Plagiarism in the NT

[Amarok]

Evans quote mines a suspicious half sentence of josephus, and builds the body of his argument around OT myths...including exodus.  That's not exactly impressive, at least..if what you're aiming for is historicity, rather than theological flourish.  Seems like Min nailed it the first go round.   We have an apologist on our hands, more than willing to lie for christ - not a historian.

Um, it isn't as if the fuckers try to hide it, you know.



http://www.stephenjbedard.com/2014/08/04...sts-today/

Who Are the Five Most Influential Apologists Today?
 August 4, 2014 / by  Author Stephen Bedard
I need to make myself clear here. There are others that have been more influential in previous generations. There are others who may have more degrees or who get invited to more apologetics conferences. But taking everything into consideration, I believe these are the five most influential apologists that are active today. I would love to see your list.
1. William Lane Craig – Craig is one of the most well known apologists active today. He is especially known for his debates. He is particularly gifted in philosophy, specifically the philosophy of science.
2. Ravi Zacharias – I consider Zacharias to be the Billy Graham of apologists. He has a gift of building bridges, even having the opportunity to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle. Zacharias is the best example of a solid apologetic preacher.
3. Stephen Meyer – Meyer is one of the premier proponents of Intelligent Design. He has been fighting an uphill battle as many consider ID to be a sly way of getting six day creationism into the schools. Meyer is able to meet evolutionary scientists on their own level.
4. Greg Koukl – Koukl is best known for his radio show and podcast Stand to Reason. Koukl is gifted at translating what the philosophers are saying so that the average person can understand. Koukl is also very active at applying apologetics to current social issues.
5. Craig Evans – Evans is a respected New Testament scholar who is often called on by the media to explain the latest Jesus fad. While active in scholarship, Evans is also willing to tackle the popular theories that are floating around.

What a collection of douchebags on that list!

Yup Evans is an apologist who has already been owned

[Astonished]

---

And you know what comes next... what's your evidence for that?   Are you saying that one after this "internecine struggle" was ever removed from a crucifixion and buried?  By the way, that can refer to a few events.

I'm telling you that the only evidence available to be pointed to in the source you linked...does not support or argue for the case made in the source you linked.  My evidence, dipshit, is your own damned link.  The author buried this deceit in a mountain of mythical irrelevancy..but, I guess..that's one way to con a mark, huh?

If you need evidence outside of your link..look no further than this thread.  We don;t find much in the way of remains of those that had been crucified - even when it would be expected.  What we do find are credulous imbeciles who, 2k years after this supposed fact, are willing to believe absolutely anything that they think conforms to their fairy tales, and no shortage of people willing to spin elaborate lies to provide the product they desperately want.

Fuck this dipshit, Khem, he's not even willing to meet us halfway, so there's clearly no point.

[RoadRunner79]

---

And you know what comes next... what's your evidence for that?   Are you saying that one after this "internecine struggle" was ever removed from a crucifixion and buried?  By the way, that can refer to a few events.

I'm telling you that the only evidence available to be pointed to in the source you linked...does not support or argue for the case made in the source you linked.  My evidence, dipshit, is your own damned link.  The author buried this deceit in a mountain of mythical irrelevancy..but, I guess..that's one way to con a mark, huh?

If you need evidence outside of your link..look no further than this thread.  We don;t find much in the way of remains of those that had been crucified - even when it would be expected.  What we do find are credulous imbeciles who, 2k years after this supposed fact, are willing to believe absolutely anything that they think conforms to their fairy tales, and no shortage of people willing to spin elaborate lies to provide the product they desperately want.

So just to clarify your evidence is the testimony of one man... correct?  However Evan's also pointed to a lot of other testimony besides just that one citation... didn't he?

You may also notice, that the passage in Josephus says that this was the Jewish practice to bury the dead before sundown.  Which while it was the Roman Pilate who ordered him crucified, it was at the request of the Sanhedrin.   Philo also mentions that there where times where a man was taken down from the cross, and allowed to be buried (Flaccus 81.

As well the physical evidence of a man named Yehohanan found in an ossuary who was crucified.  This dates to the first century.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-...ucifixion/

Further there is Pandects (Roman Law) which allowed for it to be granted that the bodies of criminals may be returned to the families although it may not be allowed either.  (Note on this source, I could not find an online copy to verify, but a number of citations)

I can grant, that it may not have been common for the Romans to take down the body of one who was crucified.  But their is evidence, that it did occur.  Now during times of war, such as the Jewish wars, this would not likely have occurred.  Why is this so difficult to admit, that it may be true?

[Astonished]

I'm telling you that the only evidence available to be pointed to in the source you linked...does not support or argue for the case made in the source you linked.  My evidence, dipshit, is your own damned link.  The author buried this deceit in a mountain of mythical irrelevancy..but, I guess..that's one way to con a mark, huh?

If you need evidence outside of your link..look no further than this thread.  We don;t find much in the way of remains of those that had been crucified - even when it would be expected.  What we do find are credulous imbeciles who, 2k years after this supposed fact, are willing to believe absolutely anything that they think conforms to their fairy tales, and no shortage of people willing to spin elaborate lies to provide the product they desperately want.

So just to clarify your evidence is the testimony of one man... correct?  However Evan's also pointed to a lot of other testimony besides just that one citation... didn't he?

You may also notice, that the passage in Josephus says that this was the Jewish practice to bury the dead before sundown.  Which while it was the Roman Pilate who ordered him crucified, it was at the request of the Sanhedrin.   Philo also mentions that there where times where a man was taken down from the cross, and allowed to be buried (Flaccus 81.

As well the physical evidence of a man named Yehohanan found in an ossuary who was crucified.  This dates to the first century.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-...ucifixion/

Further there is Pandects (Roman Law) which allowed for it to be granted that the bodies of criminals may be returned to the families although it may not be allowed either.  (Note on this source, I could not find an online copy to verify, but a number of citations)

I can grant, that it may not have been common for the Romans to take down the body of one who was crucified.  But their is evidence, that it did occur.  Now during times of war, such as the Jewish wars, this would not likely have occurred.  Why is this so difficult to admit, that it may be true?

No, the entire body of medical science and physics is our evidence that people don't fucking magically come back to life, walk on fucking water or transmogrify it into wine, multiply fish and bread a hundredfold, rise into the sky without the aid of aeronautics or rocket propulsion, heal blindness without medicine or surgery, or morph ordinary substances into flesh and blood. What those DO say is that the human mind is extremely susceptible to false beliefs, seeing things they aren't actually seeing (or hearing, smelling, etc.), that people are known to have agendas and ulterior motives and good ways to identify when they're attempting to manipulate others or are in the midst of spinning a lie, that writings can be forged, plagiarized, doctored, mistranslated, etc., and that assloads of the claims both scientific and historical in that worthless book of soiled TP are complete and utter rubbish.

Suck on that one, dipshit.

[Amarok]

Don't blame us road you brought a shitty apologist hack as a source . Were just pointing out he's a hack. And his points have been debunked.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm telling you that the only evidence available to be pointed to in the source you linked...does not support or argue for the case made in the source you linked.  My evidence, dipshit, is your own damned link.  The author buried this deceit in a mountain of mythical irrelevancy..but, I guess..that's one way to con a mark, huh?

If you need evidence outside of your link..look no further than this thread.  We don;t find much in the way of remains of those that had been crucified - even when it would be expected.  What we do find are credulous imbeciles who, 2k years after this supposed fact, are willing to believe absolutely anything that they think conforms to their fairy tales, and no shortage of people willing to spin elaborate lies to provide the product they desperately want.

So just to clarify your evidence is the testimony of one man... correct?  However Evan's also pointed to a lot of other testimony besides just that one citation... didn't he?

As I;ve now told you twice, it doesn;t matter what other fun bits of quote mining and mythical puffery he engaged in, because thois one example of quote mining is all the evidence in the world that even comes close - and it aint about jews getting criminals nixxed by rome down off the crux in judea.  

You may also notice, that the passage in Josephus says that this was the Jewish practice to bury the dead before sundown.  Which while it was the Roman Pilate who ordered him crucified, it was at the request of the Sanhedrin.

-and here you are, like the author, referring to fairy tales to establish history.  

 Philo also mentions that there where times where a man was taken down from the cross, and allowed to be buried (Flaccus 81.

That's not what that passage says, but okay, lol.  

As well the physical evidence of a man named Yehohanan found in an ossuary who was crucified.  This dates to the first century.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-...ucifixion/

How do they know he was crucified....now ask yourself how that happened.    

Further there is Pandects (Roman Law) which allowed for it to be granted that the bodies of criminals may be returned to the families although it may not be allowed either.  (Note on this source, I could not find an online copy to verify, but a number of citations)

I can grant, that it may not have been common for the Romans to take down the body of one who was crucified.  But their is evidence, that it did occur.  Now during times of war, such as the Jewish wars, this would not likely have occurred.  Why is this so difficult to admit, that it may be true?

Not common is being generous.  It also didn't happen during times of active occupation for a person claiming to be a king of something - nor would a person be removed alive so that one might...historical (rather than magically) establish that jesus was out and about greeting his disciples a few days later.  Sure, people could steal remains away (but, um...do you wanna go that route...lol?), people could be bribed or bought back.  I'm not a fantasist like yourself, so I don't need to qualify my every statement just to shut the door on idiocy. You're holding out hope that lightning struck in every regard, I don't have time for that noise.

[Astonished]

Don't blame us road you brought a shitty apologist hack as a source . Were just pointing out he's a hack. And his points have been debunked.

To be fair it's not like any apologist anywhere in any period of time has anything to really work with. They're all terrible.

[Mister Agenda]

I've bent over backwards to give as much credence and benefit of the doubt as is consistent with reasonable skepticism to the possibility of there being anything at all to the resurrection story. In the process, I've been accused of 'adding' to the story by pointing out that to people of the time there would be no practical difference between an apparent resurrection and an actual one.

But is it even in the earliest copies of the gospels? IIRC, Mark is the earliest (and shortest) Gospel, and it doesn't mention Jesus being born of a virgin or walking around after being crucified. That stuff appeared in later Gospels, which is very suggestive of fantastic additions to the account creeping in as the story was retold.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and that;s the whole point of myth.  You get em to bite on the exciting shit so you can slip in something important.  People don;t really pay billions at the box office for the moralizing undercurrents of our movies.  They pay for shit what goes boom...and, between explosions, we wax philosophic.

Why did the story get embellished, because it was a box office dud. It needed a directors cut with added scenes to really bring people in - and we see that it got that, and that after it got that, people were then available for increased soft drink and popcorn sale opportunities. The studio failed to produce an epic, but the dvd sales for a cult classic more than made up for that.

[Minimalist]

I've bent over backwards to give as much credence and benefit of the doubt as is consistent with reasonable skepticism to the possibility of there being anything at all to the resurrection story. In the process, I've been accused of 'adding' to the story by pointing out that to people of the time there would be no practical difference between an apparent resurrection and an actual one.

But is it even in the earliest copies of the gospels? IIRC, Mark is the earliest (and shortest) Gospel, and it doesn't mention Jesus being born of a virgin or walking around after being crucified. That stuff appeared in later Gospels, which is very suggestive of fantastic additions to the account creeping in as the story was retold.

Probably relevant to point out at this time is that really is no "resurrection story."  There is an empty tomb story and a lot of "He Is Risen" horseshit but there is only one, the Gospel of Peter, which claims to have "jesus" walking out of the tomb.

And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'

But it wasn't bounced out of the NT because of the walking-talking fucking cross bullshit.  They decided it wasn't really written by "peter."  As if any of it were written by the people claimed!