What is mankind’s craziest historical event?
- Thread starter BrunoMars420
- Start date
Decent timeline here:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html
Consensus by most scholars is all the Gospels were completed within 70-80 years after the resurrection. The Dead Sea Scrolls (which remnants are on display I think currently on traveling exhibit in Denver) have also been carbon dated to fit within this timeline.
70-80 years was at least 4-5 generations after the death of Jesus. Not to mention how many people at that time could actually write.
You are welcome. BTW, for anyone who is not familiar with Hardcore History, Dan does a great job of taking you into the setting, context and feel of history. What would that be like? The smell, the visuals and so forth. His description of the Sohm in WWI, and what it would have been like to be on a battlefield 1M people died over the years, where people rotted in the field, where you had to dive into fox holes to avoid shells, gas and bullets, only to find a 6 month old rotting corpse in there with you. Dying of thirst in water that is too polluted by rotting flesh and coated with a thick film of grease from the human fat to drink. The imagery he paints is vivid and in many ways more compelling and transformative than a movie. My understanding of WWI and how it is in many ways more impact-full on our current world alignment than WWII was mind altering. This is a great series.
To that end, Can speaks of the Mongols and how they would slaughter entire towns of 200,000. It was quick, they would give each soldier 7 people to kill. It took more time to pair up the soldiers with their victims than to actually kill them all. The killing ground would get so greasy from the rotting corpses that travelers would have to swing a mile around the spot or their horses would fall.
I highly recommend his podcast.
Has anyone mentioned Buster Douglas beating Tyson, yet?
The mongols are not on there, piss. I do concur on the WW1 pod as it is the best pod I have heard!
No, it wasn't.
The Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts. Saint Paul lived during Jesus's life and wrote much of the New Testament. He was also willing to die for his beliefs.
Oral history was strong at the time and scholars believe it is reliable.
The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
There are many other historical documents that you believe without as much historical evidence. You simply don't want to believe in the Gospels because you're a liberal atheist. That's fine, but don't make ignorant statements because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Oral history is like the telephone game I played as a child. Those always worked out well.
No, it's not.
Go tell a University historian that and let us know their response.
Not Free anyhow. Wrath of the Khans cost $9.99. It is something like 8 1/2 hours long.
Do you know what a generation is? The average life expectancy at the time? Oral history is only accurate at the first few people repeating the story. Far be it for a human to stretch the truth.
The oral history you speak of was already generated in the Old Testament. All his followers had to do is follow the outline, which is why Jesus was born in the Jewish world not in Japan, China, Africa or North America.
The story was there to be followed.
Do you simply ignore all the facts that I post?
Yes, yes you do.
Again, the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus and his life.
You are free to disbelieve them, but at least educate yourself on the topic at hand before you twist and duck and dodge things you haven't studied and don't understand.
TIA.
Eyewitness accounts that don’t match and were written decades later. That matters as does the fact that some of the disciples were in their early teens and possibly as young as 12.
Why wouldn’t there have been things written about Jesus right after the most important moment in human history?
the fact they were simply trying to fulfill a prophecy from the Old Testament also matters. It’s also the reason Jesus was born to a virgin in Bethlehem and not in Australia.
Why wouldn’t there have been things written about Jesus right after the most important moment in human history?
the fact they were simply trying to fulfill a prophecy from the Old Testament also matters. It’s also the reason Jesus was born to a virgin in Bethlehem and not in Australia.
The Gospels do match for the most part. As I've already stated, if the Gospels were exactly the same, they'd be more likely to be a fabrication.
I know you don't believe. You never will believe.
I encourage you to take a theology or Bible History course at a reputable University like Georgetown or Notre Dame.
All 4 talk about a Nazarene named Jesus. They "match" in random ways. Some also draw, if not directly quote, Old Testament scriptures.
None of them have the same account of the Crucifixion because NONE of the disciples were even there.
Only one refers to a virgin birth.
Luke borrows heavily from Matthew. Matthew borrows from Isaiah and Psalms.
The gospel of John was the only gospel written by a follower of Jesus. The other three writers were followers of Jesus's apostles, and likely never met Jesus for themselves.
Paul never mentions a virgin birth, or many other Gospel references and his letters are all before any wrottem gospel.
Why are religious people such shitty Theologians and/or Biblical scholars? It's not ALWAYS the case, of course. But, it's very common for me. My guess is because they take everyone else's word for everything they know. Their own personal experience never plays any role in it.
Biblical studies isn't very liberal. It shouldn't be asking too much that you actually learn something about the story you try to sell here daily and then stick to the facts.
I feel it's a desire for the story to be more spectacular and definitive than it really is.
Well, they do base their entire belief system on the "theatrical fantasy" part. In our present understanding of the world and reality, the idea that Jesus ascended into Heaven is impossible. That portrayal makes it more likely that he went into orbit. They had a 3-tiered Universe at that time.
Oh and Strum... I know you're commenting here and I just want you to know that you're on my ignore list and I'll never read your retarded posts.
Your cowardice is duly noted. I wouldn't want to get pwned by more angles than you already get pwned in these discussions. You calling me retarded is perfect.
You proved yourself lacking when you claimed the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. You did the work for me.
And this thread has gone exactly how I imagined. Like I said earlier, both sides can produce compelling arguments with the information we have available to us today. In the end, nobody is changing their mind. Carry on HROT.
Interestingly enough the Paul letters support the idea of a space based Jesus. He has the heavens located just below the moon.
