@naneux, of course historians examine the gospels for their validity, and as quoted earlier, the consensus agree there as a valid historical core. You should really read Ehrman and Crossan, they're mainstream scholars who question what parts of the gospels may be later insertions. I enjoy Egyptian history. The pyramid texts are clearly myth, nonhistorical, and much may have astrotheological origin.
@naneux No, sir. This is where the bible comes from, everything from the resurrection, to an afterlife is from GOD. And if you were familiar with Egyptian astrotheology you would know there has been shown by scholars many, many specific texts that derive specifically from the constellation Orion and its movements in the sky, or movements of other stars. And if you were familiar with the bible, you would know it comes from eye-witnesses to Jesus Christ and His teachings.
@cmottes No it came from the pyramid texts, they are the earliest forms of religious texts we have, not the bible. There is a reason that many of the attributes given to jeebus are found throughout the world in other religions. There are no eye witnesses to jeebus christ ever having lived.
@naneux "No it came from the pyramid texts," So wrong, naneux, and again you blindly assert and in doing so contradict historians. Even historians such as Dr. Albert Schweizer who doubt the historicity of the gospels recognize its novel teachings. It has no origin where you claim. It is unique and the gospels are saturated with interrelationship to the old testament, proving again their origin is no where else.
@naneux "Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us" Luke 1:1-2
@naneux "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
Let us now close the book on your "hearsay" argument. Your statement is only the beginning of an inquiry into whether gospels are historical. I have given the you the conclusion.
@naneux, what's up? Yes faith is a gift. So you're restating you disbelieve. Got it. And I thank God for the gift of faith He gave me. Sometimes people miss the forest looking at trees.
@cmottes Faith is only a belief. Not a means to justify anything as true and correct. Faith is not a means of observation. I can have faith the steelers will all be mexicans, but this does not mean it is true and correct, in any way, shape or form.
@naneux "Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence* of things not seen.a Because of it the ancients were well attested. By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God,* so that what is visible came into being through the invisible." Hebrews 11:1-3. Please do a big, big favor and quit pontificating about theology. Quit your preaching, your proselytizing, your pretending to teach others about God and religion.
@naneux "Your the one dropping verses on me. You should practice what you preach." Only in response to you, naneux. And quoting verses is not proselytizing, nor is it pretending. No sir, I do most certainly strive to practice what I preach. And no that you quote this to me, should you all the more practice what you preach.
@naneux Do you not have faith that Peter Joseph and Acharya S. conducted their research in good faith and utilizing the utmost scholarly integrity without playing the "shell game" with evidence? Logic IS bisexual, ya know. :)
@Innuendoh I dont need to have faith, have you read her books? She has thousands of footnotes for anyone to validate. Unlike the bible, it gives you reasons while citing specific examples as to their platform. Footnotes that anyone can go and look up. We cant say that anyone can go and validate the existence of jebus. One would have to ignore that massive amounts of evidence to the contrary in order to believe that a jesus christos existed.
@danieljliversLXXXIX, rather spare me your false accusations. Really I decline the conversation if all you can do is insult me with some kind of notion of being falsely religious. Look, you barely know me, kid. I thank God He gave me a gift of faith and I value it very much. I'm not just going to engage in a conversation if you start every post with an insult, again a false one. You're welcome to look up more about Thomas in India. I find the evidence very credible.
@cmottes god gave you the gift of faith? Again, another belief unsubstantiated by evidence, rather, subjective claims that render god merely a product of the human mind.
@cmottes Take your holier than thou condescensions and shove it. If you think that a few churches, a text from the the third century, and a known liar is compelling, then that's your own faillings. Not mine. Faith isn't a gift. You've demonstrated just how it can twist a persons mind.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Daniel, God bless you. Don't tell me to look up anything I don't need to just so you can lie and pretend you didn't insult me. You lie and insult me again now. Again, I thank God for the gift of faith. And wrong, it is a gift. That doesn't make me holier than anyone, nor condescending, just blessed. And by the way you act quite smug, hypocrite. There's credible evidence for Thomas in India, including the passed down records in India. See ya, kid.
@cmottes Arrogance is on your side buddy, claiming to know what god thinks, wants and so forth. This to me is the equivalent of arrogance, being smug indirectly. You have no idea if there is a god or not. You only believe, the arrogance would be that you exceed the limits of your belief and claim to know that god gave you something! Its incredible!! Remember, be humble. Pride is a sin. Pride in your god is a sin. Pride in faith is a sin.
@naneux "And this is God’s doing. For to you has been granted, for the sake of Christ, not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him." Philippians 1:28-29 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;" Ephesians 2:8 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him" John 6:44. To the contrary, buddy, your words are lies. I accept God's word in humility. You contradict it in arrogance.
@naneux "you take pride in arguing for your religion, otherwise you wouldnt be here" Truly do you reveal yourself, naneux. I know you cling to such beliefs as your basis to argue. But it is only you who argue. I came here to share truth and proclaim, to discuss with anyone. You attack. I defend. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, 1 Peter 3:15 “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 1:31
@naneux "Share truth, no. Subjective truths.. remember." I only remember saying what was only true for you. I continue to proclaim the truth, which is objective, evidenced, historical and experienced. It is Truth. Your opinion of its subjectivity is only your opinion. "Isnt that pride?" No, boasting in the Lord is not pride. When I say I am blessed by God for my Creator to give me a sinner a gift of faith of which I am unworthy, it is boasting of Him.
@cmottes "I continue to proclaim the truth, which is objective, evidenced, historical and experienced"
OMG!! You have got to be the first, congratulations. Take your scholarly work to a university and show your thesis to someone, who knows, you could get a a phd!!
@naneux "You have got to be the first, congratulations." Lol, oh no, naneux, I am far, far from the first to proclaim the truth. I decline your mock congratulations, I give real thanks to God.
@naneux "How is that a compliment?" I consider him intelligent, polite, faithful, having good humor, sensitivity, understanding, and no doubt many other good gifts and thank God for whatever good gifts He gave me. "You like inny?" Yes, I do. "Do you enjoy his fruitful wisdom?" I know you meant this to be sarcastic, but yes he does share fruits of wisdom and of seeking wisdom. Ultimately all wisdom is from God.
@naneux Are you losing your drawers over this? What would the oak think? Did you allude to "cmottes" and I are the same person? Has the puppet "she-who-should-not-be-named" rubbed off on you? Are you reverting back to disrespect? I had higher expectations from you, nanz.
@Innuendoh Disrespect. He took it as a compliment, and my noting that you two sound an awful like each other in no way is a means of disrespect. Although the disrespect you pound on others should be enough for this comment to be redirected at you. Your expectations are the least of my worries, let alone anyone else on the internet. I have too much to worry about here. I was never given respect on your behalf, it was only a front from stopping the onslaught of "your side."
@naneux "[I was never given respect on your behalf, it was only a front from stopping the onslaught of "your side."]" Really? Erm... OK. You were granted amnesty and respect, and not grudgingly... I had very little difficulty in dispatching those I felt the need to. I will give this a rest for now. I will not let this degrade into the kind of trash those others made of these forums... unless it be a mutually enjoyable binge! ;)
@naneux You were given the respect and amnesty that it was believed you deserved. To reveal that it was a ruse, a veiled mockery... is a reflection upon the perpetrator, not the perpetrated, yes? Just tellin' ;)
@Innuendoh You were given my respect only with the stipulation that the nonsense desist. Especially your trademark... "just sayin," in an effort to gather info collectively... but to no avail. : o
@Innuendoh You did? so why would you drop the respect all of a sudden? I wasnt talking bout daniel. When I told ccammotes that you two sounded alike, he took it as a compliment. This has nothing to do with daniel. I could care less what you say to whomever, unless it is I you are speaking to, then of course as you would as well, I will retort.
@Innuendoh So you acknowledge me as a natural comedian! Thanks bra!
Lol What else can we do but humor situations wherein people are so angry! If someone holds a belief, fine. Dont get angry when confronted over said belief being only a belief. This is why I do not hold beliefs unless its proper in its context.
Like I said, the human mind can believe many things, just look at t.v.!!
@Innuendoh To answer what would the oak think? There is an interesting science experiment that was undertaken to show that plants do react to our thoughts, just as water molecules do. Can't say the same about a deity. There's just not enough to go around so as to toss around laboratories!
@Innuendoh No, I figure since your a fan of the paranormal.. you would have heard about this. That humm sound that was heard in Malaysia, Urich(sp?), and other places, people are attaching the infamous trumpet of michael or gabriel, I forget but.. yea... the earth groans for us to save say others, some are saying its tectonic plates, and of course the skeptics say this is only a jet engine testing.
@naneux "And yet we all know your pride will not let you humble yourself and will retort with due diligence. Sinner." Hypocrite, why do you bother looking at whether I am humble or prideful. "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3
@danieljliversLXXXIX Don't presume to speak above your knowledge or wisdom. Your lack of historical understanding stains every comment you post. (see: fallacious argument). You are in above your head, yes? Just noticin' ;)
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145. (Just again for the record, this is the actual consensus of historians as published by Oxford University Press. Its truth is unchanged by whatever opinions are claimed here.)
I'll let you in on a little secret, naneux, that isn't really a secret at all, yet perhaps you will find interest in it - it has actually been called by some the most underrated discovery in physics. Do you know who Ludwig Boltzmann is?
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
Really this is it, I've given too much of my valuable time to your pointless trolling. You lie when you say you're here to learn. Respond to Stanton if you can.
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."
- Bart D. Ehrman <<-- this is from someone mainstream who supports "your side" naneux, you don't even get that they would reject every person like LaRue who you quote. Your attempt to justify LaRue is so fringe and you don't even get it you just copy paste. And let me tell you if you do get it then you are 100% troll
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
The life of the real Jesus attracted and convinced disciples who proclaimed him throughout the known world. how do the portraits of the actual Jesus, the historical Jesus and the Gospel Jesus match up to "real" in that sense? major aspects of the actual Jesus are unreported and thus unknowable... the depiction of the historical Jesus (or better "the reconstructed Jesus") is the farthest from giving us the real Jesus.
- Raymond Brown. Intro to the New Testament 2002. p 105-6
The life of the real Jesus attracted and convinced disciples who proclaimed him throughout the known world. how do the portraits of the actual Jesus, the historical Jesus and the Gospel Jesus match up to "real" in that sense? major aspects of the actual Jesus are unreported and thus unknowable... the depiction of the historical Jesus (or better "the reconstructed Jesus") is the farthest from giving us the real Jesus.
- Raymond Brown. Intro to the New Testament 2002. p 105-6
"In the twenties of the first century C.E., this man walked out of the hills of Nazareth and into world culture."
- James H. Charlesworth is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and Editor and Director of the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, an internationally recognized expert in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old and New Testaments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Jesus Research, and the Gospel of John.
David Flusser, professor of comparative religion at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, like other Jewish scholars, sees "inauthentic" passages in the Gospel texts. Still he maintains that "other apparently authentic sayings of Jesus can be understood only if it is assumed that Jesus thought Himself to be the Son of Man." For Flusser, Jesus' concept of "Son of Man" was both messianic and divine.
These are exciting days to study Jesus in context. Archaeology is flourishing... When all is said and done, though, it is clear that Jesus lived in a Jewish context.
- E.P. Sanders, "Jesus in Historical Context", Theology Today, 1993
@danieljliversLXXXIX Actually archeology has revealed much, including the bones of St. Thomas and the evidence Marco Polo found for St. Thomas traveling to India, including the bones of St. James in Compastella, Spain, including the existence of the early churches exactly where St. Paul wrote to and traveled. And actually the archeology and historical record for Jesus is as good or better than many accepted without question from history.
@cmottes You mean the dozen or so claims about finding the bones of Thomas? Or the gravesites of James. Or Noah's arks? Or the shroud of Turin? Christians have a history for forging things for the exoneration or for taking things to mean something else.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Whoa dude, forging things? There is a Syriac document from the 1st century noting St. Thomas met a particular king in India. Historians didn't even believe this king existed until recent archeology proved it. When Marco Polo arrived in India he found passed down knowledge of St. Thomas there. Now how could that be?
@danieljliversLXXXIX Hey kid, look, it's great you have some interest in these topics. I don't mind having a discussion. But if you want to argue, find someone else, kid. You come on here now call me a fool after (at least) asking if I refer to Acts of Thomas. I didn't. I referred to a 1st C Syriac document. And Marco Polo finding actual churches and people passing down knowledge of Thomas isn't heresay. How do you think that record got in India?
@cmottes Your mind is warped. Finding churches isn't evidence for any such thing. That's the definition of hearsay you dolt. And the Acts of Thomas is a Syriac document. Drop the pretense and state what it is then.
How? Maybe like how Jesus was said to have visited India, because a document (from the nineteen hundreds) says he did? Legends spread fast.
@danieljliversLXXXIX "Your mind is warped." God bless you. Your insult is false and I'd appreciate your effort at civility. The existence of churches where St. Paul wrote is archeological evidence, not hearsay. It corroborates St. Paul's letters and the gospels. I do apologize I re-looked up the Syriac document is Acts of Thomas (2nd century). However there is firm evidence of the Christian community in India. Eusebius & other historians record it.
@cmottes Your false piety means nothing. I never said that the churches didn't exist. I said them being founded by Thomas is nothing but legend. And the Acts of Thomas is third century.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Rather your insult means nothing - I'd sincerely wished you God's blessings. The existence of churches was specifically with regards to ones St. Paul wrote to. Regarding St. Thomas, as I said there are multiple sources for his travel there. The dating of Acts of Thomas is late 2nd/early 3rd century by accepted sources. Acts also taught historians of King Gundaphorus who they believed "legend" until coins, buildings and records proved Acts correct.
@cmottes Spare me your false piety. No one is denying the existance of the churches Paul wrote to. (though half of his letters are shown to be forgories). A religious text and fraudster historian doesn't seem impressive. Also it was once thought that Troy was nothing mythical. What is your point exactly?
@danieljliversLXXXIX Erm... you're slurring your typing, my young paduan. Pull yourslef together and act like a big kid now, yes? Your a pseudo-intellectual parrot that likes to bring attention to himself on the interent, nothing more. Ibid. Ignore me if you agree. Just illuminatin' ;)
@naneux Nuh-uh! You're not all those people... I don't even talk to spaceage (but he blocks me at the behest of she-who-shall-not-be-named, I reckon.), and I am (or was), subscribed to GodAlmighty... I wouldn't put my name in the company of the quivering-Colombine; the Lord of the recedent hairline and bleeding gums, OR, the aforementioned "changingmyselfbecauseIjustpiddledandshitmydrawers", yes? Surely, you're beyond that rabble. ;)
@Innuendoh Why would you subscribe to godalmighty? Do you find his presentation compelling, I do, he flat out proves every aspect of the zeitgeist premise in detail.
@naneux He does have interesting videos, but proof? We cannot but guess at Secretary of State Edward Stanton's complicity or non-complicity in the Lincoln assassination due to lost evidence and the deaths of all eyewitnesses directly involved and that was in 1865. Time to rethink "conclusive", don't ya think?
@Innuendoh Did you see them or not, he explains and evidences the fact that the dec 25 date was attributed to horus and all the other details. This is evidence, he cites the ancient festivals and so forth. Is that not evidence? Citing specific examples.
@Innuendoh Leaf the tree alone. It should be worshiped, I mean we have proof of them, theyre older than humans, theyre still alive, is not that a power of the divine?
@cmottes Poor historicity of jeebus hinges on whether or not men tell the truth. The pyramid texts alone should be evidence that all the worlds religions derive out of their religious views, and not historical accounts muddled amongst heresay.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Hey I'm sorry if I was hard on you, I see your pretty much just a kid still thinking you know so much when you don't. I've been studying this a lot longer. If you're actually interested in this, why don't you forget the blanket generalization blind dismissals of a respected scholar's entire life's work just because you say so. How about pick a topic like astrotheology. There's a great paper on Bauval's website why Egyptian mythology is just that.
@danieljliversLXXXIX No, but I DO, yes? You're a brooding little twerp that is inches from committing a Colombine, or a Fort Hood, yeah? Take your "mixed" syncretism and run tell your master you've failed. Just illuminatin' ;)
‘Only after such a process of selection [of material] can we come to recognize the historical 'Jesus, the Jewish Jesus, the Jesus who could have arisen out of none other than Jewish surroundings, but whom the Jews, from certain historical and personal reasons which we shall understand later, could not receive as their Messiah nor his teaching as the way of redemption.’
-Joseph Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; London: Allen & Unwin, 1929) p 127
The "Testimonium Flavianum" cannot be so easily dismissed as pure Christian interpolation (insertion into the text)...the core of them both mention Jesus as an historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.
John P. Meier, “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 76-103.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Major fail is yours, the consensus of scholars accept a valid cored to the TF and wrong, Josephus is one of the most regarded historians of the time. Propogandist? Get your facts straight. And lol your blind assertions yet again mean diddly squat. Oh, um, ok, if you say it's futile, I guess it must be, because of your, um, extensive historical scholarship and publications which refute the actual consensus of historical scholars.
@cmottes We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.
-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read), Ph.D
@naneux Gerald Larue is a fringe California dude who wrote about homosexuality and other bunk. You don't even get it, do you? You don't get who you are quoting. If you went to any biblical historical scholar and asked for Gerald Larue's credibility vs William Lane Craig's credibility, let me tell you, Craig is light years beyond Larue. They're not even the same league. Where is Larue's peer-reviewed publications? Other than pop-junk books?
@cmottes There's homosexuality in the bible, therefore, the gospels wrote about homos? What's the point there, your attacking him personally? Gerald Larue was not the only one I quoted, did you not see the clergyman quote?
@naneux Attacking him personally? No, I wouldn't do that, I leave that to you and others who attack William Lane Craig personally. I only point out the obvious fact that LaRue is fringe bunk who even mainstream scholars like Ehrman, Ludemann and Crossan would reject. And yes you can find fringe clergymen too - you did so you proved it can be done. It doesn't make them any less fringe or any less debunked by the consensus of all historical scholars.
@naneux Well when I responded to LaRue's lack of scholarship and his fringe position against most scholars you call it attacking him personally, but when you dismiss Craig's life's work which is widely accepted by scholars and philosophers, you dismiss it all without any reason. Pardon me it was hard to tell why you dismissed him since you really didn't have a reason.
@cmottes Should a conflict arise between the WITNESS (not historical) of the Holy Spirit( not historical) to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith(not historical) and beliefs (not historical) based on argument (not historical) and evidence (historical), then it is the former(not historical) which must take precedence over the latter(historical), not vice versa.
@naneux "This is the reason to dismiss craig." Once again, and again, and again, and again, no it isn't and no it doesn't support your claim. Craig is only saying in his own personal belief system, he wouldn't let historical evidence contradict his belief. This quote does ***NOTHING*** to minimize his published, peer-reviewed, scholarly historical research, nor his sound philosophical arguments. These all STAND just as soundly.
@naneux Well first of all let's get the point straight, it's only about his personal beliefs. It doesn't undermine the historical or philosophical work he did nor its validity which is supported by his peers. The question comes down to the nature of historical/archeological evidence. It can be forged and unreliable. Look at the ossuary supposedly saying James, brother of Jesus. I'm sure Craig makes his statement in the confidence of knowing what is real will not contradict.
@naneux "Your tone humbled... scared of god much? " What are you even trying to say? I will passionately defend the Truth, yes. Am I perfect in humility? I am not and that is between myself and God. And yes, I do fear God.
@cmottes That's a major fail. It's a fact that the TF is a Christian interpolation that wasn't used by Church fathers who tried to use Jospehus to verify Jesus historicity. Any attempt to salvage it is futile. Josephus was a Pro-Roman propagandist who said Vespasian was the awaited Messiah of the Jews.
It seems odd how Josephus would state "... to this day" when the events occcured relatively recent before he wrote Antiquities.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Been reading more "slop" history again, yeah? Study of other's opinions is not scholarly at all, yes? You are banished from any relevant discussion, and are a mere nuisance. Just proclaimin' ;)
@Innuendoh Sod off, troll. You might as well not even bothering commenting to me. Any further comments from yoy will henceforth be ignore. Have a good life - Troll.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Awwww, pudd'ms... Did you actually use "henceforth" in a post? Yu amuse me greatly (you always have). Calling me a troll may be another Freudian slip, do you fancy yourself a unicorn? I wonder, yes? OOPS!!! Too soon? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, son. Stay away from firearms and explosives, kid. Just tellin' ;)
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."
- Bart D. Ehrman (2005:212) Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew Oxford University Press, New York.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Oh, is that right, Tacitus is relating hearsay? Well, if you say so, scholar! LOLOL. Um, try reading any actual historian or scholar on the matter. Tacitus in NUMEROUS places himself noted when a source was unreliable. Tacitus is widely known to reject hearsay. That is why we rely on Tacitus for much of our accepted history for Rome. Major fail.
@cmottes It's hearsay because Tacitus wasn't alive at the time of the purported events of the Gospels. He doesn't go into any details about his life except for the crucifixion account.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Asked and answered. If you did any research, you'd discover Tacitus is accepted as one of the pre-eminent historians from whom we get much of our history of ancient Rome. If you'd bothered to look it up, you'd discover Tacitus 70 times in History notes when a source is unreliable or hearsay. If you'd looked up what scholars say about the quote you'd understand why the consensus is it is genuine and not hearsay. You're saying otherwise is irrelevant.
@naneux Nanz!!!... C'mon now! If you observe where this thread leads, I'm referencing my good friend danny-boy. However, I DO realize that it gets confusing trying to maneuver in these forums... wish they had a "thread organizer".
""Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
@naneux, um if you have to ask the name of the sources for Mark, why are you even here discussing it? The passion narrative is often referred to simply as the Marcan source. The Q document is the name widely believed of collected sayings. John Mark is described by the author of Luke/Acts and travels with St. Paul. It is widely believed St. Peter was the primary source. Please look some of this up rather than wasting people's time with pointless arguments.
@cmottes St. Peter was the primary source, didnt you say he was illiterate? And if Q is a lost source, how can it still be a source? Im here to learn buddy, please indulge me. Dont be a bogard.
@naneux Hmm, well I suggest you google the word illiterate then and tell me if it means the same as mute or Broca's aphasia. And whoa wait a minute, first you ask what are the names of the sources now you want to take up a whole debate on the Q source? When you only just learned it's name? I think you ought to read more about it, since you sound so very eager to learn.
@naneux "It should be easy to name the source... of a lost source. LOL If Peter's testimony was verbal, could not mark have written whatever he liked? " Oh my goodness, LOL is right. I can only assume your now confusing my statement that known written sources exist with your own invented delusion that I claimed ALL sources were written. Wow.
@naneux, thanks for the laughs man. You brush off Craig? Lolol. As if anyone you quoted holds a candle, or as if your quote by him has anything to do with his respected historical research. It's just amazing with a few quotes you've proven the consensus among scholars was actually false! If only you could show this too Ehrman, Luderman and Crossen. Why they could just pack up and quit examining the historical Jesus!
@danieljliversLXXXIX LOL, First of all his name is Craig, not Graig, you can't even spell it right. Second, do you realize how you look when you troll the comment section and you can't even understand Craig who has earned the respect of his colleagues and peers? How you without any basis, explanation or analysis just says he's a waste of time? No, to you he's a waste of time. To others like me, he's a wealth of knowledge and insight. Sorry to see you miss so much.
@cmottes Oh wow I made a typographical error. Go you for catching that.
[C]raigs arguments are laughably weak that know one with any amount of integrity would even bother with them. It's one presumption over another. And how am I trolling? Learn to properly apply words.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Typographical error? C and G aren't next to each other on the keyboard. No, you just plain and simple came here without basis, reason, example, explanation or ANYTHING other than blind assertion to claim "Graig" was a waste of time, dismiss him, and to boot you couldn't even spell his name. LOLOL! Your blatant trolling is proven by your lack of any actual point. And your blind assertion means diddly squat. It is shot down by *Craig's* peers - they reject your thesis!
@cmottes Your welcome. His quote does have everything to do with his so called "research." How can you negate this!?
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa."
In other words, if you can put a good argument, as opposed to evidence, youve won.This is clearly not the case. His words not mine.
@naneux "Your welcome." lol, what a good answer ! And you're too much, the quote has nothing to do with his historical work. Craig's publications on historical work is peer-reviewed, buddy. That's nothing to do with his beliefs. If he finds historical evidence, it stands, regardless of whether it supports or doesn't support his beliefs. Yes, his words, and his words don't do a thing to support your words.
@cmottes Yes, I dont entertain personal attacks. Its a good answer.
Should a conflict arise between the WITNESS (not historical) of the Holy Spirit( not historical) to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith(not historical) and beliefs (not historical) based on argument (not historical) and evidence (historical), then it is the former(not historical) which must take precedence over the latter(historical), not vice versa.
@naneux You know what, I'm growing very tired of your false accusations. I didn't make any personal attacks. I simply rightly named what you are doing which is TROLLING. And it's blatant. You don't know the slightest of the people you're even quoting and I know that I have told you and you ignore it. You're hear to *argue* and attack the mainstream. You're hear to try to stir up and debate. Not present anything real. Not discuss. I've had plenty of discussions.
@naneux "I have not seen you present anything real either." Then you obviously have not been paying attention. I actually named the mainstream scholars that would support your side - scholars that actually REJECT the fringe sources you quote. I also gave you numerous credible sources including Raymond Brown, Klaussner, Stanton, Dunn, Meier, etc all of whom support exactly what I've now repeated - the scholarly consensus accepts a historical core of the gospels and historical Jesus.
Damn these format changes.
naneux 1 month ago
/watch?v=8U1Grl4HSRU&list=FLB5bbJ6nUGiuoJmgO0U9wiQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux I think we should just leave these two lovers to themselves.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX lol Three lovers.... .god is somewhere there. ; )
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Ewwwww... seeing eye to eye with the quivering fool? C'mon now. ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX funny! coming from a failed, narcissistic, anti-intellectual parrot, yes? OOPS!!! Too soon?!! Just sayin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@naneux, of course historians examine the gospels for their validity, and as quoted earlier, the consensus agree there as a valid historical core. You should really read Ehrman and Crossan, they're mainstream scholars who question what parts of the gospels may be later insertions. I enjoy Egyptian history. The pyramid texts are clearly myth, nonhistorical, and much may have astrotheological origin.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes "The pyramid texts are clearly myth, nonhistorical, and much may have astrotheological origin."
This is where the bible comes from, everything from the resurrection, to an afterlife is in the BOD.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux No, sir. This is where the bible comes from, everything from the resurrection, to an afterlife is from GOD. And if you were familiar with Egyptian astrotheology you would know there has been shown by scholars many, many specific texts that derive specifically from the constellation Orion and its movements in the sky, or movements of other stars. And if you were familiar with the bible, you would know it comes from eye-witnesses to Jesus Christ and His teachings.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes No it came from the pyramid texts, they are the earliest forms of religious texts we have, not the bible. There is a reason that many of the attributes given to jeebus are found throughout the world in other religions. There are no eye witnesses to jeebus christ ever having lived.
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "No it came from the pyramid texts," So wrong, naneux, and again you blindly assert and in doing so contradict historians. Even historians such as Dr. Albert Schweizer who doubt the historicity of the gospels recognize its novel teachings. It has no origin where you claim. It is unique and the gospels are saturated with interrelationship to the old testament, proving again their origin is no where else.
cmottes 1 month ago
@naneux "Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us" Luke 1:1-2
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Heresay,
"eyewitnesses handed them down to us."
Heresay.
Its sad that religion crumbles in the looming eyes of scrutiny.
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
Let us now close the book on your "hearsay" argument. Your statement is only the beginning of an inquiry into whether gospels are historical. I have given the you the conclusion.
cmottes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "Its sad that religion crumbles in the looming eyes of scrutiny."
Does it? ONLY if it is the prediliction of the witness to disbelieve... Surely, you knew that, nanz, yes? Just askin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@naneux, what's up? Yes faith is a gift. So you're restating you disbelieve. Got it. And I thank God for the gift of faith He gave me. Sometimes people miss the forest looking at trees.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Faith is only a belief. Not a means to justify anything as true and correct. Faith is not a means of observation. I can have faith the steelers will all be mexicans, but this does not mean it is true and correct, in any way, shape or form.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence* of things not seen.a Because of it the ancients were well attested. By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God,* so that what is visible came into being through the invisible." Hebrews 11:1-3. Please do a big, big favor and quit pontificating about theology. Quit your preaching, your proselytizing, your pretending to teach others about God and religion.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes "Quit your preaching, your proselytizing, your pretending to teach others about God and religion."
Your the one dropping verses on me. You should practice what you preach.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "Your the one dropping verses on me. You should practice what you preach." Only in response to you, naneux. And quoting verses is not proselytizing, nor is it pretending. No sir, I do most certainly strive to practice what I preach. And no that you quote this to me, should you all the more practice what you preach.
cmottes 1 month ago
@naneux Do you not have faith that Peter Joseph and Acharya S. conducted their research in good faith and utilizing the utmost scholarly integrity without playing the "shell game" with evidence? Logic IS bisexual, ya know. :)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh I dont need to have faith, have you read her books? She has thousands of footnotes for anyone to validate. Unlike the bible, it gives you reasons while citing specific examples as to their platform. Footnotes that anyone can go and look up. We cant say that anyone can go and validate the existence of jebus. One would have to ignore that massive amounts of evidence to the contrary in order to believe that a jesus christos existed.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux That is your conclusion... it has already been recorded *checks "nanz's file again* YEP!! It's all here in your file! ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh I dont get it.
naneux 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX, rather spare me your false accusations. Really I decline the conversation if all you can do is insult me with some kind of notion of being falsely religious. Look, you barely know me, kid. I thank God He gave me a gift of faith and I value it very much. I'm not just going to engage in a conversation if you start every post with an insult, again a false one. You're welcome to look up more about Thomas in India. I find the evidence very credible.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes god gave you the gift of faith? Again, another belief unsubstantiated by evidence, rather, subjective claims that render god merely a product of the human mind.
Look out a tree!
naneux 1 month ago
@cmottes Take your holier than thou condescensions and shove it. If you think that a few churches, a text from the the third century, and a known liar is compelling, then that's your own faillings. Not mine. Faith isn't a gift. You've demonstrated just how it can twist a persons mind.
Also, learn the definition of a damn insult.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
Comment removed
cmottes 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Daniel, God bless you. Don't tell me to look up anything I don't need to just so you can lie and pretend you didn't insult me. You lie and insult me again now. Again, I thank God for the gift of faith. And wrong, it is a gift. That doesn't make me holier than anyone, nor condescending, just blessed. And by the way you act quite smug, hypocrite. There's credible evidence for Thomas in India, including the passed down records in India. See ya, kid.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Arrogance is on your side buddy, claiming to know what god thinks, wants and so forth. This to me is the equivalent of arrogance, being smug indirectly. You have no idea if there is a god or not. You only believe, the arrogance would be that you exceed the limits of your belief and claim to know that god gave you something! Its incredible!! Remember, be humble. Pride is a sin. Pride in your god is a sin. Pride in faith is a sin.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "And this is God’s doing. For to you has been granted, for the sake of Christ, not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him." Philippians 1:28-29 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;" Ephesians 2:8 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him" John 6:44. To the contrary, buddy, your words are lies. I accept God's word in humility. You contradict it in arrogance.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes You accept gods word in humility, yet, you take pride in arguing for your religion, otherwise you wouldnt be here.
I told you that you would retort. Pride is a motherfucker.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "you take pride in arguing for your religion, otherwise you wouldnt be here" Truly do you reveal yourself, naneux. I know you cling to such beliefs as your basis to argue. But it is only you who argue. I came here to share truth and proclaim, to discuss with anyone. You attack. I defend. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, 1 Peter 3:15 “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 1:31
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes "I came here to share truth and proclaim"
Proclaim, yes. Share truth, no. Subjective truths.. remember.
Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord? Isnt that pride?
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "Share truth, no. Subjective truths.. remember." I only remember saying what was only true for you. I continue to proclaim the truth, which is objective, evidenced, historical and experienced. It is Truth. Your opinion of its subjectivity is only your opinion. "Isnt that pride?" No, boasting in the Lord is not pride. When I say I am blessed by God for my Creator to give me a sinner a gift of faith of which I am unworthy, it is boasting of Him.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes "I continue to proclaim the truth, which is objective, evidenced, historical and experienced"
OMG!! You have got to be the first, congratulations. Take your scholarly work to a university and show your thesis to someone, who knows, you could get a a phd!!
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "You have got to be the first, congratulations." Lol, oh no, naneux, I am far, far from the first to proclaim the truth. I decline your mock congratulations, I give real thanks to God.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes LOL Proclaiming truth.. but is it?
Give thanks to a tree foist. It might actually hear you.
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "Proclaiming truth.. but is it?" Yes. "Give thanks to a tree foist. It might actually hear you." I don't know if it would but God does.
cmottes 1 month ago
@naneux Ibid.
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@cmottes Youse two sound an awful like each other. Just sayin.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "Youse two sound an awful like each other. Just sayin." Thank you for the compliment.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes How is that a compliment? You like inny? Do you enjoy his fruitful wisdom? Are you inwards.. I mean inny?! Its not a compliment inny.
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "How is that a compliment?" I consider him intelligent, polite, faithful, having good humor, sensitivity, understanding, and no doubt many other good gifts and thank God for whatever good gifts He gave me. "You like inny?" Yes, I do. "Do you enjoy his fruitful wisdom?" I know you meant this to be sarcastic, but yes he does share fruits of wisdom and of seeking wisdom. Ultimately all wisdom is from God.
cmottes 1 month ago
@naneux Are you losing your drawers over this? What would the oak think? Did you allude to "cmottes" and I are the same person? Has the puppet "she-who-should-not-be-named" rubbed off on you? Are you reverting back to disrespect? I had higher expectations from you, nanz.
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Disrespect. He took it as a compliment, and my noting that you two sound an awful like each other in no way is a means of disrespect. Although the disrespect you pound on others should be enough for this comment to be redirected at you. Your expectations are the least of my worries, let alone anyone else on the internet. I have too much to worry about here. I was never given respect on your behalf, it was only a front from stopping the onslaught of "your side."
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "[I was never given respect on your behalf, it was only a front from stopping the onslaught of "your side."]" Really? Erm... OK. You were granted amnesty and respect, and not grudgingly... I had very little difficulty in dispatching those I felt the need to. I will give this a rest for now. I will not let this degrade into the kind of trash those others made of these forums... unless it be a mutually enjoyable binge! ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@naneux You were given the respect and amnesty that it was believed you deserved. To reveal that it was a ruse, a veiled mockery... is a reflection upon the perpetrator, not the perpetrated, yes? Just tellin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh You were given my respect only with the stipulation that the nonsense desist. Especially your trademark... "just sayin," in an effort to gather info collectively... but to no avail. : o
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "Especially your trademark... "just sayin," in an effort to gather info collectively... but to no avail. : o"
What I say to "danieljquivers" is my business... "to no avail", you say? I did refrain... another prediliction, I suppose.
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh You did? so why would you drop the respect all of a sudden? I wasnt talking bout daniel. When I told ccammotes that you two sounded alike, he took it as a compliment. This has nothing to do with daniel. I could care less what you say to whomever, unless it is I you are speaking to, then of course as you would as well, I will retort.
You is meant to imply anyone in general.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux I consider you on your merits... I will continue to do so. I can be caustic. I am also a natural comedian. Do not take offense needlessly.
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh So you acknowledge me as a natural comedian! Thanks bra!
Lol What else can we do but humor situations wherein people are so angry! If someone holds a belief, fine. Dont get angry when confronted over said belief being only a belief. This is why I do not hold beliefs unless its proper in its context.
Like I said, the human mind can believe many things, just look at t.v.!!
naneux 1 month ago
@Innuendoh To answer what would the oak think? There is an interesting science experiment that was undertaken to show that plants do react to our thoughts, just as water molecules do. Can't say the same about a deity. There's just not enough to go around so as to toss around laboratories!
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux I'm fully aware. ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Hey Inny.... did you hear about the end of the world!!!
naneux 1 month ago
@Innuendoh The end of the world again.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Not until Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" comes out!!!!!
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh No, I figure since your a fan of the paranormal.. you would have heard about this. That humm sound that was heard in Malaysia, Urich(sp?), and other places, people are attaching the infamous trumpet of michael or gabriel, I forget but.. yea... the earth groans for us to save say others, some are saying its tectonic plates, and of course the skeptics say this is only a jet engine testing.
naneux 1 month ago
@cmottes And yet we all know your pride will not let you humble yourself and will retort with due diligence.
Sinner.
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "And yet we all know your pride will not let you humble yourself and will retort with due diligence. Sinner." Hypocrite, why do you bother looking at whether I am humble or prideful. "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Get off your high horse. I've called you a fool before, yet I didn't see you get red in the face over that. And you are acting foolish.
"And by the way you act quite smug, hypocrite."
Take a look in the mirror.
You've got nothing verifying that Thomas was ever in India, aside from from word of mouth. Now sod off.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Don't presume to speak above your knowledge or wisdom. Your lack of historical understanding stains every comment you post. (see: fallacious argument). You are in above your head, yes? Just noticin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145. (Just again for the record, this is the actual consensus of historians as published by Oxford University Press. Its truth is unchanged by whatever opinions are claimed here.)
cmottes 1 month ago
I'll let you in on a little secret, naneux, that isn't really a secret at all, yet perhaps you will find interest in it - it has actually been called by some the most underrated discovery in physics. Do you know who Ludwig Boltzmann is?
cmottes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
cmottes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
Really this is it, I've given too much of my valuable time to your pointless trolling. You lie when you say you're here to learn. Respond to Stanton if you can.
cmottes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."
- Bart D. Ehrman <<-- this is from someone mainstream who supports "your side" naneux, you don't even get that they would reject every person like LaRue who you quote. Your attempt to justify LaRue is so fringe and you don't even get it you just copy paste. And let me tell you if you do get it then you are 100% troll
cmottes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
cmottes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The life of the real Jesus attracted and convinced disciples who proclaimed him throughout the known world. how do the portraits of the actual Jesus, the historical Jesus and the Gospel Jesus match up to "real" in that sense? major aspects of the actual Jesus are unreported and thus unknowable... the depiction of the historical Jesus (or better "the reconstructed Jesus") is the farthest from giving us the real Jesus.
- Raymond Brown. Intro to the New Testament 2002. p 105-6
cmottes 1 month ago
Comment removed
cmottes 1 month ago
The life of the real Jesus attracted and convinced disciples who proclaimed him throughout the known world. how do the portraits of the actual Jesus, the historical Jesus and the Gospel Jesus match up to "real" in that sense? major aspects of the actual Jesus are unreported and thus unknowable... the depiction of the historical Jesus (or better "the reconstructed Jesus") is the farthest from giving us the real Jesus.
- Raymond Brown. Intro to the New Testament 2002. p 105-6
cmottes 1 month ago
"In the twenties of the first century C.E., this man walked out of the hills of Nazareth and into world culture."
- James H. Charlesworth is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and Editor and Director of the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, an internationally recognized expert in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old and New Testaments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Jesus Research, and the Gospel of John.
cmottes 1 month ago
David Flusser, professor of comparative religion at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, like other Jewish scholars, sees "inauthentic" passages in the Gospel texts. Still he maintains that "other apparently authentic sayings of Jesus can be understood only if it is assumed that Jesus thought Himself to be the Son of Man." For Flusser, Jesus' concept of "Son of Man" was both messianic and divine.
cmottes 1 month ago
These are exciting days to study Jesus in context. Archaeology is flourishing... When all is said and done, though, it is clear that Jesus lived in a Jewish context.
- E.P. Sanders, "Jesus in Historical Context", Theology Today, 1993
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes And yet archaeology has revealed little for the historicity of Jesus.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Actually archeology has revealed much, including the bones of St. Thomas and the evidence Marco Polo found for St. Thomas traveling to India, including the bones of St. James in Compastella, Spain, including the existence of the early churches exactly where St. Paul wrote to and traveled. And actually the archeology and historical record for Jesus is as good or better than many accepted without question from history.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes You mean the dozen or so claims about finding the bones of Thomas? Or the gravesites of James. Or Noah's arks? Or the shroud of Turin? Christians have a history for forging things for the exoneration or for taking things to mean something else.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Whoa dude, forging things? There is a Syriac document from the 1st century noting St. Thomas met a particular king in India. Historians didn't even believe this king existed until recent archeology proved it. When Marco Polo arrived in India he found passed down knowledge of St. Thomas there. Now how could that be?
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes The Acts of Thomas? You fool! That's third century. The skeloton (a few in fact) have never been identified as Thomas'.
"When Marco Polo arrived in India he found passed down knowledge of St. Thomas there. Now how could that be?"
Great. More hearsay taken as evidence. You're scraping the barrel, aren't you?
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Hey kid, look, it's great you have some interest in these topics. I don't mind having a discussion. But if you want to argue, find someone else, kid. You come on here now call me a fool after (at least) asking if I refer to Acts of Thomas. I didn't. I referred to a 1st C Syriac document. And Marco Polo finding actual churches and people passing down knowledge of Thomas isn't heresay. How do you think that record got in India?
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Your mind is warped. Finding churches isn't evidence for any such thing. That's the definition of hearsay you dolt. And the Acts of Thomas is a Syriac document. Drop the pretense and state what it is then.
How? Maybe like how Jesus was said to have visited India, because a document (from the nineteen hundreds) says he did? Legends spread fast.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX "Legends spread fast."
As do conspiracies, my lil poop-stain, as do conspiracies...
You ARE the anti-intellectual, anti-wisdom nimrod of the week, yes? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! Just observin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX "Your mind is warped." God bless you. Your insult is false and I'd appreciate your effort at civility. The existence of churches where St. Paul wrote is archeological evidence, not hearsay. It corroborates St. Paul's letters and the gospels. I do apologize I re-looked up the Syriac document is Acts of Thomas (2nd century). However there is firm evidence of the Christian community in India. Eusebius & other historians record it.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Your false piety means nothing. I never said that the churches didn't exist. I said them being founded by Thomas is nothing but legend. And the Acts of Thomas is third century.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX hide from me, yes? Just tellin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Rather your insult means nothing - I'd sincerely wished you God's blessings. The existence of churches was specifically with regards to ones St. Paul wrote to. Regarding St. Thomas, as I said there are multiple sources for his travel there. The dating of Acts of Thomas is late 2nd/early 3rd century by accepted sources. Acts also taught historians of King Gundaphorus who they believed "legend" until coins, buildings and records proved Acts correct.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Spare me your false piety. No one is denying the existance of the churches Paul wrote to. (though half of his letters are shown to be forgories). A religious text and fraudster historian doesn't seem impressive. Also it was once thought that Troy was nothing mythical. What is your point exactly?
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Erm... you're slurring your typing, my young paduan. Pull yourslef together and act like a big kid now, yes? Your a pseudo-intellectual parrot that likes to bring attention to himself on the interent, nothing more. Ibid. Ignore me if you agree. Just illuminatin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Pseudo intellectual? So who's the intellectual here? Spouting from the top of your ivory tower, how do we ignore you?
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Are you saying that you and "danieljquivers" are one in the same? If not, disregard my bitch-slapping of the fool, yes? :)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh danielquivers lol Yes.. me daniel, teched, change, spaceage, godalmighty, even a few christians are under the guise of
Naneux.
People like me.. im a scholar. ; )
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Nuh-uh! You're not all those people... I don't even talk to spaceage (but he blocks me at the behest of she-who-shall-not-be-named, I reckon.), and I am (or was), subscribed to GodAlmighty... I wouldn't put my name in the company of the quivering-Colombine; the Lord of the recedent hairline and bleeding gums, OR, the aforementioned "changingmyselfbecauseIjustpiddledandshitmydrawers", yes? Surely, you're beyond that rabble. ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Why would you subscribe to godalmighty? Do you find his presentation compelling, I do, he flat out proves every aspect of the zeitgeist premise in detail.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux He does have interesting videos, but proof? We cannot but guess at Secretary of State Edward Stanton's complicity or non-complicity in the Lincoln assassination due to lost evidence and the deaths of all eyewitnesses directly involved and that was in 1865. Time to rethink "conclusive", don't ya think?
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Did you see them or not, he explains and evidences the fact that the dec 25 date was attributed to horus and all the other details. This is evidence, he cites the ancient festivals and so forth. Is that not evidence? Citing specific examples.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux December 25th is a dead point... no discussion needed. You are deeper than this, nanz, I'd wager on it! :)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Look out!!! A tree!!
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux -Axmen: season 2, episode 4.
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Leaf the tree alone. It should be worshiped, I mean we have proof of them, theyre older than humans, theyre still alive, is not that a power of the divine?
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Why, nanz, are you a pagan? Well, you didn't mention wood sprites, so I'm not sure... :)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Why a pagan?
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux trees? worship? divine? :)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Why not? Trees being worshiped as divine entities. They are much older than any god.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Now this is an interesting post from you... ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Which one, quote it first so I know which one you are addressing, I do the same for you dont I?
naneux 1 month ago
@cmottes Poor historicity of jeebus hinges on whether or not men tell the truth. The pyramid texts alone should be evidence that all the worlds religions derive out of their religious views, and not historical accounts muddled amongst heresay.
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljliversLXXXIX "Christians have a history for forging things for the exoneration or for taking things to mean something else."
Did you REALLY just post this? A bit hypocritical, yes? *amused* Just sayin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Hey I'm sorry if I was hard on you, I see your pretty much just a kid still thinking you know so much when you don't. I've been studying this a lot longer. If you're actually interested in this, why don't you forget the blanket generalization blind dismissals of a respected scholar's entire life's work just because you say so. How about pick a topic like astrotheology. There's a great paper on Bauval's website why Egyptian mythology is just that.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Take your condescending comments and shove them right back up where you you pulled them from. You don't know anything about me.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX No, but I DO, yes? You're a brooding little twerp that is inches from committing a Colombine, or a Fort Hood, yeah? Take your "mixed" syncretism and run tell your master you've failed. Just illuminatin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX In your opinion... well, not even YOUR opinion, yes? Just pointin' out ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
‘Only after such a process of selection [of material] can we come to recognize the historical 'Jesus, the Jewish Jesus, the Jesus who could have arisen out of none other than Jewish surroundings, but whom the Jews, from certain historical and personal reasons which we shall understand later, could not receive as their Messiah nor his teaching as the way of redemption.’
-Joseph Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; London: Allen & Unwin, 1929) p 127
cmottes 1 month ago
The "Testimonium Flavianum" cannot be so easily dismissed as pure Christian interpolation (insertion into the text)...the core of them both mention Jesus as an historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.
John P. Meier, “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 76-103.
cmottes 1 month ago
Comment removed
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Major fail is yours, the consensus of scholars accept a valid cored to the TF and wrong, Josephus is one of the most regarded historians of the time. Propogandist? Get your facts straight. And lol your blind assertions yet again mean diddly squat. Oh, um, ok, if you say it's futile, I guess it must be, because of your, um, extensive historical scholarship and publications which refute the actual consensus of historical scholars.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.
-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read), Ph.D
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Gerald Larue is a fringe California dude who wrote about homosexuality and other bunk. You don't even get it, do you? You don't get who you are quoting. If you went to any biblical historical scholar and asked for Gerald Larue's credibility vs William Lane Craig's credibility, let me tell you, Craig is light years beyond Larue. They're not even the same league. Where is Larue's peer-reviewed publications? Other than pop-junk books?
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes There's homosexuality in the bible, therefore, the gospels wrote about homos? What's the point there, your attacking him personally? Gerald Larue was not the only one I quoted, did you not see the clergyman quote?
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Attacking him personally? No, I wouldn't do that, I leave that to you and others who attack William Lane Craig personally. I only point out the obvious fact that LaRue is fringe bunk who even mainstream scholars like Ehrman, Ludemann and Crossan would reject. And yes you can find fringe clergymen too - you did so you proved it can be done. It doesn't make them any less fringe or any less debunked by the consensus of all historical scholars.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes I dont attack Craig personally, I attacked his words.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Well when I responded to LaRue's lack of scholarship and his fringe position against most scholars you call it attacking him personally, but when you dismiss Craig's life's work which is widely accepted by scholars and philosophers, you dismiss it all without any reason. Pardon me it was hard to tell why you dismissed him since you really didn't have a reason.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Should a conflict arise between the WITNESS (not historical) of the Holy Spirit( not historical) to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith(not historical) and beliefs (not historical) based on argument (not historical) and evidence (historical), then it is the former(not historical) which must take precedence over the latter(historical), not vice versa.
This is the reason to dismiss craig.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "This is the reason to dismiss craig." Once again, and again, and again, and again, no it isn't and no it doesn't support your claim. Craig is only saying in his own personal belief system, he wouldn't let historical evidence contradict his belief. This quote does ***NOTHING*** to minimize his published, peer-reviewed, scholarly historical research, nor his sound philosophical arguments. These all STAND just as soundly.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes "he wouldn't let historical evidence contradict his belief. "
So if he found a book from 70CE that said jesus was a raging homosexual, he would accept this?
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Well first of all let's get the point straight, it's only about his personal beliefs. It doesn't undermine the historical or philosophical work he did nor its validity which is supported by his peers. The question comes down to the nature of historical/archeological evidence. It can be forged and unreliable. Look at the ossuary supposedly saying James, brother of Jesus. I'm sure Craig makes his statement in the confidence of knowing what is real will not contradict.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Your tone humbled... scared of god much?
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "Your tone humbled... scared of god much? " What are you even trying to say? I will passionately defend the Truth, yes. Am I perfect in humility? I am not and that is between myself and God. And yes, I do fear God.
cmottes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmottes That's a major fail. It's a fact that the TF is a Christian interpolation that wasn't used by Church fathers who tried to use Jospehus to verify Jesus historicity. Any attempt to salvage it is futile. Josephus was a Pro-Roman propagandist who said Vespasian was the awaited Messiah of the Jews.
It seems odd how Josephus would state "... to this day" when the events occcured relatively recent before he wrote Antiquities.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Been reading more "slop" history again, yeah? Study of other's opinions is not scholarly at all, yes? You are banished from any relevant discussion, and are a mere nuisance. Just proclaimin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh You're just here to troll. You bring nothing to the table. I've got better things I could be wasting my time on.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Ahhhh, the ole "troll" excuse, yes? That's what "your kind" always pulls out when you've been bitch-slapped off of your soapbox.
"I've got better things I could be wasting my time on."
Like what? Planning your master strike against society that involves a gory end for you as well? Peasant! Dismissed. Just sayin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Sod off, troll. You might as well not even bothering commenting to me. Any further comments from yoy will henceforth be ignore. Have a good life - Troll.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Awwww, pudd'ms... Did you actually use "henceforth" in a post? Yu amuse me greatly (you always have). Calling me a troll may be another Freudian slip, do you fancy yourself a unicorn? I wonder, yes? OOPS!!! Too soon? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, son. Stay away from firearms and explosives, kid. Just tellin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."
- Bart D. Ehrman (2005:212) Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew Oxford University Press, New York.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Tacitus' account about the Chrestus doesn't hold up. He's clearly relating hearsay about it.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Oh, is that right, Tacitus is relating hearsay? Well, if you say so, scholar! LOLOL. Um, try reading any actual historian or scholar on the matter. Tacitus in NUMEROUS places himself noted when a source was unreliable. Tacitus is widely known to reject hearsay. That is why we rely on Tacitus for much of our accepted history for Rome. Major fail.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes It's hearsay because Tacitus wasn't alive at the time of the purported events of the Gospels. He doesn't go into any details about his life except for the crucifixion account.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Asked and answered. If you did any research, you'd discover Tacitus is accepted as one of the pre-eminent historians from whom we get much of our history of ancient Rome. If you'd bothered to look it up, you'd discover Tacitus 70 times in History notes when a source is unreliable or hearsay. If you'd looked up what scholars say about the quote you'd understand why the consensus is it is genuine and not hearsay. You're saying otherwise is irrelevant.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes He's a garden-variety stooge for his master... he finds joy in promoting chaos and dysfunction...
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh Talking bout me inny... lets not start this again. I do not promote chaos, only asserting the uncertainty of all knowledge.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Nanz!!!... C'mon now! If you observe where this thread leads, I'm referencing my good friend danny-boy. However, I DO realize that it gets confusing trying to maneuver in these forums... wish they had a "thread organizer".
Innuendoh 1 month ago
The mythical Jesus theory is a "thoroughly dead thesis."
- J. G. D. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit, Volume I: Christology, (Eerdmans / T & T Clark, 1998), page 191
cmottes 1 month ago
""Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
- Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145.
cmottes 1 month ago
@naneux, um if you have to ask the name of the sources for Mark, why are you even here discussing it? The passion narrative is often referred to simply as the Marcan source. The Q document is the name widely believed of collected sayings. John Mark is described by the author of Luke/Acts and travels with St. Paul. It is widely believed St. Peter was the primary source. Please look some of this up rather than wasting people's time with pointless arguments.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes St. Peter was the primary source, didnt you say he was illiterate? And if Q is a lost source, how can it still be a source? Im here to learn buddy, please indulge me. Dont be a bogard.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux Hmm, well I suggest you google the word illiterate then and tell me if it means the same as mute or Broca's aphasia. And whoa wait a minute, first you ask what are the names of the sources now you want to take up a whole debate on the Q source? When you only just learned it's name? I think you ought to read more about it, since you sound so very eager to learn.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes It should be easy to name the source... of a lost source. LOL
If Peter's testimony was verbal, could not mark have written whatever he liked?
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "It should be easy to name the source... of a lost source. LOL If Peter's testimony was verbal, could not mark have written whatever he liked? " Oh my goodness, LOL is right. I can only assume your now confusing my statement that known written sources exist with your own invented delusion that I claimed ALL sources were written. Wow.
cmottes 1 month ago
@naneux, thanks for the laughs man. You brush off Craig? Lolol. As if anyone you quoted holds a candle, or as if your quote by him has anything to do with his respected historical research. It's just amazing with a few quotes you've proven the consensus among scholars was actually false! If only you could show this too Ehrman, Luderman and Crossen. Why they could just pack up and quit examining the historical Jesus!
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Someone who takes Graig seriously isn't worthy of anyone's time.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX LOL, First of all his name is Craig, not Graig, you can't even spell it right. Second, do you realize how you look when you troll the comment section and you can't even understand Craig who has earned the respect of his colleagues and peers? How you without any basis, explanation or analysis just says he's a waste of time? No, to you he's a waste of time. To others like me, he's a wealth of knowledge and insight. Sorry to see you miss so much.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Oh wow I made a typographical error. Go you for catching that.
[C]raigs arguments are laughably weak that know one with any amount of integrity would even bother with them. It's one presumption over another. And how am I trolling? Learn to properly apply words.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Typographical error? C and G aren't next to each other on the keyboard. No, you just plain and simple came here without basis, reason, example, explanation or ANYTHING other than blind assertion to claim "Graig" was a waste of time, dismiss him, and to boot you couldn't even spell his name. LOLOL! Your blatant trolling is proven by your lack of any actual point. And your blind assertion means diddly squat. It is shot down by *Craig's* peers - they reject your thesis!
cmottes 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX YOUR arguments are laughably weak, yes? Ibid. Just pronouncin' ;)
Innuendoh 1 month ago
@Innuendoh So your only modus operandi is to troll people. You must live a very fulfilling life.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
@cmottes Your welcome. His quote does have everything to do with his so called "research." How can you negate this!?
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa."
In other words, if you can put a good argument, as opposed to evidence, youve won.This is clearly not the case. His words not mine.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux "Your welcome." lol, what a good answer ! And you're too much, the quote has nothing to do with his historical work. Craig's publications on historical work is peer-reviewed, buddy. That's nothing to do with his beliefs. If he finds historical evidence, it stands, regardless of whether it supports or doesn't support his beliefs. Yes, his words, and his words don't do a thing to support your words.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes Yes, I dont entertain personal attacks. Its a good answer.
Should a conflict arise between the WITNESS (not historical) of the Holy Spirit( not historical) to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith(not historical) and beliefs (not historical) based on argument (not historical) and evidence (historical), then it is the former(not historical) which must take precedence over the latter(historical), not vice versa.
naneux 1 month ago
@naneux You know what, I'm growing very tired of your false accusations. I didn't make any personal attacks. I simply rightly named what you are doing which is TROLLING. And it's blatant. You don't know the slightest of the people you're even quoting and I know that I have told you and you ignore it. You're hear to *argue* and attack the mainstream. You're hear to try to stir up and debate. Not present anything real. Not discuss. I've had plenty of discussions.
cmottes 1 month ago
@cmottes "Not present anything real. Not discuss."
I have not seen you present anything real either.
naneux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naneux "I have not seen you present anything real either." Then you obviously have not been paying attention. I actually named the mainstream scholars that would support your side - scholars that actually REJECT the fringe sources you quote. I also gave you numerous credible sources including Raymond Brown, Klaussner, Stanton, Dunn, Meier, etc all of whom support exactly what I've now repeated - the scholarly consensus accepts a historical core of the gospels and historical Jesus.
cmottes 1 month ago