Zeitgeist and other lies of he media

DArtagnan said:

I know why I am not a Christian - and I have to wonder what's interesting about why someone else isn't… Guess I'll never know.

Click to expand...

For those who aren't narcissistic, the story of another persons life is interesting, if his or her experiences are either unique, similar to ones own and well told. We compare our own experiences to other peoples experiences in order to acknowledge our own, it offers us meaning and a connection to the outside world to know that out there is another mind who share our perspective, our experiences, our emotions.

In listening we do not only learn about that person, we learn about our own lives, things that might be relevant in communicating with others, we learn how to orient ourselves in the social realm. We may mirror the persons solutions when facing our own problems and try if their solutions works for us, or we may pass i on for someone who are still facing the problems despite trying all we had to offer.

JemyM said:

For those who aren't narcissistic, the story of another persons life is interesting, if his or her experiences are either unique, similar to ones own and well told. We compare our own experiences to other peoples experiences in order to acknowledge our own, it offers us meaning and a connection to the outside world to know that out there is another mind who share our perspective, our experiences, our emotions.

In listening we do not only learn about that person, we learn about our own lives, things that might be relevant in communicating with others, we learn how to orient ourselves in the social realm. We may mirror the persons solutions when facing our own problems and try if their solutions works for us, or we may pass i on for someone who are still facing the problems despite trying all we had to offer.

Click to expand...

I think you mean that for the anti-Christian, this kind of thing will help enforce your already cemented views so you can feel better about combating that which has touched you in such a negative fashion, leaving out the potential good things about it.

Calling me narcissistic because I don't have to hear the experiences of one who has rejected Christianity - is quite in tune with your obsessive and closed-minded nature.

You don't want to learn, because you're not open. You want to reinforce that which you already believe.

JemyM said:

Do I have to explain to you why these explains nothing about Jesus or Christ?

Click to expand...

No, but about Christianity per se, which I thought you were discussing even at that point.

Tragos said:

Thing is that back in the era JC supposedly lived not only priests were literate, big schools and libraries were all over the place

Click to expand...

Well all over the place is a bit of an exaggeration, but either way, how many of the people that followed him would have had access to those? By and large, his flock was almost exclusively poor peasents.

10th century Arabic version…i have trouble understanding how xians count time , this is written 1.000 years later. Josephus script is considered as a fabrication by all credible sources

Click to expand...

It's an Arabic text that referrences the earlier text, but of course you already probably knew that. Many ancient writings are known only be being quoted in later manuscripts. Any serious student of history understands this.

What is a 'credible' source to you? Because while there are certainly many legitimate sources that question the authenticity, there are also many that consider at least part, if not most, of the passage to be authentic.

Apologies for not giving details but i lost my USB with the lectures on Jesus ; the case goes like this : All disciples were Jews , Jews have a big feast celebration like let's say it is thanksgiving or haloween , Jesus crucifixion is same day ; the event is just too big for his students not to remember what day it was yet one writes that after JC's crucifixion "crowds left to join the feast" and the other writes that the last meal was that feast.

Click to expand...

The date isn't important. If you knew anything about Christian theology, you'd understand that. Not to mention that didn't write ANYTHING down at first because 1) most of them were illiterate and 2) the Romans and other Jews were persecuting them. But not let the facts of history get in your way.

Of course we should not forget that those guys wrote their books at the tender age of 350

Click to expand...

A few centuries too late on that estimation.

Christ is not a name , it is a title , Greek for "the anointed" , Apollonios could be the anointed as well and this one was a real person , if a Christ ever existed for me it was him.

Click to expand...

Who said it was anything other than a title? Apollonios was not the Christ however.

I didn't ask for all , one will do and there is none

Thank you for replying

Click to expand...

Several that reference the Christ have already been pointed out. His existence and resurection would not have been a widely documented event, so that's as good as we can expect to get.

You can take it or leave, it really doesn't matter. Ultimately religion is a question of faith, and it doesn't matter what you can prove or not in this world.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

No, but about Christianity per se, which I thought you were discussing even at that point.

Click to expand...

No, sorry about my confusion.

To explain my comment; it's when people offers these names as sources for Jesus or Christ i rule them out, and they do. I have often encountered people who say that there are "tons of sources that proves that Jesus existed" and they follow up with a list of usual suspects including these names.

When one have bothered to look them all up and read them, you know they are passing on hearsay.

Regarding Pliny, if they mention anything they mention Christianity/Christians. One should know that the letters referred to are the only published after Plinys death. One should also be wary of the word "Christians" in this context. Christ is the greek translation of messiah and there were plenty of messianic sects about at the time. If true, Pliny also display the truth about religious freedom in the roman empire. The romans let conquered people keep their gods as long as they also sacrificed to the roman emperor. The jews refused to do this which might be the reason for the first sparks of antisemitism that can now be read in the new testament and various early christian authors.

Abolishing all other religions is a habit that have only been done by the monotheistic religions, starting with the hebrews. It was first when Christianity rose to power in the 4th century that religious freedom was abolished, following 600 years of ethnic cleansing of pagans, greek religion, egyptian religion, the druids etc.

blatantninja said:

What is a 'credible' source to you? Because while there are certainly many legitimate sources that question the authenticity, there are also many that consider at least part, if not most, of the passage to be authentic.

Click to expand...

I suggest putting the ones that were collected and preserved by Eusebius (which several of these sources were) under scrutiny.

JemyM said:

One should know that the letters referred to are the only published after Plinys death. One should also be wary of the word "Christians" in this context. Christ is the greek translation of messiah and there were plenty of messianic sects about at the time. If true, Pliny also display the truth about religious freedom in the roman empire. The romans let conquered people keep their gods as long as they also sacrificed to the roman emperor. The jews refused to do this which might be the reason for the first sparks of antisemitism that can now be read in the new testament and various early christian authors.

Click to expand...

I agree on most of this - but the Romans let them believe in their gods only if they worshipped the Emperor or/and Roman gods also, that's how I understood it. Hence the context of this letter whether hey should be punished or not, because they didn't worship what all faithful Romans worshipped.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I agree on most of this - but the Romans let them believe in their gods only if they worshipped the Emperor or/and Roman gods also, that's how I understood it. Hence the context of this letter whether hey should be punished or not, because they didn't worship what all faithful Romans worshipped.

Click to expand...

This was no issue for polytheists, it was only an issue for monotheists, which as the time was the jews and the jews alone. The idea of one God was strange at the time. Polytheists worshipped many gods equally, so to refuse the roman emperor was an insult.

I had to bump this thread to say that the eastern josephus texts could be off too since the only suriviving ones are from he 9th century. So we got nothing but subtle references "James the brother of Jesus" etc from other sources.

Jesus Christ was actually a cave man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVMhEAI3pvg