Well, I can respect that you didn't care for my opinion, FCIB, but dismissing me with "Nice try" left me with the impression that you believed I was posting for your enjoyment and I wasn't jumping high enough through the hoops for you.
As for the rest of your reply, I'm going to have to say that I just disagree and personally that line of thinking doesn't work for me (Here's where I word carefully so as not to step on your toes.) If I were to constantly nod to some higher power, I don't think I could rightfully say I was thinking for myself.
But back to the original topic of the thread, Jesus probably existed. I'm sure parts of the Bible are rooted in fact, and there was a guy who had a group of followers, and he may have been crucified for his beliefs, but I just can't read it as a historical document.
All that shows is that he probably existed. It proves nothing supernatural.
My point is that there is a lot of misunderstanding on how well we know the whens and wheres of Christianity's start. Jesus isn't lost in a historical fog, even among secular historians. We've got a good bead on the origins of Christianity---I think a lot of people assume that the first two or three hundred years are lost in a fog of rumour.
On proving the supernatural----not something I'd want to try sober.
Sorry to say but Francesco Carotta (Francis the Carrot )
is talking out of his proverbials...
Julius Casear born 100-BC died 64 BC...
Christ Didn't show up on the scene until some 40 years after Caesar's Death....Augustus was Emperor at the time Of Christ...
Apart from that.....it sounds more like Freudian wish fulfilment / fantasy.8)
You do realize that none of those dates can be confirmed... We have to trust the now basically non-existant histories from that era. Also of note is the fact that even the "secular" historians of that era's works were preserved almost solely through the hard work of middle ages monks, and this fact makes it very hard to believe that stories couldnt be tweaked to meet official doctrine when the histories didnt match up with what the monks were supposed to believe. But then again selective erasing is the function of all historians to some degree.
Its ashame that the information from that era found its way into the hands of the few people who would like to see it changed the most...
You do realize that none of those dates can be confirmed... We have to trust the now basically non-existant histories from that era. Also of note is the fact that even the "secular" historians of that era's works were preserved almost solely through the hard work of middle ages monks, and this fact makes it very hard to believe that stories couldnt be tweaked to meet official doctrine when the histories didnt match up with what the monks were supposed to believe. But then again selective erasing is the function of all historians to some degree.
Its ashame that the information from that era found its way into the hands of the few people who would like to see it changed the most...
...don't forget statuary/archeology, that's a big part of historical research. And can't be changed.
EtymologytLatin Topica Topics (work by Aristotle), from Greek Topika, from topika, neuter plural of topikos of a place, of a topos, from topos place, topos
Datet1603
1 a : one of the general forms of argument employed in probable reasoning b : ARGUMENT, REASON
2 a : a heading in an outlined argument or exposition b : the subject of a discourse or of a section of a discourse
...don't forget statuary/archeology, that's a big part of historical research. And can't be changed.
But much of how they interpret that depends stongly on the histories that were written at the time. In addition there is very little archeological evidence for anything out there that cannot be interpreted 5000 different ways.
But much of how they interpret that depends stongly on the histories that were written at the time. In addition there is very little archeological evidence for anything out there that cannot be interpreted 5000 different ways.
....insrciptions, so and so was ruler here in bla bla bla..... money, frescos of Titus coming back to Rome with the jewish temple articles...official documents....these can't be forged. Also, not all of the documents date from the when these monks of yours were rewriting history.
Are there "controversial writings" you bet your ass there are.
But there are too many hard and fast references for another conspiracy.
EtymologytLatin Topica Topics (work by Aristotle), from Greek Topika, from topika, neuter plural of topikos of a place, of a topos, from topos place, topos
Datet1603
1 a : one of the general forms of argument employed in probable reasoning b : ARGUMENT, REASON
2 a : a heading in an outlined argument or exposition b : the subject of a discourse or of a section of a discourse
Oh please. Aren´t cheap shots allowed once and a while? Look closely. I didn´t even say you have these ideas.
....insrciptions, so and so was ruler here in bla bla bla..... money, frescos of Titus coming back to Rome with the jewish temple articles...official documents....these can't be forged. Also, not all of the documents date from the when these monks of yours were rewriting history.
Are there "controversial writings" you bet your ass there are.
But there are too many hard and fast references for another conspiracy.
But the fact that whether Jesus existed is still in debate suggests that most if not all of these "hard and fast references" do not provide in the least concrete proof...
It would be heretical to call Billy Smith of Lansdowne, PA the son of god right now. But that is exactly what the forefathers of Christianity did. Who knows if they didnt just use the populace's superstition of Julius Caesar change the name and throw on some nicities and badabing get out a new view of Judaism repleat with heaven and hell?
(Edit: Even Bush thinks god talks to him... in some world views that would be a clear sign of insanity)
Does everyone remember learning in elementary school or whenever about ancient Greek and Roman theology and their belief in polytheism?
I spent a few of my elementary school years in a catholic school, and I distinctly remember coming away from those lessons on Greek and Roman gods and goddesses knowing that ancient Greeks and Romans obviously had a limited understanding of how the world worked, and that when they believed the path they saw the sun take across the sky was Helios driving his flaming chariot, that was their way of explaining something they did not fully understand.
[/I]?
This description of Classical Polythiesm is just the sort you would get in Catholic catachism, gauranteed to make the Romans and Greeks appear like foolish children believing idiocies.
Their belief was more like acknowledging forces of nature and merely attributing to these forces anthropomorphic qualities as a means of talking about them: though they gave Diana a name and an image they never saw her force or her acting in the world as necessarily being accompanied by her physical image as a human like some bad Xena Warrior Princess episode, rather they saw the force of nature and her force as coterminous
Look at Dionysius: a late diety but his force was seen as moving through froups in cyclic ritualistic activities and modes of devotion that included, in the last six years of the cycle, intoxicated frenzies: he was seen not as some figure bet as the for the of intoxication itself: as a thought form as well as a force of nature.
One thing that makes the Classical religions so compelling is that the Gods were NOT rational or Moral: they were forces, often brutal and without Reason, They had all the appetites humans do except they also had the force of nature.
but it is instructive to look at this: we live in a CULTure
cults share something essential with every society: we gather together and base our collective focus on a sort of shared illusion, shared sets of customs and ettiquettes, and we call these our 'culture'
Culture is like an invisible environment that conditions our experience
a cult is merely a phase of the development of just such an environment.
By the way, I lived with a guy who was a Sathyia Sai Baba (sp?) fan . . . until he went to India and hated the dust and the heat and the throngs . . .
but he also went to England to meditate in crop circles every summer . . .
Sure cult and culture have similar latin roots but today's definitions are much different. Nice try pfflam.
No no no pfflam was saying that we all belong to cults. you know like the ones they show on tv. you know the ones that kidnap small children brainwash them. you know the ones where the special ops people rush in to save timmy just as the demon/satan was rising from the altar. you know the ones...
Sure cult and culture have similar latin roots but today's definitions are much different. Nice try pfflam.
Your literalism is disappointing
Notice how I discuss the different terms and draw similarities, or are you too concerned with maintaining your agenda to relax and read with imaginative interpretation.
Roots show the origin of not just words but concepts as well . . an analysis of shared origins does not tell the literal contemporary usage but sheds light on shared conceptual foundations.
You are so aggressivly concerned with maintaining a limited form of psuedo-scientific materialism and anti-religious thought that it clamps down your thinking
you know what... Being does move in mysterious ways
and the origins of common language terms can reveal much more about common meanings then simple dictionary definitions . . .
Dictionary definitions are descriptions of usage but reading terms as origins can reveal their histories and sometimes reveal their subtle unacknowledged conceptual similarities.
Niether 'Cult' nor 'Culture' are terms who's richnesses, complexities or nuances dissappear simply because of your positivist-materialist world-view and its Webster's dictionary
and biilybob . . . usually you have something semi-interesting to say but what's the point here?!
Comments
As for the rest of your reply, I'm going to have to say that I just disagree and personally that line of thinking doesn't work for me (Here's where I word carefully so as not to step on your toes.) If I were to constantly nod to some higher power, I don't think I could rightfully say I was thinking for myself.
But back to the original topic of the thread, Jesus probably existed. I'm sure parts of the Bible are rooted in fact, and there was a guy who had a group of followers, and he may have been crucified for his beliefs, but I just can't read it as a historical document.
Originally posted by BR
All that shows is that he probably existed. It proves nothing supernatural.
My point is that there is a lot of misunderstanding on how well we know the whens and wheres of Christianity's start. Jesus isn't lost in a historical fog, even among secular historians. We've got a good bead on the origins of Christianity---I think a lot of people assume that the first two or three hundred years are lost in a fog of rumour.
On proving the supernatural----not something I'd want to try sober.
from Dutch tv.
Francesco Carotta discovered after 10 years of research over 200 similarities between Jesus and Julius.
He actually state that Jesus existed, and at the time his name was julius Caesar.
Similarities he say are from date of death, both betraded (Brutus/ Judas), both are murdered, images such as Jesus crown and Julius crown,
and as said he has found over 200.
Is he just talking out of his ass or could there be a truth in it.
See for your self, the documentary, unfortunately, is in dutch, german and some english. But all you smart people out here will understand most of it.
7 minutes only Real player needed.
Originally posted by sapi
Jezus van Nazareth was Julius Caesar
Francesco Carotta discovered after 10 years of research over 200 similarities between Jesus and Julius.
He actually state that Jesus existed, and at the time his name was julius Caesar.
Sorry to say but Francesco Carotta (Francis the Carrot )
is talking out of his proverbials...
Julius Casear born 100-BC died 64 BC...
Christ Didn't show up on the scene until some 40 years after Caesar's Death....Augustus was Emperor at the time Of Christ...
Apart from that.....it sounds more like Freudian wish fulfilment / fantasy.8)
Originally posted by aquafire
Sorry to say but Francesco Carotta (Francis the Carrot )
is talking out of his proverbials...
Julius Casear born 100-BC died 64 BC...
Christ Didn't show up on the scene until some 40 years after Caesar's Death....Augustus was Emperor at the time Of Christ...
Apart from that.....it sounds more like Freudian wish fulfilment / fantasy.8)
You do realize that none of those dates can be confirmed... We have to trust the now basically non-existant histories from that era. Also of note is the fact that even the "secular" historians of that era's works were preserved almost solely through the hard work of middle ages monks, and this fact makes it very hard to believe that stories couldnt be tweaked to meet official doctrine when the histories didnt match up with what the monks were supposed to believe. But then again selective erasing is the function of all historians to some degree.
Its ashame that the information from that era found its way into the hands of the few people who would like to see it changed the most...
Originally posted by billybobsky
You do realize that none of those dates can be confirmed... We have to trust the now basically non-existant histories from that era. Also of note is the fact that even the "secular" historians of that era's works were preserved almost solely through the hard work of middle ages monks, and this fact makes it very hard to believe that stories couldnt be tweaked to meet official doctrine when the histories didnt match up with what the monks were supposed to believe. But then again selective erasing is the function of all historians to some degree.
Its ashame that the information from that era found its way into the hands of the few people who would like to see it changed the most...
...don't forget statuary/archeology, that's a big part of historical research. And can't be changed.
Originally posted by Anders the White
...unless its dinasaurs we find.
What are those? Fossils of Dina Shore?
Originally posted by Anders the White
...unless its dinasaurs we find.
Main Entry
Pronunciation
Function
Etymology
Date
1 a : one of the general forms of argument employed in probable reasoning b : ARGUMENT, REASON
2 a : a heading in an outlined argument or exposition b : the subject of a discourse or of a section of a discourse
Originally posted by ena
...don't forget statuary/archeology, that's a big part of historical research. And can't be changed.
But much of how they interpret that depends stongly on the histories that were written at the time. In addition there is very little archeological evidence for anything out there that cannot be interpreted 5000 different ways.
Originally posted by billybobsky
But much of how they interpret that depends stongly on the histories that were written at the time. In addition there is very little archeological evidence for anything out there that cannot be interpreted 5000 different ways.
....insrciptions, so and so was ruler here in bla bla bla..... money, frescos of Titus coming back to Rome with the jewish temple articles...official documents....these can't be forged. Also, not all of the documents date from the when these monks of yours were rewriting history.
Are there "controversial writings" you bet your ass there are.
But there are too many hard and fast references for another conspiracy.
Originally posted by ena
Main Entry
Pronunciation
Function
Etymology
Date
1 a : one of the general forms of argument employed in probable reasoning b : ARGUMENT, REASON
2 a : a heading in an outlined argument or exposition b : the subject of a discourse or of a section of a discourse
Oh please. Aren´t cheap shots allowed once and a while? Look closely. I didn´t even say you have these ideas.
Originally posted by ena
....insrciptions, so and so was ruler here in bla bla bla..... money, frescos of Titus coming back to Rome with the jewish temple articles...official documents....these can't be forged. Also, not all of the documents date from the when these monks of yours were rewriting history.
Are there "controversial writings" you bet your ass there are.
But there are too many hard and fast references for another conspiracy.
But the fact that whether Jesus existed is still in debate suggests that most if not all of these "hard and fast references" do not provide in the least concrete proof...
It would be heretical to call Billy Smith of Lansdowne, PA the son of god right now. But that is exactly what the forefathers of Christianity did. Who knows if they didnt just use the populace's superstition of Julius Caesar change the name and throw on some nicities and badabing get out a new view of Judaism repleat with heaven and hell?
(Edit: Even Bush thinks god talks to him... in some world views that would be a clear sign of insanity)
Originally posted by mlnjr
Does everyone remember learning in elementary school or whenever about ancient Greek and Roman theology and their belief in polytheism?
I spent a few of my elementary school years in a catholic school, and I distinctly remember coming away from those lessons on Greek and Roman gods and goddesses knowing that ancient Greeks and Romans obviously had a limited understanding of how the world worked, and that when they believed the path they saw the sun take across the sky was Helios driving his flaming chariot, that was their way of explaining something they did not fully understand.
[/I]?
This description of Classical Polythiesm is just the sort you would get in Catholic catachism, gauranteed to make the Romans and Greeks appear like foolish children believing idiocies.
Their belief was more like acknowledging forces of nature and merely attributing to these forces anthropomorphic qualities as a means of talking about them: though they gave Diana a name and an image they never saw her force or her acting in the world as necessarily being accompanied by her physical image as a human like some bad Xena Warrior Princess episode, rather they saw the force of nature and her force as coterminous
Look at Dionysius: a late diety but his force was seen as moving through froups in cyclic ritualistic activities and modes of devotion that included, in the last six years of the cycle, intoxicated frenzies: he was seen not as some figure bet as the for the of intoxication itself: as a thought form as well as a force of nature.
One thing that makes the Classical religions so compelling is that the Gods were NOT rational or Moral: they were forces, often brutal and without Reason, They had all the appetites humans do except they also had the force of nature.
Someone said that the UB was just a cult.
Could be?
but it is instructive to look at this: we live in a CULTure
cults share something essential with every society: we gather together and base our collective focus on a sort of shared illusion, shared sets of customs and ettiquettes, and we call these our 'culture'
Culture is like an invisible environment that conditions our experience
a cult is merely a phase of the development of just such an environment.
By the way, I lived with a guy who was a Sathyia Sai Baba (sp?) fan . . . until he went to India and hated the dust and the heat and the throngs . . .
but he also went to England to meditate in crop circles every summer . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
By the way, I lived with a guy who was a Sathyia Sai Baba (sp?) fan . . . until he went to India and hated the dust and the heat and the throngs . . .
Originally posted by BR
Sure cult and culture have similar latin roots but today's definitions are much different. Nice try pfflam.
No no no pfflam was saying that we all belong to cults. you know like the ones they show on tv. you know the ones that kidnap small children brainwash them. you know the ones where the special ops people rush in to save timmy just as the demon/satan was rising from the altar. you know the ones...
Originally posted by BR
Sure cult and culture have similar latin roots but today's definitions are much different. Nice try pfflam.
Your literalism is disappointing
Notice how I discuss the different terms and draw similarities, or are you too concerned with maintaining your agenda to relax and read with imaginative interpretation.
Roots show the origin of not just words but concepts as well . . an analysis of shared origins does not tell the literal contemporary usage but sheds light on shared conceptual foundations.
You are so aggressivly concerned with maintaining a limited form of psuedo-scientific materialism and anti-religious thought that it clamps down your thinking
you know what... Being does move in mysterious ways
and the origins of common language terms can reveal much more about common meanings then simple dictionary definitions . . .
Dictionary definitions are descriptions of usage but reading terms as origins can reveal their histories and sometimes reveal their subtle unacknowledged conceptual similarities.
Niether 'Cult' nor 'Culture' are terms who's richnesses, complexities or nuances dissappear simply because of your positivist-materialist world-view and its Webster's dictionary
and biilybob . . . usually you have something semi-interesting to say but what's the point here?!