HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Thu 13 Oct 16 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


I figured that because we haven't had a good religious discussion in two years, it's about time for another.

History of Christianity - How Christianity was Invented

(start from 00:00:00 then watch till 1:16:35. After that, it's a repeat of the same documentary for some strange reason)

This is the first comment in Reddit.com and the forum based on that documentary:

Reddit forum based on the above documentary

The first comment being:

"Big grain of salt warning. Much of this is rejected by mainstream scholarship, and not because it questions strongly held tenets, but because most of it is pure conjecture. It's a nice thought experiment, but nothing more."

Umm, excuse me but the fact that it is rejected by doctrine, isn't that the point?

Anyway, the theory espouses that it was the Roman Flavian dynasty that created Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism as a replacement for the more troublesome and warlike Messianic Judiaism.

It is a fact that Josephus, the Jewish scholar was in the court of the Flavians Vespacian and Titus.

If you feel up to it, have a watch as I did and tell me what you think.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 13 Oct 16 #2 
jmaxg
Contributor

I think the narrator is Susan Sarandon. I could be wrong but I rarely am.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 13 Oct 16 #3 
TABBYTOES
Contributor

will certainly have a watch x




Knows 35147 facts
like | send message


Sat 15 Oct 16 #4 
jmaxg
Contributor

Those that know jmaxg know that he has floated different theories about Christianity before.....especially the "Saul of Tarsis" thing. Which, even though valid, seemed to present gaps in historical knowledge.

But this one, I admit, seems to have logic on its side.

Could the Flavian dynasty have created Christianity AND Rabbinical Judaism in order to placate the masses?

Given politics throughout the ages, it sort of makes some sense.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 19 Oct 16 #5 
jmaxg
Contributor

I noticed that nobody is paying attention. In a way, that is the point.

Everybody assumes that "Jesus" was a live, historical being. In fact, there is no actual historical proof of that.

If you wish to challenge me, go right ahead.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 19 Oct 16 #6 
sally906 (online)
Contributor

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote of 'Christus' being put to death by Pontious Pilat in his work called Annals written around 161 AD - this is widely regarded as proof that someone known as Christ was executed - but is not linked necessarily to the biblical Christ




Knows 25718 facts
like | send message


Wed 19 Oct 16 #7 
jmaxg
Contributor

It could have been one of many "Christus"'s or essses. Perhaps one too many "s"'s there.

That be the point, I wager.......that references to a "Christ" do not exactly confirm there was a "Christ".

In fact, nothing in historical literature confirms A "Christ" let alone THE "Christ" in any way, shape or form.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 20 Oct 16 #8 
sally906 (online)
Contributor

Not arguing with you there - but just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't so.  My husband says prove to me there is a God - I say prove to me there isn't.  He can't anymore than I can.




Knows 25718 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 22 Oct 16 #9 
jmaxg
Contributor

Actually, we are talking about if there was a "Jesus Christ" in the first place sal.

Yes, we are allowed to talk about this now.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 22 Oct 16 #10 
jmaxg
Contributor

There might be an argument that "Jesus" didn't exist in the first place.

It's an interesting idea. Nothing more than that.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 22 Oct 16 #11 
jmaxg
Contributor

The actual evidence for this is resounding and all over the place.

Three or four jewish messiahs.

One or two Egyptian pontiffs.

Many Greek gods.

I know it's not easy to deal with this.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 26 Oct 16 #12 
bertie
Contributor

Does it matter whether the historical Jesus existed or not?  It appears that there is some good evidence that he probably did, but the important thing is that many people follow the teachings of "Christ".  At the simplest level (take Mark's Gospel - thought to be the oldest one - no mention of a virgin birth, nor the resurrection here), following a "God" who is humble, just, loving and who treated everyone equally, seems to me a pretty good way to go for us all!

Jung was a self professed Christian, but his conceptualisation of religion was based on his idea of the collective unconscious - collectively we create our gods - and this collective energy gives our religious system force and power.  If this is so, then it is important what we give our energy to - and following in Jesus' tradition can't be bad.  Oh, I am not unaware of how interpretations have been used negatively - but that is the fault of political systems and power hungry individuals who are willing to use any justification for their actions that they can find! 

I kind of agree with Jung (if I understand what he is saying - and I have spent many years studying his work!) that I have no idea whether or not (outside of individuals and our perceived reality) a God exists, but for the present to try to live by basic humanitarian, and yes Christian principles, is a goal that I embrace.  I actually don't care whether Jesus was a man, one person or many, son of God, or just a figment of some enlightened person's imagination!




Knows 597 facts
like | send message


Thu 27 Oct 16 #13 
jmaxg
Contributor

Does it matter whether the historical Jesus existed or not? Well, yes, it does. For one, that singular book that 65% of the world places their hand on when making an oath would be rendered null and void if it was shown Jesus didn't exist. And that's just the practical implications.

Relative to Jung, all that means is if enough people collectively agree, then it must be the truth. Actually, many famous people have lost their lives in opposition that very idea. Claudius Ptolemy probably knew he was wrong when he constructed a geo-centered planetary system but left it to following scholars to right the wrongs because he knew what would happen to him if he stated the correct version. Copernicus attempted to state the helio-centric system and Galileo and Kepler further refined......all three of which were punished or ostracized for their efforts.

If Jung, as described, was to be followed to the final degree, then the world would fail to evolve. Imagine if quantum mechanics was never even discussed never mind Einstein and E = mc2. Almost all of the technology we have at our current disposal would not exist. ALL OF THAT depended on minds that did not think according to the collective trend.

I think it is IMPERATIVE that society has individuals that think outside the collective consciousness, if that exists. As a paradox, that explains the teachings of Jesus in an ironic sense given the history of the time.

But this forum is about discussing the possibility of whether or not Jesus actually existed and is it possible that Christianity was created by a ruling dynasty, for a purpose and what was that purpose.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 28 Oct 16 #14 
bertie
Contributor

Mentioning Jung was probably irrelvant here, what is certain is that I didn't explain myself well!  Jung's concept of the Collective Unconsious is a biological one and therefore evolutionary change is intrinsic to it.  Also being "unconscious" we are unconscious of it - having not direct access, therefore his hypothesis that it exists can only be tested by seeing its effects - eg similarity of archetypes across cultures.  Anyway, enough of that!

I still think that a discussion of whether Jesus the man existed historically or not is a non question (except for theologians who seem to revel in this kind of discussion - and of course people who have some anger/grudge/hangup about Christianity in general). 

As Sally so rightly said earlier, it cannot be either proven or disproven.  It could be argued that the concept of Jesus as an historical figure may well be proven, but that still doesn't nullify the concept of Jesus as God.

It is fair game in this age of political correctness run riot that only a few things are now open to viscious criticism - Christianity is one of them.  (Obesity is another!!) 




Knows 597 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Fri 28 Oct 16 #15 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Yet again Jmax makes facts up. Christians are 31.5% of world population. Muslims are next with 23%.

Ruby franks is still lying ??

 

 




Knows 39428 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 29 Oct 16 #16 
jmaxg
Contributor

You cannot mention Jung and then say later you did not mean it.

Carl Jung stated a valid idea that just happened to coincide with the "faith" philosophy. You can't deny that. You have to accept it if you are partial to Jung.

Again, I am not saying if Jung was wrong or right.

But simple "faith" proposes problems with respect to the community and, theoritically ham-strings those who choose to think bravely and outside the box.

That's the problem.........and that is why it was necessary that we moved beyond Jung.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #17 
jmaxg
Contributor

As we go further from decade to decade, it's obvious that "faith" is losing ground and science is winning ground.

Philosophies abound but it is obvious that Jung is losing.

Am I upset about this? Not in the slightest.

Who do I think is responsible? Well, I think that the internet has a lot to do with it.

But I also think things are changing because our young-uns ask better questions.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #18 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

You can mention Jung and then say you didn't mean it.

Artichoke.




Knows 125157 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #19 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Whoops, I mentioned artichoke and didn't mean it.

Watch your language. 




Knows 125157 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #20 
jmaxg
Contributor

Well, I'd like to think the young ones are asking the questions.

Leave bertie alone hon.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #21 
jmaxg
Contributor

This is about the discussion and not any conflict.

Yes, we have done this before. Not saying it always worked to be truthful.

But this time we are going to be civil. or I will promise to punch you up.

That was a joke.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #22 
bertie
Contributor

Not sure where this is gone - or has gone!

My computer said that Kevg had put in a comment?  I did hope so - the more controversial the better!  Has his comment disappeared into the ether?

Don't quite understand Ruby's comment - is it meant to be funny?

Thanks for yours jmax - as ever you are most interesting and stimulating to read.

But... I can't agree that religion and science are necessarily in opposition to each other - both are striving to understand what the hell it is all about - and why????




Knows 597 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #23 
jmaxg
Contributor

Look, it's not that big a deal.

Previously, as many know, I was all into how "Saul of Tarsis" who became "Paul" may have manipulated the proccess.

Now I think the Flavians discussion is a valid one.

All I can promise is that Alexie Sayle will not pop out of nowhere and "nut" you.

I think that is a fair statement of personal security.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #24 
jmaxg
Contributor

I have been in the "science and religion" realm before.

This whacked up professor from the University of Adelaide, Paul Davies, has spoken many times before.

His "editorial flavour" is, in fact, pretty screwed up.

Look, we have the Aussie "Kev Hamm" going for it in some place in the deep south of the United States setting up some weird alternative to Darwin. I personally think he's a coward no matter what anyone else says. "Oh, he's brave!" No....he's not. If he was brave, he'd try to do that same shit in the New York Museum of Natural History. No? Well, I guess he's not.

I love my Aussies, but I love knowledge more.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 29 Oct 16 #25 
jmaxg
Contributor

To me, it's the "double slit" experiment is it as far as I am concerned. The more you look into it, the weirder it gets.

I cannot see how "God" can be involved with quantum mechanics if even quantum physicists look and go all "non sequitur" over the place.

Dedicated "Paul Davies" type physicists will go all "But God meant that!".

God mean't what? That's the bloody point! If God meant it, did he or she do it on purpose to screw with physicists just to see what would happen? If so, why is that different to an Ant-Farm?

I think Quantum is what it is. Along with the theories of Max Planck and Erwin Schrödinger, the physical universe is far stranger than any god could invent. Even if we are an experiment in some god-like laboratory.

The fact is we have to deal with it and work with it. Which we are doing.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 30 Oct 16 #26 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Sorry bertie, I was trying to say that if anybody (in this case jmaxg) is trying to make a case they should be careful of the accuracy and thrust of their language, so I was taking mild objection to him ticking you off for 'mentioning Jung and later not meaning it'. I was just trying to demonstrate that its well within the realms of logical and linguistic possibility to do so, and it wasn't quite what you'd done/said anyway. Boring, nit-picking without really entering the discussion.

Good morning kev. Nice to see the spark isn't diminished. Where do both you and jmaxg get your statistics from? Is he talking about people of the book? Is he saying that 65% of the places where people take oaths use the Bible/Talmud/Koran?  Are you talking about people who born in to those traditions? Who practice those religions?




Knows 125157 facts
like | send message


Sun 30 Oct 16 #27 
bertie
Contributor

Thanks Ruby!  My first comment was made without thought over a cup of tea and with half a brain on the daily brainoff and the other on what I what I was going to do next!  Later, I realised that what I had put wasn't really relevant to the discussion - and was indeed a personal opinion which obviously has no place in a discussion/debate.  Therefore my apologies; and also explains my attempt to rescind the earlier comment.  I should have stuck to the debate in question - re Jesus. 

I do love to debate, but in this instance intellectual rigour was replaced by personal opinion and emotional psychbabble - hence my second comment.  Obviously old age and retirement are taking their toll!

 




Knows 597 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #28 
sally906 (online)
Contributor

Faith is losing ground and science is gaining?

Ummm - so what?  That means nothing.

I know many great scienctific people who follow a faith.  I know many people of faith who believe in science.

One doesn't nullify the other.

They either compliment each other (dare I say science has proven things in both the bible and the Koran written 1000s of year before science verified it) or curb the excessiveness - but they don't knock each other out.

Science isn't always based on fact - sometimes it is based on theory only.  A and B exist so C must exist - we can't show you C but its there because A and B are.  How is this different to there being a God - can't see him but he's there because he saved such and such a life when we prayed.

As I said - hard to prove - hard to disapprove




Knows 25718 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #29 
jmaxg
Contributor

"I do love to debate, but in this instance intellectual rigour was replaced by personal opinion and emotional psychbabble"

jmaxg loves to debate when he is offered something to debate with. I try to answer with acuity and instead get replied with "false equivalence".

bertie, ALL of our opinions are personal. That was the POINT of this forum! It started with me making the proposal that Christianity might have been a construction by the Roman Flavian dynasty.

But answering back that the non-faith based side of the argument is "psychobabble" does not help you in anyway. All it does is make it seem like there is deflection going on.

Ad Hominem

If you don't agree then fine. But "ad hominem" arguing does not help. You are expected to contribute, not insult.

If you have something to contribute, then fine. Otherwise, don't get involved in the first place.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #30 
jmaxg
Contributor

Anyway, it's obvious that Josephus was in the court of Vespasian (after being released from slavery by Vespasian), and later Titus Flavian.

Some of the facts relative to the rule of Titus Flavian bear a striking resemblance to the messiah as predicted.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #31 
jmaxg
Contributor

sally906:  "I know many great scienctific people who follow a faith.  I know many people of faith who believe in science.

One doesn't nullify the other."

I am not saying it does. But it should.

Next quote: "Science isn't always based on fact."

Actually, yes it is. That is the very basis of science knucklehead.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #32 
jmaxg
Contributor

Sorry......not tryng to insult anybody.

But there is an issue here and I am not going to let it get away.

Leviticus is one of the most often quoted chapters in Biblical history. Yet minimal people know what "Leviticus" is or what it meant.

So to bertie, Ruby Franks and sally906, as Christians who should be complimentary with the Old Testament, please yes.....tell me what "Leviticus" was all about?

I know. Do you know?

Any of you can reply.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #33 
sally906 (online)
Contributor

Don't you dare call me a knucklehead - that's very impolite and I am disappointed in you.

I didn't t deserve that.

What I was trying to say was sometimes scientist say something is so even though they can prove it. A prime example is Peter Higgs. Back in the 1960s he proposed that Boson particles exist. It wasn't until 2011 that other scientists said that the particle may exist and another two years until they found one and proved it. So for 40 years there was a 'faith' that the particle existed but no proof.  Well, stretching a very long bow, that could apply to God - lots of people know he's there but just haven't proved it yet. Like the particle it doesn't mean God is not there.  




Knows 25718 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #34 
jmaxg
Contributor

Sally........gimme a break!




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #35 
jmaxg
Contributor

Dan Brown's version of the "God Particle" never existed.

The rest was based on mathematical theory.

YOU are the problem here.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #36 
sally906 (online)
Contributor

***sigh*** Dan Brown is an author - not a theologian or Scientist.




Knows 25718 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #37 
sally906 (online)
Contributor

Fine. If I'm the problem I won't waste your time in this discussion anymore. Sorry to have bothered you




Knows 25718 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #38 
jmaxg
Contributor

I mean, at least I know what the Higgs-Boson was about.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #39 
jmaxg
Contributor

I am willing to discuss........no?

Why is it always no?

Come back sally to discuss the non-Dan Brown-Higgs Boson.......no?




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #40 
jmaxg
Contributor

Anyhoo, the Higgs-Boson is a VERY interesting particle.......just not in the Dan Brown sense.

We THINK it provides mass to all other particles and thus, is integral to our existence.

So the "Dan Brown" explanation of some gleaming, all powerful something is actually hilarious when it comes to explaining the "Higgs-Boson".

I'll give Dan Brown this.......he's a consumate, and apparently rich, bullshitter.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #41 
jmaxg
Contributor

The next thing, someone will argue that the "Da Vinci Code" was real.

(which could be a good discussion if it were not for the flakey French dude that created the myth in the first place)




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #42 
jmaxg
Contributor

Ladies and gentlemen, I am all up for a good story. But "changing my life" kind?

I am sorry how disappointing it is, but Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy in the neck and the back of the head.

That's not faith, that's fact.

If you choose to deny believing in that? Ok, whatever, but YOU are the weirdo, ok? Not us.

We have done this time and time again and always with the same result.

I HATE conspiracy theorists with a PASSION. They waste our time and energy.

9/11 was picked by conspiracy theorists and the BULLSHIT was so bloody high!

If just ONE of the conspiracy theorists was a metalurgist, then ok.

But NONE of them were. And they claim surprise relative to how heated metal behaves.

Well D'uhh......it softens, ya idiot!

I am so disappointed that most people didn't know that.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #43 
jmaxg
Contributor

I maintain that......the simple fact that metal softens under heat.

Then I thought that, oh shit, the rest of the country is like this!




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 1 Nov 16 #44 
jmaxg
Contributor

Yeah, well, first up my apologies to sally906.

I try to keep it level headed. But it can be hard to do that given the subject matter.

But I do recognise when I go all nasty.

I'm sorry sally. I'll try to keep the conversation more civil.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 5 Nov 16 #45 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

Well what i dont understand is.....Who wrote the Bible? How do we know that what is said or done in the Bible is actually fact? 




Knows 22791 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sun 6 Nov 16 #46 
jmaxg
Contributor

Well, that's the thing. The Bible is actually NOT historic or factual. The New Testament, sparingly, correlates with certain events and provides alternative interpretation, but it must be remembered that it was written at a minimum over 100 years after the fact.

The authors of the books according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, for all intents and purposes, could have been written by anybody......paid scribes, political hacks, or Flavian Dynasty court appointed bureaucrats of which Josephus was one.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sun 6 Nov 16 #47 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

And yet so many people believe in every word written




Knows 22791 facts
like | send message


Sun 6 Nov 16 #48 
jmaxg
Contributor

Helen, if you can figure out a way to stop the public at large from reading and believing bullshit, I will personally come up with a way to raise one million dollars and hand it over to you even though Java and I could use the money ourselves.

Getting people to rationally look at everything referred to them should be the aim. But as we know, that is not the result.

Facebook? Don't look at me like that.....you're part of the problem.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Mon 7 Nov 16 #49 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

Unfortunately i wont be able to do that, people are always going to continue to read and believe.




Knows 22791 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Fri 11 Nov 16 #50 
jmaxg
Contributor

But at least we are discussing.

The "Jesus" phenomena is particulary interesting.

I know it's not easy and you get set upon. But look at it this way........our heathan ways are becoming more popular.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 11 Nov 16 #51 
jmaxg
Contributor

Heaven?

Think about it. 100's and 1,000s of people shuffling around and lining up to meet St. Peter?

I'd rather be in a grocery line.

At least we have the option of self scanning.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In