Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

More secular proof of Jesus' existence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I don't care enough to answer your bloviating wall of text, other than to point out you responded with the exact tactics I said you use, proving me right, handwaving away scripture as fiction or some other excuse not to accept it. And then had the gall to accuse me of having preconceived beliefs. I can see why JP Holding kicked you out of his area so quickly.

    Oh, and yes Christian scholarship goes back 2000 years to the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
    Your decision to beat a hasty retreat is duly noted as is, once again, your recourse to personal ad hominem remarks when you have no case to answer.

    It is patently clear that you cannot answer the question I have put to you because to do so would require you to acknowledge that the respective narrative details found in the various gospel accounts of the trial are entirely contradictory and therefore these texts cannot be considered as either inerrant or infallible.

    Mr Holding quite clearly likes to keep his personal site open only to those who are in accord with his own views and, as he made quite apparent, does not care to have his subjective and preconceived opinions questioned or challenged.

    I find it highly amusing that [rather as with Mr Holding] you likewise do not care to have your beliefs or opinions confronted.

    Even more droll is your dismissal of a reasoned argument as “handwaving away” some of the various textual anomalies that are to be found within these NT texts.

    With regard to Christian scholarship if one wishes to be really pedantic one might note that the Apostolic Fathers writing in the late first and early second century are [according to Christian tradition] believed to have either been personally acquainted with some of the disciples or to have been influenced by them. The earliest ante-Nicene Father, Justin Martyr was born around 100 CE, which is over six decades after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. We are therefore not precisely back 2000 years.

    The earliest critical examination of a specific biblical text [the book of Daniel] is by Porphyry of Tyre writing in the late third century. However, his Against the Christians [Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν] which consisted of fifteen books were all burned in the mid fifth century on the orders of Theodosius II. His work is therefore only known [as with Celsus] through the refutations made by various Christian apologists.

    That notwithstanding the modern critical historical New Testament scholarship as it is now undertaken did not commence until David Strauss published his Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet in 1835.

    In the early modern period Baruch Spinoza offered his systematic critique of Judaism, when in 1670, his treatise Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was published anonymously.
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Zzzzzz.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Zzzzzz.
        Your inability to produce a coherent response is, once again, duly noted.

        You can now play alone.
        "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.
          As the Bard famously wrote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

          If what you said was true you wouldn't keep going on about it, bringing remarks made in other threads into the discussion.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Your inability to produce a coherent response is, once again, duly noted.

            You can now play alone.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              As the Bard famously wrote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

              If what you said was true you wouldn't keep going on about it, bringing remarks made in other threads into the discussion.
              The comment arose from my reply to Sparko - wherein I detected animus disguised as sarcasm. As I have recently discovered he cannot put forward a reasoned argument to defend his beliefs when they are challenged and so resorts to posts somewhat similar in style/content to the ones he has made on this thread.
              Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-17-2020, 01:57 PM.
              "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                The comment arose from my reply to Sparko - wherein I detected animus disguised as sarcasm. As I have recently discovered he cannot put forward a reasoned argument to defend his beliefs when they are challenged and so resorts to posts somewhat similar in style/content to the one on this thread.
                I have answered you plenty and you merely resort to denying that the scriptures are valid while referring to them when you think they work in your favor. It is impossible to have an actual debate with someone who uses that tactic. It's "damned if you don't and damned if you do" and not worth my time. You are free to believe whatever odd and silly thing you want to in your invincible ignorance.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I have answered you plenty and you merely resort to denying that the scriptures are valid
                  I wrote reasoned replies and provided supporting evidence.

                  You chose to ignore those replies and stated as much.

                  You are quite clearly out of your depth on this topic and so you have resorted to emoticons and puerile little video clips.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  It is impossible to have an actual debate with someone who uses that tactic.
                  What "tactic? "The "tactic " of disagreeing? The "tactic " of providing reasoned and informed comment?

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  You are free to believe whatever odd and silly thing you want to in your invincible ignorance.
                  And yet again you offer the usual ad hominem served with a garnish of petulance.

                  There is no "ignorance" on my part. I have simply pointed out that your inerrant and infallible gospels are neither.

                  You clearly do not wish to recognise that fact.
                  "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post




                    And that is yet another dramatic fiction created by the writer of John.

                    You appear completely unable to comprehend that claiming to be the Jewish Messiah was not blasphemy in contemporary Judaism of the first century CE.
                    If that were indeed the case don't you think that, well, many of the readers of the Gospels would have known that and said "whoa there, that's not true"? I mean, that in and by itself would have pretty much sunk the story right then and there.

                    Being that it didn't really ought to have told you something.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      The comment arose from my reply to Sparko - wherein I detected animus disguised as sarcasm.
                      Kind of ironic don't you think coming from a queen of passive-aggressive snark.

                      Just sayin'.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      As I have recently discovered he cannot put forward a reasoned argument to defend his beliefs when they are challenged and so resorts to posts somewhat similar in style/content to the ones he has made on this thread.
                      You throw out so much in one of your posts that it does become burdensome to try to reply to it all.

                      I mean, I'm pretty well known for writing some pretty long posts but I try to keep it to just one or two points and then supply a whole lot of evidence that corroborates those points.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        If that were indeed the case don't you think that, well, many of the readers of the Gospels would have known that and said "whoa there, that's not true"? I mean, that in and by itself would have pretty much sunk the story right then and there.

                        Being that it didn't really ought to have told you something.
                        Why are you attempting to retroject twentyfirst century attitudes back to the second century?

                        Furthermore what evidence are you citing to indicate that any of those early listeners to that gospel [bearing in mind standards of literacy and the probable social status of those within that Johannine community] would “have known that and said "whoa there, that's not true"” with regard to the alleged attempts by “the Jews” to stone Jesus?

                        This text was clearly not written for an audience that had any knowledge of contemporary Judaism. The writer of John has to explain to his readers that “Messiah” means “Christ” [1.41] and that Jews do not associate with Samaritans.

                        This work is consistently and virulently anti-Jewish, and Jesus is depicted as hostile to “the Jews” for not recognising that their own scriptures have the function of testifying to him. [5.39]. He is also depicted as being totally dissociated from his own Jewish background, talking to “the Jews” about "your law". Even Pilate has to remind “the Jews” about their Passover amnesty custom [18.39]. Elsewhere “the Jews” are also blamed for refusing to recognise Jesus despite the signs (σημεια) and wonders (τερατα) testifying to his abilities and status. [12.37, 15.24]. Such preternatural goetic motifs are consistent and typical features within aretalogical writings.

                        As to the character of Jesus that we are presented with in this work he stands in stark contrast to the Jewish ascetic holy man of whom we catch get shadowy glimpses within the Synoptics, especially the gospel of Mark . In John’s gospel Jesus is depicted as an alien figure who delivers lengthy, artificial, and mystical speeches about himself and the relationship between him and his [often uncomprehending] followers, along with their relationship with God and with each other in their mutual faith.

                        This is sacred biography not a factual historical record.
                        "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Kind of ironic don't you think coming from a queen of passive-aggressive snark.
                          Have you recently learned a new phrase? I suspect you are misunderstanding my use of litotes/understatement, back handed compliments, and irony for what you consider to be “passive aggressive” behaviour.

                          While those who suffer from passive aggression may employ understatement, the use of that literary/linguistic techniques does not, of itself, indicate the user is suffering from such a syndrome. I would offer a word of caution against throwing around phrases without due care and attention. You risk demonstrating [to quote your own words] that “you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are”.

                          I’d also ask is Sparko is unable to defend himself? Why does he need his forum friend to do it for him?

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          You throw out so much in one of your posts that it does become burdensome to try to reply to it all.
                          Complex issues cannot be adequately addressed in a few sentences. It is therefore necessary to consider these matters in some detail.

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I mean, I'm pretty well known for writing some pretty long posts but I try to keep it to just one or two points and then supply a whole lot of evidence that corroborates those points.
                          I generally try to do my interlocutor the courtesy of addressing each of the points they have made and then provide my own comments/rebuttal with, as necessary, relevant citations.
                          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-18-2020, 12:32 PM.
                          "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 07-31-2020, 09:36 AM
                          65 responses
                          2,662 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                          Working...
                          X