Nice, thanks for sharing!
The Origins of X-Mas
-
Falk, Emugod, you are assuming three things,
-
We have all the records from 2000 years ago
-
The non-biblical records from 2000 years ago are accurate
-
The records from 2000 years ago were inclusive
-
-
Are yo ureferring to the New Testament when yo usay Bible because what Christians call the Old Testament does not go to Roman times. Josephus is the historian of the time, the only one for all information regarding that time period. The procurator mentioned in Josephus’ books does correspond to history. I belive it was Florus during 60 C.E.
yes, i refer to the NT.
Why is Josephus the historian of the time, the only one for all information?…. Because he is a Jew like you or are there other reasons (like he is the only one you know)?
And what you said afterwards possibly is what i menat:
Quirinius was not ruling in the province syria at the time the NT proposes. -
… to be deleted…
-
Falk, Emugod, you are assuming three things,
-
We have all the records from 2000 years ago
-
The non-biblical records from 2000 years ago are accurate
-
The records from 2000 years ago were inclusive
Ahm… no.
I don’t think we have all records. But we have contradicting records.
The NT/biblical records were written 100 or more years after JC’s life, and they are biased, as they want to “sell” something. So, i trust the non-bliblical references a bit more than the biblical ones.
What do you mean by inclusive? -
-
WHat I am saying is that a jew and a couple of Romans writing down stories they heard are not neccessarily going to be accurate or include everything of note.
And yes, Josephus mentions Jesus.
-
And yes, Josephus mentions Jesus.
Seriously, i don’t know anymore what Jesus did, or if he even exist. I know what the christians said he did, but otherwise… About Josephus it’s not very clear, i’m pretty sure EmuGod would not agree. It’s rare we have non-christians calling Jesus the “messiah”.
-
@F_alk:
yes, i refer to the NT.
Why is Josephus the historian of the time, the only one for all information?…. Because he is a Jew like you or are there other reasons (like he is the only one you know)?
And what you said afterwards possibly is what i menat:
Quirinius was not ruling in the province syria at the time the NT proposes.Many Jews don’t particularly like Josephus because they say he was a traitor, which is a completely different story. But he is the only historian of the time that has been uncovered. Slightly later there are a few others like Dio Cassius but that’s at around 135 CE and later. Josephus was the only one at the time that is a primary source. He lived through the times which he wrote about. When reading him, it is important to beware of any imbelishment that he may have had to add in to sell his books to make money. There are times, though, where he will state facts that may seem like imbellishment but then claim they are not in order to keep the historical facts that he wants to convey the way they are and in order to show the reader what truly happened.
Where does Josephus mention Jesus, yourbuttocks? Qutoe it for me from Antiquities or the Jewish Wars (his two books). I guarantee you that Jesus does not appear once in any of his writings, which like I told F_alk are the only hisotircal documents from the time period itself. There are no others that historians know of. He specifically went out to write the history of the time because he knew it might be lost if he wouldn’t.
-
@F_alk:
Why is Josephus the historian of the time, the only one for all information?
… Josephus was the only one at the time that is a primary source…
That sounds so much better :)….
sorry for nitpicking, but that somehow is in my scientific blood :) -
@F_alk:
@F_alk:
Why is Josephus the historian of the time, the only one for all information?
… Josephus was the only one at the time that is a primary source…
That sounds so much better :)….
sorry for nitpicking, but that somehow is in my scientific blood :)Remember this, becareful when you accuse some people who follow religions that they only read works written by poeple of their religion. From what I’ve seen, you only read (or it could have been FinsterniS) non-religious sources, which is exaclty the same as reading only religious ones. You aren’t getting the whole picture. Remember that you have to read works written by almost everyone to truly get teh whole picture.
-
So if i have a question of ethic, mathematic, if i want information on how the moon affect the earth, i must not only look scientific data (non-religious), but also all religion to have a good look ? The day you reject a religion as being false, you dismiss a whole system of belief, i’m sure you don’t read what the finns believe about creation, and honestly, as i don’t believe in god, i won’t care about reading the jewish, christians, muslims point of view about something. Well yes for knowing more thing, but not if i am doing research or if a need information about a phenomena. I will care reading people i don’t agree with, like Kronecker in math and like Descartes in philosophy, because like you said you cannot only read people who agree with you, otherwise you’ll never learn. But i won’t listen if you say “god say we must do that” or “god create the earth like that”, because i don’t believe in god in the first place.
-
Edited:
@EmuGod:Remember this, becareful when you accuse some people who follow religions that they only read works written by poeple of their religion. From what I’ve seen, you only read (or it could have been FinsterniS) non-religious sources, which is exaclty the same as reading only religious ones. You aren’t getting the whole picture. Remember that you have to read works written by almost everyone to truly get teh whole picture.
Just a minute…
(1) reading scientific books, i don’t assume that i then can judge over the faith of others. This seems to be a difference between “not religious” and “religious” books. I have had a few looks into creationists books, and saw how they used flawed/misunderstood science to “prove” their points.
Science belongs to science, religion to religion. But, unfortunately, it seems that some religious people do not see it this way.
(2) You are right that you have to read a lot to “get the whole picture”, but: does that include to read things from every little (in terms of followers) religion, no matter how old it is? As well:
(3) wrt to the editing: There is a difference in reading “only from my religion” and reading “only religious” ones. You could say, that i read books only of my “religion”, which then would be science. But then, this religions has predicted so many wonders and things, and so many have come through, that i have to be sure that my “god” (nature?) is stronger than any other. My “god” has invented such a lot, lead to such a lot of understanding and explaining the world, and proven so many other beliefs wrong… Anyway, i don’t claim that my “religion” is flaw- and faultless.
Back to the point: In a discussion it surely is not good to read things that support your point of view anyway (which i didn’t, try to find my remarks about the bibles). If talking about science, it doesn’t help much how many religious books i have read, regardless of the faith. On the other hand: if talking about religions then that would be a major point.So, you accuse me of reading books of my “faith” only. Provably, i haven’t done that. It seems to me you do that in some kind of forward-defense, because i constantly push against you mentioning jewish sources most of the time (i won’t say “all of the time”, because it could be that something slipped my memory)…
plus i don’t like the way you use them at all. That always sounds so very much “i am right, and i was right before you, and my ancestors always knew, and we are better anyway”.
And i just don’t like it, when i feel that someone thinks of him better than of others! -
Fk and FS - i think you guys just wasted a lot of time and energy addressing a point that was not even made. I’ve even stated before that the bible is not a scientific text, and one should not use it for scientific purposes (even tho’ i believe it speaks of the “God of science”). Rather i believe EG’s point is that if you are looking at history one must consider it from more than one angle. To study the War of Independance/Revolutionary War from the American point of view, then the things you will learn is American bravery in the face of hardship, heroism in the face of overwhelming forces, etc. A British reading will demonstrate opportunism, luck, supply problems and inability to cope with guerilla tactics.
The same is with history. If we read it from an agnostic/atheist point of view only then we will get a completely different understanding of what the world was like relative to a Christian or Jewish point of view. Not to say one would be necessarily right - they all “push an agenda”.
Suggested Topics
