Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Religious scholar Reza Aslan tells the world Megyn Kelly was only half right- Jesus is not white, but Christ is. Well, that clears that up   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Reza Aslan, Megyn Kelly, Jesus Christ, theologies, teachings of Jesus, Hindu deities  
•       •       •

3996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2013 at 6:24 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-14 12:12:17 AM  

The Name: Gyrfalcon: the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

How so?


stop being stupid on purpose...
 
2013-12-14 12:13:44 AM  

machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).


I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".
 
2013-12-14 12:18:42 AM  

cynicalminion: The Name: Gyrfalcon: the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

How so?

stop being stupid on purpose...


If you knew anything about Early Christianity/Late Antiquity, you'd know that we would know nothing about some early saints if we did not take into account anecdotes of their lives written decades after their deaths.  Ever heard of Prudentius?  Pope Damasus?  Eusebius of Caesarea?

No?  Then shut the fark up.
 
2013-12-14 12:21:20 AM  
img.photobucket.com

At some point you grow up and stop caring about religion to where you don't bother debating it. Mock, talk about religious people about anything else, practice the Socratic method on them, but not debate. I've been waiting for a chance to cross the Socratic with Penn Jillette's "Do you expect me to believe that?" but it just hasn't happened.
 
2013-12-14 12:22:19 AM  

Gyrfalcon: There's no evidence of anyone else's existence from back then, either, except for a very few Emperors and nobility. Does that mean they didn't exist either? ;)

St. Nicholas was from Anatolia in what is now Turkey, not Greece. He's not "Santa Claus" by a long shot, and the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.


I don't think he was arguing that the historical documentation for that person was particularly strong - only that it was stronger than what we've got for Jesus, which it undoubtedly is.
 
2013-12-14 12:24:52 AM  

Biological Ali: One can one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".


True, but nobody's resorting to Tacitus to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was indisputably a real person and a miracle worker.  They're just saying that people were indeed talking about Jesus when Tacitus was around.
 
2013-12-14 12:25:41 AM  

Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can (do what with?)one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".


holy bleeding fark,
 
2013-12-14 12:27:16 AM  

The Name: cynicalminion: The Name: Gyrfalcon: the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

How so?

stop being stupid on purpose...

If you knew anything about Early Christianity/Late Antiquity, you'd know that we would know nothing about some early saints if we did not take into account anecdotes of their lives written decades after their deaths.  Ever heard of Prudentius?  Pope Damasus?  Eusebius of Caesarea?

No?  Then shut the fark up.


oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...
 
2013-12-14 12:29:00 AM  

cynicalminion: holy bleeding fark,


cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...


Are you feeling alright?
 
2013-12-14 12:29:33 AM  

Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".


Well, you gotta remember, there wasn't much written record about anyone back then (minus emperors and nobles). The fact they were even talking about that Jesus guy in the first century is pretty significant for his actually existing. "Prophets" were a dime a dozen back then, basically like priests/ministers/rabbis/etc nowadays, possibly even more common.

If historians that get paid to study that crap say he existed, I say he existed.
 
2013-12-14 12:30:35 AM  

cynicalminion: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can (do what with?)one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".

holy bleeding fark,


Lol.  Somebody thinks there were newspaper reporters, archives, youtube and NSA records in the first century.

Let me give you a hint:  If we had to throw out every historical figure for whom there are no contemporary records, we'd have to throw out about three-quarters of ancient history.
 
2013-12-14 12:31:31 AM  

cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...


Trolling?  Bring it on, Peter Brown.
 
2013-12-14 12:38:19 AM  

catmandu: There is no such thing as a white race. There is Negroid (sub-Saharan Africa); Mongoloid (east Asia, Russia west of the Urals, indigenous people of North and South America); Australoid (Australia and parts of Melanesia), and Caucasoid (North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Indian subcontinent, western Russia).

Jesus was Caucasian but he definitely wasn't white.


Maybe a few other options.

openipub.com
 
2013-12-14 12:40:11 AM  

Biological Ali: cynicalminion: holy bleeding fark,

cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...

Are you feeling alright?


i hate organized religion...  i was raised in the lutheran church, and i don't automatically assume that anyone's beliefs are wrong.  quanyin is pretty awesome.  but if the catholics can say hail mary, i can pray to quanyin so they get the ave maria version...

so yeah, i'm alright about the praying, but i wish more people WOULD be okay about that...without labels
 
2013-12-14 12:43:02 AM  

machoprogrammer: Well, you gotta remember, there wasn't much written record about anyone back then (minus emperors and nobles). The fact they were even talking about that Jesus guy in the first century is pretty significant for his actually existing. "Prophets" were a dime a dozen back then, basically like priests/ministers/rabbis/etc nowadays, possibly even more common.

If historians that get paid to study that crap say he existed, I say he existed.


Well, we can say that it's more likely he existed if the name is mentioned (even in hearsay) than if it wasn't mentioned, but it's much harder to go on and infer that it's therefore more likely he existed than not - the latter is actually a completely different question.

Though in some sense, one could argue that someone like that had to have existed (even if Tacitus and Suetonius were off in their specific mentions) because at the end of the day, the Christians were a cult who we know for a fact existed, and this cult would have almost certainly had at least one leader figure. So if we lower the bar for "Christ" to simply whoever led that cult over a certain period of time, then yeah, we're quite plausibly talking about at least one actual person.

The only problem is, that's about as far as we can go without devolving into complete guesswork, hearsay and essentially fanfiction, since this person - even if we grant that he existed - seems to have been seems to have been not particularly interesting or important or noteworthy in his time, and as such we have no contemporary record of anything he did or anything that happened to him.
 
2013-12-14 12:43:12 AM  

Biological Ali: Gyrfalcon: There's no evidence of anyone else's existence from back then, either, except for a very few Emperors and nobility. Does that mean they didn't exist either? ;)

St. Nicholas was from Anatolia in what is now Turkey, not Greece. He's not "Santa Claus" by a long shot, and the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

I don't think he was arguing that the historical documentation for that person was particularly strong - only that it was stronger than what we've got for Jesus, which it undoubtedly is.


Why? If you exclude the Bible--which for some reason everyone insists must be done--then we're still left with the Apocrypha that all mention Jesus. So then we exclude those too, in order that there be no evidence of Jesus, and then the anti-Jesus arguers say See! There's no evidence Jesus existed!

The problem is, by the same criteria, there's almost no evidence that ANYONE existed in the first century AD, outside of some Roman emperors, whose existence can't be disputed because they left behind inscriptions in everlasting stone, and on coins; and some chroniclers like Cassius Dio and Seutonius who were lucky enough to be copied later by Renaissance scribes.

But then there's no real evidence that, for instance, St. Nicholas of Myra existed either. He was--allegedly--a 4th Century monk from Asia Minor who saved either one, two, or three girls from prostitution by throwing money over the wall of the nunnery where they were confined. He also--allegedly--brought three young boys back to life after they'd been murdered and pickled by a cannibalistic butcher, multiplied wheat and supposedly his bones ooze a sweet-smelling ichor every year on the anniversary of his death. Now, there are bones supposed to be his in a church in Italy, that somehow survived the sacking of a town in Greece by Moslems in 1071. According to Tradition, PhD, they're still his. Are they? Who knows?

My only point in all this is, we just don't KNOW any of this. There was probably a Bishop Nicholas of Myra, since a person named Nicholas of Myra was summoned to the 325 Council of Nicea by Constantine. Did he do any of the rest of that stuff? Probably not. Was there probably a man named Jesus who preached apocalyptic visions in 1st Century Judea? Probably, because we have a lot of documents written by followers of followers of his that indicate somebody by that name was preaching then. Did he do any of the rest of the stuff they claimed he did? Probably not. But the insistence that there must be documentation is asinine, because there isn't documentation of ANYBODY who wasn't Roman nobility back then.

Hell, there isn't any proof Nero was such a bad guy, because most of the evidence comes from Seutonius, who by his own admission hated Nero, and could have fabricated a lot of his stories. Dio took some of his material from Seutonius--and hearsay isn't admissible in court. Was Nero a depraved fiend? Who knows? The documentation we have says it was--but how reliable is it? Suppose that two thousand years from now, the only evidence of, say, Barack Obama's Presidency came from surviving archives of the Free Republic website. How would anyone know otherwise?
 
2013-12-14 12:49:32 AM  

Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Well, you gotta remember, there wasn't much written record about anyone back then (minus emperors and nobles). The fact they were even talking about that Jesus guy in the first century is pretty significant for his actually existing. "Prophets" were a dime a dozen back then, basically like priests/ministers/rabbis/etc nowadays, possibly even more common.

If historians that get paid to study that crap say he existed, I say he existed.

Well, we can say that it's more likely he existed if the name is mentioned (even in hearsay) than if it wasn't mentioned, but it's much harder to go on and infer that it's therefore more likely he existed than not - the latter is actually a completely different question.

Though in some sense, one could argue that someone like that had to have existed (even if Tacitus and Suetonius were off in their specific mentions) because at the end of the day, the Christians were a cult who we know for a fact existed, and this cult would have almost certainly had at least one leader figure. So if we lower the bar for "Christ" to simply whoever led that cult over a certain period of time, then yeah, we're quite plausibly talking about at least one actual person.

The only problem is, that's about as far as we can go without devolving into complete guesswork, hearsay and essentially fanfiction, since this person - even if we grant that he existed - seems to have been seems to have been not particularly interesting or important or noteworthy in his time, and as such we have no contemporary record of anything he did or anything that happened to him.


I basically agree with this, but as a professional matter I guess I have to take it a bit further.  When I'm writing about St. Martin's exorcisms in a term paper for my advisor, I don't say, "Sulpicius Severus claims that Martin performed exorcisms, but modern science is able to prove that exorcism actually isn't possible and is more likely a product of . . ." No, I just say, "Martin performed exorcisms."  Because that's what the people at the time believed, and as far as historians are concerned, that's all that really matters as far as analyzing fifth-century ideas about religion is concerned.
 
2013-12-14 12:50:03 AM  

The Name: cynicalminion: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Basically, non-Christian Roman historians from the first century mention him (Josephus and Tacitus).

I'm going to leave Josephus aside for reasons that should already be obvious. The other mentions from people like Tacitus (and I believe Suetonius and possibly Cassius Dio) basically amount to nothing more than them repeating, in passing, a story about something that supposedly happened well in advance of the events they're actually narrating. Which is to say that Tacitus never actually chronicled anything about Jesus in the same way that he chronicled Nero's persecution of the Christians, which is what that passage was ultimately about. Indeed, as far as I know there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus at all.

One can (do what with?)one's hat on the fact that these historians literally mentioned the name Jesus (or some equivalent), but they mention plenty else that we don't have any particularly strong reason to believe happened, especially when they depart from the immediate events being described and go into hearsay about things far removed from those occurrences. It's been a while since my Roman history class but even Tacitus, though he was one of the more formal and less sensationalist historians, occasionally wrote about conspiracy theories etc. based on no real evidence other than "some people are saying this".

holy bleeding fark,

Lol.  Somebody thinks there were newspaper reporters, archives, youtube and NSA records in the first century.

Let me give you a hint:  If we had to throw out every historical figure for whom there are no contemporary records, we'd have to throw out about three-quarters of ancient history.


yeah, you're probably right, but those historical figures probably didn't start a religion, did they?

oh wait, didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?
 
2013-12-14 12:50:42 AM  
"Jesus was a white man, too, but you know it's like we have... he was a historical figure, that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa..."

No, Megyn was not talking about the broader conception of a messiah known as Christ because she makes a specific claim as to Jesus being a historical figure within the context of saying change should not occur simply if someone feels uncomfortable. What she does not say is his being white was a verifiable fact, but this is a strong implication we cannot change the historical fact of Jesus, which previously stated by her is his being white. Aslan is intelligent and knowledgeable, and I imagine he was using this stupid statement by Megyn to get in a provocative and worthwhile comment on the current state of Christianity, but I think he gave her the best possible interpretation and ignored a significant statement which coincided with her original one decried as stupid.
 
2013-12-14 12:52:49 AM  

cynicalminion: didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?


Indeed, he did, which doesn't help your point very much.
 
2013-12-14 12:56:16 AM  

cynicalminion: oh wait, didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?


He had some Romans in the 4th Century BC who compiled all of the scraps and wrote their own history to suit their politics. Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.
 
2013-12-14 12:56:30 AM  
If there was a Jesus, he was definitely not African-American.
 
2013-12-14 12:57:07 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: Gyrfalcon: There's no evidence of anyone else's existence from back then, either, except for a very few Emperors and nobility. Does that mean they didn't exist either? ;)

St. Nicholas was from Anatolia in what is now Turkey, not Greece. He's not "Santa Claus" by a long shot, and the historical evidence for him is a baptismal record and some anecdotes about how he paid the dowries of some teenage prostitutes, written long after his martyrdom. That's not the same thing as historical evidence.

I don't think he was arguing that the historical documentation for that person was particularly strong - only that it was stronger than what we've got for Jesus, which it undoubtedly is.

Why? If you exclude the Bible--which for some reason everyone insists must be done--then we're still left with the Apocrypha that all mention Jesus. So then we exclude those too, in order that there be no evidence of Jesus, and then the anti-Jesus arguers say See! There's no evidence Jesus existed!

The problem is, by the same criteria, there's almost no evidence that ANYONE existed in the first century AD, outside of some Roman emperors, whose existence can't be disputed because they left behind inscriptions in everlasting stone, and on coins; and some chroniclers like Cassius Dio and Seutonius who were lucky enough to be copied later by Renaissance scribes.

But then there's no real evidence that, for instance, St. Nicholas of Myra existed either. He was--allegedly--a 4th Century monk from Asia Minor who saved either one, two, or three girls from prostitution by throwing money over the wall of the nunnery where they were confined. He also--allegedly--brought three young boys back to life after they'd been murdered and pickled by a cannibalistic butcher, multiplied wheat and supposedly his bones ooze a sweet-smelling ichor every year on the anniversary of his death. Now, there are bones supposed to be his in a church in Italy, that somehow survived the sacking of a town in Gre ...


now i remember why you're in happy pink.
 
2013-12-14 12:57:47 AM  

whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.


Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.
 
2013-12-14 12:59:37 AM  

The Name: I basically agree with this, but as a professional matter I guess I have to take it a bit further. When I'm writing about St. Martin's exorcisms in a term paper for my advisor, I don't say, "Sulpicius Severus claims that Martin performed exorcisms, but modern science is able to prove that exorcism actually isn't possible and is more likely a product of . . ." No, I just say, "Martin performed exorcisms." Because that's what the people at the time believed, and as far as historians are concerned, that's all that really matters as far as analyzing fifth-century ideas about religion is concerned.


Well, something like an exorcism typically (as I understand it, anyway) also involves a ritual component that can verifiably be said to have happened, without ascribing any magical qualities to it. It's perfectly fine to say that someone reportedly performed exorcisms, with the understanding that you're really only referring to the rituals involved.
 
2013-12-14 01:01:22 AM  

The Name: cynicalminion: didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?

Indeed, he did, which doesn't help your point very much.


oops, yeah it does.
 
2013-12-14 01:03:48 AM  

The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.


Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.
 
2013-12-14 01:05:10 AM  

Biological Ali: The Name: I basically agree with this, but as a professional matter I guess I have to take it a bit further. When I'm writing about St. Martin's exorcisms in a term paper for my advisor, I don't say, "Sulpicius Severus claims that Martin performed exorcisms, but modern science is able to prove that exorcism actually isn't possible and is more likely a product of . . ." No, I just say, "Martin performed exorcisms." Because that's what the people at the time believed, and as far as historians are concerned, that's all that really matters as far as analyzing fifth-century ideas about religion is concerned.

Well, something like an exorcism typically (as I understand it, anyway) also involves a ritual component that can verifiably be said to have happened, without ascribing any magical qualities to it. It's perfectly fine to say that someone reportedly performed exorcisms, with the understanding that you're really only referring to the rituals involved.


You're absolutely right about exorcisms.  That's just the first kind of miracle that came to mind.  Perhaps Gregory of Tours could provide examples of more inexplicable miracles.
 
2013-12-14 01:06:03 AM  

whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.

Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.


stick with what's supported by your peanut butter
 
2013-12-14 01:06:43 AM  

cynicalminion: Biological Ali: cynicalminion: holy bleeding fark,

cynicalminion: oh shiat, the great name is trolling again...

Are you feeling alright?

i hate organized religion...  i was raised in the lutheran church, and i don't automatically assume that anyone's beliefs are wrong.  quanyin is pretty awesome.  but if the catholics can say hail mary, i can pray to quanyin so they get the ave maria version...

so yeah, i'm alright about the praying, but i wish more people WOULD be okay about that...without labels


I'm not a fan of religion myself, organized or otherwise. Honestly, I'm just a little confused as to why you've (apparently) taken issue with both me and The Name, seeing as the two of us were essentially arguing against each other at the time. I'm still not sure exactly whose side you're on here.
 
2013-12-14 01:07:26 AM  

whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.

Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.


Okay, then don't venture beyond the sixteenth century when talking about history. Go off and do some physics or something.

cynicalminion: The Name: cynicalminion: didn't jesus have apostles who wrote down what he said and did?

Indeed, he did, which doesn't help your point very much.

oops, yeah it does.


Go on . . .
 
2013-12-14 01:08:58 AM  

cynicalminion: whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Jesus was a myth. He may never have existed.

Again, on this criteria, almost all of ancient history didn't exist.

Fine. I'll stick with what's supported by the evidence.

stick with what's supported by your peanut butter


Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.
 
2013-12-14 01:11:33 AM  

whatshisname: Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.


Okay, so now, by your own criteria, most of the emperors didn't exist.  You want to take this all the way up to some of the earliest presidents?
 
2013-12-14 01:16:20 AM  

The Name: whatshisname: Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.

Okay, so now, by your own criteria, most of the emperors didn't exist.  You want to take this all the way up to some of the earliest presidents?


Go for it
 
2013-12-14 01:16:31 AM  
pretty sure malcolm mcdowell will take care of that thanks
 
2013-12-14 01:22:38 AM  

PanicMan: That's actually a really smart way of looking at it.


Yup. This guy seems to have a solid head on his shoulders.
 
2013-12-14 01:22:49 AM  

whatshisname: The Name: whatshisname: Are you still going on about your Apostles? They were myths too.

Okay, so now, by your own criteria, most of the emperors didn't exist.  You want to take this all the way up to some of the earliest presidents?

Go for it


Well, you might be shocked to know that some of Lincoln's peccadillos weren't revealed until *gasp* AFTER HE HAD BEEN KILLED!

HOW COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED?!  HE WAS DEAD!!!!1  THOSE THINGS COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED!!!!1
 
2013-12-14 01:47:45 AM  
Jesus may have well looked like he could've been Yasser Arafat's cousin. Now, imagine saying that on a Fox News show.
 
2013-12-14 01:52:37 AM  

Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.


you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.
 
2013-12-14 01:57:06 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.


Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.
 
2013-12-14 02:01:09 AM  

The Name: you know what "date" they're starting from.


It also helps if they excel at astronomical observations and left behind lots of them, as the Persians did. Their observations are so well done it's possible to figure out to the day when they were made. Which actually came in handy in working out an Old Testament story of all things.
 
2013-12-14 02:02:14 AM  

The Name: Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.


that's all just deflection imo. the date isn't that important. my point was the number of similarities in the two stories. there are others too. not just Mithras and Jesus who share a lot of common threads.
 
2013-12-14 02:09:10 AM  

Hobodeluxe: The Name: Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.

that's all just deflection imo. the date isn't that important. my point was the number of similarities in the two stories. there are others too. not just Mithras and Jesus who share a lot of common threads.


Yeah, but you're not taking into account the extremely, and I mean really unimaginably, conservative mindset of ancient society.  If you couldn't trace your prophet, real or fictional, to some preexisting tradition, then his teachings were as good as dead.  The fact that Jesus and Mithras share a birthday doesn't mean that Jesus was fictional, just that his adherents were savvy enough to link him to a more ancient tradition.
 
2013-12-14 02:16:01 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Jesus probably existed. We have less evidence for other historical figures existing


Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.

The historical documentation for Zeus descending from the heavens to have sex with random women as a goose is overwhelming compared to the "evidence" for a single historical Jesus, for context.
 
2013-12-14 02:22:03 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.


Uh, yeah, that doesn't at all describe the textual record for the historical Jesus.  We have papyrus fragments of the gospels that predate 400 CE.
 
2013-12-14 02:25:24 AM  

The Name: Hobodeluxe: The Name: Hobodeluxe: Ishkur: Hobodeluxe: Mithra was born on December 25th

Why would the Persians be using a Roman calendar several hundred years before any of them would even know Rome exists?

Don't post bullshiat from Zeitgeist.

you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.

Not to unwittingly support Jesus-conspiracy theorists here, but yeah . . . calendars are pretty easy to correlate as long as they're using some sort of lunar/solar system and you know what "date" they're starting from.

that's all just deflection imo. the date isn't that important. my point was the number of similarities in the two stories. there are others too. not just Mithras and Jesus who share a lot of common threads.

Yeah, but you're not taking into account the extremely, and I mean really unimaginably, conservative mindset of ancient society.  If you couldn't trace your prophet, real or fictional, to some preexisting tradition, then his teachings were as good as dead.  The fact that Jesus and Mithras share a birthday doesn't mean that Jesus was fictional, just that his adherents were savvy enough to link him to a more ancient tradition.


thumbs4.ebaystatic.com
 
2013-12-14 02:30:52 AM  

The Name: Jim_Callahan: Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.

Uh, yeah, that doesn't at all describe the textual record for the historical Jesus.  We have papyrus fragments of the gospels that predate 400 CE.


The gospels aren't records, they're religious myths, though.  Other historical figures have actual third-party confirmation, not one dude telling a story.  We're back to the "on par with the evidence of Zeus swan-based escapades" there.

// I use 400 because that's when it was all assembled and pushed together, and the sotries of half a dozen variant mythologies were squeezed together into one person.  Some of the fragments used go back well beyond 1 CE, that's actually one of the amusing failures of consistency to use to mess with literalists.
 
2013-12-14 02:40:07 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The Name: Jim_Callahan: Only one source assembled from sources of dubious authenticity 400 years after the fact by ideogogues with an overwhelming political agenda is pretty much no evidence whatsoever.

Uh, yeah, that doesn't at all describe the textual record for the historical Jesus.  We have papyrus fragments of the gospels that predate 400 CE.

The gospels aren't records, they're religious myths, though.


In the ancient world, those count as historical records.

Other historical figures have actual third-party confirmation, not one dude telling a story.  We're back to the "on par with the evidence of Zeus swan-based escapades" there.

We have at least four dudes telling a story.  Well, at least four different religious communities telling a story.

// I use 400 because that's when it was all assembled and pushed together, and the sotries of half a dozen variant mythologies were squeezed together into one person.  Some of the fragments used go back well beyond 1 CE, that's actually one of the amusing failures of consistency to use to mess with literalists.

The canon of the NT was established at the Council of Nicaea only 300 years after the death of Jesus.  I don't know where you're getting 400 from.
 
2013-12-14 03:15:37 AM  

The Name: The canon of the NT was established at the Council of Nicaea only 300 years after the death of Jesus.


yeah but the council wasn't there to poke holes in the myth. only to define what fit into their ideology and what didn't.
 
2013-12-14 03:20:28 AM  

Hobodeluxe: you do know that they had calendars and that they can correlate the approximate date by the solstice right? a day was still a day.


Sure, but there's no confirmation that either of them did any of that -- different cultures calculated solstices differently, and all of them were off by some degrees owing to the unsophisticated measuring skills of the time period. You are guessing and playing loosey-goosey with language translations.

Once again, don't post Zeitgeist bullshiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report