things that interest you that others dont care about probably thread

[boof]

Originally Posted by PancakeBrah

Kayaking, as well.

i'm into this

[veritas]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

you know what i mean. we can find 2 passing mentions of the man at least 2 generations after he allegedly existed outside of the bible.

books have been written on alexander the great since half a millenia since your boy allegedly existed, and new ones come out daily.

he's a scrub

Because you are discounting the greatest book ever written lol.

Sheesh guy.

Plus the Bible says that if everything Jesus did was chronicled that all the libraries would not be able to catalog it. That is why I said perhaps the Bible we have is enough? More than enough? Even if corrupt Catholics got ahold of it?

[veritas]

Originally Posted by boof

i'm into this

Vintage boot.

[Amen]

This shit spiraled quick.

[WRATH]

Jesus was a regular dude they didn't think to record his life he just rose to fame after death like pac

[Witty]

Yeah because Pac was completely unknown until he died.

[sral]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

josephus was a jew, who literally wrote the history of JUDEA during the 1st century, and made one passing mention of a guy people called christus. christus=messiah. so he makes reference to a man named jesus people called the messiah.

that doesn't mean the man existed. it means people referred to a man they call jesus the messiah. the greeks referred to a man called the son of god, hercules. did he exist? maybe. where is the proof?

jesus was allegedly crucified in 29ish AD. josephus wasn't born until 37 AD. in 64 BC nero was blaming fires on and executing christians, IN ROME. christians were in rome 35 years after the death of the alleged jesus. in a big enough number to be mentioned by the emperor. meanwhile josephus is still jewing it up in judea, getting ready to fight in the jewish rebellions against rome. before losing and defecting to rome, and then writing the history of judea during the time of jesus

you would think such a giant historical figure would get more than a passing mention

tacitus is the same deal, only less credible because he is from the south of france (or belgium or northern italy) and is speaking from even further from the events

the point being that when these men are writing the history of a region they need sources, sources are people. if christians already proliferated the myth of jesus, those sources would speak of him as if he existed because people talked as if he did

First of all, we will need to establish what you/we mean by "proof he existed".

In the ancient world, historical records were rather thin on the ground, and were often written several generations or centuries after the fact. As a few examples:

Much of what we know about the foundation of Athens, the early history of the Persian Empire, and the war between Greece and Persia comes from a single source, namely Herodotus. Herodotus wrote around 430 B.C. and covered events from well over a century earlier, up to events fifty years prior.

Josephus, the only Jewish historian of the first century, wrote in 90 A.D., covering events in Jewish history ranging from Old Testament times up to the first century. Most of the people and events he covered, we know about only from him.

For most of the pre-Socratic philosophers, and many from later times as well, all we know comes from biographies or fragments written anywhere from 200 to 1,000 years later.

In comparison to that, with Jesus we have the first biography, Mark's Gospel, probably written about 35 years after the fact, and three further biographies, the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, written probably 40-60 years after the fact. By the standards of ancient world history, this is a phenomenally large amount of evidence, not even including mentions of the life of Jesus in the epistles.

[Pent uP]

I came in here to say "writing verses" and link the one I just dropped in OM...but I see this thread isn't about that anymore soooooo.....

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by sraL

First of all, we will need to establish what you/we mean by "proof he existed".

In the ancient world, historical records were rather thin on the ground, and were often written several generations or centuries after the fact. As a few examples:

Much of what we know about the foundation of Athens, the early history of the Persian Empire, and the war between Greece and Persia comes from a single source, namely Herodotus. Herodotus wrote around 430 B.C. and covered events from well over a century earlier, up to events fifty years prior.

Josephus, the only Jewish historian of the first century, wrote in 90 A.D., covering events in Jewish history ranging from Old Testament times up to the first century. Most of the people and events he covered, we know about only from him.

For most of the pre-Socratic philosophers, and many from later times as well, all we know comes from biographies or fragments written anywhere from 200 to 1,000 years later.

In comparison to that, with Jesus we have the first biography, Mark's Gospel, probably written about 35 years after the fact, and three further biographies, the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, written probably 40-60 years after the fact. By the standards of ancient world history, this is a phenomenally large amount of evidence, not even including mentions of the life of Jesus in the epistles.

no it isn't. for one, the bible can't be viewed as a historical document. the founding of rome was documented by plenty of romans. it doesn't mean that romulus and remus were really breastfed and raised by a she-wolf that dragged them out of the river. we, like others can look at shit people wrote and call malarkey on it as needed. we can call malarkey on things because 1, its illogical or 2, there is evidence from other sources

herodotus prefaces that in his writings leading up to the greco persian wars he is relaying what was told to him. he was alive during the majority of the actual greco persian wars however. no one debates that these wars occurred. the proof is everywhere. the same historians that come after him criticize him and call him a barbarian lover, but still pick up where he left off, without feeling the need to re-write anything. (thucydides) who was alive in the same era, just writing a generation after him. still during and up to the end of the greco persian wars

there is supporting archaeological evidence for these wars, global politics of the time was centered and affected by these wars centuries after the fact.

the proof of the wars is everywhere, you can't take any one historians word as gospel, its just what it is, a single persons viewpoint on the events. he helps shed light on the events as he was the only person around witnessing it whose writings survived. this was also almost 500 years before alleged jesus existed.

this is largely the reason im ENRAPTURED by the roman empire, because there were so many historians and so much of the work comes down to us today. they were also a global force so you have other nations commentary on events as well as their own, their political systems were similair enough that you had populares and conservatives so when a guy like julius caesar is basically cnn writing how things happened you get the fox news angle from the cicero's. and alot of it is personal letters, it can be corrobarated with actual documents, there was a grain shortage in blah blah, they have the actual shipping transactions from egypt lmao

so when an empire like rome that keeps such meticulous records doesn't even give a passing mention to "THE figure of history" until well after his death, and after the rise of the religion, just kindly fucketh offeth. gospels aren't viewed as historical documents.

religions are all founded on nonsense mythical tales. so like you pointed out earlier, if an actual human named jesus of nazareth existed, his life was embellished to the point of him not being an actual figure. one might even say they portrayed him as a god lmao. who are they? what is their background? did they study with egyptian scholars, were they historians or mushroom eating dirty footed hippies? jesus could have existed as an actual person. there just isn't evidence of it.

[veritas]

Except for the existence of Christianity and the life changing power it gives people who connect with it.

[uh-oh]

BUT YO

the vos roast in the first post of this thread was dope. fucking fire all around, everyone killed by judy gold. she did well, but she was just up there with the greatest ball busting comics of our era

look for a pirated version on youtube. im sure some scumbag will end up stealing and posting it. or just rent/buy it. its worth it. even if you don't get 50 percent of the references

[veritas]

Sighs yeah ok bro

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by veritas

Sighs yeah ok bro

calm yourself my brother. i wasn't posting that in response, you simply slid in on me there.

how do you feel about islam? im ignorant of it tbh. never bothered to look into the historicity of it because of the era (600-800AD), where as i'm a fan of actual antiquity.

[veritas]

I think it contradicts itself concerning Jesus. Yes I have read it.

[Destroyer]

V, I think we’re going to have to be content to agree on Pink Floyd
And I’m good with that

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by veritas

I think it contradicts itself concerning Jesus. Yes I have read it.

i'm not asking in regards to jesus.

how do you feel about muhammad? do you see him as an actual historical figure? do you lend credence to his followers writings of him? can you take what was written about him as historical fact?

[sral]

The mainstream scholarly consensus is still near universal that Jesus was a real person, even if the supernatural claims about him are not accepted as historical.

The data points most relied on to support historicity are:

Paul's writings, in particular Paul's reference to James as "the brother of the Lord," which implies that Jesus had a physical brother who Paul knew personally.

Two mentions (albeit one of them at least partially interpolated) by Josephus.

A mention by Tacitus that the founder of the Christians was one named "Christus" who was put to death by Pilate (quite similar to what Joesphus says).


That's pretty much it for hard evidence. There really isn't any smoking gun, but scholarly consensus is that historicity is at least more likely than not.

[Amen]

Lol Jesus have mercy.

[sral]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

i'm not asking in regards to jesus.

how do you feel about muhammad? do you see him as an actual historical figure? do you lend credence to his followers writings of him? can you take what was written about him as historical fact?

Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was a head of state, and quite a formidable one. Don't think of the historical Mohammed as someone like the historical Jesus - think of him as more akin to Justinian I, of the Byzantine Empire. Justinian's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox church, with (one assumes) various miracles and other religious properties attributed to him. One can believe in Saint Justinian or not - but Emperor Justinian I was very, very real, and came very close to re-integrating the Western Roman Empire with Byzantium.

So, too, with Mohammed. Was he a prophet? I don't believe so - as an atheist, I don't believe *anyone* was a prophet. But was he a real, historical person who cut quite a swathe through the Middle East in the 600s? Well, *someone* certainly did a whole bunch of conquering at that time, and the contemporary sources attribute it pretty unanimously to a fellow named Mohammed. (As I understand it). So, the simplest explanation is that the fellow existed.

[Inno]

Biceratop get this rep