1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Who are the best leaders

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Bast, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. Peng Qi

    Peng Qi Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,431
    Location:
    Irrelevant.
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html
    http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
    Extensively-cited Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
     
  2. LightSpectra

    LightSpectra me autem minui

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    5,518
    Location:
    Vendée
  3. meatwad4289

    meatwad4289 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    595
    About Holy Wars outside of Christianity/ n such, just googled it and a lot of stuff popped up.. but heres one of the links I took a quick gander at.
    http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm
    Pretty sure theres a fight for independence in Sri Lanka between Buddhist and Hindus.
    South Africa is burning "witches" by Animists.

    And im not a hundred percent sure, but during the Greco-Persian wars, didn't greeks ask "Oracles" if they should go to war, then returned the answer of their Oracles to the people to inspire their people through religion to fight a war?

    They don't goto war, to convert the non believers, but they use the religion to inspire their people to goto war.

    So you want non Gospel proof of his existence? Can you seriously prove he didn't exist? Can you prove Moses Didn't exist. Just because you don't agree with Religion doesn't mean you can say prominent figures of the religion didn't exist. Non Gospel Proof is difficult to come by, but Gospel Proof is still Proof, where as your "Jesus is a myth" doesn't have any proof. Most historians do believe he existed, may of not been son of god, but he did exist. most scholars that believe he was a myth have no background in history. Unless you can prove he did not exist then you can not claim he did'nt. Same with other religious figures of all faiths.



    First of all I said, that WE ARE NOT 100% sure JESUS existed, however the bible says he did, and many stories in the bible are factual. This is true, ask a historian ,they will tell you that the Bible is a giant book of History, yes there is religious "spin" on events, a volcano or meteorite would be God's vengence, but The Bible is a History book.
    Hitties were once believed to of only existed in the bible as fabrications, because no records existed, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey.
    Assyranian King Saragon, was believed not to exist until his palace was found, with events that were mentioned in the bible that involved him, also written on his walls.
    but hey.. if you want a link..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Introduction
    Sorry don't care enough to find something thats not wiki, but hey, Wiki has sources too.


    And the others have already given you links of his existance.












    Another Great Leader.... Hammurabi the law giver :)
     
  4. UnspokenRequest

    UnspokenRequest Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    328
    I'm not an expert of ancient history. I'm a graduate student of International modern history.
    During my undergraduate studies, I (of course) had a few courses on Ancient history.
    According to what little I know of it, this quote of wiki is pretty accurate:
    "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#_note-0

    Oh and these are a few of those scholars who think the guy existed. I've heard of a few of these names. From what I know, they are serious scholars.
    ^ Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#_note-agree2

    You'll probably say wiki is bad source, but even a bad text can have very good and very useful endnotes...

    Of course, nothing will ever be for certain, but it is highly unlikely that so many people actually wrote, talked about and were inspired by somebody who never existed... (and if you read about it, you'll know that some of the sources mentionning are not much more than a few years or decade after Jesus supposedly died (contrary to what you said, it's not centuries))

    As I said, I don't believe Jesus was the son of god, but I think, that based on the best evidence we have, we can in all rationality affirm that it is very very likely that Jesus existed.
     
  5. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Yes. And the Byzantines are the ONLY european empire ever to use mercenaries extensively. Most of English,French, German, Spanish, Austrian, Slavic etc. history until 1500s was ' 90% peasants with pitchforks, 10% nobles in armour and riding horses' type of armies.

    Err no. Even the 100 years war was mostly by 'peasants with pitchforks' for both sides.
    Up until late 1400s/early 1500s, most of European warfare ( apart from Romans and Greeks in their golden age) was involving largely untrained armies of peasants.
    It was the end of Feudalism that brought professional armies back into Europe in Romanesque style.

    You are free to think what you want to think. But fact is, much of my schooling is European (as well as Indian) and i never missed a history, geography or sciences class.

    Ofcourse it is ! Tactics figure in a conversation about 'skilled armies', since combat skill isnt just who fires his arrows more accurately/shoots his semi-automatic more proficiently or hacks better with the sword.
    Battle tactics is one of THE major aspects of combat and an army with far less individual skill but far superior tactical acumen will own your army 9 times outta 10.
     
  6. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    What bunk!
    Jesus is fairly well established in historical context ( though you are free to question the 'deeds' or 'magic' attributed to him) and Buddha is one of the most established historical figure in mankind's history- Buddha is used as a historical anchor for most of ancient Indian, south-east asian AND Chinese histories, so well established is his existence in history.

    If you do study history through any academically recognised institutions- in the west or in the east- one thing becomes palpably clear- almost ALL mythologies and legends are based on some core truth. So in short, yes, the events of Illiad and Oddesey or Ramayana & Mahabharata have some grain of truth to it and not just completely cooked up- more like an original event that was modified repeatedly through time ( until it approached mythic proportions) due to the cultural significance of that original event.
     
  7. hoopsnerd

    hoopsnerd Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    565
    Location:
    Civ4
    Ah Wikipedia... thats not what i meant by "peer-reviewed" :). I'm not going to act like I've read every citation from your wikipedia links, but this wikipedia entry was obviously written by some bible thumpers.

    "The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and some similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology."

    That article is clearly biased. A source other than Wikipedia, please. I love how the author agrees that there seems to be "a lack of archeological evidence, failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, similiarities to other religions, and lack of eyewitness" but doesn't tell us why there is proof or even solid evidence, despite these accusations, that Jesus in fact existed. All he does is quote Michael Grant, who is a renowned historian but is known to have a soft spot for the gospels.

    I especially love that "got questions?" link by Penq Qi, was that one click off the roman catholic church web site? That CNN article was later found to be a dead end, btw... but thanks for the 5-yearold link. Don't you think that if that would have turned out to be proof of Jesus existing that it would have ended up someplace other than the CNN archives?

    Under the Tacitus wikipedia article... look directly under the quotation. It says the the entire thing is under dispute in the first place because it might have been added later by Christians. Isn't it also well known that Tacitus was incredibly difficult to translate? (gee, that'd be convenient for christians who added it later or accidentally mistranslated it) Look it up. You might even find your boy Michael Grant saying how hard it is to translate. We have to remember that Christianity pretty much wrote western history, and until the 19th century it was punishible by death to refute the existance of Jesus... and that all of these historical writings have been translated and transcribed countless times by Christian scholars... I'm not saying thats proof of nonexistence, I'm saying that's enough to call it into serious question.

    Of course I dont have proof that Jesus didn't exist, it's impossible to prove that somebody didn't exist. The burden of proof is on proving that he existed, not that he didn't. You can't prove that Herculus never existed, but that doesn't mean he did.
     
  8. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Please give us solid proof that your great-great grandfather existed.
    I am willing to bet any amount of money that unless your family is tied to the military or royalty 100-150 years ago, there is even less proof for his existence than the existence of Jesus.

    Your analysis is incorrect.
    Jesus's historicity is confirmed because of several independent commentary about Jesus- from early Christians to Muslims ( and nobody in their right mind would suggest that Christians or Muslims had some sort of 'secret pact' over Jesus propaganda) to even Buddhist writings. All of them agree on a 1900-2100 years ago time-frame, which is fairly accurate for ancient history.

    What you can credibly question however, is just how much of 'jesus story' is true and how much of his 'acts & viewpoints' are borrowed from older mythologies.
    For example, there exists definitive parallels between Jesus's acts & Buddha's acts- too similar to be 'mere coincidence' and Buddhist texts were written down formally atleast 200-250 years before Christ.

    Doesn't mean he didn't either.
    Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I believe you will find that comment made by a master logician far more intellectually capable than you or me.
    You are trying to apply an absolutist materialist proof-theorem methodology in a field where it does not belong. Its just that simple. You cannot use same concept of 'what is proof' in Physics and History- it is simply a different field and empirical objectivity, in scientific terms, can only be applied to phenomena that CAN be readily observed and verified. This fundamentally rules out its application to historical analysis, since history is a one time unique phenomena in the past, not a continuous, ongoing universalism that can be tried and tested today- unless ofcourse, you happened to invent the time machine.
    In short, you are comparing apples and oranges.
     
  9. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    This is nothing more than your perspective, which is nothing more than a supposition and of faulty analysis. FYI, you do not have to be a bible thumper to accept the existence of Jesus or Mohammed. I am not a Christian, neither am I a muslim and i'd consider it a great suffering if my kids were ever subjected to 'creationism' nonsense of Christianity/Islam. At the same time, i have no problems with Jesus's existence historically and challenging it is rather dumb, IMO.
     
  10. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    It has nothing to do with religion however. The hindus in SL are a different 'ethnic' group, speak different language, listen to different music, eat different food than the Sinhala people.
    In the last 20+ years of civil war in Sri Lanka, there has hardly been any case of strikes against Buddhist or Hindu monks/priests. This is a fight between government and an ethnic group. Pure and simple, not motivated by religion.


    Absolute falsehood. There are several Christian Popes and Protestant Bishops of powerful churches, on record i might add, during the Crusader period and colonial period, who categorically asked their people to go to war and convert the 'infidels'.
    Take Al-Qaeda today, juxtapose 'christ' with 'mohammed' and 'bible' with 'koran' and punt them back 800-1000 yrs back in history and you get the Knight Templars.

    This is ridiculous at so many different levels.

    Which story in the bible is factual ? You will find that *some* stories in the bible are based on factual happenings- which is a far cry from 'being factual'.
    To give an example, the movie 'The 300' is a fictional story based on a factual story. It is far from being a factual story, however.
     
  11. Arlborn

    Arlborn Legendary Noob

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,939
    Just drop it people. Some people love to search for a discussion point.

    PS: The funny thing is, if you did actually read some of those wiki articles, you would see they mostly have good sources..Ah well. And not everything they gave you was wiki, anyway.
    I'm out of here. You won't convince him even if all the historians in the world affirmed it. :crazyeye:
     
  12. Bastian-Bux

    Bastian-Bux King

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    795
    Its a common myth that those theological texts where written centuries after his death. Sorry guy, at the moment both of you are throwing "opinions" and worse unscientific propaganda at each other.

    hoopsnerd, just claiming that there are no sources, and in the same breath naming sources, but discrediting them using prejudices is cheap. You can do better.

    Now lets take your prejudices down, shall we?

    Flavius Josephus mentioned Jesus twice. Antiquitates Judaicae (Ant 20,200) and Testimonium Flavianum (Ant 18,63f). In one place he named him even as "the man named Christus", which gives reason for some historians to doubt the originality though, because a jew would probably not use that description. On the other hand: he writes "the man named Christus" which could also be interpreted as critique on the clamation of messiashood. Which would be proper jewish thought. This source was written around 94 AD, so 60 years after the claimed death of Jesus, the man named Christus.

    Another non-christian source is Tacitus. You remember that guy from your latin lessons, don't you? He wrote in his Annales (Buch XV,44[1]) at around 117 AD:

    Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

    Now again this source is questioned. Is it based on roman legal knowledge or christian mythology. Now, seeing how critical Tacitus writes about the christians, it seems very unlikely that hedidn't use any avaible doubt, doesn't it? So why would he base his description on a "fictious" cruzification of a "fictious" person, if he could just as eloquently add the insult that Jesus never existed? Wecan just assume that Tacitus himself was convinced that Jesus was a historical person, to be more precise a barbarian criminal executed by roman authority.

    There are several other non-christian sources, which are younger thoough, and of more questionable quality, so lets stop with that here.

    Now what about christian sources? You claim that all those theological texts (using theological as an argument to claim their worthlessness) are written hundreds of years after the fictionous cruzification.

    I'm sorry to inform you, that your informations are severly outdated. Yes, yes, historians and theologicans believed for some time that the gospels are rather young. But thats the good thing about scientific thought: its supposed to be anti-dogmatic (even if some "scientific religious" tend to take outdated "scientific truth" as ups, Gospel). ;)

    There are several other non-christian sources, which are younger thoough, and of more questionable quality, so lets stop with that here.

    Now what about christian sources? Paulus wrote his letters around 50 -64 AD. And yes, novadays there is little doubt that (almost?) all of the letters supposed to be from Paulus to be at least dictated by him.
    The 3 synoptic gospels have been written down according to recent research (often conducted by jewish-israeli and/or muslim-egyptian scientists) shortly after the destruction of the temple 70 AD.
    The Johns Gospel is a bit more tricky though. Scientific consensus is, that its younger then the three synoptic gospels. Its probably written down between 100 and 130 AD, with 100 AD being the more likely date.

    So mind you, the 5 major christian sources where all fixated in the 100 years following the cruzification.

    Unreliable?

    Well, if you call this unreliable, you should petition to Firaxis to get rid of that mythological person Alexander the Great. Why?

    The earliest sources about Alexander the Great where written 400 years after his death. And even worse, they where written by people which where majorly in favour of an heroified Alexander.

    Now might be just me, but I'd trust more in the words of Tacitus and Josephus writting about someone they clearly considered "detestable" just 60-80 years after his death. Then to trust in the glorificating words of Arrian and Plutarch about Alexander the great, written 400 years after his death.

    There is a lot of questions that arouse from the theological and secular texts about Jesus Nazarenus. But the question: "was there a real existing person named Jesus, which is in some way the base for this descriptions" is answered already by reliable scientists. Yes, that person did exist. Now the question about any miracles or divine heritage is a complete different one.
     
  13. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Err...nonsense.
    Earliest source of Alexander of Macedon that i've personally read is Megasthenes( original works of megasthenes, translated into English)- who lived in the same day and age of Alexander of Macedon, was a chronicler of Selucus, one of Alexander's prime generals and founder of Selucid Dynasty of Persia-middle east. He also wrote extensively about India and Chandragupta Maurya. Though Megasthenes's writings about Alexander was fragmental and not chronological in nature ( he was ambassador to the Mauryan empire's court from Selucus and as such, mentioned Alexander in passing but focussed mostly on subcontinental affairs from Greek perspective), it is highly informative and highly consistent with Plutarch's writings.
     
  14. Bastian-Bux

    Bastian-Bux King

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    795
    And highly fragmental and partly superstitious as well ;).

    Come on guy, Megasthenes as a source is nice and well, but it was you that started to discredit sources, just because they are theological texts. Its interessting to see that you jump like a hungry frog on any fragmentary and questionable piece of pergament to prove the existence of Alexander the great, but dismiss much more reliable (if equaly subjective) sources to disprove the existence of Jesus.

    Lets set it straight: you try to deny the mere existence of a person that is mentioned by a pletoria of more or less reliable sources. Thats unscientific.

    I'd agree with you if Jesus would have lived 100 years ago and we'd face the same quality of sources. But ancient history is different from modern history. For many ancient persons (including a big part of Civ 4's leaders) we are lucky to have one or two sources. Usually those sources are a) very biased b) highly gloryfying and c) the (poor) copy of a copy of a copy ...

    Actually the sources about the person of Jesus make it a lot easier to us: while most sources are biased and gloryfying, we do have critical sources as well. Plus the quality of the copies is extraordinarily high. Thats the funny thing about the judeo-christian literal tradition: those scribes seem to have taken great pain to avoid mistakes. Something that can't be said about scribes copying Plutarch, Arrian or Megasthenes.

    But I agree with Arlborn: to try to convince a religious fundamentalist (and for this purpose I include the "anti-theistic pseudo-scientific dogmatists" into this group) by such "nonsense" like mere scientific main stream is useless.

    Have fun Ahim, in a world where the world population is lower then 100.000. Because lets be honest: no person can truly exist, if not you yourself can be cited as eyewitness. Any other source is at least questionable, if not outright wrong. ;)
     
  15. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Those parts are usually not considered for most historical studies. Have you read the work yourself ? if not you are in no position to critique it. I have and i can't say it was anything but objective observation. Megasthenes was a diplomat. Not a playwright like Homer or Shakespeare. most of the stuff he mentioned are in terms of where he went, who did what, how it messes with taxes/trade/journey etc. blahblah.


    !
    'Cmon guy' right back atcha.
    Don't just blindly argue for the sake of arguing. Or mindlessly chatter for the sake of chattering- please READ the thread or atleast the last few pages to follow the discussion.

    I was pointing out an error in your statement - that first writings about Alexander are 400 yrs after his time- it is categorically false.
    But had you bothered READING this damn thread, you'd realize that i've argued in FAVOUR of Jesus's existence as a historical character, not against it as you attribute of me.
     
  16. Bastian-Bux

    Bastian-Bux King

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    795
    Sorry Ahim, thats what happens when you answer to a thread while simultaneously being considered "mount Papa" to be climbed by an overeager three year old. Some of the "get off my back" wasn't supposed to fly your way. ;)
     
  17. Peng Qi

    Peng Qi Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,431
    Location:
    Irrelevant.
    That's so incredibly false you have no idea how foolish you sound to an informed reader. Here, look:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
    England: About 6,000. 5/6 longbowmen, 1/6 dismounted men-at-arms.
    France: Between 20,000 and 30,000. Estimated to be 1/6 crossbowmen and archers, 1/2 dismounted men-at-arms, 1/3 mounted knights.
    Longbowmen cannot be untrained. It is too difficult to use a longbow for an untrained peasant. Dismounted men-at-arms usually had incredibly good equipment and, obviously, the term "man-at-arms" means professional soldier. It's possible that the French crossbowmen were peasants, but it is not possible that the 5/6ths of their force that was comprised of men-at-arms and mounted knights were untrained peasants. If you truly learned this in school, then you absolutely have the worst western military history education I have ever heard of.
    I set a record for highest grade ever on my African & Asian history final (99%) and have self-educated outside of school on a myriad of subjects.
    Tactics has nothing to do with whether your force is trained or untrained, however.
     
  18. hoopsnerd

    hoopsnerd Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    565
    Location:
    Civ4
    I still don't see any sources that aren't from Wikipedia. I know that nobody can prove Jesus existed or didn't exist, but the circumstantial evidence for it is not so strong. Noone calls into question the existence of Emperor Nero. Why? Because he was actually significant in his time. Jesus wasn't significant until long after his death, if he existed at all.

    Ahim sorry I accidentally said above that Buddha didn't exist, what I meant to say was "western mythological figures" and didn't intend to lump Gautama into the category of myths.

    I'll actually provide some links (but thats not to say they are proof of anything) that provide a different viewpoint, in case anyone is interested. These sources may in fact be biased (although no moreso than wikipedia) but are at least professionally written and published.

    The most controversial (and interesting) is:
    The New Chronology

    This book has many flaws, but the attack on contemperary chronology will leave you questioning whether of not the stuff you read in history books contains a grain of truth. Losses in transcription, translation, and bias over thousands of years can really add up, as one would imagine. It's really interesting to read... it's written by a mathematician. The chapters about the astrophysics of a lunar and solar eclipse both occuring around the time of Jesus not being mathematicly possible are especially interesting. Also, the chapters concerning the "history of history" up until the 18th century might interest some hardcore historians if not just for the sake of shooting it down.

    Here is another interesting one:
    The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?

    And another:
    Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians

    I would also encourage people to watch the documentary film "The God Who Wasn't There" for another viewpoint.

    There are countless publications on the topic, so many in fact that it's amazing to me that people can just sweep it under the mat as fact. I think we can see from our own experiences that history is not always true to what we were taught in grade school. Was I the only one taught how great Christopher Columbus was?
     
  19. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Weird co-incidence that this comes up now, I'm in the middle of reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins... great book, but not for the strongly religious
     
  20. UnspokenRequest

    UnspokenRequest Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    328
    @Hoopsnerd
    "the circumstantial evidence for it is not so strong."
    That is where you are wrong.
    The fact that so many people wrote about this guy (a guy who was not a political leader of any kind) in the years following his death is a strong indication that it is very very likely that the guy existed.
    Your hypothesis (that Jesus never existed) is very very very unlikely. How come so many people wrote about a guy and started preaching a religious philosophy based on the teachings of a guy who never existed?
    How plausible is that?

    Are you aware of the fact that most myths are VERY OFTEN based on something that actually happened.
    Come on! There are even plausible hypothesis claiming the mythological character of King Arthur is based on a war leader that actually existed.
    There are hypothesis claiming that the Iliad is based (of course, very very loosely) on an actual event.
    The Song of Roland is mythological rendering of an actual event.

    Ever heard of Oral history?
    The legendary and fantastic interpretation and rendition of actual events or people is a common feature of societies where the common folk don't know how to read. These oral tradition usually transmit some fictionalized information about real events and real people.
    Of course, we'll never know for sure the historicity of the Iliad or of Arthur, but the fact that more than a few serious historians and archaeologist consider these mythological features to have plausible roots in reality is quite telling when it comes to assessing the historicity of Jesus.
    Those hypothesis and informations are much less reliable than the ones claiming that an historical Jesus existed.
    Why? because Jesus's existence is based on many written sources compared to Arthur or the Iliad.

    The existence of Jesus is mentioned in SEVERAL written sources. True, they are often vague and contested sources. However, it is still much better than historians studying ORAL history.
    Written sources will usually (almost always) be more reliable than oral history or archeology.
    BTW, you can't discard the Gospels as historic sources simply because they are Christian sources and because they are posterior to the actual events they are portraying.
    That is not how Historians work. Discarding sources altogether needs a much more complete demonstration on why the sources are completely unreliable and on why no historical information of any kind can be extracted from them.

    - On wikipedia, I used the references, not the actual wikipedia text. Before claiming that it is unreliable, you have to verify the validity and the credibility of the references. If you don't, all you have to say is hot air.

    Notwithstanding the fact that the only thing anyone can be sure of is that "cogito ergo sum", I think the more rational position here is the one claiming that it is VERY VERY VERY likely that Jesus is based on a real person.
    What people say about him may be an invention, but claiming that the guy never existed in spite of all the references about him is very unlikely.

    Of course, we'll probably never be scientifically certain (again, how can we be certain of anything except cogito ergo sum), but that is how things are with the distant past (comparing the easily demonstrated existence of Nero, an emperor of Rome (the most powerful political leader of the Roman world), with the one of Jesus, (who would have been according to what we know a simple jewish carpenter and a minor spiritual leader during his life) is not a fair game. It's a just a very bad comparison).

    Sorry, but you sound like you have an atheist agenda here. I don't like religious zealots. I don't like religions in general, but I don't like atheist zealots either.
     

Share This Page