It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:14 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:23 pm
Posts: 7415
Location: Liquor in the front, Poker in the rear
pizza_Place: Lou's, Pequod's
If we don't learn from the History Channel, then we are doomed to repeat History Channel.

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Keeping Score wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Im not sure thats why Keeping Score thinks that, Chris

I think Mini Ditka might be in that group. I realize the millions of years thing clashes with religion.

I'm no historian (I know it's surprising), but there's no documentation of humans being around before what? - like 10,000 years ago at the most? I'm not sure. Speeps says 200,000 years.

You won't have documentation until you have writing, and you won't have writing until you have agriculture. For most of human history, there were small numbers of humans scattered across the earth living in hunter/gatherer societies.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Mini Ditka wrote:
Clearly he was a historical figure.

I don't believe that is clear, and indeed there's considerable evidence to the contrary.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37833
Location: ...
Apologist wrote:
If we don't learn from the History Channel, then we are doomed to repeat History Channel.


this was very good. :)

GD, try telling a jewish person that christianity is an evolution of judaism. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 8116
Location: South Elgin
pizza_Place: Ian's Pizza
New evidence on Adam. Story came out yesterday:


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... s-old.html


Albert Perry carried a secret in his DNA: a Y chromosome so distinctive that it reveals new information about the origin of our species. It shows that the last common male ancestor down the paternal line of our species is over twice as old as we thought.

One possible explanation is that hundreds of thousands of years ago, modern and archaic humans in central Africa interbred, adding to known examples of interbreeding – with Neanderthals in the Middle East, and with the enigmatic Denisovans somewhere in southeast Asia.

Perry, recently deceased, was an African-American who lived in South Carolina. A few years ago, one of his female relatives submitted a sample of his DNA to a company called Family Tree DNA for genealogical analysis.

Geneticists can use such samples to work out how we are related to one another. Hundreds of thousands of people have now had their DNA tested. The data from these tests had shown that all men gained their Y chromosome from a common male ancestor. This genetic "Adam" lived between 60,000 and 140,000 years ago.

All men except Perry, that is. When Family Tree DNA's technicians tried to place Perry on the Y-chromosome family tree, they just couldn't. His Y chromosome was like no other so far analysed.

Deeper roots

Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, heard about Perry's unusual Y chromosome and did some further testing. His team's research revealed something extraordinary: Perry did not descend from the genetic Adam. In fact, his Y chromosome was so distinct that his male lineage probably separated from all others about 338,000 years ago.

"The Y-chromosome tree is much older than we thought," says Chris Tyler-Smith at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, UK, who was not involved in the study. He says further work will be needed to confirm exactly how much older.

"It's a cool discovery," says Jon Wilkins of the Ronin Institute in Montclair, New Jersey. "We geneticists have been looking at Y chromosomes about as long as we've been looking at anything. Changing where the root of the Y-chromosome tree is at this point is extremely surprising."

Digging deeper, Hammer's team examined an African database of nearly 6000 Y chromosomes and found similarities between Perry's and those in samples taken from 11 men, all living in one village in Cameroon. This may indicate where in Africa Perry's ancestors hailed from.

Older than humanity

The first anatomically modern human fossils date back only 195,000 years, so Perry's Y chromosome lineage split from the rest of humanity long before our species appeared.

What are the implications? One possibility is that Perry's Y chromosome may have been inherited from an archaic human population that has since gone extinct. If that's the case, then some time within the last 195,000 years, anatomically modern humans interbred with an ancient African human.

There is some supporting evidence for this scenario. In 2011, researchers examined human fossils from a Nigerian site called Iwo Eleru. The fossils showed a strange mix of ancient and modern features, which also suggested interbreeding between modern and archaic humans. "The Cameroon village with an unusual genetic signature is right on the border with Nigeria, and Iwo Eleru is not too far away," says Hammer.

Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum, London, was involved in the Iwo Eleru analysis, and says the new Y chromosome result highlights the need for more genetic data from modern-day sub-Saharan Africans. "The oldest known fossil humans in both West Africa at Iwo Eleru and Central Africa at Ishango [in Democratic Republic of the Congo] show unexpectedly archaic features, so it certainly looks like we have a more complex scenario for the evolution of modern humans in Africa."

Journal reference: American Journal of Human Genetics, doi.org/kp4


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:35 pm
Posts: 18202
Location: Headed to the 19th hole
pizza_Place: Kaisers
I caught about 75% of the first episode on a rerun last night. I thought it was alright. Having gone to
church pretty regularly until I was around 17 years old I knew a lot of the stories and names involved,
although only stayed awake until halfway through the Moses story. Really wanted to see how the tv
version stacked up with Hank Scorpio's account of events. I honestly enjoy reading his synopsis of
the Bible in the other thread. Probably manage to get through this series over time catching bits and
pieces on reruns. Overall it seemed like a decent enough program.

_________________
Flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82220
You know who is the most overrated first class prick of all time? Abraham. How the fuck do you not question your god when he tells you to kill your son?

The one person in this miniseries who was fleshed out beyond what is expressly stated in the book was Isaac. Abraham tried to give him a hug after he untied him and the kid was having none of that...neither was his wife. Good for them.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 8116
Location: South Elgin
pizza_Place: Ian's Pizza
good dolphin wrote:
You know who is the most overrated first class prick of all time? Abraham. How the fuck do you not question your god when he tells you to kill your son?

The one person in this miniseries who was fleshed out beyond what is expressly stated in the book was Isaac. Abraham tried to give him a hug after he untied him and the kid was having none of that...neither was his wife. Good for them.


Yea, I have a huge problem with God telling Abraham that. Just another example of why fearing god is unhealthy. In no scenario is that an example of a good leader, or someone you should be learning from. There is nothing to be learned from that story.

People should be good people because it's the right thing to do, and because they want to be a good person. Not because they are scared the big guy upstairs will punish them.

Great quote from Penn Jillette:

Quote:
Religion is not morality. Theists ask me, “If there’s no god, what would stop me from raping and killing everyone I want to.” My answer is always: “I, myself, have raped and killed everyone I want to ... and the number for both is zero.” Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
MattInTheCrown wrote:
I don't believe that is clear, and indeed there's considerable evidence to the contrary.


Cool, what evidence are we talking about?

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65751
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
I hope they didn't change the ending of the book for the movie. I hate when they do that in movies.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
good dolphin wrote:
You know who is the most overrated first class prick of all time? Abraham. How the fuck do you not question your god when he tells you to kill your son?

The one person in this miniseries who was fleshed out beyond what is expressly stated in the book was Isaac. Abraham tried to give him a hug after he untied him and the kid was having none of that...neither was his wife. Good for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tVwILHfr1Y


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82220
Bucky Chris wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
You know who is the most overrated first class prick of all time? Abraham. How the fuck do you not question your god when he tells you to kill your son?

The one person in this miniseries who was fleshed out beyond what is expressly stated in the book was Isaac. Abraham tried to give him a hug after he untied him and the kid was having none of that...neither was his wife. Good for them.


Yea, I have a huge problem with God telling Abraham that. Just another example of why fearing god is unhealthy. In no scenario is that an example of a good leader, or someone you should be learning from. There is nothing to be learned from that story.

People should be good people because it's the right thing to do, and because they want to be a good person. Not because they are scared the big guy upstairs will punish them.

Great quote from Penn Jillette:

Quote:
Religion is not morality. Theists ask me, “If there’s no god, what would stop me from raping and killing everyone I want to.” My answer is always: “I, myself, have raped and killed everyone I want to ... and the number for both is zero.” Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.


You are usually in good company when you agree with me, but that Jillette quote has to be the most simplistic breakdown of religion I have seen, in addition to starting with a total strawman setup.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
good dolphin wrote:
You know who is the most overrated first class prick of all time? Abraham. How the fuck do you not question your god when he tells you to kill your son?

The one person in this miniseries who was fleshed out beyond what is expressly stated in the book was Isaac. Abraham tried to give him a hug after he untied him and the kid was having none of that...neither was his wife. Good for them.


Yeah, he just totally went with it like he asked him to wash his chariot.

I dont care if god told me I had to kill my son, I'd tell him to piss off and deal with the consequences.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 8116
Location: South Elgin
pizza_Place: Ian's Pizza
good dolphin wrote:
Bucky Chris wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
You know who is the most overrated first class prick of all time? Abraham. How the fuck do you not question your god when he tells you to kill your son?

The one person in this miniseries who was fleshed out beyond what is expressly stated in the book was Isaac. Abraham tried to give him a hug after he untied him and the kid was having none of that...neither was his wife. Good for them.


Yea, I have a huge problem with God telling Abraham that. Just another example of why fearing god is unhealthy. In no scenario is that an example of a good leader, or someone you should be learning from. There is nothing to be learned from that story.

People should be good people because it's the right thing to do, and because they want to be a good person. Not because they are scared the big guy upstairs will punish them.

Great quote from Penn Jillette:

Quote:
Religion is not morality. Theists ask me, “If there’s no god, what would stop me from raping and killing everyone I want to.” My answer is always: “I, myself, have raped and killed everyone I want to ... and the number for both is zero.” Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.


You are usually in good company when you agree with me, but that Jillette quote has to be the most simplistic breakdown of religion I have seen, in addition to starting with a total strawman setup.


It's really a discussion about morality. His argument is you aren't moral if you are only acting in ways because of fear of punishments or because of a bribe. Isn't that the crux of a lot of religions? Fear god, act right and get in to heaven? Definitely simplified, but sometimes it needs to be for discussion purposes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82220
I don't think that is the point of religion. I think that is an immature view of religion.

I doubt anyone ever made the preventing rape comment to him.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 8116
Location: South Elgin
pizza_Place: Ian's Pizza
Curious what you see as the point of religion?


The rape question was actually asked at a TAM conference, iirc. He claims it is asked of him often.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15141
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Mini Ditka wrote:
Clearly he was a historical figure.

I don't believe that is clear, and indeed there's considerable evidence to the contrary.

this is not true...I'd like to hear your evidence.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
City of Fools wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Mini Ditka wrote:
Clearly he was a historical figure.

I don't believe that is clear, and indeed there's considerable evidence to the contrary.

this is not true...I'd like to hear your evidence.

Here you go. I'd love to hear your apologies for those arguments.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15141
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.
Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible. Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence. Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

I'd encourage you to study Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Talmud, all of which present some angle of Jesus as a historical figure. Josephus in particular; modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of his reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and consider it as having the highest level of authenticity.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
City of Fools wrote:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.
Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible. Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence. Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

I'd encourage you to study Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Talmud, all of which present some angle of Jesus as a historical figure. Josephus in particular; modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of his reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and consider it as having the highest level of authenticity.

I'd encourage you to read my link, where all of the things you mention are covered, particularly Josephus. Book 20, Chapter 9 of Antiquities is very clearly not referencing Jesus Christ, as explained in considerable detail in the link I supplied. I'd quote the relevant section, but it's numerous pages long, and quotes outsides sources extensively. It's in section 10 ("All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims"), FYI.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82220
Bucky Chris wrote:
Curious what you see as the point of religion?


The rape question was actually asked at a TAM conference, iirc. He claims it is asked of him often.


What is TAM?

I view religion kind of how Fred viewed Christmas in A Christmas Carol and I'm paraphrasing so pardon the inexactness:

a thing whereby men and women seem by one consent to open their shut up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys

It's more than that but I'm trying to bring the widely divergent religions of the world into a single sentence in about 3 minutes of time.

Needless to say, there is not a single action of my day that is spent weighing whether its enaction will help to tip the scales for my eternal being.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15141
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
MattInTheCrown wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.
Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible. Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence. Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

I'd encourage you to study Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Talmud, all of which present some angle of Jesus as a historical figure. Josephus in particular; modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of his reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and consider it as having the highest level of authenticity.

I'd encourage you to read my link, where all of the things you mention are covered, particularly Josephus. Book 20, Chapter 9 of Antiquities is very clearly not referencing Jesus Christ, as explained in considerable detail in the link I supplied. I'd quote the relevant section, but it's numerous pages long, and quotes outsides sources extensively. It's in section 10 ("All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims"), FYI.


I read a lot of what you sent me...I am not at all convinced that Josephus is not referencing Jesus based on what is said in it. I guess we'll agree to disagree on the evidence on both sides. Your writer starts with this argument:


Almost no scholars maintain that the entire Testimonium is authentic. The primary reason that the Testimonium is viewed as problematic and likely to be wholly or partly inauthentic is the fact that so much of what is said in the Testimonium is clearly very Christian in nature and really couldn't have been said by a conservative Jew like Josephus. Primarily, calling Jesus "the Messiah" is something that only a Christian would do. The passage is so favorable to Jesus that one can hardly imagine anyone but a Christian writing it, for if one believed these things they would surely be a Christian themselves. Jewish scholars have doubted the authenticity of the passage since the Middle Ages, and by the 16th century Christian scholars also began to doubt the authenticity of the text. The passage has been a source of controversy ever since.

Which, when you start from that vantage point, it skews everything else. I'm sure after having read a lot of analysis on Josephus that this is a minority opinion.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Last edited by City of Fools on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:55 pm
Posts: 3392
For the non-Christians out there, why is it that "Jesus" is a favorite cuss word of so many people?

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:52 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Why don't you start a thread asking what our favorite "cuss" word is?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:55 pm
Posts: 3392
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Why don't you start a thread asking what our favorite "cuss" word is?


My point here is that even the people that don't think he existed still use his name profanely.

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15141
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Mini Ditka wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Why don't you start a thread asking what our favorite "cuss" word is?


My point here is that even the people that don't think he existed still use his name profanely.

sorry, Mini Ditka. This is not helpful nor evidential.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
I say fudge nuts, but those don't really exist. As far as I know...

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
City of Fools wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.
Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible. Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence. Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

I'd encourage you to study Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Talmud, all of which present some angle of Jesus as a historical figure. Josephus in particular; modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of his reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and consider it as having the highest level of authenticity.

I'd encourage you to read my link, where all of the things you mention are covered, particularly Josephus. Book 20, Chapter 9 of Antiquities is very clearly not referencing Jesus Christ, as explained in considerable detail in the link I supplied. I'd quote the relevant section, but it's numerous pages long, and quotes outsides sources extensively. It's in section 10 ("All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims"), FYI.


I read a lot of what you sent me...I am not at all convinced that Josephus is not referencing Jesus based on what is said in it. I guess we'll agree to disagree on the evidence on both sides. Your writer starts with this argument:


Almost no scholars maintain that the entire Testimonium is authentic. The primary reason that the Testimonium is viewed as problematic and likely to be wholly or partly inauthentic is the fact that so much of what is said in the Testimonium is clearly very Christian in nature and really couldn't have been said by a conservative nut like Josephus. Primarily, calling Jesus "the Messiah" is something that only a Christian would do. The passage is so favorable to Jesus that one can hardly imagine anyone but a Christian writing it, for if one believed these things they would surely be a Christian themselves. Jewish scholars have doubted the authenticity of the passage since the Middle Ages, and by the 16th century Christian scholars also began to doubt the authenticity of the text. The passage has been a source of controversy ever since.

Which, when you start from that vantage point, it skews everything else. I'm sure after having read a lot of analysis on Josephus that this is a minority opinion.

No, it's not. There's two separate issues here. The portion you quote earlier, and the Testimonium. He's right that the Testimonium is almost universally rejected. It literally makes no sense being there.

As for the bit in Antiquities, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," stop and consider: if Josephus is actually referencing the Jesus Christ here, then he's certainly aware of him, and presumably, his followers. Yet this is the only time he mentions it, ever. Really? That makes sense? A supposed miracle worker starts a new religion in region Josephus wrote about extensively, and yet he only mentions him one time, in passing?

Sorry, that simply strains credulity.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:55 pm
Posts: 3392
The way I look it is sort like of when people tell someone to "go to hell," but then they say they don't think that it exists or that anyone goes there. What does it mean when someone is passionately telling someone else to go to an eternal place of torment and suffering and yet with the same mouth denies such a place exists? The heart is believing one thing, but the mouth is confessing a contrary opinion.

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bible
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:55 pm
Posts: 3392
Hatchetman wrote:
I say fudge nuts, but those don't really exist. As far as I know...


That's like a substitution cuss word that takes the place of a more offensive word.

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group