Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback
- Thread starter hermit
- Start date
Nomads might not be as dumb as you think. Next you'll probably tell us pirates occasionally forget that they buried a treasure chest. While they may occasionally forget where they buried, having lost the map, they generally do not leave such things behind unawares. The reasons for leaving a library buried in a jar in the desert may be similar to the reasons there may occasionally be buried treasure found here or there. Pirates buried treasure for safekeeping. Owners may have buried treasure to keep it safe from pirates. And through time and circumstance, no one comes back to claim the buried treasure.
The reasons for the burial of a library of related (contra orthodox) books in Nag Hammadi would most probably correspond with one of the circumstances above, most probably the last circumstance. If a caravan felt threatened, the owner of the library may have buried it. But an ambush of a caravan would not leave much opportunity to do so. Therefore, the most probable reason is that they were part of a library nearby, perhaps a monastery, which was ordered to destroy certain kinds of documents as the orthodoxy evolved.
Nomads forgetting such a library (buried) behind is not comparable to Doyle forgetting a chest of literature in his basement. It's already improbable enough that one man with forgetfulness in a house full of stuff could lose something like that...though it may be possible. It's even more improbable that one nomad, or a group of nomads, would forget and leave behind what was probably their most valuable possession besides water and camels and tents.
Evidence of textual (docrinal) persecution is the most probable of the possible reasons why a jar full of controversial books would be found buried. If there is corroborating evidence that such books were expunged in those days, then it adds to the probability that this is the reason the books found in Nag Hammadi were found buried where they would not likely be found for a while. There is evidence that book burning was practiced in those days by ecclesiastical authorities with regional jurisdictions.
So are you saying that
a.) There was a historical Shakespeare?
b.) The same historical Shakespeare was a playwright?
c. ) Both?
Quote from stu:
You beggar belief Jem.
You've created another alias to beef up support for yourself because you cannot make any real argument for a non-fictional Jesus, the simple reason being that , well, he is a fictional character who you cannot show to be otherwise.
So you' ve now started to cut and paste another futile non-argument about your new screen name. Incredible.
RJ can be appealed, you don't have the last word you must have childishly thought your new alias gave you.
That was the message you would have understood from my frippery about the whole silly thing in my previous post , if you had any idea at all that is. I didn't mis-apply anything dufus.
You're becoming more pathetic over time. How bad do you intend to get?
It's ok, don't bother...it's just rhetorical...or res torical if you prefer.
Frippery - is that what you call it now....
1.So says stu the poster who argues the definition of atheist with dictionaries.
2. Who argues the historicity of Jesus, with the vast majority of experts and academics. And denies the existence of historical accounts even though I linked to many of them in the wikipedia article.
3. The man who always mis leads every reader about the amount of passages in Joesphus --- (why don't acknoledge there is one passage which is undisputed.... is that your frippery too?
4. Is it frippery when you deny the work of physicists with your swiss cheese arguments?
Finally who the heck are you to comment on some other posters alias.
Are you the original poster name STU or did you take over that handle... axe.
Two group of people making two set of arguments:
1. Jesus did not exist--- a consequence of it is that his death and who was involved become non-questions.
2. The death of Jesus was meant- a consequence is that his death and who was involved becomes irrelevant.
What would you answer is one were to ask whether the arguments above are just human invented theories with the objective to avoid the question?
1. Jesus did not exist--- a consequence of it is that his death and who was involved become non-questions.
2. The death of Jesus was meant- a consequence is that his death and who was involved becomes irrelevant.
What would you answer is one were to ask whether the arguments above are just human invented theories with the objective to avoid the question?
No -- this more like moronic poster making the moon is swiss cheese arguments along with a one flunky...
Most if not everyone else says believe what you want to believe but don't be such a swiss cheese brain as to Jesus is not a historical figure.
Especially when you have all this info to contend with...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus
Contents
1 New Testament writings
1.1 Pauline Epistles
1.2 Gospels
1.3 The Acts of the Apostles
2 Ancient Christian creeds
2.1 Biblical
2.2 Extra-biblical
3 New Testament apocrypha
3.1 Gnostic texts
4 Early Church fathers
5 Greco-Roman sources
5.1 Josephus
5.2 Pliny the Younger
5.3 Tacitus
5.4 Suetonius
5.5 Mara bar Sarapion
5.6 Others
6 Jewish records
Most if not everyone else says believe what you want to believe but don't be such a swiss cheese brain as to Jesus is not a historical figure.
Especially when you have all this info to contend with...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus
Contents
1 New Testament writings
1.1 Pauline Epistles
1.2 Gospels
1.3 The Acts of the Apostles
2 Ancient Christian creeds
2.1 Biblical
2.2 Extra-biblical
3 New Testament apocrypha
3.1 Gnostic texts
4 Early Church fathers
5 Greco-Roman sources
5.1 Josephus
5.2 Pliny the Younger
5.3 Tacitus
5.4 Suetonius
5.5 Mara bar Sarapion
5.6 Others
6 Jewish records
Not even those pesky 12 versions of the bible???
I am not religious by any stretch, but to think that Jesus didn't exist historically, as a human being, is very similar to idiots like peil who blindly accept the stories of adam and eve.
Stu, you are either terribly misinformed, or terribly biased.
Do you have better proof that shake speare existed than you do that jesus existed?
Both of their existence's are soley based on words....
I am not religious by any stretch, but to think that Jesus didn't exist historically, as a human being, is very similar to idiots like peil who blindly accept the stories of adam and eve.
Stu, you are either terribly misinformed, or terribly biased.
Do you have better proof that shake speare existed than you do that jesus existed?
Both of their existence's are soley based on words....
Why don't you figure out whether Ben franklin was real, or George Washington, or Nostradamus, or Abe Lincoln, the bottom line is we depend on stories from people who lived in the time to tell us what was real, no one can go back in time and prove definitively whether or not someone actually existed, for all we know there isn't a single person in history who ever "actually" existed. We are left with words from other people, and we must make the determination for ourselves.
For some reason i am more inclined to believe a billion people, including alot of historians than i am inclined to believe some deadbeat prick named "STU" who i first saw posting on an internet forum.........
Unless you have figured out a way to test guys like copernicus' DNA you should quit making an ass of yourself.
For some reason i am more inclined to believe a billion people, including alot of historians than i am inclined to believe some deadbeat prick named "STU" who i first saw posting on an internet forum.........
Unless you have figured out a way to test guys like copernicus' DNA you should quit making an ass of yourself.
"What other reason, except textual persecution, would we find a library of books buried in a clay urn in the desert?"
You have given another reason above rather than only "textual persecution" as to why desert nomads would bury their books..
Now it's lost, dropped and safekeeping.
Fine.
So we both understand there is not only the one reason you said there was. So what was the point in you suggesting there could only be one !?
Someone else first mentioned Shakespeare and in response I'm saying all the formal established methods for ascertaining then testing the historocity of Sheakespeare, clearly and obviously results in Shakespeare being shown to be an actual historical person by proven reasoning.
The same method when applied to bible Jesus comes to naught.
The result? You want to 'dis' all method and call everything fiction. Brilliant argument you have there dude.
A lot like the argument suggesting there is only one reason for something.... and then you give more reasons.
Bible Jesus fits closely with other similar fictional characters in a number of pre-christian known myths and folk lore.
Yeah frippery....a good word for your nonsense.
You're clearly very disturbed and angry about defending a religious superstition Jem / res judica⦠lol ....whatever.
Someone on your side of the argument has already informed the thread that scholars are unreliable, Now you are relying on what you say scholars confirm as a very tiny bit of ancient writing is proof Jesus existed. Which is it going to be.
The author was not even alive when Jesus was supposed to have lived, and Joesphus's records of historically authentic writings are about the people and events of his time. The supposed Jesus was not in his time.
Those scholars are also saying similar entries about Jesus in Joesphus's writing were forged. So because of a very few other lines of dubious ancient text they say may not be, you accept Bible Jesus actually existed.
On the strength of that, you should have no problem accepting Zeus, and Odin, King Arthur , Robin Hood and Superboy really existed and are therefore all historically living figures .
As your pathetic ideas have suddenly become somewhat obsessively based on a dairy product, however unlike Jesus , you can at least be compensated with knowing swiss cheese is historically non-fictional .
and finally....
...your following sentence being .....
Hilarious.
Saying Jesus is a real historical person because the Bible says so is not going to work.
Neither can you make a fictional Jesus character anything else but what it is by trying to say other people think it was non fictional.
Both you and they will have to come up with a more thoroughly objective substantive independent analysis to confirm people and events as real, as is the case when formally ascertaining historicity.
One superstitious fairy tale and some forged documents with a dogged insistence that fictional is magically non-fictional if it is christian, amounts only no more than a delusion .