Re: making fun of atheists

On Feb 2, 3:29 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
$Zero goes:
On Feb 1, 8:13 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
$Zero goes:
On Feb 1, 6:09 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
$Zero goes:
i typically read a bunch of posts and go back later to respond.
When are you going to respond to my questions about Simon Peter's
account of the life of Jesus? I'm dying to know about it, since it
doesn't exist anywhere I've looked.
Gospel of Mark, i think.
The gospel of Mark is Simon Peter's account? How do you figure that?

in your honor, i just cracked open a book, which is a rare event for
moi.

ISBN 0-8423-2373-2
Copyright 1976 - 1979

it's a King James bible i bought at Sam's Club in the mid 1990's to
argue with my girlfriend on her own turf -- to show her how deluded
and silly she was to believe in such contradictory nonsense written on
some silly pieces of paper.

there's short notices before each of the books within, giving basic
info about the source and whatnot.

here's what it says just before the Gospel of Mark:

AUTHOR: Mark
PLACE: Rome
DATE: AD 60-65
CONTENT: John Mark was a companion to the Apostle Paul. He finally
settled in Rome where he wrote the remembrances of the Apostle Peter.
Thus Mark's gospel reflects the words of an eye-witness to the events
he describes. [...]

So you're using the Bible to validate the Bible?

oh, lookie here.

Alan is using trying to use the Bible to _invalidate_ the Bible by
claiming that anything written in it is automatically totally non-
admissible as evidence.

well, golly gee, that's a neat trick, huh?

i guess it would have been much smarter if those dumb people who put
together those books of the Bible didn't include anything written at
all, huh?

that would have gone a long way to increasing the credibility of, um,
a completely blank book.

pretty cool, huh?

this is the kind of proof people like Alan rely upon to disprove the
historical evidence for Jesus.

it's quite the brilliant strategy, no?

not at all transparent, is it?

The above, as far as scholars is concerned, has no credibility at all.

of course!

why, if only the bible was a completely blank book, THEN they'd give
it some credible weight.

whoa.

nice.

Is it not Mark's?

someone named Mark apparently wrote it.

Apparently.

that's what's typed in the book i have, yes.

along with the explanation given earlier above.

which of course can serve as no evidence at all because, hey, it's
written in the Bible, FFS.

therefore, it's automatically complete fiction.

no need for Alan or any of his selective scholars to disprove any of
its first-hand assertions which have been passed down for 2,000+ years
by the largest known organization in the history of the Western World.
of course not. simply claim that any evidence they hold is a complete
fabrication. well, hey, that's easy enough! and very credible, too.

and hey, just apply the same "logic" to the compilers of "evidence"
regarding Socrates and Plato and we can rap this up right here.

now why didn't i think of that, i wonder.

....

cluetime: the burden of proof is still on you, dude.

i've given more than adequate evidence of the historical existence of
Jesus.

so name the first non-fictional pope, Alan.

is it that Pope Benedict who's sitting in Rome these days?

is he the first non-fictional pope in the long line of historical
evidence leading back to Simon Peter?

or was it his immediate predecessor, Pope John Paul the second?

and so forth.

you're the one who's posturing that you're relying on some valid
"scholarship" of some sort, so...

do give us give us a buzz when you and your so-called scholarly
buddies decide who the first non-fictional pope is, k?

see you in about a gazillion years?

is that enough time?


So it's at best a second-hand account.

why does the names Socrates and Aristotle leap to mind?

some sort of platonic friendship thinger, i guess.

Hearsay, as we call it.

evs.

so it's a wrap?

or maybe it's Luke.
i forget which, offhand.
one of those two are said to be attributed to Peter, as written by
the respective author while Peter preached same.
Who says?
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., in their King James bible printing
prior to 1995 sometime-- and various other "scholarly" sources which
you can probably find on your own, i'm sure.

No scholar thinks the Gospel of Mark is the memoirs of Simon Peter.

history and scholarship is not your friend in this matter.


although, my use of the word "while" is not specifically indicated
there.

still, the "unbroken chain" to Simon Peter seems quite intact.

Not even slightly.


"Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down
carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered
of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard
the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as
I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings
to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement
of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified
in writing down some of the things as he remembered them.
For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that
he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it." [8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_mark#Authorship
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8b34f62364a5a06f

enjoy.

....

so if you're not willing to toss Socrates and Plato into the dustbin
of historical nonsense, we'll be waiting for your declaration of the
first non-fictional pope, remember?

bon voyage, dude.

and, of course, 1st and 2nd Peter.
Those are not accounts of the life of Jesus.
seems to me he mentions some dude named Jesus in those letters.

They're not accounts.

there are accounts mentioned, reading-comprehension-boy.

not as detailed or as lengthy as the Gospels, but still...

hey.

anyway, it's certainly historical evidence linking Simon Peter to
historical Jesus.

sorry 'bout that.

Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/86ba5ab1c2d28375

not to mention that, as written letters go, it's historical evidence
for Simon Peter himself.

which you've now accepted (by mistakenly claiming that there were no
accounts of Jesus in them).

oh well.

not too bright, are you?

Do you not know what the words mean that you're
using yourself?

if you want the much longer, more comprehensive accounts, read Simon
Peter's oral remembrances as written down by Mark in the Gospel of
Mark.

and the Gospel.

yep. the gospel is mention in Peter's letters as well.

maybe the Jesus dude was just some migrant worker, huh?

Maybe there was no Jesus dude.

maybe?

you're making progress, i see.

Try as you might, you still seem unable to show a shred of evidence.

a shred?

dude, i've got 2,000 years worth of historical popes leading back to
square one.

you've got two matchbook covers.

name the first non-fictional pope, Alan.



-$Zero...

nice smokescreen of total irrelevancy,
but at least it was stupid as well.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8b34f62364a5a06f

http://RejectTheBrainwash.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Barbara Thiering refuted!
    ... Jesus teaches "many", or ... For example, Simon Magus, the most powerful figure of all, is ... So, using the assumptions of the pesharist, Simon-Lazarus-the leper ... In Acts 8 appears Simon Magus the Samaritan, offering Peter money in ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Resurrection Accounts Were Transmitted Faithfully From The Begining
    ... Who/what opened alleged Jesus' alleged tomb? ... but 4 for separate accounts written at within close proximity ... Lastly regarding Ignatius, he may have not been there at the tomb. ... regarding your questions pertaining to the tomb and resurrection. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: Questions about the resurrection
    ... | - the simple issue of translation; we have the words in Greek but more ... | than likely Jesus spoke them in Aramaic; at the least therefore we have ... of possible problems with taking scriptural accounts 'as read'. ... I don't dismiss oral tradition as a completely ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: making fun of atheists
    ... When are you going to respond to my questions about Simon Peter's ... The gospel of Mark is Simon Peter's account? ... settled in Rome where he wrote the remembrances of the Apostle Peter. ... Those are not accounts of the life of Jesus. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Smoke one for
    ... (Besides, since John is writing to believers, he can ... John is so far removed, ... This makes their accounts inherently less ... Jesus' life and sayings but these four, but the very fact that this ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
Loading