I would put my cash on Isaac Newton. Not only most famous but most influential as well.
I would put my cash on Isaac Newton. Not only most famous but most influential as well.
honorable discharge wrote:
I would put my cash on Isaac Newton. Not only most famous but most influential as well.
Nope, it was the guy who created the universe, Jesus, not the one who figured out how to explain gravity mathematically, Newton.
Kublai Khan's White Horde pruned out 1,000,000's of primitives and aboriginals in the German forrests creating the Renaissance for Newton and Leibnitz. Thank the Mongols for stabilizing the chaos and civilizing Europe for the better.
The Real,
You are assuming that the god is the god of the bible. You are wrong. What makes you think that the philosophy or creation story of the jews, christians and muslims is the actual and only one? Native Americans have their own stories just like the Maori and Vikings have their own stories. Once again you are wrong. Yes, it is Isaac Newton.
Without Arab, Indian, Chinese science, Newton would not have done so many great things. He Stood on the shoulders of Giants, who where Arab, Indian, and Chinese mathemeticians and scientists.
honorable discharge wrote:
The Real,
You are assuming that the god is the god of the bible. You are wrong. What makes you think that the philosophy or creation story of the jews, christians and muslims is the actual and only one? Native Americans have their own stories just like the Maori and Vikings have their own stories. Once again you are wrong. Yes, it is Isaac Newton.
How many native americans rose people from the dead, overcame death and were the focus of entire cultures? Or Vikings or Maori? They have good myths, but, I've never heard of any good evidence Thor actually existed.
Jesus Christ is NOT the most famous Black Man.
Kobe Bryant is the most famous BLACK MAN in HISTORY !
Real,
You are assuming all this stuff from the bible is real. Where is the evidence? Yes, Native Americans didn't, don' and never will rise from the dead. NO ONE EVER HAS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Unless you truly believe the bs you find the bible/koran. Thor is as good as Moses or Jesus.
Lets not forget about the Olmecs, Mayas and Mexicas (Aztecs). Mayas had the zero way before the Arabs and the Indians.
honorable discharge wrote:
Real,
You are assuming all this stuff from the bible is real. Where is the evidence? Yes, Native Americans didn't, don' and never will rise from the dead. NO ONE EVER HAS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Unless you truly believe the bs you find the bible/koran. Thor is as good as Moses or Jesus.
You're exactly right, it is impossible, unless you believe the Bible. Very well said.
Romulus wrote:
Agree with the above. The Romans obviously kept fastidious records, and interestingly, nearly all the details mentioned in the gospels surrounding the birth of Jesus are demonstrably historically false.
The gospels are not biographies. They attempt to defend who Jesus was despite the way he died. You don't write defenses like that without having someone die in such a humiliating way that it needs to be explained out of sheer embarrassment.
I'm not attempting to defend the accuracy of the gospels, just the existence of someone named Jesus who was crucified.
"I'm not attempting to defend the accuracy of the gospels, just the existence of someone named Jesus who was crucified."
It is quite definite that someone named Jesus was crucified at some point. The question is was such a figure the inspiration for the biblical character or was a mythical figure later historicized using various archtypes that were close at hand.
Do you believe in a historical Apollonious of Tyana? A historical King Arthur or William Tell?
I just think that if there was no religious feelings/piety at stake, we would judge the content of the gospels with the same critical eye we judge the sources for the forementioned people, that is, recognize that so much of the "historical" data has such obvious parallels that we are dealing with something besides history. How does one account for early apologists (otherwise regarded as orthodox) who placed Jesus' life in the reign of a pre-Roman ruler, Alexander Jennaeus? Much evidence seems to show there was a Christ-belief that pre-existed any historization of the savior.
The anachronisms in Epiphanius or Irenaeus are about as helpful as the mention of Lake Wissota in the movie Titanic. The Titanic must have never sailed or sank and it's a story that simply mythologizes archetypes of other sea disasters. Do you believe in the historical Titanic?
this just in wrote:
The anachronisms in Epiphanius or Irenaeus are about as helpful as the mention of Lake Wissota in the movie Titanic. The Titanic must have never sailed or sank and it's a story that simply mythologizes archetypes of other sea disasters. Do you believe in the historical Titanic?
I love when people try to figure something out thousands of years after the fact and speak with absolute certainty of things they themselves never witnessed based on referential texts alone. Based on the fact that some texts are wrong (and we would never make similar mistakes) we are always right.
The Real,
The bible is not the absolute truth to anything. Please don't assume that. It is asinine. Even Thomas Jefferson doubted the divinity of Jesus.
Attempting to defend the existence of Jesus is not an attempt to "speak with certainty" any more than arguing the non-existence of Jesus is. It's just one side of the argument.
Again, not attempting to defend the accuracy or reliability of the gospels, just that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified.
Personally, I think it's much more believable that Jesus was merely a man from Nazareth, who led an ill-fated reform movement in first-century Judaism and ended up rejected by most and crucified by the Romans. At least, working backwards chronologically through the trajectories in the apologists and early Christian writers, it points towards an embarrassing, humiliating, and scandalous death of Jesus of Nazareth that had to be explained and defended by followers.
Jesus was not only rejected by the Romans but by the Jews. Don't forget that. Both groups wanted him dead.
honorable discharge wrote:
Jesus was not only rejected by the Romans but by the Jews. Don't forget that. Both groups wanted him dead.
This is the sort of generalization that fosters hatred.
A small minority of Jewish leaders wanted him dead.
The bloody Italians killed him.
If anyone, thank the Muslims and Byzantines for keeping alive Greco-Roman knowledge and innovating further. Mongols were just Vikings on a larger scale. Though it's an intriguing example of what could have been if China had more aggressive foreign ambitions.
Of course, relevancy to this thread = zero.
When I mean by Jews I mean the church of Jesus' time not the Jews in general.