On 10/01/2012 10:59 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 10/01/2012 11:10, Invisible a écrit :
>> I didn't say Jesus was real. I said he might be real. Some limited
>> evidence suggests he was real.
>>
>> ...or the entire thing might be a forgery from start to finish.
>> Interesting that there's only one version of that forgery, but it's not
>> completely implausible. I doubt we'll ever know one way or the other.
>
>
>  From the Roman documentation, at least the crucifixion did happened.
> It was a seditious Jewish man named Jesus

I also gather that "Jesus" was a fairly common name too. Like, if I sat 
down today and wrote a book about "John Smith", in 2,000 years' time 
historians are going to have one *hell* of a time figuring out whether I 
based it on a real person or not...

>  From where did he came, nothing is sure. Only the last 3 years of his
> life were dedicated to propaganda and sedition. It is also well-known
> that he frequented a whore (Marie Madeleine)... put that on the prudish
> and puritan Church. Coherency and consistency never make it inside dogma.

The Bible is inconsistent? SAY IT ISN'T SO! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 1/9/2012 10:36 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> And, that doesn't even go into the problem with how nothing claimed
> about his wasn't basically stolen from other religions, from virgin
> births, to raising the dead, and walking on water (or turning it into
> wine).

Is there any evidence, beyond the circumstantial, that these things were 
stolen?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-10 06:19, Invisible a écrit :
> On 10/01/2012 10:59 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 10/01/2012 11:10, Invisible a écrit :
>>> I didn't say Jesus was real. I said he might be real. Some limited
>>> evidence suggests he was real.
>>>
>>> ...or the entire thing might be a forgery from start to finish.
>>> Interesting that there's only one version of that forgery, but it's not
>>> completely implausible. I doubt we'll ever know one way or the other.
>>
>>
>> From the Roman documentation, at least the crucifixion did happened.
>> It was a seditious Jewish man named Jesus
>
> I also gather that "Jesus" was a fairly common name too. Like, if I sat
> down today and wrote a book about "John Smith", in 2,000 years' time
> historians are going to have one *hell* of a time figuring out whether I
> based it on a real person or not...
>

I read somewhere (assign a random value of factuality to that statement) 
that Jesus (or Yeshua) may have been a title or nickname, rather than 
his real name.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 10/01/2012 14:52, John VanSickle a écrit :
> On 1/9/2012 10:36 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> And, that doesn't even go into the problem with how nothing claimed
>> about his wasn't basically stolen from other religions, from virgin
>> births, to raising the dead, and walking on water (or turning it into
>> wine).
> 
> Is there any evidence, beyond the circumstantial, that these things were
> stolen?

Stealing idea & such immaterial... were there any copyright at that time
? What was its duration and was it yet expired ? Was it public domain ?
Would the many Churches be liable to SOPA infringement today ?
Should a three-stricks procedure be applied to their ISP connection ?

Post a reply to this message

>> All of that aside, here's an interesting observation: There's no
>> evidence that God exists. There's no evidence that Adam or Eve existed.
>
> But we are playing "What if" game! Just assume that whatever fantasy is
> true, then tell...

What if I'm right about everything. Given that this is true, do you can 
concede that I am right about everything?

>> In fact, a lot of people regard the entire Bible as something that
>> should be in the "fiction" section. But think about this for a moment:
>> the Bible *itself* most definitely *does* exist. It's a real book, and
>> it has existed for a very long time.
>
> can you define long time ?
> The bible (which Bible ?) has been made as an assembly of various texts
> from various sources, along various translation paths, which were highly
> disputed at the beginning of the church

> Whatever is called the "New Testament" is just the final result of that
> evolution. About the "Old testament"... it should be, as of Jewish
> sources, in Hebraic texts (Torah ?).

The more I look at this, the more complicated it becomes.

Short version: The original text of the Bible has long, *long* since 
been lost to history. All that remains now is a trillion different 
versions, translations, editions, revisions, edits and alterations of 
it. If you stare hard enough, you can kinda sorta figure out how one 
version is related to some other version. We will probably never know 
what the originals said, when they were written, who wrote them, or even 
what language. (It seems even the "original" Hebrew was based on earlier 
documents.)

All of which makes it utterly laughable when people say that "the" Bible 
is inerrant. Uh, yeah, which one exactly? (Ah, but wait - isn't that why 
we have a dozen conflicting religions based on the same bundle of texts?)

Regardless, this is an *old* document.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:52:10 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:

> On 1/9/2012 10:36 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> And, that doesn't even go into the problem with how nothing claimed
>> about his wasn't basically stolen from other religions, from virgin
>> births, to raising the dead, and walking on water (or turning it into
>> wine).
> 
> Is there any evidence, beyond the circumstantial, that these things were
> stolen?

You mean beyond similarities between Christianity and religions that pre-
date Christianity?

Uh, yeah, the earlier stories, myths, and traditions are evidence 
themselves that those earlier stories, myths, and traditions existed.

The idea of a "son of god", of his death and resurrection to save the 
masses - that's not unique to Christianity.  Stories (particularly oral 
traditions) get around.

Or are you seriously asking that someone *document* how an *oral 
tradition* spread from one society to another?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Is there any evidence, beyond the circumstantial, that these things were
> > stolen?

> You mean beyond similarities between Christianity and religions that pre-
> date Christianity?

  Even if Christianity was completely original and didn't use anything at
all from other religions, that wouldn't really change the question of its
veracity, would it?

  Also, even if Christianity had many similarities to other religions, it
would be easy to explain from a Christian point of view: Satan likes to
copy God's work in order to distort it and confuse people, and draw people
away from the one true religion. There always is an explanation for
everything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10-1-2012 11:59, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 10/01/2012 11:10, Invisible a écrit :
>> I didn't say Jesus was real. I said he might be real. Some limited
>> evidence suggests he was real.
>>
>> ...or the entire thing might be a forgery from start to finish.
>> Interesting that there's only one version of that forgery, but it's not
>> completely implausible. I doubt we'll ever know one way or the other.
>
>
>  From the Roman documentation, at least the crucifixion did happened.
> It was a seditious Jewish man named Jesus, sold to the Roman ( "give to
> Caesar what belong to Caesar" is about paying or not the tax to the
> invader: as the coins are the coins of the invading country, he states
> that the tax should be paid.), opposing local Jewish powers and local
> business (expulsion of the merchants from the Temple...)
>
>  From where did he came, nothing is sure. Only the last 3 years of his
> life were dedicated to propaganda and sedition. It is also well-known
> that he frequented a whore (Marie Madeleine)... put that on the prudish
> and puritan Church. Coherency and consistency never make it inside dogma.
>
i think the consensus nowadays is that mary magdalene was not a whore. 
there was a tradition in the church to call her that, but that started 
only several centuries later.

-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:08:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Is there any evidence, beyond the circumstantial, that these things
>> > were stolen?
> 
>> You mean beyond similarities between Christianity and religions that
>> pre-
>> date Christianity?
> 
>   Even if Christianity was completely original and didn't use anything
>   at
> all from other religions, that wouldn't really change the question of
> its veracity, would it?

No, it wouldn't - but I don't think that was the point of John's question.

But yes, even if it was entirely unique, that wouldn't mean it was "true" 
any moreso than the FSM is true.

>   Also, even if Christianity had many similarities to other religions,
>   it
> would be easy to explain from a Christian point of view: Satan likes to
> copy God's work in order to distort it and confuse people, and draw
> people away from the one true religion. There always is an explanation
> for everything.

Well, not an "explanation", but a rationalization that cannot be tested, 
that's for certain.  I prefer to reserve the word "explanation" for 
things that can be actually verified in the physical world.  There's no 
physical evidence for God, Satan, guardian angels (or guardian angles - 
as I've seen it written a few times <g>), nor any other supernatural 
force or being.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/10/2012 7:39 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> All of that aside, here's an interesting observation: There's no
>>> evidence that God exists. There's no evidence that Adam or Eve existed.
>>
>> But we are playing "What if" game! Just assume that whatever fantasy is
>> true, then tell...
>
> What if I'm right about everything. Given that this is true, do you can
> concede that I am right about everything?
>
>>> In fact, a lot of people regard the entire Bible as something that
>>> should be in the "fiction" section. But think about this for a moment:
>>> the Bible *itself* most definitely *does* exist. It's a real book, and
>>> it has existed for a very long time.
>>
>> can you define long time ?
>> The bible (which Bible ?) has been made as an assembly of various texts
>> from various sources, along various translation paths, which were highly
>> disputed at the beginning of the church
>
>> Whatever is called the "New Testament" is just the final result of that
>> evolution. About the "Old testament"... it should be, as of Jewish
>> sources, in Hebraic texts (Torah ?).
>
> The more I look at this, the more complicated it becomes.
>
> Short version: The original text of the Bible has long, *long* since
> been lost to history. All that remains now is a trillion different
> versions, translations, editions, revisions, edits and alterations of
> it. If you stare hard enough, you can kinda sorta figure out how one
> version is related to some other version. We will probably never know
> what the originals said, when they were written, who wrote them, or even
> what language. (It seems even the "original" Hebrew was based on earlier
> documents.)
>
> All of which makes it utterly laughable when people say that "the" Bible
> is inerrant. Uh, yeah, which one exactly? (Ah, but wait - isn't that why
> we have a dozen conflicting religions based on the same bundle of texts?)
>
> Regardless, this is an *old* document.
Yes and no.. The "old" part goes so far back that parts of it probably 
existed "before" Judaism did. The NT... as near as any documentation 
suggests, and we have nothing, despite a lot of looking, that goes back 
very far, is around 40-50AD. Which is really sort of odd, given that 
there *should* be some evidence of its contents say.. at least 10 years 
*prior* to 1AD, at minimum. A 40-50 year gap, in a culture that 
preserved even the names of people that collected dung from their roads, 
is... kind of, 'wtf?'.

Post a reply to this message