Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 191 to 199 of 199

Thread: Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

  1. Top | #191
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,705
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by ElysianFields View Post
    It's one thing if you're telling your own story, it's another when you're trying to say that Jesus was the awesomest Messiah and so much better than all the others, and you have these things he did that are so well-known that they cannot be denied, are easy to criticize and thereby tend to call his Messiahship into question.
    Yea, sounds like the same question again: He obviously was NOT the "Messiah" because he didn't meet someone's criteria, etc., so how could anyone buy this claim that he was this "Messiah" which he obviously was not, based on those criteria?

    I.e., it's so "easy to criticize" the Messiah idea in his case, so how can we explain that anyone took him to fit this role?

    The best answer is that he did the miracle acts, which threw off everyone's criteria and theories about the "Messiah" role and caused an upheaval, such that some changed their previous belief, or modified their expectations about this and placed him into this "Messiah" role, even if it was artificial. Yet they had to, because they could not ignore the unusual power he demonstrated.

  2. Top | #192
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,572
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ElysianFields View Post
    It's one thing if you're telling your own story, it's another when you're trying to say that Jesus was the awesomest Messiah and so much better than all the others, and you have these things he did that are so well-known that they cannot be denied, are easy to criticize and thereby tend to call his Messiahship into question.
    Yea, sounds like the same question again: He obviously was NOT the "Messiah" because he didn't meet someone's criteria
    It's not just "someone's criteria," it's the Jewish prophets' criteria.

    The best answer is that he did the miracle acts
    That's nowhere near an answer, let alone a "best" answer.

    which threw off everyone's criteria and theories about the "Messiah" role
    Then he could not have been a "messiah," but more importantly, you're simply throwing away every part of the NT that specifically refers back to the prophecies and how Jesus supposedly fulfilled them as proof that he was the one prophesied. That includes Jesus' own (alleged) words, btw.

    So, which is it? He was prophesied and therefore a messiah or he wasn't and therefore something else, which instantly renders all previous prophecy completely irrelevant at best?

    Prophecy is supposed to be a revelation from God, remember? Not some cheap parlor trick. So you'd be arguing that God revealed a bit of this and a bit of that as signs for the "chosen people" that their salvation was at hand, but then when it came to the actual reveal, nothing of God's previous revelation was materially applicable to Jesus. If God tells me, the Prophet Koyaanisqatsi, that we shall all know the messiah has come because of (1) he will ride a donkey, (2) he will feed people and heal the sick and (3) he will kill all of our enemies with a flood and desolations in preparation for God's appearance on an Earthly throne and all some guy does is ride a donkey and give out some fish and bandaids, then no, he's not the person God told me about.

    You don't get to have it both ways in spite of the fact that ALL you keep doing is contradicting yourself in regard to key components--just like the synoptics--in a desperate attempt to have it both ways.

    Iow, yet more "evidence" that you simply want to believe whatever the hell you personally want to believe, so just do that and stop with all of this other drivel. It only fools fellow cult members.

  3. Top | #193
    Veteran Member funinspace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,569
    Archived
    10,245
    Total Posts
    13,814
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    It's not just "someone's criteria," it's the Jewish prophets' criteria.

    The best answer is that he did the miracle acts
    That's nowhere near an answer, let alone a "best" answer.

    which threw off everyone's criteria and theories about the "Messiah" role
    Then he could not have been a "messiah," but more importantly, you're simply throwing away every part of the NT that specifically refers back to the prophecies and how Jesus supposedly fulfilled them as proof that he was the one prophesied. That includes Jesus' own (alleged) words, btw.

    So, which is it? He was prophesied and therefore a messiah or he wasn't and therefore something else, which instantly renders all previous prophecy completely irrelevant at best?
    Lumpy is really a rather eccentric version of a Christian...He has in the past pretty much thrown out much/most of the OT, along with other parts of the NT. Back in 2018, he even suggested that his Miracle Max healer could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl, if the timing was right or sum such noise... A minor reminder of Lumpy and his mysterious/hidden MHORC (his MHORC is much like the paisley sofa in the Hitchhikers Guide, where one can't see it if one tries to look straight at it):

    Quote Originally Posted by funinspace View Post
    Yeah, Lumpy also requires his idea of a viable god to be some sort of miracle max healer. And it has to be possible that the people being healed and the witnesses were not followers of said cult at the time, notwithstanding that Joseph Smith still fits this narrative no matter how much Lumpy disassembled. Of course, from the NT no one can really know about the people who purportedly witnessed these events as any outside details are lost in the dust bin of time; but Lumpy insists it is so. But Lumpy never explained why a god needs to be a miracle max. It's all in his Mythical Hero Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC)...


    Other opinions on sources:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

    Says the religion famous for burning books.
    Though Lumpy really isn't so much a Christian, as he is sort of a deist who is enthralled by Jesus as the mono miracle max god. Lumpy even said that he could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl...

  4. Top | #194
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,843
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by funinspace View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    It's not just "someone's criteria," it's the Jewish prophets' criteria.



    That's nowhere near an answer, let alone a "best" answer.



    Then he could not have been a "messiah," but more importantly, you're simply throwing away every part of the NT that specifically refers back to the prophecies and how Jesus supposedly fulfilled them as proof that he was the one prophesied. That includes Jesus' own (alleged) words, btw.

    So, which is it? He was prophesied and therefore a messiah or he wasn't and therefore something else, which instantly renders all previous prophecy completely irrelevant at best?
    Lumpy is really a rather eccentric version of a Christian...He has in the past pretty much thrown out much/most of the OT, along with other parts of the NT. Back in 2018, he even suggested that his Miracle Max healer could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl, if the timing was right or sum such noise... A minor reminder of Lumpy and his mysterious/hidden MHORC (his MHORC is much like the paisley sofa in the Hitchhikers Guide, where one can't see it if one tries to look straight at it):

    Quote Originally Posted by funinspace View Post
    Yeah, Lumpy also requires his idea of a viable god to be some sort of miracle max healer. And it has to be possible that the people being healed and the witnesses were not followers of said cult at the time, notwithstanding that Joseph Smith still fits this narrative no matter how much Lumpy disassembled. Of course, from the NT no one can really know about the people who purportedly witnessed these events as any outside details are lost in the dust bin of time; but Lumpy insists it is so. But Lumpy never explained why a god needs to be a miracle max. It's all in his Mythical Hero Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC)...


    Other opinions on sources:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

    Says the religion famous for burning books.
    Though Lumpy really isn't so much a Christian, as he is sort of a deist who is enthralled by Jesus as the mono miracle max god. Lumpy even said that he could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl...
    Oh boy, atheists pulling reverse No-True-Scotsman arguments on Christians who shy from their personal imagination of what orthodoxy looks like, haven't seen that one in a while.

  5. Top | #195
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,577
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,077
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Oh boy, atheists pulling reverse No-True-Scotsman arguments on Christians who shy from their personal imagination of what orthodoxy looks like, haven't seen that one in a while.
    I do not believe your assessment is accurate.
    No one gives a rat's if Lumpy does or does not salt his wafer.
    But he has made it clear that he only needs a few, very specific partsvof the gospel to be true in order for him to achieve eternal life. Lumpy accepts the healing miracles, believing them to be evidence that the healer has a line to the divine. If he's got connections there, then his promise of salvation is true, too. And all Lumpy must do is accept the healing as historical, to gain Heaven.
    Lumpy has no logical basis for his beliefs, thus his attempts to logically support them fall flat. Time after time after reiteration after repeat.

    His arguments thus boil down to 'These miracles are true cuz they just gotta be! They gotta!'

    We're nott questioning his authenticity with respect to our estimate of orthodoxy, we're highlighting his efforts to prop up ONLY those parts of the gospel needed for his own, personal ascending, and his willingness to go to fucking ridiculous lengths in that propping.

  6. Top | #196
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,866
    Rep Power
    15
    Look at the religious and political turmoil in the region today. Same turmoil 2000 years ago, different actors. Factions, lrsfers, followers.

    It is known there were a number of people claiming to be the messiah, some bandits. There may have been a single person on which the tales were spun, or it may be a composite of a movement.

    A wandering rabbi walking around preaching doom and gloom for Israel was probably not unusual. Insurrection was in the air. It was what Jewish prophets always did.

    If there was an HJ the Romans had no recode. If he did exist he did not rise to the level of a threat. Others are known. The leader of the Jewish rebellion and Masada.

  7. Top | #197
    Veteran Member funinspace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,569
    Archived
    10,245
    Total Posts
    13,814
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Oh boy, atheists pulling reverse No-True-Scotsman arguments on Christians who shy from their personal imagination of what orthodoxy looks like, haven't seen that one in a while.
    I do not believe your assessment is accurate.
    No one gives a rat's if Lumpy does or does not salt his wafer.
    But he has made it clear that he only needs a few, very specific partsvof the gospel to be true in order for him to achieve eternal life. Lumpy accepts the healing miracles, believing them to be evidence that the healer has a line to the divine. If he's got connections there, then his promise of salvation is true, too. And all Lumpy must do is accept the healing as historical, to gain Heaven.
    Lumpy has no logical basis for his beliefs, thus his attempts to logically support them fall flat. Time after time after reiteration after repeat.

    His arguments thus boil down to 'These miracles are true cuz they just gotta be! They gotta!'

    We're nott questioning his authenticity with respect to our estimate of orthodoxy, we're highlighting his efforts to prop up ONLY those parts of the gospel needed for his own, personal ascending, and his willingness to go to fucking ridiculous lengths in that propping.
    ^This! As well as Lumpy makes twisted arguments to suggest his Miracle Max historicity is not like any others, such as the birth of LDS via Smith. He also makes vacuous claims about his Miracle Max Jesus via the Gospels to argue the Jesus miracle healing's are a critical and a evidenced fixture of history, and then ignores what the Gospels have in them at dozens of other points.

  8. Top | #198
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,866
    Rep Power
    15
    p1 Jerusalem is in the gospels
    p2 we know Jerusalem existed
    p3 gospels say Jesus was in Jerusalem
    c1 Jesus must have existed

  9. Top | #199
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,843
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    p1 Jerusalem is in the gospels
    p2 we know Jerusalem existed
    p3 gospels say Jesus was in Jerusalem
    c1 Jesus must have existed
    Ah, but you should ask some atheist sorts about Nazareth sometime.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •