Then why don't you believe there is enough evidence that Jesus existed?Shahter wrote:
i do.FEOS wrote:
So you don't believe Alexander the Great existed, then?
Or Socrates?
So. How do you explain your disbelief in the existence of one yet your belief in the existence of the other two when the other two have no more (if not less) reason for you to believe they existed? How do you rationalize that?I've mentioned Alexander, whose life is attested by four main surviving sources (Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius, Diodorus Siculus) and one minor ones (Justin's epitome of Trogus). They are, in general, much more detailed than our sources on Jesus, but they are similarly "opinionated" and to those impressed by the argument from distance, the earliest was penned 300 years after Alexander's death, not 30, like Jesus.
A better example might be Socrates. As with Jesus, we have no writings. Instead, we get post-death accounts of him by Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes--all "using" him in different ways. Still, we know a fair amount about him, and very detailed and (I think) likely reconstructions have been made of his life and opinions.
Argument about these characters is largely restricted to classicists, ancient historians and philosophers. There are many fruitful arguments about what we know, and what we can and can't know about them. But there aren't any debates about the most basic facts. I am confident that, if any of them were implicated in the Christian story, there would be many such voices on the internet...
Maybe you should read a bit about Alexander.Shahter wrote:
first, nobody claimed socrates or alexander the great were human sons of any god, also gods themselves, who were born to a virgin, and saved us all by getting crucified. unlike jesus, there's no sencible bias in the stories about socrates or alexander.
i don't care who he clamed he was - he did stuff, historically significant stuff. what did jesus do beside speaking nonsence, pissing the wrong people and getting killed?AussieReaper wrote:
Maybe you should read a bit about Alexander.Shahter wrote:
first, nobody claimed socrates or alexander the great were human sons of any god, also gods themselves, who were born to a virgin, and saved us all by getting crucified. unlike jesus, there's no sencible bias in the stories about socrates or alexander.
It's widely believed that Alexander implied he was a demigod by actively using the title "Son of Ammon–Zeus". His mother Olympias was said to have declared that Zeus impregnated her while she slept under an oak tree sacred to the god.
But on the other hand, the historical accounts of Socrates and ATG were written by historians. Not disciples, or the Church.
Saul is a more important character for Christianity than the supposed existence of Jesus, imo.Shahter wrote:
i don't care who he clamed he was - he did stuff, historically significant stuff. what did jesus do beside speaking nonsence, pissing the wrong people and getting killed?AussieReaper wrote:
Maybe you should read a bit about Alexander.Shahter wrote:
first, nobody claimed socrates or alexander the great were human sons of any god, also gods themselves, who were born to a virgin, and saved us all by getting crucified. unlike jesus, there's no sencible bias in the stories about socrates or alexander.
It's widely believed that Alexander implied he was a demigod by actively using the title "Son of Ammon–Zeus". His mother Olympias was said to have declared that Zeus impregnated her while she slept under an oak tree sacred to the god.
But on the other hand, the historical accounts of Socrates and ATG were written by historians. Not disciples, or the Church.
Josephus wasn't a disciple or from the Church.AussieReaper wrote:
Maybe you should read a bit about Alexander.Shahter wrote:
first, nobody claimed socrates or alexander the great were human sons of any god, also gods themselves, who were born to a virgin, and saved us all by getting crucified. unlike jesus, there's no sencible bias in the stories about socrates or alexander.
It's widely believed that Alexander implied he was a demigod by actively using the title "Son of Ammon–Zeus". His mother Olympias was said to have declared that Zeus impregnated her while she slept under an oak tree sacred to the god.
But on the other hand, the historical accounts of Socrates and ATG were written by historians. Not disciples, or the Church.
jesus' teachings? wazzat?FEOS wrote:
And Shahter, if you take away the "son of God" stuff from Jesus, all you have is a man whose teachings resulted in a movement that arguably altered mankind completely. That's all.
The Romans referred to him as “the father of lies” for a reason.FEOS wrote:
Josephus wasn't a disciple or from the Church.
He also wrote about ATG and Socrates.AussieReaper wrote:
The Romans referred to him as “the father of lies” for a reason.FEOS wrote:
Josephus wasn't a disciple or from the Church.
That would be the stuff that Christianity is based on.Shahter wrote:
jesus' teachings? wazzat?
you, know, nonsense stuff like being kind to strangers and whatnot.Shahter wrote:
jesus' teachings? wazzat?FEOS wrote:
And Shahter, if you take away the "son of God" stuff from Jesus, all you have is a man whose teachings resulted in a movement that arguably altered mankind completely. That's all.
when swallowed together with the whole lot of evangelical bullshit? - yeah, totally irrational.Morpheus wrote:
you, know, nonsense stuff like being kind to strangers and whatnot.Shahter wrote:
jesus' teachings? wazzat?FEOS wrote:
And Shahter, if you take away the "son of God" stuff from Jesus, all you have is a man whose teachings resulted in a movement that arguably altered mankind completely. That's all.
Totally irrational in this day and age.
ah, you mean the nonsence book called "holy bible" and various commentaries and speculations around it? sorry, man, but these sources are full of bias and obviously manufactured.FEOS wrote:
That would be the stuff that Christianity is based on.
Popes had armies before lol.
The amount of contemporary evidence of ATG's life is roughly equivalent to the contemporary evidence of Jesus' life, per those historians who specialize in rebuilding the lives of ancient persons. Same with Socrates. In fact, the only writings that can be found about ATG come hundreds of years after his death, vice thirty as is the case with Jesus. With Socrates, Plato is a key source (after Socrates' death)...one of Socrates' followers. As is the case with Jesus.Mekstizzle wrote:
Alexander created an empire which took over Persia and he even tried to conquer India. If there aren't multiple worldwide sources for such a thing and if there's more historical fact about Jesus than about these events, then I'll eat my foot. I think sometimes people take abit of a Eurocentric view of things regarding what is history and what isn't.
No, I mean the teachings of a man who ran around the area currently known as Israel roughly 2000 years ago. The Bible is man's attempt, after the fact, to collect those teachings and--in some cases--spin them to some political end via inclusion and exclusion of certain texts, just as was done with historical accounts of ancient figures long ago (see Josephus and others).Shahter wrote:
ah, you mean the nonsence book called "holy bible" and various commentaries and speculations around it? sorry, man, but these sources are full of bias and obviously manufactured.FEOS wrote:
That would be the stuff that Christianity is based on.
now again, i don't doubt a huge impact christianity had on the history of human civilization, but to claim that jesus' existence stands anywhere close to a proven historical fact is completely out there.
Bad example
And why do you choose to only go down this route anyway. You're looking at things from only certain perspectives which skews everything.FEOS wrote:
The amount of contemporary evidence of ATG's life is roughly equivalent to the contemporary evidence of Jesus' life, per those historians who specialize in rebuilding the lives of ancient persons.
There little boys all over his throne... WTF...
And what route would you suggest one goes down when examining the historicity of an ancient figure? What "certain perspectives" am I looking at things from, Mek? Historical? Which "certain perspectives" are those, exactly?Mekstizzle wrote:
And why do you choose to only go down this route anyway. You're looking at things from only certain perspectives which skews everything.FEOS wrote:
The amount of contemporary evidence of ATG's life is roughly equivalent to the contemporary evidence of Jesus' life, per those historians who specialize in rebuilding the lives of ancient persons.
Little boys seem to figure big in Catholicism.DBBrinson1 wrote:
There little boys all over his throne... WTF...
you are mistaking your own disdain for religion with actual historical influences.Shahter wrote:
when swallowed together with the whole lot of evangelical bullshit? - yeah, totally irrational.Morpheus wrote:
you, know, nonsense stuff like being kind to strangers and whatnot.Shahter wrote:
jesus' teachings? wazzat?
Totally irrational in this day and age.
and you know what those teaching were how?FEOS wrote:
No, I mean the teachings of a man who ran around the area currently known as Israel roughly 2000 years ago.Shahter wrote:
ah, you mean the nonsence book called "holy bible" and various commentaries and speculations around it? sorry, man, but these sources are full of bias and obviously manufactured.
now again, i don't doubt a huge impact christianity had on the history of human civilization, but to claim that jesus' existence stands anywhere close to a proven historical fact is completely out there.
"some cases"? the whole bloody thing is an obvious attempt to synthesize a sort of ultimate manipulation tool out of religious stuff that had been produced by human civilization by the time the bible was written.FEOS wrote:
The Bible is man's attempt, after the fact, to collect those teachings and--in some cases--spin them to some political end via inclusion and exclusion of certain texts, just as was done with historical accounts of ancient figures long ago (see Josephus and others).
oh, i get it, if somebody doesn't fall on his knees in awe after reading your fucking holy book that must mean he haven't read it with a open enough mind or at all. i'll tell you what: there's no any "awesome message" behind those nonsence stories, man. human culture and thought have progressed so far since that bullshit had been written that today anybody can form his own morality and become a honest decent man without beleaving in talking snakes and pretending that on sundays he drinks the blood of some two thousand years old jewish carpenter. there's nothing unique or even original in christianity stories - those are just a bunch of dusty all papers, outdated and irrelevant.FEOS wrote:
However, your snide commentary makes it clear you either haven't read the thing or haven't read it with an open enough mind to grasp the message behind the stories. You're too blinded by what a few men have done in twisting the religion to suit their temporal purposes that you've missed the original message.
The same place everyone goes... in the ground.11 Bravo wrote:
Where did cavemen go when they died since they were here before jesus?
