502 replies to this topic

[Alakhriveion]

Alak, I get all my stuff from Wikipedia as well.

Yeah, I noticed you copy-and-pasted some stuff

The Pilate story is from Wikipedia, the information about the debate of a historical Pilate is from Wikipedia, the information that Barrabus's name means Son of the Father...

Wikipedia can be wrong. (So can I, very, very occasionally, by the way, the "Son of the Father" thing is accurate). The Pilate thing has that "Citation needed" tag, and contradicts the paragraph right above it, which extensively quotes Josephus and Philo.

[Goose]

Trusting Wiki is like trusting that dude who sits at home staring at internet porn all day to get a job, just not happening. Wiki can be reliable in some situations, but it seriously looses its credibility as an academic and turstworthy source, as any person can state their opinon as fact, where as in academic articles, the same thing happens, just using bigger, more complicated and useless words, so in conclusion kids, DONT TRUST ANYTHING!!

[Korhend]

What records? All I've seen is him washing his hands. Meaning he wants nothing to do with it. They take him to Pilate, he sends them to Herod, who sends them back to Pilate, who removes himself. Sure, he had a dream, but he didn't DO anything about it.

Flavius Josephus.

Okay, now I can't remember where I got this from, but I have the idea in my head that Pilate had disputes with Rome-proper because instead of controlling the Jews, he let them go by their laws and was...you know....somewhat of a people person...as far as that can extend within the context. Now, that could be wrong, but I know I got it from SOMEWHERE.

Actually no, Pontius Pilate was eventually removed for being unnessecarily cruel and harsh in repressing Jewish custom, as has been cited earlier in this thread.

[Vazor]

I've got a personal theory that the only reason Pilate didn't initially want to crucify Jesus was because he didn't like that the Jews thought of it before him. He didn't like that it wasn't his idea. That's why he let them take down the body from the cross even though it was illegal; he wanted to piss off the Jews that thought of killing Christ before he did.

[TheAvengerLever]

But taking the body down wasn't illegal (as I explained earlier) If I were Pilate I really wouldn't care what the hell the Jews would do with the body.

[Korhend]

Now you haven't explained how taking the body down was illegal. If he didn't care, why would he list his post for allowing capital crimes to be commited under his watch?

[Alakhriveion]

Trusting Wiki is like trusting that dude who sits at home staring at internet porn all day to get a job, just not happening. Wiki can be reliable in some situations, but it seriously looses its credibility as an academic and turstworthy source, as any person can state their opinon as fact, where as in academic articles, the same thing happens, just using bigger, more complicated and useless words, so in conclusion kids, DONT TRUST ANYTHING!!

No, trust it when it CITES SOURCES. [Citation Needed] tags are a dead giveaway someone's lying, though, I mean for Christ's sake the Wikiscript for it is {{Fact}}. Honest people have no need of this, they cite their own sources, like real men.

But taking the body down wasn't illegal (as I explained earlier) If I were Pilate I really wouldn't care what the hell the Jews would do with the body.

But it was illegal. Crucefiction isn't just a nasty punishment because it hurts, it also humiliates the victim. Their body is left up to be scavenged and rot publicly. This may just seem nasty to us but First-Century Mediterranian culture was really hung-up about corpses. Remember in the Illiad, when Achilles drags the body of Hector around the walls of Troy so he'll be deformed in the afterlife? Same deal. While this religious issue wouldn't exist for the Jews, Kosher laws are very strict about getting a body in the ground within two days. So everybody WANT to take their corpses off but nobody's allowed to, because that defeats the point.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Indeed, why go to all that trouble building such a huge cross and crucifying them so high up? You can crucify someone on a wall or on a shorter cross. The idea of crucifixion was the same behind impaling heads on pikes at gates. It wasn't just punishment of criminals, it also served as a warning to others.

Now, I was thinking around and I couldn't for the life of me figure out why on Earth the early Church was so insistent on making the Trinitarian Doctrine universal.

Then I watched Terry Jones' Barbarians tonight.

Apparently, the Roman Empire in its later years used Christianity to prop up its authority. The Roman Emperor claimed to have been put in power by God, just like they had in the old days.

And the Catholic Church then, thanks to Constantine and Bishop Athanasius adopted the Trinitarian Doctrine. It fit in with the image of the Emperor as a divine authority, whereas the other non-Trinitarian view, one of which was Arianism (not to be confused with Aryanism) didn't.

Now, this is why I cannot believe the Bible is entirely true.

One of the most famous groups of Arians are the Vandals.

In particular, Geiseric. He was the one responsible for the Sack of Rome. All he did was steal things and it was in response to... well, his son. His son, apparently, can't remember his name, was married to the Empress.

At that time, Attilla the Hun was rampaging. Well, he died.

Unfortunately, not too long after, the Emperor was usurped and the former Empress re-married.

Geiseric wasn't too happy about that, so he went to Rome and kind of pillaged. The most damage he did was to a Temple roof and to a ship (one of his own. He overloaded it with statues and it sank).

Anyway, to cut a long story short, Vandals are associated with the destruction of property and as the bad guys. Yet, they were Christians, rarely did anything bad and they kinda outlasted the Roman Empire itself.

So, how come they were the ones being slandered?

The Roman Catholic Church. It was the one thing that remained from the Empire. All historical records from then one were more or less controlled and written by the Church. The Church helped to propagate the myth that of the Vandals as bad people, that wrecked and pillaged and so forth. Basically, they put their own propaganda spin on it.

Now, if they did that with the Vandals, who's to say they didn't put their own propaganda spin on the New Testament?

[TheAvengerLever]

Think about it this way...would you rather not believe, die and find out you were wrong? It's actually such a simple thing. All you have to do is believe in Jesus and God and invite him into your life...and then you can just live life however the hell you want to. What I try to understand is why that's such a hard concept for people to understand.

[31-Year-Old-From-Georgia]

All right, I know this is spam pretty much but I've been following this thread and just gotta say this.

Think about it this way...would you rather not believe, die and find out you were wrong? It's actually such a simple thing. All you have to do is believe in Jesus and God and invite him into your life...and then you can just live life however the hell you want to. What I try to understand is why that's such a hard concept for people to understand.

Cop-out!

Edited by 14-Year-Old, 16 June 2006 - 06:04 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Think about it this way...would you rather not believe, die and find out you were wrong? It's actually such a simple thing. All you have to do is believe in Jesus and God and invite him into your life...and then you can just live life however the hell you want to. What I try to understand is why that's such a hard concept for people to understand.

Urgh, because I hate it so much! I hate it when people say, wouldn't it be safer to invite Jesus and God into your life, as if it were the only alternative.

It's not.

Let's say you were to become a Christian and then suddenly you die. You then find out that God is actually a Muslim and doesn't think too highly of Christians. He condemns you to Hell for being a Christian. Suddenly, the "safe option" of being a Christian doesn't look so safe. And that's assuming God belongs to one of the potentially manmade religions and that he exists.

That's assuming that the Celtic pantheon or the Japanese pantheon or the Greek pantheon isn't real. Can you imagine if the Greek pantheon were real and the Greek Gods were angry with you for not worshipping them? Now they were all about wrath. Heck, quite a few of the Christian ideas were borrowed from the Greeks.

The argument also has nothing to do with whether the Bible is true or not.

[Korhend]

Think about it this way...would you rather not believe, die and find out you were wrong? It's actually such a simple thing. All you have to do is believe in Jesus and God and invite him into your life...and then you can just live life however the hell you want to. What I try to understand is why that's such a hard concept for people to understand.

Becuase I have much more faith in history. Those who do not put faith in history end up freezing to death at the gates of Moscow and I'd rather not do that.

[TheAvengerLever]

What is written in the Bible is written. What is written in historical documents is written. Both could be considered man made. But history is also set upon the idea of opinion. And through ideas of opinion history can be tweaked a little.

By the way, some of the books of the New Testament (and even the old testament) can be viewed as the author's opinions towards certain things.

EDIT: Oh wait, I missed some of the arguments, I'll edit this later after I catch up to what exactly is going on. Sorry.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 16 June 2006 - 07:17 PM.

[Korhend]

But history is also set upon the idea of opinion.

History is set upon the idea of objectivity, at least since the Pelloponesian war.

[TheAvengerLever]

In accordance to Josephus archeologically there have been some historical innacuracies within his works and therefore cannot be a good source to draw out fact. Josephus has a flair for the dramatic and purposely changed events in history.

[Korhend]

Josephus is still the most reliable source we have, and while it would be nice to have a perfect historical source, no such thing exists, so we must still rely on Josephus.

[TheAvengerLever]

Well, I'll give you that, but the facts you rely on are a bit faulty.

[Vazor]

The study of history really means studying multiple authors' histories (history being the term to describe a book about events passed). Each author has his own political, religous, what have you, prejudices, and every historian has his own agenda or purpose in writing his history (they don't write anything if what they believe has been adequetly explained), so no history is unbiased. Even that of Josephus. So the idea that history is objective is a little naive, as you know nothing about history than what others have written for you. Which, ironically, is the same accusation set forth by the Bible skeptics in this thread.

Long story short: no individual history is any more "objective" than any individual book of the Bible. Let it go.

[TheAvengerLever]

The books of the Bible can be counted as a study of history as well.

[Korhend]

Long story short: no individual history is any more "objective" than any individual book of the Bible. Let it go.

Josephus is not perfect, therefor he is equal....fair enough. In the same way 20 is equal to 1 in that there both not infinite. Also by "Not perfect means equal" logic, http://www.sprengmei...w/jesusishitler is equally fair.

The books of the Bible can be counted as a study of history as well.

No. No it can not.

[Alakhriveion]

Think about it this way...would you rather not believe, die and find out you were wrong? It's actually such a simple thing. All you have to do is believe in Jesus and God and invite him into your life...and then you can just live life however the hell you want to. What I try to understand is why that's such a hard concept for people to understand.

A morphine overdose is another comfortable way to stop living in the real world.

Incidentally, this remains THE crowning achievment of human literary endeavors:

Myth: Niether Jesus nor Hitler ever employed groups of goblins as assasins.
Fact: Jesus and Hitler BOTH employed groups of goblins as assasins.

[TheAvengerLever]

No. No it can not.

Back
Up
Your
Claim. Don't just sit there and say "No it doesn't" like you're some omnipotent know it all. If you dont think the Bible can't be studied as history then I don't know what world you live in.

By the by, that was the dumbest site I've ever been to. Joke or not, it was dumb and it doesn't add anything to this discussion.

A morphine overdose is another comfortable way to stop living in the real world.

...huh!?

[Alakhriveion]

...huh!?

Hypotheticals like "What if you die and it turns out you were wrong" show why belief will make you more comfortable, but don't speak as to the TRUTH. Likewise, opiates make you feel good (darn good) but they don't actually make your life better.

Back
Up
Your
Claim. Don't just sit there and say "No it doesn't" like you're some omnipotent know it all. If you dont think the Bible can't be studied as history then I don't know what world you live in.

The Bible makes ridiculous claims on just about every page. You're going to tell me a book written by someone who think creation took a week is going to be a reliable source of history?

[Korhend]

Back
Up
Your
Claim. Don't just sit there and say "No it doesn't" like you're some omnipotent know it all.

All right, which book can't be studied as history? Do you believe Japan was completely uninhabited before Emperor Jimmu? Do you believe a magical typhoon appeared and swept away the mongol hoardes? Do you believe that Native Americans are one of the tribes of Israel? All of these are the beliefs of equally valid faiths, and all of the are equally invalid historical beliefs. If the Bible is a study of history, so is the Book of Mormon.

If you dont think the Bible can't be studied as history then I don't know what world you live in.
By the by, that was the dumbest site I've ever been to. Joke or not, it was dumb and it doesn't add anything to this discussion.

Vazor's claim is that by being imperfect Josephus is exactly equal to the bible in objectivity and historical validity. The Bible, Josephus, and Jesus Is Hitler are all imperfectly objective and therefor according to Vazorlogic ™ are
"no individual history is any more "objective" than any individual book of the (Jesus is Hitler). Let it go."

[TheAvengerLever]

Hypotheticals like "What if you die and it turns out you were wrong" show why belief will make you more comfortable, but don't speak as to the TRUTH. Likewise, opiates make you feel good (darn good) but they don't actually make your life better.

No one knows the truth.

The Bible makes ridiculous claims on just about every page. You're going to tell me a book written by someone who think creation took a week is going to be a reliable source of history?

The Bible is filled with symbols and such. To interpret it as seven actual days is one thing, but you can also believe that seven days to be longer periods of time. Just as in Revelation. But thats only some of the Bible. You cant interpret the miracles Jesus performed in one way or the other. Oh, and have you ever read the 1 and 2 Samuel? 1 and 2 Kings? 1 and 2 Chronicles? Daniel? Great examples of how we can take history from the Bible...

...also the 1 and 2 Maccabees

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 16 June 2006 - 10:35 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

No one knows the truth.

Cop-out!

The Bible is filled with symbols and such. To interpret it as seven actual days is one thing, but you can also believe that seven days to be longer periods of time. Just as in Revelation. But thats only some of the Bible. You can interpret the miracles Jesus performed in one way or the other.

And how are we to know when the Bible is literal and when its figurative?

Oh, and have you ever read the 1 and 2 Samuel? 1 and 2 Kings? 1 and 2 Chronicles? Daniel? Great examples of how we can take history from the Bible...

...also the 1 and 2 Maccabees

But those are all horribly innacurate nationalist propaganda pieces.

[TheAvengerLever]

Cop-out!

Riiiiight...do you know the truth? If so, tell me. You dont? Oh ok, I just assumed...

And how are we to know when the Bible is literal and when its figurative?But those are all horribly innacurate nationalist propaganda pieces.

Prove it.

And about that question of yours...You'll know. If you read creation you'll just know that there is something going on there that may not be what it seems, same with the Book of Revelation. Same with the prophetic visions...YOU interpret it how YOU wanna interpret it.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 16 June 2006 - 10:41 PM.

[Korhend]

Oh, and have you ever read the 1 and 2 Samuel? 1 and 2 Kings? 1 and 2 Chronicles? Daniel? Great examples of how we can take history from the Bible...

...also the 1 and 2 Maccabees

Right, it discusses history, it is historyish but it is not history. Not any more then any other religious belief. It can be studied to learn something of history, but not because it is a study of history. I suppose you believe Rome was founded by two men raised by a wolf, right?

YOU interpret it how YOU wanna interpret it.

So for example, if I wanted to interperet them moving the body and it rising from the dead, as the body rotted on the cross for a few years until it was knocked over in a storm, that would be kosher correct?

Edited by Korhend, 16 June 2006 - 10:44 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

Riiiiight...do you know the truth? If so, tell me.

I've been TRYING...

You dont? Oh ok, I just assumed...

No, I do. See, I believe in an objective reality. If you have an argument as to why I shouldn't, shoot, but I've heard a few.

Prove it.

You're the one claiming the Bible can be used for history, which isn't by any means a given. Is there any other record of a Hebrew Empire?

[TheAvengerLever]

So for example, if I wanted to interperet them moving the body and it rising from the dead, as the body rotted on the cross for a few years until it was knocked over in a storm, that would be kosher correct?

I have the feeling that you are lost. You see, you can interpret it that way, but you can't back that up biblically, now can you? I JUST said that you can interpet only some things in the Bible, some more obvious things. But saying what you just said is stupid.

It can be studied to learn something of history

Exactly.

I suppose you believe Rome was founded by two men raised by a wolf, right?

No, did I ever say I did? I don't think so.

I've been TRYING...

You've been explaining to me what you believe is truth. Not truth itself. Which, no one knows.

No, I do. See, I believe in an objective reality. If you have an argument as to why I shouldn't, shoot, but I've heard a few.

You have the freedom to believe what you want to believe. No one can ever take that away from you, but you can change it.

You're the one claiming the Bible can be used for history, which isn't by any means a given. Is there any other record of a Hebrew Empire?

What is recorded in the Bible is accepted today as history. It's in text books, internet, etc.