Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: iamzack on April 25, 2009, 11:06:19 pm
-
This is what religious people sound like to nonreligious people. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081117050051AAf2gvN)
Especially on subjects like evolution, civil rights, etc...
-
You laugh, but one day soon a tokoloshe is going to pay you a visit. Enjoy your zombie demon pregnancy.
-
/me feeds the troll
She just might. :pimp:
-
Hmmm... better raise up my bed.
And then go get baptized.
-
This is what religious people sound like to nonreligious people. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081117050051AAf2gvN)
Especially on subjects like evolution, civil rights, etc...
That has ought to be one of the most meaningless questions I've read
-
I can't believe that google failed to turn up a picture of a worm engulfed in flames. Well, if you want something done right.... :P
-
...
.....
........
:wtf:
So basically you are comparing me and others to someone who believes his third wife was impregnated by a demon and so forth...
I mean I suppose I can see the similarity from a certain gross POV, but that's like comparing a Yugo to a Maserati by sight from 20km distance....
-
...
.....
........
:wtf:
So basically you are comparing me and others to someone who believes his third wife was impregnated by a demon and so forth...
I mean I suppose I can see the similarity from a certain gross POV, but that's like comparing a Yugo to a Maserati by sight from 20km distance....
Yeah, and they're both cars.
-
Sorry, I don't waste my time differentiating between levels of retardation.
-
Sorry, I don't waste my time differentiating between levels of retardation.
Yes you do, you post on HLP, the home OF Retardation (and Freespace to some extent :P )
-
That doesn't explain how i differentiate between levels of retardation...
-
That doesn't explain how i differentiate between levels of retardation...
General Freespace Discussion- Retarded to the Max
Missions and Campaigns- Retarded beyond iamzack's sense of reality
Anything Freespace related- Also retarded beyond iamzack's "sense"
General Discussion- Retarded to fit iamzack
Seeeee! You differentiated between the bull****/retardism and basically only comment on GenDisc :P Proving you have some sort of in-built "Retardo-Metre"
-
Do I really sound like that in discussion to you guys?
-
I've used this example before, arguing about what god is or isn't like, or what he would or wouldn't do sounds like people arguing about whether Goku or Superman would win in a fight.
Edit/addition: the difference is that you think it's real
-
Do I really sound like that in discussion to you guys?
I've used this example before, arguing about what god is or isn't like, or what he would or wouldn't do sounds like people arguing about whether Goku or Superman would win in a fight.
Edit/addition: the difference is that you think it's real
Translation: yes.
-
:(
-
So now you understand why we mock you sometimes.
-
General Freespace Discussion- Retarded to the Max
Missions and Campaigns- Retarded beyond iamzack's sense of reality
Anything Freespace related- Also retarded beyond iamzack's "sense"
General Discussion- Retarded to fit iamzack
Seeeee! You differentiated between the bull****/retardism and basically only comment on GenDisc :P Proving you have some sort of in-built "Retardo-Metre"
Seeing as how I'm the moderator of FreeSpace Modding, the retardation levels of that subforum must be immense. Then again, HerraTohtori is also a moderator there, so I guess it balances it out.
-
Do I really sound like that in discussion to you guys?
Hate to say it but yes.
See there isn't a huge difference between the major religions and the ones that seem more silly like this one. Both require an almost unshakable belief in something that is either unprovable or sometimes (for those who take them literally) demonstrably false. The big ones simply have a lot more layers to hide the real nonsense.
That's not to say that everyone who talks about religion sounds that way. It's only when you display an unwavering faith in it that you do. Those who question their beliefs sound a lot more sensible. I'd have a lot more respect for any Christian who said for instance that the lack of any corroboration from the Romans means that perhaps the story of Jesus is just as much symbolic as the old testament stuff.
But when they say it can only be a cover up or insist that it must be real because they believe it, then yeah, they sound pretty similar to Mr Yahoo Answers.
-
I know internet culture well enough to know that I shouldn't get involved, but I absolutely must know- why? Everywhere I see religious debates, I see an attitude that I can only describe as hatred on the part of the atheists towards (for lack of more succinct words) believers. From what I see (perhaps my perceptions are skewed due to the fact that I am likely surrounded by exceptional ...human specimens) the vast majority of religious people are NOT fundamentalist wackjobs- science meshes easily with belief, and the belief provides a comforting framework for life. I don't have anything against anybody's religion or lack thereof: Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, you name it, so long as the religion's tenants don't step on any legal toes I say live and let live; or in this case, worship (or not) and let worship (or not).
I see the exact opposite attitude from Atheists, and to a lesser extent, Agnostics. (I hate to generalize here, but please understand that I must speak in broad and indefinite terms to communicate my statement with any degree of celerity) What I see is a cold, logical, and contemptuous ...for lack of more accurate words, campaign to argue religion out of existence: believers are Byzantine relics from a more barbarous age, who cling to a now-unnecessary "God" and hold us back, unaware that "He" is no longer needed in today's advanced society. All I want to know is "why?" Why can't we just leave each other alone?
Heh... I suppose this goes down to basic human nature... Europe (and England in particular; Europe is a large place, don'cha know?) is, by and large, a total conquest on the part of the Atheists. 2000 years Several centuries of Christian tradition and belief, wiped clean during the last century. Quite frankly, I don't know how it happened (but I'd be willing to bet money on post-modern disillusion after World War 2), but it doesn't matter now. Are we in a position to witness the end of religion? I fear the answer may be "yes".
Oh, and regarding Mr. Yahoo Answers. Protip- She's not a virgin.
Edit: My bad. It's not 2000 years, but several centuries... Whoops.
-
no need to fear the death of religion.
the good ones among us will still be good
and the bad ones will have one less thing to hide behind
-
You've basically just answered why IronBeer.
Your attitude towards the guy on Yahoo Answers is no less hatred than the one you claim atheists show towards you. Why is his belief any more ridiculous than yours? If you're a Christian your entire religion is based around a woman doing the same thing 2000 years ago and you still believe the story about her.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokoloshe
Pregnancy is not mentioned anywhere in the article. In fact, the first 5 hits I got on Google on the Tikoloshe mentioned pregnancy ...nowhere. I'm not at all familiar with African mythical creatures (hate using that term "mythical", but it must be used for differentiation), but that Yahoo answers post smells fishy to me.
Edit: Well, ****. Upon a closer look, there is apparently a sexual aspect to the Tikoloshe. Damnit, must do research more carefully next time. But there still is nothing mentioned about its children.
-
2000 years of Christian tradition and belief, wiped clean during the last century. Quite frankly, I don't know how it happened (but I'd be willing to bet money on post-modern disillusion after World War 2), but it doesn't matter now. Are we in a position to witness the end of religion? I fear the answer may be "yes".
Not sure I agree with this premise, but for the sake of argument, Nietzsche first proclaimed the death of God in 1882, suggesting that what Heidegger (I know, again....) considered the inevitable death of metaphysics was in motion long before World War II.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokoloshe
Pregnancy is not mentioned anywhere in the article. In fact, the first 5 hits I got on Google on the Tikoloshe mentioned pregnancy ...nowhere. I'm not at all familiar with African mythical creatures (hate using that term "mythical", but it must be used for differentiation), but that Yahoo answers post smells fishy to me.
There's no mention of God causing pregnancies in virgins in the Old testament either.
-
I always find it interesting that these huge debates over spirituality and morals tend to multiply over the March-June stretch of the year.
-
I find it interesting people actually participate in them.
-
(And I wonder why I can never get any work done... :rolleyes:)
There's no mention of God causing pregnancies in virgins in the Old testament either.
I'm not in a position to refute that, since I still have about half the Old Testament to read through, but there have been cases of barren women bearing children (more than likely through some manner of regaining fertility, rather then divine conception). In all fairness, though, that's neither here nor there. I know jumping into this argument is an exercise in futility on my part, but I'm stuck now, so... Hm... interesting word choice, there kara. Why did you mention just the Old Testament, rather than the bible as a whole?
On a different note, whenever it comes to magic and the supernatural, I try to keep an open mind. The wife in question isn't a virgin... because she got sexed up by a Tokoloshe. Duh...
But then again... The only evidence we have for the Immaculate Conception is words in the first pages of the New Testament. To a logical and literal mind, there is no reason why either pregnancy explanation, whether it be through God's actions, or the mischief of a South African fairy (so to speak) is more valid than the (Occam's Razor approved) explanation of, "oh, she was just ****ing around".
(sigh) Dunno why I even bother speaking up... Minds are set in stone on either side, and there is quite a bit of venom between the two, I can see now...
-
Hm... interesting word choice, there kara. Why did you mention just the Old Testament, rather than the bible as a whole?
In your earlier post you pointed out that you hadn't seen it written anywhere that a Tokoloshe had caused a pregnancy. I simply pointed out that until the New Testament there was no evidence of God doing it either.
Yet despite that a lot of people were willing to believe that he did.
-
In your earlier post you pointed out that you hadn't seen it written anywhere that a Tokoloshe had caused a pregnancy. I simply pointed out that until the New Testament there was no evidence of God doing it either.
I stated that because I was careless with my research- I had assumed that the Tokoloshe would cause a pregnancy through some supernatural means, when in actuality, the folklore suggests the creature would operate along more... conventional means.
-
Yeah but even if there hadn't been any cases of it happening previously, that doesn't mean it can't happen now.
Once you've accepted the possibility that their are evil spirit dwarfs able to turn themselves invisible, it's not a huge stretch to believe that they can make women pregnant. In the same way that once you believe in gods you can believe in Zeus screwing humans or God making Mary pregnant.
-
And yet, I know which side *my* Kool-Aid is buttered on, so to speak. :lol:
Perhaps I am self-deceiving. But the specifics aren't overly important, I'm sure. And at any rate, I'm harmless.
-
*cackles*
Priceless.
Religious individuals regard a story about a demon impregnating a woman as mythical (and are much more inclined to believe she just isn't a virgin), but the EXACT SAME STORY in their own faith involving God is perfectly believable. Un hunh.
For the sake of argument, parthenogenesis in humans IS possible. The odds of it happening are infinitesimally small, but hey, you figure the number of human beings to occupy this planet over the last hundred thousand years and sure, perhaps it could happen once.
On the other hand, I have another hypothesis. Mary made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed as her husband-to-be, or they had a little lie-down in a field one fine morning. Her mother told her she couldn't get pregnant so long as she wasn't penetrated, but neglected to mention that there is nothing stopping dry humping from resulting in pregnancy other than timing (since the hymen isn't a barrier). So sure, she was TECHNICALLY still a virgin, but it was good old Joe and not God that knocked her up. But hey, it was probably a lot easier to fess to being impregnated by a divine entity than sex out of wedlock to her fundamentalist family (good grief, knowing some fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/Jews that explanation might still fly in some places today). Clearly, we can never know... but the simplest explanation is that Mary committed a very common human sin and LIED to save her some embarrassment. And *poof* the mythos behind Christianity was born, since some moron somewhere in history obviously decided that Christ's humanist teachings didn't bear enough merit on their own and needed some jazzing up.
Honestly.
So yeah - when you tell us to ignore rational explanations like that guy in favour of supernatural explanations with no actual proof whatsoever, you sound just as loony to us as he does to you.
the lack of any corroboration from the Romans means that perhaps the story of Jesus is just as much symbolic as the old testament stuff.
To be fair, the Romans crucified a LOT of people. We can hardly expect them to have realized that one of the thousands of people they offed was going to become the crux of an entire influential religious movement two thousand years later and document him in a convenient and retrievable fashion. Really, the least believable part of the Roamn connection is the whole cave/stone/disappearing corpse thing. The Romans BURNED their dead. The Christians only began burying them in tombs several decades later as a means of differentiating themselves.
-
I'd just like to point out that the Gospels were actually written upwards of 100 years after the life of Jesus. So, there would be some distortion on the finer points. Heck, that's one reason why there are 4 Gospels in the New Testament.
-
Yeah. I'm well aware of that fact IronBeer. Sadly many Christians deny that and believe that they were actually written by the apostles themselves.
To be fair, the Romans crucified a LOT of people. We can hardly expect them to have realized that one of the thousands of people they offed was going to become the crux of an entire influential religious movement two thousand years later and document him in a convenient and retrievable fashion.
That isn't what I was on about exactly. The Romans were great writers and chroniclers. Had Jesus really existed and done as many miracles throughout the land as the bible says you would have thought it would have been mentioned somewhere!
-
So basically you are comparing me and others to someone who believes his third wife was impregnated by a demon and so forth...
I mean I suppose I can see the similarity from a certain gross POV, but that's like comparing a Yugo to a Maserati by sight from 20km distance....
you can't prove there is no tokoloshe!
Do I really sound like that in discussion to you guys?
yes, actualy, slightly worse. you see one could theoreticaly show me a tokoloshe, os to some extent, there could be tokoloshe and I just haven't seen any yet. but there are a lot of people like you so you don't stand out.
Goku or Superman would win in a fight.
well, Goku obviously.
Hm... interesting word choice, there kara. Why did you mention just the Old Testament, rather than the bible as a whole?
In your earlier post you pointed out that you hadn't seen it written anywhere that a Tokoloshe had caused a pregnancy. I simply pointed out that until the New Testament there was no evidence of God doing it either.
Yet despite that a lot of people were willing to believe that he did.
he just missed, it they rape.
the simplest explanation is that Mary committed a very common human sin and LIED to save her some being stoned to death at the gates of the city for adultery.
fixed that for you.
The Romans were great writers and chroniclers. Had Jesus really existed and done as many miracles throughout the land as the bible says you would have thought it would have been mentioned somewhere!
there was a lot of messiahs back then, a plague of them if you would.
-
The Romans were great writers and chroniclers. Had Jesus really existed and done as many miracles throughout the land as the bible says you would have thought it would have been mentioned somewhere!
Ancient rulers weren't too keen on writing about things that were politically embarrassing for them. Even one of Caesar's major defeats was politically spun to sound positive.
Also, this ignores the plethora of documentary evidence that actually exists on the subject.
If you're a Christian your entire religion is based around a woman doing the same thing 2000 years ago and you still believe the story about her.
No, the entire religion is based about some guy rising from the dead 2000 years ago. The virgin birth is an important sign, but is really ancillary to the main point. After all, only one gospel really talks about it.
-
Ancient rulers weren't too keen on writing about things that were politically embarrassing for them. Even one of Caesar's major defeats was politically spun to sound positive.
Ah, finally. The conspiracy theory. Cause people who talk about them always sound sane to the rest of us. :p
Also, this ignores the plethora of documentary evidence that actually exists on the subject.
What contemporary evidence is there? Cause if I've missed something I'd like to know.
-
Documentary, not contemporary.
-
Contemporary documentation. As in something written at the time, not 100 years later.
-
The letters of Paul were written in the 50s or 60s AD. For the gospels, even the most liberal dating puts them no longer than AD 100. There is compelling evidence that no New Testament book was written later than 70 AD.
The gospels were written by either people who knew Jesus directly (Matthew and John) or people who were close friends of people who knew Jesus directly (Mark and Luke). They were either eyewitnesses or had firsthand information, and they appeal to their readers for the truth of what they are writing. So their documents qualify as contemporary. (Incidentally, legends and mythologies don't tend to surface until at least 200 years after the events they're derived from.)
And as for non-Christian Roman writers, now that I have my sources, I can list Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, among others, as chronicling historical events also listed in the New Testament. Thallus and Julius Africanus document the three hours of darkness and the earthquake associated with the crucifixion of Jesus. Mara Bar-Serapion directly links the crucifixion of Jesus with the Jewish diaspora.
-
...
.....
........
:wtf:
So basically you are comparing me and others to someone who believes his third wife was impregnated by a demon and so forth...
I mean I suppose I can see the similarity from a certain gross POV, but that's like comparing a Yugo to a Maserati by sight from 20km distance....
:wtf:
They're not literally comparing your viewpoints. They're comparing how people see your viewpoints. If they were comparing your viewpoints, she would've said: "this is you," not "this is what people think of you."
-
The letters of Paul were written in the 50s or 60s AD. For the gospels, even the most liberal dating puts them no longer than AD 100. There is compelling evidence that no New Testament book was written later than 70 AD.
Where?
Even the more generous figures on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels#Dating) put John at 85 AD.
The gospels were written by either people who knew Jesus directly (Matthew and John)
That disagrees with pretty much every single biblical scholar I've ever heard talk about who wrote John. Most scholars say that it was unlikely to be the same John who was his disciple. Especially given the late date the gospel was written. And there is plenty of controversy over Matthew too.
or people who were close friends of people who knew Jesus directly (Mark and Luke).
So not direct eyewitnesses then. And not writing very soon after the events either.
Incidentally, legends and mythologies don't tend to surface until at least 200 years after the events they're derived from.
Yet the Koran was around less than 20 years after Muhammad's death. The New Testament is so named for good reason. It existed in a time when things were written down more quickly than in the OT. So a 30 year gap isn't exactly unprecedented.
And as for non-Christian Roman writers, now that I have my sources, I can list Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, among others, as chronicling historical events also listed in the New Testament.
Such as? Cause no one sensible is going to dispute that the New Testament has some element of fact in it. Even if the story of Jesus was a complete fabrication there would almost certainly be some kernel of truth somewhere in the book. What supporting evidence do they give that Jesus existed? Cause if you can get Pliny the Younger mentioning him that's definitely a source I'd accept.
Thallus
Whose works are lost and only exist in the form of later documents that mention fragments of his work.
and Julius Africanus
I'll need a link to that one cause if you mean Sextus Julius Africanus he most definitely wasn't contemporary.
Mara Bar-Serapion directly links the crucifixion of Jesus with the Jewish diaspora.
It's possibly a reference to Jesus but given that the dating is somewhere between 70AD and 200AD that's certainly not contemporary. It's only barely more proof than you doing it. :p
Also (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4mara95.html).
-
The letters of Paul were written in the 50s or 60s AD. For the gospels, even the most liberal dating puts them no longer than AD 100. There is compelling evidence that no New Testament book was written later than 70 AD.
Considering that people rarely became older than 50 back then, 100 years between the facts and the scripts, compared to modern time, it's like 200 years.
That's a lot. Anyone could change anything during that period of time. Also, I'd like to put an emphasis on the differences between gospels - their existance needs a valid explanation.
Not to mention several gospels which have been marked as "Non canon" (it reminds FS debates :lol) by the Church of the origins. l It's too easy to find the Canon gospels plausible after the tremendous analysis they'd undergone, after which they sounded ok to the Church. How to deal with the others? Some (if not all) of them are newer than Canon ones, but yet still they had their importance - imagine how many Christians based their beliefs on Non canon gospels until the Church decided to consider them "fake". Imagine how many important events the Church has decided to hide on purpose for various reasons.
Finally, I'd like to know what you religious guys think about Mithra - he may be enough to prove Jesus guilty of plagiarism... :rolleyes:
-
This may just be a nitpick from me, but why should we believe anything wikipedia says?
Anyway, we're forgetting that Paul, who granted did not meet Jesus, wrote the majority of the New Testament before 65 A.D., or roundabouts, when he was executed. That would put the mark at somewhere around thirty years after the death of Jesus (c. 33 A.D).
-
Uhm my post is based on my readings - I've never cared about Wikipedia when trying to find out more about religion. I also read the Italian version of "Watch Tower", by Jahova's Witnesses, to know more (despite being Atheist at heart).
-
Speaking to Kara on the wiki comment.
-
Oh, right. Use quotes to avoid confusion. :)
-
This may just be a nitpick from me, but why should we believe anything wikipedia says?
Anyway, we're forgetting that Paul, who granted did not meet Jesus, wrote the majority of the New Testament before 65 A.D., or roundabouts, when he was executed. That would put the mark at somewhere around thirty years after the death of Jesus (c. 33 A.D).
Because on most articles it has fewer errors than the Encyclopedia Britannica, according to double-blind review?
There are some areas you should avoid, but for the most part it's very reliable (particularly in the sciences.)
-
The gospels and epistles make numerous appeals to things that the readers have seen and heard:
- Luke 1: "Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses ... it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account."
- 2 Peter 1: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables ... but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
- 1 John 1: "That which we have seen and heard we declare to you."
- Acts 2: "Men of Israel ... Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs ... as you yourselves also know" (Not only does Peter claim to be an eyewitness, he is reminding his enemies that they know for themselves the truth of what he is telling them.)
As far as "We are witnesses of these things" concerns friendly witnesses, and "You yourselves also know" concerns hostile witnesses, the documents must all have been written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus's ministry.
Regarding the time of first authorship, the scholarship of Werner Georg Kummel, Everett Harrison, D. Edmond Hiebert, F.C. Baur, and William Foxwell Albright support the following dating scheme for most of the New Testament:
| Epistles of Paul | A.D 50-66 |
| Mattew | A.D. 70-80 |
| Mark | A.D. 50-60 |
| Luke | A.D. 60-65 |
| John | A.D. 80-100 |
Irenaeus, martyred in 156 A.D. after having been a Christian for 86 years, had this to say about the New Testament:
"So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these documents, each one of them endeavors to establish his own particular doctrine."
The account by Thallus that I mentioned is referenced by Julius Africanus in A.D. 221. Thallus wrote the direct account (which does not survive) and Julius is commenting on it:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his history, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Pliny the Younger has this to say in a letter to Emperor Trajan, regarding the early Christians, in A.D. 112:
"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed say before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god ... and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
According to Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, even absent any Christian writings, historians could conclude the following:
- Jesus was a Jewish teacher
- many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms
- he was rejected by the Jewish leaders
- he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
- all kinds of people -- men and women, slave and free -- worshiped him as God
-
This may just be a nitpick from me, but why should we believe anything wikipedia says?
I gave references to back up what I said. Goober didn't even do that.
Perhaps you should be asking why we should believe anything he says? :p
Anyway, we're forgetting that Paul, who granted did not meet Jesus, wrote the majority of the New Testament before 65 A.D., or roundabouts, when he was executed. That would put the mark at somewhere around thirty years after the death of Jesus (c. 33 A.D).
You sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_of_John#Date_and_location_of_writing)?
The gospels and epistles make numerous appeals to things that the readers have seen and heard:
- Luke 1: "Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses ... it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account."
- 2 Peter 1: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables ... but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
- 1 John 1: "That which we have seen and heard we declare to you."
- Acts 2: "Men of Israel ... Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs ... as you yourselves also know" (Not only does Peter claim to be an eyewitness, he is reminding his enemies that they know for themselves the truth of what he is telling them.)
As far as "We are witnesses of these things" concerns friendly witnesses, and "You yourselves also know" concerns hostile witnesses, the documents must all have been written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus's ministry.
Or were deliberately written to sound that way. Remember that at the time Christianity was in its infancy and was trying very hard to establish itself. Appeals to witnesses would be very useful in legitimising what would otherwise have been viewed as heresy.
| Epistles of Paul | A.D 50-66 |
| Mattew | A.D. 70-80 |
| Mark | A.D. 50-60 |
| Luke | A.D. 60-65 |
| John | A.D. 80-100 |
So in the case of the John some 50 years after the death of Jesus. Even the earliest writings are 20 years later. So nothing was written at the time and to be honest it's dubious that any of them were written by the same people that are claimed to have written them.
Irenaeus, martyred in 156 A.D. after having been a Christian for 86 years, had this to say about the New Testament:
"So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these documents, each one of them endeavors to establish his own particular doctrine."
So 120 years after the death then. That's several generations later. And he was writing to claim that the books of the bible he liked were real rather than the various other gospels that were floating about at the time. So given that how are we supposed to know that the ones he liked are any more real than the other ones?
The account by Thallus that I mentioned is referenced by Julius Africanus in A.D. 221. Thallus wrote the direct account (which does not survive) and Julius is commenting on it:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his history, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Yep. And that's the entire surviving quote. Where's the proof he was talking about a darkness and earthquake at the time of Jesus' death? And Thallus's writings date from at least 40 years after Jesus' death anyway.
Pliny the Younger has this to say in a letter to Emperor Trajan, regarding the early Christians, in A.D. 112:
"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed say before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god ... and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
And no one denies that there were already Christians in 60AD when Pliny was born. I asked for a contemporary quote and you've given me quotes from people who weren't even born when the crucifixion supposedly occurred. This is exactly what I mean when I say that there are no contemporary records that mention Jesus. Every single thing is from at least 20 years later with most being from much later.
According to Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, even absent any Christian writings, historians could conclude the following:
- Jesus was a Jewish teacher
- many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms
- he was rejected by the Jewish leaders
- he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
- all kinds of people -- men and women, slave and free -- worshiped him as God
I wouldn't agree that you could do it without Christian writings. You've yet to show a single record mentioning Jesus from even 50AD that is from a non-Christian source.
I have no problem accepting that that much might be true based on how quickly Christianity started up. And given how much agreement there is over the life of Jesus 50 years later a lot of those points could be true. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I'd put the odds that there was a real Jesus as higher than that there wasn't.
But my point is that even that much can't be proved from the writings of the time. And given how quickly even modern cults can spring up, believing in all kinds of nonsense, it is possible that the entire story of Jesus is a fabrication.
-
You sure?
suggests a date of between the 60s and 90s
Fairly certain. The 60s (or most of them, anyway) fall within the given time frame.
Or were deliberately written to sound that way.
Oh my Gosh! It makes sense! It has to be a conspiracy!
Even the earliest writings are 20 years later.
Which is still WELL within the 200 years for a legend or myth to develop, or even the 100 argued earlier this thread.
So 120 years after the death then.
120 years after the death he has been a Christian for 86 years, and bases his belief on the gospels.
EDIT: Fixed a quote issue.
-
suggests a date of between the 60s and 90s
Let me actually quote the proper article
de Jong argued for a date of 100-110 AD, due to the Epistles links with Ignatius and Polycarp, while Marshall suggests a date of between the 60s and 90s.[4] Rensberger suggests a dating of around 100 for the Johannine Epistles, on the basis that the Gospel of John was written in the 90s. Brown has also argued for a date of between 100 and 110 with all three epistles being written in close proximity.
That's the second time today you've tried to misrepresent someone's point of view via selective editing and been called on it. Stop being such a ****ing coward.
I linked to an article that gave several proposed dates with all but one of them quite a bit later than the one you claim. If you're going to claim that Marshall is the correct one, you're going to have to prove exactly why.
Or were deliberately written to sound that way.
Oh my Gosh! It makes sense! It has to be a conspiracy!
Nope. Just simple spin and PR. Instead of admitting that the story was written many years later, simply write it as if it was written at the time. It's pretty minor edit really and I don't find it at all unbelievable.
Which is still WELL within the 200 years for a legend or myth to develop, or even the 100 argued earlier this thread.
I don't give a damn about that figure. It's a complete arse-pull. It's not in any way scientific. Just because Goober has asserted that legends take 200 years to be written down doesn't mean I have to take that as a fact. There are no records of Jesus' life that were written while he was alive. While something like that is odd for the New Testament it's downright suspicious for the New Testament given how much the Romans wrote about everything!
120 years after the death he has been a Christian for 86 years, and bases his belief on the gospels.
So still after the death then? My complaint was that there wasn't a single contemporary record. Records from people born after Jesus' death do not count as contemporary. :rolleyes:
-
That's the second time today you've tried to misrepresent someone's point of view via selective editing and been called on it.
Second today? I just got on less than an hour ago.
*checks watch*
Sorry, an hour 15 minutes ago.
-
That's the second time today you've tried to misrepresent someone's point of view via selective editing and been called on it.
Second today? I just got on less than an hour ago.
*checks watch*
Sorry, an hour 15 minutes ago.
You posted last night, which is this morning for Kara
-
Ah, right.
-
I gave references to back up what I said. Goober didn't even do that.
In the matter of references, I supplied a list of historians in my previous post. If you like, I can supply an extensive bibliography, though it's in book form, not hyperlink form.
Or were deliberately written to sound that way. Remember that at the time Christianity was in its infancy and was trying very hard to establish itself. Appeals to witnesses would be very useful in legitimising what would otherwise have been viewed as heresy.
An appeal to both friendly and hostile witnesses is suicide unless the events described were irrefutable. A hostile witness would be only too happy to refute a false claim. But no hostile witness could disprove any of the events in question; they could only interpret or construe them for their own purposes.
So in the case of the John some 50 years after the death of Jesus. Even the earliest writings are 20 years later. So nothing was written at the time and to be honest it's dubious that any of them were written by the same people that are claimed to have written them.
Not only is it not dubious, it is probable that they were written by their claimed authors, given the documentary record. Furthermore, 20 and 50 years is an incredibly short time by historical standards. Numerous historical accounts were passed down by word of mouth for hundreds of years before they were written down in the first place.
Incidentally, we haven't even touched yet upon the extensive quotations to be found in the letters by the early church fathers. The widespread availablility of quotations (sufficient to reconstruct all but eleven verses of the New Testament, according to Sir David Dalrymple) and the dates of the church fathers' letters themselves, lend further credibility to the dating of the primary documents.
So 120 years after the death then.
As Scotty pointed out, Irenaeus became a Christian 37 years after the death of Jesus, not 120.
I asked for a contemporary quote and you've given me quotes from people who weren't even born when the crucifixion supposedly occurred. This is exactly what I mean when I say that there are no contemporary records that mention Jesus. Every single thing is from at least 20 years later with most being from much later.
Except that Jesus himself was, from the world's point of view, a passing fad. He came out of nowhere, enjoyed tremendous popularity for a short time, and then was unceremoniously rejected by the people and executed as a common criminal. There may have been records kept of his life, but after his execution very few people would have judged them worth preserving for more than a few years, any more than a person of today would want to keep a newspaper around for more than a few days.
It was only later, after Jesus's followers grew to noticeable size, that his historical significance became apparent. And even then, non-Christian writers were more concerned about the phenomenon of Christianity itself, and its immediate implications, than how it got started in the first place.
You've yet to show a single record mentioning Jesus from even 50AD that is from a non-Christian source.
Try this one, from the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus. Not from 50AD, but pretty close:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but throughout the city of Rome also.
I have no problem accepting that that much might be true based on how quickly Christianity started up. And given how much agreement there is over the life of Jesus 50 years later a lot of those points could be true. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I'd put the odds that there was a real Jesus as higher than that there wasn't.
But my point is that even that much can't be proved from the writings of the time. And given how quickly even modern cults can spring up, believing in all kinds of nonsense, it is possible that the entire story of Jesus is a fabrication.
Except that cults do not spring up under the sort of persecution experienced by the early Christians. They had everything to lose and little to gain by witnessing to the historical accuracy of the gospels and epistles.
Secondly, disqualifying all the Christian documents on the basis of partiality is not justifiable. No judge would toss out a case based on the fact that the only witness to a crime was the victim himself.
Finally, you have long since crossed the line of reasonable skepticism and are now engaging in counter-advocacy. You're not following Aristotle's literary dictum that "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself". Based on the number of extant Christian manuscripts, their proximity to the events they describe, and their corroboration by other sources; especially when compared to the same statistics for other historical records, there is no reason to reject them as historically accurate.
-
Goob, I have no problem believing that Christ lived and died, but I have to ask, why do the writings of Christianity receive special precedence over the writings of other religions in which individuals also witnessed miraculous events?
And how do we account for the contradictions between these different, equally supported belief systems?
Saying that Christianity is unique because Christ died for our sins is a cop-out, for reasons I hope you can understand. We can just as fairly say that Buddha lived and died to teach us how to escape the cycle of reincarnation.
-
Goob, I have no problem believing that Christ lived and died, but I have to ask, why do the writings of Christianity receive special precedence over the writings of other religions in which individuals also witnessed miraculous events?
They don't receive special precedence per se. They receive special attention because of their unequaled historical reliability, as explicated in this thread and elsewhere. If one considers the documents to be historically reliable about events that he can verify, then he must also, if he is unbiased, consider the documents to be historically reliable about things he cannot verify, including the miracles.
So the only "precedence" arises because Christianity is the religion most thoroughly attested by the historical record. But that does not automatically mean that accounts of miracles in other religions are then false. I'm not willing to conclude a priori that a miracle in another religion could not have happened. If you show me a documented instance of a miracle, I'll concede the point unless I find something to contradict it.
This is not only consistent with the principle I referred to above (the benefit of doubt should be given to the document, not the critic); is also consistent with Christianity. Jesus himself said that there would be others who would perform signs and wonders, many of whom would attract great followings. And the Bible's continual reference to "unclean spirits" would tend to support the idea of spiritual beings performing miracles on Earth to further their own agendas.
And how do we account for the contradictions between these different, equally supported belief systems?
Contradictions in the beliefs, or the historical accounts?
Saying that Christianity is unique because Christ died for our sins is a cop-out, for reasons I hope you can understand. We can just as fairly say that Buddha lived and died to teach us how to escape the cycle of reincarnation.
Agreed.
-
Goob, I have no problem believing that Christ lived and died, but I have to ask, why do the writings of Christianity receive special precedence over the writings of other religions in which individuals also witnessed miraculous events?
They don't receive special precedence per se. They receive special attention because of their unequaled historical reliability, as explicated in this thread and elsewhere. If one considers the documents to be historically reliable about events that he can verify, then he must also, if he is unbiased, consider the documents to be historically reliable about things he cannot verify, including the miracles.
So the only "precedence" arises because Christianity is the religion most thoroughly attested by the historical record.
I'm not sure we can consider this true without putting some very Western judgments on it. Islam, for example, is very well-documented, and the sheer age of Confucianism and Hinduism suggest they have a lot more to draw on. I'm not ready to accept that Christianity is the best documented without a lot of research.
Furthermore. I'm not disputing the existence of Jesus. But your case primarily rests on proving that miracles actually happened. Doesn't it bother you to try to establish a religion factually, instead of making it a matter of faith?
This is not only consistent with the principle I referred to above (the benefit of doubt should be given to the document, not the critic); is also consistent with Christianity. Jesus himself said that there would be others who would perform signs and wonders, many of whom would attract great followings. And the Bible's continual reference to "unclean spirits" would tend to support the idea of spiritual beings performing miracles on Earth to further their own agendas.
Well...it's consistent, sure. But Islam also makes statements about how prophets will precede Mohammed, and it at least doesn't have the decency to call them all unclean. So by that logic, isn't the Bible compatible with Islam, for example? If we took Islam as our primary source, just as you're using the Bible as a context for events in other religions? I'm sure we could find instances in other religions.
And how do we account for the contradictions between these different, equally supported belief systems?
Contradictions in the beliefs, or the historical accounts?
Both. Because you're using the historical account to justify the beliefs, right?
Saying that Christianity is unique because Christ died for our sins is a cop-out, for reasons I hope you can understand. We can just as fairly say that Buddha lived and died to teach us how to escape the cycle of reincarnation.
Agreed.
Yay!
-
In the matter of references, I supplied a list of historians in my previous post. If you like, I can supply an extensive bibliography, though it's in book form, not hyperlink form.
I wasn't having a go at you so much as using your post to have a go at Scotty. He decided to have a go at my references when you hadn't posted any. Thereby revealing his bias in the matter.
I'm well aware you can quote links and in the cases where I've needed them due to an inability to check for myself I have and will ask for more information.
An appeal to both friendly and hostile witnesses is suicide unless the events described were irrefutable. A hostile witness would be only too happy to refute a false claim. But no hostile witness could disprove any of the events in question; they could only interpret or construe them for their own purposes.
You miss the point. If the Gospels were written at the later dates then an appeal to witnesses regardless of bias is fine because the witnesses would already be dead.
Not only is it not dubious, it is probable that they were written by their claimed authors, given the documentary record.
It's very doubtful that any of the Gospels were written by the Apostles of Jesus. You basically admitted that two of them weren't earlier. I have doubts about the other two as well (and so do many biblical scholars)
Furthermore, 20 and 50 years is an incredibly short time by historical standards. Numerous historical accounts were passed down by word of mouth for hundreds of years before they were written down in the first place.
And in those cases the historical accuracy is considered even more dubious. Besides this discussion is about you providing contemporary records and so far the only ones you've been remotely close with are the Gospels.
Incidentally, we haven't even touched yet upon the extensive quotations to be found in the letters by the early church fathers. The widespread availablility of quotations (sufficient to reconstruct all but eleven verses of the New Testament, according to Sir David Dalrymple) and the dates of the church fathers' letters themselves, lend further credibility to the dating of the primary documents.
If any of them can prove a date of before 40AD, bring it on. Otherwise I'm not particularly interested as it has little to do with disproving my point.
So 120 years after the death then.
As Scotty pointed out, Irenaeus became a Christian 37 years after the death of Jesus, not 120.
All right, I must be looking at the wrong Irenaeus. Every search I do turns up this guy (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html). I'll need a link to the one you're on about then.
Except that Jesus himself was, from the world's point of view, a passing fad. He came out of nowhere, enjoyed tremendous popularity for a short time, and then was unceremoniously rejected by the people and executed as a common criminal. There may have been records kept of his life, but after his execution very few people would have judged them worth preserving for more than a few years, any more than a person of today would want to keep a newspaper around for more than a few days.
Which simply backs up my comment that there is no contemporary proof of his existence and goes against your earlier assertion that there were records but that they were covered up in order to make the Romans look good.
And that's if I accept your point that it wouldn't have been written down and kept.
Try this one, from the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus. Not from 50AD, but pretty close:
The annals date from 117AD. How is that close? :confused:
Except that cults do not spring up under the sort of persecution experienced by the early Christians. They had everything to lose and little to gain by witnessing to the historical accuracy of the gospels and epistles.
Really? So how do you explain just about every single other cult that existed? Pretty much all of them were persecuted.
Secondly, disqualifying all the Christian documents on the basis of partiality is not justifiable. No judge would toss out a case based on the fact that the only witness to a crime was the victim himself.
Similarly no judge would allow one man to come forward, claim to be another man and give eyewitness testimony as to what that guy saw. I'm not dismissing the Christian documents due to their bias. I'm dismissing them on the grounds that they probably weren't written by the people who are claimed to have written them and thus are highly dubious.
Finally, you have long since crossed the line of reasonable skepticism and are now engaging in counter-advocacy. You're not following Aristotle's literary dictum that "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself". Based on the number of extant Christian manuscripts, their proximity to the events they describe, and their corroboration by other sources; especially when compared to the same statistics for other historical records, there is no reason to reject them as historically accurate.
Nonsense. I'm showing perfectly health scepticism given that you can neither establish the date the document was written, nor the identity of the person who wrote it.
Most of the documents you've talked about don't even mention Jesus anyway. They're on about early Christianity. Which I haven't disputed existed.