I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed (page 16)

Leolaia

I think that is the last time I am going to respond point-by-point. Next time I might respond to a few points if they are new, but I really said all I want to on this topic.

King Solomon

Leo said:

I think that is the last time I am going to respond point-by-point. Next time I might respond to a few points if they are new, but I really said all I want to on this topic.

I, for one, enjoyed the read, as it served as a great example of the thinking process historians (and really, all of the scientific disciplines) use, with a well-defined methodology to weigh alternative hypotheses before one is accepted as theory.

mP

P:

mP, what I am saying is that my reading of your responses to Leolaia's and your calling Leo's a fail makes me giggle uncontrollably.

Leo's answers are focused and supported by extensive sources, and don't try for the absolute, which is not achievable in discussion of antiquity, IMO.

mP:

Go read the post, 1/4 is about Fomenko. HIs thoughts may be interesting but that another discussion.

The remainder of her post is filled with quotations from the OT, when i am clearly discussing the authorship of the gospels. Go read the text and count the citations yourself. Discussing Daniel and the origins of the Son of Man are interesting but they hardly make my assertions any more wrong.

We can see the same device of invention by kings, with Josiah and Moses with his sponsored invention of Deuteronomy and major redacting of the Moses story. No scholar today doubts this, when just a hundred fifty years ago the exact opposite was true. The ones who did question these very matters were thrown out of uni and more. Political motivation is present everywhere in religion, including the Bible. Entire sections were invented for selfish political means. In the case of Josiah he was attempting to reform and centralize the religion, bringing the money to his one church.

Strange why Leo failed to mention this, and yet states that to consider the Romans capable of similar invention as impossible. They had large departments in charge of managing religions. You can search these v facts for yourself, they arent hard to find.

P:

Yours are not. If I read you correctly, you think the Romans may have written up the whole thing.

mP:

You failed to address the motivation and other relationships. Somehow i think you fail to appreciate the entire evidence.

P:

Having said that, I think what I think about the historical Jesus based on what I have read, and what I have concluded from that, not what you or Leo post.

mP:

Well read what i have said and ask yourself is the information wrong ? Once you do, its a bit premature to state your conclusions about what i have presented. I dont know which scholars you have read, but i will say xian history, theology has been carefully scripted on many occassions. Different churches, religions and so on are proof of this.

mP

Leo:

I don't care what fundies say...they don't follow historical methodology; neither do crank writers who have an interesting idea. History isn't anything goes. You can't throw out an internally-consistent well-supported picture of the past that explains the preponderance of the evidence for something that does a piss-poor job doing the same thing. That doesn't mean that the current picture of things is perfect, or can't be altered, not at all. It means that the new explanation has to do a better job explaining things than the current understanding.

It's like throwing out everything we know about geology and paleontology and evolution because of one anomalous fossil that might suggest humans lived at the sapome time as dinosaurs (and the fossil itself is dubious because of reasons xyz).

mP:

You spend too many words writing emotional text with no references. This is but another example. What have dinos got to do with anything ? More words... Its unfair to categorize me with any party that questions dinos. We are not discussing dinos. Please stop the distractions and focus on something directly related to what i have said. If i have failed to mention something then by all means point it out, and i will be more than interested in reading and learning.

mP

MP:

After all taht lets forget about this appeal to authority and actually look at the items of interest.

Leo:

No appeal to authority at all.....I am appealing to the body of research and knowledge that already exists that any new theory or idea that radically wants to revise history needs to explain in a better way than the older paradigm.

mP:

Making a statement about something, and then saying experts say this without proofs or references ever is unfair and dishonest. I could count multiple examples in your previous posts here, where you have done that. Start with a statement and then pretend that scholars automatically agree. How can any reader check any of this with no references ?

This is a repeat of what JWs do, start with one idea, back it up with a scipture adn then continue drifiting further and further away all based on emotions and their opinions. Im sorry i had to say that but i have seen this too many times.

mP

Leo:

Yeah, such a massive conspiracy to simulate not just a body of literature but a body of literature that looks like it was written by many people over many years from a wide range of intellectual and social positions.....kind of like how fundies think God simulated those fossils to look just like they were millions of years old to fool those silly evolutionists. In both cases, huuuuge special pleading there. Maybe all of classical Greek literature was faked in a single monastery in the Middle Ages too. Maybe all of American literature was written by Stephen King and his buddies, and just made it look like a HUGE gamut of texts that came from many, many people from all walks of life. If you entertain such an outlandish notion, your evidence for it better be good. Otherwise, why even think such a thing?

mP

As i previously stated, here we have 2 moderately large paragraphs that are completely off topic.

I have no idea how mentioning Stephen King contributes to your argument in anyway. I could also make a few comments about Thomas the Tank Engine, and what do we gain out of all this.

Your comments about Greek literature are again sad, and pathetic.

As i have previously stated just a few minutes ago, Josiah sponsorted the fabrication of Deut. About his time major edits were made of the Torah and Moses stories. Am i really being incorrect in stating that Josiah achieved the same thing with Moses as what i state Titus achieved with his mythological character Jesus ?

Please stop the hyperbole and stupid comparisions.

Leo:
We have a certain poster here who disagrees with Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronology and he believes there was a massive conspiracy in antiquity to fake all the chronological records to insert a century or so, even things like business documents. All the evidence that proves his chronology wrong is just dismissed a priori as faked, and the chronology is instead based on a set of anomalies and coincidences. It's the same story. It isn't about assessing the preponderance of the evidence. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence is just dismissed cavalierly. There had better be really good evidence that ALL that evidence has been faked, but it just isn't there.

MP: This is irrelevant, im not discussing Neo B or P chronology. Their opinions are their own, i have never referenced them at all. I consider bringing this up a complete utter waste of time.

Go count your paragraphs words or any measure, and its easy to see that you completely avoid the gospels for vast streteches of text. We have several paragraphs of reidiculous nonsense here in this latest response.

mP

Entirely

Holy shit, MP , Leolaia just smacked you down harder than the hammer of Thor on Loki's nutsack.

mP:

Not quite, your comments are abit premature. Have you actually read my previous posts ? Probably not.

mP

Leo:

Well, too bad then. My purpose was to explain why I found the thesis pitiful.

mP:

Well thats fine, but thats hardly proper. It gets boring to here ramblings about smurfs , neo babylonian chronology, stephen king. Theres no need to use brain washing techniques by repeating absurdities.

mP

Leo:

No, I do think he thinks Paul was a Flavian forgery too....he had a chapter on the authorship of the NT iirc. Anyway, you logically can't have Paul being a Christian in the 50s-60s, if the Flavians didn't invent Jesus until the 70s, so....logically the whole thing was faked by the same party.

MP:

Paul is hardly historical either.

I previously posted the parallels in Pauls journey to Rome with Josephus journey at the same time. In this case we find 12+ eerie similarities. Then we have the claims of Paul to have been a prosecutor of xians and yet there is no non biblical proof of this. Paul visits Jerusalem and chats with James etc, and yet never mentions anything remotely about Jesus or the momentus events that occurred just years before there.

Paul is hardly an inspired proof of Jesus, as he knows almost nothing about him. If we summaries what P says about JC, the only thing one learns is Jesus was our saviour for our sins, and thats about it. He never mentions the 12, and only briefly mentions conversing with James and Peter. Paul could very well be talking about another christ, it doesnt have to be our Messiah.

Dating is an exact science as well, i have yet to see any reason that the Pauline texts couldnt be a bit older. Its quite feasible that these same texts were edit at alater stage on multiple occassions. Given half of the Pauline writings are accepted frauds, that are significantly older, its not hard to see this is possible. As the church evolved, they back dated ideas about the ideas and structure of the new church.

mP

MP: If J of A is Josephus he doesnt have to bury Titus. Titus doesnt have to die because Jesus died. That wouldnt make sense.

L:

That's my point! It doesn't make sense. Josephus has no analogous role to Joseph of Arimathea.

mP:
There are references in Mat to Moses and Elijah were Jesus is besting them in many of miracles. Elijah fed a crowed, Jesus has to feed bigger crowd. Why did you fail to criticize these literally constructs, but rather accept that they are perfectly valid ?

I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed

Share this