(January 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I can't believe there are still Christians who insist that the Shroud of Turin is any kind of evidence. You'd think two carbon dating tests that dated it to the Middle Ages would have put it to rest but then Christians have demonstrated a miraculous ability to deny any scientific findings they don't like.

Any references to letters written within the "early church" should be taken with a grain of salt from the get-go. The problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation abounded during that time. An aspiring theologian who wanted to get his ideas to be accepted would commonly use the name of a deceased famous religious leader or prophet and "discover" the writing. Roughly half the letters of Paul found in the canonical NT are considered to be of questionable authenticity.

Changes to scriptural documents were also known to creep in over time, even with the most meticulous of care by the ancient copyists. Sometimes these changes could be by accident while other times things might be changed to suit the evolving theology of Christianity. Mark chapter 16 is a prominent example, where the back end of the resurrection account (one would think an important detail they'd have gotten right the first time) was added.

Outside the early Christians, there is no mention of Jesus in the first century. Josephus mentions a "brother of James" but reading on we find that the reference was to Jesus Bar Damneus. We need to remember that Jesus was a common name at the time. Even Tacitus in the second century didn't mention Jesus by name. He only tells us that a "Christos" ("anointed one") was where the "Christians" got their name and that this unnamed man was crucified by a "procurator" Pilate (curiously, Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator, a name given to Roman governors in later centuries, but perhaps I'm being to nit-picky as many Christians will claim).

It's obvious that Jesus was completely insignificant outside his splinter faction of Judaism. While that doesn't preclude a mortal Jesus, it does rule out a miracle working godman.

If what you have written does not preclude a mortal Jesus, how is it that it disproves the miracle working Jesus, it only makes sense that Jesus would be known by christians in the early years. I saw an interesting article on the Shroud of Turin the other day, some now believe it is not a middle age forgery even though the shroud does not seem to date back to the time of Jesus (I have problems with carbon dating), the writer says that experts do not believe that people of that time had the ability do pull off such a forgery. Don't get me wrong, IMO the shroud is not real, no clear proof has been left behind about Jesus and rightfully so, "faith is the key".

The whole point being G-C is that your godboy is a fake. Taken from existing mythologies regarding Solar worship much older than ever the Egyptians.

(January 5, 2012 at 4:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: The whole point being G-C is that your godboy is a fake. Taken from existing mythologies regarding Solar worship much older than ever the Egyptians.

Don't see it that way, you want take my experiences as worth anything so I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

(January 5, 2012 at 5:51 am)Godschild Wrote:

(January 5, 2012 at 4:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: The whole point being G-C is that your godboy is a fake. Taken from existing mythologies regarding Solar worship much older than ever the Egyptians.

Don't see it that way, you want take my experiences as worth anything so I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

And how do your experiences account for the lack of evidence for jesus?

Your "experiences" are just a part of your mental processes...tryptophan and endorphins are real highs don't ya think??

KichigaiNeko Wrote:No chip...you haven't, you are very lazy.

first, i noted that your first link proves my point and you say i don't read? you don't even read your own links. i did read the information and it's very biased. if any of that information was true it would be everywhere and it would be easy for you to list another source. also, i bet you didn't even read my comments on that information. who's lazy?

you know, i do a lot of research on this stuff. i don't just post the first thing i see. the fact that you are ignoring all evidence i have and saying "there is no evidence" over and over with nothing to back it up just shows how weak your arguement is. you say Nazareth did not exist then with your only source being jesusneverexisted.com where as i list other sites saying otherwise one of them being the official website of Nazareth and you just ignore it. you ignore everything with nothing to back yourself up. i can see that if i brought all these sources, quoted all these historians you would deny every single one of them because you APPARENTLY know it better than them. i'm done wasting my time.

(January 5, 2012 at 7:12 am)chipan Wrote:

KichigaiNeko Wrote:No chip...you haven't, you are very lazy.

first, i noted that your first link proves my point and you say i don't read? you don't even read your own links. i did read the information and it's very biased. if any of that information was true it would be everywhere and it would be easy for you to list another source. also, i bet you didn't even read my comments on that information. who's lazy?

No chip the first link does not prove YOUR point it proves mine. And yes I was a bit lazy. I did not read all of it before posting and stated as such if you really READ!

(January 5, 2012 at 7:12 am)chipan Wrote: you know, i do a lot of research on this stuff. i don't just post the first thing i see. the fact that you are ignoring all evidence i have and saying "there is no evidence" over and over with nothing to back it up just shows how weak your arguement is. you say Nazareth did not exist then with your only source being jesusneverexisted.com where as i list other sites saying otherwise one of them being the official website of Nazareth and you just ignore it. you ignore everything with nothing to back yourself up. i can see that if i brought all these sources, quoted all these historians you would deny every single one of them because you APPARENTLY know it better than them. i'm done wasting my time.

Thing is YOU have brought NOTHING to this discussion only your empty assertions.

Check the links again and get back to me. Slacker

---

For Zen Badger.... I am STILL READING through this material

wiki Wrote:A solstice is an astronomical event that happens twice each year when the Sun's apparent position in the sky, as viewed from Earth, reaches its northernmost or southernmost extremes. The name is derived from the Latin sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), because at the solstices, the Sun stands still in declination; that is, the apparent movement of the Sun's path north or south comes to a stop before reversing direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solstice

wiki Wrote:In 46 BCE Julius Caesar in his Julian calendar established December 25 as the date of the winter solstice of Europe (Latin: Bruma). Since then, the difference between the calendar year (365.2500 days) and the tropical year (~365.2421897 days) moved the day associated with the actual astronomical solstice forward approximately three days every four centuries, arriving to December 12 during the 16th century. In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII decided to restore the exact correspondence between seasons and civil year but, doing so, he did not make reference to the age of the Roman dictator, but to the Council of Nicea of 325, as the period of definition of major Christian feasts. So, the Pope annulled the 10-day error accumulated between the 16th and the 4th century, but not the 3-day one between the 4th AD and the 1st BC century. This change adjusted the calendar bringing the northern winter solstice to around December 22. Yearly, in the Gregorian calendar, the solstice still fluctuates a day or two but, in the long term, only about one day every 3000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice

wiki Wrote:Except in the polar regions (where daylight is continuous for many months), the day on which the summer solstice occurs is the day of the year with the longest period of daylight. The summer solstice occurs in June in the Northern Hemisphere north of the Tropic of Cancer (23°26'N) and in December in the Southern Hemisphere south of the Tropic of Capricorn (23°26'S). The Sun reaches its highest position in the sky on the day of the summer solstice. However, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, the highest sun position does not occur at the summer solstice, since the sun reaches the zenith here and it does so at different times of the year depending on the latitude of the observer.[1] Depending on the shift of the calendar, the summer solstice occurs some time between December 21 and December 22 each year in the Southern Hemisphere, and between June 20 and June 21 in the Northern Hemisphere.[2]
Worldwide, interpretation of the event has varied among cultures, but most have held a recognition of sign of the fertility, involving holidays, festivals, gatherings, rituals or other celebrations around that time.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_solstice

http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/2007...rtest-day/

---

Essentially what I am saying is...religion = Solar worship and the stories we hominids have developed over 40, 000 years to explain this phenomenon.

wiki Winter Solstice Wrote:History and cultural significance
Japanese Sun goddess Amaterasu emerging from a cave.
The solstice itself may have been a special moment of the annual cycle of the year even during neolithic times. Astronomical events, which during ancient times controlled the mating of animals, sowing of crops and metering of winter reserves between harvests, show how various cultural mythologies and traditions have arisen. This is attested by physical remains in the layouts of late Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological sites such as Stonehenge in Britain and Newgrange in Ireland. The primary axes of both of these monuments seem to have been carefully aligned on a sight-line pointing to the winter solstice sunrise (Newgrange) and the winter solstice sunset (Stonehenge). Significant in respect of Stonehenge is the fact that the Great Trilithon was erected outwards from the centre of the monument, i.e., its smooth flat face was turned towards the midwinter Sun.[5]

(January 5, 2012 at 4:29 am)Godschild Wrote: If what you have written does not preclude a mortal Jesus, how is it that it disproves the miracle working Jesus,

Because someone would have written about a man who was really bringing back the dead, feeding thousands, healing the sick, casting out demons, etc. We have outside confirmation of messiah-wannabes and religious leaders who never worked magic.

Quote:it only makes sense that Jesus would be known by christians in the early years.

Except this isn't the story your Gospels tell. Do you really need details again? I feel like I've already talked about Gospel claims of his fame and controversy ad nauseum.

http://www.recoveredscience.com/consta333latitudes.htm

Quote:The successive capitals of the Assyrian empire are particularly telling examples of this ancient desire for numerically auspicious relationships with the path of the sun god or with the abode of the invisible world- turning power at the hub of the wheeling night sky.

http://www.recoveredscience.com/consta333latitudes.htm

It would appear that most of the "Middle East" of which the "sun-god" worship gave birth to the three abrahamic religions were roughly between 30 and 36 degrees north. Well outside the tropic of Cancer and also visually able to observe the solstices and equinoxes to the point of using astrology to determine just where when and why any movement of a ruler should be done...

Fucking superstitious lot that we are but there you have it

KichigaiNeko, i don't get what you're trying to prove. what does the winter solstice have to do with Jesus?