Another Bills reporter trying to make himself the story

[C.Biscuit97]

I honestly wonder if Marcel or Fromm are still even thinking about this.  Dude asked a question, got an answer (imo and his, it was a cop out), then maybe Marcel shouldn’t have added a tweet, and it’s over. 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So the existence of Jesus - that is documented historical fact. The existence of the disciples.... that is a lot more sketchy. Beyond Apostle James who we know was real and is documented as the "brother of Jesus" cue significant theological debate about whether that is intended to convey a sibling relationship or a close bond there is scant historical evidence for the existence of the others. 

While I realize the point of the OP has been long taken off the rails in this thread, and I fully expect the mods will prolly not like us getting this deep in the woods as the historical record for the existence of basic tenets of Christianity, I have to point out that the historical record of the Bible as well as outside of it, shows evidence for agreement that a group of 12 actually existed alongside Jesus during His earthly ministry. These sources include many of the world's earliest historians A.D. known to us who carried information through to us for preservation to the present day. 

 

John Oakes, PhD in summarizing the historical record:

"We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century. He tells about all twelve of the apostles, plus Paul, relating where each ministered and how they died. Eusebius quotes his sources, such as second century historian Papias and Irenaeus and other Christian writers. The reliability of Eusebius varies somewhat, but he was a careful scholar and he quoted his sources. Some of the things he tells us about what happened to the twelve may be inaccurate, but what cannot be wrong is that there were twelve apostles.  There is no way someone like Eusebius could have gotten the number of apostles wrong. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, tells us that he learned under Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally.  Is it possible that Irenaeus got this wrong? I do not think so.  If we go back to such books as the Didache and the Letter of Clement to the Romans, both written around the turn of the first century, that there were twelve apostles was assumed. This had been the tradition of the Christian church from the beginning of its existence.  Is there any possible motivation for the church to make up the existence of twelve apostles?  I cannot think of any.

The Didache, a very early Christian catechism dates from the very late first century. When it was written, some who had known the apostles were still alive, although they would have been quite old.  The Didache is also known as “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles.” The unknown writer of the Didache assumes that there were twelve apostles because it was common knowledge that there were twelve apostles.  The people who knew Jesus personally would have known how many apostles there were.  It is irrational to believe that there were not twelve apostles of Jesus because every account of Christianity is unanimous on this account, including even Josephus who was not a friend of Christianity."

https://evidenceforchristianity.org/is-there-any-evidence-other-than-the-bible-that-shows-that-the-twelve-apostles-existed/

 

Additional summary citations contained within Sean McDowell's PhD Dissertation:

https://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/4857/McDowell_sbts_0207D_10221.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (see p.39, "The Historicity of the Twelve")

 

The Apostle Paul in his letters to the early church, discusses meeting some of the 12 personally such as Peter, James & John (Galatians 1:11-2:10), each of which separately also confirmed their membership in the 12. 

 

I could go on, but this is probably not the thread for diving so deep. 

 

 

 

On 8/7/2020 at 10:49 PM, Mike in Horseheads said:

Why is it the wrong thread? Everything else but the kitchen sink has been in here?

Ok, well, maybe this is the right thread then! . Guess we should start debating the merits of how to pronounce "GIF" in here next?

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

While I realize the point of the OP has been long taken off the rails in this thread, and I fully expect the mods will prolly not like us getting this deep in the woods as the historical record for the existence of basic tenets of Christianity, I have to point out that the historical record of the Bible as well as outside of it, shows evidence for agreement that a group of 12 actually existed alongside Jesus during His earthly ministry. These sources include many of the world's earliest historians A.D. known to us who carried information through to us for preservation to the present day. 

 

John Oakes, PhD in summarizing the historical record:

"We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century. He tells about all twelve of the apostles, plus Paul, relating where each ministered and how they died. Eusebius quotes his sources, such as second century historian Papias and Irenaeus and other Christian writers. The reliability of Eusebius varies somewhat, but he was a careful scholar and he quoted his sources. Some of the things he tells us about what happened to the twelve may be inaccurate, but what cannot be wrong is that there were twelve apostles.  There is no way someone like Eusebius could have gotten the number of apostles wrong. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, tells us that he learned under Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally.  Is it possible that Irenaeus got this wrong? I do not think so.  If we go back to such books as the Didache and the Letter of Clement to the Romans, both written around the turn of the first century, that there were twelve apostles was assumed. This had been the tradition of the Christian church from the beginning of its existence.  Is there any possible motivation for the church to make up the existence of twelve apostles?  I cannot think of any.

The Didache, a very early Christian catechism dates from the very late first century. When it was written, some who had known the apostles were still alive, although they would have been quite old.  The Didache is also known as “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles.” The unknown writer of the Didache assumes that there were twelve apostles because it was common knowledge that there were twelve apostles.  The people who knew Jesus personally would have known how many apostles there were.  It is irrational to believe that there were not twelve apostles of Jesus because every account of Christianity is unanimous on this account, including even Josephus who was not a friend of Christianity."

https://evidenceforchristianity.org/is-there-any-evidence-other-than-the-bible-that-shows-that-the-twelve-apostles-existed/

 

Additional summary citations contained within Sean McDowell's PhD Dissertation:

https://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/4857/McDowell_sbts_0207D_10221.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (see p.39, "The Historicity of the Twelve")

 

The Apostle Paul in his letters to the early church, discusses meeting some of the 12 personally such as Peter, James & John (Galatians 1:11-2:10), each of which separately also confirmed their membership in the 12. 

 

I could go on, but this is probably not the thread for diving so deep. 

 

 

 

Ok, well, maybe this is the right thread then! . Guess we should start debating the merits of how to pronounce "GIF" in here next?

 

I am aware of all of the above and a LOT of it is very disputed. The evidence is sketchy. The conclusion of Mr Oakes that it is "irrational" to doubt the existence of the disciples is, I would submit, a significant misuse of the word. 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am aware of all of the above and a LOT of it is very disputed. The evidence is sketchy. The conclusion of Mr Oakes that it is "irrational" to doubt the existence of the disciples is, I would submit, a significant misuse of the word. 

His own opinion, to be sure. I only included his article due to the summary of citations, not his editorializing. That said, I would say it would have been irrational for the early church fathers to include an account of an "insider's betrayal" of Jesus in the form of Judas Iscariot, as that would present an unneeded embarrassment conjured out of thin air, than to promote only a 'hall of fame' take with additional life detail for them all. 

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

His own opinion, to be sure. I only included his article due to the summary of citations, not his editorializing. That said, I would say it would have been irrational for the early church fathers to include an account of an "insider's betrayal" of Jesus in the form of Judas Iscariot, as that would present an unneeded embarrassment conjured out of thin air, than to promote only a 'hall of fame' take with additional life detail for them all. 

 

Again we are probably taking the thread too far away from its purpose but there are historians and theologians who question the consistency of the various accounts of the Judas betrayal. My personal view is that there was likely a real betrayal of Jesus onto which some editorial flourish was added. 

 

I do find it a genuinely interesting topic though and I continue to be grateful for the manner of our discourse in this thread.

[Johnnycage46]

7 minutes ago, Gene1973 said:

This thread is proof that social media is destroying our civilization.

Or just the internet in general.  While I love the convenience it does add a certain darkness to the world with what's out there.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Gene1973 said:

 

I was in my mid 20's when the internet started, I have seen the the progression of toxcicity increase exponentially. I remember when I could talk to some people that I now cannot due to them hating my politics, which in turn dictates they must hate me. I have not changed, but the social convention now is for people to pick a tribe and fight/chastize/dis-own.

 

Social discourse is dead, younger generations rely on online dating for inter-personal relations of the romantic variety, which started out fine, I even participated, but the swipe culture it has devolved into is now destroying that part of our cultural stability.

 

Technological improvement has always come with the death of certain aspects of our society, however I am starting to wonder if the internet has destroyed more lives than it has benefited, especially when you take in to consideration the younger generations' minds that are being actively and purposely mutalated.

 

There is definitely some truth to this. Particularly in societal and political discourse. I have friends and family about as far from one another on social issues as you can get and on both sides I have seen them cut ties with people who disagree with them. Social media encourages it an people end up in awful echo chambers of their own opinions. Not sure I see a way to reverse this trend to be honest. 

[Chandler#81]

17 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Christmas sounds like a real hoot at Chandler’s house!

We celebrate Festivus. Beautiful decor, great gifts, no Jesus crap.?

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Chandler#81 said:

We celebrate Festivus. Beautiful decor, great gifts, no Jesus crap.?

 

Food, drink, family, friends and sport on tv. That is what Christmas is to me. And Easter is just a 4 day weekend drinking session. 

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

We celebrate Festivus. Beautiful decor, great gifts, no Jesus crap.?

[NoHuddleKelly12]

34 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is definitely some truth to this. Particularly in societal and political discourse. I have friends and family about as far from one another on social issues as you can get and on both sides I have seen them cut ties with people who disagree with them. Social media encourages it an people end up in awful echo chambers of their own opinions. Not sure I see a way to reverse this trend to be honest. 

If nothing else, our example (for the most part) on this thread is at least some semblance of sticking to a debate versus ad hominem attacks of the sort you're probably referring to--so it's possible if both sides of an argument are willing to draw the line so civility can keep its oxygen. Maybe because we know we're also mutual Bills fans? ?

[NoHuddleKelly12]

39 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

We celebrate Festivus. Beautiful decor, great gifts, no Jesus crap.?

Merry Christmas @Chandler#81! I'm still going to wish you peace on Earth, goodwill towards men, as that is extended to all by the good news of the season, and despite your poor taste in curmudgeonly decor. Everyone knows Festivus involves an unadorned aluminum pole as its main draw, and I'm betting your extended family expects to see some twinkling lights when they pull up at casa del Chandler in the way too hot Floridian winter sun.   

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

If nothing else, our example (for the most part) on this thread is at least some semblance of sticking to a debate versus ad hominem attacks of the sort you're probably referring to--so it's possible if both sides of an argument are willing to draw the line so civility can keep its oxygen. Maybe because we know we're also mutual Bills fans? ?

 

I just think that sadly not everyone is as reasonable and understanding a person @NoHuddleKelly12. I wish it wish it were the case but increasingly I am finding not. I also think twitter in particular hurts because how much nuance can one express in 240 characters? 

[Chandler#81]

1 minute ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Merry Christmas @Chandler#81! I'm still going to wish you peace on Earth, goodwill towards men, as that is extended to all by the good news of the season, and despite your poor taste in curmudgeonly decor. Everyone knows Festivus involves an unadorned aluminum pole as its main draw, and I'm betting your extended family expects to see some twinkling lights when they pull up at casa del Chandler in the way too hot Floridian winter sun.   

Turn your sarcasm detector on. Christmas, as you SHOULD know, is a pagan holiday, as are many of the decor associated. Ditto Easter. Just because the most ridiculous story ever told chose to cop it, doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the holiday decor. We just don’t bother with the ‘God-fathered’ BS. 

-and on that note, how come Gods of fable always seem to find our planet and copulate our women? WTF is that about? I know.our women. There HAS to better out there!?

Personally, I’m more a fan of Zeus’ half son Hercules than I am of a dweeb who -by all logical projection, found THE ONLY men in the Middle East named Matt, Pete, Johnny, Tommy Boy, Jimmy, Phil, and Simon to chum around with.??. 

I can do this all day. You won’t and can’t win.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

9 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

Turn your sarcasm detector on. Christmas, as you SHOULD know, is a pagan holiday, as are many of the decor associated. Ditto Easter. Just because the most ridiculous story ever told chose to cop it, doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the holiday decor. We just don’t bother with the ‘God-fathered’ BS. 

-and on that note, how come Gods of fable always seem to find our planet and copulate our women? WTF is that about? I know.our women. There HAS to better out there!?

Personally, I’m more a fan of Zeus’ half son Hercules than I am of a dweeb who -by all logical projection, found THE ONLY men in the Middle East named Matt, Pete, Johnny, Tommy Boy, Jimmy, Phil, and Simon to chum around with.??. 

I can do this all day. You won’t and can’t win.

Sarcasm duly noted.  Calling you a festivus curmudgeon in your decorating tastes is in the same spirit--you should know that, as I have nothing but love for my Bills brethren here, you included. As to your specific holiday points, what you or I choose to celebrate on whichever day it happens to fall is what we individually make of it--the calendar day itself has nothing inherently to do with the underlying events being celebrated--all stripes agree that Jesus was almost certainly not born on Dec. 25th, FWIW. Also, not trying to make anything a contest, especially when discussions here aren't going to really change what you or I think at the end of the day--other than provide food for further thought.      

[Buffalo716]

32 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

Turn your sarcasm detector on. Christmas, as you SHOULD know, is a pagan holiday, as are many of the decor associated. Ditto Easter. Just because the most ridiculous story ever told chose to cop it, doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the holiday decor. We just don’t bother with the ‘God-fathered’ BS. 

-and on that note, how come Gods of fable always seem to find our planet and copulate our women? WTF is that about? I know.our women. There HAS to better out there!?

Personally, I’m more a fan of Zeus’ half son Hercules than I am of a dweeb who -by all logical projection, found THE ONLY men in the Middle East named Matt, Pete, Johnny, Tommy Boy, Jimmy, Phil, and Simon to chum around with.??. 

I can do this all day. You won’t and can’t win.

This just shows how much you just like to argue with people lol

 

they had Hebrew or Aramaic names that were translated to Matthew Mark Luke and John. Just like you could translate every single language in this world to English

 

They were not using English names, it's an English translation. 

 

Mattiyahu in Aramaic. And there were lots of them

Edited August 10, 2020 by Buffalo716

[blacklabel]

Is he the authority on what is and isn't acceptable? He's not entitled to receive a certain type of answer. If Fromm prefers to keep quiet about those texts and move forward from it, then that's fine. If that's unacceptable to a reporter then I guess that's too bad for him. He isn't owed any sort of specific response to his questions. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

This just shows how much you just like to argue with people lol

 

they had Hebrew or Aramaic names that were translated to Matthew Mark Luke and John. Just like you could translate every single language in this world to English

 

They were not using English names, it's an English translation. 

 

Mattiyahu in Aramaic. And there were lots of them

 

[Sig1Hunter]

3 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

We celebrate Festivus. Beautiful decor, great gifts, no Jesus crap.?

Beautiful decor? Like a pole? Are there Feats of Strength and Airing of Grievances? If so, set an extra place at the table for me please. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

36 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Beautiful decor? Like a pole? Are there Feats of Strength and Airing of Grievances? If so, set an extra place at the table for me please. 

 

*making mental note to send @Chandler#81 "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" banner next December*.  (Because I love ya, Chand!)

 

And on that note, it seems like more than a dozen posts since the OP topic, Jake Fromm, or anything vaguely related to football has been discussed so let's give this thread a Blankey and tuck it in for the night.