Professor gets attacked on Fox News for writing a book about Christianity as a Muslim
68 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41623921]Ask your history professor then? What does he/she think? Or are you simply putting yourself on a pedestal saying "I know better than those plebeian historians"?[/QUOTE]
No I'm saying that they aren't the be all end all
their practice isn't a hard science and minority opinions can exist, and end up mainstream. Why else do you think historical revisionism surrounding things like the holocaust is considered so dangerous. The existence of Jesus has been largely accepted for millennia because for the majority of that time you would be persecuted if you didn't accept it.
and I don't have history professor I'm not in high school
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41623947]No I'm saying that they aren't the be all end all
their practice isn't a hard science and minority opinions can exist, and end up mainstream. Why else do you think historical revisionism surrounding things like the holocaust is considered so dangerous. The existence of Jesus has been largely accepted for millennia because for the majority of that time you would be persecuted if you didn't accept it.
and I don't have history professor I'm not in high school[/QUOTE]
You mustn't be at Uni either.
dohoho zinger
got anything else or are you just going to keep repeating the same
historians believe
there's records you know
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41623947]No I'm saying that they aren't the be all end all
their practice isn't a hard science and minority opinions can exist, and end up mainstream. Why else do you think historical revisionism surrounding things like the holocaust is considered so dangerous. The existence of Jesus has been largely accepted for millennia because for the majority of that time you would be persecuted if you didn't accept it.
and I don't have history professor I'm not in high school[/QUOTE]
You wrote "Jesus never existed" which is a pretty bold statement.
From Tacitus (who was born ~26 years after the crucifixion):
[QUOTE]Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[/QUOTE]
Remember this is from a non-christian, in a historical work not revolving around Jesus. This is just one of the sources mentioning Jesus. Something you have to remember is that historical records weren't common practices around that time, so not having records from the exact date is not uncommon.
Thank goodness Polopozozo was here to finally shed light on the 2000 year old conspiracy of Jesus the man who never existed in anyway or form.
It mentions Christus, the generic name for the messiah that the sect of Jews expecting a Messiah
Tacitus could have just as easily not known anything about someone named Jesus of Nazareth or if there was a single individual designated as Christ at all.
There was a very long period - dating back to the Enlightenment - where historians questioned Jesus's existence. It's not like the historical existence of Jesus was hamfisted into academia by Christianity. Throughout the 20th century, more evidence began to appear - like Tacitus's statements and Roman legal records - which significantly refuted historical theories about Jesus being fictional. Which is why, in modern academic historical studies, there are many more individuals within the field who are likely to believe Jesus actually existed.
Depending on who you talk to, many historians are not too concerned with the validity of Jesus's existence, anyway. Christianity's influence is a much more significant study than Jesus's historical existence. From Middle Ages scholars to 19th century professors, Christianity's hold on the West is a historical topic that is much more exciting to modern scholars.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;41624086]Thank goodness Polopozozo was here to finally shed light on the 2000 year old conspiracy of Jesus the man who never existed in anyway or form.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're right
it's not like plenty of historians in the past had opposing views and presented them
only to be either suppressed by the religious
or not taken seriously by fine tools such as yourself
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624116]Yeah you're right
it's not like plenty of historians in the past had opposing views and presented them
only to be either suppressed by the religious
or not taken seriously by fine tools such as yourself[/QUOTE]
Yes, those poor American souls in the 1970s who were still saying that Jesus did not exist.
They were burned at the stake for their views :v:
[editline]28th July 2013[/editline]
Arguing about Jesus's existence is extremely pointless, anyway. It's like arguing about whether Karl Marx was an actual person. It's Marx's work, not his life, which is so significant to modern historical beliefs. If anything, we should be concerned about who actually wrote and edited Biblical passages. The Bible itself has had a much stronger influence on Western life than Jesus Christ.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624036]dohoho zinger
got anything else or are you just going to keep repeating the same
historians believe
there's records you know[/QUOTE]
What would you like? A snapshot from a livejasmine session with Jesus? There's a limited amount of data to draw on, as with all ancient history.
[editline]28th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624109]It mentions Christus, the generic name for the messiah that the sect of Jews expecting a Messiah
Tacitus could have just as easily not known anything about someone named Jesus of Nazareth or if there was a single individual designated as Christ at all.[/QUOTE]
Funny how Pontius Pilatus apparently crucified "Christus" but it most definitely wasn't Jesus Christ even though the execution of "Christus" checked the spreading of "a most mischevious superstition" that then later spread throughout Judea. That doesn't sound like Christianity at all.
But really - I'm simply arguing that there most probably was a guy that got crucified around 30 AD that some people thought was important. That's all this speaks for. It doesn't say anything about Jesus as per the church's definition.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41624123]Yes, those poor American souls in the 1970s who were still saying that Jesus did not exist.
They were burned at the stake for their views :v:
[/QUOTE]
You realize how ostracized you'd be even in the early twentieth century for claiming that right? I mean this video is evidence that even a person who argues that he did exist draws all kinds of shit to himself.
[QUOTE]If anything, we should be concerned about who actually wrote and edited Biblical passages. The Bible itself has had a much stronger influence on Western life than Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]Yes, agreed, as is evident by people in this very thread.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41624143]What would you like? A snapshot from a livejasmine session with Jesus? There's a limited amount of data to draw on, as with all ancient history.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that sounds good, because as of now there's more concrete evidence for Pontius Pilate than there is for Jesus of Nazareth.
[QUOTE]Funny how Pontius Pilatus apparently crucified "Christus" but it most definitely wasn't Jesus Christ even though the execution of "Christus" checked the spreading of "a most mischevious superstition" that then later spread throughout Judea. That doesn't sound like Christianity at all.
But really - I'm simply arguing that there most probably was a guy that got crucified around 30 AD that some people thought was important. That's all this speaks for. It doesn't say anything about Jesus as per the church's definition.[/QUOTE]
Yeah got me there, sixty years after the reign of Tiberius, Tacitus wrote one small sentence about the supposed founder of Christianity being crucified. You got me, you win.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624195]You realize how ostracized you'd be even in the early twentieth century for claiming that right? I mean this video is evidence that even a person who argues that he did exist draws all kinds of shit to himself.[/QUOTE]
No, this is not true at all. Academia has traditionally been a bastion for dissident thought, even if the public world is not. Even in the 40s & 50s, the biggest concentration of radical leftists were on college campuses. And the reigning historical belief throughout the 20th century [i]was[/i] the idea that Jesus was a fictional entity.
Plus, many radical social justice views - feminism, LGBTQA rights, neo-Marxism - sprung straight from academia. Herbert Marcuse, one of the most influential Marxist critical theorists in the whole entire 20th century, was a widely acclaimed academic. Andrea Dworkin's writings marked academic studies on feminism for years. As someone who's planning on going to Grad school, normative thought is often radically questioned in Universities. That's why Jesus was considered fictional for years - historical professors wanted nothing to do with his existence until there was legitimate proof that he, well, existed.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624195]You realize how ostracized you'd be even in the early twentieth century for claiming that right? I mean this video is evidence that even a person who argues that he did exist draws all kinds of shit to himself.
Yes, agreed, as is evident by people in this very thread.[/QUOTE]
We don't all live in America, dude.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41624246]We don't all live in America, dude.[/QUOTE]
Adding on to that, we don't all live in Southern/Western America :v:.
The Northeast has a lot more in common with Europe than it does the South.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41624242]No, this is not true at all. Academia has traditionally been a bastion for dissident thought, even if the public world is not. Even in the 40s & 50s, the biggest concentration of radical leftists were on college campuses. And the reigning historical belief throughout the 20th century [i]was[/i] the idea that Jesus was a fictional entity.
Plus, many radical social justice views - feminism, LGBTQA rights, neo-Marxism - sprung straight from academia. Herbert Marcuse, one of the most influential Marxist critical theorists in the whole entire 20th century, was a widely acclaimed academic. Andrea Dworkin's writings marked academic studies on feminism for years. As someone who's planning on going to Grad school, normative thought is often radically questioned in Universities. That's why Jesus was considered fictional for years - historical professors wanted nothing to do with his existence until there was legitimate proof that he, well, existed.[/QUOTE]
Academia isn't isolated from society, are you telling me that radical leftists in the 40's and 50's were a-ok as long as they stayed on campus?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume POLOPOZOZO wouldn't doubt Jesus' existence if he wasn't a religious figure.
but do you guys want to know a secret
[sp]Julius Caesar never existed[/sp]
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624195]
Yeah that sounds good, because as of now there's more concrete evidence for Pontius Pilate than there is for Jesus of Nazareth.
Yeah got me there, sixty years after the reign of Tiberius, Tacitus wrote one small sentence about the supposed founder of Christianity being crucified. You got me, you win.[/QUOTE]
It's not my job to spoon feed you with historical sources you baby. Make your mind up about it, just remember that historians (and not just religious zealots) believe this guy existed. I don't even understand why you're so opposed to the idea? It has absolutely no religious consequences for you as an atheist whether the guy existed or not.
It also sounds a bit like you feel oppressed or something.
[QUOTE=PederPauline;41624315]I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume POLOPOZOZO wouldn't doubt Jesus' existence if he wasn't a religious figure.
but do you guys want to know a secret
[sp]Julius Caesar never existed[/sp][/QUOTE]
I don't believe Jimmu or Noah existed either
lol this guy
[editline]28th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41624334]It's not my job to spoon feed you with historical sources you baby. Make your mind up about it, just remember that historians (and not just religious zealots) believe this guy existed. I don't even understand why you're so opposed to the idea? It has absolutely no religious consequences for you as an atheist whether the guy existed or not.
It also sounds a bit like you feel oppressed or something.[/QUOTE]
You can't spoon feed me what isn't there, I've looked at the sources myself and find no reason to consider them to be concrete evidence, considering the figure is one who is so critical to an entire facet of society.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624336]I don't believe Jimmu or Noah existed either
lol this guy
[editline]28th July 2013[/editline]
You can't spoon feed me what isn't there, I've looked at the sources myself and find no reason to consider them to be concrete evidence, considering the figure is one who is so critical to an entire facet of society.[/QUOTE]
So because a guy is important in today's society you're less likely to think him real? That's kinda like saying "You know who" instead "Voldemort" or hide your head in the sand for something to disappear.
Again, let me emphasize, all it says is that there was a guy called something, lived around 0 to 30AD, and that he wrecked some shit which the Jewish guys in power didn't like. It isn't at all an unusual story, and the lack of sources from around that time isn't really all that surprising considering the fact that history wasn't a really a science at that point in time, and because Christianity only later really became significant.
You don't have to accept Jesus as your lord and saviour in order to recognize that Mr. Some Guy 0-30AD is most probably a real historic figure.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41624395]So because a guy is important in today's society you're less likely to think him real? That's kinda like saying "You know who" instead "Voldemort" or hide your head in the sand for something to disappear.
Again, let me emphasize, all it says is that there was a guy called something, lived around 0 to 30AD, and that he wrecked some shit which the Jewish guys in power didn't like. It isn't at all an unusual story, and the lack of sources from around that time isn't really all that surprising considering the fact that history wasn't a really a science at that point in time, and because Christianity only later really became significant.
You don't have to accept Jesus as your lord and saviour in order to recognize that Mr. Some Guy 0-30AD is most probably a real historic figure.[/QUOTE]
That lack of sources not being surprising thing makes no sense, how is it that there's more solid evidence of some prefect of Judea than the supposed founder of massive global religion? Accepting him as a real historic figure means accepting parts of the Bible as historically accurate, and that's just silly.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624565]That lack of sources not being surprising thing makes no sense, how is it that there's more solid evidence of some prefect of Judea than the supposed founder of massive global religion? Accepting him as a real historic figure means accepting parts of the Bible as historically accurate, and that's just silly.[/QUOTE]
The fact that Christianity was most probably a very localized religion at that point in time means that Jesus probably didn't mean all that much to the Roman Empire.
And no, accepting the fact that he existed just means you have to accept that some religious zealot took advantage of the situation at that time and made his own religion with him in the center. Watch Life of Brian to understand how that came to be.
And much of the Bible probably relies on events that really happened, but were spinned in a fashion that fit the religious goals. The Battle of Jericho for example - it most probably happened, but not when the Bible says it did, and not in the way the Bible describes. Jesus is probably more of the same - probably a real figure, maybe real speeches as well, but definitely no miracles or son of God.
[QUOTE=Thugaim;41623867]Funny how the smartest individuals can be corroded by retarded religions. If anyone is about to tell me that I should respect religions, please give me a quote back from the "6th" pillar of Islam.[/QUOTE]
do you have cancer in your brain or something? There are only 5 pillars of Islam.
[quote][B]A few Muslims[/B], mainly some Kharijite groups in ancient times[1][2] and members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad recently,[3] have taught that Jihad should be considered the sixth pillar of Islam. In this context, Jihad is viewed as external war against those perceived to be enemies of Islam.[4][5][/quote]
I don't understand the interviewer. He has a PHD in the subject, so he wrote a book about it. What is there to discuss?
[QUOTE=Occlusion;41625498]I don't understand the interviewer. He has a PHD in the subject, so he wrote a book about it. What is there to discuss?[/QUOTE]
Unintelligent Americans don't like the idea of non-white, Non-American, Non-Christian people writing intelligent things about Christianity. In fact, I believe one of the main reasons America has such a bad reputation is the fact that the dumbest people there are also the loudest.
[QUOTE=Mr Shadyface;41628931]Unintelligent Americans don't like the idea of non-white, Non-American, Non-Christian people writing intelligent things about Christianity. In fact, I believe one of the main reasons America has such a bad reputation is the fact that the dumbest people there are also the loudest.[/QUOTE]
The dumbest people are the loudest everywhere, we're just in the situation that the place is large enough to have a lot of them.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41624307]Academia isn't isolated from society, are you telling me that radical leftists in the 40's and 50's were a-ok as long as they stayed on campus?[/QUOTE]
No? You can still be a student and criticized/ostracized for your theories. But, traditionally, academics have fostered critical theory and anti-normative thought within classrooms. Academia has created a safe space for non-normative thought.
I'm not trying to state that academia is an area where everyone is a critical thinker. Undergrads are notoriously disconnected from the mindsets their degrees are suppose to teach. But, academia has a long history of supporting dissident and critical thought.
There's a reason why neo-Marxism became a student's cause, instead of a worker's union. Dissident theories have a long history of thriving within an academic environment. Some if the most vocal social justice advocates are college students. There's a culture of anti-normative thought in academia: and it creates a community where socially "ostracized" thinkers can come together to share their critical theories. That's why social justice has a long academic history in America.
Couldn't watch the vid on the site. Here it is on Youtube.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0[/media]
he handled that extremely well and at no point during the interview did she successfully make him look bad
get shit on fox
[editline]29th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Occlusion;41625498]I don't understand the interviewer. He has a PHD in the subject, so he wrote a book about it. What is there to discuss?[/QUOTE]
i dont think the interviewer understands that people actually have academic interests and not everyone think religion is the be-all and end-all of life
but i guess that's how it is when you're a sheltered dumbass
Fox is fucking stupid.
It's really irritating how she has obviously no idea of the subject matter at all and was probably just handed a bunch of provocative questions she is obliged to ask in order to appeal to a target demographic by her superiors. This completely kills the chance of an intelligent debate taking place right off the bat. Because all the management thinks the audience wants to hear/think is "WAT BUSINESS DOES A MUSLIM JIHAD MAN HAVE TALKING ABOUT JESUS DAMN BROWN PEOPLE STOP TOUCHING OUR CULTURE". This is so wrong on so many levels but I'm glad he came forth and tried to pack some information into the interview anyway
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.