Saturday, August 15, 2009

OK Hermit where's the insult?

this is on this thread on carm:

here are the links to the various posts. they are not linked but you can see where the other guys began to attack me. Where the read bold is starts the insults. You can see clearly that before they start it's going ok and I am not insulting them. Below are the eight posts I make between my first on the thread and their beginning of the attack. Now you tell me where I made the big insult that really deserved what they are doing?

also note these are in reverse orde. So the lat one is first. and going down on this list is like going up on the board.

Naturalist Did Jesus exist? 2 Days Ago, 11:02 PM
Mada How do we know you exist than. 2 Days Ago, 11:08 PM
Naturalist Are you serious? I'm not interested... 2 Days Ago, 11:15 PM
Metacrock I hae stunning proof. I have tons of... 2 Days Ago, 01:14 AM
Billi How do we know if Santa Clause is a... 2 Days Ago, 11:13 PM
Naturalist This is the stuff I hoped to avoid....... 2 Days Ago, 11:19 PM
Metacrock yes fine, read this link. I have tons... 2 Days Ago, 01:14 AM
Notorious Some guy named Jesus who was a rebel of... 2 Days Ago, 02:17 AM
Metacrock no you don't. I call you on that. As a... 2 Days Ago, 02:26 AM
Notorious I'm not going to take the time and... 2 Days Ago, 02:32 AM
krew07 lIKE mEAT SAYS, the evidence is... 2 Days Ago, 02:57 AM
Metacrock (1) you are expecting a guy living in... 2 Days Ago, 01:35 PM
MFFJM2 The Josephus mention of Jesus, occurs... 2 Days Ago, 01:46 PM
Metacrock wrong. there are a few historians who... 2 Days Ago, 02:33 PM
Gao While I agree with you that there was a... 2 Days Ago, 02:41 PM
Metacrock He didn't say "the Mishna." He said... 2 Days Ago, 03:02 PM
Metacrock I am getting all those little guys out... 2 Days Ago, 03:09 PM
Metacrock Suetonius G. Galen H.Celsus ... 2 Days Ago, 03:10 PM
Gao You seem to be conflating the idea of a... 2 Days Ago, 02:19 PM
Metacrock that sux. what an attitude! Give me the... 2 Days Ago, 01:04 PM
Notorious Meta, you know as well as i do that i... 1 Day Ago, 08:38 PM
Metacrock that's just ideological bunck. Science... 1 Day Ago, 09:58 PM
Dr Pepper The problem with history is that it is... 1 Day Ago, 11:14 PM
Metacrock that's why you need the documents. ... 1 Day Ago, 12:07 AM
Harry C True, that’s why you can’t call Jesus... 1 Day Ago, 12:15 AM
Metacrock It doesn't take much to prove someone... 1 Day Ago, 12:43 AM
Notorious By science i mean natural science, i... 1 Day Ago, 11:17 PM
MFFJM2 Maybe he keeps coming off his... 1 Day Ago, 11:49 PM
JHFC Amen! 1 Day Ago, 12:06 AM
Metacrock He asked for the evidence... 1 Day Ago, 12:15 AM
JHFC Quoting for posterity. 1 Day Ago, 12:18 AM
Metacrock what is your problem? you just don't... 1 Day Ago, 12:19 AM
JHFC I'm not the one calling people stupid... 1 Day Ago, 12:28 AM
Metacrock you are the one destroyed the therad... 1 Day Ago, 12:37 AM
God-free I guess I should've read further into... 1 Day Ago, 05:28 PM
Metacrock so when you get your *** kicked in... 1 Day Ago, 12:14 AM
JHFC Wow. LOL. OMG. 1 Day Ago, 12:17 AM
Metacrock here is what the first post says: ... 1 Day Ago, 12:23 AM
Harry C He does this all the time. Pay no... 1 Day Ago, 12:25 AM
Metacrock face your dishonesty troll. I tore the... 1 Day Ago, 12:40 AM
Dr Pepper You remind me of Howard Cosell. He too... 1 Day Ago, 12:57 AM
Metacrock Look I used to value your opinion and... 1 Day Ago, 01:04 AM
JHFC YOU are responsible for your own... 1 Day Ago, 01:43 AM
Metacrock you are so transparent. One can only... 1 Day Ago, 04:16 PM
JHFC That's a good thing. Well you see,... 1 Day Ago, 07:21 PM
Metacrock But the problem is I don't have time to... 23 Hours Ago, 09:03 PM
JHFC EDIT Nope. It sure doesn't stop you.... 22 Hours Ago, 09:48 PM
MFFJM2 Amen. 8 Hours Ago, 12:24 PM
Metacrock Yes but you are shallow,... 6 Hours Ago, 01:32 PM
Dr Pepper The problem is that history isn't fact... 1 Day Ago, 01:10 PM
Metacrock (I) that does not help your argument... 1 Day Ago, 04:13 PM
Dr Pepper I'm afraid I am off thread a bit here. ... 1 Day Ago, 05:40 PM
JHFC Unfortunately that is true.... 1 Day Ago, 01:40 AM

couting from the post where he started and moving back up the therad toward the first:


G. Galen



that's one


I am getting all those little guys out of order like Galen. I admit those are not major sources. But the overall effect of all of them means there was quite a bit more about Jesus being said in the first two centuries than mythers want to admit.

here are links on my pages on them.

Thuallus and Phlegan


Zaveric: "To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".."
that's 2


stop me when we come to the insult

He didn't say "the Mishna." He said "the Jews."

you know his works don't survive we have to take the apologists refutting him at their word:

Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
more (you may have to scroll down on this page).

What passage was this, and was it something they found or "reconstructed?"

Could you be a bit more specific here? Which book and where?
I think all we know of his writing come from other people. But I don't think it would be a good argument to accuse the apologists of lying. maybe they left our or never saw damaging stuff but it's not cricket to accuse them of lying.

[COLOR=blue][COLOR=#000000] Please provide a specific reference.

First of all, please provide the specific Celsus passage where he says this. Second, didn't Celsus also say that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier? Doesn't that contradict the whole geneology thing?

I'm not sure that we should take that as propaganda any less than the Gospels. After all, the Christians had motivation to exaggerate and change things in the opposite direction.

Celsus didn't say anything about the genealogy that is from the Talmud. the issues that are the same between the two are the implication that he was illicit, implication that his mother was a whore, the specific allegation that she was a hair dresser (which carried the connotation fo lose morals). there are some other things.

How do you know Luke ever met with them?
I may be wrong,I might to re read that passage but I believe he was on that trip where Paul met them. If not, it doesn't really make sense that he knew Paul and he searched for different source and did research but he wouldn't contact them? If not they they aren't a major source for Luke perhaps but for Paul they would have been.

contrary to popular opinon Paul has a lot connection with Jesus teachings, so much so that Koester argues taht he had a say source.

I'm not sure that these two points tell us anything about whether this Gospel had good sources. It just means that they wrote something in a more personal way than the other Gospels.
Not sure to what you are referring.

Seriously? We know nothing about what he wrote, and the only reference that comes close to talking about Jesus just says that he mentioned an eclipse that he believed to be natural. I don't think you can use this as evidence for anything about Jesus. In addition, I've heard a lot of arguments about the date of his writing.
what we know comes from Africanus. Africanus was a highly respected historian. Holding and Miller both have big things on how good he is as a source.

I'm pretty sure that he got this information from Pliny the Younger or a Christian, and I doubt he researched it much, since it was essentially a brief footnote.

Wrote about a Chrestus who caused problems in Rome. I agree that it was probably a mangled reference to Jesus, but it's hard to tell what he knew. There is nothing here that says that he researched much about Jesus or Christianity at all.

He briefly mentioned that there were followers of Christ. This tells us nothing about a historical Jesus or whether he existed.

right right but it's he thought Christus was his name. He didn' t know about Jews to understand they used Christos to mean Messiah. He neither knew nor cared what "messaih" meant. He's not a great source but it does mean the followers in Rome understand Jesus as a historical guy at that point.

Possible, but I'm not sure if "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished," really fits Jesus that well, since Judea stopped being a kingdom in 6 AD, which was well before Jesus was even an adult.
that's what a foreigner would have understood of "Messiah" that's he's the decedent of the line of kings and that makes him a King. there are deposed kingdoms in exile that go on. There's in Guatemala that's been around since the Spanish conquest and they still know and keep secret who the decent of their king who would be on the throne is at this time.

I'm just going to say that from what I've seen, this is a much more debated point than you make it out to be. It's hard to tell what's a reference to Jesus (if anything), and it was oral tradition anyway, and that's not the most reliable method of preserving information. In addition, these texts were not intended as history, so I doubt anyone tried to check the facts in them.
Oral tradition is highly relaiable in cultures where they used it and taht's demonstrated in modern bardic survivals.

Could you give specific references? I'm having trouble finding relevant passages.
to what exactly?

Zaveric: "To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".."

"things don't just pop into reality" (Ibid)
Metacrock is online now Add to Metacrock's Reputation Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Metacrock
Visit Metacrock's homepage!
Find More Posts by Metacrock
Add Metacrock to Your Contacts

vBulletin Message

Cancel Changes

Quick Reply

thats' three


wrong. there are a few historians who regard it as a forgery, the vast majority regard it as either totally geniune or a tweked version of a genuine core and they regard the core as good evidence Jesus existed.

here is the documentation on major scholars:

A List of Scholar who accept at least some core passage.

John P. Meier
Raymond Brown
Graham Stanton
N.T. Wright
Paula Fredrickson
John D. Crossan
E.P. Sanders
Geza Vermes
Louis Feldman
John Thackeray
Andre Pelletier
Paul Winter
A. Dubarle
Ernst Bammel
Otto Betz
Paul Mier
Ben Witherington
F.F. Bruce
Luke T. Johnson
Craig Blomberg
J. Carleton Paget
Alice Whealey
J. Spencer Kennard
R. Eisler
R.T. France
Gary Habermas
Robert Van Voorst
Shlomo Pines
Edwin M. Yamuchi
James Tabor
John O'Connor-Murphy
Mark Goodacre
Paula Frederiksen
David Flusser
Steve Mason

Alice Whealy, Berkely Cal.

The TF controversy from antiquity to present

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

The second simply mentions him as having been crucified, and appears to be more credible than the aforementioned. Unfortunately, much of what is written in the Gospels is wrong or internally inconsistent, like the fact that Nazareth didn't exist until much later than the reported death of Jesus.

your opinion about the Gospels is unsubstantiated and merely based upon the ideology. The second mention of Jesus by Jo is enough to prove he existed as a man in history. that's the issue here. we are not discussing deity or the resurrection.

that's four


(1) you are expecting a guy living in the boonies to have the same access to information and outlets of media that someone living in a major center would have. that's just not realistic.

(2) you are expecting people in the aincient world to have the same access to information that we do today. If a guy in Jesus' day died in a town more than twenty miles away it would take them at least two days to hear about it through their fastest source of information. We could find out today in a matter of seconds, they would take at least two days.

(3) Romans didn't care about what happened in Palestine. It was the Romans who had most of the writing, most of the literate people, most of the people who wanted to read the writing. They did not give a rat's you know what about what happened in Palestine. So they have no motive and no mechinism for knowing about Jesus.

tat means we are dependent upon source sin Palestine, a backwater with few literate people to even know about his existence.

(4) Jesus was imortant and famous aruond the area we know as "Isreal" or what used to be "Palestine." But if you go outside the radius of a three day journey (big undertaking in the middle east then) you beyond the radius of Jesus' fame. They would have been very limited to what we would think of as a very small area. His total fame would have limited in his life time to an area the size of Dallas Texas today.

(5) to top all that off you are making an argument from silence. you are just saying 'we don't have sources that show x,y,z therefore those things never existed. argument form silence is a fallacy. It's known as illogical. The whole Jesus myth theory is based upon illogical fallacy.

(6) The sources that prove Jesus did exist are almost good enuough to be called "certain." They are fine sources and they prove it well enough to dispel any reasonable doubt. One can always doubt. you could stand before God on Judgment day and say "prove you are the God of the bible." But for a reasonable person the evidence is clear.

(a) Celsus was a skeptic. He hated Christianity and he wished to destory it. So he went to the Jews in Palestine (second century) and said "what's the scoup on this Jesus guy?" They did not say "o he never existed." They said "we know all about him.

In fact Jewish sources do prove he existed:

*The Talmud spoke of him a lot but they censored themselves and we know they did. They did this to prevent being persecuted by Christians for defaming Jesus. We have them talking about how they did it. We have the little circles they made to replace his name and they can be seen in copies of that era. We have passages they took out (Lightfoot the great Bible scholars presents a passage that was form a pre censored Talmud that talks about Jesus of Nazareth and the claims he was Messiah).

*a famous book on the history of the Talmud by a Jewish historian speaks of the late first century debates between Jesus' followers and other Jews. So they were believing in Jesus as historical guy in the late first century and he already had followers. In the Mishna which was first century material.

* A Talmudic passage says that they found Jesus' genealogy and can trace his family and it agrees with Luke's genealogy.

Celsus tells us that the Jews told him about Jesus "true" history and the material that he mentions is exactly like the things said about Jesus in the Mishna. So we know that he did see those sources, which are first century. This proves that the Jews know of him in the first century and accepted that he was a real guy. This is especially truer of the genealogy thing, he had a family.

Some of what they asy about him is obviously propaganda but they did not say "he never existed." They accepted him and claimed they know about his family.

(b) Pauline-Peterian-Clement of Rome connection.

(1) Paul knew people who knew Jesus.

*Andronicus and Junia

*Met philiip
*met James
*met Peter
*met Andrew

*Knew people following Jesus from the earliest period (Pricilla and Aquilla had been with John the Baptist).

* Paul met the four daughters of Philip of Hyropolis (Philip above was the Apostle but not this guy). These daughters are said by early chruch fathers to have acted as the first historians keeping track of their materiel and the formation of the early chruch. Luke met them and probably used them as his major source for his Gospel. Luke includes the meeting with Paul in Acts.

* The author known as "Clement of Rome" (whether really Clement or not is unimportant) claimed to know people who saw Paul die and saw Peter die and knew them and met them in Rome. It's pretty obvious he actually claiming to be one of them but is too humble to brag about it. Read between the lines.

So the whole nexus of Peter and Paul and people they knew are tied together in that epistle of Clement and the four Daughters who independent sources document.

c Johanine community

the John community is very complex and too much so to go into here. But thumb nail is this: The Beloved Disciple of the fourth Gospels was probably Lazarus. He founded the community. It may have been that the Apostle John also had a hand in it, or they mereged with John's bunch from Samaria. But be that as it may, the final redactor was probably the elder John of whom Papias speaks. There is good evidence of first hand knowledge in John.

*the only glimpse we get into Jesus social life, his inner circle of friends that he know outside of his ministry. that include Lazarus.

*The only portrate of Jesus' emotions

(7) Church Fathers

(a) Papius tells us he knew two people who saw Jesus:

*Elder John

of whom he quotes many sayings and testimony some of which exist in independent fragment.


(b) Polycarp

Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp told him personally about his days learning from John (It is thought he meant the Apostle but he may have meant the Elder--but he was also an eye witness, the Elder was).

(8) secular sources

existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ.

* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)

* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)

* Galen (various writings, c.150)

* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).

* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)

* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

*Lucian (Second century)

*Numenius (Second cent.)

*Galerius (Second Cent.)

Zaveric: "To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".."

that's 5


no you don't. I call you on that. As a youn atheist that was one f the first things I noticed the unique nature of Jesus.

(1) No other world religion has the concept grace. It's the only one in the whole world that wanst to save you as a free gift of God's love. All the others want you to earn ti or do somethnig to merit it.

(2) Jesus is the first one who ever claimed to be the incarnation fo the ground of being. some have imitated him since then but none did it before him.

Alexander the great doesn't count because he did not believe he was the incorporate creator. He only believed he was the the spawn of a contingent god, small case "g."

(3) only Jesus rose from the dead with a phsyical empty tomb.

the bs about dying rising savior gods is jsut that,. it's al ie. when study real mythology you see aren't any. it's all made up by Jesus myth liars.

(4) the only ethical teacher in history who anticipated Kant's categorical imperative.

that's 6


yes fine, read this link. I have tons of evidence read it. I have many arguments all backed with evidence:


I hae stunning proof. I have tons of arguements and lots of evidence.
read this link:


that's all. those are the only eight posts I put on the thread before he started his crap. where's the insult?


Mark said...

I think this is probably the one that triggered things:

"that sux. what an attitude!Give me the truth of the universe but ont' make me spend ten working for it.

give up. you will never find God because you want God. forget it. stop pretending you care and just admit you are not looking for truth."

questioning his sincerity Joe?...not nice at do this sort of thing all the time and I don't think you even realize what you're doing.

You continue the personal attack with this comnment"that's just ideological bunck. Science is not truth. I don't see how a materaist could use the word "truth." there's nothing with materialism but dead end dead cold meaningless matter.

you bought the historical Jesus right? you ask for evidence but then you are not willing to sift through the evidence. that's not exactly scientific.

History is a social science and you are not social scientist."

And things go downhill from there after MFFJM2 posts his stupid "off his meds" comment (although the bulk of that comment was on topic and actually quite good...) and you rise to the bait and start lashing out at everyone...

atheists are such little Simenon fools. atheism is for very very very stupid people."

Regardless of what went on before, even if your own behaviour was lily white pure up to that point (and it wasn't, as I've shown here) what do you think someone dropping in to the thread at that point (as I did) is going to see?

J.L. Hinman said...

well that's not so very bad. I don't that called for a total disruption of the whole thread. But then look at his answer "I don't care about anything fats you have."that's what he said.

A Hermit said...

""I don't care about anything fats you have."that's what he said."

And that, in your mind, justifies the "atheists are all very very very stupid and want to kill Christians" rants that follow?


J.L. Hinman said...

that was not in that thread and you know it. you know I didn't do anything to deserve the bull shit garbage that they put out there. you know that's true.

stop your little emotionally hyper game playing and face reality. if you are so emotionally spent that you can't see when someone is being attacked by thugs then you don't need to be taking part in this venue.

J.L. Hinman said...

You continue the personal attack with this comnment"that's just ideological bunck. Science is not truth. I don't see how a materaist could use the word "truth." there's nothing with materialism but dead end dead cold meaningless matter.

that's an insult. you are so lame and emotionally crippled. you want to the impunity to attack Christians viciously and yet you get hyper upset over nothing.

saying that someone has an ideology is just a right intellectual heritage in America.

noting insulting about it.

A Hermit said...

"that was not in that thread and you know it."

this post:

"He asked for the evidence stupid!

He says "a men" like they really said something.

so when you lay down a spread of argument they can't answer and know they got their asses kicked they "what's that doing there. that is irrelevant."

atheists are such little Simenon fools. atheism is for very very very stupid people.

I'm kicking your stupid little asses. learn something about thinking! learn some logic and debate stupid."

In this threadDid Jesus Exist

That's four "stupids" in one post.

"noting insulting about it."

You don't think calling someone's opinions "bunk" and 'meaningless" is insulting?

I'll have to file that along with "fuck you" and those expressions you keep telling me aren't really's getting to be quite a long list...;-)

J.L. Hinman said...

I notice you don't show the number of what post it was. I have numbered them "1st," "2nd" or whatever. I said "this is the first comment" I made in the thread. So why don't you tell me which one it's in?

the reason, because it comes after they started being derisive doesn't it?

think about it.

A Hermit said...

"the reason, because it comes after they started being derisive doesn't it?"

And as I demonstrated in my first comment here their derisiveness starts after your derisiveness.and it never descends to the level of nastiness that you engage in.

It starts at Post 14 where you say: "that sux. what an attitude!...stop pretending you care and just admit you are not looking for truth."

A couple of people respond in kind to that one and then you lose all control.

J.L. Hinman said...

It starts at Post 14 where you say: "that sux. what an attitude!...stop pretending you care and just admit you are not looking for truth."

I will accept that much. I am not totally oblivious to the fact that I did have a bit of a snoty tone. But I was making very good arguments. I was providing excellent information and what I said was not that bad. that guys' response was done on purpose to produce demoralizing results.

my comments certainly did not deserve that kind of trash.