Christ myth theory

[eye exaggerate]

OMFG

S'up motherbucker

 

[ThickStemz]

Show me the infrared photograph then. All cameras produce photographs.

I'm no expert, and I don't mean to be insulting or condescending to you, but you've got some catching up to do, I think, before we can even have this discussion.

Start here: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/235-Distant-Galaxies-and-Origins-of-the-Universe

 

[UncleBuck]

S'up motherbucker

longing for pinworm. you're pretty good though. welcome back!

 

[eye exaggerate]

longing for pinworm. you're pretty good though. welcome back!

Thanks lol

 

[Red1966]

I'm no expert, and I don't mean to be insulting or condescending to you, but you've got some catching up to do, I think, before we can even have this discussion.

Start here: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/235-Distant-Galaxies-and-Origins-of-the-Universe

So, still no photograph? Your link says 13 billion years, not 450. Also, a fully formed galaxy, meaning it is several billion years old. You're right tho. This conversation is pointless. I shown you multiple examples of errors you have made, and you just claim I have some catching up to do. You can't admit to ever being wrong, all those other billions of people are mistaken.

 

[ThickStemz]

What we wind up with is oral transmissions of his life.(what could be considered as the Q gospel,though certain scholars disagree.But that's a discussion for another time and place).
It's not until the gospel writers and Paul that we see some form of textual notoriety for the life of Jesus.
The gospel writers would have,I think,attained their information from diasporic Jews returning home from Passover.Relaying second-hand tales of a traveling preacher/healer.Hence the variations in the gospels.
Paul brought the Roman world to attention with the inclusion of gentiles(uncircumcised).
Without these occurrences,Christianity may have not have risen to what would come.

Doesn't that tell you all we need to know? We know how woefully unreliable oral transmission of data is. We now know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Yet we're somehow supposed to believe that the story of Jesus was transmitted Orally from 30ad until after 100ad orally with little change?

Its more than enough time for a complete fabrication. Look into the cargo cults. Its easy enough to find. Note how they changed in the timespan of a human life. What changes they took, there is logic behind them.

Acts seems to suggest early Christians were having revelations commonly, thus adding to the story. One can see how this might get out of hand. Early cargo cult people were doing the same. Everyone could go into a trance and say they had a revelation. This "situation" was stabilized when the cargo cult figures started saying there was a messianic figure who came and would return. Sound familiar?

This stopped the rampant addition to the story of revelation of members to the story.

 

[ThickStemz]

So, still no photograph? Your link says 13 billion years, not 450. Also, a fully formed galaxy, meaning it is several billion years old. You're right tho. This conversation is pointless. I shown you multiple examples of errors you have made, and you just claim I have some catching up to do. You can't admit to ever being wrong, all those other billions of people are mistaken.

I don't even know what you're talking about. 450 what?

An infrared photograph is pointless to me and you. We're not trained to read it. It doesn't look like anything we can visually comprehend. It is important because of the reds and the blues and what they mean. A photograph of infrared is easy enough to go find, idk why you want me to go post one for you.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't even know what you're talking about. 450 what?

An infrared photograph is pointless to me and you. We're not trained to read it. It doesn't look like anything we can visually comprehend. It is important because of the reds and the blues and what they mean. A photograph of infrared is easy enough to go find, idk why you want me to go post one for you.

even red makes you look stupid, and he thinks that the bible is the evidence of the claim, rather than the claim itself.

this is hilarious and sad.

 

[Red1966]

I don't even know what you're talking about. 450 what?

An infrared photograph is pointless to me and you. We're not trained to read it. It doesn't look like anything we can visually comprehend. It is important because of the reds and the blues and what they mean. A photograph of infrared is easy enough to go find, idk why you want me to go post one for you.

450 billion. You don't need to "read" a photograph. Did you need special training to look at the photograph in the link you posted? That was an infrared photograph. If they are so easy to find, why are you unable to find one? I want you to post one because you're a little know-it-all who needs a little comeuppance when you find it doesn't exist.

 

[ThickStemz]

450 billion. You don't need to "read" a photograph. Did you need special training to look at the photograph in the link you posted? That was an infrared photograph. If they are so easy to find, why are you unable to find one? I want you to post one because you're a little know-it-all who needs a little comeuppance when you find it doesn't exist.

No one, no one ever anywhere that I know of, has ever held the universe to be 450 billion years old. I said "read the photograph" because a normal light photograph you just look at and can tell what it is. Infrared photograph isn't so clear. One has to know what it means to be able to understand it.

I would like to point out that in the same post, with just one sentence between them that you say "that was an infrared photograph" and then say "it [infrared photography] doesn't exist."

And you say I'm arrogant and cannot admit when I'm wrong?

Obviously we cannot see infrared light, we have converted the infrared spectrums to visual light represent them that way.

 

[ThickStemz]

By the way Red, I've continually said through this thread that I'm not an expert, where I think I know, where I'm not sure, where I don't think its possible to know.

I don't know how anyone reading this can honestly say I'm being an arrogant prick that is unable to admit to being wrong.

Ill tell you what is arrogant, claiming to know more about God. Claiming that the bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge. It is the antithesis of such things.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm being an arrogant prick that is unable to admit to being wrong.

lol.

 

[Red1966]

No one, no one ever anywhere that I know of, has ever held the universe to be 450 billion years old. I said "read the photograph" because a normal light photograph you just look at and can tell what it is. Infrared photograph isn't so clear. One has to know what it means to be able to understand it.

I would like to point out that in the same post, with just one sentence between them that you say "that was an infrared photograph" and then say "it [infrared photography] doesn't exist."

And you say I'm arrogant and cannot admit when I'm wrong?

Obviously we cannot see infrared light, we have converted the infrared spectrums to visual light represent them that way.

I've seen plenty of infrared photography and had no trouble knowing what it was. Stars, gunfire, people, all clearly and easily recognizable. I didn't say infrared photography doesn't exist. I said the photo of what you claimed existed, didn't exist. You're editing my words. That's dishonest. You are arrogant and can't admit you're wrong. Now you have stooped to lying because you can't admit you're wrong.

 

[Red1966]

By the way Red, I've continually said through this thread that I'm not an expert, where I think I know, where I'm not sure, where I don't think its possible to know.

I don't know how anyone reading this can honestly say I'm being an arrogant prick that is unable to admit to being wrong.

Ill tell you what is arrogant, claiming to know more about God. Claiming that the bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge. It is the antithesis of such things.

I didn't say you were a prick. I didn't claim to know more about God, hell the topic was Jesus, a man, not God. I did not say the Bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge, I said the authors were contemporaries of Jesus. Which YOU proved with your own citation. But I will say now, you are an arrogant little prick, and a liar, too.

 

[ThickStemz]

I've seen plenty of infrared photography and had no trouble knowing what it was. Stars, gunfire, people, all clearly and easily recognizable. I didn't say infrared photography doesn't exist. I said the photo of what you claimed existed, didn't exist. You're editing my words. That's dishonest. You are arrogant and can't admit you're wrong. Now you have stooped to lying because you can't admit you're wrong.

No I just misunderstood you, or you didn't express your thoughts well.

We can measure how far the galaxies are away. I can't explain it to you, I heard it explained and I understood it. Something to do with measuring the angle of observation to that galaxy 6 months apart while earth is on opposite sides of the sun.

Now, we can do that with every galaxy out there visible and we have ourselves a fairly accurate map of the universe.

We can see the way each of those galaxies is traveling, a rough idea of their speed and acceleration, and from there it's just physics. They're all flying away from a focul point apparently.

That is as clear as I can articulate it.

The picture itself isn't of the big bang. But for you to demand that is absurd. Particularly as a creationist. And a christian. Where is the video of the lifeless body of Jesus asending into heaven? Where is the picture of god creating the cosmos?

If you want to come in at this late hour as a christian and stand on the shoulders of secular science and say "ah ha, that's how god did it." Well no one can disprove that.

We can explain everything in the universe and the universe without a god. And putting a god into it adds nothing.

What is your point? I still don't get what you're trying to argue? Other than semantics.

 

[ThickStemz]

I didn't say you were a prick. I didn't claim to know more about God, hell the topic was Jesus, a man, not God. I did not say the Bible is somehow wisdom and knowledge, I said the authors were contemporaries of Jesus. Which YOU proved with your own citation. But I will say now, you are an arrogant little prick, and a liar, too.

Please explain to me how I've proven the anonymous writers of the gospels were contemporaries of jesus?

 

[ThickStemz]

Your citation counters your claims:
"Most of the *other* books of the New Testament identify their authors (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.). And most of the *later* Gospels have names attached to them (The Gospel of Peter; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Philip; the Gospel of Nicodemus; etc.). Those authors were not afraid of having their person get in the way of the message. So why were the Gospel writers?"
Read the first sentence.
On a side note, this is an example of your beliefs altering your perceptions

Red, I'm troubled by your view that you think I'm a liar and arrogant. I actually don't try to be. I apologize if I've given you cause for offense.

I think I can clear up some of that right here.

I'm passingly familiar with Ehrman, the blog of the PhD professor in new testiment I linked to...

I think you're confusing the gospels with the epistles.

The first 4 books are called the gospels. They are the story of the life of Jesus. And if you read the rest of the NT carefully, no other books actually speak of or about the life of jesus.

Most of the NT is comprised of letters by Paul, a man that Christian tradition claims never even met jesus. He was converted by a vision of him on the Damascus road, correct?

There are two books attributed to Peter. They do not mention jesus as a living breathing human being. They discuss his message. But they don't discuss his life.

That's the distinction I've been talking about.

People just assume that Peter would have met jesus since he is a central figure in the gospels. But read those books, I know you have, or likely are to have, but read them again with this thought fresh in mind. 'Is this coming from someone who was an apprentice to his master, or someone claiming to have their knowledge by some other means.'

It doesn't say. Peters books never say things like 'and all those years I walked with him he taught me this and that.'

They read much more like Paul's books that could have only come from revelation becuase jesus, by tradition, died before Paul converted.


Now, the importat bit that is cusing our argument here. Peter does not serve as a contemporary source for the life of Jesus. Here is why. Becuase he never mentions jesus as someone who was alive. It's just not in there. There is no 'proof of life' so to speak in either Peters 2 books or Paul's 13.

The only books that could claim to be a source for the actual life of jesus are the gospels. And they're anonymous and far too late to be contemporary.

 

[UncleBuck]

Red, I'm troubled by your view that you think I'm a liar and arrogant. I actually don't try to be. I apologize if I've given you cause for offense.

I think I can clear up some of that right here.

I'm passingly familiar with Ehrman, the blog of the PhD professor in new testiment I linked to...

I think you're confusing the gospels with the epistles.

The first 4 books are called the gospels. They are the story of the life of Jesus. And if you read the rest of the NT carefully, no other books actually speak of or about the life of jesus.

Most of the NT is comprised of letters by Paul, a man that Christian tradition claims never even met jesus. He was converted by a vision of him on the Damascus road, correct?

There are two books attributed to Peter. They do not mention jesus as a living breathing human being. They discuss his message. But they don't discuss his life.

That's the distinction I've been talking about.

People just assume that Peter would have met jesus since he is a central figure in the gospels. But read those books, I know you have, or likely are to have, but read them again with this thought fresh in mind. 'Is this coming from someone who was an apprentice to his master, or someone claiming to have their knowledge by some other means.'

It doesn't say. Peters books never say things like 'and all those years I walked with him he taught me this and that.'

They read much more like Paul's books that could have only come from revelation becuase jesus, by tradition, died before Paul converted.


Now, the importat bit that is cusing our argument here. Peter does not serve as a contemporary source for the life of Jesus. Here is why. Becuase he never mentions jesus as someone who was alive. It's just not in there. There is no 'proof of life' so to speak in either Peters 2 books or Paul's 13.

The only books that could claim to be a source for the actual life of jesus are the gospels. And they're anonymous and far too late to be contemporary.

your bible thumping side just came out again.

 

[dashcues]

Doesn't that tell you all we need to know? We know how woefully unreliable oral transmission of data is. We now know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Yet we're somehow supposed to believe that the story of Jesus was transmitted Orally from 30ad until after 100ad orally with little change?

We're not in disagreement about a "little change".We're in disagreement that Jesus came wholecloth out of mythology.The Christ myth theory denies even the most minimal of historicity.

 

[dashcues]

The gospels were not written by Matthew Mark Luke or John, they're anonymous. We're not sure where or by whom they were written. But it was 100 years or so after christ. Mark was the first. Then Matthew and Luke. And we have fragments dating back to about 270ad, and complete gospels dating back to about 350 ad.

P-52 is a fragment of John's gospel that dates to around 125 ad.Considering John is our latest canonical gospel,we can presume that the synoptics were recorded several years before 125 ad.

There may be a god. Idk. But there is loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up.

Will you be providing "loads of evidence" in this thread? Or are we to take your word on ...faith?

Nothing about jesus can be found earlier than 70/80 ad when Paul writes his letters and acts. Of the 13 letters of Paul, 7 are forgeries, meaning not written by Paul.

They are pseudepigraphal writings,not necessarily forgeries.There's a difference.