Support NeoGAF

[Izuna]

It's like I already said, there's a difference between actual Jesus, and astral Jesus.

Not as an answer to the question proposed by this thread.

It doesn't matter if you believe things about the dude, it refers to the same thing.

As I said, there are people who believe there are those living today that can't do what they are known for.

 

[Apzu]

Once again people argue the west. I'm arguing historical importance. Bhuddhism existed in all pockets of the east, nearly two thousand years before Christianity would make the scene. Do you think modern people in Asia pass everyday Buddhist effigies with no knowledge of their roots? The world did not divorce it's past for globalization.

Buddhism is indeed older than christianity, but I think its something like 600 years older, not two thousand years. I don't think even hiduism is that much older than christianity. Though I still agree with your main point that buddhism is probably deep rooted in some asian cultures.

I bet Maria has Muhammad beat.

You're probably right, specially if you consider that there are not as much variation in Maria's name as there is Jesus'. But I think when people say that muhammad is the msot given name they are usually separating into male and female names, though I could be wrong.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Except it's essentially impossible to completely get at "actual Jesus". He was almost certainly a real person. I am quite sure a number of the stories about him are fabricated or mutated over the ages. Those two points are in no way contradictory, and thinking that they are shows a real lack of historical thinking.

Yeah I'd agree, you can't really deny the product that reality Jesus' followers created, Christendom is deeply ingrained in all western culture, and mentions in the Muslim Quran cement that popularity.

I can see what peoples problems are with Jesus getting most votes are. Because he's something that exists beyond reality so gets those extra mythos points.

 

[Sölf]

Either Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler. Basically the personification of good and evil.

 

[Yoda]

If we don't include religious figures, I'd say Adolf Hitler.

 

[capitalCORN]

Buddhism is indeed older than christianity, but I think its something like 600 years older, not two thousand years. I don't think even hiduism is that much older than christianity. Though I still agree with your main point that buddhism is probably deep rooted in some asian cultures.

The age I refer to is the induction to the east. But at least we've reached some consensus.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

http://i.imgur.com/rEepIt9.png[/img

Yes, 5 do not use it at all. And for Islamic countries the point of knowing Jesus still stands with or without counting from AD.

The rest of us use Gregorian as "civil calendar" or at least alongside the "local" one.[/QUOTE]
And why do they use it [spoiler]straight up conquering reasons[/spoiler]

 

[HelloMeow]

None of this really follows, There are plenty of apocryphal stories of most famous figures. Does this mean that they didn't exist?

It doesn't necessarily mean they did exist or existed as told.

 

[Lister]

You should do some reading.

Why wouldn't you think, as someone who clearly doesn't believe he had all these "powers", that it's likely a regular dude had existed if one of the biggest religions ever is based on this dude?

How do you think Jesus was invented then?

I mean, that's not a very good line of thinking. We have a lot of examples throughout history, and even in modern times of widely believed things that were completely made up. Checkout snopes.

Studying the archeology in context with the writings we have and making sure we get at the earliest recollecitons of Jesus is where clues to his historicity start to arise.

First, the earliest wirtings don't even mention him having supernatural powers, certinaly one mention him being god/the holy spirit, etc, or even of having risen physically from the dead. These are later additions.

Some clues lie in, funnilly enough, in stories we KNOW are false. For example the various nativity narratives. From the slaying of the children to the census that required going bakc to some ancestral home. The former is very unlikely to have happenned, while the latter, definitely did not happen. But then why go to the trouble?

Well, there were a lot of Messiah myths and prophecies at the time, many featuring a Messiah that was born in Bethlehem. So you want your guy being born there... but again, why go through all the trouble of making up stories to get Jesus of Nazareth to have been born in Bethlemhem?

One possible reason is that people knew Jesus of Nazareth. And so you had to say: "Nah, the guy was actually born in Bethlehem! You won't believe this story but...".

If he was entirely mythical I don't think they would need to have bothered.

 

[Alex Stroud]

Jesus Christ, He who is the One True Son of God.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

re: Jesus

Let's take an example of say,

You could take me, my name is Herr Schwarz and let's say I was born around the same time as Jesus, for example.

I prattle out some religious sermons. And then I get crucified for my trouble.

Then some guy decides to write a story about me that I got nothing to do with, fabricating my character and making up a load of stuff I didn't do and making up a load of stuff that I didn't say.

Is that character in the story really me? Or is it merely my name being used as a template for someone else's creation? Does it matter?

 

[Septic360]

Lil Uzi Vert.

Lmao

 

[Skellig Gra]

re: Jesus

Let's take an example of say,

You could take me, my name is Herr Schwarz and let's say I was born around the same time as Jesus, for example.

I prattle out some religious sermons. And then I get crucified for my trouble.

Then some guy decides to write a story about me that I got nothing to do with, fabricating my character and making up a load of stuff I didn't do and making up a load of stuff that I didn't say.

Is that character in the story really me? Or is it merely my name being used as a template for someone else's creation? Does it matter?

It doesn't matter. Every important historical figure has been exaggerated. Like in Braveheart when he doesnt live up to his legend and some refuse to believe it's him.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

It doesn't matter. Every important historical figure has been exaggerated. Like in Braveheart when he doesnt live up to his legend and some refuse to believe it's him.

Yeah I suggested Jebediah Springfield as my example earlier.

 

[Lister]

It doesn't matter. Every important historical figure has been exaggerated. Like in Braveheart when he doesnt live up to his legend and some refuse to believe it's him.

I think it matters. We want to get as close to the actual history as we can, even if there's a big gap. Othewise why not just stop at the bible?

 

[Cocaloch]

It doesn't necessarily mean they did exist or existed as told.

I honestly don't understand what you are getting at here. I was suggesting that such stories are not evidence against their existences not that they were the evidence for them. At the en of the day what you seem to be trying to do simply isn't really possible. History is not a way to get at the reality of the past itself, that's a misunderstanding of what it is and does along with its relationship to sources.

Is that character in the story really me? Or is it merely my name being used as a template for someone else's creation? Does it matter?

Again this problem is inherent in history if not in epistemology generally. Is our understanding of Caeser really Caeser himself? The answer is no.

I think it matters. We want to get as close to the actual history as we can, even if there's a big gap. Othewise why not just stop at the bible?

Wie es eigentlich gewessen isn't really what history can get at though. It doesn't matter in the sense that there being stories we might not believe doesn't have any bearing on the other sources we have. It gets back to my apocrypha example. The fact that some stories about Jesus are fabricated is not evidence that he didn't exist.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Did you read the full wikipedia article?



First one mentioned is believed to have been altered, but is also believed to have had an authentic nucleus.

Scholars almost overwhelmingly believe the other two passages that mention people that were close to Jesus are completely authentic.

If I say person A was real and did all sorts of fantastical stuff
Then you find person B that proves that the person A was most likely real except non of the fantastical stuff was real
Did person A actually exist

 

[Skellig Gra]

I think it matters. We want to get as close to the actual history as we can, even if there's a big gap. Othewise why not just stop at the bible?

2 different things. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for as clear a picture as possible of history. But fame ( the entire point of the thread) is never based on pure reality. Look at everyone saying Hitler in this thread. He probably wasn't even the most evil Nazi but he gets 100% of the credit when in reality he was a drug riddled feeble addict with a loose grip on reality.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

2 different things. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for as clear a picture as possible of history. But fame ( the entire point of the thread) is never based on pure reality. Look at everyone saying Hitler in this thread. He probably wasn't even the most evil Nazi but he gets 100% of the credit when in reality he was a drug riddled feeble addict with a loose grip on reality.

I think the argument can be surmised pretty easily.


I think the difference is Adolf Hitler, is famous for what he did do.

Jesus is famous for what he didn't do.

Hitlers actions and deeds are based in reality.

Jesus' actions and deeds are based in fiction.

 

[Apocryphon]

While there isn't a contemporary record of Jesus's existence, the volume of accounts that were written in the subsequent decades following his death do lend substantial credence to his existence. A guy, called Jesus, who had interactions with at the very least Pontus Pilate and Herod Antipas, most likely did exist.

Given that Christianity is the worlds biggest religion and given that he is also mentioned in the Torah and the Quran (it is irrelevant as to whether it is believed that he is the son of God), the answer is very probably Jesus.

 

[Izuna]

I just want to point out that I'm happy the sub-context for this thread has gone peacefully.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I think the argument can be surmised pretty easily.


I think the difference is Adolf Hitler, is famous for what he did do.

Jesus is famous for what he didn't do.

Hitlers actions and deeds are based in reality.

Jesus' actions and deeds are based in fiction.

For the most part I agree with you. The only issue I see is painting the entire bible as some magic spell book. The majority of the New Testament is people talking about loving everyone equally and being charitable. And a good portion of the Old Testament is laws and a straight oral history of the Jews.

 

[HelloMeow]

I honestly don't understand what you are getting at here. I was suggesting that such stories are not evidence against their existences not that they were the evidence for them. At the en of the day what you seem to be trying to do simply isn't really possible. History is not a way to get at the reality of the past itself, that's a misunderstanding of what it is and does along with its relationship to sources.

I'm not questioning the existence of any person. I'm asking the question whether you can equate a mythical person with the real person, if he existed.

A lot of people don't even make the distinction, which I think is causing some confusion. Especially seeing as the myths include magic.

 

[autumnleaf]

I think the argument can be surmised pretty easily.


I think the difference is Adolf Hitler, is famous for what he did do.

Jesus is famous for what he didn't do.

Hitlers actions and deeds are based in reality.

Jesus' actions and deeds are based in fiction.

Unless Jesus' actions were also preaching Christianity and it's values which inspired the religion we know today. It doesn't all have to be about the myths and miracles. If the man Jesus had followers and preached his beliefs and it formed what so many people now follow then his actions are based in reality.

 

[off duty ninja]

Lol, what does this even mean? Because it sure makes it sound like you don't think science is much to bother with. It's LITERALLY the only thing giving us actual facts about anything.

It is not science giving us facts. It is the UNIVERSE giving us facts and science interpreting them. Science as an institution is always right! Until it's wrong...

 

[Cranster]

Santa Claus.

 

[Cocaloch]

I'm not questioning the existence of any person. I'm asking the question whether you can equate a mythical person with the real person, if he existed.

A lot of people don't even make the distinction, which I think is causing some confusion. Especially seeing as the myths include magic.

Making a sharp distinction is essentially impossible as I've argued for multiple times throughout this thread. You seem to be coming at this with an a priori understanding of Jesus as mythical and other figures as real. That's a problematic distinction. Essentially what you're taking issue with here is projecting later understandings of a person onto that person. It's a problem, but it isn't one exclusive to religious figures. I also don't think it's a problem with a solution.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Engelbert Humperdinck

 

[Wallach]

Louis C.K. had the right of it - what year is this?

Yeah, gonna go with Jesus.

 

[Sanke__]

Jackie Chan

 

[entremet]

You're all arguing the endemic instead of the pandemic. Middle Eastern history is not the totality of the world, if you didn't notice. There's vast swaths of world, who's experiences are shared and mutual, well beyond the current order of the world.



And you're willing to live with your preconceptions because you don't know, or accept better. There's words for each of those.

Edit: And if people are willing to say Jesus, I'lll say Bodhi Dharma

I'm just saying that being able to see outside your culture is very hard, hence the responses. People should not be surprised.

 

[Lister]

It is not science giving us facts. It is the UNIVERSE giving us facts and science interpreting them. Science as an institution is always right! Until it's wrong...

Kind of hate people trying to attack science in this ridiculous, ignorant way. I mean the shame your science teacher must be feeling right now. It's like you never got past a grade school level. Nah, even grade school kids know better than this.

I'll take "right" (this is not the position of science) until proven wrong, above right, no matter what evidence shows it to be wrong, any day of the week, thank you very much.

 

[HelloMeow]

Making a sharp distinction is essentially impossible as I've argued for multiple times throughout this thread. You seem to be coming at this with an a priori understanding of Jesus as mythical and other figures as real. That's a problematic distinction. Essentially what you're taking issue with here is projecting later understandings of a person onto that person. It's a problem, but it isn't one exclusive to religious figures. I also don't think it's a problem with a solution.

That's not where I'm coming from. I think that in some cases making a distinction is possible and necessary. For example, when talking about certain religious figures you can at least draw the line for anything related to the supernatural.

 

[Lister]

For the most part I agree with you. The only issue I see is painting the entire bible as some magic spell book. The majority of the New Testament is people talking about loving everyone equally and being charitable. And a good portion of the Old Testament is laws and a straight oral history of the Jews.

I'm going to have to take issue with the "Majority" of any major part of the bible being about loving everyone equally and being charitable. That stuff is definitely there, thank goodness, probably due to some Zoroastrianism sneaking in, and some progressive thinking from some Jews too (people think that Jewish religious teachings were based statically on the old testament, but in fact they had evovled a lot since then too. Jesus wasn't special in his being an itinerant preacher who got in trouble, but he also wasn't special in some fo the things he -possibly- taught), but I'm going to need to see receipts to agree to anything resembling a majority of the work dealing with this.

Could be wrong though, it's been a loooong while since I read it.

 

[Liquid-San]

All Time: Jesus Christ
Currently, (and living): Kim Kardashian

 

[Cocaloch]

That's not where I'm coming from. I think that in some cases making a distinction is possible and necessary. For example, when talking about certain religious figures you can at least draw the line for anything related to the supernatural.

You don't do that for the figure though, you do it for the historical actions and specific stories. What you are doing is essentializing those to the figure. I think its fair enough, though actually a layman's move, to say that multiplying fish and bread is impossible, and thus that story is a mythical. I don't think its fair to extrapolate from that to making Jesus himself mythical.

 

[off duty ninja]

Kind of hate people trying to attack science in this ridiculous way, ignorant way. I mean the shame your Science Teacher must be feelign right now. It's like you never got past a grade school level. Nah, even grade school kids no better than this.

I'll take "right" (this is not the position of science) until proven wrong, above right, no matter what evidence shows it to be wrong any day of the week, thank you very much.

I am not attacking science at all. I am attacking the assertion that it is science that gives us facts. Please explain to me what is "ignorant" and "ridiculous" about that?

I doubt my science teacher is as upset as your English teacher.

 

[Lister]

I am not attacking science at all. I am attacking the assertion that it is science that gives us facts. Please explain to me what is "ignorant" and "ridiculous" about that?

I doubt my science teacher is as upset as your English teacher.

I think the failure here is you not getting your point accross as clearly as you thought, and not me misintrepreting anything.

 

[Cocaloch]

I think the failure here is you not getting your point accross as clearly as you thought, and not me misintrepreting anything.

What he said was pretty clear whereas I can't parse your second paragraph in the post he was quoting.

 

[Lister]

What he said was pretty clear.

I agree:

"Science as an institution is always right! Until it's wrong..."

 

[HelloMeow]

You don't do that for the figure though, you do it for the historical actions and specific stories. What you are doing is essentializing those to the figure. I think its fair enough, though actually a layman's move, to say that multiplying fish and bread is impossible, and thus that story is a mythical. I don't think its fair to extrapolate from that to making Jesus himself mythical.

I'm not trying to extrapolate, I'm trying to separate the two.

 

[Trojita]

Kind of hate people trying to attack science in this ridiculous, ignorant way. I mean the shame your science teacher must be feeling right now. It's like you never got past a grade school level. Nah, even grade school kids know better than this.

I'll take "right" (this is not the position of science) until proven wrong, above right, no matter what evidence shows it to be wrong, any day of the week, thank you very much.

Your assertions in this thread aren't coherent.

 

[Tyaren]

Currently, (and living): Kim Kardashian

Lol, ask my parents, my grandparents or my younger cousins about her and they'll be like:

Same goes for her husband, who was also mentiond in here before. The world is a bit bigger than just the US or the Anglosphere.

 

[GameAddict411]

So many Muslims out there and they obviously know Muhammad. If they read the Quran they know about Jesus and Mary too.


What are you objecting to?

There are more Christian than Muslims in the world. I don't get your logic of how Muslims being taught about Jesus is what makes Jesus more known? Weird.

 

[Lister]

Your assertions in this thread aren't coherent.

Well, that's one I have to apologize for, what's your excuse for the vast majority you're involved in?

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Kind of hate people trying to attack science in this ridiculous, ignorant way. I mean the shame your science teacher must be feeling right now. It's like you never got past a grade school level. Nah, even grade school kids know better than this.

I'll take "right" (this is not the position of science) until proven wrong, above right, no matter what evidence shows it to be wrong, any day of the week, thank you very much.

No one is attacking science. We are attacking an adherence to science that places scientific interpretation above all else, despite the fact most scholars, historians, and archaeologists posit the claim that Jesus existed. As it is, you don't value science from what you're telling us. You value science confirming your worldview.

Science is just one element that explains our universe.

 

[Lister]

No one is attacking science. We are attacking an adherence to science that places scientific interpretation above all else, despite the fact most scholars, historians, and archaeologists posit the claim that Jesus existed. As it is, you don't value science from what you're telling us. You value science confirming your worldview.

Science is just one element that explains our universe.

What the hell do you think Archeology is if not science? And I'm not sure what you're driving at, as I've stated numerous times that I agree with historicity for Jesus.

And science is our BEST tool for understanding our universe. Religion is useful if we absolutely, positively need to know how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Otherwise, it's pretty useless.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Jesus for all time

Donald Trump is currently the world's most famous person. Not some soccer player. You would be hard pressed to find someone in the world today who doesn't know who Donald Trump is.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

What the hell do you think Archeologyis if not science?

You're right, it is a science.

And they posit Jesus existed, as seen earlier in this thread.

You say you value science but don't take the words of your scientists seriously.

That is because you have an agenda.

 

[Lister]

Jesus for all time

Donald Trump is currently the world's most famous person. Not some soccer player. You would be hard pressed to find someone in the world today who doesn't know who Donald Trump is.

Actually I'd wager someone like Ronaldo is better known than Trump world wide.... wlel, actually not sure, how much is China into soccer?