|
On April 19 2011 12:40 drewcifer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 11:25 whiterabb1t wrote:
Colin Humphreys, a professor at the Cambridge University, recently revealed that the Last Supper was held on a Wednesday, or April 1 AD 33 to be exact, in contrast to more widely held belief that it happened on a Thrusday. The confusion stems from So it looks you're saying that masses of people can cling on to non factual beliefs from the passed? Why are you surprised that a fictional event has had it's date revised. This is dumb and probably changes nothing even for radical religious people.
Hate to say it, it isn't a fictional event. Even if your not religious Jesus did live, and the man was crucified. One of many people crucified. If your going to bash religion find something else.
You could say he was a babbling idiot who really didn't do much, but as far as I know most people accept that there was at least a man named Jesus.
|
Oh god this is the never ending story all over again >:O
|
|
|
On April 19 2011 12:44 feanor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 12:40 drewcifer wrote:On April 19 2011 11:25 whiterabb1t wrote:
Colin Humphreys, a professor at the Cambridge University, recently revealed that the Last Supper was held on a Wednesday, or April 1 AD 33 to be exact, in contrast to more widely held belief that it happened on a Thrusday. The confusion stems from So it looks you're saying that masses of people can cling on to non factual beliefs from the passed? Why are you surprised that a fictional event has had it's date revised. This is dumb and probably changes nothing even for radical religious people. Hate to say it, it isn't a fictional event. Even if your not religious Jesus did live, and the man was crucified. One of many people crucified. If your going to bash religion find something else. You could say he was a babbling idiot who really didn't do much, but as far as I know most people accept that there was at least a man named Jesus.
Okay well some of us rely on scientific / verifiable proof for our facts instead of anecdotal hearsay from our friends and family. There is no scientific or verifiable proof of jesus..... therefore I just assume he is fake like zeus, c'thullu, allah, etc. I don't need to bash religion, it does all the work itself.
|
Religious connotations aside the Bible is a valuable source of ancient history, and it gives a lot more in-depth text concerning the life of Jesus and the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine than most historical figures have about them. Jesus existed, the miracles and religiousity are debateable.
Would you deny that Xerxes or Alexander the Great existed? Course not, but there's a lot less written about them than there is on Jesus. The books of the New Testament were also written much sooner after his death than the works on Alexander were. I always find it funny when people deny he could possibly have existed despite offering no reason for their views. Religion doesn't come into it - if the Last Supper happened it doesn't make the religion true.
What would you accept as historical proof? Apparently a wealth of written text isn't enough for you - does it not count simply because it's in the Bible? How about if it was written by someone else? Like Josephus, for example. Would it count more if it was carved in stone? How about other ancient people known only for their writings? Aristotle, Herodotus, Pythagorus (who also tried to start his own religion - does that make him non-existent too?). Sadly the majority of atheists do what the majority of fundamentalists do - rely on others to make their opinions for them without checking any facts to back them up for themselves.
@GG No Re is was the last time Jesus was supposed to have eaten with his disciples, hence last supper. That said once he was arrested I doubt he would have been given food, so it was probably also the last time he ate before his crucifixion.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Edit: removed because I posted, then changed something and hit stop, but the post was already posted :/ sorry for the double post
|
Wait, so is this really an April Fool's joke? I'm not sure how to interpret this ><
|
Jesus: I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.
Judas: Surely not I, Rabbi?
Jesus: *stares*
Jesus: APRIL FOOLZ OMGLOLJK
|
On April 19 2011 13:01 Sanctimonius wrote:
Religious connotations aside the Bible is a valuable source of ancient history, and it gives a lot more in-depth text concerning the life of Jesus and the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine than most historical figures have about them. Jesus existed, the miracles and religiousity are debateable.
Would you deny that Xerxes or Alexander the Great existed? Course not, but there's a lot less written about them than there is on Jesus. The books of the New Testament were also written much sooner after his death than the works on Alexander were. I always find it funny when people deny he could possibly have existed despite offering no reason for their views. Religion doesn't come into it - if the Last Supper happened it doesn't make the religion true.
What would you accept as historical proof? Apparently a wealth of written text isn't enough for you - does it not count simply because it's in the Bible? How about if it was written by someone else? Like Josephus, for example. Would it count more if it was carved in stone? How about other ancient people known only for their writings? Aristotle, Herodotus, Pythagorus (who also tried to start his own religion - does that make him non-existent too?). Sadly the majority of atheists do what the majority of fundamentalists do - rely on others to make their opinions for them without checking any facts to back them up for themselves.
@GG No Re is was the last time Jesus was supposed to have eaten with his disciples, hence last supper. That said once he was arrested I doubt he would have been given food, so it was probably also the last time he ate before his crucifixion.
I was going to explain to you how the bible is insufficient proof of a person existing but I really don't think that is what is important. Even if jesus had the same chance to be real as xerxes or alexander in my mind which he doesn't... (their empires and conquests are indisputable and tangible credit to their existence) he still shines out as the odd one..because he was apparently the son of god and could do a lot of crazy shit sourced from the one source that invented him. That is why a lot of people are skeptical and will continue to challenge his existence?
|
Typical revisionist history released on schedule every year during Holy Week.
Can anyone name what the stories were last year? No, because they are all false and so never stick.
|
It could be said that Christianity itself existing is a good example of Jesus existing, but I'm not trying to make the point it was all true, miracles happen every day etc etc. What possible reason is there to deny Jesus existed at all? The early books of the New Testament were accepted to have been written within a couple of generations of the death of Jesus by the vast majority of scholars who actually, you know, specialise in ancient history. They were written by a range of people rom a variety of sources - the Bible isn't one source, it's a collection of books.
Then you can look at other sources - the major players in the plot are known to have existed. Pontius Pilate is the most obvious example here, as is the High Priest of the Jewish Church Caiaphas. Josephus mentions Jesus as a trouble maker, but there are few sources outside of the early Christian ones that mention Jesus. It would be kinda strange if they did, tbh - Jesus was a minor trouble maker and rabble rouser, one of thousands who cropped up in the Roman Empire - why would anyone talk about him except his followers? To everyone else he just wasn't important enough to mention, just another deluded guy with crazy cultists.
It just seems strange that people would throw out the possibility of Jesus existing altogether simply because miracles are associated with him. Hell, have you ever read any sources on Alexander? On Julius Caeser, the descendent of Venus? Divine powers and miracles are par for the course for notables in ancient texts. Saying that he is entirely an invented character creates far more problems for history than accepting his existence does. The religious aspects are a completely different argument.
|
On April 19 2011 13:40 Sanctimonius wrote:
It could be said that Christianity itself existing is a good example of Jesus existing, but I'm not trying to make the point it was all true, miracles happen every day etc etc. What possible reason is there to deny Jesus existed at all? The early books of the New Testament were accepted to have been written within a couple of generations of the death of Jesus by the vast majority of scholars who actually, you know, specialise in ancient history. They were written by a range of people rom a variety of sources - the Bible isn't one source, it's a collection of books.
Then you can look at other sources - the major players in the plot are known to have existed. Pontius Pilate is the most obvious example here, as is the High Priest of the Jewish Church Caiaphas. Josephus mentions Jesus as a trouble maker, but there are few sources outside of the early Christian ones that mention Jesus. It would be kinda strange if they did, tbh - Jesus was a minor trouble maker and rabble rouser, one of thousands who cropped up in the Roman Empire - why would anyone talk about him except his followers? To everyone else he just wasn't important enough to mention, just another deluded guy with crazy cultists.
It just seems strange that people would throw out the possibility of Jesus existing altogether simply because miracles are associated with him. Hell, have you ever read any sources on Alexander? On Julius Caeser, the descendent of Venus? Divine powers and miracles are par for the course for notables in ancient texts. Saying that he is entirely an invented character creates far more problems for history than accepting his existence does. The religious aspects are a completely different argument.
I believe most people accept his existence, but not his powers, divinity, etc. Few actually believe that Jesus wasn't a real figure, as far as I know.
|
On April 19 2011 13:16 drewcifer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 13:01 Sanctimonius wrote:
Religious connotations aside the Bible is a valuable source of ancient history, and it gives a lot more in-depth text concerning the life of Jesus and the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine than most historical figures have about them. Jesus existed, the miracles and religiousity are debateable.
Would you deny that Xerxes or Alexander the Great existed? Course not, but there's a lot less written about them than there is on Jesus. The books of the New Testament were also written much sooner after his death than the works on Alexander were. I always find it funny when people deny he could possibly have existed despite offering no reason for their views. Religion doesn't come into it - if the Last Supper happened it doesn't make the religion true.
What would you accept as historical proof? Apparently a wealth of written text isn't enough for you - does it not count simply because it's in the Bible? How about if it was written by someone else? Like Josephus, for example. Would it count more if it was carved in stone? How about other ancient people known only for their writings? Aristotle, Herodotus, Pythagorus (who also tried to start his own religion - does that make him non-existent too?). Sadly the majority of atheists do what the majority of fundamentalists do - rely on others to make their opinions for them without checking any facts to back them up for themselves.
@GG No Re is was the last time Jesus was supposed to have eaten with his disciples, hence last supper. That said once he was arrested I doubt he would have been given food, so it was probably also the last time he ate before his crucifixion.
I was going to explain to you how the bible is insufficient proof of a person existing but I really don't think that is what is important. Even if jesus had the same chance to be real as xerxes or alexander in my mind which he doesn't... (their empires and conquests are indisputable and tangible credit to their existence) he still shines out as the odd one..because he was apparently the son of god and could do a lot of crazy shit sourced from the one source that invented him. That is why a lot of people are skeptical and will continue to challenge his existence?
Cuz the existence of people believing in Christianity is disputable amirite?
|
Oh man this thread got way too serious way too quickly. Come on guys how is the OP about anything remotely connected to the actual existence of Jesus or not.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 19 2011 13:42 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 13:40 Sanctimonius wrote:
It could be said that Christianity itself existing is a good example of Jesus existing, but I'm not trying to make the point it was all true, miracles happen every day etc etc. What possible reason is there to deny Jesus existed at all? The early books of the New Testament were accepted to have been written within a couple of generations of the death of Jesus by the vast majority of scholars who actually, you know, specialise in ancient history. They were written by a range of people rom a variety of sources - the Bible isn't one source, it's a collection of books.
Then you can look at other sources - the major players in the plot are known to have existed. Pontius Pilate is the most obvious example here, as is the High Priest of the Jewish Church Caiaphas. Josephus mentions Jesus as a trouble maker, but there are few sources outside of the early Christian ones that mention Jesus. It would be kinda strange if they did, tbh - Jesus was a minor trouble maker and rabble rouser, one of thousands who cropped up in the Roman Empire - why would anyone talk about him except his followers? To everyone else he just wasn't important enough to mention, just another deluded guy with crazy cultists.
It just seems strange that people would throw out the possibility of Jesus existing altogether simply because miracles are associated with him. Hell, have you ever read any sources on Alexander? On Julius Caeser, the descendent of Venus? Divine powers and miracles are par for the course for notables in ancient texts. Saying that he is entirely an invented character creates far more problems for history than accepting his existence does. The religious aspects are a completely different argument. I believe most people accept his existence, but not his powers, divinity, etc. Few actually believe that Jesus wasn't a real figure, as far as I know.
Ps. I am still convinced this some kind of elaborate prank.
|
On April 19 2011 13:47 Probulous wrote:Oh man this thread got way too serious way too quickly. Come on guys how is the OP about anything remotely connected to the actual existence of Jesus or not. + Show Spoiler +On April 19 2011 13:42 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 13:40 Sanctimonius wrote:
It could be said that Christianity itself existing is a good example of Jesus existing, but I'm not trying to make the point it was all true, miracles happen every day etc etc. What possible reason is there to deny Jesus existed at all? The early books of the New Testament were accepted to have been written within a couple of generations of the death of Jesus by the vast majority of scholars who actually, you know, specialise in ancient history. They were written by a range of people rom a variety of sources - the Bible isn't one source, it's a collection of books.
Then you can look at other sources - the major players in the plot are known to have existed. Pontius Pilate is the most obvious example here, as is the High Priest of the Jewish Church Caiaphas. Josephus mentions Jesus as a trouble maker, but there are few sources outside of the early Christian ones that mention Jesus. It would be kinda strange if they did, tbh - Jesus was a minor trouble maker and rabble rouser, one of thousands who cropped up in the Roman Empire - why would anyone talk about him except his followers? To everyone else he just wasn't important enough to mention, just another deluded guy with crazy cultists.
It just seems strange that people would throw out the possibility of Jesus existing altogether simply because miracles are associated with him. Hell, have you ever read any sources on Alexander? On Julius Caeser, the descendent of Venus? Divine powers and miracles are par for the course for notables in ancient texts. Saying that he is entirely an invented character creates far more problems for history than accepting his existence does. The religious aspects are a completely different argument. I believe most people accept his existence, but not his powers, divinity, etc. Few actually believe that Jesus wasn't a real figure, as far as I know. Ps. I am still convinced this some kind of elaborate prank.
Oh hahaha I'm so sorry ._. I really wasn't being inflammatory though--I was just responding :o
I'm still clueless as to whether it's true :S though I want to know <_<
|
From Tacitus (one of Rome's greatest historians):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) 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 Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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.
The people in this thread who claim Jesus wasn't a historical figure are simply not informed. No person making that big of a ruckus isn't gonna make his way into writing somewhere. Jesus' existence isn't in question by any noteworthy historians that I know of.
On a more related note though... lol at April 1st
-Cent
|
On April 19 2011 13:50 Z3kk wrote:
I believe most people accept his existence, but not his powers, divinity, etc. Few actually believe that Jesus wasn't a real figure, as far as I know.
Oh hahaha I'm so sorry ._. I really wasn't being inflammatory though--I was just responding :o
I'm still clueless as to whether it's true :S though I want to know <_<
Not to insult, but are you very young? How can you be so misinformed with access to internet just google anything skeptical about religion and you will see all the logical fallacies religion defenders have to spring forth to defend this ancient folk lore.
|
Sigh. There's always someone ready to spoil the fun of a serious debate online with 'humour' :D
Would be an awesome troll if it turned out he was making it up. Rather like the Bible...? o.0
|
On April 19 2011 14:02 Centorian wrote:
From Tacitus (one of Rome's greatest historians):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) 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 Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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.
The people in this thread who claim Jesus wasn't a historical figure are simply not informed. No person making that big of a ruckus isn't gonna make his way into writing somewhere. Jesus' existence isn't in question by any noteworthy historians that I know of.
On a more related note though... lol at April 1st
-Cent
Assuming that Tacitus even wrote that, and that it wasn't inserted later, the only thing it tells us is that there were Christians in Tacitus' time. Tacitus certainly wasn't quoting older Roman records. If he were, he wouldn't have fucked up Pontius Pilate's title.
|
On April 19 2011 14:03 Sanctimonius wrote:
Sigh. There's always someone ready to spoil the fun of a serious debate online with 'humour' :D
Would be an awesome troll if it turned out he was making it up. Rather like the Bible...? o.0
I am not sure this is a joke/troll/April Fool's thing and neither is Time magazine.
You should know that any religous / ethical / moral / political / scientific / social / economic / gaming / SC2vBW / any topic on here will find both humour and outright extremism.
It's the internet, what are you going to do?
Edit:
On April 19 2011 14:09 Mindcrime wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 19 2011 14:02 Centorian wrote:
From Tacitus (one of Rome's greatest historians):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) 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 Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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.
The people in this thread who claim Jesus wasn't a historical figure are simply not informed. No person making that big of a ruckus isn't gonna make his way into writing somewhere. Jesus' existence isn't in question by any noteworthy historians that I know of.
On a more related note though... lol at April 1st
-Cent Assuming that Tacitus even wrote that, and that it wasn't inserted later, the only thing it tells us is that there were Christians in Tacitus' time. Tacitus certainly wasn't quoting older Roman records. If he were, he wouldn't have fucked up Pontius Pilate's title.
Seriously
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
