Zeitgeist part I - "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (Christianity,et al)

[mudbuddha]

great video.. so great.
i love it

eye opening...

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know that a lot of "professional academians and historians" have their answers set, and will do anything to make sure that whatever they do fits to those answers.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good thing random internet sites and SMP posters would never do this. Good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you religious? What is your religion and what do you believe in.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
great video.. so great.
i love it

eye opening...

[/ QUOTE ]


Glad you liked it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

860K views currently. Would be great if this thing could really go supernova, and become as well-known as Loose Change.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know that a lot of "professional academians and historians" have their answers set, and will do anything to make sure that whatever they do fits to those answers.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good thing random internet sites and SMP posters would never do this. Good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you religious? What is your religion and what do you believe in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious: why are you asking this, and what does it have to do with anything regarding this thread?

My hunch is that you are trying to attack any biases that I may have in an attempt to discredit me. There has to be some sort of fancy latin name attached to this logical fallacy. I will explain to you why this tactic is stupid and doesn't make any sense.

You began this thread with the fairly outlandish claim that Jesus was entirely made up. This was supported by a random, biased internet site which, to my knowledge, no credible historian would cite as a source of information. I further countered the claims in the OP by naming a book authored by an academic who compiled a large quantity of data viewed to be factual by real, professional historians. No where in this book do ANY academicians seriously consider the claim that Jesus was entirely made up. Why? Because there is absolutely no data to support this from the perspective of a historian who is actually doing real research.

Do you see how no where in that argument do my personal biases or religion come into play? Do you see why it is pointless to try to ask what religion I happen to be? If you read the book I listed, you will clearly see that the historians who give their perspective in the book have no religious bias whatsoever.

If you are actually a historian and are doing first hand research on the subject, then I retract my claims. If so, please provide the first hand evidence you have gathered and provide any argumentation. If not, pardon me if I take the words of professional historians who are experts on Jesus over www.jesusneverexisted.com; you may also continue to not think for yourself and simply provide a random link as your reply if it suits your fancy.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I further countered the claims in the OP by naming a book authored by an academic who compiled a large quantity of data viewed to be factual by real, professional historians.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to pull you up here. The book was written by the same man who wrote Giving to God: The Bible's Good News about Living a Generous Life and Loving Jesus. He's hardly an impartial historian, and I'd say there's zero chance he would consider the non existence of Jesus seriously.

While I agree that few historians dispute the existence of someone called Jesus who did some public displays, the evidence is so scant that we really do not know. It's not like historians have some secret methods or secret knowledge...the few scraps of historical evidence we have, combined with a bit of common sense, are sufficient to realize that someone called Jesus probably existed, but that we also can't say anything reliable about the man. The possibility remains that he's a composite of several people, or of popular stories of the time that had no basis in fact.

[Matt R.]

I didn't say the author was impartial (ok, maybe I did somewhere and I'll look back, but I meant the work was impartial). I said the historians written about in the book were impartial. It's a compilation from a lot of work.

Also, the author may have his biases, but the way the book is written is clearly targeted at getting the historical truth with no religious undertones. So, the author may be partial to one side but he clearly wrote it with the intent to give a neutral perspective.

I agree that the things you listed in your 2nd paragraph are possible and that there's a lot of dispute. I'd still take your 9:1 offer though [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the author was impartial (ok, maybe I did somewhere and I'll look back, but I meant the work was impartial). I said the historians written about in the book were impartial. It's a compilation from a lot of work.

[/ QUOTE ]
when a partial compilation is made from the work of impartial experts then the result is partial. It needs to establish credibility before being taken seriously.

chez

[Matt R.]

The compilation is not biased. If you read the book you will see this immediately (you can also probably get this if you search for the book and read commentary about it). The author having some sort of personal bias does not necessarily mean all his work will have this bias. We'd be in big trouble if this were true [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The compilation is not biased. If you read the book you will see this immediately (you can also probably get this if you search for the book and read commentary about it). The author having some sort of personal bias does not necessarily mean all his work will have this bias. We'd be in big trouble if this were true [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it may not be biased but if the author is known to be biased then he has a big problem establishing credibility.

I'm not making any claims about this particular author or book about which I know nothing. Just that even if its a known that his sources are credible it doesn't help him much.

chez

[plzleenowhammy]

the rfid chip stuff is very scary.. we're a hop away from telescreens at that point.