Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

"Did the Jews "kill" Jesus, by voting to have him killed? Or is it still technically the Romans who did it?"

Many people phrase it that way.

Of course, that is completely the wrong question to ask (and no, it's not because of the Resurrection).

But, what would be the question to ask about that event? (Of course, you'd have to believe it occurred at all, otherwise formulating a better question than the one above would be irrelevant to you).

Oh yeah - it has nothing to do with "Isn't it all of us because we are all sinners?" stuff either...
 
Quote from stu:

Yes, why are you lying? It is your quote, you linked it.
And your weirdo screen name split personality schizophrenia. What's that all about?



The apologist scholarly mainstream not only inexplicably ignores the fact that there is nothing that stands as historical evidence for a biblical Jesus , but remains woefully inadequate in identifying no serious methodological deficiencies in their not accepting the fact that christians merely engaging other christians, does not constitute historical evidence for a Jesus Christ.

Nonsense is nonsense. The christian apologists' study of nonsense is called biblical scholarship.
More...

If you had an once of integrity.... show us the quote which address the non TF passage. I do not understand what motivates you to lie about facts? Facts which are only a few pages prior on this thread. What goes on in your head that compels you to lie in such an absurd manner?
 
Quote from jem:

If you had an once of integrity.... show us the quote which address the non TF passage. I do not understand what motivates you to lie about facts? Facts which are only a few pages prior on this thread. What goes on in your head that compels you to lie in such an absurd manner?
More...
Fact is Jem I'm not lying.
That is the problem you have.



On numerous occasions I have given reason why the quote YOU provided - being the same quote Christian apologists gave trying to establish their page on Wiki - clearly applies to ALL Josephus texts.

Just because you consider the quote is only linked to TF , because you think it looks like those christian apologists have linked it to TF , and therefore it can only refer to TF in meaning or context, is dumb at best, but in your case reflects that usual propensity for being dumber than dumb.


If you ever were capable of undertaking a little open minded intelligent research, you would find renowned scholars dispute what you call the second passage of Josephus.
In fact, any mention of the word Christ by Josephus has been considered doubtful by scholars over centuries.

A highly respected theological christian scholar renowned by the mainstream, who does not go along with what you say is the mainstream , you childishly and ignorantly labeled a bozo media whore because you don't like what he finds.
So what's the point in me doing anymore homework for you by linking others that dispute the passage?

On the other hand you prefer to gormlessly repeat a quote from a Christian scholar attempting to defend the indefensible Christ myth and alteration and interpolation of Josephus text to include the word Christ, whilst at the same time attempting to hand wave away as not worth engaging anyone who points out his chicanery.


Scholarly or not, Christians claiming Christ is a historical person does not make Christ a historical person.

The actual fact is, there is nothing, anywhere, at any time, that stands as historical evidence for a bible Jesus/ bible Christ living in reality.

You may be a better person if you just deal with that fact

There might surely be some psychological benefits too . Not pretending to be someone else with that totally weird alt screen name thing you pulled, would be a lot healthier I'm sure.
 
Quote from MarketMasher:

"Did the Jews "kill" Jesus, by voting to have him killed? Or is it still technically the Romans who did it?"

Many people phrase it that way.

Of course, that is completely the wrong question to ask (and no, it's not because of the Resurrection).

But, what would be the question to ask about that event? (Of course, you'd have to believe it occurred at all, otherwise formulating a better question than the one above would be irrelevant to you).

Oh yeah - it has nothing to do with "Isn't it all of us because we are all sinners?" stuff either...
More...



You mean like convincing oneself Batman was once real in order to discuss how his fictional parents were killed?
 
Quote from stu:

You mean like convincing oneself Batman was once real in order to discuss how his fictional parents were killed?
More...

Well, you obviously do not believe in religion, so as I said, the question is irrelevant to you.

However, for those who do believe (to whatever degree) I give an example of a common way of thinking.

"Judas was evil and betrayed Jesus."

Common interpretation, but -

Doesn't the Passion (scourging/crucifixion) HAVE to happen?

In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus prays and asks "If it is possible, let this cup pass from my lips."

So - he sees it coming. He knows what is going to happen. But then he says "Let it be your will, not mine."

Now, you and me, would probably hightail it outta there, like telling the Apostles "See ya, I'm headed off to see the sites of Switzerland" or something.

But he sticks around and lets it happen.

Sure he says "You betray your master with a kiss." But betray can mean "reveal" too (reveal the one they are looking for to the Temple guards). Maybe he did mean "betray" in the common/today's usage, but what the heck, if you knew what was coming, you wouldn't be real happy about it at that particular moment either.

So back to the old question "would a man's way of thinking necessarily equate to the mind, intent, and purpose of what is called "All-Knowing"?"

If so, then there is an implicit claim of also being "All-Knowing" and equal.

Big claim. Seems lots of people dare to make it every day...
 
Quote from MarketMasher:

Well, you obviously do not believe in religion, so as I said, the question is irrelevant to you.
More...
Agreed, you did say that and I note what you are also saying given someone is using irrational argument as a believer in superstion and religion .

But the basic question surely is, doesn't all this primarily equate to one first convincing oneself that Batman actually exists, in order to discuss how his fictional parents died..

Correspondengly one first convinces oneself that God actually exists, in order to discuss how his fictional son, Jesus died?
 
Quote from stu:



Correspondengly one first convinces oneself that God actually exists, in order to discuss how his fictional son, Jesus died?
More...

Perhaps. The question of God would have to be answered with an "I don't know for sure at this particular moment" if one is honest with oneself.

However, just as there are some who would claim to "know" the mind of what is "All-Knowing", those who would claim they have certainty that there is no God are actually making the same claim in disguise.

Implicit in that argument is a claim that the person who "knows" God does not exist is claiming to be All-Knowing about the topic. It is a self-deification, at least in regards to that narrow subject-line.

Now, in the 16th century, the "All-Knowings" of the time didn't know about black holes, ya gotta take what they say with a grain of salt too..
 
Quote from MarketMasher:


If so, then there is an implicit claim of also being "All-Knowing" and equal.

Big claim. Seems lots of people dare to make it every day...
More...

Actually, there is another way to rephrase that.

If you or some "preacher-type guy" who is claiming he "knows the mind of the All-Knowing" - and is therefore equal to what is All-Knowing - what are you actually doing?

1) Elevating yourself to the status of the All-Knowing". or
2) Dragging the All-Knowing down to the gutter of the minds of men.

Either way, you should be explicit which you are doing before starting to "preach".
 
Quote from stu:

Fact is Jem I'm not lying.
That is the problem you have.



On numerous occasions I have given reason why the quote YOU provided - being the same quote Christian apologists gave trying to establish their page on Wiki - clearly applies to ALL Josephus texts.

Just because you consider the quote is only linked to TF , because you think it looks like those christian apologists have linked it to TF , and therefore it can only refer to TF in meaning or context, is dumb at best, but in your case reflects that usual propensity for being dumber than dumb.


If you ever were capable of undertaking a little open minded intelligent research, you would find renowned scholars dispute what you call the second passage of Josephus.
In fact, any mention of the word Christ by Josephus has been considered doubtful by scholars over centuries.

A highly respected theological christian scholar renowned by the mainstream, who does not go along with what you say is the mainstream , you childishly and ignorantly labeled a bozo media whore because you don't like what he finds.
So what's the point in me doing anymore homework for you by linking others that dispute the passage?

On the other hand you prefer to gormlessly repeat a quote from a Christian scholar attempting to defend the indefensible Christ myth and alteration and interpolation of Josephus text to include the word Christ, whilst at the same time attempting to hand wave away as not worth engaging anyone who points out his chicanery.


Scholarly or not, Christians claiming Christ is a historical person does not make Christ a historical person.

The actual fact is, there is nothing, anywhere, at any time, that stands as historical evidence for a bible Jesus/ bible Christ living in reality.

You may be a better person if you just deal with that fact

There might surely be some psychological benefits too . Not pretending to be someone else with that totally weird alt screen name thing you pulled, would be a lot healthier I'm sure.
More...

In summary -- in response to a question asking you to support your allegations or your theory - you present no links - no quotes - no scholar.... only more spew of stu.


"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"
 
Quote from jem:

In summary -- in response to a question asking you to support your allegations or your theory - you present no links - no quotes - no scholar.... only more spew of stu.

More...
In fact -- you are in denial.

Explanations, reasons, quotes, scholars, already provided, mean nothing to you when they don't correspond with what you want to hear.

It is simply plain commonsense that Josephus cannot stand as historical evidence for Jesus . Reasons already given.

There is nothing anywhere to establish Jesus actually existed. No Historical evidence. Nothing anywhere at all.
Obviously you just can't deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top