FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-07-2011, 02:12 PM   #301
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
....A careful study of the entirety of all of aa5874's posts reveals agreement that there are some statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus which might possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. So the end of the matter is that aa5874 actually accepts the validity of my position. aa5874 doesn't realise this because unfortunately aa5874 doesn't grasp the differences and the logical relationships between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all'.
You are ALLOWED to repeat erroneous information so I must show what you state are fallacies.

This is your OWN post #234

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D
....As far as I know, nobody here is denying that some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually happened....
As I predicted you have NOT yet produced a single source for HJ of Nazareth and have NOT shown that anything written about Jesus in the Canon is historically accurate.

I really don't how you are going to show that events surrounding Jesus can be historically accurate when the character was a PHANTOM.

How in the world are you going to show that a character described as a PHANTOM did anything historical in the Canonical Gospels?

I am waiting for you to PRESENT your sources and evidence for the historically accurate statements about HJ of Nazareth in the Canon AFTER 80+ posts.

Now Examine "Against Heresies" 3.1
Quote:
....Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.
It is EXTREMELY critical that we understand that according to "Against Heresies" that gMark was written AFTER the DEPARTURE of Paul and Peter.
It is extremely critical that you show that you understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all'. I am waiting for you to show that you understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all'. I must show that if you do not understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all', then everything you say is erroneous and fallacious and you do not understand what anybody else means or even what you mean yourself.
J-D is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 02:56 PM   #302
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
....It is extremely critical that you show that you understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all'. I am waiting for you to show that you understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all'. I must show that if you do not understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all', then everything you say is erroneous and fallacious and you do not understand what anybody else means or even what you mean yourself.
Your posts are VERY easy to understand.

This is your OWN post #234

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D
....As far as I know, nobody here is denying that some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually happened....
I don't know how you are going to show that statements about a PHANTOM called Jesus in the Canon are historically accurate and you are yet to provide sources for HJ of Nazareth.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 03:00 PM   #303
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

aa5874: please tell us your first language and when you learned English, and what dialect of English you use.

I don't think you understand some key points, and it ma be related to your language.
Toto is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 03:33 PM   #304
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
....It is extremely critical that you show that you understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all'. I am waiting for you to show that you understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all'. I must show that if you do not understand the difference between the meanings of 'none', 'some', and 'all', then everything you say is erroneous and fallacious and you do not understand what anybody else means or even what you mean yourself.
Your posts are VERY easy to understand.

This is your OWN post #234
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D
....As far as I know, nobody here is denying that some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually happened....
I don't know how you are going to show that statements about a PHANTOM called Jesus in the Canon are historically accurate and you are yet to provide sources for HJ of Nazareth.
I don't know how easy my posts are for other people to understand, but they are obviously not easy for you to understand since you totally fail to understand them.
J-D is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 03:53 PM   #305
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 5,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Mark 1:1 + is of absolutely no value at all in determining anything about any possible person whom these writings pretend to be recalling.
I hope you don't mind me butting in but, regardless of the whole HJ thing, are you guys really saying that the name Jesus isn't found in Mark's gospel? That at this point where Christianity was, as you say, "a highly evolved cult" the major scriptural text still wasn't decided on the name of its central figure?

Everyone has to discover these things at some point and this is, I must admit, the first time I've ever heard this particular fact....
fatpie42 is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 04:48 PM   #306
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The content of The Gospel according to Saint Mark, its 'sayings', its situations, and theological claims reflect the belief system of a already highly evolved cult, one whose iconic figure has already been moved fictionally, far from that of any actual 1st century flesh and blood personage on whom these sayings, legends, and narrative materials might have been based...
Why do you repeat such error when the earliest forms of gMark, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, does NOT show an already highly evolved cult.

The earliest form of gMark show the REVERSE. Please examine gMark itself and not rely on what people say. gMark shows that there was NO highly evolved cult.

1. There was NO cult called Christians that followed Jesus on the day he was executed. See ALL 16 chapters of gMark (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)

2. Jesus wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin. See Mark 4.

3. Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ. See ALL 16 chapters of gMark.

4. Jesus was NOT known as Christ and did NOT TELL his disciples he was Christ until Peter made the suggestion. See Mark 8

5. On the day Jesus was arrested and by the time he was EXECUTED the disciples had Betrayed, Abandoned and Denied Jesus. See Mark 14 and 15

6. When the Visitors found the Empty Tomb they told NO-ONE that Jesus was risen because they were AFRAID. See Mark 16.8


The earliest form of gMark, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices, SHOW that there was NO highly evolved cult when it was written.

Jesus was UNKNOWN as Christ and was BETRAYED, ABANDONED, DENIED and REJECTED in gMark.
Dumb de dumb DUMB.
You are neglecting the fact that Mark and all other NT texts were written long after any of the alleged events they 'report'
(Some say as much as 200 years after)
You are rather naively attempting to present and use these writings at face value, as though any of these things ever really happened.

They are elaborate religious propaganda compositions produced by a long established religious movement. These writings are NOT contemporary reports, and their contents are not records of actual events.

You are swallowing their fabricated content hook, line, and sinker as being true accounts of what 'happened' circa 33 AD. They ARE NOT.
Whatever situations you draw from them are TOTALLY FABRICATED. And it borders upon plain intransigent stupidity to attempt to employ them in a fashion that presents them as being accurate historical accounts.

Each of your 'situations' cited above is a totally fictional creation of a long established religious movement. THEY DID NOT HAPPEN, no more than did the miracles.
Citing these fictional narratives to 'prove' the content of these fictional narratives 'show something' regarding the 'events' is 'circular reasoning' at its very worst.

Quote:
2. Jesus wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin.
Jebus is a fictional character in a religious propaganda writing
Jebus didn't want a damn thing. Because there never was any such Jebus.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:08 PM   #307
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
aa5874: please tell us your first language and when you learned English, and what dialect of English you use.

I don't think you understand some key points, and it ma be related to your language.
You understand every single word that I write. Every single one.

I am not here to play games.

Almost every time I post I SIMULTANEOUSLY present the source to support my claim.

When I say gMark's Jesus is a PHANTOM I referred to Mark 6.48-49

Mark 6.48-49
Quote:
....And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out....
Please point out exactly what you do not understand.

The SPECIFIC GRAVITY of Human beings do NOT allow for sea-water walking.

I want to know what you don't understand.

In gMark 9.2 Jesus transfigured. The Biology and Anatomy of the Human body does NOT allow for Transfigurations.

Mark 9.2
Quote:
And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them...
Please tell me what you don't understand?

gMark's Jesus as described is a PHANTOM.

J-D has stated QUITE correctly, and I am EXTREMELY DELIGHTED, that there some are statements in the Canonical Gospels that cannot be historically accurate.

This is FANTASTIC. J-D has done EXACTLY what I wanted him to do.

1. He has ADMITTED that the Canonical Gospel contain statements about Jesus that CANNOT be historically accurate.

2. HE has NOT presented any SOURCE for HJ of Nazareth.

3. He has UTTERLY failed to present a statement about Jesus in the Canon that is historically accurate.


Now J-D in his 80+ posts has UTTERLY Failed to SHOW what is historically accurate about Jesus since he repeatedly states ad nauseum that some statements about Jesus may be historically accurate.

What are those historically accurate statements of Jesus? What sources show there was an HJ of Nazareth?

J-D and you seem to know ENGLISH extremely well.

You should be able to understand me.

I just want to continue my thread and show that gMark totally destroys the HJ argument.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:09 PM   #308
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatpie42 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Mark 1:1 + is of absolutely no value at all in determining anything about any possible person whom these writings pretend to be recalling.
I hope you don't mind me butting in but, regardless of the whole HJ thing, are you guys really saying that the name Jesus isn't found in Mark's gospel? That at this point where Christianity was, as you say, "a highly evolved cult" the major scriptural text still wasn't decided on the name of its central figure?

Everyone has to discover these things at some point and this is, I must admit, the first time I've ever heard this particular fact....
Most accurately, the oldest texts do not have any proper name written at all, they universally and exclusively employ Nomina Sacra abbreviations in place of any spelled out name, and the Nomina Sacra for Jebus is identical to the Nomina Sacra used for 'Joshua'.

The exclusive and universally accepted usage of ONLY Nomina Sacra also points to a highly evolved and very regimented religious heritage.
The fully spelled out variation Ἰησοῦν only came into usage at some time during the 3rd century, first in the writings of the Church Fathers, and only latter within 'copies' of the NT texts themselves. Thus the 'copies' do not really 'copy' the originals in this matter, rather, they revise, supply, and impose.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:45 PM   #309
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Dumb de dumb DUMB.
You are neglecting the fact that Mark and all other NT texts were written long after any of the alleged events they 'report'
(Some say as much as 200 years after)....
What events happened as much as 200 years earlier when you say that they were all fictional.

How in the world could the Gospels be written long AFTER things that never happened?

Examine your own words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
Jebus is a fictional character in a religious propaganda writing
Jebus didn't want a damn thing. Because there never was any such Jebus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
...You are rather naively attempting to present and use these writings at face value, as though any of these things ever really happened.
Did I not say that gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM?

Do you NOT understand that a PHANTOM is TOTAL Fiction?

I really don't understand what you are arguing about.

gMark is a FICTIONAL story of a Phantom called Jesus who was BETRAYED, ABANDONED, DENIED and REJECTED by his OWN disciples and the Jews and was Later Executed.

That is the Fiction story in gMark. You can read gMark just like you can read the Myth Fable of Plutarch called "Romulus.

I can ONLY tell you what Plutarch stated about Romulus and Remus. I am not allowed to change the fiction story and the very same applies to gMark. I can ONLY tell you that gMark's Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured in the presence of his disciples and fed NINE thousand men with a few bread and fish.

The details of the Myth Fable called gMark and Plutarch's Romulus CAN ONLY be found in the Fiction stories themselves NOT from my imagination.

In gMark, there is ZERO indication that there was an actual highly evolved cult only a MYTH FABLE of a Phantom called Jesus that did NOT even want anyone to call him Christ.

If you know a different story then you MUST present the Source.

CLAIM+SOURCE.

Claim--gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM, a Myth character.

Source--gMark 6.48-49 and 9.2.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-07-2011, 07:11 PM   #310
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Dumb de dumb DUMB.
You are neglecting the fact that Mark and all other NT texts were written long after any of the alleged events they 'report'
(Some say as much as 200 years after)....
What events happened as much as 200 years earlier when you say that they were all fictional.
'......alleged events' Do you understand the meaning of the word 'alleged'???
The 'events' only 'happened' within the christians late written highly imaginative stories, not 200 years prior in Jerusalem, Galilee or its environs.
The stories are entirely literary creations and religious propaganda texts, not factual accounts of actual events.

Quote:
How in the world could the Gospels be written long AFTER things that never happened?
The same way equally unidentified Greek writers wrote about Jason and the Argonauts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Examine your own words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
Jebus is a fictional character in a religious propaganda writing
Jebus didn't want a damn thing. Because there never was any such Jebus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
...You are rather naively attempting to present and use these writings at face value, as though any of these things ever really happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Did I not say that gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM?

Do you NOT understand that a PHANTOM is TOTAL Fiction?
Not ONLY is the PHANTOM a TOTAL fiction, but THE ENTIRE STORY IS A TOTAL FICTION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
I really don't understand what you are arguing about.
Yes. that much is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
gMark is a FICTIONAL story of a Phantom called Jesus who was BETRAYED, ABANDONED, DENIED and REJECTED by his OWN disciples and the Jews and was Later Executed.

That is the Fiction story in gMark. You can read gMark just like you can read the Myth Fable of Plutarch called "Romulus.

I can ONLY tell you what Plutarch stated about Romulus and Remus. I am not allowed to change the fiction story and the very same applies to gMark. I can ONLY tell you that gMark's Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured in the presence of his disciples and fed NINE thousand men with a few bread and fish.

The details of the Myth Fable called gMark and Plutarch's Romulus CAN ONLY be found in the Fiction stories themselves NOT from my imagination.
Good. and agreed up to this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
In gMark, there is ZERO indication that there was an actual highly evolved cult only a MYTH FABLE of a Phantom called Jesus that did NOT even want anyone to call him Christ.
Naturally gMark as it was written, was not intended to serve as an open expose of the machinations of the evolved cult that invented and composed it in the 2nd-3rd century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
If you know a different story then you MUST present the Source.

CLAIM+SOURCE.

Claim--gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM, a Myth character.

Source--gMark 6.48-49 and 9.2.
A mythical being in a text made up of myths to serve the needs of religious propaganda. Without the 'church' there was no need for the myths or religious propaganda.
Conclusion, the church came first, then the devising of its texts and religious propaganda
gMark 6:48-49 and 9:2 are no more mythical than say gMark 8:27-29 or 10:2 It is to all intents, ALL fabricated and mythical religious propaganda.
Make-believe fashioned by a religious cult to support and further that religious cult.
'The horse and chariot!' -in this instance it is the 'chariot' (the rechabim> followers-retinue) that are leading 'the horse' (h'SOOCE> 'E'SUS') (the ancient Semitic letter 'H' heh became the 'E' of the Greek alphabet) but "the horse and chariot' will together be broken in pieces" and "neither shall -'he that rideth'-'the horse'- deliver himself."

"Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth -the horse- heels, so that his rider shall fall backward."

Being so confident, I do write for to provoke you; Can you tell me the specific gravity of the wind? or of -'the horse'- or its -'chariot'- or -'rider'-?
Ah but "An -horse- is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any]by his great strength."

They shall certainly all sink beneath the waters and be destroyed. No?

Wooosh! said -the wind- as it passed over


.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.