WAY OVERRATED.
Usain Bolt is faster.
Elvis had more #1 records.
Shakespeare was a better writer.
Einstein was smarter.
Most people live much longer.
Obama and LBJ passed more social legislation.
Brando was hotter and a better actor.
Mike Tyson had more power and was WAY more intimidating.
WeJo ran a faster 10,000.
Ron Jeremy had a bigger cock.
Wolfgang Puck has a line of frozen food, Jesus NEVER did.
Who are you arguing against stay tuned? No one disputes or is angered by a mixing of genes. I guess it's for the white supremacists? Well, keep sticking it to em in the letsrun famous jesus thread, make sure to insult Mohammed so the kkk doesn't win.
studying abroad wrote:
Who are you arguing against stay tuned? No one disputes or is angered by a mixing of genes. I guess it's for the white supremacists? Well, keep sticking it to em in the letsrun famous jesus thread, make sure to insult Mohammed so the kkk doesn't win.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this just in wrote:
Sorry to state the obvious (or what may seem obvious to some). But there are some who tend to go overboard with Greco-Roman influences on the rise of early Christianity, which to me seems like it's barking up the wrong tree. Yes, Greco-Roman sources don't need to be neglected, but the early Greek-speaking Christians were raised reading the Septuagint, not the Iliad. It's obvious in the nuances of the Greek they use.
But sometimes I feel this way (arguing for the obvious) about the whole argument for the existence of Jesus (and I don't mean this as an insult towards Earl). To me (at least), the big issue is not the existence of Jesus, but his identity, intention, and mission.
They were raised reading both, of course. That is the very nature of syncretism - religions don't just spring up in a vacuum - they are dependent on ideas that came before. Of course Christianity was influneced by Greek And Persian sources (where do you think the ideas of Hell and "the devil" came from - not from the OT Satan, who isn't evil at all, but merely God's agent to ferret out false piety He is man's "adversary", not God's because he keeps us from getting one over on Him). And the way the Septuagint was written (the words chosen in Greek to render the Hebrew) reflect syncretism. This is obvious when we look at modern translations when we translate things using our modern biases when the actual connotation of the word is vague (such as the famous examples of biblical discussions of homosexuality and other sexual "sins" when we translate words of vague meaning such as "pornaia" to conform to our modern understandings. And the Septuagint, of course, is the key to understanding one line of evidence for the ahistoricity of the NT stories. When Jesus "fulfills" a prophecy that of course isn't even a prophecy in its native context, but can only be retroactively imagined so in the Septuagint Greek rendering, it seems obvious that are writing "history" to conform to the stories. And, of course, when Jesus fulfills a "scripture" that is from a book that isn't in the canon, that is more evidence.
this just in wrote:
I don't think it's special pleading because I'm not skeptical of the existence of Mohammad, for example. The existence of Mohammad (to me, at least) seems to be the simplest explanation for the rise of Islam.
Personally, I think that early Christians were far more influenced by Jewish sources, not Greco-Roman sources. New Testament writers seem much more concerned to show Jesus patterned after Jewish heroes like Moses, Elijah, or Elisha or fulfilling aspects of Jewish expectation than trying to incorporate hellenistic sources.
I don't think it is the simplest explanation, given the history of religion.
So do you think every religion that ever got popular had a historical founder? Osiris? Mithras? Zoroaster? We know Joseph Smith was a real character, but was Moroni (the angel who allegedly revealed the gold plates to Smith). Hey, lots of people, smart people, believe it and it is written in a book, so it must be true!
Read an extended discourse on the mythicist argument and the lines of evidence for Jesus (Robert Price, Earl Doherty, The Dutch Radicals, etc.) and for that of Mohammed (Ibn Wariq, working under a false name, explored this topic) and see how they answer this "simplest explanation" argument. I have read tons of both arguments and I am pretty compelled by the mythicist argument. I wouldn't want to bet money, but if I had to, I would bet it on mythicism.
At work iv'e heard from Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese (non-Christian/Jew/Muslim) for years that they learned in school that Jesus Christ lived in India from his teenage years until late 20s. Jesus studied and practiced Hindism, Buddhiism, and Confucianism. I wonder what has been written about that and the evidence ?There's a museum in India that has artifacts of Jesus's 20 year upbringing and education in India. Very interesting and shows that in those days India was the world's superpower of faith.