Sunday, November 22, 2009

Jesus myhter's view of history?

Photobucket



I've always known that Jesus mythers have no regard for real history. It just stands to reason becuase historical presumption means nothing to them, they clearly have no respect for historians or for the rigors of academic thinking. what's really missing from their take on history and from the general atheist view itself is scholarly caustion. But the mythers are worse because there's is essentially a conspiracy theory. one ofht "followers" of this blog (he should really be called a ''hounder") is Bill Walker. Now he lays down a statement about the nature of history that is very reminiscent of skin head views.

He says:

billwalker said...

Joe, Please take your nose out of that book of fairy tales & read some goddam HISTORY books. Study the life of Constantine ,esp. his convention at Nicaea in 326CE. HE created your Hesus Krishna, by combining the old druid Hesus with Krishna (Christ in Sanskrit). It was HE who conferred divinity on the two gods he combi8ned into one. His idea was to do away with all that stupid internecine warfare (with which we are STILL plagued 18 centuries later. Your calling me stupid doesn't change history. It only points up your childish petulance when someone disagrees with you. For Krishna sake, GROW UP. Get a life. It's the ONLY one you get.

Of his assertion that he know anything about history is absurd becuase he hasn't the slightest regard for history written by historians since he despises historians and thinks he knows history so much better. Speaking of that, I was trained as real academic historian an dalmost got my Ph.D. in it, he was not so trained. His assertion that he knows hisotry books better than me is a laugh riot.

His assertion that Jesus was made by the council of Nicea is the kind of hilarious conspiracy theory I'm talking about when I say his view are like those of skin heads. The idea that Jesus was made up by a council in the 320's when a dozen historians in first and second century mentino him is idiotic and lame brained. Even if you subscribe ot the typical moronic sophomoric propaganda that most mythers spout about the Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus connection one thing is obvious even if you accept that none of those mentions amount to an argument for Jesus historicity, they all prove the idea of Jesus existed well before the council of Nicene. Not even likes of Doherty is stupid enough to try and get away with a claim that wild.

Then of course what would a conspiracy theorist's repertoire be without bogus language claims? They never study the languages make their wild claims about. Consider Doherty trying to claim that Paul's use of sarx doesn't imply Jesus had a flesh and blood life, as though he knows Greek when in fact he does not, I do and others who know it much better than I agree that Doherty's use of it is stupid. But then here is Bill trying to claim that Krisha is Sanskrit for Christ! he actually says it! Krishna (Christ in Sanskrit) total absolute unbridled ignorance!

Scholars are very certain
Christ is from the Greek Christos meaning "hero" used by Jesus to refer to Messiah. Has absolute nothing to do with Sanskrit. I do know of an unqualified hack from the nineteenth century who wrote Jesus went to India and made lying claims to that effect, but he did not know Sanskrit either. There are just some people who have a driving need to be right and deeply require the image of self that they are more knowledgeable and have secret deep insight others don't have, but for one reason or another they are not willing to really go to school and get it for real. This is probably the origin of most of these Jesus myther type conspiracy theories that real historians laugh at.

I also don't' believe a guy named Hesus existed among the druids but I dont' take the trouble to look that up.
Grow up he says! get a conspiracy theory like I have!

Friday, November 20, 2009

Admission of the Obvous.

Here's an atheist hate monger troll who finally admits that he's nothing more than venting rage and hate because he feels put down by religious people.

from CARM copied on Nov 19,2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
it's a real hate fest. let's do some more folks songs. not for "I hate Christians so bad it feels so good to hate them>"
paradoxical
You got it. If gay people weren't so meek and kind and in a minority, they would kick the you know what out of bigoted bible banging christians. Other than that, christians poison the minds of young impressinable humans and make derelicts out of older ones who claim they converse with imaginary beings inside their heads. Otherwise, christians are just fine.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

an example of the thug hate group impulse

here are three posts responding to the same single post of mine.


here is my post


Quote:atheist
There simply was NO sacrifice being that Jesus was god and knew he was, and knew heaven awaited. If anything, it was suicide by Romans. The entire premise of Christianity is a ruse as no sacrafice occurred. If Jesus KNEW he was a mere MAN, you could make that claim. But, all of you are assured he was the son of god, and god hium,self, so the whole sacrifice thing is an invalid argument.
Meta:what a lot of hateful garbage. you are so ignorant. you wouldn't' know a valid argument if it bit you.
you didn't back that up with any info you just said it as an ignorant little opinion with no back up at all.

you seem to think that if you just voice you known nothing opinion really loud and insisit that you are right then you are.


his three posts to this same deal:

atheist:
Prove me wrong then, MegaThug

he's not satisfied with that because it's not come back enough so he does this:

Mega, you need some intervention. One weekend and a few follow ups to get your mind right is normal. For you, triple that dosage. Then again, you appear to be beyond hope. They may not want the challenge
No substance but personally biting.

not enoguh so then this:


MegaThug, for your pea brain, I cut and pasted a post of mine on another thread. This may be difficult for your pea brain to comprehend. But, read it slow.

"Are you really SERIOUS with using bible quotes to contend Jesus suffered more than a normal human would have on that same cross? Your statements are all made up flowery sayings by believers. "Christ bore our punishment..." This is nonsense. He was simply hung on a cross, like many others were.

Christians have merely idolized this crucifixion into what they want it to mean to them. Besides, as you believe Jesus was god, this was simply suicide by Romans so he could get back to heaven more quickly. Finally, if all of this was pre-planned, which many think it was, it was a done deal, and the Romans were mere pawns in gods grand scheme. There is NO suffering, I tell you...NONE, ZIP, NADA, if you know you're going to heaven when you die.

Many of you seem to have difficulty grasping simple logic, and I am forced to repeat myself. All this nonsense of suffering and carrying the weight of someone sins are just words on paper. All made up well after the events took place, might I add. Just mind games and word games to give christians hope. I'm seriously baffled by it all. How christians will take a rather ordinary crucifixion that was no more gruesome than heinous murders before and after, and make it into this big SUFFERING and DYING for everyone's sin ruse. If you want to lay that guilt trip on yourself, go ahead. But, IMHO, its preposterous, and not even born out by the event itself."
no responses from me in between the had to keep coming back and saying more. Until this one he's just openly ridiculing my personal characteristics whch he doesn't know.

He talks like he was there at the cross.He doesn't know that Jesus didn't' have pain. He sure seems to in the Gospels. how does he know that? he doesn't' quote anything he doesn't have any fact. what dos he know anyway?

Jesus Myther Ignorance Grows More Brasen

this this little know all Jesus myth idiot whose ass I've kicked every single time I have deal with him. he's too stupid to know when he's been beaten. The first issue below is this moron said there where no Christians in the first century. They are so brazen about these really stupid things that no scholars credit. But he totally misunderstands what's being said.I said Christians existed in the first century. he somehow thought that meant that pagans too them seriously.


notice who has the documentation there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Gday,


Quote:
Wrong.
When Christian stories became known to the wider community they were comprehensively rejected as lies, superstition and myths.


No they weren't. but that's not what I meant. I meant there were Christians in the first century, they did exist.
I thought he was saying Christianity itself didn't start until second century in the sense of no followers of Jesus in first century.


Quote:
Tacitus called it a ruinous superstition.
Not an issue.

Quote:
Pliny similarly.
guess what he did with his spare time?

Quote:
Lucian ridiculed Christians as gullible fools who believed lieing priests.

Celsus wrote an ENTIRE BOOK on how the Christians were wrong - calling it FICTION based on MYTHS. Christians DESTROYED that book because it was so damaging to their false stories.



Celsus proves Jesus existed. you are dishonest in your application of this augment, or else you just don't have the smarts to get what I'm saying. Yes he said the miracles and stuff were lies but he did not say Jesus did not exist, he said he did exist. he disproves the Jesus myth lie.


Quote:
Julian said it's lies and myths.

Porphry said it was invented.

Megacrock knows that, but chooses to lie about the facts.


all irrelevant because you misunderstood my meaning to begin with.




Quote:Kapyoung:
So what?
Neither Paul nor Peter left any authentic claims to have met Jesus. Paul had a vision, Peter's books are forged.
But if they had not (Paul didn't meet him) If Peter had not met him why would he allow everyone to say he did?


The pre mark redaction includes Peter. so in his own life time the story went around.


Here's where the moron really puts his foot in it.


Quote:
Wrong.
Polycarp does NOT ever mention meeting John. Anyone can check Polycarp's letter here :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...carp-lake.html
A quick search will show that the word "John" is NOT found once in the entire letter.
(Instead, someone ELSE, LATER claimed Polycarp met John.)


that is as wrong as it can be. you don't know what you are talking about. it's dishonest. you are totally dishionest. you didnt' do a Google search because you an obvious find that. if you had done one you would have found my website where I have that.

(of cousre he's quoting the wrong letter)

It's here on doxa



from the Calvin college website fragments of lost work



here's the quote:

Quote:
For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out, too, and his coming in-his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eyewitnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.

do you see the word the John there underlined?

Quote:Kapyoung
Which is like most of the Christian claims - it's always someone ELSE that makes the claims, but when you check the facts, they are quite different.


you did not check the facts you didn't even do a google becuase had you done so you would have found my site.

here's part of one I did:


Quote:
#
olycarp: Definition from Answers.com
Polycarp, Saint , cAD 70-AD 156?, Greek bishop of Smyrna, Father of the Church. ... It is probable that he knew John the Apostle, the disciple of Jesus. ...
www.answers.com/topic/polycarp-saint - Cached - Similar -
#
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint John
According to the traditional order, the Gospel of St. John occupies the last place among ... He knew from the tradition of the Church that John was the last of the ... through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. .... mentioned by Papias, who can in turn be none other than John the Apostle (cf. ...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm - Cached - Similar -
#
Apostle John the Evangelist
St. Paul in opposing his enemies in Galatia names John explicitly along .... Here is John's mention in the Bible of the number six hundred sixty six: .... (Irenaeus himself says he did the calculation based on what those who knew John said). ..... John's disciple Polycarp, was the leader of the church in Smyrna. ...
www.cogwriter.com/john.htm - Cached - Similar -
#
Saint Polycarp - New World Encyclopedia
May 17, 2009 ... As mentioned above, Polycarp was (initially at least) most renowned for his .... second, it is probable that he knew John the Apostle, .... But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me. ...
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Polycarp - Cached - Similar -
#
Bishop David's Blog: St Polycarp - a link in the chain
In his youth, Polycarp sat at the feet of the Apostle John from whom he learned the Faith. ... It says in Revelation that the Lord knew their works and tribulation and poverty .... We just mentioned St Irenaeus who became Bishop of Lyons around 178 A.D. He ... One of his key teachings was to do with the Eucharist. ...
bishopdavidsblog.blogspot.com/.../st-polycarp-link-in-chain.html - Cached - Similar -
#
St John, Apostle and Evangelist
St. John, directed by the instinct of love, knew him and gave notice to Peter: .... received this account from the very mouth of St. Polycarp, St. John's disciple, ... St. Chrysostom and other fathers mention that the evangelist prepared .... you do enough ": an answer, says St. Jerome, worthy the great St. John, ...
www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOHNEVAN.HTM - Cached - Similar -
Quote:
Megacrock has been told this fact many times.
But he chooses to repeat the lie.


ahahaahahha you ignorant arrogant little know nothing! Its' been on my website for 10 years. how dare you say that?

I've known where hat quote was for ten years. if you ever said that before I am sure i showed it to you so you should know you have been disproved. If you just can't keep that knowledge in your head form one year to the next, now you know it again. you are wrong >I disproved your carp.

I kicked your ***!


Quote:
Wrong.
Anyone who checks the facts will find Megacrock is wrong here again too.
yea, like he really checked the facts on that last one.


Papias (why can't you check your spelling Megacrock? is it because you never check anything at all?)

Papias, that's how I spell it, that's how it is spelled. What is wrong with your brain? are you leaking gay matter?

Quote:
Papias (as quoted by master-forger Eusebius) merely makes some unclear claims about people who had heard from followers. He does NOT claim to have met anyone who met Jesus at all.
yes he sure does claim to have their words.

Kapyoung also attacks Euseibus as a liar and fabricator because of course our knowledge of Papias is very dependent (although not totally) upon Eusebius.

This is super ignorant to think that. Eusebius was lieda bout by liar and piece of garbage Gibbon. it was the swine Gibbon who made the pias fraud statement not Eusebius. You are have no erudition because that has been put about well enough you should know it.

why can't you read?



you are such a ignorant, unlearned unread know nothing.

Quote:
Megacrock has been told this fact many times.
But he chooses to repeat this lie too
.

I have disproved these same know nothing assertions time after time.



Quote:
Rubbish.
The Jewish tales of Jesus are from 2nd and 3rd centuries and later.


ahahaahahahah what total ignoarnce! how dumb can you get! ahahhaha that is totally disproved. the John Rylands fragment disproves that even if you give it a wide birth. the stuff form Koester I was aruging with Grog about disproves it. that is the most ignorant carp I've ever seen.

He's basing his garbage upon the misnah but ingorning the fact that its' well known the material is form the first century. ti was written down in the second and third but it was put about orally in the first. He's assuming that's the only reliable knowledge of Jesus. he's ignoring the Gospels as though they don't exist.

no scholar believes that. no one! no educated scholarly person who studies this stuff for a living believes that. I don't think even the Jesus seminary guys are that dumb.


Quote:
They tell all sorts of wild stories :
* Jesus a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* conceived during menses
* had 5 disciples
* was stoned to death in Lud
* learned black magic in Egypt
* Jesus is in hell in a boiling vat of ****


Celsus proves that stuff was going around in the first century. That's what the Jews told him about Jesus personal life and it was already old when they gave it to him. he tells us that. so that proves it was already there.



Quote:
Megacrock never repreats the actual details (even though they have been pointed out many times), but he lies that those bizarre stories support the Christian stories !
(notice how he thinks it's clever to Megacrock that's like really some huge inovative thing no one could think of).

you are unlearned and unread I was researching this stuff 40 years ago. In high school. You are so bad at it you don't understand what you read, no concept of scholar caution you have no idea what historians do or what assumptions they make you can't understand what you read, you totally ignore all information that disproves your lunacy, you are really really really bad at this stuff.

I'm a historian and you are not! you don't know anything you don't' pay attention when people disprove your lies.

you are horribe at this. you suck at doing this.

Sadly, we can all see Megacrock is an continual liar for Jesus.

I am the one whit the documentation.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Atheist concept of learning

I was having what I thought was a pleasant discussion with an atheist who wanted to know about my views on inspiration. But he really just wanted to mock them becuase when I recommended a book and offered a link to my page on Doxa so he would get more information here's how it went.



Originally posted by Metacrock
read the book "Models of Revelation" by Avery Dulles. He pushes a view called "dialectical retrieval" where by he set's out the Barthian notion of a dialectical relationship between the text and the reader. The truth is uncovered in that dialectic rather than being encoded word for word.

please read my page on my website which is largely based upon Dulles, whose view I share. This will explain more than I can here

PItchfork

I’m not going to read his book and I’m not going to read your stupid “blog”. I started and it’s too long-winded and boring. Just tell me plainly what you mean when you take the position that the Bible is the “inspired” word of God. What does that mean to you?


Originally posted by Metacrock
why would you find it more problematic to have a realistic view of the way communication really works than to have the idiotic and ridiculous literalism of fundamentalism?

I don’t have a problem with that and it’s less problematic, I agree. Why are you responding to things I haven’t said? Please read more carefully.



he did say something that pertained to it

Originally posted by Metacrock
The original events happened in relation to God's orchestration of those events, and people can say things that are based upon ideas given by their contact with the divine. That's why I quoted the guys saying that oral tradition can get it right and keep it straight.

But one of them got it wrong as you can see from my contradiction regarding Mary Magdalene. Their “experience with God” that contributed to them telling the resurrection story failed to keep them from error.



Of course I never said it should be free of error

Originally posted by Metacrock
you are going to be as hung up on literalism as the most literalistic fundie?

That’s why I specifically said that I wasn’t referring to word for word inspiration. Please, Meta, try to respond to what I’ve actually said, not your erroneous inferences.


that was exactly what he said. he just turned on a dime merely because I gave him a link.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Bogus Atheist Social Sciencs Major Fabrication

One attempt at this bogus atheist social sciences is a site by Boyd Swift. Swift, thought he would be a wrote the bureaus of prisons for stats, but unfortunately he doesn't know how to read a table.



On Swift's table there is no mention of atheist in the first five and atheist is listed fifth from the bottom. In that table atheist is 0.209%. Now here is the table sent by the Bureau of prisons to Rice, first five:,br>

In this table Atheist/unknown/none is third form top and has 19%! Fifth from the bottom on this version is not atheist but "Hindu." So the version sent by the Bureau of Prisons is significantly different than the version put up by Swift.

It seems Swift misrepresented the data.


So in other words, the actual number of atheists is about a quarter as high as the Christians. It's not this tiny 0.something percent, it's actually pretty high.
It's pretty clear he fabricated the data. These mistakes are too far off to be merely mistakes in recording.

I can't show the tables here but I have them on the same page (on doxa) to compare.



Swift goes on to explain how the disproportionate number of atheists in prison from the general population means they are so far better behaved than Christians.

The comparison reveals clearly that the data has been fabricated. Adherents.com does a whole page showing how lame Boyd's assertions are. Here's part of what it has to say:


One atheist web page (http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm) presented statistics stating that 0.209% of federal prisoners (in 1997) stated "atheist" as their religious preference. This site said that this is far less than the 8 to 16% of the American population that are atheists.

The atheist site, however, provided no source for the notion that "8 to 16%" of Americans are atheists. This statistic is completely without support from the available data. Gallup polls which include questions about religion have consistently shown that between 93 and 96% of Americans say that they believe in God. Presumably atheist writers would not suggest that up to half of their claimed "atheists" believe in God. The actual proportion of atheists in the United States is about 0.5% (half of one percent). This is the figure obtained from the largest survey of religious preference ever conducted: the National Survey of Religious Identification (Kosmin, 1990), which polled 113,000 people. The religious preference questions were part of questioning completely unrelated to religious preference (consumer preferences, entertainment, etc.), so the frequent retort of atheists that their numbers don't like to admit to atheism, and hence are undercounted, is unlikely.


I do a couple more pages on my site where I show 400 studies that totally disprove the lame thesis that being a Christian makes you turn to crime. Of course atheist try to defend this by saying he's not really saying it makes you turn to crime, but he says Christians are 60x more likely! that's ridiculous. obviously he's saying something about being a Christian that makes you commit crime. when I've argue with atheists about this they usually go back and forth and I don't really know what they think. But there are 400 studies say it's a lie.

Atheist Watch is having a good effect

Back in 2007 when I first did Atheist watch 1, I found thousands of websites where atheists used the notion of burning churches and wished hey could burn churches and talked about it and so on. Now I find none. I did an article about it and mentioned it several times and now it's gone.

Since I began talking about atheism as a hate group I've seen many sites where atheists explore that question. Never have the admitted it but I have seen them try to deny plenty. I have seen a rise in anti-atheist sties, which you see linked in the side bar. I see more and more people waking up to how atheists have been and saying "we have had enough."

I think atheist watch is doing a valuable thing and that it is having a good effect. It's making atheists think about their attitudes. Even though they are still in denial I think it has caused a few of them to think about how they act.

It has also caused me to search myself and reflect upon my inability to forgive. We should be learning from each other. we should value each other as dialogue partners and try to help each other explore life rather than indulging in ranker and belittling. No one should ever be belittled regardless of that persons outlook.