PDA

View Full Version : The Bible is a history book? holy sh!t



indy007
27th November 07, 03:47 PM
J_Skvo9u6eM

Next they'll be telling us Creationism is a science.


...oh wait... :(

Aaranar
27th November 07, 03:55 PM
You want your kids to learn the bible? Send them to a religious school or send them to sunday school. That's why they are there.

Shawarma
27th November 07, 04:05 PM
Everyone should read the bible, if not for religious reasons then to get a bunch of fun stories to bore people with.

AAAhmed46
27th November 07, 05:56 PM
LOOK IT"S CHUCK NORRIS!!!!!!

DerAuslander108
27th November 07, 06:27 PM
History book?

No.

Historical text?

Yes.

The majority of the old testament can be seen as a historical account of various events, if colored by religious beliefs.

Get a grip people.

WarPhalange
27th November 07, 06:44 PM
Historical text?

Yes.

The majority of the old testament can be seen as a historical account of various events, if colored by religious beliefs.

Get a grip people.

It's as much a historical text as is Slaughterhouse 5.

The most you can really extrapolate from it history-wise is the attitudes of the people who wrote it at the time they wrote it.

An anectode here or there is okay, but you can't learn history from a text that gives you 1 anectode from an unknown author and then in the next page has the creator of the universe directly telling a person what to do or who to kill.

Olorin
27th November 07, 07:11 PM
I wonder what version of the Bible they want to use...

King James?
New Revised Standard?
other?


I should call and find out.

Shawarma
27th November 07, 07:14 PM
Block Testament.

AAAhmed46
27th November 07, 07:17 PM
Are there any biblical texts still in hebrew?

Olorin
27th November 07, 07:21 PM
Are there any biblical texts still in hebrew?

Bust this bad boy out on em...

http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/assets/room1/artifacts/Torah.JPG

WarPhalange
27th November 07, 08:57 PM
That is amazing.

How did they make a single piece of paper that long, and how do they ever find the chapter they need?

Also, someone should tell them they wrote it backwards.

Sun Wukong
27th November 07, 09:48 PM
I wonder what version of the Bible they want to use...

King James?
New Revised Standard?
other?


I should call and find out.

My bet is they'll use the King James version. What with Huckabee being Baptist and all that.

Olorin
27th November 07, 11:17 PM
That is amazing.

What is amazing is that one of those costs 30,000 to 20,000 bucks.


How did they make a single piece of paper that long, and how do they ever find the chapter they need?

Jewish magic?

WarPhalange
28th November 07, 01:33 AM
What is amazing is that one of those costs 30,000 to 20,000 bucks.

No thanks, I'll use regular toilet paper like normal people.

Toby Christensen
28th November 07, 01:42 AM
<< feels the angry spectre of anti-Seminism seeping into the thread.

Steve
28th November 07, 02:25 AM
Are there any biblical texts still in hebrew?

LOL, sorry.

Olorin
28th November 07, 03:12 AM
No thanks, I'll use regular toilet paper like normal people.

Heard that before...

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Nurnberg/Nurnberg27.jpg

Sun Wukong
28th November 07, 03:13 AM
<< feels the angry spectre of anti-Seminism seeping into the thread.

[email protected]

DAYoung
28th November 07, 04:02 AM
THE JEWS DID IT.

*points*

EuropIan
28th November 07, 05:29 AM
*jumps anti-semite bandwagon*

http://www.4freeimagehost.com/uploads/1d90dbbf7706.jpg


Please know that I love all religious delousions equally


Edit:...God damn servers don't like my appropiate racism

Olorin
28th November 07, 05:35 AM
Please know that I love all religious delousions equally

Then how do we keep our balance?

gRdfX7ut8gw

DAYoung
28th November 07, 05:35 AM
*jumps anti-semite bandwagon*

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/451/jewsde9.jpg

Please know that I love all religious delousions equally

That's brilliant.

A Jew must have done it.

ICY
28th November 07, 06:09 AM
Anyone who hasn't read it should STFU.

Parts of it are historical accounts, other parts are mystical fantasies, it's pretty fucking easy to distinguish between'em.

DAYoung
28th November 07, 06:36 AM
I've read it.

Too many genealogies in the Tanakh, but the first couple of books are gripping. The New Testament was okay as a sequel - they did well to keep it short.

I particularly enjoyed the Gospels - a great story, with clever allusions to the original.

kungfujew
28th November 07, 01:58 PM
I've read it.

Too many genealogies in the Tanakh, but the first couple of books are gripping. The New Testament was okay as a sequel - they did well to keep it short.

I particularly enjoyed the Gospels - a great story, with clever allusions to the original.

Personally I think the Ewoks fucking ruined it.

Shawarma
28th November 07, 02:46 PM
^Win.

Dagon Akujin
28th November 07, 03:01 PM
I think they are going to use this version (http://www.lolcatbible.com).

DAYoung
28th November 07, 03:37 PM
I hereby entrust this thread to Kung-Fu Jew.

Shawarma
28th November 07, 03:42 PM
Somebody has way, waaaay too much time on their hands to have put that together.

Toby Christensen
28th November 07, 03:42 PM
Fuck Spanish, I'm going to learn Cat Pidgin.

ICY
28th November 07, 04:00 PM
Too many genealogies in the Tanakh, but the first couple of books are gripping.

Agreed.


The New Testament was okay as a sequel - they did well to keep it short.

I dunno, it really kind of ruined the original trilogy for me.


I particularly enjoyed the Gospels - a great story, with clever allusions to the original.

The references were overdone and lacking in genuine feeling, IMO.

DAYoung
28th November 07, 04:03 PM
Cracky...

I AM THAT I AM.

Now be quiet.

Dagon Akujin
28th November 07, 04:08 PM
1 Chronicats 10 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=1_Chronicles_10)

4 Saul told his squire-cat to pwn him with a sword, so da uncut bitchiz could not has pwn him more, but da squire-cat was all like, "Wtf!?" so Saul pwnt hisseff,5 Which made squire-cat go, "WTF!?" even more, so he pwnt hisseff too.6 So, yeah, Saul's whole family got pwnt rly fast.

7 When the Israel-cats saw Saul and his peeplz dead, they went, "Wtf!?" like squire-cat, but they just ran away. Philistines taked the left cities. 8 Next day, da Philistines went to lewt the bodeez. Dey found Saul and his peeplz on Mt. Gilboa.9 Dey took their headz, clothingz, and armorz. Dey bringed it all around Philistinesburg.10 Dey put the armorz in a place for their ceiling-cats, and da headz on a stick in a temple on Dagon.

11 When da peeplz of Jabesh-Gilead herd how pwnt Saul got,12 Their fighter-class-cats lewted Saul and his peeplz'z bodies back to Jabesh. Dey berried da bonez under a tree and fasted for a whole freakin' week! Wtf!?


Well, it seems a little overdone to me, but it makes about as much sense as KJV.

Dagon

jvjim
28th November 07, 04:09 PM
They should use the Vulgate, that's where most of the modern translations come from anyway.

Dagon Akujin
28th November 07, 04:27 PM
Ezekiel 23:17-20

NIV Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Amplified Bible And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their evil desire; and when she was polluted by them, she [Jerusalem] broke the relationship and pushed them away from her in disgust. So she flaunted her harlotries and exposed her nakedness, and I was disgusted and turned from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth in which she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon her paramours there, whose lust was sensuous and vulgar like that of asses or stallions.

King James And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them. So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister. Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Young's Literal And come in unto her do sons of Babylon, To the bed of loves, And they defile her with their whoredoms, And she is defiled with them, And her soul is alienated from them. And she revealeth her whoredoms, And she revealeth her nakedness, And alienated is My soul from off her, As alienated was My soul from off her sister. And she multiplieth her whoredoms, To remember the days of her youth, When she went a-whoring in the land of Egypt. And she doteth on their paramours, Whose flesh [is] the flesh of asses, And the issue of horses -- their issue.

New Life The Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love. They made her sinful with their desire. And after she had had sex with them, she became sick of them. When she let her sins and her body be seen, I turned away from her in anger, as I had turned from her sister. Yet she did even more sex sins. She remembered when she was young, when she sold the use of her body in the land of Egypt. She was full of desire for lovers whose flesh was like those of donkeys, and whose flow was like that of horses.

LOLcat An teh mens in red did things to her. And she did things to herslf with teh mens in red. And then lots of mens in red tuk turns doing things to her. And then she was lik eww gross. Ans than alls knos her nekid body an where her mols are an stuff an I cans not luk at her becuz she is lik her sistr, an thas kinda grose. Buts she just maks teh notty danse mors and mores becuz is how she useded to play as chiled. An she wuz rly gudz at it. She liekd teh guys with teh big penises... lol teh RLY big penises.

WarPhalange
28th November 07, 04:43 PM
Heard that before...

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Nurnberg/Nurnberg27.jpg

Don't be stupid. I won't waste money on double-ply like those assholes.

DerAuslander108
28th November 07, 06:02 PM
It's as much a historical text as is Slaughterhouse 5.

Good job not getting the point.


The most you can really extrapolate from it history-wise is the attitudes of the people who wrote it at the time they wrote it.

Which makes it a historical text. Just like every other text recounting any history of any peoples written at the same time the Old Testament historical books were.

Did I say it was 100% reliable?

No.

Did I say it was a history textbook?

No.

Stop trying to cover me in straw just so you can attack me.

However, it is impossible to ignore the historical significance of the Bible.

The majority of names, events, and places have been confirmed by history, especially the later books. Genesis is generally accepted as outright myth, and the rest of the Pentatuch as slightly less. Accounts of David & Solomon are likely greatly exagerrated, yet the existence of the "House of David" has been historically confirmed. The later historical accounts of the Old Testament are regarded as being very accurate, especially in regards to events like the Babylonian Captivity.

That's hardly an "annecdote" here and there.

Cullion
28th November 07, 06:28 PM
The Bible isn't history, it is legend and myth. This is distinct from pure fiction, as it can, and often has acted as a starting point for historical research.

DAYoung
28th November 07, 06:35 PM
That's not strictly true.

It's also law, exegesis, history, genealogy, correspondence, and literature.

DerAuslander108
28th November 07, 06:46 PM
The Bible isn't history, it is legend and myth. This is distinct from pure fiction, as it can, and often has acted as a starting point for historical research.

The "Bible" is not "a book", but rather a collection of books by various authors from various time periods, writing about vastly different subjects. To say it is all myth is to be ignorant of the content of those books, especially those written during later time periods that were specifically meant as historical narratives (if culturally and religiously biased ones, which most historical texts written by any culture during those periods would likely be).

WarPhalange
28th November 07, 06:52 PM
Good job not getting the point.



Which makes it a historical text. Just like every other text recounting any history of any peoples written at the same time the Old Testament historical books were.

Did I say it was 100% reliable?

No.

Did I say it was a history textbook?

No.

Stop trying to cover me in straw just so you can attack me.

However, it is impossible to ignore the historical significance of the Bible.

The majority of names, events, and places have been confirmed by history, especially the later books. Genesis is generally accepted as outright myth, and the rest of the Pentatuch as slightly less. Accounts of David & Solomon are likely greatly exagerrated, yet the existence of the "House of David" has been historically confirmed. The later historical accounts of the Old Testament are regarded as being very accurate, especially in regards to events like the Babylonian Captivity.

That's hardly an "annecdote" here and there.

I wasn't planning on attacking you, but now I get to call you a moron.

ZOMG THE NAMES WERE REAL!!!!

Who cares? Names and places were real, holy shit. Does that mean the Illiad or The Oddyssey were real? A lot of the people and places were real. It must be a historical text then!

ICY
28th November 07, 06:53 PM
Some of the books really are history. People move here, people move there, people fight, there is peace, more moving, more fighting, etc, etc. That part is not legend or myth.

WarPhalange
28th November 07, 06:56 PM
Same with any religious text.

Cullion
28th November 07, 06:59 PM
Some of the books really are history. People move here, people move there, people fight, there is peace, more moving, more fighting, etc, etc. That part is not legend or myth.

The 'history' parts are still legend and myth because many of the details got garbled or deliberately edited. For example, the bible makes little or no reference to early Hebrew Polytheistic beliefs, except in little patches.

EuropIan
28th November 07, 07:00 PM
Same with any religious text.
So it is important for events past, present and the future then..

WarPhalange
28th November 07, 07:01 PM
Look, the Bible was based on a true story of Jews fighting each other over a rock while empires were built and destroyed in other parts of the world. That's fine, but it has a lot of bullshit in it, too.

So to say that you can use it as a historical text is like saying you can use a Lifetime movie set in the 80's as a historical movie because it was "based on a true story".

Cullion
28th November 07, 07:05 PM
It's more like saying you can use Homer's 'The Odyssey' as a historical text. It gave people clues, but it's not a peer-reviewed source document, it's been passed on by centuries of hand copying and translation, and it dates from a time when scientific knowledge was so limited that people were apt to pull explanations for environmental/psychological/astronomical phenomena straight out of their imaginations.

EuropIan
28th November 07, 07:06 PM
Perhaps you're confusing historical text with history book Poop

ICY
28th November 07, 07:09 PM
If you cut away the bullshit, there are verifiable historical facts and they occur with regularity. There are generally not massive lies told about what the political situation was, for instance.

WarPhalange
28th November 07, 07:12 PM
Oh, I get it now. Bible has real people and places in it = let's use it as a text book for a history class.

EuropIan
28th November 07, 07:15 PM
You can...Just depends on what kind history class.
You seem to have a different agenda

http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/images/bible.jpg

WarPhalange
28th November 07, 07:23 PM
Yes, my agenda involves REAL history.

DerAuslander108
28th November 07, 07:27 PM
I wasn't planning on attacking you, but now I get to call you a moron.

ZOMG THE NAMES WERE REAL!!!!

Who cares? Names and places were real, holy shit. Does that mean the Illiad or The Oddyssey were real? A lot of the people and places were real. It must be a historical text then!

Thanks for that little red herring.

Let me know when you'd like to have an actual adult discussion.

EuropIan
28th November 07, 07:32 PM
Yes, my agenda involves REAL history.


It's nice to want things.

DAYoung
28th November 07, 09:29 PM
This discussion makes baby David smite.

The Bible (as Errant mentioned) is many books, including genealogy, myth, legend, law and history.

It might be bad history, and it might be biased history, but it does contain history. (Which is different to it being a work of modern historical scholarship.)

kungfujew
28th November 07, 09:31 PM
It's also an excellent place to stash drugs.

DerAuslander108
28th November 07, 09:40 PM
You can put your weed in it.

DAYoung
28th November 07, 09:42 PM
You can roll your joint with it.

Olorin
28th November 07, 11:01 PM
It might be bad history, and it might be biased history, but it does contain history. (Which is different to it being a work of modern historical scholarship.)

I do not work with ancient history, but part of the problem with getting a clear picture of the past is the availability of sources. That is why a lot of it is done through anthropology and archeology. For many events in the ancient world there might only be one or two written sources.

Herodotus' Histories contain all kinds of strange stuff, and like you stated, it might not be good history but it is history and has a unique value as a historical document.

It is even harder if you do Native American history as the only way to get at the other side of the story is to take oral history (that includes myths and legends) seriously as a primary source.

But back to the original post. The point of this, getting the bible into the classroom, is not about using it to teach about ancient history. If that were true then why not use the Koran to enlighten American students about ancient Arab history.

The bible can be used to explain history in that religion is a powerful factor in explaining historical events. I use it to help explain the anti-slavery and pro-slavery movements in the United States as both sides justified their positions by relying on the bible.

What is going on here is closely related to Intelligent Design; it is a way to get bible studies implemented in the school system. With church available almost every night of the week, Sunday school, and organizations like the Federation of Christian Athletes there is no reason to push for this in the public schools.

DAYoung
29th November 07, 12:37 AM
The Doctor has spoken.

Olorin
29th November 07, 12:41 AM
The Doctor has spoken.

You disowned me in another thread...

I speak to you no more.

DAYoung
29th November 07, 01:24 AM
I did?

And damnit, I've obviously forgotten.

(Which means I can't enjoy it.)

Do tell.

Olorin
29th November 07, 01:32 AM
I did?

Do tell.

Cries and runs off...

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1633040&postcount=58

DAYoung
29th November 07, 01:54 AM
Umm.

I was saying I renounced any kinship with 'Dr' Wong, and warning you to do the same (lest you be tainted by his silliness).

You got this, right?

jakebreaker
29th November 07, 01:55 AM
You can...Just depends on what kind history class.
You seem to have a different agenda

http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/images/bible.jpg
I only burn Bibles one page at a time. Especially when I'm out of Zig-Zags and "Illusions" is closed.

On topic, though, that usually happens shortly before I begin discussing American history with my friends.

Especially recent history.

Like, "Where the Hell did I put my keys?" recent. :|

WarPhalange
29th November 07, 02:29 AM
It might be bad history, and it might be biased history, but it does contain history. (Which is different to it being a work of modern historical scholarship.)

So do The Illiad and The Odyssey.

DAYoung
29th November 07, 02:36 AM
So do The Illiad and The Odyssey.

To a lesser extent. Compare the oral recollections of Homer (who may or may not have existed, several centuries later) with the epistles of Paul (who is a historical figure, speaking to his peers).

WarPhalange
29th November 07, 02:50 AM
Right, so you're comparing the ending of the Bible with the entire Illiad. How about starting from the beginning? Or better yet, at which point does the Bible become "credible"?

DAYoung
29th November 07, 03:14 AM
You're missing the point (which has been stated over and over again).

There is no 'Bible'. There are many books, which have many different purposes.

Some of them are historical (e.g. Paul, the Synoptic Gospels' treatment of Christ's trial) , others not.

By contrast, the Iliad and Odyssey were never historical documents in the same way. They were myth when they were written.

Matt Stone
29th November 07, 03:38 AM
Has the religious right forgotten completely (or did they never learn in the first place) that our Founders were pretty direct in the laws they made that specifically prohibited the Government from favoring one religion over another, giving any appearance of endorsement to any religion, or otherwise imposing religion on someone who holds a contrary belief?

Let's bypass, for a moment, the fact that the bible is not, in point of fact, historically accurate. Let's focus solely on the fact that as a non-christian, I have the full protection of the law from having that mythology jammed in my face and touted as something I "have" to learn.

Why not, while we're at it, include the Koran, the Talmud, the Upanishads, all the Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Norse eddas, and any other collection of mythology and present it as somehow historically relevant because people, in history, wrote it/them? It seems undisputed by those with contrary beliefs that the other documents/books are unsubstantiated and unworthy of serious scholarly consideration, so why should the bible be added while other religious texts aren't?

Bottom line, there already are classes available on these subjects available to people inclined to suspend their good common sense in order to pursue them. The only reason anyone would have for imposing religious classes on public schools is to sway the level of influence religion has on public life, to convert more children to christianity, and to further subvert our Nation's ability to promote free-thought.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

"In no instances... have the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."

-- James Madison

"The Government of the United States is no, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, of laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

-- John Adams

There's no need for religious clap-trap in our public schools. If the religious want their kids indoctrinated, they can do it at home, at church, or send them to religious universities. Public schools, run by the state, have no business presenting this garbage as legitimate study necessary for children.

Cullion
29th November 07, 04:03 AM
Some of them are historical (e.g. Paul, the Synoptic Gospels' treatment of Christ's trial) , others not.


The Synoptic Gospels were cooked up centuries after the events they purport to describe. There are no contemporary Roman references to this trial. Paul of Tarsus never even met Jesus. They don't even give this Jewish Messiah an Israelite name.

The books constituting the New Testament are myth.

Dagon Akujin
29th November 07, 04:08 AM
Another plug for an old college paper (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=31836888&blogID=126870680&Mytoken=4B3F5F49-AD71-4848-A2E55974FADD06261601427), for Matt.

DAYoung
29th November 07, 04:25 AM
The Synoptic Gospels were cooked up centuries after the events they purport to describe.There are no contemporary Roman references to this trial.

I was under the impression that Roman records referred to a Jehoshua making trouble and being tried. My mistake, if this isn't the case. (Perhaps I'm recalling Tacitus' later work.)


Paul of Tarsus never even met Jesus.

Not the point. No-one's arguing he did.


They don't even give this Jewish Messiah an Israelite name.

Saul was a Romanised Jew, who used Greek and Latin. Is this what you're talking about?

DAYoung
29th November 07, 04:45 AM
The books constituting the New Testament are myth.

What do you mean by 'myth'? And how does it apply to the epistles?

DerAuslander108
29th November 07, 11:03 PM
The Synoptic Gospels were cooked up centuries after the events they purport to describe.

Scholars date the synoptic gospels between 50-120AD. That's hardly centuries.


Paul of Tarsus never even met Jesus.

Paul didn't write historical accounts either. He wrote epistles.


They don't even give this Jewish Messiah an Israelite name.

Yes, they do. Just because we, in modern English translations, use the Greek pronounciation of the time does not mean that's what his mother called him.


The books constituting the New Testament are myth.

I'd be more inclined to believe you if you showed the slightest proof that you had a clue what you were talking about.

DAYoung
29th November 07, 11:57 PM
DAYoung and the Knight Errant win again.

Cullion
30th November 07, 04:48 AM
I was under the impression that Roman records referred to a Jehoshua making trouble and being tried. My mistake, if this isn't the case. (Perhaps I'm recalling Tacitus' later work.)

None of the alleged accounts by Tacitus or other contemporary historians appeared or were referenced until after the 4th Century AD. They were forged.



Saul was a Romanised Jew, who used Greek and Latin. Is this what you're talking about?

No, I'm pointing out that this supposed Jewish messiah is named according to greek mystery traditions regarding rebirth.

Cullion
30th November 07, 04:56 AM
Scholars date the synoptic gospels between 50-120AD. That's hardly centuries.

Which scholars? name them. Show me reference to these gospels before the council of Nicea.




Paul didn't write historical accounts either. He wrote epistles.

Which is why he's not a historical source about Jesus.




Yes, they do. Just because we, in modern English translations, use the Greek pronounciation of the time does not mean that's what his mother called him.

They don't give him an Israelite name in any version. Here's a test: what was this messiah's hebrew name? Don't infer it by saying 'uh well jehosua or joshua sound most like the latin word Jesus, so that must have been his first name, and he was the son of Joseph, so he must have been j. bin joseph' like everybody else does, find a written reference to it dated to the era.

Clue: You can't because no such record exists.




I'd be more inclined to believe you if you showed the slightest proof that you had a clue what you were talking about.

Check your sources and get back to me.

DAYoung
30th November 07, 05:02 AM
None of the alleged accounts by Tacitus or other contemporary historians appeared or were referenced until after the 4th Century AD. They were forged.

Tacitus was forged? Can you elaborate?


No, I'm pointing out that this supposed Jewish messiah is named according to greek mystery traditions regarding rebirth.

Orphic traditions, you mean? Because that would make sense.

I'm not sure how it helps your case, though.

Olorin
30th November 07, 05:12 AM
You got this, right?

No, whips away tears...

PS passed my Orals this morning. According to the committee it was the best oral defense in the last five years.

Go me!!!

DAYoung
30th November 07, 05:14 AM
No, whips away tears...

PS passed my Orals this morning. According to the committee it was the best oral defense in the last five years.

Go me!!!

Nicely done, mate.

But Olorin, come here.

Closer.

Closer.

*whispers*

Do you think you should be talking about your 'orals' on Sociocide?

But seriously, congratulations. I know it's been arduous - I will drink to your achievement.

Olorin
30th November 07, 05:19 AM
Do you think you should be talking about your 'orals' on Sociocide?

Well, according to my committee I give the best oral.

DAYoung
30th November 07, 05:23 AM
Well, according to my committee I give the best oral.

I will 'oral' a Glenfiddich in your honour.

DAYoung
30th November 07, 05:24 AM
Also: you should answer this (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1270508&postcount=34) question.

Cullion
30th November 07, 04:31 PM
Tacitus was forged? Can you elaborate?

Tacitus quotes referring to Jesus which don't exist in physically dateable originals and aren't referenced in dateable originals before the Council of Nicea are forgeries.



Orphic traditions, you mean? Because that would make sense.

Greek 'Christs' are all over the place in Hellenic pre-Christian literature, simillar in meaning to the sacrificed-then-reborn 'Green King's' of ancient British traditions.

Cullion
30th November 07, 04:35 PM
Christianity is a simplified version of the Jewish Noahide law re-mythologised for Indo-European spiritual tastes. It is an edited aggregation of 'mystery cults' with origins in the eastern empire which prominent educated Romans latched onto as a re-unifying meme and then edited into a coherent mythos for mass consumption as their society was beginning to lose it's underpinnings and crumble.

I firmly believe that there had to be some real world source to the 'Jesus' myth beyond the political expediency of a crumbling Empire. My guess is that some Essene guy developed the idea that it would be good to teach gentiles how to be righteous, and then centuries later other educated hellenistic gentiles took it and ran with it, slathering layers of linguistic misunderstanding, helenistic pagan myths and political expediences.

DAYoung
30th November 07, 04:59 PM
Tacitus quotes referring to Jesus which don't exist in physically dateable originals and aren't referenced in dateable originals before the Council of Nicea are forgeries.

Sources?


Greek 'Christs' are all over the place in Hellenic pre-Christian literature, simillar in meaning to the sacrificed-then-reborn 'Green King's' of ancient British traditions.

Yep. It just means 'anointed one' (if I recall correctly). It's a version of the Adonis and Dionysian agrarian myth.

But I still don't see how this proves your point. All it shows is that the Jews were Hellenised (which they were).

Zendetta
30th November 07, 05:17 PM
Hey, as a Pagan God, Jeebus Rocks.

I often quip that the Catholic Church is the most successful pagan religion going.

DerAuslander108
30th November 07, 06:20 PM
Which scholars? name them. Show me reference to these gospels before the council of Nicea.

Irenaeus of Lyon was condemning churches which only used one gospel in 180ish AD. That's 140 years before the first Nicean Council. The fact that this was an issue for Irenaeus indicates that the various Gospels had been circulating for some time, especially given the fact that there were more than just the now canonical four major gospels. Irenaeus was the one who championed the Synoptic Gospels as well as John.

Source: Irenaeus' own writing, "Against Heresies". You'll have to forgive me if I've forgotten the Latin.

Tatian wrote the Diatessaron in the 170s as a synthesis of the four canonical gospels.

Source: The Daitessaron.

From references like these, we can infer the fact that the four canonical gospels were in existence long before the existing copies we have.

The Gospel of Thomas copy that exists has been dated to the second century, which is two centuries before the existing copies of the canonical gospels we have.


Which is why he's not a historical source about Jesus.

And I never claimed he was. Stop attacking strawmen, Cullion. I thought you were better than this.


They don't give him an Israelite name in any version.

Aramaic, not Israelite. Possibly Hebrew.


Here's a test: what was this messiah's hebrew name? Don't infer it by saying 'uh well jehosua or joshua sound most like the latin word Jesus, so that must have been his first name, and he was the son of Joseph, so he must have been j. bin joseph' like everybody else does, find a written reference to it dated to the era.

It's not inference, Cullion, and it's not Latin, either. It's Greek. Iesus is the Greek pronounciation of the very common Hebrew name Yeshua or Yehoshua, just as Ian is the Scotts-Gaelic pronounciation of the name John. If you can't accept that, then too bad. The fact that a Greek Gospel wrote a Jewish guys name in Greek is hardly proof for his non-existence.


Check your sources and get back to me.

Done. Get back to me after you've read Irenaeus.

DerAuslander108
30th November 07, 06:21 PM
Hey, as a Pagan God, Jeebus Rocks.

I often quip that the Catholic Church is the most successful pagan religion going.

Tyr would have kicked Jesus' ass.

Cullion
30th November 07, 06:39 PM
Sources?

Where are your sources?



Yep. It just means 'anointed one' (if I recall correctly). It's a version of the Adonis and Dionysian agrarian myth.

Yes, that's why it served so well for the nonsensical ethos ('slave ethic') which followed.



But I still don't see how this proves your point. All it shows is that the Jews were Hellenised (which they were).

The supposedly contemporary Jews of that rebellion weren't. 'Jews' like Paul, were.

Zendetta
30th November 07, 06:40 PM
No way. Jeesus is the Jewish Balder. Tyr's to *ahem* even-handed to hit a hippie unprovoked.

Please don't tell your Nazi relatives I said that.

Cullion
30th November 07, 06:43 PM
Find me a single datable source quoting any source on the mythical character now known as 'Jesus Christ'.

There aren't any. Deal with it.

DerAuslander108
30th November 07, 06:48 PM
No way. Jeesus is the Jewish Balder.

Balder was a nancy-boy.


Tyr's to *ahem* even-handed to hit a hippie unprovoked.

He could beat up Jesus...with one hand behind his back...


Please don't tell your Nazi relatives I said that.

Yeah, the fact that you root for a Jewish carpenter probably wouldn't go over too well.

Cullion
30th November 07, 06:49 PM
Just for fun, quote me every reference to this 'Jesus' figure made by Tacitus, Dr. Young.

There's one. And it wasn't referenced until the 5th Century AD. But only by other Christian Bishops who also ranked well as Roman Citizens.

Cullion
30th November 07, 06:52 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing the tale of some Jewish dude walking on water, rising from the dead, curing blindness and then levitating, defended by secular philosophers. Ho ho ho.

Of course, that's not what youz guys are proposing, but..

Explain to me again the historical basis for this nonsense?

DerAuslander108
30th November 07, 07:03 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing the tale of some Jewish dude walking on water, rising from the dead, curing blindness and then levitating, defended by secular philosophers. Ho ho ho.

Of course, that's not what youz guys are proposing, but..

No, it's not, so why you insist on chasing this red herring is beyond me. I guess your ass is still aching from the through raping it received in post #89.


Explain to me again the historical basis for this nonsense?

That a Jewish rabbi named Iesus existed and taught circa 30AD is entirely likely. That, as historical documents of the time period, the Gospels can be seen as research material on this subject, even if some things have to be gleaned away.

Shawarma
30th November 07, 07:08 PM
Balder was also invulnerable to everything but Mistletoe. Good luck getting Tyr to figure THAT one out.

DerAuslander108
30th November 07, 07:12 PM
Balder was also invulnerable to everything but Mistletoe.

Yeah, only cuz he had a bad dream and went running to Momma to get her make all the other plants play nice...

See? Nancy boy!


Good luck getting Tyr to figure THAT one out.

Hey, stop with the thread drift. Tyr's gonna beat up Jesus, not Balder!

MaverickZ
30th November 07, 07:14 PM
Bitches please.
http://www.amazingcomics.it/thor5web.jpg

DerAuslander108
30th November 07, 07:24 PM
...

Don't you Jews have your own gods?

Shawarma
30th November 07, 07:27 PM
Yep:
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Money-Print-C10055084.jpeg

Zendetta
30th November 07, 07:29 PM
Yeah, Ill bet you'd feel tough too if you had your magic girdle on.

Anyhoo, I'm down with Ganesha. He'll be smiling and laughing while he whoops ass on the Asura Posse.

Plus, he keeps me safe when snowboarding.

Shawarma
30th November 07, 07:33 PM
Magic girdle as in the Norse god sense? That was Thor who had that, not Tyr, IIRC.

Zendetta
30th November 07, 07:38 PM
THats correct, I was referencing Mav's pic.

DerAuslander108
30th November 07, 07:44 PM
http://thedarkhawk.blog.jeuxvideo.com/images/mn/1159632055.jpg

We burn incense to this badass before every practice.

MaverickZ
30th November 07, 08:03 PM
THats correct, I was referencing Mav's pic.
It's not so much a girdle as a weight belt.

Zendetta
30th November 07, 08:10 PM
If it was any God other than Thor, for whom I once named my dog, I'd be compelled to make fun of the girdle, and the one-magic-michaeljackson-glove. But the fact is that Thor rocks.

Zendetta
30th November 07, 08:11 PM
[IMG]We burn incense to this badass before every practice.

You heard about how his ghost went emo after they cut his head off, right?

DAYoung
30th November 07, 08:17 PM
Where are your sources?

Er. For what? I'm genuinely trying to understand the sources of your assertion.


The supposedly contemporary Jews of that rebellion weren't. 'Jews' like Paul, were.

I don't think so. But I'll have to get back to you on that.

DAYoung
30th November 07, 08:23 PM
Just for fun, quote me every reference to this 'Jesus' figure made by Tacitus, Dr. Young.

It's Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome (I"m using the Grant translation): "Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus."

What I want are the documents behind your assertions of inauthenticity.

Unless it's an argument from omission (which I'd accept as compelling but not conclusive).

ICY
30th November 07, 08:34 PM
The Bible IS full of shit, but it can be a useful reference in a HISTORY CLASS as an explanation of what the JEWS WERE DOING WHILE IT WAS WRITTEN. Nothing more.

The New Testament is just a complete crock of shit as Cullion has said.

Dagon Akujin
30th November 07, 08:57 PM
The Bible IS full of shit, but it can be a useful reference in a HISTORY CLASS as an explanation of what the JEWS WERE DOING WHILE IT WAS WRITTEN. Nothing more.


Ya know, more than this, if you want to understand a number of other things about our culture (I.E. LITERATURE AND ART) you have to have some understanding of the Bible. History class? Maybe for understanding early Americans and their society.

If you were going to study Indian society, art, or writing, you'd need a basic understanding of Hindu as well.

Dagon

Aaranar
30th November 07, 09:09 PM
I don't know, I'd say there is some histoy in the bible.

7-0t9NKl6m4

From the Bible Battle series for the History Channel. Looks at the Bible from a military historical point of view. If nothing else, you gotta love History Channel LARPing.

MaverickZ
30th November 07, 10:19 PM
If it was any God other than Thor, for whom I once named my dog, I'd be compelled to make fun of the girdle, and the one-magic-michaeljackson-glove. But the fact is that Thor rocks.
How many other gods have KISS songs about them? Trick question, none.
ByCIsHtFAj0

Zendetta
1st December 07, 02:31 AM
The New Testament is just a complete crock of shit as Cullion has said.

Revelations would (will) make a great horror/disaster/propaganda flic though.

Cullion
1st December 07, 03:19 AM
What I want are the documents behind your assertions of inauthenticity.

Unless it's an argument from omission (which I'd accept as compelling but not conclusive).

My argument is that this section is only quoted after the council of Nicea and I therefore believe it to have been added by Christian scribes.

DAYoung
1st December 07, 04:06 AM
My argument is that this section is only quoted after the council of Nicea and I therefore believe it to have been added by Christian scribes.

It's possible, but not really conclusive.

It's also odd that no other Roman historian recorded it (though perhaps another dead Jew/Christian was about as exciting as another dead Iraqi today)

But again, not really conclusive.

I readily grant that I overstated the historical accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels (or at least failed to provide evidence in their favour). This doesn't undermine my overall point, but it's worth recognising anyway.

Zendetta
1st December 07, 04:33 AM
I think that one of the interesting points about the gospels is that "Who killed Jeebus" depends on which demographic is being marketed to.

When the early Christians were trying to convert Jews, the made a big deal of how Pilate and the Romans were such sonsabitches, but Jeebus was a true rabbi in the line of David, and that a Jew 4 Jeebus was still had to be a real, Honest-to-Jahweh Kosher Brand Chosen Hebrew.

When preaching to Romans, Pilate was portrayed as a decent chap who tried to do the right thing but was suckered by those sneaky Sanhedrin. Gentile Outreach generally stressed the cosmopolitan aspects - dowlplaying the earlier notion that you Need some Hebe in you in order to get the Spirit.

To my infallible Vision of the Astral Light, that suggests the fallout from a real historical event (not necessarily a divine one of course) in that its just the sort of squirrelly stuff real people do when they are trying to get an exciting new meme off the ground.

DAYoung
1st December 07, 04:56 AM
They should've studied more Aristotle (though their descendants made up for this later - badly).

Zendetta
1st December 07, 04:59 AM
LOL!!! Excluded Muddle for the win.

DerAuslander108
1st December 07, 06:52 AM
Horribly.

Dagon Akujin
1st December 07, 04:21 PM
But wait!!! The Bible does not only tell us the history of the past, it is also spot-on about the history of THE FUTURE! If it can be so right about what hasn't happened yet, surely it must be correct about everything else:

PROOF.

T5S38LpMgu0

(P.S. I'd totally bang the girl in green at 1:03, the dirty blond at 1:23, and maybe girl at 3:28 but she looks a little too toothy so I wouldn't let her bj'er me. Other than that, it's full of old men and chicken McFatties. And Cracky, I think the one for you is at 2:22.)

DerAuslander108
1st December 07, 04:38 PM
Dear Jesus, please protect me from your followers...

Zendetta
1st December 07, 04:43 PM
"Jeesus Loves You. Everyone else thinks you're an asshole."

MaverickZ
1st December 07, 04:47 PM
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/mzauberm/Misc/MarioCross.jpg

Zendetta
1st December 07, 04:50 PM
LET me introduce you victims of the demiurge to the Good People at the Gnostic Friends Network, where Jeesus Shed for your Skins.

Your one-stop Gnosis Shop: http://www.enemies.com/


Unfortunately for the bumbling Archons, the "Hidden God" had tricked them into using reverse psychology; thus, Adam and Eve would eat from the tree and see the Rulers for what they are: animal-headed aliens bent on enslaving humanity!

Shawarma
1st December 07, 04:54 PM
I see that finding Jesus does little to deprive a homosexual of his fag-lisp.

PS: We expect righteous leaders = I'm looking forward to have the president declare open season on faggots and blasphemers.

Matt Stone
2nd December 07, 12:48 AM
If someone really wants to delve into the history of the Middle East during that period, there are already classes available - in college or in church. Adding this tripe to public education, and supporting it as a viable addition as anything other than "why the backdrop of the christian era is so violent and intolerant," leaves me wondering where there's a benefit.

My kids don't need Jeebus in their textbooks or classrooms. They're already inundated with Jeebus this and Jeebus that on television, with other students proselytizing their parents' doctrines (and my kids do a fair job of refuting these alleged "beliefs," as when the kids are questioned about what they "believe," they can't support a bit of it beyond "my parents are X, so that makes me X, and X believes that..."), and with endless religious garbage on the news, that I don't think adding it to their already misdirected and unfocused curriculum adds any measurable benefit beyond fertilizing soft minds for churchy exploitation later.

I have not raised my children to be blindly faithful to a self-contradicting document from a schizophrenic, genocidal, megalomaniacal volcano god. And unless and until the 1st Amendment is repealed, the law prevents that crap from being endorsed by any branch, arm, agent, or office of the Government. Public education falls under that umbrella, so that shit needs to stay in the church where it belongs...

And, while we're at it, those fuckers don't pay taxes on the bazillions they fleece from the weak-minded why, again?

WarPhalange
2nd December 07, 02:28 AM
How come you don't have a Military tag on here?

Matt Stone
2nd December 07, 02:31 AM
How come you don't have a Military tag on here?

Dunno...

socratic
2nd December 07, 08:07 PM
That a Jewish rabbi named Iesus existed and taught circa 30AD is entirely likely. That, as historical documents of the time period, the Gospels can be seen as research material on this subject, even if some things have to be gleaned away.
You're inferring that on the basis that gospels existed? You didn't think that maybe the whole Jesus thing was a con by his inner followers that could have resulted in multiple traditions as the myth spread?

I am not a historian, nor anyone holding a degree in history, but I have a strong interest in ancient history (having spent the last 2 years of college doing it...) and I read Josephus' War of the Jews about 6 months ago. If memory serves, there's contraversy over a verse that was added by later authors (I'll find the Wikipedia for it) that wasn't included in my translation, but if memory serves there isn't a single mention of Jesus, (although there are mention of similar 'false messiahs' though) in it. Josephus was active during the Jewish wars (64-71 if memory serves) meaning about 30 ish years after Jesus 'died' and was 'resurrected'. It's somewhat telling that an Aristocrat and Pharisee like Josephus, who was militarily active in Galilee (a neighbourhood Jesus spent time if I remember correctly) doesn't say squat about Jesus.
Edit: Sorry, I remember now that Jesus' bro' James execution is in Josephus' War of the Jews. Still, not quite the same as a historian confirming the existence of Jesus as we know him.

Personally, I'd like to know of any reputable or otherwise historians you know of who were active during Jesus' time and mentioned him.


I don't think so. But I'll have to get back to you on that.

I can name a few very violent conflicts between the Hellens and hardcore unhellenic Jews from Josephus work, if you like. Most of them occur in or near the Caesarea, or in other Eastern nations that had prominent Jewish populations. Yes, the Jewish aristocracy to some degree was Hellenised, especially Herod the Great, but this alienated them from very antihellenic Jews who became an increasingly popular movement.


I think that one of the interesting points about the gospels is that "Who killed Jeebus" depends on which demographic is being marketed to.

When the early Christians were trying to convert Jews, the made a big deal of how Pilate and the Romans were such sonsabitches, but Jeebus was a true rabbi in the line of David, and that a Jew 4 Jeebus was still had to be a real, Honest-to-Jahweh Kosher Brand Chosen Hebrew.

When preaching to Romans, Pilate was portrayed as a decent chap who tried to do the right thing but was suckered by those sneaky Sanhedrin. Gentile Outreach generally stressed the cosmopolitan aspects - dowlplaying the earlier notion that you Need some Hebe in you in order to get the Spirit.

To my infallible Vision of the Astral Light, that suggests the fallout from a real historical event (not necessarily a divine one of course) in that its just the sort of squirrelly stuff real people do when they are trying to get an exciting new meme off the ground.

One of the writers I read for many of my Roman history works suggests that a real falling out occured between Christianity, which was in effect a Jewish cult, and 'mainstream' Judaism occured when the leader of thet Second Jewish Revolt was proclaimed Messiah, which meant the philosophies of Christianity and Judaism were no longer compatible, as they both named different Messiahs.

Here's a Wikipedia (if you trust it as a source, which I tend to) articles about the later additions by Christian authors to historians, so that they mention Jesus. I might be able to dig up some online bona-fide historical work about this if Wikipedia isn't a viable source for you lads (if anything seems suspect, just see if there's footnotes and refrences for the 'facts'), if you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_sources

NB: I've read Josephus' Wars of the Jews, and I didn't find any mention of Jesus. To be honest, I did skim-read parts that weren't within the historical-time frame I was looking for (as in, the parts with Roman involvement, since I was doing Roman history) but Jesus was smack-bang in the middle of that, and in the editions I read didn't get a single mention.

Wow, I'm going to look in Seutonius' Claudius, as according to Wiki there's a mention of Jesus in it, but considering Seutonius lived about 100 (or is it 200?) years after Jesus died, I wouldn't consider him the best source on ol' Joshua.

Edit: To be honest, I think there was some figure that did exist at the time and was at least some form of inspiration for the whole Christian movement, but very little of this man is known so far and saying "It's historically accurate to say Jesus existed" is a fallicy if there isn't bona fide historical sources on the man.
Double edit: It seems to me that Tacitus' Annals mentioning the Christians only seems to confirm that the Christians existed as a movement, and the existence of their story- of Christ crucified by Roman forces thanks to Pontius Pilate. I don't think Pontius was mentioned as a Procurator of Judea by Josephus though. Will edit if I find anything interesting about that.

Cullion
2nd December 07, 08:11 PM
Errant's just trolling. Nobody who thinks that 'Iesus' would be the name of a first-century Israelite is being serious.

socratic
2nd December 07, 08:26 PM
Errant's just trolling. Nobody who thinks that 'Iesus' would be the name of a first-century Israelite is being serious.
Isn't Aramaic a language rather than an ethnicity? I think he pointed out something about Jesus being Aramaic, and I was of the impression they were all 'ethnic Jews'.

What's very interesting is just how much prejudice against Christians and Jews there was by the big players in ancient history. When I was researching the Jewish Wars for my seminar, I find several ancients who stated Moses was an Egyptian priest who led his barbarian brethren to the land of the Idumeaens, which the Jews renamed 'Judaean' because of their sheer barbarianness.

Also, weren't 'Jewish names' following a fairly observable pattern and structure by that point in time, not unlike today? Like Simon Bar Kohba, with the whole 'Bin' or 'Bar' as the middle-name thing?

Edit: I think you could say 'Iesus' was his name only if you were following that whole 'original Latin alphabet' thing were they had no J and used I instead (ie. Lex Iulia rather than Lex Julia), but even then I thought Jesus wasn't a name but rather a title?

Cullion
2nd December 07, 08:48 PM
Isn't Aramaic a language rather than an ethnicity? I think he pointed out something about Jesus being Aramaic, and I was of the impression they were all 'ethnic Jews'.

Aramaic was the main 'at home' language of 1st century jews living in Israel. 'Iesus' is a Latin word. 'Christ' is Greek. Christ is a greek mystery-religion term.

The main other composite 'latin-greek' term in modern use is 'tele-vision'.

It's a funny old world.

DerAuslander108
2nd December 07, 09:16 PM
Errant's just trolling. Nobody who thinks that 'Iesus' would be the name of a first-century Israelite is being serious.

Go back and re-read my post and stop putting words in my mouth.

BTW....in the New Testament Greek, Jesus' name is Ἰησοῦς. That's right. Iesus.

I have now slammed you twice in this thread, and shown that you talk out your ass on subjects you don't seem to have any knowledge of.

I am getting very tired of you, Cullion. I used to have a high opinion of you. It's sad to see you reduced to trolling.

DerAuslander108
2nd December 07, 09:22 PM
You're inferring that on the basis that gospels existed?

I'm inferring what?


You didn't think that maybe the whole Jesus thing was a con by his inner followers that could have resulted in multiple traditions as the myth spread?

What's a con?

In order to have had followers, he would have had to exist?


Personally, I'd like to know of any reputable or otherwise historians you know of who were active during Jesus' time and mentioned him.

No, but again, that is not related in any way to what I am saying.

I really wish that people would read things before drawing their conclusions and attacking strawmen.


Edit: To be honest, I think there was some figure that did exist at the time and was at least some form of inspiration for the whole Christian movement

Bingo.


but very little of this man is known so far and saying "It's historically accurate to say Jesus existed" is a fallicy if there isn't bona fide historical sources on the man.

A fallacy?

Refamiliarize yourself with the meaning of that word.

What falllacy are you speaking of here?

Cullion
2nd December 07, 09:22 PM
Go back and re-read my post and stop putting words in my mouth.

I was being kind. Stop failing to do your own research, Monk.

DerAuslander108
2nd December 07, 09:27 PM
I was being kind. Stop failing to do your own research, Monk.

Guess the edit didn't make it in time.

BTW....in the New Testament Greek, Jesus' name is Ἰησοῦς. That's right. Iesus. I'm so sorry I didn't use Greek before. I'm sure that would have cleared this subject right up.

I have now slammed you twice in this thread, and shown that you talk out your ass on subjects you don't seem to have any knowledge of.

I am getting very tired of you, Cullion. I used to have a high opinion of you. It's sad to see you reduced to trolling.

So...failing to do my own research?

You wanted sources? I gave you two original sources that dated the cross-dated the existence of the gospels almost two centuries before the date you gave.

Now, I give you the Greek name of Jesus, once again, proving you wrong.

Grow up.

All you're doing here is making me look good.

EuropIan
3rd December 07, 02:33 AM
manuscriptology is tedious.

Toby Christensen
3rd December 07, 03:19 AM
True. I can't read a word of fucking Old Norse
*hangs his bloated head in shame*

Anyway, Jesus was a TITLE as far as I'm aware.

I haven't heard an archaeology war this convoluted since I watched two delusional people at it.

EuropIan
3rd December 07, 03:28 AM
True. I can't read a word of fucking Old Norse
*hangs his bloated head in shame*
.


Rune priests of old invented futhark so they could get laid.

Dagon Akujin
3rd December 07, 03:49 AM
Anyway, Jesus was a TITLE as far as I'm aware.

No. Christ was a title. Jesus was a name. An incredibly common name. It's like, Joshua. In fact, it really was "Joshua" (or "Yeshua").

Jesus was probably never called Jesus to his face. Carry on.

Matt Stone
3rd December 07, 06:09 AM
No. Christ was a title. Jesus was a name.

Hence the whole "Christ Jesus" schtick... When I was a kid nobody could tell me why they called him Christ Jesus and didn't call me Stone Matt...

socratic
5th December 07, 08:55 PM
I'm inferring what?
That because multiple Gospels exist, so did Jesus. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, kind sir, it's been a while since I've read this thread.


What's a con? In order to have had followers, he would have had to exist?
Sorry, I should have said 'followers'. Imagine air quotes. I think what I was trying to suggest was that it could be possibel that there was no Jesus, but rather a small group of people using the whole messiah thing as a con. If the only 'evidence' we are considering is that there are a bunch of people who 'knew' him and wrote about him, then couldn't this theory be almost equally as likely? Arguably, there's no evidence for such an assertion, but equally arguably neither is there evidence for Jesus' existence beyond the presence of Christians and their writings.


No, but again, that is not related in any way to what I am saying.

I really wish that people would read things before drawing their conclusions and attacking strawmen.
If we assert that Jesus did exist in any shape or form, even just a single figure who was the progenator of the Christian movement, then assumingly historical evidence is required. If you agree, then I'd like to point out I just asked you for evidence.


Bingo.
Too bad such a personal opinion is just a guess, and not at all based on historical fact.


A fallacy?

Refamiliarize yourself with the meaning of that word.

What falllacy are you speaking of here?
You're right, that was the wrong word. I meant intellectually dishonest, a lie, stupid, any of these would do. Sorry for the confusion.

Have you read Tacitus or Josephus or any Roman historians? What's your opinion on their work on the Christians and Christian history? The Wikipedia article is very interesting, if you'd like to see about the debate as to the authenticity of certain passages within such writer's work.


It's Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome (I"m using the Grant translation): "Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus."

What I want are the documents behind your assertions of inauthenticity.

Unless it's an argument from omission (which I'd accept as compelling but not conclusive).

See, now this is interesting. According to Wikipedia, there's fairly hot debate as to whether or not this mention is originally Tacitus' or a later addition. Notably, it's exactly identical of what Christians at the time were saying (although I think Tacitus said 'Chrestus' or 'Christus' rather than 'Christ', which has a different meaning). Cullion's point that this passage isn't even included in originals is one worth considering, I think, but I haven't studied Tacitus very closely at all (supplements to the Roman history I was studying at the time), but as I said, there's discussion on the matter according to the Wikipedia article I linked to.

Also, I thought in light of the topic's title, I thought I might just add: I think of the Bible as historical fiction, because that's the most accurate way of referring to it. Historical fiction contains mentions of real people and events, and is set in the 'real world', but is still fictional.

DAYoung
6th December 07, 05:54 AM
As I said, the 'omissions' argument is a robust one. But there's nothing compelling either way.

Cullion
9th December 07, 01:07 PM
You ought to remember that the gospels claim a man came back from the dead and then levitated into heaven. He was also supposed to be able to cure blindness and wake the dead by laying on of hands. Treating this stuff as history is like treating 'the labours of Hercules' as history.

Dagon Akujin
9th December 07, 02:19 PM
You ought to remember that the gospels claim a man came back from the dead and then levitated into heaven. He was also supposed to be able to cure blindness and wake the dead by laying on of hands. Treating this stuff as history is like treating 'the labours of Hercules' as history.

HOW DAYRE YOU HERETIC!!

You leave my god Hercules alone!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/272386894_a9383d7151.jpg

Dagon Akujin
9th December 07, 02:23 PM
Whoa, whoa, whao, whoa, whoa. That was not the right picture of Hercules v. Diomedes.

http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/moreau/moreau8.jpg

DAYoung
9th December 07, 03:39 PM
You ought to remember that the gospels claim a man came back from the dead and then levitated into heaven. He was also supposed to be able to cure blindness and wake the dead by laying on of hands. Treating this stuff as history is like treating 'the labours of Hercules' as history.

Now you're being silly again.

Cullion
9th December 07, 03:40 PM
Now you're being silly again.

I like fantasy as much as the next social inadequate, and the myths and legends of long-lost peoples can give us pointers, for sure, but that doesn't stop them being myth and legend.

DAYoung
9th December 07, 03:44 PM
I like truisms.

Me too.

Cullion
9th December 07, 03:46 PM
I've read Aesop's fables to my daughter. I'm not trying to teach her that animals could talk in ancient times.

DAYoung
9th December 07, 04:25 PM
I've read Aesop's fables to my daughter. I'm trying to teach her that you shouldn't accept a gold hammer from Hermes.

All good advice.

Matt Stone
10th December 07, 01:26 AM
I'm not sure where I saw it first, but...

I found this image on the internet, a motivational poster format thing, with a photo of someone dressed up like JC being crucified, and the caption at the bottom read:

"CHRISTIANITY - The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... Yeah, makes perfect sense."

When you break the myth down into what it's actually asking you to believe, in everyday terms, it really IS as full of shit as everyone says it is...

Abraham's aborted sacrifice of his son demonstrates God's mercy? How about the same thing put into today's headlines:

"A man, hearing voices in his head commanding him to murder his son by tying him to a rock and cutting his throat and/or ripping out his organs, and who was stopped by the same voices who told him it was just a test, was convicted today after deliberation that lasted all of 30 minutes. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempted murder, child abuse, and mental cruelty."

JC trashing the temple:

"Today, a man claiming to the be living son of God walked into the Midtown Mall and began beating shoppers with a stick as he proclaimed loudly that unless they repented of their materialistic ways and became his followers they'd end up in hell. Security guards detained the man, who was later taken to the Midtown Hospital for psychiatric examination and evaluation pending charges of assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily injury and disturbing the peace."

Or, how about John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?"

"I'm going to send my Son, who is actually Me, down to you so you can kill Me in order for Me to forgive you for having made you the way you are in the first place." And that's somehow supposed to illustrate his paternal love and mercy???

When you really look at what that fucking book says, it really does sound exactly like that...

tyciol
11th December 07, 08:51 AM
Ezekiel 23:17-20

NIV Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Amplified Bible And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their evil desire; and when she was polluted by them, she [Jerusalem] broke the relationship and pushed them away from her in disgust. So she flaunted her harlotries and exposed her nakedness, and I was disgusted and turned from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth in which she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon her paramours there, whose lust was sensuous and vulgar like that of asses or stallions.

King James And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them. So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister. Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Young's Literal And come in unto her do sons of Babylon, To the bed of loves, And they defile her with their whoredoms, And she is defiled with them, And her soul is alienated from them. And she revealeth her whoredoms, And she revealeth her nakedness, And alienated is My soul from off her, As alienated was My soul from off her sister. And she multiplieth her whoredoms, To remember the days of her youth, When she went a-whoring in the land of Egypt. And she doteth on their paramours, Whose flesh [is] the flesh of asses, And the issue of horses -- their issue.

New Life The Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love. They made her sinful with their desire. And after she had had sex with them, she became sick of them. When she let her sins and her body be seen, I turned away from her in anger, as I had turned from her sister. Yet she did even more sex sins. She remembered when she was young, when she sold the use of her body in the land of Egypt. She was full of desire for lovers whose flesh was like those of donkeys, and whose flow was like that of horses.

LOLcat An teh mens in red did things to her. And she did things to herslf with teh mens in red. And then lots of mens in red tuk turns doing things to her. And then she was lik eww gross. Ans than alls knos her nekid body an where her mols are an stuff an I cans not luk at her becuz she is lik her sistr, an thas kinda grose. Buts she just maks teh notty danse mors and mores becuz is how she useded to play as chiled. An she wuz rly gudz at it. She liekd teh guys with teh big penises... lol teh RLY big penises.

So I expect this will be taught in kindergarten.