UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Rogan going full retard on Noah's Ark


3/26/13 5:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10330
hi zealot66 -- if he called me the antichrist, I'd take that a sign I was on the right track. Or at least not completely wrong. Just sayin'.

Thanks for posting here, by the way -- I appreciate your sharing some of that education. It's important! (Not everyone is whatever version of sola scriptura here..)
3/26/13 5:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Poker face
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/12
Posts: 27
Ali your right did just jump into a conversation without really reading all the posts I just like to argue and i was bored so let me watch some YouTube videos on this Hovdine fellow so I can make an informed argument on that
Zealot I sorry if I came across as denying your faith and assuming your stance by reading RidgeHands and your earlier posts
Bible prophecy has always interested me and is what help me build my faith and when I'm in the mood to argue I may let my mouth run faster than my brain.. But it's all good !!! Phone Post
3/26/13 5:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/26/13 5:41 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10333
It's fine Poker face -- absolutely talk about prophecy, argue for it, argue about it... all that's cool. I just wanted clarity as to what was happening.
Somewhere several pages back, I summed up Hovind's arguments for the Flood story within a "Young Earth Creationist" framework. I think the bullet points speak for themselves....
I don't know, but if I were to guess, you're not a young-earther, yourself. (I think you'd know Hovind's line, anyway, if you were. I am quite willing to be wrong, of course).
3/26/13 5:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12809

Oh, Im not mad at you guys, I've just been on the HG since it started and every so often a newbie derelict like ridgehand comes on here thinking he is such a provocative witness for Christ when he is actually a blowhard who is spouting out things that he knows nothing about except what his backwoods preacher told him. 

Notice, he wont answer my questions because he knows he will look foolish by someone who knows what the score is on the old tired doctrines that are somehow passed down genereation to generation. They prey on the uneducated and the people 'find' something that elevates them and their EGO because they now have secret knowledge that the rest of us dont. Picked the wrong person to cockwalk infront of Ridge hand.

I'd be happy on another thread to talk about 70 AD. FYI, I don't believe Revelations is a book about the future. I think its widely misunderstood.

3/26/13 5:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10334
Wait... so neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory isn't Satanism????

;-)
3/26/13 5:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12810

NO , its Soup.

3/26/13 5:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/26/13 6:32 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10335
... stone soup, evidently.
3/26/13 6:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Poker face
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/12
Posts: 28
Please explain your views on revelations if not in the future what are your thoughts on Ch 11 and the two witnesses Phone Post
3/26/13 7:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 473
Poker face - Please explain your views on revelations if not in the future what are your thoughts on Ch 11 and the two witnesses Phone Post
First of all, it's not "Revelations." The name of the book is "The Revelation of John," or just "Revelation," if you want to be brief. If you can't even convey the NAME of the book accurately, no one is likely to accept your interpretation of that book.

Secondly, the book is a commentary on several things contemporary to Christians at the end of the first century. Much of the allegory is intended as an indictment of the Roman government.

I'll do a bit of research into Rev 11, specifically, for you. I'll let you know my findings. Phone Post
3/26/13 9:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/26/13 9:55 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10341
Kung Fu Joe -
This is not quite correct. There is no extant evidence of the divinity of Jesus outside of the Bible, but there is evidence that a religious leader named Jesus existed and was executed.
Disregarding the proof/evidence distinction...
Can you let us know what you're talking about here?
3/26/13 10:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 474
Ali -
Kung Fu Joe -
This is not quite correct. There is no extant evidence of the divinity of Jesus outside of the Bible, but there is evidence that a religious leader named Jesus existed and was executed.
Disregarding the proof/evidence distinction...
Can you let us know what you're talking about here?
The usuals. Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, and the New Testament texts. Phone Post
3/26/13 10:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10344
"Outside the Bible" I think was the issue, so New Testament texts get debated separately as evidence.

I assume you have a pretty good idea about the usual debates as to the validity of the others. It's really bad evidence, if evidence at all, of Jesus. It serves as evidence of Christians, no doubt.
3/26/13 10:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Poker face
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/12
Posts: 30
Am I mistaken but don't Muslims hold Jesus as a religious prophet also Phone Post
3/26/13 11:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/26/13 11:05 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10349
Poker face - Am I mistaken but don't Muslims hold Jesus as a religious prophet also
Yes, they do. They also believe in the "return". However, they don't believe he was crucified, but rather he was secreted away and The Romans killed the wrong guy. They don't believe in the resurrection. They think the trinity is blasphemous, really a form of polytheism.
3/27/13 6:27 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 476
Ali - "Outside the Bible" I think was the issue, so New Testament texts get debated separately as evidence.

I assume you have a pretty good idea about the usual debates as to the validity of the others. It's really bad evidence, if evidence at all, of Jesus. It serves as evidence of Christians, no doubt.
Absolutely know that there are debates about the others. I was only listing them as evidence, not as proof.

I neglected the oft mentioned Pliny the Elder specifically because he only talks about the Christians, while the others explicitly mention a "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Chrestus." Phone Post
3/27/13 9:37 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/27/13 10:05 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10363
Kung Fu Joe - 
Ali - "Outside the Bible" I think was the issue, so New Testament texts get debated separately as evidence.

I assume you have a pretty good idea about the usual debates as to the validity of the others. It's really bad evidence, if evidence at all, of Jesus. It serves as evidence of Christians, no doubt.


Absolutely know that there are debates about the others. I was only listing them as evidence, not as proof.

I neglected the oft mentioned Pliny the Elder specifically because he only talks about the Christians, while the others explicitly mention a "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Chrestus." Phone Post



I know you said evidence... I apologize for being unclear. I brought it up because you were apparently correcting a poster who said "no proof". I didn't quote the post you were responding to, so sorry about that. You slid over to evidence without acknowledgement that he said "no proof". So I just pointed out that we were bracketing the distinction, evidently.
Presumably you meant Pliny the Younger. Tacitus also only mentioned Christians, not Jesus or Christ or Chrestus.
Each mentioned instance is very weak evidence across the board. Enough that I'd grant anyone the point if they said "no evidence".

Suetonius' mention of "Chrestus" is clearly not a reference to the same person as "Jesus Christ".
The Josephus mention is about universally accepted to be a later interpolation (from the fourth century, I think, is the most accepted dating). He also says things like the temple square lit up at midnight, bright as day, and a cow gave birth to a lamb, the temple doors unbolted themselves as a sign that God had abandoned the Jews...

I think Christians pretty much stick to the Biblical evidence for the historical Jesus because the extra-Biblical mentions are not worthy of being called evidence at all.
3/27/13 10:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 478
Ali -
Kung Fu Joe - 
Ali - "Outside the Bible" I think was the issue, so New Testament texts get debated separately as evidence.

I assume you have a pretty good idea about the usual debates as to the validity of the others. It's really bad evidence, if evidence at all, of Jesus. It serves as evidence of Christians, no doubt.


Absolutely know that there are debates about the others. I was only listing them as evidence, not as proof.

I neglected the oft mentioned Pliny the Elder specifically because he only talks about the Christians, while the others explicitly mention a "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Chrestus." Phone Post



I know you said evidence... I brought it up because you were apparently correcting a poster who said "no proof". I didn't quote the post you were responding to, sorry. You slid over to evidence without acknowledgement. So I just pointed out that we were bracketing the distinction, evidently.
Presumably you meant Pliny the Younger. Tacitus also only mentioned Christians, not Jesus or Christ or Chrestus.
Each mentioned instance is very weak evidence across the board. Enough that I'd grant anyone the point if they said "no evidence".

Suetonius' mention of "Chrestus" is clearly not a reference to the same person as "Jesus Christ".
The Josephus mention is about universally accepted to be a later interpolation (from the fourth century, I think, is the most accepted dating). He also says things like the temple square lit up at midnight, bright as day, and a cow gave birth to a lamb, the temple doors unbolted themselves as a sign that God had abandoned the Jews...

I think Christians pretty much stick to the Biblical evidence for the historical Jesus because the extra-Biblical mentions are not worthy of being called evidence at all.
I did, indeed, mean Pliny the Younger; brain fart, there.

Tacitus absolutely mentions "Christus," in his Annals, specifically stating that he was the origin of the movement, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

Suetonius says that "Chresto" was an instigator of the Jews. It is unclear whether "Chresto" is truly a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, but it's hardly a leap to see that "Chresto" could easily be a Latinization of the Greek word "Christos."

As for Josephus, there are two references to Jesus. The one you mentioned (the Testimonium Flavianum) is, indeed, problematic. Some scholars discount the entire passage, while others believe it was merely embellished by later Christian copyists. The other reference comes in the discussion of James, who is called the brother of Jesus, "who was called Christ."

While absolutely problematic, one cannot simply dismiss these pieces of evidence. They certainly account for more than "no evidence." Phone Post
3/27/13 10:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/27/13 11:31 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10369
I'm not "simply" dismissing them. It seems to me you were "simply" asserting them in the first place. The context is that Bjjudo said "there's 0 proof" outside the Bible, and you said "This isn't correct, there is evidence...." So yeah, there's evidence. It is not particularly strong evidence. Some of it can be "simply dismissed" and some is just not very strong.

Starting with the best -- the Josephus mention of James is indeed holding up better than the "Christus" direct mention, though also in dispute. At least it is first century, so the only one apologists might hang their hats on. There's a good case that the James mentioned is the brother of the high priest, Jesus ben Damneus.

The Tacitus mention falls down. Tacitus mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person a person named "Christus", based on claims made by Christians. So yeah, he mentions "Christus" by name... but only in context of mentioning that Christians (who clearly existed) are named for this name of a person they say existed. It's not mentioning the historical Jesus. If you read that Brahmans are named for Brahma, this is not a mention of the historical Brahma.

Yes, I know Suetonius mentions "Chrestus". In a context that makes it look like someone else, or he was relying on some other unreliable history -- in the same passage where he's talking about Claudius expelling all the Jews from Rome in 49.
3/27/13 11:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 479
Ali - I'm not "simply" dismissing them. It seems to me you were "simply" asserting them in the first place. The context is that Bjjudo said "there's 0 proof" outside the Bible, and you said "This isn't correct, there is evidence...." So yeah, there's evidence. It is not particularly strong evidence. Some of it can be "simply dismissed" and some is just not very strong.

Starting with the best -- the Josephus mention of James is indeed holding up better than the "Christus" direct mention, though also in dispute. At least it is first century, so the only one apologists might hang their hats on. There's a good case that the James mentioned is the brother of the high priest, Jesus ben Damneus.

The Tacitus mention falls down. Tacitus mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person a person named "Christus", based on claims made by Christians. So yeah, he mentions "Christus" by name... but only in context of mentioning that Christians (who clearly existed) are named for this name of a person they say existed. It's not mentioning the historical Jesus. If you read that Brahmans are named for Brahma, this is not a mention of the historical Brahma.

Yes, I know Suetonius mentions "Chrestus". In a context that makes it look like someone else, or he was relying on some other unreliable history -- in the same passage where he's talking about Claudius expelling all the Jews from Rome in 49.
I didn't mean to say that you were dismissing them without reason; I just meant to clarify that these passages DO bear some weight on the argument. I apologize for my poor phrasing.

I've heard arguments that the "called Christ" is an interpolation, and that the passage about James' brother refers to another Jesus (Josephus does mention around 20 different people by that name), but so far as I know, that is all baseless speculation. I'm not aware of any manuscript evidence that Josephus wrote anything but "called Christ."

Tacitus is absolutely referring to a historical figure. He says that Christus was executed by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That is a historical assertion. And while I tend to agree that his most likely source for this information was Christians, themselves, that does not change the fact that Tacitus apparently believed what he wrote.

As for Suetonius, all he says is that Jews were instigated by Chresto to make disturbances. This could absolutely be referring to an entirely different person, possibly even someone entirely unrelated to Christianity. However, it is equally possible that early Jewish Christians were involved in the disturbances, and Suetonius was referring to them. The passage is unclear. Phone Post
3/27/13 12:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/27/13 1:27 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10377
Tacitus is referring to Christians, who say they follow this person...

I know it's a "historical figure". The Brahma analogy was not to say that Jesus was not considered historical (like Brahma). So I'm sorry if that was unclear. It was meant to say that he knows of the existence of Christians, who get their name from this personage in their own story. It's not a mention of Jesus separately. Tacitus' "belief" is just reporting what Christians said of themselves.

Apologists like to dismiss Richard Carrier, I know, but for the Josephus Antiquities mention.... there's more than just surmise.

Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200
Richard Carrier
Journal of Early Christian Studies
Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 2012
pp. 489-514 | 10.1353/earl.2012.0029

Abstract:

Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.



Suetonius is unclear, but he seems to think the Jesus he mentions was present for the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 49 C.E. That certainly doesn't match the Jesus of the gospels, whether related to disturbances or not. I agree he's not 100% clear. But this is the weakest piece of evidence of all.

So yes, I agree there's "extra-biblical evidence" in all these sources. It's very weak evidence. It might be, combined with Biblical evidence, compelling enough ... (or not). But Bjjudo was justified in saying "0 proof".
3/27/13 12:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 480
Ali, I can agree to all that.

I'll have to check out that paper on Josephus. I haven't read it yet, but I rather like Carrier. He's an intelligent and well-argued author.

Thanks! Always enjoy having an enlightening conversation! Phone Post
3/27/13 12:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/27/13 12:56 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10380
I've only read the abstract for the Carrier paper, and heard Carrier refer to it in debates. David Fitzgerald also relies on the Carrier's work for his book, 'Nailed', which is another mythicist book, more "pop" than Carrier.

I don't have access to a university library any more... if I did, I'd scan the Journal of Early Christian Studies article for both of us.
3/27/13 1:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 481
Ali - I've only read the abstract for the Carrier paper, and heard Carrier refer to it in debates. David Fitzgerald also relies on the Carrier's work for his book, 'Nailed', which is another mythicist book, more "pop" than Carrier.

I don't have access to a university library any more... if I did, I'd scan the Journal of Early Christian Studies article for both of us.
I don't have access to an academic library, either, but I'll see if I can't get it from a friend who does. Definitely looks like an interesting read! Phone Post
3/27/13 1:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
703 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/27/13 1:30 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10381
Let me know if you can send me a .pdf, when you check with a friend. No obligation of course, no worries if not, but... if it's easy, I'd be grateful!
3/27/13 4:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12811
Kung Fu Joe - 
Poker face - Please explain your views on revelations if not in the future what are your thoughts on Ch 11 and the two witnesses Phone Post
First of all, it's not "Revelations." The name of the book is "The Revelation of John," or just "Revelation," if you want to be brief. If you can't even convey the NAME of the book accurately, no one is likely to accept your interpretation of that book.

Secondly, the book is a commentary on several things contemporary to Christians at the end of the first century. Much of the allegory is intended as an indictment of the Roman government.

I'll do a bit of research into Rev 11, specifically, for you. I'll let you know my findings. Phone Post

You really think alot of your scholarly abilities. Thanks for that correction. I'm new at this game. Yeah, that Ch 11 is the lynchpin......


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.