YAAIISTETT: Is it safe to eat this? 3000 year old cheese...

[Perknose]

But if he has some other magical evidence...hey, by all means, present it, guy.

I have a signed autograph from him. Got it off the internet. Some other dude tried to sell me a Topps baseball card of him. It was an obvious fake. Everyone knows the J-man batted left-handed.

My mom got a postcard from him once. She didn't save it. Who knew?

 

[yhelothar]

I got my Cheesus Christ, my grate lord ready for it.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I would not seek it out to enjoy it. But I would probably eat it on a dare.

 

[Perknose]

This probably should not be bugging me, but it is. What's the second A stand for in YAAIISTETT?

Beats me. All my "low levels of smartness" yield are the first two letters and the last.

 

[Jaepheth]

This probably should not be bugging me, but it is. What's the second A stand for in YAAIISTETT?

Only thing I could come up with:

Yet
Again,
Another
Is
It
Safe
To
Eat
This
Thread

And to answer: No, one should not digest anything found in Off Topic.

 

[CZroe]

It is? You should probably check that again.

Yes. It is. Society and written language and elected government and receipts and legal accounting existed. It wasn't pre-history.

"There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
IOW, the only people saying otherwise are crazy conspiracy theorists who aren't satisfied with simply rejecting Christianity's beliefs about him and have to take it laughably and implausibly farther.

Not sure what you and he are trying to say. It's like claiming that Nero didn't exist.

This. The fact that people accept what he said as 'everyone knows this' scholarly truth is greatly saddening.

Jesus's existence is nothing more than mythology that was historicized after-the-fact by 'Biblical scholars' (as in, the oxymoron kind, i.e. not secular) and then consequently widely accepted by those that came after, even when they claimed to be secular (i.e. not accepting the Bible as any kind of historical documentation).

I think there are two 'pagan' sources that MIGHT have mentioned Jesus (hard to say if they're even talking about the same person) and they've both been found to have a high likelihood of being falsified by early Christians, anyway.

But if he has some other magical evidence...hey, by all means, present it, guy.

P.S. if someone wants to point out that this has nothing to do with the thread...deal with it. If you link to sources that date something based upon its age in relation to Santa Claus, expect someone to point out the stupidity of that.

And yet you stand by while people are shamed into believing AGW as scholarly fact. In 2,000 years, your kind will be claiming that we primitives never went to the moon despite ample evidence. It is as implausible that he didn't exist as it is that he was supernatural. Have fun believing something equally "silly."

 

[BurnItDwn]

Only thing I could come up with:

Yet
Again,
Another
Is
It
Safe
To
Eat
This
Thread

And to answer: No, one should not digest anything found in Off Topic.

What if we sterilize our gullets both before and after with liquor?

 

[WilliamM2]

Yes. It is. Society and written language and elected government and receipts and legal accounting existed. It wasn't pre-history.

There isn't a single first person account of his existence. All accounts were written well after his death (if he even existed). From your own link:

There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[33] He is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.[33][34]

Three mentions that are not in christian fiction, and all well after his death. Sure he existed...


[/QUOTE]

 

[SKORPI0]

Yang Yiming, an associate professor with the University of Chinese Academy of Science shows the sample of the cheese dating back 3600 years.
The cheese was found among the funeral objects in an ancient tomb in Tarim Basin in northwest China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region.
It was identified as the oldest cheese found in the world. The scientific periodical “Nature” has published the news in its latest issue. [Photo/Chinanews.com]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/food/2014-03/12/content_17341817.htm

 

[phucheneh]

Ugh. Sorry, CZ, but the only thing you're proving is that Wikipedia is a terrible source.

I know this sounds smug and condescending and whatever else, but I'll still say it: the problem with the study of religion is that only idiots tend to study it. There is a severe lack of truly non-religious scholarly study that does what truly SHOULD be done: i.e. disregard all non-historical accounts, as in, the Bible. Rather than grasping at straws to try and correlate Biblical allegory, it needs to be studied like any other history.

And in that regard, there is NOTHING that proves the Jesus of biblical fame ever existed. The absolute BEST evidence we have is from Tacitus, who, IIRC, simply mentioned that a) the Christians were persecuted and b) a guy named Christus was executed. It's a little vague, even if you consider it to be fact.

But then you add in some of the complicating factors...like how Tacitus was born like 25 years after the supposed death of Christ. And that the oldest copy of his writing that has the mention of Christus and Pontius Pilate is from the 11th century. Oh, and I think it was in Tacitus's final writing from ~AD 100+. Basically, I am not an authority on the matter and therefore cannot declare it to be a spurious addition, but it damn sure raises doubts about its authenticity. Even if it is part of Tacitus's actual writings (again, not saying it isn't), the lack of any source other than hearsay is pretty damning; and Tacitus is known to have been in contact with Christians who would have been likely to pass along the story...if I recall right, part of his job in the Roman government was to supervise religious cults...

Basically, with ANY other supposed historical figure, we would probably have more factual proof of their existence. Then you add in the complicating factor- that this is not simply a historical figure, but one who exists so much more vividly in mythology.

Often times, we know LOTS about a historical figure. And on top of that, there are some anecdotes, tall tales, et al that are typically accepted as either totally untrue or maybe just hugely embellished off of something much more vague and less remarkable.

To take that and flip it on its head...lots and lots of storytime, with VERY little actual history, and a deafening silence from many sources where we might EXPECT to see a historical mention of the mythical figure...meh, no reasonable person should accept that as fact. Our society just has a favorable skew towards Christianity.

Would a couple mentions of Zues in secular Greek writings be enough to convince us that the Greek gods were, in fact, totally real?

[edited to elaborate Re: Tacitus]

 

[Perknose]

I know this sounds smug and condescending and whatever else, but I'll still say it: the problem with the study of religion is that only idiots tend to study it.

I'm not taking any stand on the existence of an historical Jesus, but I believe I've spotted a fatal initial flaw in your argument. :

Dismissing the strong consensus of learned Biblical scholars out of hand by calling them ALL idiots really does seem eerily similar to the stance of yahoo climate change deniers.

Would a couple mentions of Zues [sic] in secular Greek writings be enough to convince us that the Greek gods were, in fact, totally real?

You may have made a typo. Or, you may have spelled it that way because it sounds that way to you, but the God's name in Zeus.

 

[phucheneh]

Yeah, I probably wrote 'Zues' because of how we pronounce it. After all, we (Americans, at least) typically say 'day-us' for 'deus.'

And I didn't mean to condemn ALL Biblical scholars. More just pointing out that I just have a lot of trouble imagining a truly unbiased person of high intelligence being the norm in that area. A lot of those people are not seeking the truth; they're seeking to prove what they BELIEVE is the truth.

And, don't get me wrong- it goes both ways. Doubters are trying to prove/disprove their points, rather than try and seek the absolute truth. In my mind, the skew encompasses them all...I simply don't think anyone is all that smart if they devote their life to seeking the truth behind what seems both unprovable and irrelevant.

It's like I said, though- the problem is that there simply isn't much truth to be garnered. There is too much silence...and IMO, people who grew up on Christian tall tales are more likely to err on the side of believing, whereas I find it more makes more sense to err on the side of doubting. One should certainly not be more accepted than the other (Re: 'everyone accepts Jesus existed!').

Also, to further the analogy to Greek mythology...you know, there are people who specialize in the study of that, too. But they aren't trying to prove that any of it actually happened. For the most part...I am not well-versed in that area, and would not doubt that there are some allusions to actual events buried there...but would we go to the Greek myths as a primary source? No, we'd first confirm the event or person through actual concrete history, and then accept the myth for what it is...a lie. Maybe a lie that references a real event or person...but still a lie.

 

[CZroe]

There isn't a single first person account of his existence. All accounts were written well after his death (if he even existed). From your own link:



Three mentions that are not in christian fiction, and all well after his death. Sure he existed...

Sounds about right, actually. He only had a dozen men. He wasn't Ceasar. The vast majority of people alive in his day have no remaining first person accounts of their existence, but they certainly existed. If you or I were born there at that time there is very little chance that anyone today would be able to find even one reference, much less, three. This is especially true if the records you or I commissioned from our friends were excluded like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc as "first person accounts."

Ugh. Sorry, CZ, but the only thing you're proving is that Wikipedia is a terrible source.

That line was littered with sourced citations.

I know this sounds smug and condescending and whatever else, but I'll still say it: the problem with the study of religion is that only idiots tend to study it. There is a severe lack of truly non-religious scholarly study that does what truly SHOULD be done: i.e. disregard all non-historical accounts, as in, the Bible. Rather than grasping at straws to try and correlate Biblical allegory, it needs to be studied like any other history.

That's just it: the study of history supports it. Not the study of religion. The biblical accounts weren't afraid to name names from King Herod at the beginning to Pontius Pilate at the end. It has been studied "like any other history." The only people who dispute it are those who propose the LESS likely scenario in the face of all the evidence, which indicates a ridiculous bias.

And in that regard, there is NOTHING that proves the Jesus of biblical fame ever existed. The absolute BEST evidence we have is from Tacitus, who, IIRC, simply mentioned that a) the Christians were persecuted and b) a guy named Christus was executed. It's a little vague, even if you consider it to be fact.

Once again, lack of irrefutable proof does not mean he doesn't exist. We lack proof that the vast majority of people in history existed, but they existed, non the less. If you discount multiple first hand accounts because they come from the source you are trying to independently prove then there are going to be a lot more people in history who you can't prove existed. That does not mean we conclude they didn't exist. It simply means we have to consider all the evidence and determine the likelihood that they existed. Jesus' existence is so likely based on the confluence of details and the unlikelihood of faking it that we can reasonably conclude that he existed.

But then you add in some of the complicating factors...like how Tacitus was born like 25 years after the supposed death of Christ. And that the oldest copy of his writing that has the mention of Christus and Pontius Pilate is from the 11th century. Oh, and I think it was in Tacitus's final writing from ~AD 100+. Basically, I am not an authority on the matter and therefore cannot declare it to be a spurious addition, but it damn sure raises doubts about its authenticity. Even if it is part of Tacitus's actual writings (again, not saying it isn't), the lack of any source other than hearsay is pretty damning; and Tacitus is known to have been in contact with Christians who would have been likely to pass along the story...if I recall right, part of his job in the Roman government was to supervise religious cults...

Basically, with ANY other supposed historical figure, we would probably have more factual proof of their existence. Then you add in the complicating factor- that this is not simply a historical figure, but one who exists so much more vividly in mythology.

A carefully preserved mythology inexorably documenting many other externally proven events every bit as vividly.

Often times, we know LOTS about a historical figure. And on top of that, there are some anecdotes, tall tales, et al that are typically accepted as either totally untrue or maybe just hugely embellished off of something much more vague and less remarkable.

And this is exactly what I am talking about. In an over-zealous effort to dismiss those tales, we get people who take it so far that it is as ridiculous as the tales they are trying to dismiss. It's far easier to start a cult with a con man than to make him up entirely within historically verifiable context. Ask L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith or another cult leader. Saying Jesus didn't exist because you don't believe the rest of it is a lot like saying that those guys don't exist because you don't believe in Scientology or The Book of Mormon.

To take that and flip it on its head...lots and lots of storytime, with VERY little actual history, and a deafening silence from many sources where we might EXPECT to see a historical mention of the mythical figure...meh, no reasonable person should accept that as fact. Our society just has a favorable skew towards Christianity.

I never got the impression that he was as big of a figure within his lifetime as after. He was relatively unknown with few followers until the end. "VERY little actual history" is not true. Names, locations, timelines, events, etc add up. Herod really did send them all to Bethlehem. Pontius Pilot really did crucify people right where they say it happened. They really would have to change the charges and accusations exactly as written to get him apply Roman law to him. All of the locations mentioned existed at the time they were supposed to exist in the way they were described existing (seas, tribes, temples, cities, etc). History supports every bit of the setting, even if he was just some magician or

Would a couple mentions of Zues in secular Greek writings be enough to convince us that the Greek gods were, in fact, totally real?

[edited to elaborate Re: Tacitus]

That is not an equivalent comparison. Even according to the mythology, Zeus was not waking among people, witnessed, and recorded along with many other verifiable people and events. He lacks that in the myth and the independent record.

 

[phucheneh]

I respect your opinion and will just agree to disagree. I really do think that we generally have the same beliefs and could agree on a lot of points, but in the end we just reach different conclusions that neither of us can prove. And you see the burden of proof lying on those who claim he was unlikely to ever have existed, whereas I see the opposite.

The non-Biblical accounts just do not convince me. They rely on methods that I find flawed- like the belief that if something is critical of Christianity and/or was written by a non-Christian, it is therefore, somehow, automatically true.

Or the idea that 'naming names' lends historical credence...if I was gonna make something up, and say that it happened in a certain year, why would I not involve people and places that are already known to be real? It makes much more sense to say that somebody met, I dunno, Herbert Hoover in Washington D.C., as opposed John McMadeupname in Schwakeydakeylakeyfakistan.

Anyway, same point, basically: No one can prove the existence of Jesus either way. And I just find it absurd that people can consider it to be scholarly fact by using Ancient Aliens logic...e.g. 'Ancient Astronauts visited 'x' society and influenced them. My proof? Well, you can't prove that they didn't, can you?!'