Italian Court will Decide of Jesus Existed

If the Ivory Tower is the brain of the board, and the Transformers discussion is its heart, then General Discussions is the waste disposal pipe. Or kidney. Or something suitably pulpy and soft, like 4 week old bananas.

Moderators: Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide

Post Reply
Professor Smooth
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
:: Hobby Drifter
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Contact:

Italian Court will Decide of Jesus Existed

Post by Professor Smooth » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:35 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060105/od_ ... gion_court

Even as a pretty hardcore Athiest, I'm pretty sure that there's enough credible evidence that the man existed.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.

Bouncelot
Smart Mouthed Rodent
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Coventry, UK
Contact:

Post by Bouncelot » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:41 am

This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence. :roll:

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts: 9750
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:52 am

sounds enteratining.
Image

User avatar
Obfleur
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 3387
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:00 am
:: Swedish smorgasbord
Location: Inside the Goatse.

Post by Obfleur » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:13 am

Sounds like an episode of South Park.
Can't believe I'm still here.

User avatar
Legion
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts: 2739
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 am
Location: The road to nowhere

Post by Legion » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:22 am

Obfleur wrote:Sounds like an episode of South Park.


Think they'll be using the Chewbacca defense?

Professor Smooth
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
:: Hobby Drifter
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Contact:

Post by Professor Smooth » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:23 am

Legion wrote:
Obfleur wrote:Sounds like an episode of South Park.


Think they'll be using the Chewbacca defense?


I bloody hope so!
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.

User avatar
Impactor returns 2.0
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 6885
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
:: Starlord
Location: Your Mums

Post by Impactor returns 2.0 » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:37 am

Bouncelot wrote:This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence. :roll:


Actually - he might not of. and what evidence.

your eveidence is a book, written 400 years or somthing after his supposed birth. thats not evidence at all.

guess wht I just wrote a book, it says that 400 years ago, someone in my family was the ruler of the universe.

good enough for evidence? - no.
Image

Professor Smooth
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
:: Hobby Drifter
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Contact:

Post by Professor Smooth » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:04 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Bouncelot wrote:This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence. :roll:


Actually - he might not of. and what evidence.

your eveidence is a book, written 400 years or somthing after his supposed birth. thats not evidence at all.

guess wht I just wrote a book, it says that 400 years ago, someone in my family was the ruler of the universe.

good enough for evidence? - no.


As I understand it, there's quite a bit of credible evidence that says that Jesus existed. Legal records, etc. However, any evidence that he was the son of god and performed miracles...that's a bit hard to come by for some reason.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts: 9750
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:13 am

isn't this a Billy Connely movie?
Image

User avatar
Impactor returns 2.0
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 6885
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
:: Starlord
Location: Your Mums

Post by Impactor returns 2.0 » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:34 am

THeres legal records? Thats interesting as there is no written literature from the Romans, only the odd wall painting, and a bit of clay table.

Most of roman history was written later on - so im amazed to think any ine wrote down somthing about old Jesus at the time, if you consider thats the last thing the romans would have wanted, and as they were most likely the only ones capable of it in the area. its hard to belive anything survied when almost nothing survied from the Romans as a whole?
Image

User avatar
Legion
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts: 2739
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 am
Location: The road to nowhere

Post by Legion » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:26 pm

not meaning to stoke the fires or anything, but some comments on aparent 'historial' records... ;)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/j_myth.htm#h2_1

User avatar
Impactor returns 2.0
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 6885
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
:: Starlord
Location: Your Mums

Post by Impactor returns 2.0 » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:38 pm

I like that site I think it looks at both sides objectivily and draws some interesting conclusions.
Image

User avatar
Metal Vendetta
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 4950
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Lahndan, innit

Post by Metal Vendetta » Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:46 pm

Wow, I always assumed that Jesus was a historical figure, but that site doesn't offer much hope - it's actualy amazing how flimsy the evidence is. Some of it I remember from first-year RE, but the rest of it is quite overwhelming.

Wouldn't it be great if he never really existed at all and the whole thing was, as suggested, a literary invention? Would that make Christianity the world's greatest ever practical joke?

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts: 9750
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:48 pm

i think that remains George Bush.

"Jesus to decide if Italian Court exists"
Image

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts: 2155
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
:: Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:07 pm

Yeah, unsurprisingly lots of historical works have been doctored, mistranslated and pressed into service by interested parties.

Here's some of the fun stuff most branches of Christianity have decided was a bit too silly for them:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/public ... mesnew.htm

Best First wrote:isn't this a Billy Connely movie?


Indeed, and it's not that bad...

Bouncelot
Smart Mouthed Rodent
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Coventry, UK
Contact:

Post by Bouncelot » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:47 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Bouncelot wrote:This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence. :roll:


Actually - he might not of. and what evidence.

your eveidence is a book, written 400 years or somthing after his supposed birth. thats not evidence at all.


Last time I checked even the most sceptical scholars agreed that the majority of the New Testament was written in the first century - within living memory of Jesus. And there's a lot more evidence that the Bible we have to today is what was originally written down in the first century than for any other historical document of comparable age.

For the other side of the coin to the rather one-sided page that's previously been presented, have a look here

Yaya
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 3374
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 am
Location: Florida, USA

Post by Yaya » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:44 pm

Denyer wrote:Yeah, unsurprisingly lots of historical works have been doctored, mistranslated and pressed into service by interested parties.


The current Bible being one of them.

Hell, before our very eyes in our very lifetime the Bible is changing.

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts: 2155
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
:: Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:12 pm

I suspect I'd be more bothered if I thought the original texts weren't bunkum, but I do have particular dislike for the overt modernness of the NIV...

Bouncelot
Smart Mouthed Rodent
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Coventry, UK
Contact:

Post by Bouncelot » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:19 pm

Yaya wrote:
Denyer wrote:Yeah, unsurprisingly lots of historical works have been doctored, mistranslated and pressed into service by interested parties.


The current Bible being one of them.

Hell, before our very eyes in our very lifetime the Bible is changing.


Which "current Bible" are you referring to? The Bible is definitely not changing to any significant degree. There are a few, unimportant, passages in older translations which are now thought to be less likely to be authentic because of modern discoveries of older manuscripts. But such passages are very much the exception rather than the rule.

The only thing that is changing is that more translations are available than used to be the case. Certainly a translation using the archaic language of, for example, the King James Version is utterly pointless when you could have a translation into contemporary English. And though the NIV is the most common modern English translation, you have a wide variety of choices of translation depending on precisely which translation methodology you want to use, but they're all translations of precisely the same manuscripts.

User avatar
Metal Vendetta
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts: 4950
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Lahndan, innit

Post by Metal Vendetta » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:10 am

Bouncelot wrote:For the other side of the coin to the rather one-sided page that's previously been presented, have a look here

From that site:
In history there is little that is certain but there is also a level of scepticism that makes the task of the historian impossible. Furthermore, the thesis that Jesus never existed requires selective scepticism about which sources are reliable and how others are interpreted. In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did.

Which is more or less what I said above.

TBH though I find the arguments on this site unconcincing.
This tells us that the later passage about 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' certainly existed in Josephus in Origen's time because he uses the phrase 'called Christ' twice.

Yeah, obviously :eyebrow: Origen didn't, say, invent that phrase and use it twice?

I don't know, I don't really care if Jesus existed or not, (from the same site) it makes precisely as much difference to my life as if Hannibal was fictional. Who really cares? If you want to believe some guy who may or may not have existed was the Son of God and died for all our sins (which I still don't understand, how was he supposed to know in 33AD that I would cheat on my girlfriend in 1993?) then fine, go ahead. He may have been real, he may not. In the end, we're still left with a certain number of people who believe that Jesus was the saviour.

Whatever this court decides, everyone is going to believe exactly the same as before. I will continue to believe that it's all a load of fetid dingo's kidneys and everyone elese will carry on with their beliefs that [insert feel-good lie here]. Because nothing short of a time machine is really going to solve this one.

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts: 2155
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
:: Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:31 am

Bouncelot wrote:a translation using the archaic language of, for example, the King James Version is utterly pointless when you could have a translation into contemporary English


Disagree; I prefer Biblical stories with C17th cadences, in the same way I prefer Shakespeare to l33t or txtspk.

User avatar
Scraplet
Smart Mouthed Rodent
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Post by Scraplet » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:39 am

Metal Vendetta wrote: Because nothing short of a time machine is really going to solve this one.


Now, there's an episode of Dr Who they have to make :lol:

User avatar
The Last Autobot
Skull faced assassin
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Peru, South America
Contact:

so?

Post by The Last Autobot » Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:26 am

Metal Vendetta wrote: If you want to believe some guy who may or may not have existed was the Son of God and died for all our sins (which I still don't understand, how was he supposed to know in 33AD that I would cheat on my girlfriend in 1993?) then fine, go ahead. He may have been real, he may not. In the end, we're still left with a certain number of people who believe that Jesus was the saviour.



Well If he was really the son of God time doesnt really matters a bit

Whatever this court decides, everyone is going to believe exactly the same as before. I will continue to believe that it's all a load of fetid dingo's kidneys and everyone elese will carry on with their beliefs that [insert feel-good lie here]. Because nothing short of a time machine is really going to solve this one.


Right so. And the discussion will be endless. But either way if he existed and was/is God there will be plenty of "time" later to discuss in heaven/hell or wherever/whenever dimension we end/begin.

If he wasnt (if he existed or not) it really doesnt matter either because we will be poo and we wont discuss anything with anybody because we dont have a soul, there s nothing after and all is crap.

Bottom line nothing really matters, go and live your life as you want
Image

A dream come true. Transformers Perú is online!!!
Visit:
www.transformersperu.com

And my Transformers blog in: www.transformers-peru-tla.blogspot.com

Bouncelot
Smart Mouthed Rodent
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Coventry, UK
Contact:

Post by Bouncelot » Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:09 am

Denyer wrote:
Bouncelot wrote:a translation using the archaic language of, for example, the King James Version is utterly pointless when you could have a translation into contemporary English


Disagree; I prefer Biblical stories with C17th cadences, in the same way I prefer Shakespeare to l33t or txtspk.


That's a rather disingenuous comparison. You've just chosen three ways of writing that are difficult to understand if you're just familiar with modern English. Given the choice of reading something in Shakespearean English, l33t, or txtspk, I'd go for Shakespearean because it takes me less effort to understand it. If you added modern English, I'd go for modern English unless it was something originally written in Shakespearean. I can't see how any of that relates to which translation of the Bible to read. If I want to read the Bible, I want to get as close to what the original said as I can, not to read an archaic translation because I'm in love with archaic English.

Anyway, as a translation, the King James is severely lacking. It's difficult to understand because of the archaic English, and it's based on less accurate manuscripts than any modern translation. If you want to read the Bible, you're better off with a half-decent modern translation. And not all of them are stylistically like the NIV. There's a whole range from more formal King James-like ones to paraphrases into modern street English (and the New Testament was actually written in the 1st Century equivalent of street English).

I think the only reason for still using the King James in today's world is for its impact on subsequent English literature, it's certainly a rubbish tool for reading the Bible. After all, its authors wanted people to be able to understand the Bible easily, and today reading the Bible in King James language is completely defeating the purpose of why it was written.

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts: 2155
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
:: Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:46 pm

Bouncelot wrote:That's a rather disingenuous comparison.


"Stuff written with tone and rhythm in mind" and "stuff I think lacks dignity" then.

Bouncelot wrote:If I want to read the Bible, I want to get as close to what the original said as I can, not to read an archaic translation because I'm in love with archaic English.


Yeah, that's the core difference: I regard the Bible as an impressive piece of literature, which a bunch of people just happen to have killed, imprisoned and tortured each other over.

Bouncelot wrote: its impact on subsequent English literature


As you say, it's been the most widely available edition and continues to be the most quoted -- books, films, suicide notes.

Bouncelot wrote:the purpose of why it was written.


The social manipulation seems to proceed apace whichever rendering is selected.

Bouncelot wrote:It's difficult to understand because of the archaic English


Not for anyone with a reasonable grasp of literacy. Nor's Shakespeare, or the Canterbury Tales. Heck, eleven year olds can make sense of most of the Canterbury Tales if they read it out loud rather than trying to frame and translate it as dictionary-written modern English. I've got some good worksheets tucked away somewhere...

edit:

Were I religiously-minded, I'd probably go with Catholicism... ritual and tradition get a fair degree of emphasis rather than just symbolism.

Post Reply