During/after the exile i'm pretty sure a large number of jews began to worship Zeus. i feel like i would get less criticism on this thread for joining them. thanx for the post i respect the effort
If you asserted that the Greek gods actually existed, based on the evidence that we have books that contain stories about them, I imagine the amount of criticism would be approximately the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
If you asserted that the Greek gods actually existed, based on the evidence that we have books that contain stories about them, I imagine the amount of criticism would be approximately the same.
Yeah, we've put more than one neopagan through the wringer here in our time. (At least Christians can usually pronounce the name of their own religion... oy.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You are not a history major. If you are actually enrolled in a program that calls itself history, then leave the program and demand your money back, because you are not actually learning anything that would qualify as history.
The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance.
Oh, do you have historical evidence for this?
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources.
Garbage. Some of the Pauline Epistles are agreed by broad scholarly consensus, some are controversial, some are broadly considered to be pseudopigrapha.
See, that's a thing historians have to deal with. People will sometimes write something claiming they're someone but it turns out they're not.
He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ
You are not a history major. If you are actually enrolled in a program that calls itself history, then leave the program and demand your money back, because you are not actually learning anything that would qualify as history.
The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance.
Oh, do you have historical evidence for this?
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources.
Garbage. Some of the Pauline Epistles are agreed by broad scholarly consensus, some are controversial, some are broadly considered to be pseudopigrapha.
See, that's a thing historians have to deal with. People will sometimes write something claiming they're someone but it turns out they're not.
He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ
Paul doesn't give a lineage of Christ.
(found in Matthew and Luke)
Lineages that contradict.
Paul is the author of Luke, the lineage is result of a levirate marriage. I've sinced quit my college education for an electrician position but i apply what i have learned and carry certain truths with me with no condemnation towards others beliefs
An interpretation for which there is absolutely zero evidence. And if Joseph were the son of a levirate marriage, it is unlikely for Matthew to have recorded his lineage through his biological father, because the whole point of the passage is to establish that Jesus is the rightful heir of King David, and Joseph would not have been the heir of his biological father, only of his legal father. Now, normally in a levirate marriage, this isn't an issue, because both fathers are brothers and have the same father themselves, so the genealogy above them goes the same either way. But this is not true in the two genealogies given in the gospels, meaning Joseph's biological father and legal father had to be half-brothers, with the same mother but different fathers. And the whole point of a levirate marriage is to preserve the inheritance through the male line. Why on earth would a family marry off a widow to a man with a different father? No part of this proposed explanation makes sense.
You know what does make sense? The authors of Matthew and Luke were given different information, and neither of their sources were reliable, because they lived in First Century Judea and couldn't exactly pop down to the local public library to research birth certificates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
*Blinks* What? No. No he is not the author of Luke. The author of Luke did not even live in the same century as Paul.
the lineage is result of a levirate marriage.
Both Matthew and Luke have different lineages for Jesus. Matthew's also contradicts the Torah.
Indeed, the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict one another.
I've sinced quit my college education for an electrician position
That seems like a sound decision. I mean you no offense, but if you actually learned what you are saying in a history course, then the history course was a sham and you have been done a great disservice.
*Blinks* What? No. No he is not the author of Luke. The author of Luke did not even live in the same century as Paul.
the lineage is result of a levirate marriage.
Both Matthew and Luke have different lineages for Jesus. Matthew's also contradicts the Torah.
Indeed, the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict one another.
I've sinced quit my college education for an electrician position
That seems like a sound decision. I mean you no offense, but if you actually learned what you are saying in a history course, then the history course was a sham and you have been done a great disservice.
Matthew from Abraham to David is fact in the torah (+ruth because the torah doesn't go that far into the lineage, stopping at Nahshon i think) and is supported in the book of Chronicles and is restated in Luke. i'm confused as to that post and would love for you to elaborate. As for the authorship of Luke i may have jumped the gun but i could swear i remember reading that paul wrote it, i respectfully recant. as for my electrician job i still wish i could be a history major every day of my life and could stay inside in the heat/AC teaching children the Laws of Moses rather than debating about lineages and who the author of new testament books/epistles are.
You seem like you actually care to study what are your thoughts on the books of Malachi and Jude as literary works. i feel like they are the foundation of my faith. To fully understand those (takes 10 minutes to read both) is to shortcut/reference the rest of the bible.
Matthew from Abraham to David is fact in the torah (+ruth because the torah doesn't go that far into the lineage, stopping at Nahshon i think) and is supported in the book of Chronicles
Except the lineage Matthew gives is different from Chronicles. Reread them. Matthew omits names from the Chronicles lineage.
and is restated in Luke.
No, Luke gives a different lineage.
As for the authorship of Luke i may have jumped the gun but i could swear i remember reading that paul wrote it, i respectfully recant.
Perhaps you're thinking that Luke and Acts have the same author?
as for my electrician job i still wish i could be a history major every day of my life and could stay inside in the heat/AC teaching children the Laws of Moses rather than debating about lineages and who the author of new testament books/epistles are.
I mean, I'm not trying to knock you wanting to be a historian, nor was I trying to disparage you personally. I apologize, I often adopt a tone that is caustic and am not always cognizant of this.
What I'm trying to say is that blindly accepting what a text says is not what a historian does. For example, texts might claim that they are written by famous people, but this does not mean they are actually written by those people. A book might say it was handed down from on high, but that certainly does not alone constitute evidence that it was, especially when numerous other texts from other religions claim the same thing. A historian must scrutinize a text more thoroughly.
Also yes, you would be discussing lineages and authorship. That's what a historian would do.
You seem like you actually care to study what are your thoughts on the books of Malachi and Jude as literary works. i feel like they are the foundation of my faith. To fully understand those (takes 10 minutes to read both) is to shortcut/reference the rest of the bible.
I would have to reread them. I'll let you know when I find the time to do so.
as for my electrician job i still wish i could be a history major every day of my life and could stay inside in the heat/AC teaching children the Laws of Moses rather than debating about lineages and who the author of new testament books/epistles are.
Preaching the Bible to children is not what you do with a degree in history. You could certainly get a degree in history and then preach, but there is no connection between the two.
as for my electrician job i still wish i could be a history major every day of my life and could stay inside in the heat/AC teaching children the Laws of Moses rather than debating about lineages and who the author of new testament books/epistles are.
This really sums things up.
Debating authorship and resolving conflicts between texts is a huge portion of what historical scholarhsip is. It's an honest collaborative investigation of sound questions.
Preaching the law of moses to children is the opposite of what historical scholarship is. It's the unthinking echo-chamber of unsound sources, bypassing critical thought entirely. It's the transmission of unsound answers, dogma - not historical facts.
i still wish i could be a history major every day of my life and could stay inside in the heat/AC teaching children the Laws of Moses rather than debating about lineages and who the author of new testament books/epistles are.
So you want to be a theologian, not a historian. Those are two very different things.
as for my electrician job i still wish i could be a history major every day of my life and could stay inside in the heat/AC teaching children the Laws of Moses rather than debating about lineages and who the author of new testament books/epistles are.
This really sums things up.
Debating authorship and resolving conflicts between texts is a huge portion of what historical scholarhsip is. It's an honest collaborative investigation of sound questions.
Preaching the law of moses to children is the opposite of what historical scholarship is. It's the unthinking echo-chamber of unsound sources, bypassing critical thought entirely. It's the transmission of unsound answers, dogma - not historical facts.
Jesus WAS a historical figure. He did exist, that's pretty well agreed on by historians. There was a human being who existed around those times who inspired the Christian movement.
Whether or not what happened in the Bible actually happened... facts are a lot less clear?
I'm a little late to the party, but I have to point out that that Jesus being a historical figure is not accepted as a fact. While I may be nitpicking, I feel the need to point out that while the existence of a historical figure named Jesus from that time period is not debated, whether this is the same Jesus from the new testament is not agreed upon as the only document connecting the two is widely believed to have been altered after it's initial writing by Christians. There is actually no evidence other the lack of other candidates to connect the two. The notion that Jesus was a historical figure is based entirely on the bible and christian sources. Unfortunately it is impossible to corroborate any of these with other sources as christian writings were strongly influenced and therefore cannot be taken to be independent sources. The historical experts on Jesus take the two Jesuses mentioned to be the same as that is the only way to approach Jesus as a historical figure. Although this is not an unreasonable assertion it cannot be proven with reasonable certainty without further evidence. This is likely why some of said documents were edited later by Christians. As it stands the new testament and related sources (including christian modification of non christian texts) are the only evidence of the existence of Jesus and cannot be used seriously due to the lack of collaboration.
I don't see however why the bible would not be considered a historical document. In fact the several versions of the bible could be considered separate historical documents. While it is not a very strong source, as it is not a primary source and has also been subject to editing, it is still a source and can be useful for historical discussions.
I certainly think it is an interesting topic, but ultimately the lack of historical evidence of the existence of Jesus is of little importance when it comes to faith. Proving that he existed in history still does nothing to prove that he is the Son of God and died for the sins of the world, which is the crux of Christianity. While I understand the desire to prove the existence of Jesus, it is honestly of very little consequence. Why some non-Christians are so concerned with denying it is beyond me.
Edit: Just to clarify in the last paragraph I am saying that proving the existence of Jesus is of little consequence. While obviously he has to have existed in order to be the Son of God, etc., proving he existed is not at all necessary to have faith. In fact if you could prove that he existed and that God exists and that he is the Son of God there would be no need to have faith, but that's not how religion works.
I certainly think it is an interesting topic, but ultimately the lack of historical evidence of the existence of Jesus is of little importance when it comes to faith. Proving that he existed in history still does nothing to prove that he is the Son of God and died for the sins of the world, which is the crux of Christianity. While I understand the desire to prove the existence of Jesus, it is honestly of very little consequence. Why some non-Christians are so concerned with denying it is beyond me.
Because if the character of Jesus didn't exist at all, it is impossible for him to be the Son of God and died for the sins of the world. Secondly, because non-Christians might be very interested in the matter as a historical point and want to demonstrate their position on the matter.
Just to clarify in the last paragraph I am saying that proving the existence of Jesus is of little consequence. While obviously he has to have existed in order to be the Son of God, etc., proving he existed is not at all necessary to have faith. In fact if you could prove that he existed and that God exists and that he is the Son of God there would be no need to have faith, but that's not how religion works.
I have no problem removing any need for people to have faith from the world, regardless of the truth of Jesus of god. Faith is just an excuse for when you don't have a good reason to hold a belief. If we had proof that god exists, Jesus existed, the trinity, etc. we would be perfectly justified in believing those things all exist, and we wouldn't require faith to do so.
Of course, we don't have such proof, and I suspect the odds of ever getting said proof is basically zero, leaving those beliefs as unjustified.
I would argue the God of the Bible doesn't need faith. Where does that idea come from? He had no problem appearing before Moses, he showed up before the Israelites as a pillar of fire and regularly sent plagues. God literally controlled dew on a rag to prove his existence to Gideon. Why does one need faith to believe in god, when historically he had no problem showing himself.
I would argue the God of the Bible doesn't need faith. Where does that idea come from? He had no problem appearing before Moses, he showed up before the Israelites as a pillar of fire and regularly sent plagues. God literally controlled dew on a rag to prove his existence to Gideon. Why does one need faith to believe in god, when historically he had no problem showing himself.
I'm a little late to the party, but I have to point out that that Jesus being a historical figure is not accepted as a fact.
Majority scholastic consensus regards that a historical figure named Jesus existed during the time period described.
While I may be nitpicking, I feel the need to point out that while the existence of a historical figure named Jesus from that time period is not debated,
Well it IS debated, but widely regarded as true.
You must also recognize that's what we mean by "Jesus being a historical figure."
whether this is the same Jesus from the new testament is not agreed upon as the only document connecting the two is widely believed to have been altered after it's initial writing by Christians.
I don't know what you mean here. The Historical Jesus study is the study of whether there was a historical figure which these documents we have from the Early Christ movement, and the Early Christ movement itself, are based around. That's what we're talking about. We're talking the claims about Jesus made by various sources and seeing what historical evidence can corroborate.
There is actually no evidence other the lack of other candidates to connect the two.
I don't know what you mean here.
The notion that Jesus was a historical figure is based entirely on the bible and christian sources.
Well, there are some pagan sources that attest to Jesus' existence, although they're after his death and are mostly detailing the Christ movement.
None of this is a disqualifier.
Unfortunately it is impossible to corroborate any of these with other sources as christian writings were strongly influenced and therefore cannot be taken to be independent sources.
Well here's the problem with that. We have reason to believe Paul, Mark, and John were composed independently of each other. So, they would be independent sources.
The historical experts on Jesus take the two Jesuses mentioned to be the same as that is the only way to approach Jesus as a historical figure.
Wait, where are you getting this?
This is likely why some of said documents were edited later by Christians. As it stands the new testament and related sources
They probably edited the texts because everyone edited the texts. Redaction has been around for a very long time. There are SO many versions of the Gospels.
I would argue the God of the Bible doesn't need faith. Where does that idea come from? He had no problem appearing before Moses, he showed up before the Israelites as a pillar of fire and regularly sent plagues. God literally controlled dew on a rag to prove his existence to Gideon. Why does one need faith to believe in god, when historically he had no problem showing himself.
Prove he did.
Let's modify PKR's statement a bit: the character of god as depicted in the Bible regularly provided justification for humans to believe in his existence. Those characters did not believe in god on faith, and so it is reasonable to conclude that (assuming god exists) he does not require faith as a prerequisite for belief. Revelation is necessarily first-person, but if the Damascus road experience is good enough for Paul, why can't we all have something similar?
Yes, He definitely existed.
The Roman historians Pliny the Younger, Cornelius Tacitus, and Suetonius have mentioned Jesus in their writings.
However, that can be a case of giving the benefit of the doubt to history: we cannot get good scientific evidence of these events, so we can only rely on the reports recorded by others; in history we give the people doing the reporting the benefit of the doubt that they are reporting true events accurately unless we have other historical evidence to directly contradict it.
It's also worth mentioning that there is more than one Yeshua and more than one Jesus reported in historical documents of the period that apologists point to as proof for the existence of the Biblical Jesus. We do know that at least some of the Jesuses are not the Jesus of the Bible. To some extent, saying that he definitely existed based on these documents is like saying Bob definitely existed, because there are so many newspaper articles that mention his name.
If you asserted that the Greek gods actually existed, based on the evidence that we have books that contain stories about them, I imagine the amount of criticism would be approximately the same.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Oh, do you have historical evidence for this?
Garbage. Some of the Pauline Epistles are agreed by broad scholarly consensus, some are controversial, some are broadly considered to be pseudopigrapha.
See, that's a thing historians have to deal with. People will sometimes write something claiming they're someone but it turns out they're not.
Paul doesn't give a lineage of Christ.
Lineages that contradict.
Paul is the author of Luke, the lineage is result of a levirate marriage. I've sinced quit my college education for an electrician position but i apply what i have learned and carry certain truths with me with no condemnation towards others beliefs
An interpretation for which there is absolutely zero evidence. And if Joseph were the son of a levirate marriage, it is unlikely for Matthew to have recorded his lineage through his biological father, because the whole point of the passage is to establish that Jesus is the rightful heir of King David, and Joseph would not have been the heir of his biological father, only of his legal father. Now, normally in a levirate marriage, this isn't an issue, because both fathers are brothers and have the same father themselves, so the genealogy above them goes the same either way. But this is not true in the two genealogies given in the gospels, meaning Joseph's biological father and legal father had to be half-brothers, with the same mother but different fathers. And the whole point of a levirate marriage is to preserve the inheritance through the male line. Why on earth would a family marry off a widow to a man with a different father? No part of this proposed explanation makes sense.
You know what does make sense? The authors of Matthew and Luke were given different information, and neither of their sources were reliable, because they lived in First Century Judea and couldn't exactly pop down to the local public library to research birth certificates.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Both Matthew and Luke have different lineages for Jesus. Matthew's also contradicts the Torah.
Indeed, the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict one another.
That seems like a sound decision. I mean you no offense, but if you actually learned what you are saying in a history course, then the history course was a sham and you have been done a great disservice.
Matthew from Abraham to David is fact in the torah (+ruth because the torah doesn't go that far into the lineage, stopping at Nahshon i think) and is supported in the book of Chronicles and is restated in Luke. i'm confused as to that post and would love for you to elaborate. As for the authorship of Luke i may have jumped the gun but i could swear i remember reading that paul wrote it, i respectfully recant. as for my electrician job i still wish i could be a history major every day of my life and could stay inside in the heat/AC teaching children the Laws of Moses rather than debating about lineages and who the author of new testament books/epistles are.
You seem like you actually care to study what are your thoughts on the books of Malachi and Jude as literary works. i feel like they are the foundation of my faith. To fully understand those (takes 10 minutes to read both) is to shortcut/reference the rest of the bible.
No, Luke gives a different lineage.
Perhaps you're thinking that Luke and Acts have the same author?
I mean, I'm not trying to knock you wanting to be a historian, nor was I trying to disparage you personally. I apologize, I often adopt a tone that is caustic and am not always cognizant of this.
What I'm trying to say is that blindly accepting what a text says is not what a historian does. For example, texts might claim that they are written by famous people, but this does not mean they are actually written by those people. A book might say it was handed down from on high, but that certainly does not alone constitute evidence that it was, especially when numerous other texts from other religions claim the same thing. A historian must scrutinize a text more thoroughly.
Also yes, you would be discussing lineages and authorship. That's what a historian would do.
I would have to reread them. I'll let you know when I find the time to do so.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This really sums things up.
Debating authorship and resolving conflicts between texts is a huge portion of what historical scholarhsip is. It's an honest collaborative investigation of sound questions.
Preaching the law of moses to children is the opposite of what historical scholarship is. It's the unthinking echo-chamber of unsound sources, bypassing critical thought entirely. It's the transmission of unsound answers, dogma - not historical facts.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
you can lead a horse to water...
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'm a little late to the party, but I have to point out that that Jesus being a historical figure is not accepted as a fact. While I may be nitpicking, I feel the need to point out that while the existence of a historical figure named Jesus from that time period is not debated, whether this is the same Jesus from the new testament is not agreed upon as the only document connecting the two is widely believed to have been altered after it's initial writing by Christians. There is actually no evidence other the lack of other candidates to connect the two. The notion that Jesus was a historical figure is based entirely on the bible and christian sources. Unfortunately it is impossible to corroborate any of these with other sources as christian writings were strongly influenced and therefore cannot be taken to be independent sources. The historical experts on Jesus take the two Jesuses mentioned to be the same as that is the only way to approach Jesus as a historical figure. Although this is not an unreasonable assertion it cannot be proven with reasonable certainty without further evidence. This is likely why some of said documents were edited later by Christians. As it stands the new testament and related sources (including christian modification of non christian texts) are the only evidence of the existence of Jesus and cannot be used seriously due to the lack of collaboration.
I don't see however why the bible would not be considered a historical document. In fact the several versions of the bible could be considered separate historical documents. While it is not a very strong source, as it is not a primary source and has also been subject to editing, it is still a source and can be useful for historical discussions.
I certainly think it is an interesting topic, but ultimately the lack of historical evidence of the existence of Jesus is of little importance when it comes to faith. Proving that he existed in history still does nothing to prove that he is the Son of God and died for the sins of the world, which is the crux of Christianity. While I understand the desire to prove the existence of Jesus, it is honestly of very little consequence. Why some non-Christians are so concerned with denying it is beyond me.
Edit: Just to clarify in the last paragraph I am saying that proving the existence of Jesus is of little consequence. While obviously he has to have existed in order to be the Son of God, etc., proving he existed is not at all necessary to have faith. In fact if you could prove that he existed and that God exists and that he is the Son of God there would be no need to have faith, but that's not how religion works.
Because if the character of Jesus didn't exist at all, it is impossible for him to be the Son of God and died for the sins of the world. Secondly, because non-Christians might be very interested in the matter as a historical point and want to demonstrate their position on the matter.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Of course, we don't have such proof, and I suspect the odds of ever getting said proof is basically zero, leaving those beliefs as unjustified.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Majority scholastic consensus regards that a historical figure named Jesus existed during the time period described.
Well it IS debated, but widely regarded as true.
You must also recognize that's what we mean by "Jesus being a historical figure."
I don't know what you mean here. The Historical Jesus study is the study of whether there was a historical figure which these documents we have from the Early Christ movement, and the Early Christ movement itself, are based around. That's what we're talking about. We're talking the claims about Jesus made by various sources and seeing what historical evidence can corroborate.
I don't know what you mean here.
Well, there are some pagan sources that attest to Jesus' existence, although they're after his death and are mostly detailing the Christ movement.
None of this is a disqualifier.
Well here's the problem with that. We have reason to believe Paul, Mark, and John were composed independently of each other. So, they would be independent sources.
Wait, where are you getting this?
They probably edited the texts because everyone edited the texts. Redaction has been around for a very long time. There are SO many versions of the Gospels.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ
Yes, He definitely existed.
The Roman historians Pliny the Younger, Cornelius Tacitus, and Suetonius have mentioned Jesus in their writings.
It's also worth mentioning that there is more than one Yeshua and more than one Jesus reported in historical documents of the period that apologists point to as proof for the existence of the Biblical Jesus. We do know that at least some of the Jesuses are not the Jesus of the Bible. To some extent, saying that he definitely existed based on these documents is like saying Bob definitely existed, because there are so many newspaper articles that mention his name.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)