Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

[MarketMasher]

Quote from stu:

Jesus is a fictional creation.

• 
  "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?"

Apparently your answer is... yes.

If the answer is "I don't know for sure at this particular moment", then the possibility exists.

You are phrasing it in a way that removes all possibility - certainty.

If so, then you are claiming to be All-Knowing on that subject, since you are stating a certainty in your eyes.

To be All-Knowing is to be a Deity. Are you claiming to be such?

Apparently your answer is... yes.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from trendlover:

Marketmasher, how is the nurse know the patient (recognize) her from sight sense? Did the pateint hear hear her voice (first), then this recall his memory(of voice) he store when he is in the coma? Maybe smell sense too? Who know really? Maybe he put the memory of her odor chemical in his brain when she is close to him and take his dentures from his mouth? Then when she visit him again in 1 week, this chemical odor trigger the memory?

"...that he had perceived from above..."

"From above" is not a description of hearing from the emergency gurney.

Again, you are free to seek alternate explanations, but they should not conflict with what the first-hand observer to the event describes. That would be telling them "I didn't have your experience, but my recounting is correct, not yours."

At that point the question might be - Who is the one creating the fiction?

 

[res judicata]

Quote from stu:

The problem here is not a lack of any scholars who dispute the 'non TF passage'. Your problem is a lack of any reasoned argument.
Being in denial, you're only interested in scholars that don't dispute Josephus.

Even YOUR Wiki quote disputes in effect all the text. It states....

• It is often argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith, and Josephus was almost certainly not a Christian, ...... John Dominic Crossan has put it this way:The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish[46].
  Consequently, some scholars regard at least certain parts of the Testimonium as later interpolations. In particular three passages stood out[46]:

Consequently whether in TF or any other Josephus 'non TF passage' , "He was [the] Christ" or "...."who was called Christ" or "...the so called Christ" are essentially the same problem for christian apologists
According to a most renowned scholar .... "too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish"

Anything by Josephus with the word Christ in it would be "...too Christian.."
There are others who do dispute the text, even more directly. Easy to find them if you look.

But you won't look because you want to call any scholar a "bozo media whore" who doesn't agree with one particular scholar whom you like so much to moronically repeat , whose quote has no argument to make , but who prefers to deal mainly in swiss cheese.
In the end , all you have is your ignorant refusal to accept fact.

Despite all that, Josephus would not in any case be grounds for historical evidence.
It's all 100 years too late and not supported in any other text or by any other means. Therefore mere hearsay innadmissable as historical evidence .

Christian interpolators falsified Josephus text... and now christian apologists can't even decide which to falsify Josephus text further with bewteen "...the Christ" or " ...the so called Christ".

In light of all that you'd have to be a dimwit to blindly assume as you do that Josephus has any historical relevance to a bible Jesus Christ. Ah...that'll be it .



There is nothing whatsoever in the form of any kind of historical evidence, anywhere, any time, throughout the whole of history, to confirm bible Jesus ever existed.

Amazing but true .
Astonishing what relentless religious brainwashing and a lot of superstition can achieve.
Then again all the ignorance you've shown is not really so amazing. It's just pathetic.

1. "He was the Christ" is a profession of faith.
"was called Christ" or "so called Christ" is not a profession of faith.

Your whole argument is based on a poor comprehension of english. Which is why no scholars make your argument.

2. Given that we therefore have an undisputed reference to Jesus by a Jewish historian named Josephus you have no argument. Jesus is by definition a historical person.



"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]"

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from trendlover:


But to just say it is supernatural is to stop looking for why.

Why does it have to stop the questioning? Shouldn't it stimulate more questioning?

What you would define as "natural" is taught to you through your senses and instruments that extend your senses. Does everything that occurs or exist have to conform to that rule, or is it possible for things to occur and exist beyond your senses? If so, then those things would be past your definition of natural then. What would you prefer to call it, because maybe it is just the wording that is prejudicial.

I recalled an old news story, which I had to search for, but here it is

http://books.google.com/books?id=5O...ork man heart stabbing victim miracle&f=false

It is a pretty mundane crime victim and hospital story until you get to the top 3rd column of page 30.

Of course, you could try to contact him and convince him that what he is sure happened didn't really happen because you read somewhere that it couldn't have happened.

 

[trendlover]

Quote from MarketMasher:



Why does it have to stop the questioning? Shouldn't it stimulate more questioning?

What you would define as "natural" is taught to you through your senses and instruments that extend your senses. Does everything that occurs or exist have to conform to that rule, or is it possible for things to occur and exist beyond your senses? If so, then those things would be past your definition of natural then. What would you prefer to call it, because maybe it is just the wording that is prejudicial.

I recalled an old news story, which I had to search for, but here it is

http://books.google.com/books?id=5O...ork man heart stabbing victim miracle&f=false

It is a pretty mundane crime victim and hospital story until you get to the top 3rd column of page 30.

Of course, you could try to contact him and convince him that what he is sure happened didn't really happen because you read somewhere that it couldn't have happened.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You think it is possible the boy mix the awareness he will maybe die, with knowing his brother is dead? So when he say he hear his brother tell him "No you can not come here, no room here" this is really (his own) thought that he do not want to die like his brother?
No, I will not tell a trauma person they are wrong. That is their comfort.

Do you dream about someone you love one time in your life, but they are dead now? But in the dream I can feel them hug me, I can feel their skin, and hear thier voice. And it feel very real. I think that is memory and the wish to see them again.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from trendlover:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you dream about someone you love one time in your life, but they are dead now? But in the dream I can feel them hug me, I can feel their skin, and hear thier voice. And it feel very real. I think that is memory and the wish to see them again.

Yes - but then what happens. You wake up, and you recognize it was a dream.

There was something in his experience with his brother that told him it was not a dream. He is making a distinction based on his perception at the time and adamantly stating that it was no dream.

Neither you nor I can dispute this with him because we were not there. Neither can we condescend to say it is only a way of comforting himself, because that is really saying we know better, and he doesn't, when we have no basis for that conclusion.

Those that experience deep NDEs do not describe them as dreams. You may assume they are confusing their NDE with a dream, but where do you get that assumption from? That boy is a man now if he is still alive, and you could try to contact him to have him recant what he already explicitly stated. Maybe you could cite the books that discount his experience to convince him he was dreaming.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from stu:

Jesus is a fictional creation.

• 
  "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?"

Apparently your answer is... yes.

Not to worry. It is not uncommon for people to make the mistake of speaking in Absolutes. Happens all the time.

It is not the topic, it is the approach when they speak - as though All-Knowing.

If there was ever a warning flag of a "false prophet", it is that manner of speaking. Once they implicitly or explicitly state they are at the same level as what they themselves describe as "All-Knowing", you know they are not because they cannot be.

All their attempts should be prefaced with "It is my belief that", or "My own interpretation is". Unless you can feed a huge crowd with a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread or something like that...

Even Einstein made that mistake. At one point he stated he wanted to "Know the mind of God."

But later he said "God does not play dice with the universe." when dismissing quantum mechanics. At that point he presumed to "know" the mind of the the All-Knowing. Quantum mechanics is still a very active theory.

So do not be concerned if making the same mistake as Einstein, unless you are much smarter than he was and should know better...

The only concern is to not make the same mistake over and over again - or to listen to those that do.

 

[stu]

What reason do you have this time why your computer wouldn't log on as jem into ET ........?
Is res-'typing guy' in your head going to be talking as yourself from now on, or on your behalf as before?

Quote from res judicata:
1. "He was the Christ" is a profession of faith.
"was called Christ" or "so called Christ" is not a profession of faith.

Who says "was called Christ" is not a profession of faith?
.... was called Christ, [as if called that by everyone] .would fit that bill just as much..

"Your whole argument is based on a poor comprehension of english.".

Regardless, a profession of faith is not the only reason why Josephus is no historical confirmation of Christ. There are other obvious common sense reasons you seemingly cannot comprehend.

Quote from res judicata:
Your whole argument is based on a poor comprehension of english. Which is why no scholars make your argument.

You wish.
As Josephus wasn't written in English, the only poor comprehension of English, is from christian apologists who can't decide if their alleged English version should say "was called Christ" or "so called Christ"

Christian apologists' own versions of what Josephus was supposed to have written are known by scholars to have been falsified . The tiny bit which is left is disputed by scholars whom you would dismiss anyway because you can't even comprehend under any circumstances how Jesus is a fictional figure.

Quote from res judicata:
2. Given that we therefore have an undisputed reference to Jesus by a Jewish historian named Josephus you have no argument. Jesus is by definition a historical person.

It isn't given "we" have any such thing , and you don't have any evidence based on historical standards.

In the absence of any historical evidence whatsoever, and considering Jesus aligns in one way or another with every other fictional/mythical character there is, by definition, your argument for Jesus as a historical person is pretty well f*kd from the get go.

Quote from res judicata:
"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]"

Moronically repeating a non-argument whinge for a historical Jesus, does not make Jesus any less of a fictional character.

 

[stu]

Quote from MarketMasher:

If the answer is "I don't know for sure at this particular moment", then the possibility exists.

You are phrasing it in a way that removes all possibility - certainty.

If so, then you are claiming to be All-Knowing on that subject, since you are stating a certainty in your eyes.

To be All-Knowing is to be a Deity. Are you claiming to be such?

Apparently your answer is... yes.

You seem to be tying yourself in knots.

I asked for your answer to a straightforward question. What's the problem in giving a straightforward answer?

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

Jews and Romans definately exist, raising the question ......
Does one first convince oneself that God actually exists, in order to discuss how his fictional son died, in the same way one would first convince oneself Batman exists, to discuss how his fictional parents, died?

Is your answer "I don't know for sure at this particular moment" ?

Disconnect questions of certainty and "All-Knowing" are not really necessary... are they.

 

[stu]

Quote from MarketMasher:
Batman is a fictional creation.

Quote from MarketMasher:
Not to worry. It is not uncommon for people to make the mistake of speaking in Absolutes. Happens all the time.