Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-15-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

This is EXTREMELY significant.

Or would be if these books were not the heavily edited ramblings of later xtian writers.

Please tell me how is it gMatthew and gMark do not have identical BIRTH narratives or IDENTICAL post resurrection stories if they were "heavily edited ramblings"?

TedM · 09-15-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, tell me where did I EVER WRITE that gMatthew and gMark are credible?

You didn't. But you might as well believe that since you are now relying on their writings to make a claim about what Jesus said. You quoted:

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Quote:

You do not appear to understand what is EVIDENCE!!!

You are treating GMatthew and GMark as evidence for your argument. If they aren't credible you can't use them.

Quote:

You do NOT appear to understand the WRITTEN TESTIMONY of gMatthew and gMark!!!

Based on your prior views, their written testimony is not credible, so you can't rely on it, unless you have now changed your mind.

Quote:

Please tell me where I can find what is written in gMatthew and gMark?

??

Quote:

The WRITTEN statements in gMatthew and gMark is that Jesus Christ did NOT want the Jews to be converted but to REMAIN IN SIN, did NOT tell his disciples he was Christ before Peter did so, and still BARRED his disciples from telling anyone he was Christ.

Yes, and because you are giving any attention to them at all, you must assume they are 100% credible. You have clearly said ad-nauseum that since GMark and GMatthew are not credible sources none of the information in them can be credible. You jump all over people when they treat parts as credible --yelling at them about their lack of EVIDENCE and CREDIBILITY-- and now you are doing the very same thing you yell at them for doing. From where I come from that is called hypocrisy.

What's it gonna be aa? Is it all or nothing, or are you willing to concede that parts of the gospels might be credible sources of historical information?

Ted

aa5874 · 09-15-2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, tell me where did I EVER WRITE that gMatthew and gMark are credible?

You didn't....

Well, what hypocrisy are you talking about?

Your post is absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...You are treating GMatthew and GMark as evidence for your argument. If they aren't credible you can't use them....

What a ridiculous statement. The WRITTEN STATEMENTS in gMatthew and gMark are EVIDENCE and MUST be used to SHOW their TESTIMONY.

1. When a person makes a WRITTEN STATEMENT it can be USED as evidence.

2. When a person makes a WRITTEN STATEMENT it may NOT all be CORROBORATED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..Based on your prior views, their written testimony is not credible, so you can't rely on it, unless you have now changed your mind...

What a ridiculous statement.

Scholars like Bart Ehrman claim the Gospels and the sources for the Gospels are UNRELIABLE and still use them to claim HJ LIVED in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate WITHOUT any CORROBORATION from Credible sources of antiquity.

Unlike Scholars like Bart Ehrman, I FIRST get EXTERNAL CREDIBLE SOURCES to corroborate my position on gMatthew and gMark.

Josephus "WARS of the Jews" 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus "Histories" 5 are MY CORROBORATIVE sources that the Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN.

What is Bart Ehrman's corroborative source that Jesus even lived in Nazareth?

The same UNRELIABLE Gospels.

Talk about hypocrisy!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

.....Yes, and because you are giving any attention to them at all, you must assume they are 100% credible. You have clearly said ad-nauseum that since GMark and GMatthew are not credible sources none of the information in them can be credible. You jump all over people when they treat parts as credible --yelling at them about their lack of EVIDENCE and CREDIBILITY-- and now you are doing the very same thing you yell at them for doing. From where I come from that is called hypocrisy....

What NONSENSE!!!! I have ALREADY SHOWN MULTIPLE TIMES that Herod the King, Pilate the governor, Caiaphas the High Priest in the Gospels have been CORROBORATED by Credible Sources of antiquity.

You DON'T know what you are talking about.

Your accusations are hopelessly inaccurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....What's it gonna be aa? Is it all or nothing, or are you willing to concede that parts of the gospels might be credible sources of historical information?

I have ALREADY said that Herod the King, Pilate the Governor, and Caiaphas the high priest in the Gospels have been corroborated by credible historical sources.

I have ALREADY stated that I will NOT accept any character or event in the NT WITHOUT corroboration.

I accept that the Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN as the the authors claimed since it is CORROBORATED by Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus "Histories" 5.

J-D · 09-15-2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In gMatthew and gMark the Jews did NOT recognize the character called Jesus as Christ. In fact, it is recorded in the Canonised gMatthew and gMark that Jesus did NOT want his disciples to tell a single person ( no man) that he was Christ.

Mt 16:20 -

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Mr 8:30 -

So, based on gMatthew and gMark, when Jesus was supposedly alive no JEW knew of him as Christ.

Up to the day Jesus was crucified in gMatthew and gMARK Jesus was NOT KNOWN to the Jews as a Messiah and REJECTED Jesus as Christ when he publicly made the claim for the very FIRST time before the Sanedrin.

And further, the author of gMatthew did STATE that HEROD the Great KILLED all the children that was about 2 years old so as to ELIMINATE the Christ.

From the START to the END of the Matthean and Markan story, Jesus came and disappeared without being recognized as the Christ.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

For the ENTIRE life of Jesus documented in gMatthew and gMark, Jesus was publicly UNKOWN as Christ by Jews.

And this is EXACTLY what is found in the writings of Philo and Josephus. The Jewish writers wrote NOTHING about a Messiah called Jesus.

Josephus FOUGHT against the Romans EXPECTING Jewish Messianic rulers at around 70 CE. See "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4

In fact it is Documented that Josephus claimed and TOLD Vespasian that he was the Messianic ruler PREDICTED in Hebrew Scripture. See "WARS of the Jews" 6.5.4

Philo went to Rome to tell Gaius the Emperor of Rome that Jews do NOT worship Man as a God and that no effigies of him should be placed in the temples of worship of the Jews. See "On Embassy to Gaius".

Now, the writings of gLuke are CONTRARY to 1st century Jewish writings.

The author of gLuke claimed Jesus was KNOWN as Christ and Savior to people in Judea on the very day he was born of a Ghost and a woman as reported by ANGELS.

Luke 2

The author of gLuke is MULTIPLE attested to be a FICTION writer. There was NO character recognized as a Messiah by the Jews with the name Jesus from the day he was supposedly born to the day he disappeared

The Jews EXPECTED a Messiah at around c70 CE based on Hebrew Scripture, according to Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

The Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN to the Jews from INVENTION to ASCENSION which is COMPATIBLE with the writings of Philo and Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

It was Vespasian who was KNOWN as the MESSIAH and SAVIOR.

This is Josephus on Vespasian.

"Wars of the Jews" 7.4.1

Quote:

.... they made all sorts of acclamations, on account of the joy they had to see him, and the pleasantness of his countenance, and styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome...

“What do you know about this business?” the King said to Alice.
“Nothing,” said Alice.
“Nothing whatever?” persisted the King.
“Nothing whatever,” said Alice.
“That’s very important,” the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: “Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,” he said, in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
“Unimportant, of course, I meant,” the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone, “important—unimportant—unimportant—importa nt—" as if he were trying which word sounded best.
Some of the jury wrote it down “important,” and some “unimportant.”
Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; “but it doesn’t matter a bit,” she thought to herself.

aa5874 · 09-15-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

“What do you know about this business?” the King said to Alice.
“Nothing,” said Alice.
“Nothing whatever?” persisted the King.
“Nothing whatever,” said Alice.
“That’s very important,” the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: “Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,” he said, in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
“Unimportant, of course, I meant,” the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone, “important—unimportant—unimportant—importa nt—" as if he were trying which word sounded best.
Some of the jury wrote it down “important,” and some “unimportant.”
Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; “but it doesn’t matter a bit,” she thought to herself.

You are a nuisance. You have NO intention of dealing with the OP. I will have to report you to the moderators and Toto.

TedM · 09-15-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Unlike Scholars like Bart Ehrman, I FIRST get EXTERNAL CREDIBLE SOURCES to corroborate my position on gMatthew and gMark.

Ok, I see the distinction in theory. But in practice....

Quote:

Josephus "WARS of the Jews" 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus "Histories" 5 are MY CORROBORATIVE sources that the Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN.

I don't see how these corroborate that he was unknown. He could have been known but not accepted as the Messiah by some and accepted by others. You appear to be assuming that because someone else is mentioned as the Messiah of the Jews, no one knew of a Jesus whom some others thought was the Messiah. That seems to me to be a logical fallacy.

aa5874 · 09-15-2011, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...Josephus "WARS of the Jews" 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus "Histories" 5 are MY CORROBORATIVE sources that the Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN.

I don't see how these corroborate that he was unknown. He could have been known but not accepted as the Messiah by some and accepted by others. You appear to be assuming that because someone else is mentioned as the Messiah of the Jews, no one knew of a Jesus whom some others thought was the Messiah. That seems to me to be a logical fallacy.

Your post is a BIG JOKE.

You ASSUME "he could have been known" and then accuse me of "logical fallacies". How rather absurd!!!!

What source of antiquity CORROBORATES your assumption that "he could have been known".

Who could have known Jesus the Child of a Ghost?

Please, please, please.

You must have NOT even read who Jesus was in gMatthew and what he did in gMark.

The Matthean and Markan Jesus TRANSFIGURED in the Presence of the resurrected.

Who could have known such a character?

How rather illogical.

Let me EXPOSE YOUR LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Mt 1:18 -

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...... his mother Mary .......was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mr 9:2 -

Quote:

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John.....and he was transfigured before them.

Tell me TedM, who could have KNOWN the Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ?

TedM · 09-16-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...Josephus "WARS of the Jews" 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus "Histories" 5 are MY CORROBORATIVE sources that the Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN.

I don't see how these corroborate that he was unknown. He could have been known but not accepted as the Messiah by some and accepted by others. You appear to be assuming that because someone else is mentioned as the Messiah of the Jews, no one knew of a Jesus whom some others thought was the Messiah. That seems to me to be a logical fallacy.

Your post is a BIG JOKE.

You ASSUME "he could have been known" and then accuse me of "logical fallacies". How rather absurd!!!!

What source of antiquity CORROBORATES your assumption that "he could have been known".

How do your quotes show that he was not known? That's the issue. Not the idea of whether a man can be transfigured or not. Please stay on topic.

Your quotes do NOT show that he was unknown. Period.

External sources show that he was known. Josephus' twice. Tacitus. Etc.. You cannot show that he was not known because there ARE references to Jesus by Jews.

Paul, a Jew, knew him. Yet you dismiss his epistles because Justin doesn't reference Paul! That's a JOKE, my friend.

J-D · 09-16-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

“What do you know about this business?” the King said to Alice.
“Nothing,” said Alice.
“Nothing whatever?” persisted the King.
“Nothing whatever,” said Alice.
“That’s very important,” the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: “Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,” he said, in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
“Unimportant, of course, I meant,” the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone, “important—unimportant—unimportant—importa nt—" as if he were trying which word sounded best.
Some of the jury wrote it down “important,” and some “unimportant.”
Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; “but it doesn’t matter a bit,” she thought to herself.

You are a nuisance. You have NO intention of dealing with the OP. I will have to report you to the moderators and Toto.

You're allowed to do that.

aa5874 · 09-16-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

How do your quotes show that he was not known? That's the issue. Not the idea of whether a man can be transfigured or not. Please stay on topic...

How would you show that a character was KNOWN who was said to be the Child of a Ghost who walked on water, transfigured, and was resurrected on the THIRD daY?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...External sources show that he was known. Josephus' twice. Tacitus. Etc.. You cannot show that he was not known because there ARE references to Jesus by Jews....

Your sources are FORGERIES and do NOT show that any real person knew Jesus Christ.

1. Josephus was BORN around 37 CE and did NOT claim he KNEW Jesus Christ.

2. Even in the FORGERIES of Josephus, it is still claimed Jesus Christ was SEEN in a NON-historical state and it was NOT known if it was LEGAL to call Jesus a man.

3. Tacitus did NOT even mention the name Jesus at all in "Annals and did NOT claim he knew Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..Paul, a Jew, knew him. Yet you dismiss his epistles because Justin doesn't reference Paul! That's a JOKE, my friend.

"Paul" was a WITNESS to the NON-historical resurrected Jesus and did NOT claim he knew Jesus BEFORE he was SEEN after the Non-historical event.

Your argument that Jesus Christ was known is based on Forgeries and Fiction.

Even the FICTION writers, the authors of gMatthew and gMark, claimed the Jews did NOT know a character called Jesus Christ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.