutely no ground to stand on to claim that Saul was borrowing doctrine from the "gospel of thomas"! as youve correctly noted, saul was a zealous pharisee. he knew the scriptures. he believed them with all of his heart (and knife!) There is no doubt whatsoever that he was quoting Old Testament scripture.

I didn't just base this on this on singular verse. I used others to prove his familiarity with it. He did know the Scriptures, sure. But he certainly weas not zealous. He was a Hellenistic Jew. Most of the Pharasee's of the day were Hellenists. Paul was quite familiar with ideas of Orphicism.

Quote:
Quote:
More evidence that Paul was aware of the Gnostic ideology, and preached it, can be found in Romans 2:25-29, where he refers to a spiritual circumcision. This is also found in Thomas (53). There is other evidence as well.

Again, Saul did not get the concept of "spiritual circumcision" from the gospel of Thomas or some gnostic perversion of the Gospel.

You seem to thing that the Gospels were written yet. They weren't. The G. of Thomas predates all existing Gospels. Pagels even considers the date of 40 CE as a possible dating.

Quote:
Spiritual Circumcision is just as much in the Old Covenant as it is in the New. DUETERONOMY 10:16: "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer." This is obviously spiritual, not literal.

No argument from me here. But the fact I'm relaying to you when I use this, is that these verses are being used to prove something Paul believs to be true. Notice how he doesn't use any literal OT verse to prove the existence of his savior? There are over fifty different prophecies to the Messiah in the OT that the Messiah must do before being recognized. He doesn't cite one fo them. He only uses the metaphorical verses. Why do you think that is?

Quote:
Quote:
When Paul states in Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” there is no way this could be literal. Being baptized in Christ was to be anointed into the mysteries of the religion Paul preached. (1 Corinthians 4:1) It was to die and be reborn spiritually as Christ had died and been reborn spiritually. Such is seen many times in the writings of Paul. In the very next verse Paul makes my point. That we are crucified WITH Christ, as Christ was, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (6:4) And we should look at what he says in 6:8, “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.”

I have no disagreement here. Of course the 'death' is not pertaining to natural, physical death. it is spiritual in nature, dealing with our souls.

I agree. It's a spiritual death and rebirth. But in Pauls world view it never is about an afterlife, but about the moment right now. Gnostics believed that the world was under some sort of spell from the Demiurge (Satan) and that we were all deaf, drunk, blind, ad stupid. To awaken through the Gnosis was the only way to achieve enlightenment and attain high existence.

Quote:
but it does effect the physical. and our physical, glorified bodies will live with Christ just as much as our soul.

This idea of an afterlife has not yet been defined by any scripture. The nature of this idea doesn't stem for another hundred years.

Quote:
I'm confused as to how any of this is relevant to our discussion on if Saul really met Christ at his conversion or if it was just a vision.

I'm showing you the method by which Paul taught. WHich was that he had never met any physical Christ but a psiritual one. He met the Gnostic Revealer who imparted the Gnosis on him so that he could now be the Gnostic Revealer. Paul is teaching about a spiritual being. Not an actual historical one.

I'll explain more below.

Quote:
Quote:
Another devastating verse is thus, “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” Romans 15:19. If Christ had just lived and died, and rose again, and had shown himself to all these people, and an earthquake happened at his death, and people had witnessed him being marched down the street….why does Paul need to preach this to the people who witnessed it? Paul never witnessed it. Nor did he receive the information from any person or man but only though God. So how could he know MORE about what happened then those who witnessed the life of Christ?

Christ had not just lived and died and rose again. Saul's letter to Rome was written approx. 24 years after Christ's death. This is not a long time compared to history, but long enough for false gospels and perversions to arise.

But you have no evidence for anything before Paul. So claiming this happened is incredulous. Further, I know Paul wrote 20 years after the events took place. More reason for you to wonder what happened between the time of Christ and 20 years after that things could not have been written down. Paul is the earliest link you have to the church, yet he gives no details as to the life of Christ. We hear nothing about his birth, a city he walked in, his features or physical ability, his miracles (We hear about none of these), nor do we hear about him carrying the cross through the streets, or of his trial before the Sanhedrin, or the death through Pilate, or the killing of the infants by Herod (which completely mimics the slaughter of the first born by the Pharoah). None of this is in Paul's works. Not a scintilla of this information. Paul only knows of a death, ressurection and crucifixion of Christ. And he does not seem to have any first hand knowledge of these events either. In fact, he places all these events on a spiritual plane (As shown earlier when reading Romans).

Quote:
You make a false assumption that everyone from "Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum," had personally witnessed the life of Jesus.

They should have. According to the Gospels, everyone had seen Jesus, and there had been a great multitude FED by him on two occasions. The sun vanished and the earthquake came at his death. All infants were slaughtered by Herod at his birth. You mean to tell me these amazing events slipped through the fingers of EVERY SINGLE HISTORIAN of the day? That somehow the magnitude was overlooked by Philo, Justus, Josephus, Pliny, and every other human being imaginable in that region?! Please. Who is really assuming here? In order for there to have been a Christ that we know about through Paul (Because you are claiming Paul is talking about the sciptural Jesus - from the Gospels), these events would have to have occured. Yet he seems just as clueless as every historian and astronomer of the day.

Quote:
Saul was the apostle to the gentiles. It was not his misison to preach the gospel to jews.

Firstly, Paul states he went to the Jews first, then to the Getiles. In fact he states this in the verses I used below, where Paul says "I first went to the Jews, then to the Gentiles" as the vision he received instructed him.

Second, Paul states a few times in his works concerning his cameleonism, "To a Jew I became a Jew..."

Third, you are assuming Acts is correct. When Acts wasn't written until 110 CE. There's a longer gap between Acts and Paul rthen there is between Paul and Jesus (had he existed).

Quote:
It was mostly the Jews that "witnessed" the Death and Resurrection, not gentiles. Again, he wrote this about 24 years after the fact, giving plenty of time for people that didnt "witness" Christ the need for evangelizing.

Or, a more likely event would be that they never heard of Jesus because he never really existed. Occums Razor. The simplist explanation is usually the right one.

Quote:
Quote:
More damaging is Paul’s disagreements with Peter (Galatians 1) whom supposedly was with Christ from the start of his ministry? Wouldn’t Paul have to submit to Peter’s whim as Peter had surely been there before Paul and yet Paul disagrees completely with Peter on almost everything. Why is that?

You are incorrect that "Paul disagrees completely with Peter on almost everything." Paul never refuted or spoke against the famous sermon Peter is most known for in Acts.

You forget that Acts was written much later and after the death of Paul. The writer of Acts had a lot more time to be influenced by new whispers and ideas concerning Paul, and Paulw as not there to prove him wrong.

Quote:
Paul actually confirms that God worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the Jews in Gal. 2:8. The only issue at which Paul disagreed with Peter was when Peter became worried about the pressure of the Judaizers and seemed to start compromising the Gospel by teaching that Gentiles needed to be like Jews! Peter knew better than this, but like usual, when push comes to shove, he messes up (example: denying christ 3 times).

You forget that the Gospels weren't written in Paul's lifetime and Paul had no idea about any of the events in the Gospel. Paul never mentions anything concerning Peter denying Christ. This is a falsehood on the account of history, and made up by Biblical authors.

Quote:
It was the truth of the gospel, not the personal opinion of Paul that condemned Peter.

No Gospel was written. Save the Gnostic ones, which did exist at this point to some extent. Paul would have only had access to the Gnostic ideas.

Quote:
Hence, Paul was simply keeping Peter accountable and admonishing him to preach the proper Gospel.

Who is speculating again?

Quote:
Quote:

Another case, to back up my original point, is that Paul is equated in Corinth as the Christ as well, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:12.

you've taken this verse way out of context. in no way does this prove that people thought Paul was Christ (i'm not denying people thought such - if they did, Paul corrected them).

So you deny and accept the point all in one paragraph? The fact is, had Christ recently lived (24 years is still pretty good, people would have known him had he lived) they would not be making that assumption. Especially with all these supposed happenings that took place around Paul.

Quote:
However, this verse is talking about believers being sectarian and divisive.

Yes, but this proves my point. Diversity proves that there was no one version of the story. How were Christians getting confused with following Cephas and Apollos? Unless there was no original creator of Christianity, and such ideas had not yet come to mind. It's easy to twist a conceptual spiritual being then to rewrite history.

Quote:
Some people started placing too much emphasis on the specific Apostles and teachers, rather than the doctrine they taught.

They started following them as Messiahs themselves, in a way. I agree, but this proves my point. Had a person lived, there would be no confusion as to who was the teacher.

Quote:
Quote:

I can continue to prove this all day. You want to continue to debate this point, or will you concede now? I have so much more to draw from. I hope you are honest enough to concede on this.

debate what point?! I don't even know why you brought all this up, it seems like a red herring to me. Maybe you have mistaken me for someone else, because my last post was all about whether or not a man referred to as Jesus ever existed, not about numerous teachings of Paul. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to prove to me.

I've already stated my point above.

Quote:
If you are trying to prove to me that Paul never met the physical Jesus prior to his crucifixtion, then you've wasted your time. I've already agreed that he didnt.

Good.

Quote:
If you are trying to prove to me that Paul was a gnostic and didn't believe in a physical Jesus, then you are quite wrong.

Actually, I'm not. He was a Gnostic and didn't believe in a historical Jesus for the reasons mentioned above.

Quote:
He agreed with the other Apostles' testimonies and he certainly believed in a literal crucifixion, which would require a physical body.

He never once cites a physical location for a crucifixion, ever. None of his citations of Christ take place with locations.

Quote:
Quote:

I’ve done it for him. You can either cop-out like you did with my last post and pretend I never wrote a response to you, or you can accept the fact that you are wrong and be honest enough to admit it.

When did you write another response to me? I'll go back and try to find it but I honestly never saw it.

Last page, it's a bit long, you'll see my reply.

Quote:
I may correct myself to the point that Saul does refer to his conversion in Acts 26 as a "heavenly vision."

Thank you for your honesty. I hope you continue to be as honest.

Quote:
However, this is the only verse that you are holding onto to prove your point. If that was even what he was referring to. Did he mean his encounter with Christ, or the comission to preach to the Gentiles the forgiveness of sins? verses 19-20 seem to indicate that the "heavenly vision" was to see gentiles grafted in to the kingdom.

That was the context of his vision. But he only had one vision in Acts.

Quote:
Furthermore, his conversion was not mentally induced. This 'experience' resulted from an initiating action external to him. The others with him heard the voice, and saw the light.

NOT ACCORDING TO PAUL. You are combining ACts with Galatians. They are both written by different people at different times. Stop. Doing. This. There is no way that Luke-Acts author knew Paul or met him. The author of Luke-Acts wrote long after Pauls death (Fifty years) and was pretty much making things up to fit his perceived idea of Paul from the hearsay and whispers he would have heard about.

Quote:
This was not a 'vision' in the sense that it was soley revealed to Saul, and Saul only,

According to Paul in Galatians, it WAS only received by him, and he didn't confer with ANYBODY (did not confer with flesh and blood) for THREE YEARS. Galatians is by Paul's own hands. WHo knows himself more? Paul or the ACts writer who never met Paul?

Quote:
in Saul's mind. It was real.

Sorry, but...D'uh!

Quote:
it was physical.

Never once in Paul's works does he make this claim. You are adding to the text.

Quote:
it was not in his sub-conscious. Therefore, I still hold to my first argument that Saul did indeed see Christ during this conversion.

You'll have a tough time finding a verse in Pauls own hand that proves this.

Quote:
This would've been the post-resurrected Christ, in his glorified body. If that means that Christ's glory be shown with a radiant, blinding light then so be it. But it was still the real Christ.

You are once again speculating and using ACts to prove something about Paul. Use Paul to prove something about Paul. Until then your theories on this matter cannot be taken seriously. As Acts was not a contemporary account of Paul's life. It was a post-mortem tribute in a romanticised way after years and years of degredation of Paul's actual words and teachings.

Quote:
Acts 9:17: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road..."
Acts 22:14: "The God of our Fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear his voice."
Acts 26:16: "I have appeared to you for this purpose..."
1 Cor. 9:1: "Have I not seen our Lord?"
1 Cor. 15:8: "Last of all he was seen by me..."

All of these can be spiritual visions. If Paul saw Jesus spiritually, or felt him spiritually, these verses would all make sense in that context as well. Remember that.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

This is just like you.


How would you know what I am like? I have been here five weeks and you make such an outrageous claim as to know me and what I am like?
Quote:

Somebody proves you wrong and you attack them for it.

You have NOT proven me wrong! I have shown where you are not able to comprehend what you are talking about, pointed out a few of your mistakes, and now you get all huffy about it. If you will recall, correctly, it is you who that attacked me. It was you that insulted my intellegence. It was you who created the scarecrows.
Quote:

You want to put your mouth where your hands are and get on the air and do this?

I am curious about this repeated statement. While I do think it would be interesting to talk to you in person--face to face--I don't think I would like to do it on the radio. But, I don't think you are really serious either. However, there are a couple of people that I would like to see you discuss this subject with on the air.

In the mean time, what are the call letters for this "radio" show? What frequency is it on? How can I hear the public airing of the shows rather than buying the edited versions to the left?

Quote:

You are but a twig compared to my intellect, and you can be snapped.
I will admit your intellect is higer than mine. But you exaggerate it. Your lack of respect, points more toward arrogance than intellegence. While you may be able to snap my perspective and ignite my emotions, you can not shake my faith--which is what I think you are really trying to do here.
Quote:

The thing is, you've already been thrown into the log shredder and distributed over a pile of shit as landscaping for my lawn, and you still think you have something valuable to bring to the table.

I believe that pile of shit on the lawn would be more of your misconceptions. Are you really so foolish as to believe that your strawmen have won you the battle? Are you really so foolish as to deny that my points are valid? It seems quite apparent that when you are shown your errors, you simply bring up different rhetoric.

It would be interesting to talk to you on the radio. Then you would not be able to cut and post from your plethoria of garbage you seem to have at your finger tips. It is interesting when I posed the question of your plagerism, that you whipped out the old standard come back of liable and litigation; and continue spewing slanderous remarks.

Quote:

Hurry up and go pick up the peices of your argument before some small animal runs in and takes the shards back to his nest to hybernate on.

Those pieces are not mine. They are as much a figment of your imagination as your claim to victory.

You have knowledge without understanding. While this is common to many people, it is such a shame you have wasted such a large brain on such idiotic drivel. Hopefully, at some point in your life, you will see the true light, and the truth will be revealed to you. Until then, please do yourself a favor and do not dig your self into a hole from which you can not escape.

I planned to write a post that would summarize this topic, and I still might. But, it wouldn't be for you, or the other Jesus bashers that have posted so far. At this point however, there seems to be little purpose. Even if you were shown the facts--via historic evidence--it is apparent that you would either deny or ignore them as you have in the past. If you read my sig, it may give you some clues regarding what we are dealing with here.

There is only one name that is more widely known or has had more impact than Jesus. There are only three reasons to claim that Person did not exist; ignorance, stupidity, or denial.

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
If all you're going to do is

If all you're going to do is repeatedly inflate your ego by not attacking the topics, then I will just have to ignore you. When will you get back to discussing the topics? I refuted you, you "laugh" and don't even bother replying with substance. If this is how you "debate" and "show me up" then you really suck at it. Comprende? if you are not here to learn, or to be open-minded, then perhaps this isn't the venue for you. Because you are certainly not going to be able to teach me anything by not discussing the point at hand. You tried to show me how "incorrect" I was and unable to understand the subject, then I backed up my claim, and you just attacked me. That is not how we work here. Start discussing the subject matter or you can find another forum. I hope I've been clear. I am getting tired of having to wade through your shit-posts in order to get to the meat of discussions.

Here's a little brief of a debate with you:

  1. Rook: You know A is A because of B.
  2. Elnathan: No. It's not. You are wrong.
  3. Rook: How am I wrong? Explain.
  4. Elnathan: You are so stupid, I laugh at you! hahahaha!
  5. Rook: Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that I'm wrong?
  6. Elnathan: You kids, I always enjoy laughing at you. hahahaha!
  7. Rook: Seriously though, you said I was wrong...I wish you'd just tell me how you think that A isn't A because of B.
  8. Elnathan: *says nothing*
  9. Some other Christian: A isn't A because C could say this, making it not B.
  10. Rook: *Provides some long post with lots of detail and source information about why A is A because of B, and showing how C doesn't factor into A because it has nothing to do with A*
  11. Elnathan: Rook, you continue to not comprehend things. A is C.
  12. Rook: Um, A is A because of B. Not C. And C is irrelevant to A because it only has relevance to B.
  13. Elnathan: Hahahaha! You are so stupid. I really enjoyed the laugh thanks.

Do you understand why you are becoming such an annoyance? You never prove your claims, and when somebody says something valid, or makes a counter argument you laugh at them or ignore the post all together.

In my post to Adamgrant, you only replied to one paragraph, and when I showed you in the same chapter it shows how Paul had met with the APOSTLES (Not just the Disciples) in Jerusalem which contradicts Galatians. You merely laughed at me and called me a child. This is no way to prove a point or win an argument.

So, if you want to debate seriously, get serious. And stop wasting my time, and Todangst's time. Thanks for understanding.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Why don't we leave of Paul

Why don't we leave of Paul the strawman out of this?

How about we get back to the historic validity of Jesus?

Quote:

The difference is that Alexander the Great claims that he has directly interacted with Aristotle, there are no Christian writings with the claim that they have seen or interacted with Jesus in any way.

Where are the contemporary writings about Aristotle? I think we can only find one?

The earliest extant of Aristotle was written 900 years after he died. The copies of the original writings of the Bible are less than 250 years after the events; with fragments of the even older documents that relate to the same time period.

Few doubt the extant of Alexander the Great. And let's not forget, he too "claimed" himself to have been a god. Who among you doubts A.G. was a real man? Why not Jesus?

The testimonies and letters that comprise the New Testament, are just that; testimonials from people who knew or had heard about a man named Jesus. Many of these books and letters are personal accounts from eyewitness testimony to support the fact Jesus was real.

Whoah...now, I hope I am not offending you here, that's not the intention...but stick with me for a little while longer okay?. Open those minds like you say you can.Smiling

There are a multitude of other resources that make reference to the same historical items referred to by the writings of those original group, as well as those that followed after. Many of the prominent people mentioned in both the secular and non-secular that are verifiable people of the day. With the help of modern archeology, many of the places and customs written about by those disciples can be verified and authenticated.

There are many resources, that describe the early Christian movement, and testify the instigator was a man called Christ. Some of the second century writers relate to some detail what impact the movement had on contemporary society. were going on at the beginning of the very calendar system we use today.

[quote=Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirest of the later halfo fo the second century.

As Lucian said: ”The Christians you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death an voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine

Sounds pretty real to me, how about you?

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
elnathan wrote:Why don't we

elnathan wrote:
Why don't we leave of Paul the strawman out of this?

You'd like that, because you can't understand why he was brought up to begin with. You call him a strawman because you don't get the importance of Paul to the subject matter, which once again shows how ignorant you are concerning the historical nature of this claim.

Allow me to explain. Paul is the only bridge between Jesus' death and Christianity. There is nothing else before Paul that is accepted by the church. Paul is the only link. That's a thirty - forty year gap between Jesus' supposed death, to the first time EVER, anybody writes about him. 30 years is a long amount of time to pass by without a single jot of ink to be scribed in your name, or about you, especially if you're claiming to be the son of God (Or claiming to BE God).

Paul isn't just vital to the case of establishing Jesus' historicity, but he is the ONLY case you have to establish it, and he's anti-historical when it comes to Jesus, as shown above. But since you are a hack, you don't get that. That's cool though.

Quote:
How about we get back to the historic validity of Jesus?

Have you been paying attention?

Quote:
Quote:
The difference is that Alexander the Great claims that he has directly interacted with Aristotle, there are no Christian writings with the claim that they have seen or interacted with Jesus in any way.

Where are the contemporary writings about Aristotle? I think we can only find one?

Aristotle published and wrote his own works. Only a selected handful were published postumously.

Quote:
The earliest extant of Aristotle was written 900 years after he died.

Nope. Only a small handful of writings, which were hidden away during the time of the fall of the Greek Empire and during the subsequent wars after, around 70 BCE they were collected by Roman authorities, and recopied. They were then authorized into later additions some years later, the additions we use today. However Aristotle published over 45 books and dialogues. Many were lost, but philosophers and politicians dating back to the time of Aristotle (including Alexander the Great who was Aristotle's student) spoke of his works and his personality.

By the way, that would mean it was only around 500 years, not 900.

Quote:
The copies of the original writings of the Bible are less than 250 years after the events; with fragments of the even older documents that relate to the same time period.

Several problems arise here, and mainly speak to how little you understand about the method by which to establish somebodies historicity. Here is a list I compiled to show you the differences between Aristotle and Jesus and why Aristotle is considered to be a real person and why Jesus likely wasn't.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARITSTOLE AND JESUS
ARISTOTLE

  1. 1. Facts about Aristotle’s life are not in question. We know when he was born, when he died (384-322 B.C.E), who his parents were, (Nicomachus – father – who was a physician to King Amyntas III, and Phaestis his mother) who his friends were and who his teacher was (Plato).
  2. 2. Most importantly, over 45 works are attributed TO him, although some of those are said to be dictated by some of his students in one of his many schools which he taught at.
  3. 3. Aristotle never claimed to be perfect, or a God, or even a son of a God. Nobody has a dogmatic philosophy on the life of Aristotle. If Aristotle didn’t exist, nobody’s world view would change.
  4. 4. Aristotle changed the course of time, coming up with several new schools of thought, including new ways to look at math, science, philosophy, politics, and ethics. His original thoughts and views helped form and shape the politics of a world.
  5. 5. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle.
  6. 6. Every Greek philosopher and scientist throughout the ages has used Aristotle as a base for their works. Including Harpalus, Hephaestion, Nicomachus and Theophrastus. Even Aquinas used Aristotle.
  7. 7. All of the information we have about Aristotle does not conflict with history.
  8. 8. There is no reason to doubt the existence of Aristotle, because there is such a large amount of evidence for his existence, as well as nothing that conflicts with history and historical accounts of Aristotle and his life.

JESUS

  1. 1. Jesus’ early life is obscure. We do not know his birth date, or even the year. We don’t have the year of his death. If you are claiming Jesus was just a man, of course nothing exists to prove a natural birth so this evidence is non-existent. We know nothing of his childhood, save at 12, then he vanishes again. And we know his parents first names.
  2. 2. Jesus never wrote one book, one sentence, not even as much as a letter.
  3. 3. Jesus claimed to be all three of these attributes, and more. And over 33 million people around the world follow the idea that Jesus was these attributes and more. If Jesus was shown not to exist, his message would be lost and people would no longer be Christian (Because the definition of a Christian is to believe in Christ as the Messiah, that he died for our sins).
  4. 4. None of Jesus’ supposed teachings are original. Justin Martyr also admits to Trypho that Jesus’ teachings and that of the Christians were documented earlier in the Greek philosophies of Aristotle (ironically), Socrates, and Plato. All of the teachings of Jesus can be found in religions that existed hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. In John 1:1, a similar passage can be found in Heraclitus.
  5. 5. No major figure in History ever had direct contact with Jesus. No historical commentary about any major figure in history ever places them near or around Jesus in any fashion. In all the volumes of Josephus, never once does it state that Herod murdered a great multitude of infants at the birth of some savior figure. Nor does it state anywhere that Pilate killed Jesus in any Roman record.
  6. 6. No great work of science or philosophy ever came from Jesus, or one of Jesus’ followers. All are void of intelligent thought, and contain evidence of following in the footsteps of servitude.
  7. 7. In the trial alone of Jesus, there contains anywhere from 14-27 infractions of Sanhedrin and Roman law. This does not include a large sum of historical contradictions outside of the trial, which traverse into the hundreds.
  8. 8. In every aspect of Christ’s supposed life, there is reason to question his existence because of the errors, contradictions and fallacies not only within the Bible, but concerning the utter lack of evidence concerning the events of his life.

    Quote:
    Few doubt the extant of Alexander the Great. And let's not forget, he too "claimed" himself to have been a god. Who among you doubts A.G. was a real man? Why not Jesus?

    Alexander the Great actually accomplished certain feats in his life that are evident. For example, archeaological evidence of his camps, battles, seiges, we have physical evidence of his life.

    There is also a lot of contemporary accounts of his life. We also know his father, mother, friends, family, lifestyle and his childhood years. We know his battles, how they happened, when they happened, etc...

    There is a reason why we have such a wealth of information on these individuals, and that is because there is a method by which to establish if somebody is historical or not.

    Jesus is missing such a wealth of information, and in fact, nothing exists physically or in literature to validate his existence. The utter lack of anything for him is incredulous to say the least.

    And for your own reference, Hollywood is not the best place to get your facts. Alexander the Great never called himself a God. He was said to have been of the bloodline of a demi-God, that of Hercules. But he himself never claimed to be a God.

    Quote:
    The testimonies and letters that comprise the New Testament, are just that; testimonials from people who knew or had heard about a man named Jesus.

    Not a single book in the New Testament was written by somebody who new Jesus. You're just lying now.

    Quote:
    Many of these books and letters are personal accounts from eyewitness testimony to support the fact Jesus was real.

    Not a single one. I can't believe that you are this incompitent.

    Quote:
    Whoah...now, I hope I am not offending you here, that's not the intention...but stick with me for a little while longer okay?. Open those minds like you say you can.Smiling

    Look who is talking?! You are so full of it I can't see the color of your eyes past the brown stains. You need to seriously just stop talking, because nothing you say is remotely close to accurate. I challenge you to go to any historian at any university locally to you and tell them that the New Testament books are eyewitness accounts. They'll laugh at you.

    Quote:
    There are a multitude of other resources that make reference to the same historical items referred to by the writings of those original group, as well as those that followed after. Many of the prominent people mentioned in both the secular and non-secular that are verifiable people of the day. With the help of modern archeology, many of the places and customs written about by those disciples can be verified and authenticated.

    This doesn't prove Jesus.

    Quote:
    There are many resources, that describe the early Christian movement, and testify the instigator was a man called Christ.

    Early Christian movement? There were no "early Christians." The name "Christian" never appeared until the scond century. In fact for the early second century, Jews and "Christians" were all lumped together as Jews. Read Seutonius, Tacitus, Plutarch...of course ytou won't because that would be honest.

    Quote:
    Some of the second century writers relate to some detail what impact the movement had on contemporary society. were going on at the beginning of the very calendar system we use today.

    And here I thought we were using the Gregorian Calender established in the sixteenth century?

    The Dumbass Using Lucian wrote:
    Lucian of Samosata wrote:

    Lucian was a Greek satirest of the later halfo fo the second century.

    As Lucian said: ”The Christians you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death an voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine

    Sounds pretty real to me, how about you?

    Watch how easy it is to reute Lucian. Ready? Get ready or you might miss it.

    Lucian, (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." Regardless of the fact that this is NOT AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT BUT WRITTEN 120 YEARS AFTER THE SUPPOSED DEATH OF JESUS, nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention the man's name, or the cult he brought into the world. This is a SPECIAL PLEADING argument by Christians, we are too ASSUME he is talking about Jesus.

    Except that THOUSANDS of people were crucified in Palestine, and many of these men were known to start new religions, especially around the time of Lucian. Palestine covers an area roughly hundreds of miles from north to south and east to west, it spreads from north of Damascus to the far south, past Masada and the Dead Sea. The ONLY thing this proves is that a man was killed because he started a cult.

    Quote:
    As translated by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

    This is a faulty and partial translation. The real translation is as follows (Another part of this translation below):

    1. "These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership. So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them."

    More on this below.

    Lucian does not name specifically the crucified figure as Jesus Christ. This whole argument is now bunk because it depends on Special Pleading. The plea is that we accept that Lucian is talking about Jesus of Nazareth, but clearly it isn’t certain.

    He does speak a LOT about Christians, in fact he ridicules them! He believes rather thoroughly that Christianity is a scam. Lucian satirized the Christians in his Passing of Peregrines (From which your quote derives) a story of a philosopher sage who at one point becomes a leader of the Christians to take advantage of their gullibility. His last statement says it all, “So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them.”

    In fact, when he states, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector….” He is speaking of his character he concocted, the sage philosopher, who the Christians worshiped and took on as their God, and who was better then all their (the Christians) scribes and priests.

    What is more amusing about your non-researched speculation is that you seem to think Lucian has some sort of knowledge concerning the existence of Jesus, where in fact it’s just not true.

    As Jeffery Jay Lowder, author of Josh McDowell’s “Evidence” for Jesus: Is It Reliable?, writes concerning Lucian, “Nevertheless, given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus. Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not specify his sources, we will never know. Just as is the case with Tacitus, it is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder had been crucified. (Take note that this is in the case that by some light the passage might refer to Jesus...not that it does.)

    He states, in his conclusion as well, “Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Lucian are not independent witnesses to the historicity of Jesus.” Regardless of what references are made AFTER the fact, he’s not an eye-witness ergo he CANNOT be used to prove the existence of Jesus. He wasn’t even a CONTEMPORARY!

    So we have two main problems associated with Lucian:

    1. 1. Lucian was NOT a contemporary or eye-witness.
    2. 2. Lucian does NOT mention Jesus OR the cult this man who was crucified in Palestine started.

    The whole argument for Lucian is bunk. And the fact that it’s only a slight mention, if but two sentences, really doesn’t help your case.

    And to make the argument that Lucian was discribing the culture of the Christians in relation to Christ, this is just plain absurd. This is as I stated above Lucian’s reference to the Christians reaction to HIS CHARACTER, Peregrines! This is a failure on your part, because you probably just went to some Christian site, copied the butchered text, and pasted it as if that was all Lucian wrote in his entire life. Where in fact these statements you claim are applied to Jesus are actually about a man named Peregrines who, “for a time in his early life went over to Christianity, practicing it to the point of imprisonment under a very tolerant administration, and after returning to Cynicism became in his old age so enamoured of Indic ideas and precedents that he cremated himself at Olympia, just after the games of A.D. 165, even as Calanus had done at Susa in the presence of Alexander the Great and as Zarmarus had done at Athens, after initiation into the mysteries, in the presence of Augustus.” - H.M. Harmon (Lucian of Samosata : The Passing of Peregrines)

    It should be noted too, that Josephus talks a lot about crucifixion in his works. In the 120 years that passed between Jesus' supposed existence and Lucian, thousands upon thousands were crucified in Palestine. In fact, in just one year, multitudes numbering 500 in one day, sometimes more, were sent to be crucified during the seige in 70 CE.

    "...before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies." (War 5: Chapter 11)

    To claim that the one man who was crucified is your savior is incredulous. So many myth's were flying around the time of Lucian it is impossible really to name them all. So many "saviors" loved and died somehow. And since Christ more "saviors" have followed. Whether they be of the Chrestians and Christians, Simon the Magi (Or SImon Magnus), Marcion or one such as Alexander and his followers (Also written by Lucian).

    Incidentally...Alexander was claiming to be the son of Zeus (hmm) and he was a sage, and an oracle. He preformed miracles that Lucian also mocked. The following are excerpts from his works concerning Alexander:

    "As a matter of fact, this trick, to a man like you, and if it is not out of place to say so, like myself also, was obvious and easy to see through, but to those drivelling idiots it was miraculous and almost as good as incredible."

    "Well, as I say, Alexander made predictions and gave oracles, employing great shrewdness in it and combining guesswork with his trickery. He gave responses that were sometimes obscure and am­biguous, sometimes downright unintelligible, for this seemed to him in the oracular manner. Some people he dissuaded or encouraged as seemed best to him at a guess. To others he prescribed medical treatments and diets, knowing, as I said in the beginning, many useful remedies."

    "By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumours in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead. " (sound familiar yet?)

This is the best you can give me? This is the very problem with you, Elnathan, you don't do any independant study. All you would have to do is search for Lucian and see how far the distance is between Christs supposed death and Lucian. You could hgave easily read his works yourself to get the gist of what he was talking about. Instead you just blindly follow what some other dolt wrote about on a Christian website without looking into it, and once again, been shown to be the fraud you are.

Now go run along and play somewhere. I've said it to you once and I'll keep telling you, your level of knowledge in this field is trivial compared to mine. You are like a child playing with lions.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:elnathan

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
elnathan wrote:
Why don't we leave of Paul the strawman out of this?

You'd like that, because you can't understand why he was brought up to begin with. You call him a strawman because you don't get the importance of Paul to the subject matter, which once again shows how ignorant you are concerning the historical nature of this claim.

Allow me to explain. Paul is the only bridge between Jesus' death and Christianity. There is nothing else before Paul that is accepted by the church. Paul is the only link.


Wrong again! Paul is most certainly not the ONLY link between Jesus and Christianity. Where do you get this kind of crap? The Apostles--who knew Jesus personally, and spent three years with him--had a GREAT DEAL to do with starting the Christian Church. Paul was called to take the Faith to the Gentiles, and had a great deal to do with establishing the Chruch, but he was not the only link. So yeah....He is a strawman. But nice try.

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
elnathan wrote:The

elnathan wrote:
The Apostles--who knew Jesus personally, and spent three years with him--had a GREAT DEAL to do with starting the Christian Church.

You forgot to add - "who most likely never existed either".


elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
User is offlineOffline
No...I didn't.

No...I didn't.

"most likely" eh? Let's says there is a 99.9% chance, you aren't going to win the lottery. So...winning the lottery may not seem "real" to you--because it doesn't seem likely. So you say to yourself, "I will most likely not win the lottery", so you don't play the lottery. But it is VERY real to someone who DOES win! So your "most likely" scenerio goes right out the window when that check is presented.

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
elnathan wrote:Rook_Hawkins

elnathan wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
elnathan wrote:
Why don't we leave of Paul the strawman out of this?

You'd like that, because you can't understand why he was brought up to begin with. You call him a strawman because you don't get the importance of Paul to the subject matter, which once again shows how ignorant you are concerning the historical nature of this claim.

Allow me to explain. Paul is the only bridge between Jesus' death and Christianity. There is nothing else before Paul that is accepted by the church. Paul is the only link.


Wrong again!

Really? So you can bring about evidence written before Paul? I'd love to see this.

Quote:
Paul is most certainly not the ONLY link between Jesus and Christianity.

He most certainly is. There is no one prose or gospel written before Paul. There is a considerable 30-40 year gap between jesus and Paul where not a thing is written. Are you even paying attention?

Quote:
Where do you get this kind of crap?

Scholars and historians, most whom teach at top ten schools like Cambridge and Harvard, Oxford and Cheney. What do you have to bring to the table?

By the way, calling something "crap" does not invalidate it. You need to back up your "crap" claim. For example, if you could present evidence of literature of some sort before Paul, that would prove your point. Otherwise, you're just trying to make yourself look smart again, and doing a piss-poor job of it.

Quote:
The Apostles--who knew Jesus personally, and spent three years with him--had a GREAT DEAL to do with starting the Christian Church.

Again, please present your contemporary accounts of jesus. So far you've proposed Josephus, Lucian and Suetonius, all of which were non-contemporary accounts and were easily refuted. In fact, they were refuted so well you ignored the parts of my posts dealing with them all together. As if they didn't exist.

Quote:
Paul was called to take the Faith to the Gentiles, and had a great deal to do with establishing the Chruch, but he was not the only link.

You'd really like that, wouldn't you? if only that were the truth. It's ashame that you cannot present physical textual evidence to support this however. A damn shame. Keep on lying, brother.

Quote:
So yeah....He is a strawman. But nice try.

The sad thing is, I don't have to lie to back up my points like you do. And what is even more sad is how easily one can see through your deception. So, in that case, you didn't try hard enough.

Word of warning. The next post you make that doesn't deal in truth, will be deleted, or you will be banned. I'm tired of warning you, and I've been more then tolerable towards your lies. I told you before, and this is your second warning - we do not tolerate lies for long, so the more you keep them coming, the more you will have to face the fact that you will be gone from here.

Now, back to the subject at hand....that is...you providing me with some textual evidence of an author beofre Paul who wrote about Jesus.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
elnathan wrote:No...I

elnathan wrote:
No...I didn't.

"most likely" eh? Let's says there is a 99.9% chance,

You're really pulling numbers out of your ass, now, eh?

Quote:
you aren't going to win the lottery. So...winning the lottery may not seem "real" to you--because it doesn't seem likely.

Except that we have evidence of the lottery actually existing, we also have people who have won the lottery and we can visit whenever we like (although we may get tacked with a PFA or restraining order), we also have records of people winning the lottery for as long as state lotteries have run. We can see the evidence, and check the records, which is more then you have for your case. You have yet to provide us with evidence for your claim.

Quote:
So you say to yourself, "I will most likely not win the lottery", so you don't play the lottery. But it is VERY real to someone who DOES win!

Again, you forget that we have evidence not only of the lottery, but of the people catching the numbers on television, records, budget towards such lottery programs, advertising, etc...

We have nothing for your case here remotely close to this. In fact there is more against your claim then there is for it.

Quote:
So your "most likely" scenerio goes right out the window when that check is presented.

Man, you certainly do wish an awful lot. You can't stop making claims without evidence. Just remeber my warning to you. You're treading on thin ice.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
elnathan wrote:No...I

elnathan wrote:
No...I didn't.

"most likely" eh? Let's says there is a 99.9% chance, you aren't going to win the lottery. So...winning the lottery may not seem "real" to you--because it doesn't seem likely. So you say to yourself, "I will most likely not win the lottery", so you don't play the lottery. But it is VERY real to someone who DOES win! So your "most likely" scenerio goes right out the window when that check is presented.

So you admit that you have no evidence that any of the apostles existed?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:elnathan

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
elnathan wrote:
No...I didn't.

"most likely" eh? Let's says there is a 99.9% chance, you aren't going to win the lottery. So...winning the lottery may not seem "real" to you--because it doesn't seem likely. So you say to yourself, "I will most likely not win the lottery", so you don't play the lottery. But it is VERY real to someone who DOES win! So your "most likely" scenerio goes right out the window when that check is presented.

So you admit that you have no evidence that any of the apostles existed?

LOL I missed this the first time around..... What ought to really trouble christians is that we don't have a history replete with decendents of apostles? How likely is it that a person who has father/grandfather who knew god, personally wouldn't make a lot of hay over it? In fact, you'd have such people bragging their heads off.... we would expect that the decendents of the apostles to make a very large mark on history... instead, history is completely silent concerning even one such person....

Just one more piece of the puzzle that does not fit that goes completely ignored by the christians... not one of them even considers asking such questions...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
elnathan, If we both agree

elnathan,

If we both agree upon the existence of Jesus and move toward some of the other points brought up such as the veracity of the claims in the bible. You contend that since the apostles not only worked vigorously to spread the gospel but ultimately died for it, that it lends credibility to the claim. Essentially, why would someone die for a lie. It was brought to your attention figures like David Koresh and Jim Jones ( to name just a few), where people believe wholeheartedly of the claims made by these men and died for them. What would be your response to this in contrast to the apostles?

Also since the apostles witnessed the miracles Jesus performed, and they died for their convictions you believe that Jesus did indeed performed miracles ( am I correct in my assertion?). However are you familiar with the miracles at Fatima? If so, do you believe them? Why or Why not?

Thanks


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:elnathan

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
elnathan wrote:
What a confused young man you are. It is no wonder you fit in here so well. You can't even get the simple stuff right with out misconstruing the text. I am glad you had a good laugh. I just sit and shake my head in utter disbelief at your audacity and stupidity.

This is just like you. Somebody proves you wrong and you attack them for it. You want to put your mouth where your hands are and get on the air and do this? You are but a twig compared to my intellect, and you can be snapped. The thing is, you've already been thrown into the log shredder and distributed over a pile of shit as landscaping for my lawn, and you still think you have something valuable to bring to the table. Hurry up and go pick up the peices of your argument before some small animal runs in and takes the shards back to his nest to hybernate on.

Rook, while I see your points and think the landscaping thing was colourful, I don't see how all this insult slinging (on both sides) accomplishes anything except to make the other side ignore your good points. Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Rook_Hawkins

natural wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
elnathan wrote:
What a confused young man you are. It is no wonder you fit in here so well. You can't even get the simple stuff right with out misconstruing the text. I am glad you had a good laugh. I just sit and shake my head in utter disbelief at your audacity and stupidity.

This is just like you. Somebody proves you wrong and you attack them for it. You want to put your mouth where your hands are and get on the air and do this? You are but a twig compared to my intellect, and you can be snapped. The thing is, you've already been thrown into the log shredder and distributed over a pile of shit as landscaping for my lawn, and you still think you have something valuable to bring to the table. Hurry up and go pick up the peices of your argument before some small animal runs in and takes the shards back to his nest to hybernate on.

Rook, while I see your points and think the landscaping thing was colourful, I don't see how all this insult slinging (on both sides) accomplishes anything except to make the other side ignore your good points. Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.

I really don't see how your post is helpful. There are plenty of reasons why theists in general, and Elnathan in particular have no interest in listening to reasoned debate, and instead seek to attack the person. The idea that he was the victim of some abuse is ridiculous.

As for avoiding personal attacks in posts, why not be the change you want to be first?

Please move on and keep your personal gripes to yourself.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:natural

todangst wrote:
natural wrote:
Rook, while I see your points and think the landscaping thing was colourful, I don't see how all this insult slinging (on both sides) accomplishes anything except to make the other side ignore your good points. Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.

I really don't see how your post is helpful.


Well, it wasn't written to you. It was written to Rook. I hope it is helpful to Rook to show him that adding insults into an otherwise good post does not add anything to the good post, and in fact adds an additional hurdle for the theist to start considering the actual content rather than the insults. In a word, it is counterproductive, unless your purpose is merely to bait theists.

Quote:
There are plenty of reasons why theists in general, and Elnathan in particular have no interest in listening to reasoned debate

I specifically said that this was ONE of the reasons. Again, you jump to consclusions and ignore what I actually wrote.

Quote:
The idea that he was the victim of some abuse is ridiculous.

The idea that that is what my post is about is equally ridiculous.

Quote:
As for avoiding personal attacks in posts, why not be the change you want to be first?

Are you talking to me or the theists? Where have I made a personal attack?

Quote:
Please move on and keep your personal gripes to yourself.

Weren't YOU the one who sent me a PM (on IG) saying you didn't want to have anything to do with me? Then why do you reply to me when I clearly did not reply to you. Take your own advice.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Well, it

natural wrote:

Well, it wasn't written to you. It was written to Rook.

You mentioned me by name. You're not able to follow your own posts, are you?

Quote:

I hope it is helpful to Rook to show him that adding insults into an otherwise good post does not add anything to the good post,

It won't be 'helpful.' And it wasn't intended to be 'helpful'. If you wanted to "help" Rook or myself you'd write to us, and talk to us.

And what you wrote involved blaming Rook and myself, without even considering what the theist himself said or didn't say, to bring on this purported behavior.

So there's not even a potential to help - just you acting holier than thou... even as you now show your true colors here.

Quote:
There are plenty of reasons why theists in general, and Elnathan in particular have no interest in listening to reasoned debate

Quote:

I specifically said that this was ONE of the reasons.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own words. You listed it as the large factor behind it:

Quote:
Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.

You asked why he didn't listen, and listed the 'constant insults from me and rook' as the 'large factor'.

You blame the 'constant insults' yet don't consider that

1) who tossed insults first?
2) whether or not the theist ever had an intention to listen

The 'insults' are not the 'large' factor.

Quote:
The idea that he was the victim of some abuse is ridiculous.

Quote:

The idea that that is what my post is about is equally ridiculous.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own words. You wrote on rook's supposed behavior and its effect on the conversation. That's what you focused on.

You really aren't very good at arguing points, because you're always having to distance yourself from your own words.

Quote:
Please move on and keep your personal gripes to yourself.

Quote:

Weren't YOU the one who sent me a PM (on IG) saying you didn't want to have anything to do with me?

I don't. But this is RR. I'm a mod here. I have no choice but to run into you and other people looking to troll the board under the guise of 'being helpful'

One more post from you on this, and say bye bye. I've had enough you going on about personal issues.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:natural

todangst wrote:
natural wrote:

Well, it wasn't written to you. It was written to Rook.

You mentioned me by name.


Which doesn't mean I wrote it to you.

Quote:
You're not able to follow your own posts, are you?

We'll see who's having trouble following my posts below.

Quote:
Quote:

I hope it is helpful to Rook to show him that adding insults into an otherwise good post does not add anything to the good post,

It won't be 'helpful.' And it wasn't intended to be 'helpful'.


You presume my intentions when I clearly stated them.

Quote:
If you wanted to "help" Rook or myself you'd write to us, and talk to us.

I did. That's why I started the post with "Rook,"

Quote:
And what you wrote involved blaming Rook and myself

In no place did I blame Rook (or you) for anything. Here's the full text of my post:
Quote:
Rook, while I see your points and think the landscaping thing was colourful, I don't see how all this insult slinging (on both sides) accomplishes anything except to make the other side ignore your good points. Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.

I am merely pointing out what I see as the natural consequences of the approach that was taken. In no place do I say anything like, "You guys shouldn't do that," or "It's all your fault." It's more like, "I don't see how it is effective. I think the insults probably contribute to the closed-minded reaction of the theist." How is that blaming?

Quote:
without even considering what the theist himself said or didn't say, to bring on this purported behavior.

I did consider it. I chose to address Rook rather than the theist, since I think Rook is more likely to consider what I'm saying. The point is not what the theist did, the point is using insults in otherwise good posts.

Quote:
So there's not even a potential to help - just you acting holier than thou...

The 'holier than thou' thing is your own perception.

Quote:
even as you now show your true colors here.

The 'true colors' here are again, your perception.

Quote:
Quote:

I specifically said that this was ONE of the reasons.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own words.


I follow them very well, thanks. In fact, I choose them very carefully in each post.

Quote:
You listed it as the large factor behind it:

No, I listed it as a large factor. Important distinction there.

Quote:
Quote:
Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.

You asked why he didn't listen, and listed the 'constant insults from me and rook' as the 'large factor'.


Nope, a large factor. As in, this is one factor, there may be several others. I did not even call it 'the largest' factor. You see, I am very careful in choosing my words. Before you go accusing me of shit, I wish you would read those words more carefully and not ASSUME that I'm out to get you (or Rook, for that matter!).

Quote:
You blame the 'constant insults' yet don't consider that

1) who tossed insults first?


Actually, in regards to the point I was making, who tossed them first is utterly irrelevant. The point was about adding insults into otherwise good posts, thereby reducing their effectiveness.

Quote:
2) whether or not the theist ever had an intention to listen

In fact, I was considering whether the theist intended to listen. After reading that he HAD in fact listened to some previous points (making him go back and do research), I chose to respond to Rook publicly in this thread so that a) Rook might consider my point and perhaps respond, and b) perhaps the theist might see that some people on this board might be willing to have conversations without resorting to strong insults.

Quote:
The 'insults' are not the 'large' factor.

Perhaps not. I did not claim they were the large factor, I claimed they are a large factor.

Quote:
Quote:
The idea that he was the victim of some abuse is ridiculous.

Quote:

The idea that that is what my post is about is equally ridiculous.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own words. You wrote on rook's supposed behavior and its effect on the conversation. That's what you focused on.


I did indeed write on his behaviour and its effect. I see no crime in that. I did not attack Rook himself, nor did I even attack you. And anyway, your recap (that I wrote about Rook's actions) illustrates that my post was NOT about the theist being a 'victim' of 'abuse'. In no way did I use those words, or synonyms, nor imply that I meant either of them.

Quote:
You really aren't very good at arguing points, because you're always having to distance yourself from your own words.

This again is your opinion only. My words stand on their own.

Quote:
Quote:
Please move on and keep your personal gripes to yourself.

Quote:

Weren't YOU the one who sent me a PM (on IG) saying you didn't want to have anything to do with me?

I don't. But this is RR. I'm a mod here. I have no choice but to run into you and other people looking to troll the board under the guise of 'being helpful'


Right. A mod calling a regular member a troll. Very nice.

Quote:
One more post from you on this, and say bye bye. I've had enough you going on about personal issues.

I see no reason why you should threaten me like this. Your claims are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence to support them. YOU brought the whole thing up in the first place. Am I to dance on eggshells out of fear that I might offend you? Frankly, the offenses you have proposed are all in your head. You have some sort of vendetta against me from IG and constantly misinterpret what I say as if I have malicious motives. I do not. And I will not be intimidated by you.

Ban me if you wish, but I will not sit by. This kind of treatment is really disrespectful, and in MY opinion, you should be ashamed of it. If my opinion offends you and you ban me merely for that, I should say that you do not deserve to be a mod on the Rational Response Squad forums.

I will not post further on this topic, unless YOU post first. I didn't bring it up. If you wanted to hash this out, you could have done it in private messages rather than publicly. I am only responding in kind.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
[quote=natural][quote=todangs

natural wrote:
todangst wrote:
natural wrote:
Well, it wasn't written to you. It was written to Rook.
You mentioned me by name.
Which doesn't mean I wrote it to you.
If I said, "Hey Natural, how do you and todangst feel aout this?" I addressed it to you, but the fat that I also wasked todangst while addressing you gives him the reign to answer. Don't get into semantics, it's not worth it.
Quote:
In no place did I blame Rook (or you) for anything. Here's the full text of my post:
Quote:
Rook, while I see your points and think the landscaping thing was colourful, I don't see how all this insult slinging (on both sides) accomplishes anything except to make the other side ignore your good points. Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.
The emphasis is mine. You are clearly blaming "us guys" (todangst included by the way) for profane language which is turning elnathan away. Whether you meant to or not, your words speak for themselves, as you state below, and they speak of exactly what Todangst is suggesting. The fact that you state very clearly a.) that we should wonder WHY elnathan is reluctant to listen and b.) our conclusions should be because of the large factor of profane language. This is clearly blame here. Don't try to act like the sugar-coating you applied to the terms made it any less then that. You can cloak one word for another, but an automobile is still a vehicle.
Quote:
I am merely pointing out what I see as the natural consequences of the approach that was taken.
Again, more poetry. You are still placing the blame on us for extracting said consequences. That is not an interpretation of your words, it's clearly what you said. Regardless of the fact that you think you were just pointing out cause and effect, somebody has to be the cause of an effect.
Quote:
In no place do I say anything like, "You guys shouldn't do that," or "It's all your fault." It's more like, "I don't see how it is effective. I think the insults probably contribute to the closed-minded reaction of the theist." How is that blaming?
No, what you said was: Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys. If you don't see any blame in there you're just being dishonest.
Quote:
I see no reason why you should threaten me like this. Your claims are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence to support them.
Your own words are as good as any.
Quote:
YOU brought the whole thing up in the first place. Am I to dance on eggshells out of fear that I might offend you? Frankly, the offenses you have proposed are all in your head You have some sort of vendetta against me from IG and constantly misinterpret what I say as if I have malicious motives. I do not. And I will not be intimidated by you..
Hold on now. I've known Chris (Todangst) for a long time, and I know he is not the one to hold grudges. In fact he is the most tolerant and level-headed guy I know. If he has a problem with you that tells me that it is very substantial and I have reason to doubt your honesty. Because that is how close of a community we are. If you want to make him look like some sort of vengeful irrational person, best do it where the admin's of the boards don't know him. Becaus ehe is the farthest thing from that one human being can get in my opinion. I think you should be intimidated and I think you SHOULD walk on eggshells because you have a lot to prove to this community. You don't want to be threatened, then start proving to us that you are worth while to trust and that shouldn't be hard. So far I've seen a lot of dishonesty in your posts in this thread - including claiming (erroneously) that you weren't talking to todangst when clearly you were talking to both of us. I want you to understand that I have Chris' back, and if he tells me you're not good, you're gone. Because that is how we work around here. He has been very restrained about this situation, and I doubt he'd ever ask me to kick somebody, but be aware that all I need to hear is a word from him. Understand? Now, I want this conversation to be over with. If it doesn't pertain to the supposed evidences of Jesus posts in this thread will be deleted from here on out.
Quote:
I will not post further on this topic, unless YOU post first. I didn't bring it up. If you wanted to hash this out, you could have done it in private messages rather than publicly. I am only responding in kind.
Please, you re-opened a dead thread first, not him. He didn't come out and say, "Man that Natural guy is gonna be a dick and post something." YOU did. He was defending himself and most importantly ME when he felt that you were blaming us for something you weren't aware of. The fact that you are now jumping through hoops to get out of this is evidence to me that Chris is right. If you wanted to "help us" YOU could have taken this to PM's instead of publically trying to start something, which I can only assume based on your behavior was your intention. Now, this conversation is over, or I will not wait for Chris' words to take action. I hope I've made myself clear.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I can't see the quote

I can't see the quote formatting in your post Rook Sad It is a gigantic block of text.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:todangst

natural wrote:
todangst wrote:
natural wrote:
Well, it wasn't written to you. It was written to Rook.
You mentioned me by name.
Which doesn't mean I wrote it to you.
Quote:
You're not able to follow your own posts, are you?
We'll see who's having trouble following my posts below.
Quote:
Quote:
I hope it is helpful to Rook to show him that adding insults into an otherwise good post does not add anything to the good post,
It won't be 'helpful.' And it wasn't intended to be 'helpful'.
You presume my intentions when I clearly stated them.
Quote:
If you wanted to "help" Rook or myself you'd write to us, and talk to us.
I did. That's why I started the post with "Rook,"
Quote:
And what you wrote involved blaming Rook and myself
In no place did I blame Rook (or you) for anything. Here's the full text of my post:
Quote:
Rook, while I see your points and think the landscaping thing was colourful, I don't see how all this insult slinging (on both sides) accomplishes anything except to make the other side ignore your good points. Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.
I am merely pointing out what I see as the natural consequences of the approach that was taken. In no place do I say anything like, "You guys shouldn't do that," or "It's all your fault." It's more like, "I don't see how it is effective. I think the insults probably contribute to the closed-minded reaction of the theist." How is that blaming?
Quote:
without even considering what the theist himself said or didn't say, to bring on this purported behavior.
I did consider it. I chose to address Rook rather than the theist, since I think Rook is more likely to consider what I'm saying. The point is not what the theist did, the point is using insults in otherwise good posts.
Quote:
So there's not even a potential to help - just you acting holier than thou...
The 'holier than thou' thing is your own perception.
Quote:
even as you now show your true colors here.
The 'true colors' here are again, your perception.
Quote:
Quote:
I specifically said that this was ONE of the reasons.
You don't seem to be able to follow your own words.
I follow them very well, thanks. In fact, I choose them very carefully in each post.
Quote:
You listed it as the large factor behind it:
No, I listed it as a large factor. Important distinction there.
Quote:
Quote:
Really, this thread is over the top. Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys.
You asked why he didn't listen, and listed the 'constant insults from me and rook' as the 'large factor'.
Nope, a large factor. As in, this is one factor, there may be several others. I did not even call it 'the largest' factor. You see, I am very careful in choosing my words. Before you go accusing me of shit, I wish you would read those words more carefully and not ASSUME that I'm out to get you (or Rook, for that matter!).
Quote:
You blame the 'constant insults' yet don't consider that 1) who tossed insults first?
Actually, in regards to the point I was making, who tossed them first is utterly irrelevant. The point was about adding insults into otherwise good posts, thereby reducing their effectiveness.
Quote:
2) whether or not the theist ever had an intention to listen
In fact, I was considering whether the theist intended to listen. After reading that he HAD in fact listened to some previous points (making him go back and do research), I chose to respond to Rook publicly in this thread so that a) Rook might consider my point and perhaps respond, and b) perhaps the theist might see that some people on this board might be willing to have conversations without resorting to strong insults.
Quote:
The 'insults' are not the 'large' factor.
Perhaps not. I did not claim they were the large factor, I claimed they are a large factor.
Quote:
Quote:
The idea that he was the victim of some abuse is ridiculous.
Quote:
The idea that that is what my post is about is equally ridiculous.
You don't seem to be able to follow your own words. You wrote on rook's supposed behavior and its effect on the conversation. That's what you focused on.
I did indeed write on his behaviour and its effect. I see no crime in that. I did not attack Rook himself, nor did I even attack you. And anyway, your recap (that I wrote about Rook's actions) illustrates that my post was NOT about the theist being a 'victim' of 'abuse'. In no way did I use those words, or synonyms, nor imply that I meant either of them.
Quote:
You really aren't very good at arguing points, because you're always having to distance yourself from your own words.
This again is your opinion only. My words stand on their own.
Quote:
Quote:
Please move on and keep your personal gripes to yourself.
Quote:
Weren't YOU the one who sent me a PM (on IG) saying you didn't want to have anything to do with me?
I don't. But this is RR. I'm a mod here. I have no choice but to run into you and other people looking to troll the board under the guise of 'being helpful'
Right. A mod calling a regular member a troll. Very nice.
Quote:
One more post from you on this, and say bye bye. I've had enough you going on about personal issues.
I see no reason why you should threaten me like this. Your claims are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence to support them. YOU brought the whole thing up in the first place. Am I to dance on eggshells out of fear that I might offend you? Frankly, the offenses you have proposed are all in your head. You have some sort of vendetta against me from IG and constantly misinterpret what I say as if I have malicious motives. I do not. And I will not be intimidated by you. Ban me if you wish, but I will not sit by. This kind of treatment is really disrespectful, and in MY opinion, you should be ashamed of it. If my opinion offends you and you ban me merely for that, I should say that you do not deserve to be a mod on the Rational Response Squad forums. I will not post further on this topic, unless YOU post first. I didn't bring it up. If you wanted to hash this out, you could have done it in private messages rather than publicly. I am only responding in kind.

 

 

I've already demonstrated that you're just a troll with an axe to grind. You called me out by name. I've warned you to drop your vendetta and move on. Yet here you are again. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: The

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
The emphasis is mine. You are clearly blaming "us guys" (todangst included by the way) for profane language which is turning elnathan away. Whether you meant to or not, your words speak for themselves, as you state below, and they speak of exactly what Todangst is suggesting.

 

Thank you for corroborating what ought to be obvious.

 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

The fact that you state very clearly a.) that we should wonder WHY elnathan is reluctant to listen and b.) our conclusions should be because of the large factor of profane language. This is clearly blame here. Don't try to act like the sugar-coating you applied to the terms made it any less then that. You can cloak one word for another, but an automobile is still a vehicle.

 

This is this guy's modus operandi.

 

Quote:
In no place do I say anything like, "You guys shouldn't do that," or "It's all your fault." It's more like, "I don't see how it is effective. I think the insults probably contribute to the closed-minded reaction of the theist." How is that blaming?

 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
No, what you said was: Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys. If you don't see any blame in there you're just being dishonest.

Again, his modus operandi is to illustrate an inability to follow his own words, let alone the words of others. Please notice how often you have to repeat what has already been said. Please notice how much time has to be dedicated to getting this guy to realize what his OWN POSTS say. If we let it go on, there will be ten more pages dedicated to repeating this guy's OWN POST back to him.

 

This is not rational discourse.

rook wrote:
Hold on now. I've known Chris (Todangst) for a long time, and I know he is not the one to hold grudges. In fact he is the most tolerant and level-headed guy I know. If he has a problem with you that tells me that it is very substantial and I have reason to doubt your honesty. Because that is how close of a community we are. If you want to make him look like some sort of vengeful irrational person, best do it where the admin's of the boards don't know him. Becaus he is the farthest thing from that one human being can get in my opinion. I think you should be intimidated and I think you SHOULD walk on eggshells because you have a lot to prove to this community. You don't want to be threatened, then start proving to us that you are worth while to trust and that shouldn't be hard. So far I've seen a lot of dishonesty in your posts in this thread - including claiming (erroneously) that you weren't talking to todangst when clearly you were talking to both of us. I want you to understand that I have Chris' back, and if he tells me you're not good, you're gone. Because that is how we work around here. He has been very restrained about this situation, and I doubt he'd ever ask me to kick somebody, but be aware that all I need to hear is a word from him. Understand? Now, I want this conversation to be over with. If it doesn't pertain to the supposed evidences of Jesus posts in this thread will be deleted from here on out.

Good

Quote:

Please, you re-opened a dead thread first, not him. He didn't come out and say, "Man that Natural guy is gonna be a dick and post something." YOU did. He was defending himself and most importantly ME when he felt that you were blaming us for something you weren't aware of. The fact that you are now jumping through hoops to get out of this is evidence to me that Chris is right. If you wanted to "help us" YOU could have taken this to PM's instead of publically trying to start something, which I can only assume based on your behavior was your intention. Now, this conversation is over, or I will not wait for Chris' words to take action. I hope I've made myself clear.

 

 

Thanks Rook.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Norton Commando
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
And now for something

And now for something completely different:

So far most of the evidence proposed for the "historical Jesus" is equally evidence for the Mythic Jesus (Rook you seem to be the expert on this) except Josephus and the testimonium which is in probability a later interpolation. Correct so far?

Internal evidence from Paul indicates a strong probability of his belief in a spiritual "Annointed Savior".  Now my quibble is on why in the verse relating his vision to the visions of Peter and the Twelve does he make a point of being born out of time?  This is a small point, but possibly a telling one that there was a man whom Paul's Christ was superimposed on.  Or that the original Twelve had some sort of shared vision which he could not take part in.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You're refering to 1

You're refering to 1 Corinthians 15:8, in which Paul uses the Greek phrase "εκτρωμα" which does mean "untimely birth" or "abortion", which tends to effect more that Paul came to the faith later then he thinks he should.  More or less Paul is stating that he's upset that he persecuted the faith when he should have been embracing it - it's what he says next in the passage when he states that "I am the least of the apostles."  In the LSJ, it's used by some Greek authors as a term of contempt, which also hammers in the point that Paul is disgusted with himself.  In a general sense Paul is just being humble.  And Paul is generally humble in his writings, even to the point at criticising his looks and physical appearance.

This has nothing to do with Paul refering to Jesus' historicity.  

As for the rest of your statements, I find them very accurate. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)