Sharpshooter Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Awesome. Sounds like we agree. To go off-topic now is the area of "original idea". I agree that a large portion of the Christian Bible today is filled with morals that is pretty self discovered. Though something being "unoriginal" doesn't make detract its weight of wisdom. To shed more light on the Bible, it's more of a historical book, with poems, and prophetic language - not just book of the law. With that said - I believe there is originality in one part of the Bible. That is the life of a guy named Jesus. His morals and teachings put many other system of thought to shame. Like the Pharisees who do everything for themselves.. In my perspective, Republicans are the modern-day Pharisee. We can learn much from Jesus, a man who attacked the religion of it's day. He is someone truly original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I do not believe in your "jesus". I think that in all actuality there was probably a great philanthropist in that area at some time, but the legends about him grew as the years went on, kind of like a childrens' game of Telephone, or a story circulating among fishermen. One fisherman tells another "Man I caught a fish that was THIS (holds out hands) big yesterday" And then the second guy tells the same story to a third, and it gets bigger....and bigger...and bigger...until the first guy has been rumoured to have caught a whale or something similar...I think it was the same way with this "unnamed philanthropist". Started out as a local or regional hero...then as the years went on, attributes started accumulating...until finally one day he was walking on top of a body of water and turning water into wine and rising from the dead...one little push of a tiny snowball down a hill...and by the end of it, a monstrosity of snow so large it would flatten a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 How is using the Bible to make political decisions that affect millions of people any different that someone using the Koran (for example only) to wage war or commit terrorist type crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Do you know how impossible this would be? Did you do any research of your own when you came to this conclusion? Or was this idea, ironically, passed onto you through word of mouth too? Do you know that every historical scholar, secular or religious, agree that Jesus did exist? Do you know that every historical scholar, secular or religious, attest to the scriptural authenticity of the writings of Jesus? Do you know that the kind of primary source of the New Testament is as authentic as the kind of primary source you use for the reference of Alexander the Great? Do you know the impossibility for a mass false-religion to start in just 6-12 months of the death of Jesus? Do you know the impossibility of people actually choosing to die for Jesus, if he was just a nobody? I suggest to do your own research. I have done mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 How is using the Bible to make political decisions that affect millions of people any different that someone using the Koran (for example only) to wage war or commit terrorist type crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Really? Every single one of the secular historians agree that Jesus existed? "No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!" http://www.vexen.co....ty_nojesus.html You've done your research eh? You've done your research on those historians such as Josephus who was later proven to be a fraud, I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Do you know that every historical scholar, secular or religious, agree that Jesus did exist? Do you know that every historical scholar, secular or religious, attest to the scriptural authenticity of the writings of Jesus? Do you know that the kind of primary source of the New Testament is as authentic as the kind of primary source you use for the reference of Alexander the Great? Do you know the impossibility for a mass false-religion to start in just 6-12 months of the death of Jesus? Do you know the impossibility of people actually choosing to die for Jesus, if he was just a nobody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 A person who uses spiritual authority to do something is fine in my books. I disagree with the actions of a muslim extremist, but I have no right to tell anyone that he can't use spirituality as his influential basis. It's what he believes in. The more fruitful path is to show the extremist that what he is doing is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Tacitus and Josephus are both valid scholars to attest to Jesus' existence. What you link to one website and it's a window to the scholarly world? What primary sources do you use for Alexander the Great? What difference do those manuscripts have that differ from the writings of Paul to the church of Galatia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 And a devout Christian would remember Philippians 2 and know that we should live in humility, thinking of other's interests before our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 He probably did exist. It's the magical power that people have trouble believing. If he did exist, I'm sure he wrote something down at some point in his life. I won't comment on this as I don't know enough about it. By impossibility you mean improbability. Cults still exist and people can be convinced to do things they wouldn't normally do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I don't like offending people. I'm not an atheist and i'm super-religious either. But most religious texts (bible included) have more in common with fairy tales than history books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 LMAO Josephus a valid scholar...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....you believe just about anything anyone ever tells you don't you? How about you go and attend a real college, where you have to study more than one textbook, and then you can start this crap. And for the record, as far as Alexander The Great goes...which is a calling card of you apologists here on this board...that is moot, because no one is trying to shove a pamphlet in my face telling me if I don't believe in Alexander The Great my soul will be condemned to hell. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Tacitus and Josephus are both valid scholars to attest to Jesus' existence. What you link to one website and it's a window to the scholarly world? What primary sources do you use for Alexander the Great? What difference do those manuscripts have that differ from the writings of Paul to the church of Galatia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Alexander the Great has secular sources of reference evidencing his existence......Jesus does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Secular sources? Define secular sources? History is neither secular or religious. Josephus was a Roman historian with Jewish background. What does that make him? His audience was Roman too. I'd say he wrote for a "secular" crowd at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Leading Atheist Richard Dawkins even believes Jesus existed. Much I say more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Secular as in official gov't evidence of Alex's existence, compared to nothing of the sort for Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 So you believe in the existence of Alexander the Great? Or no? Just answer with Y/N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Irrelevant if I do, like I said...no one's trying to tell me Alexander The Great is the son of god. But yes I do. 1. There is archaeological evidence for the burning of the palace at Perseopolis, 2. His conquests left dynasties in his wake, for example the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, which continued to rule up til the time of Cleopatra. In the case of "jesus" there is no conclusive evidence to back up any of the claims in the literal interpretation of the bible, For instance, the story that after the crucifixion the dead rose up and walked through the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:53) is backed up by no external commentator. One might have thought that for dead 'saints’ to stalk the streets of a major city of the Roman Empire would have elicited SOME kind of comment.."Jesus" is a historically trivial figure, whose actual life affected his world in small ways if indeed he existed at all. Had "Jesus" worship not emerged from a pack of competing religions in the fourth century, he would not today be remembered. Alexander, on the other hand, commanded tens of thousands of men, and conquered an Empire stretching from Corfu to Karachi. It is hardly surprising if his real historical legacy looms rather larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.