|
|
When Jesus was born...coolsmile
Many of you many have herd the story, the 3 kings followed the star. A group of scientists traced Jupiter, Murcury, and Mars and they found that near the time Jesus was born, those 3 planets crossed. Those 3 planets could have been the star in the sky, and they crossed more than once! That shows a lot of scientific evidence toward what happend those years
 The Conspirator
Considering the Gospels can't agree on the circumstances of Jesus's birth, I would take the story with a grain of salt.
mike1reynolds
The 1000 year Jupiter/Saturn conjunction would be a better candidate for that theory. It happened in '76, I think it was, and it was extraordinarily bright.
Every thousand years the two planets have a conjunction at a node point of their orbits, which is where their two orbits cross. Indi
Johannes Kepler was the first one to come up with that theory. Using the data he had available, he figured that the conjunction would have happened in 7 BCE, and would have been very bright. Modern data shows that Kepler wasn't quite right. The "conjunction" in 7 BCE would never have placed the two planets close enough in the night sky to make a noticable impression to the naked eye. The Chinese recorded a phenomenon in 5 BCE that was probably a comet. But no one anywhere in the middle east recorded anything. Furthermore, that was far too late to have been around in time for Jesus's birth - he would have been no younger than 3 at the time. Notably, no other gospel but Matthew mentions the star in question. Soulfire
More than 1 person telling the same story, you're bound to have some sort of differences. The Conspirator
Yes, thats true. There are bound to be errors but, there are differences that can't be explained by those errors. The differences in the story's of Jesus's birth is the best example in the new testament. And there are other errors, the differences between what each Gospel say Jesus's last words were. There are others as well. LeviticusMky
It's very possible that when people were writing the bible, that they saw venus or something similar, and decided that they would make use of stars in their novel.
Indi
The differences in the nativity story go far deeper than just standard witness contradictions. Matthew and Luke talk about different aspects of the nativity; there is very little overlap. However, both describe critical events that can be used to date the birth - Matthew's massacre of the innocents, and Luke's "census". While it may be possible that different witnesses might fudge a line or two, or minor details like the colour of a cloak and so on, how can anyone reasonably argue that a witness would screw up either of those decidedly major events? But given those events, we cannot reconcile the dates. Herod died in 4 BCE, according to our best estimates, but he was present in both gospels at the time of Jesus' birth. The massacre of the innocents was unleashed on children two and under (and never recorded anywhere else other than Matthew), so Jesus was newborn-2. That means that Jesus could have been born no later than 4 BCE, but more likely closer to 6 BCE. But the census mentioned in Luke was allegedly taken by Quirnius (sp?), who didn't become governer of Syria until 6 or 7 CE. In other words, the event that prompted Joseph and Mary to go to Bethelehem happened at least ten years after the birth of Jesus. Go figure.
The author of Matthew is notorious in biblical textual criticism circles for writing details that "fulfilled" old testament prophesies... even when those details make no sense (cf. chapter 21, the horse and ass of Zechariah). There is a "prophecy" in Numbers about a star proceeding from Jacob, and it was very likely that the author of Matthew wrote of the nativity star in order to make it seem like that prophecy was fulfilled. The fact that there was no actual astronomical phenomenon known that matched this story didn't really factor into the equation. Assuming there actually was a star... it would have to be something pretty unique and interesting in order to be noticed by the wise men and prompt the idea that a king was being born, and drive them to actually travel all that distance to actually see him, no? Venus was hardly unique or interesting. mike1reynolds
That was a very poor critique of how and why the Gospels differ. You didn’t mention any of the meat and bones issues of what axe each different Gospel writer had to grind and how this affected the story.
As the narratives progress they largely converge after a short time. It is only with the description of his birth that there is a free for all where each story is completely different. None of you criticism address anything else. They are easy and cheap criticisms. loyal
actually i found them excellent criticisms. Typically the one who tells the crowd the critiscisms are bad, is the one who can't actually refute them. Can you refute them? I doubt it. So don't tell her they are bad. may God bless you. missdixy
Actually, no one really knows how many wisemen went to visit Jesus. We just assume it was three becasue there were three types of gifts that were taken to him.
Indi
All true ^_^ But even more: we don't know that those three gifts were the only ones they gave. Those just happen to be the only three that were named, and that probably because they supposedly fulfill prophesy. There may have been a dozen of them with a hundred gifts. But wait, there's more! ^_^; Because the "three kings" were apparently not kings at all. They were sorcerors. Observe:
Take a look at the word in red: "μάγοι" or "magi". It is the plural of "μάγος" or "magus". Consult your trusty Strong's reference for the word: G3097. Note the definitions:
When the King James translation team got to that word, they realized they had a problem. Sorcerors of the sort described by "magus" were perceived as servants of Satan, heretical beings frowned on by the church - suffer not a witch to live, after all. They translated the word correctly in a couple of other places, and in all of those cases the word referred to villians of one sort or another. But there they had a problem. Basically, Jesus' divinity was first recognized by a bunch of sorcerors, who become among the first to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and King. Kind of a conflicting message with the official church policy on magic and sorcery. Thus, the KJV translators opted to translate "μάγοι" as "wise men". However, the actual Greek shows that they were really sorcerors and astrologers. Amusing, no? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. ^_^; i haven't even begun to analyze the gifts they gave, nor their interactions with Herod. ^_- pampoon
Wonder how long this feud's going to last. Well, I say that everyone here will most probably retain their own beliefs in the end and that fighting over every aspect of the Gospels' tellings of the nativity is just as pointless as fighting over whether or not God is real.
I think that, since not Mathew, nor Luke, nor John, nor Mark were present at Jesus' birth, the Gospels will not be exactly alike. The four authors are going off of someone else's view. I know that the majority of people here will not believe me, but maybe, just maybe, the star seen in the sky was not meant to be scientifically explained. Perhaps it was just a miracle sent from heaven to light the way. But then again, I never was one that needed proof to believe. God bless, Pampoon Afaceinthematrix
I always find this interesting: from what you said, it doesn't seem like you believe in God yet you still know a lot of about the Bible. I like reading debates between Christians and Athiests and I find it interesting that about 95% of the time, the person who does not believe in God seems to know more about the bible than the person defending it. That was a little off topic, but I thought I'd mention it because, like I said, I find it interesting that you know more about the bible judging from your knowledge of the Gospels than many Christians that I know. The Conspirator
The story's of Jesus's birth are too different for them to just be accounted for as differing perspectives and errors as the story is passed from one to the other. In one they go to Egypt in another they stay in Judea, in one there is a bright star and 3 wise men, in another there isn't and so on. pampoon
Well, in history we have seen that the mapmakers of ancient cultures weren't very accurate. I mean, in the 1500s we thought the world was flat. Columbus figured that if he sailed in an opposite direction, he'd reach India because that's what the maps said. Perhaps it is possible that maybe when the Gospel that noted of Egypt was written, people considered Judea a part of Egypt? The Conspirator
No, Judea was never part of Egypt and the gospel writers would have known were Egypt was. Columbus was a fool, people long before him had calculated the earths size and were much more accurate. And people knew that the earth was sphere in 1500's. It is a myth that Columbus was tuned down in England cause people then though the earth was flat. HereticMonkey
1) Actually, the Herod issue is a bad example. A number of historians have noted that Jesus Christ was most likely born 1-1-6 BC. If Herod died in 4 BC, the two of them could have been around at the same time...
[How do you tell if a historian is a Christian or not? BC/AD vs. BCE/CE...That ever fails to amuse me, especially when the secular one says that personal belief has nothing to do with history...] 2) Also, whereas there is some controversy over what the bright light was, it is interesting to note that there isn't any disagreement that there was some sort of bright light that led the magi (however many there were). 3) Just as a side note: You can go somewhere and stay in another; they aren't mutually exclusive. I can go to Washington, DC, and stay overnight in Sacramento, CA; it just means that I'm probably coming from overseas. 4) Differing Perspectives: Duh. You have four different guys, with four different backgrounds, trying to give their perspective about something that happened in their lives. I would have found it more suspicious if all four accounts were the same... HM Indi
You didn't read carefully enough. First assume Jesus existed, and then assume that the Matthew account is true. This means that Jesus could have been born no later than 5 BCE (the concensus is 4 BCE, but some people believe 5 BCE, so let's work with that because it's the later date). Now look at the Luke account. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary were forced to go to Bethlehem because of a census done by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria. But Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. So, basically, if both gospels are true, Jesus was born before 5 BCE, then ten years later Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem while pregnant with Jesus. Now Jesus' birth may have been miraculous, but that's stretching it a little. Thus, at least one of the two gospels is false.
Excuse me? There is lots of disagreement about whether or not there was any kind of "bright light". It is only because Christianity is the most powerful religion in the world right now that the idea is taken seriously. i mean, come on. The "star" is only mention in one text - and it's a quasi-historical religious text that is contradicted on several facts not only by what we know of history from other sources, but by other writings from the same religion. No other writer, Christian or otherwise, mentions anything uniquely interesting in the sky around that period. So you have here a phenomenon that is only mentioned in one text in all of human knowlege and history - a religious document of notably shaky veracity. Were this document not the Christian bible, do you think that the possibility of it being factual would be seriously considered? i mean, seriously, if you had one fragment of Zoroastrian writing that claimed the sun turned square for a day, and not only does no other Zoroastrian text mention it, several of them contradict that writing in other areas - and history recorded by non-Zoroastrians not only does not record the incident, several of them contradict other aspects of the text - do you really think it would be taken seriously?
The Virgin in the story of Jesus is not the airline.
That argument is common in apologist literature, but it is one of the most illogical and bizarre arguments in their canon. When four different people record a historical event, you expect differences in opinion and perspective. You do not expect differences in fact, except for smaller details that do not affect the rest of the narrative. Some may omit events, and each may tell a different set of events but the events that each describe will not contradict the events described by someone else - except when the details are inconsequential to the rest of the narrative. The writers of the gospels may have seen different things, and they may have remembered minutae differently, such as the exact words of Jesus. But the major aspects of the stories should be identical, especially the parts that are the most personal, and the most critical. The fact that they can't agree on things like whether or not Jesus died before or after passover is a major contradiction. Because other aspects of the story depend on that fact. When an event happens because of another event, that first event is a key event. Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem while she was hugely pregnant... why? Because they had to for the census. If you take away the census, then the journey makes no sense, and the entire manger scene in Luke is all false. On the other hand, if you take away Herod, then the entire chunk of Matthew dealing with the magi and the slaughter of the innocents is all false. Could the gospel writers have messed up the order of events around the magi arrival, or the gifts that they brought? Sure. Because neither of those facts affect the greater narrative. Could they have messed up the dates, as they have in this case? No, because several key aspects of the narrative fall apart. Were this not a religious document, it would have been dismissed out of hand as fiction. It is clearly, and critically, flawed, and contradictions like this one cannot be simply explained away. HereticMonkey
1) The Star: When I say that there is some argument over what was seen, I'm not referring to whether or not something was seen, but what the reference was specifically. There were a number of things happening that the magi would have been drawn to. Admittedly, the strongest contender is a comet, as comets were said to hang over a place, but there were a number of things happening that would have qualified.
[There is, of course the theory that it could have been fiction specifically created to glorify the birth, but that's no fun to debate...] 2) The Census: There are two matters of contention here: The first is that Jospehus is the one giving the date. There are a number of problems with Jospehus' accounts, including his survival at Masada. Most historians treat his histories as a good starting point, but usually don't trust him 100% (in other words, yeah, the event happened, just not not when he said it did). Second, there's also a possibility that the census itself could have happened earlier, as some historians debate whether or not Quirinius had a previous term (had he had a previous term, the census would have likely happened then). Of course, there is some debate if the census itself had been taken prior to him even being in the area earlier. [Also, there is some debate if it could have been referring a mass "swearing-in" that happening around 2 BC, which would still be within the time frame. 3) Differing Perspectives: I'm not really understanding how it's a "illogical bizarre and argument", especially given that most of the accounts weren't written when they happened, and that the standards re: truth weren't exactly up to today's standards (taking some license was assumed; see Josephus). In essence, we know that there was some license taken, but the accounts are nonetheless used as a starting point. Departure Times:
Nonetheless, my basic point is true: Although the magi were possibly on the Egypt, they could have stopped in Judea. This doesn't create a contradiction... Overall: There's a lot of debate among historians about what actually happened. That there is debate is interesting to me, especially when atheists pretty much slam the research as being religious in nature. No other religion is given the same scrutiny, especially when you realize that no other religion could face as much scrutiny. Just thought it was interesting... HM The Conspirator
Cause the story's are too different, you can't account for the difference by saying "different perspectives and errors as it was passed from one parson to another." In one you have a bright star, the Magi, the murder of children in Jerusalem's, them going to Egypt until the death of Hard, things that are not mentioned in the other account and that account has a census, them staying in a stable cause there inns were full and them staying in Judea, never going to Egypt. Not only are they different at at certain points there mutely exclusive.
Why do theists not realise that when your religion id not only dominate but the overwhelming majority of the people in the country fallow it, that religion is a huge target for scrutiny and criticism. HereticMonkey
I think you're not really trying to figure things out as you are looking to prolong the argument. I think that your inability to logic out that they could have been heading to Egypt, but stayed in Judea is the key to the situation; Judea had a number of ports that a number of people could have been on the way to Egypt, but passed through Judea first, and, given the distances involved, could have have slept in Judea. Also, the wise men were said to have come from the East; Egypt is to the west of Judea. They would have had to have passed through Judea in order to get to Egypt. Unless, of course, you are positing some form of teleportation...
Nice sidestep. I guess a better way of phrasing it is: Most of the criticism is pointedly towards Christianity. Even to the point that if someone or something screws up, and there is even something the slightest bit Christian about that person or something, well, Christianity has screwed up again. On the other hand, a person that claims to be, say, Buddhist screws up, that person is no longer considered Buddhist. Worse, although Buddhism is a major religion, it doesn't seem to given the same Third Degree that Christianity has been given. Just an observation... HM The Conspirator
HereticMonkey: It wasn't the wise men who went to Egypt, it was Mary Joseph and Jesus. And no one would have confused some part of Judea with Egypt. Judea was not a big province.
In one version, they go home after the Jesus is burn, in another they flea to Egypt, the country.
Thats not what I said. I said Christianity is a huge religion, the biggest in the world, and people in the west are overwhelmingly Christan, that makes it a huge target. HereticMonkey
They had fled on purpose. An angel had advised them of what Herod was doing, and how to avoid it. They didn't confuse Egypt and Judea; they were trying their hardest to get out of Judea for a while, and Egypt was conveniently nearby... Sorry; it had looked like you were discussing the magi's travel plans...
Got that. I know that Christianity is a big religion and that alone invites criticism. I'm not debating that or even disagreeing. MY POINT was that it was interesting that ONLY Christianity appears to have received any thorough criticism; criticism of Hinduism, for example, is usually limited to its caste system, and Buddhism may be gently joked about, but I don't see any major criticism of it in the same terms as Christianity. I also find it somewhat interesting that people and wars are defined in terms of being Christian, even when the link is debatable at best (such as Hitler being Christian); all that matters is that someone involved was Christian. On the other hand, when you have someone of a different religion do the same thing, others of that religion disavow the person even if that person was doing it in the name of that religion, even atheism (Chairman Mao killed a lot of people in the name of atheism, simply because they did follow a belief). It's easy to say no one kills in the name of your religion when that person isn't considered to be of your religion... HM Indi
The truth is often dull. At any rate, if one is to start with the assumption that the story told in Matthew is actually true, one should not forget that these magi were professional astronomers. That means that they would not be stupid enough to be fooled by a simple planetary conjunction, or occlusion. So might it have been a comet? Scripturally, there is no reason why not, because αστηρ ("aster", Greek for star) can mean any astronomical body. But if so, why was the comet not recorded anywhere else in the world? And yes, there were tons of people making detailed astronomical observations at that time. But all this ignores the most damning part of the myth. Apparently, the magi were able to pinpoint the exact location - down to the building, at least - that the "star" hovered over. If that's true, the "star" was less than 10 km above the Earth. Not millions of kilometers (as is the case of a comet).
Josephus is not the only source of information for the dates. We have coins that confirm to us that Herod's successors were in power by 4 BCE. And we have Roman records that date the events that led to Quirinius being moved to Syria by Augustus in 6 CE. And no, historians do not debate whether or not Quirinius had a previous term - apologists have advanced that as a theory to try to explain away the contradiction. Outside of the bible, there is no evidence anywhere to even suggest that. As i mentioned above, we have extant Roman documents that place Quirinius in Judaea Province working for Tiberius between 1 CE and 6 CE, and Galatia before that. So there is no practical way that Quirinius could have been governor of Syria before 6 CE. And if the census took place before he took power, then Luke is wrong anyway, because it specifically says the census is done in his name. And again, if it was the mass swearing for Augustus... Luke is wrong, because he specifically says it's the census of Quirinius. The debate is basically going like this: Apologist: The story of the nativity is true! Historian: The story of the nativity cannot be true, because the dates don't match. Apologist: Well then the story of the nativity is true, but the dates are wrong. Historian: So, basically, the only text in all of human knowledge that describes the nativity - the new testament - is known to be flawed? Apologist: Correct. Historian: And there is no other evidence for the story anywhere else? Apologist: Correct. Historian: But you still believe it is undeniably true? Apologist: Yes. Historian: Alrighty then.
Let's assume for a moment that the writers of the gospels were actually present during real historical events, but were writing these things decades after the fact. Might they have suffered from selective memory? Most likely. They may have forgotten that Jesus had the shits one day from eating bad burrito, or that he always bad mouthed immigrants and said they were ruining the country. They may have even misremembered him shouting "father, forgive them for they know not what they do" when he actually said "holy s**t this hurts like hell - get me the f**k down from here!". But if their memories were really that flawed... isn't the story they wrote a fiction anyway? Might they have forgotten details, such as the exact wording, or exactly who was present at a given event? Probably, unless the people present played an integral part. They might have forgotten that Thomas was at the Sermon on the Mount because Thomas was always such a whiny little bastard that no one paid any attention to. But would they forget that Peter was at the arrival into Jerusalem? Of course not - he had an integral role there. If Luke had asked Joseph: "gee, Joe, why did you and Mary travel to Bethlehem?" and Joseph had answered: "well, L-dawg, there was this mass swearing thing for Augustus"... do you really think that Luke would have somehow forgotten that and wrote about Quirinius? Remember, to Luke, the fact of this journey to Bethlehem was so profound that when he was selecting bits and pieces of Jesus' life to write about, he opted to devote a section to it even though it actually had none of Jesus' teachings in it. i mean, to us, confusing the governor of Syria with the emperor of Rome seems no big deal... but do you really think Luke would have? Or Joseph? And, if there was confusion, wouldn't it be natural to name the emperor before the governor (that is, if you can't remember whether a law was provincial or federal, but this is the story about GOD and THE MESSIAH... wouldn't you tend to go for the big name rather than the small one)? The only three means we have of determining the veracity of anything in the new testament are: 1.) Analyzing the believability of the accounts, looking for ridiculous claims. 2.) Comparing the accounts to each other to check for consistency. 3.) Comparing the accounts to extant writings to check for external verification. And you say that: 1.) Ridiculous claims are expected if the story is true (ex. miracles). So even if there are ridiculous claims, we can't use them to discredit the story. 2.) Contradictons between the different accounts are expected because... well i don't know. You say that contradictions are expected, but i think the logic of that is bizarre. But assuming you're right, we can't even use contradictions between the writers to check the truth. 3.) When extant writings and the bible disagree, you should assume the bible is true first (such as in the case of Josephus). See a problem?
The debate is religious in nature. The bible is not a historical document, it is a religious text. The writers had no interest in recording the truth, their primary goal was the glorification of their beliefs, and outlining a system of laws. When history happened to work in their favour, they used it. When it didn't, do you really think they weren't above outright fabrication? As far as being a historical document goes, the bible is about as useful as the story of Jason and the Argonauts. When one simply ignores the bible and uses only non-religious historical sources, there is absolutely no evidence at all of virtually any of the key events described. Put your helm of intellectual honesty on and think for a moment about what that means.
At this point in time, Christianity is not the only religion that is attempting to rewrite history and science (and the laws of the land). However, it is by far the most powerful, and it is the one that is having the most success. Because of that, it is only logical that it is the one that that is being the most viciously scrutinized by both the natural sciences and historical studies. Quite simply, no one's bothering to take Hinduism apart at the seams because Hinduism either isn't attempting or isn't succeeding at trying to dismantle science and history. If Christianity would stay out of science and secular studies of history (and other things, such as law-making), then it would not be challenged. However, it doesn't. It attempts to attack and/or undermine the foundations of these things, and they fight back in defence. If Christianity cannot stand the scrutiny - and it certainly can't without resorting to illogical tactics - then it should not provoke the scrutineers by invading their territory. HereticMonkey
No particular order:
1) The Bible is considered to be a historical text, albeit one that does occasionally have some issues. It's been used to verify that events happened, as well giving insight into why those events happened. Note that I'm saying this with a caveat, but The Bible has nonetheless been used to verify events. 2) The caveat: Yeah, it's also a religious document. This means that you are going to have to deal with miracles every so often. Interestingly, it's those very problems that historians like; those problems give historians a chance to look over history, and see if there is a way that the miracle could have happened, or if it's verifiable. Strangely, most miracles have been verified using non-biblical sources (ie, those considered factual). 3) So...if a historian agrees with you, then his value is proven, but if his opinion disagrees with you, he's an apologist. I always find it an interesting to debate things with atheists because the allowed list of sources is limited to sources that the atheist likes, rather than all available sources, and the debate usually goes into semantics rather than facts. Also, I find it interesting how well most atheists have studied The Bible; kudos to the scholarship! Nonetheless, I'm going to keep using sources you may not appreciate...the value of an academic shouldn't be limited to the academic's religion; otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages... 4) If the magi were such great astrologers, then they would have been able to determine in general what the event was, and whichever stars/astronomical bodies in order to follow in order to find the event. Bear in mind that they could follow the stars; comets, for example, were said to hang over a location. In other words, I'm acknowledging that it makes no sense to a modern mind, but we aren't looking at modern minds.... 5) I'm also willing to go with selective memory, or at least some form of it. None of the writers were at the nativity, nor were they even aware of it. Worse, the accounts were written well after the fact. So some error was bound to creep in, especially given the priority for opinion over fact back them. ------------------------------------------- The bottom line is that I doubt we'll ever fully agree on this to the degree you like. I'm willing to compromise a bit, as are you, but that just won't build a bridge... HM The Conspirator
HereticMonkey the bible is not a historical book, its a religious text. Many events in the bible didn't happen or didn't happen as described.
You can't use the bible to verify something. Indi
Good grief, you must be joking. You think that Noah's flood was real? What about the creation story? Moses making magic snakes for the Egyptians? Oh, what about the plagues of Egypt? The parting of the sea? If you seriously think that those things happened, then sure, the bible is a historical text. If on the other hand, you realize that all of those things are just fantasies - stories - then what does that make the bible... but a story book? And once you realize the bible is just a big story book... how can you seriously argue that it's a historical text? That's like trying to determine the politics in Washington by watching the West Wing, or - more relevantly - trying to determine the history of the church of Scientology by reading Dianetics. Are there historical facts in the bible? Sure, just like any story that claims to be set in reality will use actual historical facts and real place names, the bible's settings are usually based in history. But does that mean the bible is a reliable means of determining what history is? Give me a break.
Ah, dude - the people combing history for evidence of miracles are not historians. And no, strangely, there is not a single biblical miracle that has extant evidence. Not one. Anywhere.
If a historian actually studies history, they are a historian. If they study the bible then try to make history agree with it, they are an apologist. Any historian worth their salt studies all sources they can find, but all sources are not created equal. A claim made in Jason and the Argonauts - and verified nowhere else - is not a claim to be taken seriously. Similarly, a claim made in the bible - and verified nowhere else - is not a claim to be taken seriously. Something like Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is a far more credible source, but even that should not be taken alone. And it doesn't have to be, because we can back up most of the fact in it with other sources. The bible, however, stands mostly alone, and is contradicted by extant sources at almost every turn.
Of course. It is the most powerful text in the world - more people use it to guide their lives than anything else. And people try to use it to control the way other people live their lives. And people try to use it to rewrite science books and history books. For self-defensive purposes alone an atheist should know the bible quite well.
There is absolutely no sense in what you just said. i have never said that an academic's worth is weighted by their religion - quite the opposite, i have said that their worth is weighted by their sources. If an atheist historian tried to use the bible as a historical text, i'd call them a fraud, too. You have it completely backwards. An academic that bases their work on religious documents or beliefs (and not someone studying the religion or culture, of course) is a dark age "academic". Modern sciences know how to determine the worth of their sources better.
This is all completely illogical. Yes, we all know that people could use stars and/or comets to navigate - the device used was called an astrolabe. And if the magi were even mediocre astronomers, they would have been able to use an astrolabe to figure out what the phenomenon was hanging over. But you completely ignored the objections. In order to be able to pinpoint the location down to a single building, the phenomenon in question would have had to have been less than 10 km up. Parallax makes further objects seem to be hanging over huge areas, the size of continents, as they move (the Earth, turns, remember). That rules out stars, planets and comets. It had to have been either a satellite or some other kind of UFO - if it existed. On top of that, the world was FULL of people watching the skies at that time, many of them making meticulous recordings of what they saw. None of them recorded anything that meets the requirements of the alleged phenomenon. Try intellectual honesty here. We all know the bible is replete with lies - call them stories if you want, but we know that many of the things the bible claims happened simply did not happen. Now you have this astronomical event that cannot have gone unnoticed by the rest of the world that is only mentioned in the bible and nowhere else. What is the correct conclusion to make?
History is not written by compromise. The facts are the facts, and if you want to ignore them, then no, i most certainly will not compromise. HereticMonkey
Indi: Thanks, BTW, for showing why Atheism is a religion...
Here's the deal: Some of the events obviously didn't happen. On the other hand, some of them did. Historians have long loved going through The Bible, trying to determine which events actually did happen, or just referenced real world events. The parting of the sea is a definite favorite, BTW; there a number of actually plausible theories on what happened. Also, the creation story actually checks out, as long as you don't equate each day to an actual 24-hr period; if you actually bother checking out how scientists believe how the universe started, that is...
Strangely enough, yes. Because of the number of places where The Bible goes hand-in-hand with history, it's actually useful as a commentary on the ancient world. Also, if you really are a student of history, you'd know of the number of times that a myth has proven to be true; Troy is probably the best example, as it was long believed to be a myth, until shown to be real in actuality. Note: I'm not saying that everything that happened in The Bible actually happened. But...enough did that it makes for an interesting read for history geeks...
Depends on how you define miracles. There are number of those problematic things that have been shown to have possibly happened that it gets interested. Read: People have documented a number of weird happenings, even in the modern world. Do we expunge them because they don't match our beliefs, or do expand our beliefs to encompass them? Yeah, a lot of crop circles are easy to explain; but a lot aren't. Do we dismiss all crop circles because a few are explainable, or do we search for an explanation for each, based on their own merits?
1) How...convenient for you. 2) So, what do you call a historian who, on a lark, take a biblical myth and show that it either a) actually happened, or b) is plausible? That is, had no religious reason for showing that something happened, and shows that the event could happen or did actually happen?
Heh. How ironic that you have an apparently deep-seated problem with apologists, yet you reference one of the best known apologists of all time...Also, he's one of those that references Jesus, as well as other biblical notables of the time...
Actually, it does rather well in this area. Of particular note is the story of Solomon and the baby, which was shown to be parable of how Solomon felt and planned to deal with various factions if they didn't settle down.
In other words: There is a lot of learning that is couched in religious terms, and to disregard it simply because of that isn't necessarily wise. The Bible advises against certain meats, for example, that would be good to avoid given the lack of hygiene back then (such as pork and shellfish), as well as providing medical advice (such as how to lance a boil and determine if it's infected or not). For what is obstensibly a purely religious text, The Bible covers a lot of ground...
Talk about safe bets...Would an atheist be an atheist if he used The Bible as a reference in the first place?
And so you've completely blown away astronomy, chemistry, medicine, and genetics, including evolution, all of which are based on religious documents or beliefs...Interesting that... [Note: Before you reply, bear in mind that astronomy and chemistry are based on astrology and alchemy, respectively, genetic theory has its origins in the abbeys, and that Darwin was attempting to prove certain biblical beliefs at the time, and that his belief in evolution was based on Christian thought. Medicine, of course, is very steeped in religion, even today (especially holistic medicine). Just thought it was interesting...]
No offense, but do you bother to read what you quote? On this we are in mostly complete agreement; there is no way to scientifically "create" a specific location. On the other hand, I would like to know why Chinese astrologers recorded what is apparently an entirely different night sky than other cultures. In that regard, it does appear that either the Europeans either weren't paying attention, the Chinese were lying, or that there was some kind of censorship going on.
However, many did. As long as I realize that difference, and allow for it, I fail to see why you can't use The Bible as at least a secondary reference, or as inspiration for scientific/historic inquiry.
Actually, it only went unnoticed by the Romans, and those under their rule; apparently the Chinese did notice it. And even then, it is possible that the Romans didn't want the event recorded; history is full of events that the some organization deleted because they weren't favorable to some groups...
However, I would debate that history should be considered above reproach. It is arguably the softest of the sciences, and has proven the most vulnerable to corruption. The bottom line is that just as you are nailing me for my religious conviction, yours is just as obvious. I'm not trying to use The Bible as my only source, but as an origin, which I'm then checking against other sources. However, our conflict is because we have two different religions conflicting, and that we are trying to defend what we see as the truth. For what it's worth... HM Indi
Eh? You don't even know what my religion is. You know i'm atheist, but what does that mean? i could be a Zen Bhuddist or a Jainist. Or a Raellian.
i don't even know what to say to this. -_- On the one hand you openly admit that the bible is fictitious, and even when you insist that it does have basis in fact, you admit that those facts are garbled (days become aeons, for example). The evidence is plainly in front of you that the bible is highly unreliable, and you even admit to it... and yet you still insist that the bible is a good reference. What can anyone say? Logic doesn't seem to be a factor in your position, thus logic cannot be used to debate it.
K now, take it slowly. You're almost there. So the Trojan war was long considered to be a myth... why? And now we're considering that it may not be a myth... why? Take your time. First answer: The Trojan War was considered to be a myth because the references we had to it were all known fiction. They were myths and legends, and most of them not particularly believable. Translation: stories in legends and myths are not valid sources for history. Second answer: The reason we're now considering that there may have actually be a Trojan War - albeit nothing like the one Homer describes - is because (tada!) we found extant historical evidence. In other words, the legend/story had nothing to do with the believability of the event. The evidence for the event was found by other means. The story helped not a squat. Same for the bible. Just like the Iliad, the bible has absolutely zero value as a record of history. None. When it so happens that external evidence corroborates the bible, that's interesting, sure, but hardly fascinating. And it's certainly not evidence of the bible being true. Hell, we know the Vietnam war was real. Does that make Rambo a valid record of history?
What on Earth are you talking about now? There's not a coherent thought anywhere in what you wrote above. i define miracle as something that cannot be explained by any natural or human means. Wackily enough, that's what the dictionary says too. Let's suppose that someone actually found evidence of a worldwide flood c4000 years ago. Would that show that the bible is a valid historical text? NO, and this is what you fail to grasp. All it would show is that the writers of the bible chose to use a specific historical event in their story. Once again, if a future historian found a copy of Rambo, and then evidence of the Vietnam War, does that suddenly make Rambo a valid historical source?
1.) Yeah, isn't it funny how that works out? A historian is someone who actually studies history. Who'd a thunk it? 2.) How many times do i have to repeat this? The quality of a historian is not judged by their religion or their beliefs, or by the particular aspect of history they are studying. The quality of a historian is judged by one thing and one thing only - the quality of their methods. And a key part of the historical method is the careful selection of source material. We know that history is written by the victors. We understand that biases can get introduced into otherwise academic writings. But a good historian will carefully select which documents are reliable and which are not, and they will corroborate as much as possible. The bible is unreliable. Deal. But if a historian were to use actually reliable historical documents, or archeological evidence, and find evidence of something in the bible that was previously thought to be a myth, good on them. They've done good historical work. Let me say that again: it doesn't matter whether someone is researching biblical history, provided they're using good sources. The bible is not a good source. The absolute most that it can do is suggest where to look. Nothing more. It cannot be used to explain what is found, or provide any deeper insight. Now, if a historian were to scour historical documents looking for, say, evidence of an astronomical phenomenon that matches the star of Bethelehem, they would not be doing history. They would be doing religious research. Why? Because they are using the bible as the primary source, then using other historical documents to back it up. The bible isn't even reliable enough to be supporting evidence, let alone the primary source. In that case, they are not historians, they are apologists.
You're being disingenious on several counts. First, Josephus was not a Christian apologist, he was an apologist for the Romans during a time of Jewish-Roman conflict (and for himself, regarding his actions in said conflict). Therefore he could be expected to be at least neutral towards Christians, and at most hostile. Therefore, any time he supports a Christian claim, or paints them in a good light, we can be fairly certain that he's recounting honest history. It's as simple as that. Second, the references to Jesus are now widely believed to be false - inserted into the text sometime after 300 CE. There is substantial evidence for this claim, including the fact that no writer, Christian or otherwise, before around 300 CE mentions Josephus's references to Jesus, even while they mention his references to other persons mentioned in the gospel narratives. Also, the actual inserted text doesn't use the same grammar or vocabulary as Josephus, and they clearly describe Jesus as divine in some form or another - a peculiar stance for a Jew to take.
What? We don't even have that much extant evidence of Solomon even existing, let alone what his mood was.
Once upon a time we lived in what were called the dark ages. They were called the dark ages because people were very ignorant then, and turned to religion for answers to everything - from the reasons for bad weather, to the politics of the realm, to the cause of the common cold. We got smarter. We figured out that the things we thought where caused by gods and demons were actually caused by natural things. Now we no longer believe those ridiculous ideas, we have put them behind us. Thus the dark ages ended. Now you want to take us back? Well, sure, mate, the bible covers hygiene. It also describes how you should properly imprison, torture and rape a female prisoner of war. It also gives a price list for human lives, either when you're selling your children into slavery, or for when you have to pay for murdering someone else's property - oops, i meant family. Dude, if you want to use the bible as a guideline for life, you go nuts. Sure did a lot of good for James Kopp and Eric Rudolph.
Maybe. You know reading the bible doesn't make one a theist, let alone a Christian. In fact, one of my favourite sayings is that if more Christians read the bible we'd have a lot fewer Christians. An atheist can be just as crappy a historian as a theist. Once again: the method matters, not the religion.
Yeah? So the astronomers where you are pray to gods to determine what inclination to look for the comet they are watching between nights? The chemists in your area trying to make the philosopher's stone? You been to a doctor recently who performed blood-letting? Dude, we've moved on. Our modern sciences are not based on religious concepts - astronomy and chemistry most certainly are not based on astrology and alchemy. Once upon a time in ancient history, they were. But we've moved on. Come, leave the dark ages and join us.
Because it's known to be false, it's vague and it has an agenda that is most certainly not the accurate recording of historical events. You want to use it as an inspiration? Sure. But not as a source of any kind.
Dude, i don't even know what your religion is, and i don't really care. This discussion has nothing to do with religion unless you're making it so. This discussion is about the proper way to do historical research. The bible is not a valid source - primary, secondary or otherwise. If you want to use it as inspiration, sure. Go nuts. But what you're talking about doing is using it as a primary source, then seeking extant confirmation. No, that's bad methodology. i am not defending the "truth" because i don't even know what the truth is. i am defending the methodology, because it is the best hope we have of finding truth. And because history is so easily corruptible, as you note, it requires the strictest of controls in order to keep it honest. You are attempting to corrupt that methodology by using poor sources. i have no interest in attacking any religion, but religion better stay the hell out of the sciences - even the "softest of sciences". HereticMonkey
1) First off: The Bible doesn't give instructions (that I'm aware of, at any rate) on how to torture women prisoners of war (as women couldn't wage war, or even be soldiers, why would such information even be needed?). Also, as far as slaves go, you're forgetting about Jubilee, where slaves were released and debts forgiven (ignoring, of course, that slavery was acceptable back then).
2) Please show me one historically reliable document from that era that is 100% accurate. Heck, I would even accept 75% accurate! Too many "histories" were more interested in the person's perspective on what happened rather than the actual facts. Because of this, historians have had to piece together history from a number of sources, most of which are incredibly debatable. What they've had to do was track down what the major events were, and go from there. In this sense, we've been able to verify that most of the events portrayed in The Bible have actually happened, albeit not necessarily as portrayed (for example, we know that, thanks to Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, that the Massacre of Innocents may have actually happened, where Herod killed all the boys under 2 years old in the Bethlehem area (even though only about 6 boys appeared to have died, the point is that it did happen)). Heck, we even know that the run from Egypt happened, and that so did Jericho. Worse, the origin of the Universe as per Genesis squares with what we know of the origin of the Universe as per physics. Basically, I have no problem with The Bible being maybe even 35% historically accurate (once you allow for parts that are clearly metaphorical (such as Revelations), not historical (such as Proverbs and Psalms, better known as General Advice and Pretty Poems), and even the obvious political allegories (such as the tale of Solomon and the baby). Because so much of The Bible has been shown to have happened, it does count as a valuable historical document, even compared to such as Josephus. 3) Just a general sidenote: I thought it was ironic that a well-known apologist was being used to slam Christian apologists, especially one so hated and otherwise despised by Jews of the time (a lot of people didn't like someone who survived a suicide pact)... 4) Oh, and Rambo was a bad example. Facts aren't the only things that matter to historians, but commentaries as well, as they show how people felt at the time. As a way to show how people felt about Viet Nam, it does have some actual historical value. Just thought that it that was an interesting sidenote... HM The Conspirator
Realy?
Any the vast majority are better, the bible is as reliable as the story's of Herculie's. HereticMonkey
1) OMG! Marrying someone is torture! Do you have anything better?
2)
a) Man, I hate having to read through typos... b) Random shot != point. Now, had you bothered to show how Hercules is at least relevant (ie, does it have any actual historical relevance?), it would have been interesting. Want to try again? HM Indi
i am fond of saying that if more Christians read the bible, there would be far fewer Christians. This seems to be an example of that. The bible does indeed give instructions on how to propely imprison and rape female prisoners of war. (And to answer your silly question: do you really think a female had to be a combatant to be taken as a prisoner in war?) (And no, i am not even considering the evidence Conspirator provided. If you really knew the bible, you would already know what i meant, but i'm feeling generous so i'll give you a hint: the law.)
There is not one word in the entire Christian or Jewish bible that speaks against slavery. Not one. Nowhere. Quite the contrary, the bible in several places encourages slavery. You should try reading the bible.
i have already explained how this is done, and why the bible cannot be used in this regard. Yes, history is pieced together form a number of sources, some of them somewhat questionable. But none of those sources are storybooks. i have also explained how a source that is questionable in some regards could be considered reliable in other regards. You would not expect a history of the Jews written by Heinrich Himmler to be facual... or would you? Obviously any "facts" that Himmler wrote about that show the Jews to be evil or subhuman are highly questionable. But any "facts" he included that show the Jews to be good, honest people are very likely true - especially when he is trying to refute those facts with little success.
1.) Your claim about evidence for the massacre of the innocents is complete rubbish. Exactly what date did your source record his so-called "evidence"? In what context? Seem like valid evidence now? Thought not. 2.) The story about the exodus is not documented by sources outside of the bible, and the bible's version of events is almost certainly untrue. It is known that Isreal was enslaved by Egypt and that that enslavement had to end somehow. An exodus is possible, but there is no evidence outside of the bible's clearly fantastic account. 3.) We don't "know" Jericho happened, and in fact there is evidence indicating that it could not. Or to put it another way: Massacre of the innocents: "The Massacre of the Innocents is not mentioned in the other gospels nor in the early apocrypha. Some scholars, such as Robert Eisenman, have called the historicity of this event into question, arguing that the prophetic nature of the account, and the lack of multiple attestation, decreases its credibility." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_innocents#Historicity) Exodus: "The findings of modern archaeologists may present a challenge for Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians, as it is here, at the Exodus and the subsequent Conquest of Canaan that the chronologies of the archaeologists seem to plainly diverge from those that may be derived from known versions of the Bible; at least in overall terms of centuries and populations." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Interpretation) Jericho: "According to most archeologists there is very little evidence of a single campaign of conquest, and there is Canaanite cultural continuity; most archaeologists now believe that the Israelites were simply a branch of Canaanite culture, and that there was no invasion." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Historicity) And that's just in Wikipedia. There are far more sources available via google.
Absolute crap. Ignoring the fact that it all apparently happened in a matter of days, because apparently it's ok to consider the "days" allegorical but not the rest of it (selective interpretation), the chronology is flawed. Third "day": oceans and continents are created. Fourth "day": the stars and sun are created. Nonsense.
You keep saying the bible has "been shown" to be accurate, and that it is "known" to be reliable. By whom? State your sources. Show your evidence. i have already explained repeatedly that just because real historical events appear in the bible does not preclude the fact that the bible is a complete work of fiction. The Rambo example, which you dismiss for silly reasons (which i will deal with later) is relevant. The Vietnam War was a real historical event, and much of the real history and geography involved was used in the writing of Rambo. But not one single event in the story of Rambo was real. You're trying to argue that finding evidence of events described in the bible validates the bible as a history book. Nonsense. If that were true then the evidence of the Vietnam War could be used to validate Rambo as a history book. This argument of being "35%" true is completely idiotic. How on Earth can one know what percentage of the bible is true unless one already knew the truth from other sources? Throughout all of Christian history the bible has been claimed to be literally true, then slowly as evidence was found that parts were impossible, people started saying "allegory" or "metaphor". How do you know that the parts you think are real will not also be found to be allegory someday? Answer: you don't. Unless you use "faith". And that's hardly a valid way to research history.
i already showed how Josephus' biases actually make him a more credible source - but you are mischaracterizing what i've been doing. i have not been slamming apologists, i have been slamming people that lie about history. It is you who wants to make this about the bible and Christianity, not me. i would take the same stance against anyone of any religion (or no religion at all) who attempted to warp historical evidence to fit a particular worldview.
You have just shot yourself in the foot. You are absolutely right that while Rambo makes a lousy historical text, it can be used to examine the mindset of its writers and those who supported it as a well written book (given its popularity). It also gives us a basis for studying the stories that followed it - those that it inspired and those that sought to discredit it. The same is true for the bible. It makes a lousy historical text, but it does give us fascinating insight into the psychology of the writers. It also gives us a basis for studying the ancient cultures that used the text as a basis for their beliefs. But neither Rambo, nor the bible, is a history book. HereticMonkey
You know, all of your arguments are great, as long as you don't bother to consider that the other person may even be right about something...
Read: I'm acknowledging that you're making some decent points, but you keep missing the target...
Actually, yeah. A prisoner of war is by definition someone who was taken as the result of that person in a direct conflict. In other words, there is a difference between the defenders and the defended, and this difference is noted in our treaties. Your other problem is that you forget that a lot of The Bible is pretty much ignored. At one time, taking wives in combat was considered acceptable; that no longer applies. Expect to see a lot of Christians and Jews point out that there is a difference between what is in The Bible and how that is practiced. In essence, you're arguing against a religion that essentially no longer exists...
No; The Bible uses slavery as a punishment of the Jews. It may give instructions on how to properly deal with slaves (and in fact is the first text to give slaves rights of any kind), but it can hardly be considered condoning the practice.
You should try finding out which practices are still actually in use, versus those that aren't.
And, again, wrong. And downright offensive. But, hey, if putting down someone else makes you feel better about yourself, wait...That makes you a bully, doesn't it? a) You're assuming that The Bible is a mere storybook; it's not. But that's one of your limitations; you're not seeing its relevance because of your personal beliefs. b) Historians tend to use religious texts all the time as fact-checkers. Not necessarily in the sense that they are accurate, but to compare why things were done, and how people were thinking at the time. In essence, it's interesting to compare when laws were introduced or taken down and then compare them to what they know of the local history. They are also useful interested in getting clues about things they may have missed.
I would consider factual if only because I know that Himmler would have used the facts to build his case, and then used opinion to bring his point home; ever looked at the Op-Ed page? Also, it would give a vital insight into the psychology of the person at that time.
Gee...So Augustus (who was emperor at the time) commenting on the Massacre should be considered "rubbish" (which was, BTW, who Macrobius was quoting...)? Sorry, but I feel pretty good now...
So...let me get this straight: Archaeologists can debate the numbers involved (as far as people), have it down to three possible pharoahs (the one in The Bible is unnamed), and can debate how exactly the Red See would have been lowered (based on geological evidence, not historical), and yet it didn't happen... Sure... [quote]3.) We don't "know" Jericho happened, and in fact there is evidence indicating that it could not.[quote] Jericho: Gee; I see that an earthquake happened just before it was destroyed. Sounds like it could have happened; just replace "trumpets" with "eqrthquake"...
Translation: It didn't show up in Josephus' book. And conveniently ignoring that almost all of history has no record of it happening, or usually just a minor mention somewhere.
Translation: It didn't exactly as reported in The Bible, and so it has to be wrong. Also, as the Jews were natives, and natives can't invade their homeland, then an invasion into Jericho couldn't have happened. (Ignoring of course that no one called it an invasion...) Interesting...So what do you call a group of people taking over the land that others have taken over in their absence?
Gee...I'm supposed to listen to you, but you don't have to listen to me? How convenient for you... a) I've said multiple times that they aren't literal days. Again: They aren't literal 24-hr periods of the planet rotating on its axis. b) Not bad: One event out of order. And it's one that's up to interpretation: The Sun had already been created (the day had already been split into day and night). Then the firmament and then heaven (you needed Earth to spew forth clouds of material to create an atmosphere, and then you can see the stars and sun when the clouds settle down). I see no contradiction...
Whatever...
Actually, we're using the same sources. We're just interpreting them differently. Specifically, where someone says, "It may not have happened", you are interpreting it to mean that it couldn't, whereas I'm interpreting it to mean that it could have. Says a lot about your outlook on life...
Not arguing that. I'm arguing that you can use it to get clues of things that may have happened, just as a number of historians, archaeologists, and geologists have in actuality done. In other words, it sounds like you're arguing that The Bible is so far from reality that it has no ability to help us uncover the past. In actuality, however, people have used The Bible to help dig up whole sections of history. Interesting, I think...
This is getting boring. So...Viet Nam didn't happen? There were no hidden POW's? People stopped looking for POW's? No one felt that it was a quagmire? Admittedly, it was a work of fiction, but it was based on real events and real attitudes; there is a solid reason that people continue to point to Rambo as a reference point.
I'm saying that you can use The Bible to uncover potential events, just as you can use Rambo to show that Viet Nam really did happen, and what people's attitude was towards it.
a) The "35%" figure was obviously an arbitrary number. Interesting that you still took a punch at it... b) People have assumed that most of The Bible was allegory almost since Day One. The only real difference is that more of The Bible is considered allegory, and that more is being questioned. Even zealots are questioning The Bible; if you listen to revelationists for any period of time, you can actually see ideas evolving. But that's bad, right? What happens, from your perspective, when The Bible is seen as just guidelines? Or are you so scared of that day that you need to attack Christians so that they become the stereotypes? You want me to have an open mind, open yours as well!
a) So...If I have a bias that fits your perspective, I know what I'm talking about. If my bias goes against your perspective, I'm an apologist. Interesting... b) But this is against The Bible and Christianity, and at a very fundamental level. You've consistently pointed out how bad The Bible is because too many people take it seriously, and use it as a real history. You can't discredit a major tome like that and not expect someone not to take it seriously. If that's a problem, then you should have stayed silent in the first place...(In other words, if you expect to throw an egg at a wall and get away with it, you need to change your expectations.) c) I definitely agree about trying to cook the books to fit your expectations. But most Christians agree with that as well; after all, there is this little commandment about lying. If we chose what was said in a book versus what the case really was, then we would guilty of lying, now wouldn't we? [Thanks for acknowledging the last point, BTW!] HM[/url] The Conspirator
So killing a womans family and friends, kidnapping a woman to get your self essentially a sex slave is ok? [/quote]2)
a) Man, I hate having to read through typos... b) Random shot != point. Now, had you bothered to show how Hercules is at least relevant (ie, does it have any actual historical relevance?), it would have been interesting. Want to try again? HM[/quote] The storys of Huculies and other Greek mytholiogical heros are just as reliable as the bible. HereticMonkey
Conspirator: Please follow the conversation. Not trying to be a jerk; just noting that your posts tend to ignore a lot of what I'm saying...
Gee...And yet all of these people, called historians, archaeologists, and geologist, think that they did, in fact, happen. At least to some degree.
Whatever. There's also no proof of UFOs, algae living in radioactive water, and the ceolocanth really did die out millions of years ago. Just because you personally choose to filter reality, doesn't mean the rest of the world does.
Not the way you use the term...
Not really. It does pretty well...
There is absolutely no sense in what you just said.[quote] Put another way then: Don't limit yourself to your own comfort factor. There are sources that you may not consider valid, but are nonetheless valid. Consider "zombie poweder"; it was long ignored because there was no way anything mystical in nature would have bearing in the real world. However, once it was actually investigated, several powerful new medicines were found. Heck, look at penicillin. It was believed that bread poultices were an old wives' tale; but by looking at it, penicillin was found.
Which is complete nonsense. You should investigate the truth of the matter, not what you consider the truth to be. We've found a lot of history by investigating The Bible seriously, and have found a lot of interesting stuff that we wouldn't have if we treated The Bible as a mere "storybook".
Summing it up: I ignored your objections because they didn't make sense outside of a modern perspective. It's a jerk point, but sometimes the modern perspective isn't the best one; ask just about any pagan.
Ironic statement...And here I thought I was...
Actually, it's looking like a lot of them did...
Actually, it was pointed out that a number of things were seen by Chinese observers, as well as the Magi; no one else recorded them, however. Then again, we are missing a lot of records (there was, like, this library that burnt up, not to mention the number of records destroyed due to invasions). So...can a case be made that the records may have been destroyed? I'd think so...
When I mentioned that you should compromise, I meant more that you need to look at things from an open mind (ironically, as suggested by The Bible), rather than from a singular fixed perspective.... HM HereticMonkey
Uh...no. If someone used The Bible to justify it would he be allowed to roam free? No. And does any legitimate church find that acceptable? Also, no. I'd say that it pretty much doesn't apply any more...and I'd like to think that it shows that the church has evolved some...
a) Nope. Outside of some geography, and the occasional king or other person, most of the myths have been shown to be wrong. b) It's worth noting that, thanks to those myths, we were keyed into the Trojan War, as well as Minos. So by looking into myths, we find some interesting stuff...just an observation... HM Indi
Dude, seriously. Your hair splitting is getting to be a bit ridiculous. Nowadays "prisoner of war" has a particular meaning, as defined by Convention. Back then it didn't and they didn't differentiate. They took who the wanted and killed the rest. Why are you even discussing the modern concept of prisoner of war? It has absolutely no relevance. They were prisoners and they were taken during (or after) war. They were prisoners of war. Despite your claim the bible does indeed describe how to take women prisoners in war and force them to be your sex slave. Deal with it.
"i forget"? Am i not the one who pointed out that one of my favourite sayings is that if more Christians read the bible there would be fewer Christians? Am i not the one pointing out things in the bible that you - ostensibly a practicing Christian - are unaware of?
Yeah? First, your claim that slavery is used as a punishment of the Jews is a lie by omission. i can quote you dozens of sections dealing with how Jews are expected to take slaves, and how foreign slaves were supposed to be treated more cruelly than Jewish slaves (yes, Jews were allowed to keep Jews as slaves). Most of the major old testament players had slaves. So you claim that despite the fact that the bible says it's ok to take slaves, and goes into detail about how to buy and sell slaves, and even describes the proper way to rape slaves - yet never once anywere says that slavery is wrong and that people shouldn't take slaves - that the bible doesn't condone slavery? Keep trying.
Do you or do you not admit that many of the events told in the bible are clearly fictional? Think carefully now before you answer. And given that we know that many parts of it are fiction, how can we possibly assume by default that the others are not? And given that we know some parts of it are fiction and there is no way to separate fact from fiction provided in the bible (it claims everything is true), does not that make the bible a non-credible source for history? Yeah, that's right. You can blame it on my "religion" or whatever, but them's the facts, and i even got the Catholic church to back me up here. Oh, but you know, maybe the Catholic church is against using the bible as a historical text because of their religion too, right? i mean that's the only reason i'm objecting, right? Can't be the blatant falsehoods in the bible. Nope, can't be that. You're trying to worm your way out by saying "ok, we can't use the bible as the only source, but we can use it as a source to guide research". Basically you admit we can't use the bible as the only source, but claim that we can still use it as the primary source. Essentially, although we have hundreds of thousands of non-religious avenues to explore, including truckloads of documents that even older and far less fantastic than the bible, including tons and tons of geological and archeological evidence, and much, much more - you think we should use this known to be sketchy document to guide research above and beyond all of those stellar sources that we have yet to explore. Or to put it another way, in the right hand we have mountains and mountains of solid historical, geological and archeological evidence that we can use to guide research. In the left hand we have this document that we know is questionable. And it has fallen to you to decide where you should spend your limited research resources. And you pick...?
Historians do not use religious texts as source texts. They use them after the fact. In other words, if they have an Aztec myth that descibes how the gods created sacrifice in order to save humanity, they would use that document to study why and how the Aztecs performed human sacrifice. They do not use that document as a starting point for researching the details of the sacrifices of the gods. Similarly, historians would consider the bible's teachings when studying the behaviour of ancient Isreal, because obviously the bible influenced the behaviour of ancient Isreal after it was written. But they do not use the bible as a history book to determine what happened before it was written.
You're making a huge leap in assuming that he either did not manufacture, misrepresent or mistake "facts" to support his case. Even honest people tend not to research facts that support their case as much as facts that seem to contradict it. Thus we could not trust anything Himmler wrote against the Jews - but evidence he presents to support them would probably be evidence that was so widely known and so undisputed that he could not simply ignore it. You could argue that the bible gives insight into the minds of its writers and the cultures that spawned it, sure. But that doesn't make it a history book. Even a work of complete fiction gives insight into the mind of its writers, but certainly no insight into any "historical" events described in the book.
Gee, didn't bother to actually research your source, hm? ^_^; i'll give you one more chance. Careful now. Who exactly was Macrobius quoting? i hope you still feel as good about your facts once you actually check them. ^_^;
Er, you didn't get it straight. No one knows if there was an exodus. No one can say for sure whether it did or did not happen. And if it did happen, no one can give a clear estimate for the date or the size of this exodus. There is no evidence. However, although we cannot determine exactly what did happen, we can determine some things that could not have happened, and the biblical version of the exodus could not have happened. (Incidently, you've shot yourself in the foot again. No one really debates how the Red Sea was parted or "lowered"... because the bible doesn't actually say "Red Sea". That is a famous mistranslation in the King James Bible.)
Yeah, you know what? Sources only work when you actually read them. It does say that an earthquake may have happened, but it also says that an invasion most likely did not. So you go ahead and replace "trumpets" with "earthquake"... but what are you gonna replace "army", "siege" and "triumphant victory" with?
Translation: it didn't show up in any books. None. Presumably thousands or tens of thousands of infants were taken from their mothers and murdered, and no one - Roman, Jewish, anyone - no one anywhere anytime wrote anything about it. It's not mentioned anywhere by any of the survivors (if any), who would surely have noted how they were hidden if they came to any kind of power (which would be very likely with that kind of a birth story to impress people with). It's not mentioned by any writings of any Jewish scribes of the time, despite the fact that either some of them may have lost children or had friends who lost children. It's not mentioned by any of the other writers of the new testament or anywhere else in any Christian writing, even though it would seem to be a strong indicator that there was something special about Jesus. Absence of evidence is not really evidence of absence, but at the same time you have to use your head! The absence of a huge explosion around you is pretty strong evidence that a nuclear bomb has not gone off in your vicinity. The absence of a single word of writing of what would certainly be considered an ENORMOUS event in the lives of people of the region is pretty damn good evidence of the absence of that event. The only reason to assume that that event actually happened would be if you assume that the bible is historically true - and you know that's not the case for several other instances; there is lots of fiction in the bible - so it is not an assumption that you can support.
... says the guy who wants to use the bible as a history book. ^_^;
1.) i explicitly said i was going to accept that assumption, as ridiculous as it is. Note the quotes around the "day"s there? 2.) a] Two "days" wrong out of six. That's lousy stats, man. b] You have described the formation of Earth wrong. There was a period when the Earth was pretty much a barren rock with the stars clearly visible through a thin atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium - then rainfalls began - then the oceans formed. c] Your "interpretation" is wrong. And you weren't satisfied with what i've already proven wrong? Then consider this: Second "day": waters of Earth are created and separated from Heaven. Third "day": land is created. We know this is wrong because the land formed first from coallescing stellar matter as magma, then cooled to a solid crust, then water collected in the dips to form the oceans. In other words, land first, then water. Wrong again. That's three "day"s out of six wrong. It's getting worse. But wait, there's more! Fifth "day": Air and sea creatures are created. Sixth "day": Land creatures are created (including humans). But "air creatures" (presumably birds, but even flying bugs evolved from crawling bugs) evolved from land creatures. First came "sea creatures", then some crawled on land, then some of those took flight. Once again, wrong. Crap on a stick! That's five days out of the six demonstratably wrong! And the only day left is just the separation of "light" from "darkness", which is meaningless drivel in physics anyway. So even that day is questionable and only gets away because it's so vague and non-sensical it can't be discussed without extreme interpretation. The fact that you try so hard to "interpret" a clearly false history to make it agree with external sources is exactly why using a religious text as a history book in general is unwise (although it can be done, provided you keep the religion out of it). The fact that it's clearly false is why the bible in particular is clearly not a good historical reference.
No, when someone says "it may not have happened" but the bible says "it did happen", i'm taking that to mean it may not have happened. When someone says "it probably didn't happen" but the bible says "it did happen", i'm taking it to mean that it probably didn't happen. That is as opposed to you, who, when someone says "it may not have happened" but the bible says "it did happen", says it did happen. And when someone says "it probably didn't happen" but the bible says "it did happen", says it did happen. You can try to frame this as a religious argument all you want. i'm not biting. This is a simple matter of considering history using good sources vs. bad sources. The bible is a bad source. i don't care what your religion is, and what mine is is irrelevant. The bible is not a good historical source. And if your only retort to that is that i'm saying that because i'm a godless heathen, who does that speak more of - me or you? By contrast, i base my argument on the poor state of the bible as a historical reference on... its poor state as a historical reference. When it is not so vague as to be near useless, it is mostly fantastic. And even when it is credible, it has often been shown to be either outright false or simply highly unlikely. You can't seriously think i would advocate using the tiny amount that remains as a historical source after all that, can you? Regardless of my religious beliefs, that would just be silly.
You seem to be labouring under the fantasy that we have no better sources of history to work form. Given that the bible is such a poor historical reference, isn't it a waste of resources to spend time and money chasing down its claims when we have far better sources to start from? Whose interests are we serving when we research biblical claims before solid non-biblical evidence? Because it's certainly not in the best interest of accumulating knowledge.
Did Vietnam happen in Rambo? Or was it *gasp* before? Were any real POW histories used in the writing of Rambo? Or was it all just *gasp* fiction? (Incidently, i was referring to the first Rambo movie, but whatever.) It was not based on real events. If it claimed to be, it would be a lie. It used real history to create a fictional series of events. But it does not differentiate between real history and fictionalized "history" created to be a backstory for the film.
You can't use Rambo to show that Vietnam really happened. Get serious. You can't even use Rambo to gauge the public response to Vietnam. If you were a future researcher with no evidence of this period but Rambo, how could you know that it wasn't written by a paranoid conspiracy theorist and that it had no relation to reality at all? Or maybe the entire war and response was manufactured as a dramatic tool to make some other point about violence and culture?
a.) Duh. -_- Any number you picked would have been equally foolish and arbitrary. And meaningless. b.) 1.) "People have assumed that most of The Bible was allegory almost since Day One." i question your grip on reality. 2.) i don't care what other people are doing about the contradictions in their religions. i care about preserving knowledge and keeping it safe from people who would attempt to rewrite it to suit their beliefs - any beliefs. i fight just as hard against atheist revisionists as theist revisionists. How many times to i have to say this. i don't freaking care what your religion is. You can worship Baal for all i care. But do not attempt to pass off shoddy work as valid historical work. 3.) You seem to be suffering from paranoid fantasies - or at the very least you have a huge chip on your shoulder. i don't care about Christians. i don't care how they interpret the bible. They can use it as a cookbook for all i care. As long as they don't attempt to rewrite history (or science), let them sit on their crosses and rotate until armageddon. See if i care.
Aaaaand once again. a.) This has nothing to do with my "bias". There are good methods of studying history and bad methods of studying history. If you use good methods, you are a historian. If you use bad methods, you are not. If you are attempting to reinterpret history in a way that satisfies some particular belief set, you are an apologist. i have repeated this several times. i will continue to repeat it as long as you don't understand it. You are attempting to reframe this discussion as a religious dispute (which is idiotic given that you don't even know what my religion is and i don't know yours). i will not bend and play your silly game. This is about history, good and bad. And you are attempting to justify doing bad history. That is all that this is about. b.) 1.) No. Every argument i have presented against the bible as a historical text has been solely on it's historical merit. Not once have i mentioned how popular it is, how many people believe it, or how many different ways it is interpreted. This is not against the bible or Christianity, despite your attempts to make it so. It is against bad history. That is all this is about. 2.) The amount of people who take something seriously does not affect its truth. 3.) The bible is a "major tome", sure. But it is not a history book. 4.) i don't care whether or not you have a problem with my position. It stands regardless of its popularity. Good history requires good sources. The bible is a lousy source. c.) The (lack of) Christian propensity to adhere to their own rules aside, i don't care about what "Christians" think. If they choose to ignore history to suit their beliefs, that's their choice and i can't dictate to them to do otherwise. If they choose to consider the bible completely allegorical and embrace real science and history, that's also their choice. i don't care what they do. It doesn't affect history. The Conspirator
The bible dose justify that! I quoted a section that says do that.
Just like the bible. The bible is the same. a few things based loosely of facts in a huge pile of crap. chrismen
Sorry but that is not true. Although much of the Bible has no evidence what we are discussing here does. There is not evidence of the Greek myths but of Jesus there is (Roman, Jews, the Bibles themselves each telling of the same man from different people and different locations - this is much different than the stories of the Greeks). He was a man of this Earth. If he is the son of God, a prophet is up to you. About the real topic of discussion however, I find that very interesting. Indi
Yeah? Let's say, hypothetically, that there was a man walking around the middle east around 20-30 CE with thousands of people following him, listaning to him and watching him do miracles. A man whose fame had spread so far and wide that highly placed Romans had heard of him. A man whose entry into Jerusalem was a parade fit for a king. Let us also say that shortly after this hypothetical man's execution, a religion began to spring up all over the middle east in his name, as his small group of followers coopted hundreds more. Wouldn't one expect to find some mention of this hypothetical man - outside of Christain religious texts - by writers of the time or shortly thereafter (during the period when the disciples were walking around preaching about him)? Doesn't that seem like a reasonable and logical expectation? Find one. Deuc
Jesus was born in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—
That would make it about 4 B.C. due to a wonderful miscalculation in the middle ages.  HereticMonkey
[Sorry for the unscheduled leave of absence. Silly internet connections...]
This is a reasonable expectation; at the same time, it's interesting to note how many events happened in Europe at the time went unrecorded. The best explanation I can give is that too many historical texts were destroyed for various reasons (such as libraries being burnt, scholars being discredited and their works destroyed, destroying texts that weren't favorable to those in control, even barbarians just burning everything in sight). Throw in a number of governments that were just anti-intellectual (such as Germany just prior to WWII, and the Chinese and Russian revolutions), and I'm surprised any texts survived. Then again, how much survives to show that any specific band tour happened? People may have personal souvenirs, and they may be occasionally reported on, but how would someone who isn't a fan of the band even find out that the event happened? Especially if the band is determinedly trying to be under the radar. Given the issues re: beginning Christianity, it's not hard to see why some event in a far province wouldn't be important, and, given that the cult had just had it's major leader just nailed by the Powers That Be, it's easy to see why there was some secretiveness going on, and thus why it was somewhat occluded... HM Indi
That argument is easily refuted by the outlandish claims made regarding the life of Jesus. You may never bother to write to your friends or family about a wicked live band you saw. But someone would certainly spread the story around if said band had fed a crowd of 5000 with five bags of Doritos and two strips of beef jerky... and had buckets of leftovers. This dude led a kingly procession into Jerusalem. This dude survived a wide-scale massacre of babies. News of his fame had spread at least as far as a member of the Roman royalty living in Canaan and/or a Roman Centurion (inconsistencies between the gospels make it unclear whether these are two separate incidents or one that John screwed up). Absence of evidence is normally not evidence of absence. But you don't assume you're in the middle of an atomic blast when you're not even warm. We do have scads of detail about that time, from the day to day dealings of many of the courts down to the palace intrigues of the various royal families. But there is not a single word written anywhere by any contemporary writer about any of the events - even the ones that are truly remarkable and fantastic - that are described in the gospels. There aren't even any records of rumours or passing references. There is literally nothing. There are countless bands playing countless live shows every hour of every day in every major city of the world - and few, if any, of these shows result in life-changing events for even a single person, let alone thousands. Unless there were people walking around that area doing miracles for crowds of thousands on a biweekly basis - whose fame had spread across several countries - then i'd say Jesus would stand out as a pretty freaking big event. On top of that, he was considered - if only by a handful of believers - either a deity or a major prophet. So no. It is defintely not reasonable to assume that only a few people (or no-one at all) could be bothered to record something about him and/or that all of the information that was recorded about him would simply be allowed to just fade away into historical oblivion. HereticMonkey
Actually, my best research revealed that it only involved about 5-6 babies. I sorta pointed that out a few posts ago...Read: Neat history item, but not really widespread; Bethlehem was not a big town...
Correction: There is no contemporary source that you are allowing into the discussion that shows proof of Jesus. Even disallowing the Bible, there are other sources out there. At the same time, because they would verify the claim, you have disallowed them. Even your beloved Josephus mentioned him, but he doesn't count for some reason in this case. Convenient, yeh? It's interesting to note that the split among historians favoring Jesus as an actual person versus mythological construct favors the former...
And this is why I stick to little words...The point here was not that the band was life-changing, but that the band played in side venues. Remember, Jerusalem was not a major city back then compared to most of the Roman cities, and it was so far away as to not matter. [Obviously not a history fan; there have been numerous live shows put on bands that have been called "life-changing" by the fans; ever heard of Woodstock?]
Again, it is reasonable that a lot could have been written, but the records destroyed by the Romans, or collected in one area and then destroyed. Then again, there are a lot of sources available, including a large number of references based on lost texts. Weird that a Christian has to ask someone to be open-minded... HM Indi
Some people say so, others say it's tens of thousands. Regardless, we have historical records of lots of brutal things that Herod did, right down to slaughtering a crowd of protesters that were speaking out against him. You'd think if that got mentioned, there would be some mention of a slaughter of innocent babies because Herod had heard of a future king from foreign wise men. Even if it was just a half dozen babies, you have here a case of the king of the land ordering the execution of local babies because a future king may arise from them. Freaking hell man! That's the stuff legends are made of! And nobody anywhere thought it worth recording? Good grief, we know from writings in Caesar's court that Herod killed his own children, and that thus Augustus Caesar had his other children in his own protection (or as hostages, i can't remember, but it doesn't change the point). Don't you think that any of the parties involved would have noted how wise that move was, and how lucky the kids were, by mentioning the mass murder of babies at the mere mention of a potential successor?
That would depend on which historians you are talking to. Bad evidence is worse than no evidence. Josephus' "evidence" was so clearly redacted (i mean, just read it... it's blatant) that it would be absurd to consider it valid. You are insisting that we consider evidence that is clearly false. Does that sound rational? Let me ask you a stupid question. Do you think dragons (giant flying reptiles) exist, or at least existed at the same time as humans? Why not? There are tons of religious texts that describe their existence. There are even non-religious references, although these are mostly of highly questionable veracity. However, for example, we know for a fact that Marco Polo existed, and he is recorded as having survived an attack by flying dragons. According to your standards for evidence, all of these are valid, and thus constitute a huge body of evidence for dragons (far greater than the body of evidence for a historical Jesus). Thus, dragons exist. Correct? i say no. i say that just because evidence exists does not make it valid by default. That evidence must first be considered to determine its validity. By my standards of evidence, dragons do not exist - or at the very least, have never have coexisted with humans. Similarly, by your standards of evidence, alien anal probers, leprechauns and fairies exist. Don't you find that problematic?
[And history records Woodstock in great detail, does it not?] i don't see any point to your objection. Jesus, had he really existed, almost certainly did a lot of "side" events that never got recorded. And there may have been dozens of wannabe messiahs running around the middle east at that time that history simply forgot. The point is that the clearly big events in Jesus' life didn't get recorded. Not even by the people who allegedly saw him, some of them even worshipping him, bothered to write a word about his life on Earth until a minimum of 30 years after his death.
No, it is not reasonable, by virtue of the sheer enormity of the events that Jesus was allegedly involved in. It is a common apologist dodge to say things like "Jesus' earthy life was not of great concern to the Christians of the time so much as his teachings" or "the scale of Jesus' actual deeds on Earth are relatively small". There are three problems with those claims. First, the second one is not true. Not by a longshot. The gospels - as with most of the bible - are fairly vague and contradictory. But when they do give clear numbers, or names, or allow for clear dating, they (when they don't actually contradict themselves completely) paint a picture of a man who was famous all across the middle east. i mean, think about it - if the population of Judea was really so small at the time of Jesus that the massacre of the innocents was not a noteworthy event... then wouldn't the fact that he had an entourage of thousands been very notable? It's pretty much one or the other. And there is no escaping the fact that Jesus was known, according to the gospels. When he was on trial by the governor... the king called for him! The king! No one - no one who followed him at the time, no one who thought he was a charlatan and was annoyed that the king cared - no one anywhere mentioned this even in passing! Second, the first one is not only not true, it's absurd. First the absurdity. God-incarnate was walking around!!! And these people didn't care? Come on! But aside from the absurdity, it's simply not true. The gospels describe people hanging on to Jesus' every word, following him around, and more. And even if pseudo-Christians were not at all interested in Jesus the man... you mean there was no one at the time who considered Jesus' humanity as evidence of his non-divinity (anti-Christans, basically)? When Jesus was executed, not a single Pharisee wrote "Nyah nyah" before hearing about his resurrection... or "bullshit" after? Third, neither of those arguments explain why no-one wrote anything about Jesus during his life that survived. Ok, pseudo-Christians thought he was a god, and thus may not have cared about his human life - not a particularly strong argument, but let's accept it temporarily. Ok, maybe Jesus didn't seem to be that big a deal at the time - not a particularly well supported argument, but again, let's accept it temporarily. It is nevertheless clearly stated in the gospels that word of Jesus had spread far and wide, and in several cases, that notoriety is clearly demonstrated by events in the narrative. Granted that much of that may have been word of mouth... but none of it was by letter? And as word of Jesus and his miracles spread all across the middle east and Roman empire, no-one heard the tale and said "gee, this would make for a good story, i'll write it down" or "this is even further evidence that the Jews are a group of superstitious morons, i'll record it to use to promote my campaign against them" or anything??? Let's assume for a moment that at some period the Romans felt compelled to do mass gatherings of Christian writings and destroy them. Answer me this:
The problem with claiming lost sources is that it doesn't fly. Even lost sources leave traces. We know of dozens and dozens of early Christian writings that are now lost. But none of those writings are historical records of Jesus - they are other epistles, gospels and related Christian fanfiction. We don't even have any records of secular evidence of Jesus' existence that no longer exists. Nothing! Even if it were true that the first generation of Christians didn't care about Jesus' Earthly life, the second generation definitely did. And yet not only did they preserve no evidence... they didn't even mention any. The silence on this issue is damning.
Why? Do you think that Christians aren't open-minded? Weird that a Christian would think that, wouldn't you say? i can't imagine how you can rationally accuse me of not being open-minded. Not only have i considered every single one of your objections, i am using the gospels as sources, albeit as sources that discredit themselves. Your problem seems to be that i have considered your objections, and the sources, critically. You appear to object to me questioning them, and get really snitty when i show them flawed. Every argument you have presented me, i have taken seriously, scrutinized and found lacking. You have yet to present reasonable ways to refute my objections. The best I have seen so far is "well, if you really, really try hard you can think of ways it might possibly be so". If you really, really try hard you can think of ways to make any theory true, regardless of how nonsensical. Every document you present as evidence, i have considered thoroughly, and found them all of questionable veracity. You have yet to give a reasonable reason why my conclusions are wrong. Your best argument so far has been "well, I know the bible is demonstrably wrong in places, but we should consider it anyway". That reasoning is nonsensical, and violates even minimal standards of evidence. i have considered your view. i have considered Jesus as a real person, and the gospels as true accounts of his life. And i have found that that view leads to contradictions and raging improbabilities that cannot be resolved. Let me challenge you to see if your mind is really as open as you claim it is. Consider the opposing view seriously. Consider that Jesus may not have existed, and find strong evidence that shows he really did. Good luck. HereticMonkey
Gee...lots of typing...
The problem is that you really aren't approaching with an open mind. A lot of events, even major events, from that era really don't have a lot of first-hand info; it's either been destroyed on purpose or accidentally, or it just deteriorated due to age. Worse, only recently was it even really considered that history could be subjective; almost all the histories prior to the last few decades were highly subjective (even more so than they are today), so errors tended to creep in, or a lot was ignored, or emphasized unduly. Your point re: Marco and the dragon supports that, and it appears that we agree on that point. And, no; I don't think dragons actually existed. However, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth did, in fact, live, is something most historians agree on. In fact, historians that think he was merely a mythological construct are in the minority (and by a large margin). In essence, trying to prove that Jesus didn't exist, as it looks like you've been doing, requires a certain degree of fanaticism. Bear in mind that, for some reason, a lot of events didn't get recorded for a while after they happened. It may seem weird, by our standards, that there were journals and that these journals were then later combined into books, along with any oral histories. It's just the way things were done back then, when writing was still considered a secondary form. [Note that I'm not saying that they were actually gathered up; they would have been sourced independently.] And, yeah, I'm sorry that I'm sounding like an apologist to you. Unfortunately, you're the one applying modern methodology to past events. I'm trying to consider what means and methods were in place, as well as the thinking processes involved in why those means and methods were taken for granted. You want a knife, you go to the store and pay a specific price; when a Roman wanted a knife, he went to the blacksmith and haggled. Although you both ended up with a knife, did you both go through the same steps to get it? Bear in mind that most things weren't recorded; whereas you could go and look at the paper trail of the court, it didn't exist back then. There was no need; the Jews were considered chattel by the Romans, and so they just didn't have any rights. No rights, no paperwork. You're also not allowing for another major issue: Jesus was a major puzzle to the authorities. On one hand, he challenged some of the basics of the day, but, on the other hand, he took pains to respect the law when he could. In essence, you had a great teacher who somehow managed to respect the law while challenging the religious authorities (thus why Pilate washed his hands of the affair, literally). How would you describe that to others? ["Yeah, there was like this weird Jew that through people out of the Temple because they were selling things there, but he paid his taxes!" Heh.] I'm not going to bother backing myself up on that; why should I when you tend to ignore anything that doesn't conform to your personal view of history? You continue to demonstrate this by making the killing of a few babies seem like the Holocaust, and then act amazed when there isn't any sign of it. Well, duh! On the other hand, if you do have a list Herod's atrocities, why does it seem out of character for Herod to kill a few babies? And yeah, it was recorded, in several spots. Heck, Caesar himself made noted it! And we even now of a number of sources that were lost because there were traces of them. I'm just not seeing the same silence that you are. And I'm not looking at just the biblical records, but the Romans as well. Re: Being open-minded: Gee, I always thought the stereotype was that Christians were close-minded;-). The reason I've gotten "snitty" is because you're finding arguments lacking because they don't allow that Jesus didn't exist. Given the sheer bulk of evidence, I've not been able to understand your position. The problem is that you are looking for evidence that he didn't exist. Good luck with that! I'm not going to find evidence for you, as you do keep slamming it. So why should I bother? It's good to be skeptical, but I think that you've become far too much so. HM Indi
And, as i've already explained, i have already taken all of that into account. To assume that not a single word of contemporary writing about a man who was supposed to be a mouthpiece of God and proved it by miraculous and fantastic deeds is a hell of a stretch. But even if i grant that reaching hypothesis, you're still not grasping the problem here. Consider: you keep saying "well we know that records have been lost or distorted, so it's possible that Jesus existed, and that all of these events happened, even though we have no real evidence for them". You know what? You're right. It is possible that every single event described or even hinted at in the gospels occured exactly as the gospels described them, and that either no one in all of the middle east bothered to record them at the time, or all records of the handful that did were lost, along with all mentions of those records. But it's also possible that there really were dragon attacks, and that giant, flying, fire-breathing reptiles were running around during the dark ages. We have tons of descriptions. We have witness reports. They were listed in medieval bestiaries as if they were factually known. They're even mentioned in the bible. My point is that lots of evidence does not equal good evidence. If that were true, then we should believe that dragons existed before we believe that Jesus existed. Why? Because we have far, far more evidence for dragons. We have far more recent evidence for dragons. And, unlike miracles, dragons are naturally sound - and in fact we know there really were creatures that were very dragon-like (dinosaurs). So by evidence alone (ignoring the quality of evidence, which is my standard that you have rejected), the existence of dragons is far more likely than the existence of Jesus. So i'm forced to ask: if you really are as open-minded as you claim to be, why is it that you accept the existence of Jesus with so very little evidence, but do not accept the existence of dragons with so much, and so much better, evidence? Why does anyone do that? Might there perhaps, possibly be - and i'm just throwing this out there - some other reason, unrelated to the search for historical fact, to come to those conclusions? And if that's the case... once that fact is recognized, shouldn't it be identified and labelled as a potential source of error in the conclusions? You want the truth? i don't know whether Jesus was real or not. i also don't really care. If he existed, it was two thousand years ago, and has nothing to do with me. His existance has about as much relevance to my life as Robin Hood's. Only Robin Hood was cooler, but aside from that, they're both just names to me. Incidently, we know that John the Baptist was a real person. The body of evidence supporting his existence is far greater than Jesus'. Not like it really matters to me whether or not John the Baptist existed either, but there you go. So as much as you have tried in the past to paint me "anti-Christian" and thus on some concerted mission to discredit the historicity of the bible, i have to point out that the evidence against even that charge is lacking. What i do care strongly about is that the facts that get recorded as history are, insofar as it is possible, correct. i don't care if you believe that the world is flat and on the back of a giant turtle. i do care if you teach that as fact in a science or geology class. i don't care if anyone believes that Jesus was an actual historical figure. i do care if that's what's written in the history books without a body of fact to support it. The body of fact that we can assemble does not point to the existence of Jesus. It doesn't rule him out completely, although it does imply that the gospel accounts are inflated at best, but it is a lie to teach that Jesus was a historical fact, when in fact we don't know. You see? The existence of Jesus is meaningless to me. The fact that our modern histories seem be written with easily identified biases is not. Did Jesus exist? *shrug* Iainno. Maybe. Do we have the evidence to support asserting that he did is historical fact? No.
You are creating false analogies. For starters, your characterization of the difference between a modern knife shopper and an ancient one are misplaced. A modern shopper is as free to haggle as an ancient one, and many do. Haggling may not be as effective in Wal-mart as in a corner ma and pa shop, but it's still possible - i hear people all the time attempting to wean a couple bucks off of something because it's slightly damaged or stained, or simply because the box was open for one reason or another. And the only difference between a blacksmith and a modern store is that the blacksmith shop was attached to the workshop (which is not exactly a foreign concept today - there are lots of places that do work in the back and sales in the front). It is also false to claim that there was no paper trail in the courts. Modern court procedure makes recording mandatory. It wasn't mandatory then, but neither was it unheard of. i don't know much about how courts in the Roman middle east were done, but i know how courts in ancient Greece were, and there were certainly many ways in which evidence of the trial was recorded. i can't imagine the Romans were much different. But even if they were, it's irrelevant. Because Jesus was not allegedly tried in a court. He was not a Roman citizen. He was simply brought before Pilate (and before Herod!), who said yay or nay. But you know what? Even that doesn't jive with what we know of history! History records Pilate as a ruthless man, with no qualms about killing his subjects by the bushel when they disagreed with him. It also records him as quite Jewish in his beliefs. He was eventually removed by Roman authorites for being... too brutal. Given that, does it make any logical sense that he would be pressured by a crowd into executing or not executing someone? Other events recorded imply that not only would he have executed both Jesus and Barabus, he would have rounded up anyone that objected and strung them up, too. But even if that account is true, it was clearly not a normal occurence, and clearly witnessed by many, and clearly had strong emotional resonance with many of the witnesses. Yet no one, no proto-Christian witnesses in the crowd, no happy Pharisees, no Romans with Jewish sympathies... no one! not even second-hand sources... bothered to record this event in any fashion? Come on.
Alright, let's consider that possibility. Jesus was a big puzzle to the authorities... so they didn't mention him? Doesn't that sound a little backwards? Wouldn't he be more likely to be mentioned if he was a conundrum? Consider the dozens and dozens of people whose interest would never have been aroused by a run-of-the-mill wackjob street preacher who had broken other laws. Surely someone would have thought it worth mentioning that Pilate was having a man killed just because the religious leaders wanted it, when he was otherwise innocent - whether that person was upset, happy or simply amused by this doesn't matter.
Ignore everything that doesn't conform to my view? Dude, virtually every time you bring up and objection, my response is "let's consider if that were true and see where it leads us, or see whether it jives with other evidence and/or common sense". And you keep charging me with being closed minded. Yet you have not once even attempted to consider my view. Not even once. Because if you do start with no preconceptions - don't assume there was or was not a Jesus, simply take the pile of evidence, consider it critically, and see what conclusion you get - there is no way you can arrive at the conclusion that Jesus lived. There's simply no reliable contemporary historical source that points to Jesus' existence. And the most bizarre part of your argument is that you claim you don't see the same silence as i, yet you have done nothing but explain why this silence might exist. Does that sound rational? "X doesn't exist, but here are the reasons that X exists?" Which is it? Do we have evidence? Or do we not for the reasons you give?
Yes, well, only a fool bases his beliefs, or his opinions about people, on stereotypes. You claim that i find the arguments lacking because i have a preconception. Let's assume that's true for a moment (see, there it is again - you call me so closed-minded, but i consider even your most biased and ignorant claims at face value). Suppose that i am totally attached to the non-existence of Jesus, for whatever bizarre reason. Or, in other words, for some strange reason it is important to me that Jesus doesn't exist. Even if that were true, if the evidence really did point to the existence of Jesus, i wouldn't be able to refute it! Get that? Let me put it another way. Assume that i, for whatever irrational reason, believed the Earth to be flat. Assume also that you believe the Earth to be round, not just because, but because you have real evidence for it. If your evidence is really sound, then i would not be able to disupute it. No matter how much i believed it, i would never be able to mount a rational response to discredit your real evidence. Now, consider Jesus. If it really were true that there were real evidence for Jesus' existence, then i would not be able to mount a rational argument against it. i would say "Jesus never existed", and you would say "well, here is the warrant for his arrest, radiometrically dated, signed by Pilate... and here is a letter from a Roman centurion to another Roman saying that Jesus healed his boy slave and that he could help the other Roman's dying child... and here is a Syrian historian's account that mentions the massacre of the innocents... and here is a tract against Jews written by an anti-semitic Samaritan mocking the fact that a bunch of Jews watched their God executed ignobly, then claimed to be talking to him a week later...". To which i would either say "oh" or have to come up with some wildly reaching arguments to refute. Instead, you have nothing. The earliest references to Jesus are all religious, written by people who had no real interest in preserving historical truth, and much motivation to make Jesus appear as plausible as possible to "sell" their beliefs. And on top of that, they are demonstrably false in several places (such as the dating of his birth). The first non-religious reference to Jesus - anywhere - was at least 60 years after his alleged death, and is clearly fake (come on, just read Josephus, keeping in mind that he was a lifelong Jew... the reference to Jesus is absurd in context, and is never mentioned by anyone before like the 4th century, even by Christians attempting to discuss Jesus' life who might use it as evidence). The evidence is such that it is you who now has to make the reaching arguments attempting to explain why all of this is so. Yet, according to you, i am the closed-minded one. Does that sound logical? What "sheer bulk of evidence"? We have a dozen or so contradictory religious tomes, all of which begin to appear at least two or three decades after his death, and then... well... and then nothing. Not a peep. Not a blip. Nothing until Josephus in the 90's... which is so blatantly forged it is hardly a reliable source. Then a one-line reference by Tacitus in the early 2nd in which every provable fact is demonstrably false (aside from being two generations after the fact). That's it for the first hundred years, aside from a few writings by early church leaders that all source the gospels and thus provide no new evidence. That is the entirety of the historical evidence for Jesus. And then you say that i'm looking for evidence that he doesn't exist. -_- You just don't get it. i don't need to find evdience that he doesn't exist. You need to find evidence that he does. Why? Because it is irrational to believe something is true without evidence for it. And of that, you're lacking. It is not irrational to believe something is not true when you have no evidence for it. So why is it accepted as unquestionable fact that Jesus lived? If this is a rational belief, where is the evidence? HereticMonkey
1) Evidence: There is a lot of evidence that Jesus did exist, above and beyond the Bible. I'm not understanding how you're not finding tons, unless you are personally refuting most of it for one reason or another. We not only have direct contemporary evidence, we also have basically "broken links" to other contemporary references. If you really need somewhere to start, start with the Wikipedia entry for Jesus of Nazarene, and go from there.
The bottom line: What criteria are you using for deciding if a reference is legit or not? 2) Pilate: Bear in mind that it was a really weird situation for him. Jesus hadn't done anything illegal, and only one group was really interested in nailing him (and most likely the one group that Pilate would have loved to see be annoyed). Yet, because of the power that one group weilded, something needed to be done. And if you want sadistic, I'd say putting a man's life in the vote of a crowd without giving him a chance to speak definitely counts as that... HM Indi
In the post right above i listed all contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. It took about three sentences. i didn't even eliminate bad evidence (which it all is). It's all there, every bit of it. i've already done the research you're telling me i should do, and i can see that you have not. My evidence that you have not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_of_Nazarene. That's a hell of a place that you're recommended to start my research.
Uh huh. So why didn't he just kill them both? Why didn't he just make up some charge, or accept the Pharisees charges and be done with that? Why, if he was so brutal, did he feel so bad about executing a nobody that he had to "wash his hands" of the affair? You're reaching. You're stretching and making up theories and desparately trying to explain things to fit a description of events that you have no objective evidence to support. Here you are doggedly trying to justify an event that gets mentioned nowhere in the entire recorded history of humankind... except a half dozen religious texts that all influenced each other. Why try to explain an event that you can't even confirm happened? HereticMonkey
1) Open-mindedness: Let's see: I've done the research for you, I've figured a number of alternate possibilities, and have even pointed out that I'm willing to allow that Jesus' miracles may have been either allegorical or exaggerations. You, on the other hand, aren't even willing to allow that much; you keep pointing out that there is no possibility of a historical Jesus. Exactly how do you figure that I'm close-minded, or that you're even open-minded?
I don't see me being close-minded because at least I'm listening to you. It's just that you're not really saying something...Straight up: You don't convince someone of your point by telling them that they're being pig-headed if they don't see how right you are and how wrong they are. You convince them by using actual logic... 2) The Knife: Speaking of inability to use logic... An analogy is dependent on following the general rule, not looking for exceptions. Any analogy will break down if you pick at it; that's the nature of analogies. I think that you did a pretty good job of undermining your point of being open-minded by blasting a simple analogy into bits by over-analyzing it... And, yes, there are exceptions to the general rule. But, my basic point is that the world, and how people interact with it, have changed fundamentally since the Roman era. It would have taken months to communicate to someone just a few hundred miles away; it now takes seconds. A minor event that happens halfway around the world is relevant to my life; a major event even just across the lake was may not be relevant in the Roman era. I'm also trying to make the point that things were just done differently. Put another way: When was the last time you personally slaughtered a cow for dinner? You keep assuming that Jesus was something big during his lifetime; Christians are usually the first to admit that he wasn't. He was an irritant to the Jews-in-charge, but that was it. 3) Pilate: So, let me get this straight: a) You point he is sadistic, but that he wasn't in the case of Jesus. b) I disagree that he was sadistic in that case, because he gave Jesus the glimmer of hope even when everyone knew that he was going to be killed. That's pretty much the textbook definition of sadistic. c) You point out that it wasn't sadistic, and that it lacks brutality. Sorry; but why do you need the brutality? And what could Pilate have done that was more brutal than crucifixion (which he knew Jesus was due for)? 4) Historicity of Jesus: The problem is that there a number of missing texts. Period. The best source I can find is a text written by Thallus, but: a) The text is missing (but seems to be referenced by a lot of Romans), and b) not a lot's known about Thallus. Otherwise, the best reference is the Jewish record-keeping system itself, but it seems that Jesus' name happens to share similarities with the abbreviated form of the phrase "He whose name was rubbed out" (usually for idolatry). There's also something about the "Acts of Pilate", where Pilate testified before the Senate about what he did, but it's more of a joke. So: I can legitimately say that there were number of texts written by those that lived at the same time as Jesus. So I'm in the weird position of saying that there was proof, it just didn't survive... HM HereticMonkey
I figured that this needed to dealt with by itself... The problem is that the there is proof, it just doesn't exist in a usable form There are texts that reference other texts, but the original texts no longer seem to exist. The text by Thallus is probably the best example: It's essentially a text that delineates a lot of history, and seems to be a favorite of a number of Roman historians, At the same time, it seems to have disappeared into history. So, yeah, I appreciate that it's hard to fathom that so many people think that he actually lived, but there is a lot of secondary information we go with. There's way too much that's been written about the guy by later authors to believe that he didn't exist. From Jospephus on, there seems to be a lot of texts that they drew from (including the Gospels), but those original works seem to have disappeared. Like I said...It's a weird sitch: Do we allow secondary texts, and just scrap it all, or do we allow them without an ability to check out their facts, even though they seem to be all over the place? HM nopaniers
About the date of Jesus' birth, I think the most likely date is 4-6BC. There were several comets recorded at the time, as well as a supernova explosion in 5BC (which would creates a very bright star in the sky). Reading the accounts, I think that a supernova explosion would be the most likely.
The objection is that Josephus records that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6AD. There is (although fragmentary) evidence someone was a governor of Syria twice. We have independant evidence that Quirinius was sent by Rome to region at the time, he was sent there in 10BC (this is recorded by Tacitus). He was certainly in a position of power (he had even been consul prior to this appointment, and led a military campaign) in the region at this time. Another piece of evidence which points to these dates is the death of Herod, which occurred (according to Josephus, Strabo, and Tacitus) died in 4AD, so I personally doubt it is later than this. IMHO it is most likely from the evidence that Jesus birth is 4-6BC. Indi
Now just a god damned minute. i have tolerated your abuse so far but it's starting to get a little ridiculous. And now you're coupling it with outright lies. No, i'm not going to let you get away with any more. Point by point:
That should take care of the blatant lies in that last post, but not the more insidious misrepresentations that you've been making all along. You have claimed repeatedly that i am being closed-minded to any and all suggestions that you have thrown out, despite the plainly obvious fact that i am not. Every suggestion you have made, i have considered in context. It's just that not a single one of them stood up to further scrutiny. It seems to me that the only way you would consider me "open-minded" is if i agree to your opinion. In other words, your definition of open-minded is thinking your right, and nothing else, not even a serious consideration of your points before rejecting them, is good enough. No. Sorry. That's not a definition i'm willing to accept. You keep berating me falsely for not considering your point of view seriously, despite the fact that i have done so every time you presented a serious point of view. But not once at any point in the entire discussion have you practiced what you preach. You have not once considered the possibility that Jesus did not exist or that the gospels are story books. Not once. All the while claiming me to be closed-minded for not doing the same. You disagree? Fine then. Show me. Show me how, if you consider Jesus to be a myth, you can arrive at strong evidence to the contrary. But considering that's what i've been asking for all along and have yet to receive, i'm not really holding out hope of actually getting it. And finally, let's shine the spotlight on you. i mean, if you are such a shining example of what it means to be open-minded, i'm sure it would behoove us all to analyse your comments, perhaps to learn from them. The following are all collected from this thread (which is pretty depressing, considering it's only a couple pages):
So... those are examples of how to be open-minded? That's the way to convince people using "actual logic"? How enlightening. You will have to clean up your act if you want to continue this discussion. i do not approve of your incessently calling everyone who disagrees with you closed-minded... but that's neither here nor there. However i refuse to accept you lying about what i have said. That is the one line i will not sit by idly and watch you cross. HereticMonkey
Sorry, if I've been offensive, but you haven't exactly been the poster child of niceness. I've put up with a certain level of my stuff being taken WAY out of context. I've asked for sources from you (standard debate courtesy, I might add), but got nothing but grief for it. And even when I pointed out that I had to re-think things because you had made a valid point, I still got slammed for it.
I actually conceded you points, and still got nothing but disrespect from you. Yes, the "Jesus of Nazarene" entry was a wrong lead; did you BOTHER noticing my noticing of it? But the issue re: "women prisoners of war" is still a major misnomer; you need to actually fight in a war in order to be considered a prisoner of it (slaves<>POW's), and I still don't see how the women were tortured (being forced to marry someone that grabbed as a form of revenge really doesn't count (a crime, yes, just not torture)). Worse, you're using that as an example of how Christians currently think. We've moved past that kind of thinking; it's hard not to be insulting when I've had to deal with practically nothing but insults from THREE people (which means that some confusion may have happened). The research that "I did for you" was looking for sources, and then having to decide if they were relevant or not to the discussion. In other words, I tracked some sources, saw that most primary sources really were history (see one of my recent posts), and tried to allow for it. At no point did you cite any sources, except for The Bible, and only when it was appropriate to your argument. In other words: You didn't cite anyone else that I could have researched. When I did write purposely insulting things, it was because whatever I had written had been dealt with in an insulting way (for example, the knife issue; I was trying to point out that things needed to be considered in Roman terms, not modern terms, whereas you pointed out that apparently Roman and modern thought are basically the same thing). Rather than nailing my points on the basis of their interior logic, you ignored that logic, and substituted your own. That is, rather than pointing out how the logic was weak, you showed how the overall point was weak, which aren't necessarily the same thing (I know that haggling is still alive and well, but it's just not even part of the discussion; the difference in how the culture overall thought was). In short, I think that I've been very open-minded. At the very least, I did give you an honest chance of convincing me. If nothing else, any opportunity to explore commonly-held beliefs is always interesting. It doesn't help that the major reason that you apparently "close-minded" was because I didn't consider your point of view in the way you wanted me to; it's just that you didn't make a really strong case that The Bible is wrong; incorrect in a lot of ways, maybe, but not fundamentally wrong. And, no, you haven't considered most of my arguments with any measure of open-mindedness. Jericho is probably the best example: I used it to demonstrate that The Bible had the basics down (note: BASICS, meaning that there was room for exaggeration, as long as the basic facts were there); you used to show that The Bible was completely wrong. Geologists have shown that Jericho fell during the time of the return of the Israelites; obviously, pulling out trumpets didn't cause it to go down, and there's a lot of allegory added (such as the woman that survived by helping the spies). But...Jericho did fall. [Note that I'm applying the close-mindedness only to you, Indi. But that's because you sorta suggested me being closed minded. We're also pretty much the only two debating this...] In general, you just haven't bothered to build a stronger case than: The Bible is allegorical and that The Bible should not be considered a source in and of itself. Those are givens. But that's as far as you went with it; you didn't bother building a case that Jesus didn't exist. You need to go through and systematically demonstrate why things like secondary sources should be disallowed. You've shot a couple down, but you haven't gone through and slammed the whole thing... I agree that the evidence re: Jesus' existence is slim. That's not a real question. However, I do think that there is just enough evidence that further investigation is warranted. That is, there are just too many references even in secondary sources to completely slam the idea. For what it's worth... HM Indi
Perhaps, but neither have i been insisting that everything you write is nothing but the product of closed-minded ignorance. i have also not berated you for your opinions or behaviour, prior to pointing out the lies in the previous post. By contrast, you have been on the offensive, calling me names, and insinuating that the only reason i can't see your point is because i'm too ignorant to. In fact, looking back, you will find that that has been the only thing you have done throughout the whole conversation, except for continuing to insist there are massive amounts of evidence that you can't/won't provide.
Oh! i must have missed that. Oh, never mind, here it is: "You know, all of your arguments are great, as long as you don't bother to consider that the other person may even be right about something... ... Read: I'm acknowledging that you're making some decent points, but you keep missing the target..." Gee. Thanks. -_-
No, actually. i didn't. Where did this occur? Tell you what i did BOTHER to notice, though. After i pointed out that the first and only suggested research path that you provided me was a dead link, your very first words were: "1) Open-mindedness: Let's see: I've done the research for you...." That post continues in much the same vein from there.
Yet another lie. i most certainly did not use that as an example of how Christians currently think. Don't be absurd. You claimed the bible was valid as more than a religious text. My response was to show how parts of it are not examples of how anyone - Christians or no - currently thinks. And your objection to the term "prisoners of war" was asinine, and completely irrelevant to the context of the discussion. "Prisoners of war" is a technical term used in discussions of military and international law. The term has no meaning in general use. In general use, a prisoner taken in war is a prisoner of that war, regardless of whether or not they were fighting or not. By comparison, your objection would be like someone objecting to the use of the word theory in a layman discussion about ideas of what might have happened to something because "theory" is a scientific term with a specific meaning. Yes, in a scientific discussion, one would be right to object, because in that context the word has a specific meaning that should be taken into account. Similarly, if we were talking about international law, sure, i'd be wrong to use "prisoners of war" to describe non-combatant prisoners. But we weren't talking about international law, and in its general use, the phrase prisoners of war is perfectly appropriate to describe the women in question - grammatically and logically. On top of that your objection was totally irrelevant to the main point. You were dodging. Nothing more, nothing less. You were attempting to bring the tangiential technical definition into the discussion as a way of weaseling out of the problem you had created for yourself. i mean, really, do you think anyone would seriously believe that anything would have been any different if i had used "prisoners taken in war" instead of "prisoners of war". And if you think that being taken from your home after watching every male in your family (and probably most of the females) slaughtered, dragged to another land, stripped and forced to dress in the way your new master decides you should, kept locked up, and then either raped repeatedly for the rest of your life, or simply tossed out like used trash when your master tires of you is not torture, you're a sad, sick human being. And you know what, you can't even use the same dodge again, and argue that this doesn't count as the technical definition of the term torture. Because it does. In fact, several aspects of that are textbook psychological torture techniques.
Ah. Of course. So... even when you were being an ******... it was my fault. Right.
This objection makes absolutely no sense at all. You're saying that i'm closed-minded because you made points and i didn't accept them, nothing more, nothing less. You make some ridiculous claim that i didn't use "your logic", that i used my own. Bullshit. i started with your logic, and then kept going, whereas you simply stopped when you got a satisfactory answer. For example, you made the claim that all records were destroyed, and your logic was that Christianity was considered a threat at one time. i said, sure, let's consider that. But then keep going. "If that were true, then we should also expect..." and so on from there. You just stopped where it was convenient, and when i did not, you berate me for being closed-minded. Whatever.
WHAT!?!?! Seriously, WHAT??? What planet have you been on? i have not been trying to show that the bible is fundamentally wrong. Why on Earth would i want to do that? i don't even care. All i was trying to show is that there are parts that are wrong, and i think i did that pretty damn well, considering that you admit as such. Then i go on to say that if there are parts that we know are wrong, how can we be sure that everything else is right? In other words, i have not proven the bible wrong, and nor do i care to. i've just shown that it's questionable. Therefore, forming a body of historical fact based on information that we know is questionable is wrong. Therefore we cannot use the bible as a source of history, and thus we cannot assume that anything claimed in the bible is true - for example, that Jesus existed - without extant secular evidence. AND THAT IS ALL. You have tried several times to paint this as a religious war. You have a serious chip on your shoulder. i don't care that you're a Christian, if indeed, you are. i don't care what Christians believe. I CARE ABOUT HISTORICAL FACT BEING CORRECT. AND THAT IS LITERALLY ALL. My thesis has been, and continues to be, summed up simply thus:
What parts of that do you object to? Seriously. This whole debate has centered on 3 and 4. First i took care of 3, then we started on 4. And that's what this is all about. i. really. don't. give. a. crap. about. Christianity. Or about what you believe. i don't care. All i care about is the history books being the best we can possibly make them. And that, as i have been repeating, is all.
i'm starting to wonder. i'm beginning to seriously wonder what you think you're debating. Do you think this is a holy war? That you're fighting the athiest heathen and attempting to defend Christianity? Get real. i say this because your "objections" above are idiotic. All i needed to do for my point was show that the bible was not completely or literally true. And you state that explicitly right above. Then you go on to invent a new argument that i care absolutely nothing about, and call me closed-minded for not agreeing it (although i do, but that's beside the point). So, basically, you agree to my point, then go off on this bizarre tangent that i don't care about, and call me names when i don't agree to a point that i haven't argued and care nothing about. What are you debating here? Seriously.
List every single secondary source you have then. See if i can't take each one down. You know what? i'll better you one. You keep bizarrely slamming me for not providing evidence... when my thesis is that there is none. And i keep slamming you for not providing evidence when your entire thesis is that there is lots of it. Alright. i tire of this game. i'll do your job for you. i'll provide the evidence that you keep failing to provide. Religious sources (Christian and non-Christian)
Secular sources
And that, i believe, is every single piece of "evidence" of the existence of Jesus. Including even the really, really bad ones that i don't even consider bad evidence; they're so bad they don't even warrant the title of "evidence". That, i believe, is the sum total of human knowledge that has been recorded that may point to the existence of Jesus. That's it. That's everything. That's even including all secondary sources that i have ever heard of. You keep claiming you have tons and tons of sources, secondary or no. Well, here's your opening. Add them to this list. Put your money where your mouth is.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT??? Just what in the hell do you think you're debating??? That is precisely the question! If the evidence is really that slim, can it really be called historical fact? Of course not!
Well, duh! -_- While the bible itself may be wothless historically, and absolutely valueless as a guide by which one should plan historical and archeological research, the other evidence of Jesus - bad as it is - does warrant further research, of course. But that is not and never has been my point. i don't care whether or not Jesus is possible. ANYTHING is possible. What i care about is that our history books should not be written claiming historical facts that are, in fact, not facts at all. If Jesus existed, there is simply no evidence for that fact. Thus, it is not logical to assume that he did. Thus, it is a lie to claim that Jesus definitely existed, or to assert that Jesus existed is a fact. And that... is all i have been saying all along. -_- Tyler
well, after my recent conversion to Christianity, I traveled to various Christian holy spots in my absence. I traveled to Jerusalem, the site presumed to be Golgotha, and various other locations.
Anyhow, I have found that the Gospels, although there are some differences, do give the witnessed truth of Jesus´s birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. I don´t see any reason to be going against the Word of God, especially when God gave it to us so we could know and teach what was, is, and will be. I´m not persecuting anyone or going against them, you have your rights to believe as you wish, but the correctness of God´s Holy Word is something that should be disputed. (btw, what´s with all the BCE´s and CE´s? What happened to B.C. and A.D.?) Bikerman
The resurrection is not mentioned in 3 of the Gospels and the ascension is not mentioned in any.....just a point.. HereticMonkey
Tyler: CE/BCE: It's just the politcially correct version of AD/BC; the concept of basing the dating system on the birth of someone religiously important is seen as a bad idea.
Bikerman: So what's all that stuff about finding Jesus' cave empty in all four gospels about? TS Bikerman
In which gospel ? Bikerman
If I find my fridge empty I could assume it is because the food has teleported to Venus. I might, however, just be reporting my fridge is empty because I got hungry. The ressurection is not just a statement of 'he is no longer here'. It must also contain the 'because' and 'he was seen' bit. Otherwise it could be explained in many other ways..... HereticMonkey
Okay....So, if he leaves the cave, after being dead, has conversations with people, and then departs for parts unknown, how is that NOT ressurection and ascension? It's worth noting that in John, he actually invites someone to poke the holes in his body. In Luke, people recognize Jesus after his resurrection. And Matthew and Mark pretty much end at the Ressurection itself. And the Ascension, whereas it's covered in more detail in Acts, both Luke and John do deal with it. TS Bikerman
I retract that about the ascension...faulty memory and I was wrong - I checked. The point about the resurrection though is a bit deeper and I stand by it. Which version of the Bible are u using? Bikerman
The point I was heading for is a bit deeper and I don't want to distract from this debate so I've stuck a new thread up on the ressurection..sorry for the faulty memory and the interruption.
HereticMonkey
So...You're enlightened, and Christians by definition are ignorant? Is there any other way to classify that other than arrogance? Think about it for a second: If you've already decided from the get-go that any other perspective than yours is wrong, how can that possibly allow for any decent debate?
Yes, you have; consistently and thoroughly. Any time that I've posted anything that went against your beliefs has either been called "wrong", "lies", or "illogical", and not because it was, because it went against your personal beliefs in the situation.
So...In other words, by disagreeing with you, I'm ignorant? That's extremely close-minded...No offense, but just because you choose to deny that there is evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't any. There's plenty of evidence; it's just that you don't like it because it disagrees with your perspective.
Actually, you could have had sources. A number of historians have pointed out that Jesus was nothing more than a mythological construct; you could have used any of them to shore up your point. Admittedly, these historians are in the minority, but they do exist. Why weren't any of those used?
If I wasn't worth your bother, then why keep writing? So...I'm ignorant and close-minded, heh?
It's there; you just need to look for it...
a) "Valid as more than a religious text": Only in the sense that it can give historians clues to track down historical events. I think I've been consistent in pointing out that using as an actual historical text would be a bad idea. b) And, actually, you didn't; you just pointed out (in the relevant sections) that if anyone read The Bible, there would be fewer Christians, and supported The Conspirator. [/quote]And your objection to the term "prisoners of war" was asinine, and completely irrelevant to the context of the discussion. "Prisoners of war" is a technical term used in discussions of military and international law. The term has no meaning in general use.[/quote] And then Indi said: [/quote]In general use, a prisoner taken in war is a prisoner of that war, regardless of whether or not they were fighting or not.[/quote] Look at this for a second: You point out that it has a specific meaning, and no use in general use. Then, you point out that it does have a meaning in general use. If it didn't have a general use (as per your assertion), then how would you have been able to come up with a meaning for it in general use? Oh, and non-combatants taken in war back then would have been either potential wives, hostages, or slaves (there actually was a term for it...)...
Which, conveniently, has the same meaning ("theory", from a scientific POV, can be used either as a hypothesis, or as a specific, proven, hypothesis, such as the Theory of Evolution (yes, I do believe in evolution; it was just the first thing I could think of). (Yeah, there is a difference, but the general use and the specific use generally agree...)
So, in other words, you can define any word to mean anything you want as long as it's convenient to your point? That's...convenient... 
Interesting read on it...especially when you realize that these guys were looking for full partners, not slaves. The problem is that you're putting a modern spin on something that happened frequently in those times (not trying to condone it, just trying to point out that you can't apply modern thought to previous cultures; in some cultures, you could kill someone and pay $100 (or the equivalent), and everyone was good). Now, if you could show this happening somewhere today where it would be acceptable...
Nope; just saying, "You started it!" Heh...
Ergh....What am I saying is this: a) Sometimes stopping is good. Any point taken beyond a certain point becomes absurd. b) It's fine to use your own logic. Just make sure that you allow that not everyone shares your perspective.
Because you went a little too far, actually...
We know that parts of it are right because historians have shown it to be right. That is, historians have been double-checking a lot of the information, and most agree that the parts of The Bible that are right are right. In other words, we know that Jericho existed, and was destroyed, within the time-line presented by The Bible, just not exactly the way The Bible happened. The secular evidence tends to back The Bible almost across the board (but that's true of just about all historical sources; The Bible scores about average compared to non-religious texts of the time).
Actually, I haven't been painting this as a religious war, and I'm not the only with a chip on my shoulder. However, I would debate the point about "historical fact being correct", as you have been presented with historians perspective on history, and found it wanting...
We agree on 1+2. We disagree on 3+4; you haven't proven that there is no reliable evidence outside of The Bible.
Agreed. Except, you've been making an exception for anything pointed out in The Bible...
Well, this is sort of the Religion/Philosophy section, not the History section of the forum. Duh!
Nope; your point was that Jesus didn't exist, not that The Bible was wrong. As such, you needed to show that Jesus didn't exist. Which you can't do because the proof (on either side, ironically) doesn't really exist....
In other words, you're going to the places I've mentioned, look at the proof I've mentioned, and then show why they don't work? Excellent.
Actually, there are a lot more sources. But they'll work...And the slamming thereof?
Why? All I've found are secondary sources; I'd prefer a primary source, and I don't see that happening any time soon, especially given the ossiary issue a few years ago.
Actually, yeah. There's a number of "historical facts" that are based on just one piece of data, no matter how obviously subjective. And here you've shown that there are numerous sources. Like I said, I'm conceding that the evidence is slim; I'd like something meatier one way or another before I make a decision on it...
The problem is, that by saying like that, is that you are demonstrating complete ignorance as to how historians work, and the very work that they have done. The Bible may be inaccurate on a number of things, but it is nonetheless used by historians as a plan for digs, as well as tracking down lost sites. Sorry if you don't like it, but it how things work in the real world.
Yeah, but as YOUR list shows, there is evidence that shows Jesus may have existed (note the "may"). I may not be able to claim that Jesus did exist as a fact, but I can assert that he may have lived. For what it's worth... HM Related topics
|
