to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you all have peace!.
well, another passover "season" is upon us!
i will not bore you with along discourse on what we should do... and why.
I need to think on this. I have done it in the privacy of my home...alone. It didn't feel exactly right, but it didn't feel totally wrong either.
I normally do it in the privacy of my own and i am comfotable, happy, even, doing it there. I AM afraid of the looks, the reaction, the comments, getting arrested if i do it in public.
Wait, are we talking about the same thing?
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
sigh....
Some say that the claims about Jesus' life and existence are false claims, but these are speculation as to lack of evidence and cannot be proven false.
Debate 101 - If you make a claim (such as the claims about Jesus life are true) then the burden of proof lies on you. It does NOT lie on someone else to prove it false. Think of it like court. If a prosecutor says "this person committed a crime" the burden of proof is on them, not on the defense. The defense doesn't have to prove the defendant DIDN'T do it, the prosecution (the people making the assertion) have to prove it true.
Let's take the *Virgin* Isis and her son Horace, since she was mentioned earlier.
The older Mithraic myth from Persia (not the Roman myth that had him springing from a rock) has a virgin birth for Mithras.
but why do Christ-mythers feel the need to pad their information with false claims? Can't those claims stand on their own with just the facts?
If that's the standard we are using them then claims of Jesus birth (the census), geneaology, life, miracles, existence and divinity are sketchy at best.
But I do take to heart those people who are pushing their agendas and attacking faith by using lies.
You do realize that pretty much every sect of Christianity has accused every other sect of the same thing? I mean, the Christian faith isn't even internally consistent. It seems.....ironic?
i always wanted a boat, but was told that if i had one i would never make another meeting.
guess i should go get a boat now..
I'll tell you what I'd do, man: two chicks at the same time, man. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a millionaire I could hook that up, too; 'cause chicks dig dudes with money.
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
I don't think either one of us is hoping to "convert" the other so, while we may not agree on all parts, I think we are both enjying the debate.
I know I am.
Ditto. And I never get upset about these things. Although I know I DO have an agressive style of debate, there is never any agression or anger behind it, so if it seems like I am going for the jugular....I probably am, but not in an angry way. I'm like a shark, I'll back down if you punch me in the nose and fight back a little
People with something to gain by controlling other people.
Completely agree. It almost never fails....follow the money, power and sex and you'll get the answer usually.
If Jesus was a Jew, he followed the Bible.
The bible didn't exist until 300 years after he was dead, and even then, the "canonical" bible established after the Synod of Hippo was vastly different from the bible that exists today (after the Council of Trent).
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
Which should make us ask WTF happened ??
People.
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
Dude...really? The page you linked....the very first part says "Thus modern science is built on Christian foundations, and this explains why there was no science as we know it in any of the ancient civilisations of antiquity."
That right there completely taints any "facts" the author might wish to convey.
This line..."Although he could not prove it, he became convinced that the earth moves around the sun, and that consequently the general belief, following Aristotle, in a central earth is wrong." Utter BS, he did prove it.
Although the example you cited are accurate. Good catch.
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
Paul was a historical figure and So was Luke, the Apostolic Fathers that came after were also confirmed figures.
Totally agreed, but there are zero contemporary eyewitness accounts. The author of Luke (no one is sure if it even was Luke) freely admits the entire gospel is hearsay.
Socrates teachings about morals and ethics are with us to this very day and do indeed infulence us and governments - morals and ethics.
Who goes to war in the name of Socrates? I only ask because Hammurabi's, Zoroaster's and Muslim ideas influence our lives every day. Yet we don't dictate how others live their lives and what they can think based on that.
Let me rephrase that, to mention where the CHurch opressed science and to NOT mention where the church supported it, is one sided.
Can you cite some examples? I can't think of any, so if you know of some and they check out, I will FREELY accept them.
People sometimes say I am contrary, when the reality is, I am fact driven. When my ideas don't match with the facts, my ideas change. That's not to say I fall prey to scientism, I love debate about idea and how to do things, but when I assert something as true or as close to true as we can know, I generally try to back it up with facts and challenge others to do the same.
Little story about change my ideas....a few years ago I was researching a subject about which I had long ago written some published papers and articles on. I had worked on that subject in years and had to re-visit it for some reason and was doing some research to refresh my familiarity with the subject. I came across one paper and as I was reading it, I kept wondering what lackwit moron wrote that childish, simplistic crap. When I got to the end and looked the author....it was me that wrote it. It was an early paper I had written and it was very simplistic. My later papers were much more correct because I had learned more. Hopefully one day I will come across something I forgot I wrote and wonder what genius wrote that and then discover it was me.
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
To say thet Jesus didn't exist because ther eisn;t enough evidence, but to accept the existence of another supposed historical figure on pretty much the same evidence, doesn't seem correct.
Where did I say I accepted the existance of Socrates, the example you gave? But let's assume Jesus did exist. Since at best the only things we know about him are internally inconsistent documents of unconfirmed authorship (and we know quite a bit about the authors of the info we have Socrates, so he actually has more credible writings) based on hearsay from no earlier than 30 years after the fact, it seems like telling others how to live, taking lives and forming governments based on that is, to say the least, suspect.
To argue that the church repressed science in some case and not mention where it accepted and even supported it, is also one sided.
Facts are one sided?
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
Ah, so IF no one had gone around starting wars over Jesus that means that he did exist?
No, I didn't say that at all. I said the question regarding Socrates would be a comparable question to Jesus. I was illustrating that they aren't in the same ballpark with what people do with their idea. Heck, they aren't even the same sport.
So for the question to be relevant and comparible, you have to be comparing two similiar things.
Fact is, in terms of an historical figure ( outside a king or such) the evidence for Jesus's existsence is much the same as for others that we say existsted.
Paul actually wrote about him just a few decades after his death.
I agree. Scant to non-existant. The point is, philosophers can debate the existance and teachings of Socrates all day without bothering anyone (other than people that might be in earshot). Debating the same for Jesus could get you killed. See the difference?
Regarding Paul...so? He wrote a lot of hearsay. His early writing were being written at the same time the canonical Gospels were and those accounts don't agree internally on the details. It was all hearsay from at LEAST 30 years after the fact.
Besides, nowher ein any of his teachinsg did Jesus advocate going to war nor did he ASK or DEMAND to be wosrship or that anyone be forced to worship him or even forced to worship God.
I never said that he did.
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
Good suggestion. The summary points out that Galileo wasn't jailed as many people thing. He was merely interrogated under the threat of torture, found guilty of heresy, put under house arrest, publishing his book was forbidden and that edict was extended to include anything he MIGHT write in the future.
Sure, the Church wasn't holding science back at all. I mean, had he been put in jail, whoo boy look out, that CLEARLY would have been holding science back but threats of torture, interrogation, house arrest, book banning....that was like an ice cream social back in the day.
