King Gilga
Member
Jesus, Hitler, and Buddha.
LOL! You think the council of Nicaea (and the other sometimes violent meetings between the early Cristian cults) was about removing the blatantly fake shit?
Don't kid yourself.
Who are you talking about? Ramesses II?
You're pretty clearly not an academic, so I don't understand what your horse in this race is other than just ironically sitting on your "ass making shit up".
That's not really accurate. There were many many splinter factions of the Jesus movement with their own traditions. Hence the 4 Gospels (many more were written) and the need for the council of Nicaea to codify the beliefs and remove the blatantly fake shit from the record.
The Bible is a collection of stories and letters from a variety of people. It wasn't written by one guy.
These dates are pretty wiggly and you could give or take a few years on all of them. But I'll take the L.. it probably wasn't 40 years. It was 15-30 at most.The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was probably written in 52 AD.
If Jesus died in 33 AD, then it would make that letter being written 19 years after Jesus' death. That would be more than half less than 40 years.
It's like people forget not everyone was able to write during those days and getting hold of something to write on and something to write with wasn't that easy. Also it was common back then to take time to write things down. Sometimes it just wasn't possible to write anything down. And tons of stone tablets and papyrus are destroyed and disappeared forever. It's quite lucky we have even this much of stuff collected in the Bible. I mean, people have found never before seen writings as late as last century.
It's easy for us to say today that the time between some ancient event and the text written about that event is oddly long. That's just how it was back in the day. There weren't people tweeting about things the second they happen.
I'd agree that's a simplistic reading of early church councils, but I have a feeling you aren't particularly aware of early church, and especially early ecclesiastical, history.
It isn't a science full stop. Social sciences are not sciences.
There's a lot wrong here. First of all it's been accepted for many decades now that there is no the scientific method. There are scientific methods. It's a descriptive not prescriptive term.
Secondly archaeology as a discipline is not experimentational, a core but not sufficient trait of the sciences.
Third of all I have a feeling you know little to nothing about philosophy, which both science and archaeology derive from. This isn't even an argument. You are just asserting philosophy is garbage without really giving a concrete reason, ironically while also praising science which gained and in its self-understanding, which I admit I think is incorrect, maintains legitimacy due to philosophy.
You're pretty clearly not an academic, so I don't understand what your horse in this race is other than just ironically sitting on your "ass making shit up".
He has an agenda. He's just anti-Christian to the point of anti-intellectualism.
Yeah, I'm the one with the agenda. Not you. Nope.
You're the one discrediting the majority of scholars and historians.
I think that a lot of people with some science background (say, a high school or undergraduate level background), but no real experience actually taking part in scientific research and publication, have an idealized impression of the scientific process.
Science aims to be objective, but humans are involved. Experimental design is often flawed, results are often talked up, and people with some stature in their fields are in a position to put down theories that go against their own pet ideas.
Theoretically, every experiment can be reproduced and independently verified, but in the modern age of heavily modelled, computer aided brute force number crunching, some of this stuff is really expensive. Who has the extra funding and time to do that? You won't get a splashy publication from verifying someone else's work. In most fields, you won't get published at all for doing that. Similarly, no one bothers to publish negative results in most fields (medicine probably being one of the exceptions, but I have little background in medical research).
Fair enough... What about Isaac Newton?
Besides being a condescending ass hat, what credentials do you posses exactly, that allows you to dictate who can or cannot participate in a discussion here on Gaf?
Are you a moderator?
I'd agree that's a simplistic reading of early church councils, but I have a feeling you aren't particularly aware of early church, and especially early ecclesiastical, history.
It isn't a science full stop. Social sciences are not sciences.
There's a lot wrong here. First of all it's been accepted for many decades now that there is no the scientific method. There are scientific methods. It's a descriptive not prescriptive term.
Secondly archaeology as a discipline is not experimentational, a core but not sufficient trait of the sciences.
Third of all I have a feeling you know little to nothing about philosophy, which both science and archaeology derive from. This isn't even an argument. You are just asserting philosophy is garbage without really giving a concrete reason, ironically while also praising science which gained and in its self-understanding, which I admit I think is incorrect, maintains legitimacy due to philosophy.
but it's not like it's some philosophy, were people sit on their ass making shit up.
Yeah, I'm the one with the agenda. Not you. Nope.
Yes, but who was the earliest of these sources? St. Paul, written decades after Jesus lived. And keep in mind that many of the other sources in the Bible are based on St. Paul's account.
Sometimes I get the impression that people think the Bible is a Roshomon-style collection of different eyewitness news accounts of Jesus's life... when they were all written in various eras long after his life, all from people who never directly met him.
To be clear, I think he probably lived as described. My point is that people tend to think of him as being more rooted in historical events than he is. He was an obscure figure and decades later was written about for the first time. You could assert he were a myth or forgery without it butting up against any hard historical record. Though, I don't.
These dates are pretty wiggly and you could give or take a few years on all of them. But I'll take the L.. it probably wasn't 40 years. It was 15-30 at most.
The point though is that it was decades, and was written by someone who wasn't there. Thats far enough removed that the story could be derived from a rumor or a legend. I don't think it was... but it's not at all impossible.
Even today you could write a book about some story you heard from someone else that took place 20 years ago and it needn't refer to the truth of a tale. Urban legends, conspiracy theories, etc.
If Jesus lived as described, I certainly wouldn't expect a better record of those days. He could be perfectly real, and this is the paper trail we get. I know that and I agree with it.
But things being as they are, there should be room for doubt. I'd extend the same amount of skeptical possibility to any figure who supposedly lived in the murkiness of early history and wasn't corroborated by multiple sources. As I said... Jesus isn't a Caesar, Mohammad or Churchill, who made waves in society that multiple contemporary sources attest to.
I'm sure in my time in the archives I've come across countless figures only mentioned once or twice.
It isn't..
Of course it is.I am not attacking science at all. I am attacking the assertion that it is science that gives us facts.
...Sociology and archeology are sciences.You jack off science. You think it is the only methodology for which explains our world. Philosophy, history, archaeology, sociology,
Wow. Really?I value science, but you jack off science. Just stating facts. I have some suggestions though: some lotion would go a long way.
lol... He literally said, in the post you quoted, that he believed in the historicity of Jesus. Your posts have been nothing but one embarrassment after another.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.
Which archives were these? And, no, Microsoft Encarta doesn't count.
Of course it is.
What else gives us facts?
Sociology and archeology are sciences.
There is some next level fedoraing going on here. I feel like it isn't even just a fedora anymore, there's a cloak and 18th century walking stick.
...Math is a science? It's the purest science. What are you even saying?Do you think 1 + 1 is a fact?
lol, if you say so.Neither of them are sciences. Social sciences aren't sciences, and people only really call them that when it suits them.
...Math is a science? It's the purest science. What are you even saying?
lol, if you say so.
Neither of them are sciences. Social sciences aren't sciences, and people only really call them that when it suits them.
You are making an assertion without making an argument to support it. Why are they categorically not sciences, despite being identified as a science, in the same way we might refer to the physical sciences or life sciences?
And The US President is far more well known than the queen of England come on man.
You are making an assertion without making an argument to support it. Why are they categorically not sciences, despite being identified as a science, in the same way we might refer to the physical sciences or life sciences?
Y'all on some weird semantics tangent. A discipline is science if it's practioners follow the scientific method, which is a well-defined process.
Lots of social science studies don't replicate.
But they're still produced through a scientific process.
The social sciences have kind of a weak track record, so you should be skeptical of any given result they produce, but some results *have* accrued enough evidence to accept.
Alternatively the assumption that they are sciences is an assertion without an argument. I'm not sure why you feel like you don't need to offer an argument either.
I mentioned earlier in the threat that a major, but not sufficient, trait of sciences is that they are experimental. That rules out certain social sciences, specifically cultural anthropology, history, and archaeology along with math from being sciences.
I could go further with this, but I think flipping the table here is more useful. What definition of science can you think of that manages to include the social sciences?
Also are they really identified as a science? As a social scientist myself I feel like we tend to be considered scientists when it suits some purpose and have our disciplines derided as not scientific whenever we don't which is the vast majority of the time. If you're just talking about the name being social science it's probably noteworthy that the "Queen of the Sciences" was Theology, and that calling these disciplines social sciences was a positivistic move.
Theoretically, every experiment can be reproduced and independently verified, but in the modern age of heavily modelled, computer aided brute force number crunching, some of this stuff is really expensive. Who has the extra funding and time to do that? You won't get a splashy publication from verifying someone else's work. In most fields, you won't get published at all for doing that. Similarly, no one bothers to publish negative results in most fields (medicine probably being one of the exceptions, but I have little background in medical research).
No they are not. What's wrong with people? This kind of shat got Trump elected. Jeez.
If I'd retorted, "Yes, they are!", you would have a point here, but I didn't. I was asking because I wanted to know why you thought that they weren't. I don't need to defend the opposite proposition just to ask you about your stated position.
And thanks for answering!
You said "certain"; so some social sciences you do think are sciences?
Are you familiar with Massimo Pigliucci? This conversation reminds me of a book I read of his called Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. There's a section called, appropriately enough, "Soft vs. Hard Science: The Proof Is in the Data," which you would probably find interesting (which starts on page 13). I found it interesting and persuasive as a layman, at any rate.
And as a historian, you might find an essay in Darnton's The Great Cat Massacre: And Other Episodes in French Cultural History called "Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: The Epistemological Strategy of the Encyclopédie" interesting, which is about the dethroning and subjugation (in a manner of speaking) of theology from its privileged position.
Probably Buddha given he is the Asian version of Jesus or vice versa. And more people life in that region then outside of it. Here in the West probably Jesus or some pop star.
To be honest I'm having a great time casually browsing through the discussion.Goddamn I didn't expect the thread to evolve into such a way.
Maybe someone should make a separate thread about "Is Jesus a real person" at this point, lol.
To be honest I'm having a great time casually browsing through the discussion.
That doesn't necessarily correlate to how well known they are, but "Asian version of Jesus" isn't even close to accurate. "Asian Jesus" is probably Muhammad, but Jesus is still a major figure in Islam, so . . .
Denis Dyack
Michael Jackson
I think that a lot of people with some science background (say, a high school or undergraduate level background), but no real experience actually taking part in scientific research and publication, have an idealized impression of the scientific process.
Science aims to be objective, but humans are involved. Experimental design is often flawed, results are often talked up, and people with some stature in their fields are in a position to put down theories that go against their own pet ideas.
.
Neither of them are sciences. Social sciences aren't sciences, and people only really call them that when it suits them.