Internet Revisionists Beware: Real Facts Being Released to Public!

Earlier you kept preteding like I said Gnostics didnt exist .. then you said you 'never said this or that' .. then you contradicted yourself about 2 times I think.. but never actually showed me anything.
Then you just 'pretend' you did.

Seriously dude.. its gay AND lame.. and if it was somehow 'funny' it woud almost be worth it but - its not.

 

Show me. Why is that concept so elusive to you? I've shown you where you contradicted yourself.
All you've done is run your mouth.

This is the internet, if I've contradicted myself it should be pretty easy to backtrack and come up with at least one instance where my posts contradict each other.



How stupid do you think the people in here are?

 

Could you please show me where I contradicted myself or else SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY.
Deal?

 

No problem. If post # 54 in this thread doesn't get it for you give me a few minutes and I'll make it more obvious.

 

Still dont see it.
It would have to be some crappy late-night writing error since I routinely and repeatedly have carried on conversations in Hipforums about Gnostics, Gnositism and things related to it.
I cant imagine why I would write something that sounded like I denied they existed.
Poor sentence structure.

Or more like you bullshitting and trying to derail this thread is more like it.

 

OK, here we go;


(We were in the middle of a thread trying to establish the role Paul had played in the development of christianity (See "Paul Contra Jesus" in this forum).

The point was made that not all churches acccepted Paul or his Epistles before the Niccene council.

Your response to that was;

I responded;

your reply;

and to this;

You responded;

To this;

I responded;

A charge you never replied to until the third or fourth time I brought it up.


And to this;

I responded;

Which you also decided to ignore so I could only take that to mean that you thought it needed no clarification (in both cases).

I even went on to show you what exactly your statements, if true, would be implying;

None of which you seemed willing to address, so again, I could only conclude that you felt none of this needed any clarifacation.

Satisfied?

 

More historical evidence that the Gospels talk about real places, names, public institutions and external evidence that could be cross-checked and validated (or busted) by outside sources.

One of the things I was talking about was 'obscure' references actually being better references...
Taking this back to our Courtroom analogy its one thing if a Witness says he was in Canada.
Oh well.. yes, thats a place.
Another if he says he is from Alberta Province.
So are millions more.
He says he is from Edmonton and thats at least something more specific.
BUT
If he says he was from outside Edmonton from a smaller town called 'Riley' was born there in 1972 then I think you have a much much more trustworthy (potentially) evidence to believe this Witness really does speak of a real time, real place.
Doesnt prove anything (apparently I have to stipulate this each post) but it does give reason to believe the Author is speaking of real places, times and specific events and timelines which can be verified.

Nazareth - fact or fiction?

Many skeptics doubted that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus. The doubts are based on the fact that Nazareth is not mentioned in any of the following sources:

• Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament (see, for example, Joshua 19:10-15)
  
• Josephus (see next section) gives the names of 45 towns and villages in Galilee. Nazareth is not among them!
  
• The Jewish Talmud mentions 63 towns and villages in the area. Nazareth is not among them.
  

​

Excavations by Bellarmino Bagatti in 1955 have shown that there was an agricultural settlement on the site identified in the New Testament as Nazareth. The site dates back as far as 900 years before Christ. Evidence of use during the Roman occupation has been found.

Also, excavations by Michael Avi-Yonah at Caesarea in 1962 unearthed a tablet with the name "Nazareth" contained on it. The tablet demonstrates that Nazareth existed at least as early as first century A.D.

(my understanding is that there has been more confirmation and excavation in Nazareth since these discoveries were made. It also 'fits' into the timelines of travel, the professions mentioned, decrees.. as described in the rest of the Accounts of the Gospels... and that is important too).

 

Im satisfied that I did not contradict myself.
You seem to have proved it.
Does this mean you will keep your end of the bargain and STFU?

If you still think otherwise, please post the part where I contradicted myself on the existance of Gnostics?

 

If I remember right the deal was "prove it or shut up" not "prove it then shut up".

You still don't see it huh?

Let me put it this way;

If I say; "The german shepard is the only dog that exists on earth today"

And you say; "So you're denying the existance of collies, cocker spaniels, chihauhaus, etc?

And I just let it hang, without giving any kind of clarification, then it would be fair for you to assume that that's exactly what I was saying (how could it be both ways?)


You, in the quotes above, pretty adamently stated that (what most people call) Pauline christianity is the only kind of christianity that ever existed, thereby denying the existance of every other historic sect including the gnostics.

 

I have no idea why you think I would state 'Pauline Christianity' (which I just called Christianity) was the only kind that existed.

Seriously, you have a severe logic problem.

I think what really happened is that you:

A) were embarrassed over something you were busted on (and i dont really care).

B) in your pride you decided to 'get me back' by asking a leading questions which was contrary to my position that if I was tricked into answering right (or wrong) would then 'get me'.

C) I ignored your leading and rhetorical questions because they were retarded.

D) In some weird way you have figured that since I did 'not deny' an incorrect question - 'therefore' - its like Agreeing with it (in your mind) and since the answer would have contradicted what I said (if I answered yes or no?) then 'Therefore' its as good as me denying Gnostics existed at all.. which is the opposite of something else I said.

Well Done.. you are the winner of the 'Most Fucked Up Attempt to Derail a Thread into a Bogus FlameBait' Award!
Congrats NaykidApe!

 

I don't "think" it, I've shown it. and I'm sure you're the only one who doesn't see that.

No, I have logic, you have the problem.

What you "think" doesn't matter. what you can show is the issue.

Lol! when have you ever busted anyone on anything in here?
All I've ever seen you do is twist people's words around, make unsubstantiated accusations, misquote, draw erroneous conclusions in one sentence that somehow evolve into "established fact" in the next, set up ridiculous straw arguments, make even more ridiculous speculations about what other posters words "really mean" or what their "real motives" are,
and, if none of that works, run away.

An example please?
Really I'd like to see an example of what you're talking about because If I could pull something like that off it means I'm much smarter than I thought I was.

Which questions would those be?

Aside from your failure to produce an example, we both know that "ignoring" a stupid question would be completely inconsistant with your history/character. If anything, if I had said or asked something stupid you would have written three paragraphs telling me how stupid it was.

Nope, sorry Erasmus but that doesn't work. The only time I've ever seen you abandon a debate is when you were cornered and couldn't bullshit your way out of it.

Now you're presenting an absurd hypothetical as if it were an established fact.
Show me the alledged "incorrect question".

No, it's like running away from it.

You're asking me to speculate on what your answer to a question that doesn't exist might be?

Is this like a Zen koan or something?

That "something else you said" being a denial after the fact in a lame attempt to pull your foot out of your mouth.

Thanks, but it was easy;
All I had to do was tell the truth.

 

Sorry but did you want to tell me where I contradicted myself or did you want to STFU?
Honestly, its your choice.
Im not stopping you.
Thanx

 

In case anyone is wondering what the bleep 'Gnostics' are and what the bleep the controversy is?

Brief Overview....

Gnostics were... uhhh... actually its not exactly easy to tell you what exactly Gnostics were because from a historical point of overview they are not exactly some cohesive organisation of anything exactly.

From what we know the whole idea seems to be around before Christianity hits the scene but the particular brand we are talking about seems to be a Christiany Sect that (from what we know) has its heydays around the second century.

(according to some, there were the original Christianity but the only reason you cant prove otherwise is because all their stuff was burned and then replaced.. its quite a story actually).

Anyways.. There main deal is something of a blend of Platonism and Christianity (and some other things too).
Matter is Evil.
Spirit is Good.
Old Testament God = Evil (you gotta get Plato on this concept) and Jesus was good.. but not real physical either.
Jesus was like a 'Phantom' if you will and had no real physical body.

Anyways.. we really only knew most of this about them by reading Critisisms of them by Early Church Fathers.
(well .. Mafia bosses according to the other theory).

About 60 years ago a bunch of fragments containing sayings of the 'Gnostic Gospels' were discovered... like some stash of one-hit wonders found in an old record store I suggest.

Nag Hamadi (sp?) was the site but the point is that this was a great discovery because it gave us insight into how shitty Gnosticism really was and why it didnt stand a chance of competing against real Gospels.
(or if you believe the other theory then they are the REAL Gospels and the others are actually fake stories written by a Nicene Mafia ahem).

Actually most of these are not 'Gospels' as people keep stupidly calling them but anyways.. they date them around 150-300 AD (yeah yeah.. nobody can 'prove' that).

I wont go into how bad some of these are and how obvious .. and i mean OBVIOUS it is that they contain heaping doses of crap easily spotted by the most amateur investigator.

Some real winners include the 'Gospel' of 'Thomas':

"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go out from among us, because women are not worthy of the Life. Jesus said: See, I shall lead her, so that I will make her male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."


Righhhhttttttt.

Anyways.. long story short - 'liberal' scholars and critics with nothing better to do than blow their reputations as well as goofy conspiracy loving internet 'atheists' have been going crazy trying to use these to for once and for all discredit Christianity.

Basically this link sums it up perfectly:
In 1979 Elaine Pagels published a book entitled The Gnostic Gospels on the Nag Hammadi documents, which became immediately popular and continues to be read today in college classrooms. (Only four of the texts actually have the word "gospel" in the title.) Pagels, writing in a popular style, argued that in the disagreements in early Christianity, the wrong side won.

Pagels attributed the victory to what she hints is the evil political power of the Emperor Constantine and speaks of "Constantine's creed." She declares that religion should have no creeds! and claims that there was no unity of belief before Constantine. Pagels and many others, especially "religious" shows on PBS and other television channels, depict Constantine as the one who made everyone become Christian in Rome
http://www.cjd.org/paper/fraud.html

Again, there is not very much evidence that Gnostics (as some sort of organised anything) were even established in any signifigant way during and after the life of Christ, the writing of the accounts and the Ministry of his Apostles and then until after the New Testament library is already established.
There is some evidence the concepts were floating around for sure.. but not much more than that.

Well.. of course this is because 300 years later Evil Constantine somehow went and destroyed all the evidence then replaced history with a new version and blah blah .. you read Davinci Code I suppose.

Thats just a general overview anyways.

 

Sorry man. I didn't realise I was making fun of an altshiemers victim.

forget about the four times I've already shown you and you just focus on getting well OK?

 

Erasmus, great thread! I've learnt a lot from it, thanks.

Haven't had the chance to read it all yet, but scanning through I see a familiar pattern emerging: One group of people swearing, making fun (often impolite and impatient or at times downright hostile) and generally having an 'argument'; another group of people calmly explaining their points and having a 'debate'.

I realise you can't side with people's opinions based purely on character, but I'm always strongly biased towards those who don't try to make a debate personal. Their lack of agenda shows, if nothing else, a clarity and direction.

Yes, this post itself is 'personal', but this is knowingly self-referential (and I'm not involved in the debate).

 

Im sorry I havent posted more on this.
I havent had my reference books with me and can find some new articles on the net.
Problem with the net - you gotta scrutinise what you see, its not like a series of publishers are fact-checking first.
So far I was just touching on 'witnesses' and then now showing some archaeological evidence.
Will post more but there have been so many in the last 100 years and suddenly a lot in the last 10 years its hard to keep up.

There are also 'Internal' evidence.
Some people unfairly dismiss this but in fact 'internal evidence' is a very signifigant and well accepted 'art and science' used by all investigators (in many fields actually) but in historical research.
Meaning: Does the author contradict himself or does he 'not' record some signifigant detail which you woud expect.
(classic example: if the Gospels were written later on.. how on earth would you believe they did NOT mention the destruction of Israel. Of course they would)
More on that later...

Anyways..
One of the most astonishing external archaeological evidences that the Gospels speak about real people in a real time and a real place is the House of Peter.
Once again.. its not even important to 'prove' this is actually Peters Home Church here.
(Its cross referenced with other historical accounts of it as well as graffiti metioning his name in it)
This is a Home Church as described in the Gospels and in a place described to have such Home Churches.
External evidence that the Gospels were speaking of real places, times, events and real traditions and practices.

"As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the house of Simon and Andrew." (Mark 1:29)

​

Archeological investigations carried out over a 70-year period (at the beginning of the 20th century) by the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (Jerusalem) revealed an octagonal mid-5th-century ecclesiastical structure built around an earlier one-room dwelling dated to the 1st century CE. The central octagonal shrine, enclosing a dry-wall basalt structure, was surrounded by an octagonal ambulatory similar to the ambulatory in the Rotunda of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem; or the later octagonal Islamic shrine built on the Haram esh-Sharif (the Temple Mount).

The room contained within the central octagonal shrine appears to have been part of an insula (a complex of small single-storey residential rooms and courtyards) that toward the end of the 1st century was put to public use, possibly as a domus ecclesia, a private house used as a church. The plastered walls of the enshrined room were found to be scratched with graffiti in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac and Latin, containing the words "Jesus", "Lord", "Christ" and "Peter".

The enshrined room is presumed to be the "House of Simon, called Peter" reported by the Spanish pilgrim, the Lady Egeria, who visited the town sometime between 381-384 during her pilgrimage to the Holy Land. She described in some detail how the house of "the prince of Apostles" had been made into a church, with its original walls still standing.

In the mid-5th century, this room was enshrined within an octagonal-shaped building. This was the church later described by the 6th-century Piacenza Pilgrim who wrote, "The house of St. Peter is now a basilica." Like the nearby synagogue, the octagonal-shaped church was destroyed early in the 7th century, possibly at the time of the Persian invasion.

The present Franciscan church was built in 1990 over the site of the Insula Sacra to preserve the archeological finds and to permit visitors and worshippers an overview of the various architectural elements.

 

Nicely wrapped up with a sweepingly entertaining summary of the "Gnostics" too! It may have got a bit wild and woolly and bogged in this "I say you said"/"you say I said" inventive, vituperative bickering - which I tend to find distasteful - trying to "put words in other's mouths" so you can contradict ridiculous things they haven't said!? Oh really... but anyway, it have been fun to read and follow....

 

It's easy to look past what another Christian does isn't it? You actually described the debating methods of both sides, but chose to ignore what Erasmus said because of the fact that he's a Christian. If I'm wrong then you should probably get your eyes checked. The Evidence speaks for itself. The following statements are all Erasmus' own. I even kindly highlighted the swearing and degrading remarks for you. Please keep in mind that these aren't all of them either.

Erasmus, I'm sure that Jesus is beaming down on you with pride now. Perhaps you should work on your own faults and beliefs before you go and try to tear down those of others. You have some work to do. Is this how Jesus would want you to represent him?

 

hahah what a dickhead!

 

Im flattered.
It was like some sort of 'Greatest Hits' Ad Hominem attack.
Well done.. and I dont think Ive even been in a discussion with Zero?

I think Dizzymans 'greatest hits' would make up the most ecclectic box set ever seen at Hipforums.
Or any forums!

Thats what makes it interesting!