Mosques

[vash23n]

My comments were probably not needed either to be fair. I understand when I say certain things, even if they are aimed specifically at that person who made those comments, that others will be sensitive to them as well. I meant no offense to you Limewater, I realize that people with different beliefs, or lack of, share this board, so I'll try to word things less antagonistically from now on.

However, I maintain that what I said is the truth.

Oh, I assure you, I was not personally offended at all. Were you to say that there is no historical evidence that Jesus was any sort of deity or perform miracles or something, I would not disagree. However, as historical figures of that era go, there is a pretty strong case to be made for the existence of Jesus. We do not have contemporary, extra-biblical sources to confirm his existence, but that's true of a lot of historical figures who people don't claim are made-up. We do, however, have a fair amount of bibical and extra-biblical sources regarding the early Christian church. This provides pretty strong historical support for the existence of Jesus as a religious leader around that time. The Christian church started while there were a load of people alive who would have been contemporary with Christ.

You don't have to believe he walked on water to accept that there is historical evidence for some guy to have existed and inspired a new cult/sect of Judaism a couple thousand years ago.

Having trudged through much historical nonsense on my way to my masters in history years ago, I can say for sure that there is evidence a figure named Jesus existed. There are local, historical writings (not trumped up about him having any magical abilities or being the son of god) that speak about him. There are also historical accounts from the Roman Empire who talk about him and how popular he was, which was something that concerned them at the time. No one talks of him having any special abilities, the most that is said is regarding his popularity. There is not much, but he is there. The idea of having to search for the sources where I learned this is agonizing so I am hoping there is someone else out there who may have learned this as well. Plus, I got fed up with my failure to do anything with my degree earlier last year and through out all my books from that period of my life.

I do remember learning that a figure named Muhammad is documented to have existed as well, but I know less about that. From what I seem to remember, there was a man who claimed to have prophetic visions. There was a local ruler who was looking for a way to unite his people and he jumped on the whole religion thing. This was a long time ago in a World Religions course with an "iffy" teacher so I will accept anyone's testimony that what I learned about Muhammad as most likely more accurate than what I know. So don't beat me up.

[Ack]

Have fun with this one kids.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2010/09/911_qur ... lanne.html

[Limewater]

Edit: I would actually like to discuss Limewaters Jesus is Horus comment but it is really way off topic I guess. Of course so is most of the thread.

I have no problem with going off-topic.

But seriously, the Jesus is Horus thing got pretty big on the internet a few years ago, but is based primarily on misinformation.

[ZeroAX]

But seriously, the Jesus is Horus thing got pretty big on the internet a few years ago, but is based primarily on misinformation.

Don't see the point in discussing religion really. I already climbed Olympus, discovered that the gods are real, and had sex with Aphroditie so everyone else is wrong .


BTW I'm beginning to understand why in Civ4 Civilizations with different religions hate each other, even though you could be at peace with them for centuries, trade with them and even defend them from invading forces.


Cause in real life as well it is impossible for nations of different religion to like each other. I find it sad that something that is 100% personal, defines entire nations (you can't be a Muslim in a Christian country and vice versa).

[Limewater]

I find it sad that something that is 100% personal, defines entire nations (you can't be a Muslim in a Christian country and vice versa).

It's very personal in modern western civilization. However, I don't think that's how it's been for most of human history over most of the inhabited planet.

[Hatta]

Having trudged through much historical nonsense on my way to my masters in history years ago, I can say for sure that there is evidence a figure named Jesus existed. There are local, historical writings (not trumped up about him having any magical abilities or being the son of god) that speak about him. There are also historical accounts from the Roman Empire who talk about him and how popular he was, which was something that concerned them at the time. No one talks of him having any special abilities, the most that is said is regarding his popularity. There is not much, but he is there. The idea of having to search for the sources where I learned this is agonizing so I am hoping there is someone else out there who may have learned this as well. Plus, I got fed up with my failure to do anything with my degree earlier last year and through out all my books from that period of my life.

If there were actual good sources to prove the existence of even a secular Jesus figure, the Christian apologists would be harping on them constantly. The best evidence we have for the existence of Jesus comes from a Jewish scholar (Josephus) who wasn't even born until after the supposed crucifixion. And then there's even disagreement about whether those passages were written by Josephus, or inserted later during transcription by monks.

If there were better evidence for a historical Jesus, they'd be able to come up with a lot better than that. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this proves nothing. Whether or not the man existed tells us nothing important about god anyway.

[Limewater]

If there were actual good sources to prove the existence of even a secular Jesus figure, the Christian apologists would be harping on them constantly.

Why? The historicity of Christ is not really in question among serious scholars.

The best evidence we have for the existence of Jesus comes from a Jewish scholar (Josephus) who wasn't even born until after the supposed crucifixion. And then there's even disagreement about whether those passages were written by Josephus, or inserted later during transcription by monks.

I believe what you write about Josephus is correct, but it's hardly the best evidence. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, it just happens to be the only source that is in no way a religious document.

[MrPopo]

I find it sad that something that is 100% personal, defines entire nations (you can't be a Muslim in a Christian country and vice versa).

It's very personal in modern western civilization. However, I don't think that's how it's been for most of human history over most of the inhabited planet.

The Jews would beg to differ.

[Limewater]

I find it sad that something that is 100% personal, defines entire nations (you can't be a Muslim in a Christian country and vice versa).

It's very personal in modern western civilization. However, I don't think that's how it's been for most of human history over most of the inhabited planet.

The Jews would beg to differ.

I don't follow...

[Hatta]

Why? The historicity of Christ is not really in question among serious scholars.

Of course not. Bible scholars would be out of a job if they questioned the historical accuracy of the bible.

I believe what you write about Josephus is correct, but it's hardly the best evidence. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, it just happens to be the only source that is in no way a religious document.

You can't use a religious document as evidence as it's obviously biased. And for what it's worth, even the gospels were written decades after the fact. There are *no* contemporaneous records of Jesus at all.