• Jenna Jameson converting to Judaism, cooking Kosher
    48 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Explosions;47935131]I don't believe he did.[/QUOTE] Good luck finding a historian who agrees with your assertion.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47931205]I know a guy who converted to Mormonism because it was the only way he was ever going to get a girlfriend, that's a reason I guess.[/QUOTE] Well, at least he has mormon Jesus
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47935159]Good luck finding a historian who agrees with your assertion.[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier]Dr. Richard Carrier[/url]
[QUOTE=Explosions;47935267][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier]Dr. Richard Carrier[/url][/QUOTE] Okay, no, that's perfectly fair, I shouldn't speak in absolutes. That doesn't change the fact that it's a highly minority opinion that mainstream historical thought has long decided is nonsense. The bible isn't our only source on the historicity of Jesus. We have Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, all wrote about Jesus fairly extensively. The New Testament was also written very close to Jesus's death (30 years), and his inclusion in it is a very strong indicator that he existed in some form. It was a long enough time for miracles to be attributed to him and his story to most likely be extremely and extensively exaggerated, but it's doubtful that it'd only take 30 years for this figure to be made up and become accepted in the mainstream, especially when people reading and writing the New Testament were alive when Jesus was. Also, early Christianity was extremely diverse, and most of the sects disagreed on almost anything and everything to the point of violence, but they almost all identified Christ as Jesus (Joshua). It's not perfect evidence, but it adds to what we already have. It's highly unlikely that someone just made up Jesus and that a backstory was made up for him within a generation that spread across almost every Christian cult and was then written about by the Romans and recorded in the Bible. Of course, the only thing historians generally agree on about Jesus is that he existed, we know almost nothing about him other than where he was born (generally), when he was born (generally), and that he was executed by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. If you want to dispute anything between those, that's completely and utterly fair, but him existing is something that's not really up in the air.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47935059]I would argue, along with (like I already said) the majority of secular New Testament scholars, that you're just plain wrong, but hey, believe what you want.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority[/url]
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47935368]Okay, no, that's perfectly fair, I shouldn't speak in absolutes. That doesn't change the fact that it's a highly minority opinion that mainstream historical thought has long decided is nonsense. The bible isn't our only source on the historicity of Jesus. We have Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, all wrote about Jesus fairly extensively. The New Testament was also written very close to Jesus's death (30 years), and his inclusion in it is a very strong indicator that he existed in some form. It was a long enough time for miracles to be attributed to him and his story to most likely be extremely and extensively exaggerated, but it's doubtful that it'd only take 30 years for this figure to be made up and become accepted in the mainstream, especially when people reading and writing the New Testament were alive when Jesus was. Also, early Christianity was extremely diverse, and most of the sects disagreed on almost anything and everything to the point of violence, but they almost all identified Christ as Jesus (Joshua). It's not perfect evidence, but it adds to what we already have. It's highly unlikely that someone just made up Jesus and that a backstory was made up for him within a generation that spread across almost every Christian cult and was then written about by the Romans and recorded in the Bible. Of course, the only thing historians generally agree on about Jesus is that he existed, we know almost nothing about him other than where he was born (generally), when he was born (generally), and that he was executed by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. If you want to dispute anything between those, that's completely and utterly fair, but him existing is something that's not really up in the air.[/QUOTE] I don't really have the time or the will to respond to everything you said. I'd highly recommend Carrier's book[I] On the Historicity of Jesus[/I]. You can look up one of his many lectures on the subject on Youtube for a summary.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47935267][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier"]Dr. Richard Carrier[/URL][/QUOTE] I'm not sure if an atheist activist is the best source for academic historical criticism... I mean, he might have a great idea, but the fact that he goes out of his way try and prove atheism makes me doubt his theories are void of bias to a greater degree than the majority of scholars who don't hold to such outspoken opinions. Based on his Wiki page he seems to go out of his way all the time to try and put atheism in a good light. He specifically went to figure out why Anthony Flew gave up his atheism, and then tried to skew Flew's opinion into being less theistic than Flew wrote about in his own book. Flew later rebutted that and clearly stated that he agrees entirely with his own book. He also went out of his way to try and prove that Hitler was Christian.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47935473]I don't really have the time or the will to respond to everything you said. I'd highly recommend Carrier's book[I] On the Historicity of Jesus[/I]. You can look up one of his many lectures on the subject on Youtube for a summary.[/QUOTE] That's not a rebuttal. "Go read this thing written by one of the only guys who agree with me," is not how you respond to an argument. It's great for you to believe Jesus exists but that doesn't mean it's at all true. Also I'm familiar with his work and I don't see how it's relevant to what I said.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47935473]I don't really have the time or the will to respond to everything you said. I'd highly recommend Carrier's book[I] On the Historicity of Jesus[/I]. You can look up one of his many lectures on the subject on Youtube for a summary.[/QUOTE] oh man reading your posts is such a treat, thanks for the entertainment I, too, can make a statement: there are books stating that the holocaust didn't happen THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED GUYS, THIS GUY SAID SO! HERE'S THE EVIDENCE! see how silly you look, friend?
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;47930587]To be fair, people do still convert to Judaism, but normally it's just so that they can marry another Jewish person.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;5OXPlAjeJwQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OXPlAjeJwQ[/video]
[QUOTE=Explosions;47931379]There are zero accounts of a historical Jesus outside of the gospels. All the gospels are based on Mark which is a clear metaphorical mystery cult story. Even Paul never mentions a historical Jesus but instead talks about a ghost Jesus who visits him in visions.[/QUOTE] Well I remember from a history/religion class I took two of the four gospels are considered copies, with one copying the other and having been circulated in similar geographic areas, while the other two differ in very key areas that suggest they are originals I can't remember which ones they were though, I want to say Luke and john were the oddballs though but its been like years since I had this class, but like the scrolls found in the caves, there were many different variations on the same story that circulated amongst relatively isolated areas, it was only after the formal church began unifying the works that they narrowed down the official teachings, and even then the orthodox Christians broke off with their own traditions and scripture later on. The point is there was quite a lot of evidence to show somebody named Jesus was going around preaching in that time frame, but the exact details are lost
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47935557]That's not a rebuttal. "Go read this thing written by one of the only guys who agree with me," is not how you respond to an argument. It's great for you to believe Jesus exists but that doesn't mean it's at all true. Also I'm familiar with his work and I don't see how it's relevant to what I said.[/QUOTE] Except Jesus of Nazareth getting in trouble for antagonistic religiosity in the city of Jerusalem is a matter of roman civil record.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47931379]There are zero accounts of a historical Jesus outside of the gospels. All the gospels are based on Mark which is a clear metaphorical mystery cult story. Even Paul never mentions a historical Jesus but instead talks about a ghost Jesus who visits him in visions.[/QUOTE] The idea that Christianity is completely plagiarized from the numerous mystery cults that existed around the same time is pseudo historical. Recognizing that yes, similar story elements existed between the story of Jesus and the mythos of different Mysteries, it is incredibly ahistorical to say that the Christ story is merely a copy and thus nonhistorical. For one, it negates the very major difference that exists between the story of Christ's and the defining feature of the mystery cults. They were called that because they were supposed to be only share with intitiates. Christianity by definition proselytic and was for the meek and lowly and initially women and slaves were the huge source of adherents. Mystery cults were most often spread through soldiers of the army. They were also not open to the throngs of the people hence the "mystery". Furthermore, parallel story motifs doesn't mean that one simply copies another. Does the flood of the epic of Gilgamesh and the flood of the bible mean they were copied? when people point the simarities out (i.e. ancient alien nuts) they often drastically cut out details and change elements to make them seem more similar than they actually are when you really analyze the stories. At most an argument could be made that because mystery cults were popular, the story of Christ could have thus been articulated in a like manner for popular consumption. But this also fails to take into acount that the heyday of many mystery cults followed the time of christ. taking this into consideration it becomes even less clear whether mystery cult stories influenced christianity, or the reverse. Another thing to take into account: there are MANY different mystery cults. Which one was supposed to be the one christianity plagiarised? Why one and not others too? At best we can judge that based on the contemporary popularity of mystery cults at the same time as the rise of Christianity led to a cross polination but to say anything further is mere stipulation and has little bearing on the historicity of Christ and more to do with the dev. of postapostolic christianity and syncretism. [editline]15th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=27X;47964316]Except Jesus of Nazareth getting in trouble for antagonistic religiosity in the city of Jerusalem is matter of roman civil record.[/QUOTE] In a perfect world yes there would be extensive records but given the rate of loss of documents and evidence from that time period it's not unlikely that we simply don't have sources because they have decayed, been lost or destroyed. Even with the romans as good of record keepers as they were, Judea was a province beset by major public order issues from the moment the Romans conquered it. To them, tracking another insignificant rabble rouser may not have been as interesting as we think it is. What would have likely happened is that a Roman official would hear about it, and devolve authority on the local Jewish magistrates ( which is exactly what we are told happened). That it wasn't exactly gripping news for the Princeps, or the other learned literate elite of Rome is not unsurprising.
I thought the debate wasn't whether he existed or not but rather if he performed the miracles stated in the Bible, ie Jesus the person existed, notsomuch the possible embellishments.
[QUOTE=waxrock;47964560]I thought the debate wasn't whether he existed or not but rather if he performed the miracles stated in the Bible, ie Jesus the person existed, notsomuch the possible embellishments.[/QUOTE] From a historical perspective that question is considered more or less unanswerable so that's not the debate in that field for the most part. From a religious/philosophical/personal perspective absolutely, that is the one merits by which one would assess Jesus i.e. was he who he said he was. Jews don't believe he was the messiah, Muslims believe he was a messenger of God but not literally god, and a few other derivations. Bahais believe he was a prophet who is one and the same spirit as all manifestations of god. Some Hindus believe that Jesus came to India during the unaccounted for period in his life and was another avatar of vishnu. many atheists choose to think he was nothing but a rabble rouse whose story got blown out of proportions. Maybe the most important thing is that whatever he was, his influence over history and innumerable swaths of the people of the world has been paramount and almost unrivaled. Whatever you believe, that fact is incontrivertable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.