Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return

[Belacqua]

All of the sources I have ever seen say Cyril opposed her due to political intrigues.

"opposed her"? I say that's some opposition. You really should look out of Christian sources more

I'm not using "Christian sources." I'm using modern history texts. (I'm not a Christian. I'm a scholar. I want people to stop repeating historical falsehoods.)

As for the video, Sagan repeats a historical falsehood. He claims that the "seeds" of Alexandria didn't take root -- that they "slumbered" for a thousand years until Columbus and Copernicus revived them. But historians have long recognized that the so-called "middle ages" were an active time intellectually. Not as active as other times, but not the "dark ages" that they have sometimes been portrayed as. (And even when historians used the term "Dark Ages" it didn't refer to a time period of 1000 years.) Nor did Columbus "revive" anything. Everybody had known that the earth is round for a long time. And Copernicus didn't "revive" the knowledge of Alexandria, because Hypatia and the other Alexandrians believed in a geocentric universe. 

Here is the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

We can start there. If something seems incorrect there, please provide me with another source that says something different. 

Here is the entry on the Library of Alexandria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

Note that in the section under "Decline," it says that while Julius Caesar accidentally burned some part of it, the rest gradually declined and lost its importance. The great library was gone before Hypatia lived. There was a successor, but it's not known how big it was. When the Christians got angry at the Neoplatonists (whose ideas you would also hate) and destroyed the temple at the site of the ancient library, scholars find no indication that there were any books left.

Again, this is just Wikipedia, but everything there is consistent with other books I have read. If you can find a source that contradicts the Wikipedia article I will happily read it. 

Please, this time use genuine sources.

[Brian37]

"opposed her"? I say that's some opposition. You really should look out of Christian sources more

I'm not using "Christian sources." I'm using modern history texts. (I'm not a Christian. I'm a scholar. I want people to stop repeating historical falsehoods.)

As for the video, Sagan repeats a historical falsehood. He claims that the "seeds" of Alexandria didn't take root -- that they "slumbered" for a thousand years until Columbus and Copernicus revived them. But historians have long recognized that the so-called "middle ages" were an active time intellectually. Not as active as other times, but not the "dark ages" that they have sometimes been portrayed as. (And even when historians used the term "Dark Ages" it didn't refer to a time period of 1000 years.) Nor did Columbus "revive" anything. Everybody had known that the earth is round for a long time. And Copernicus didn't "revive" the knowledge of Alexandria, because Hypatia and the other Alexandrians believed in a geocentric universe. 

Here is the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

We can start there. If something seems incorrect there, please provide me with another source that says something different. 

Here is the entry on the Library of Alexandria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

Note that in the section under "Decline," it says that while Julius Caesar accidentally burned some part of it, the rest gradually declined and lost its importance. The great library was gone before Hypatia lived. There was a successor, but it's not known how big it was. When the Christians got angry at the Neoplatonists (whose ideas you would also hate) and destroyed the temple at the site of the ancient library, scholars find no indication that there were any books left.

Again, this is just Wikipedia, but everything there is consistent with other books I have read. If you can find a source that contradicts the Wikipedia article I will happily read it. 

Please, this time use genuine sources.

Um, no, not everyone knew the earth was a globe. Most laypeople whom were uneducated back then, even if told, refused to believe it. So much so Galileo was put under house arrest because the church didn't like the truth that the earth went around the sun, and not the sun around the earth. A few scientists even before him knew sure, but that does not mean the public accepted their findings at a mass scale back then. Really not that much different today with theists. Many still refuse to accept what science says today. 

I think it is in Venice(or somewhere in Europe) there is a clock that depicts the sun revolving around the earth. 

It is worth pointing out in the Cosmos series hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, in just about every episode he pointed to world wide history where the powers in charge got scared by questioning and discoveries that challenged or conflicted with their social norms. It is quite common in our species that those who hold power are very reluctant to change and can and do often push back on questioning.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The primary difference between Jesus and beer is that you don't have to wait 2000 years for a second beer.

Boru

[Brian37]

The primary difference between Jesus and beer is that you don't have to wait 2000 years for a second beer.

Boru

Nor do beer makers claim they poof'ed beer into existence with a snap of their fingers.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The primary difference between Jesus and beer is that you don't have to wait 2000 years for a second beer.

Boru

Nor do beer makers claim they poof'ed beer into existence with a snap of their fingers.

Right, lucky for you beer just "banged" from nothing and made itself.

[Brian37]

Nor do beer makers claim they poof'ed beer into existence with a snap of their fingers.

Right, lucky for you beer just "banged" from nothing and made itself.

I honestly do not care if there was something or nothing prior to the big bang. It could be this universe we are in is the result of the death of a prior universe, much like when a tree dies and rots it becomes fuel for new life. What is not required either way, something or nothing prior is a super cognition, but I am sure a smart guy like you has run across the problem of infinite regress.

If the universe was created by a super cognition, then that super cognition had an even bigger super cognition that created it, and that super cognition also had an even bigger super cognition create it. But if you want to claim God was not caused, seems to me less complex to say the universe doesn't need a super cognition to cause it.

Right, beer didn't "bang" out of nothing, so? Hurricanes also don't "bang" into existence as a result of Poseidon. But, what did happen with beer becoming an outcome, wasn't because of Spuds McKensy, but because of conditions that lead to evolution starting 4 billion years ago, then with 5 mass extinctions that allowed mammals to arise, that lead to primates, that lead to humans, whom eventually earned how to make beer.

I am sorry it bothers you when someone tells you we are not factory products, but we are not a product made by a super being,  but an outcome of natural processes. No magic guy in the sky needed to explain anything.

[Belacqua]

Um, no, not everyone knew the earth was a globe. Most laypeople whom were uneducated back then, even if told, refused to believe it. So much so Galileo was put under house arrest because the church didn't like the truth that the earth went around the sun, and not the sun around the earth. A few scientists even before him knew sure, but that does not mean the public accepted their findings at a mass scale back then. Really not that much different today with theists. Many still refuse to accept what science says today. 

I think it is in Venice(or somewhere in Europe) there is a clock that depicts the sun revolving around the earth. 

The shape of the earth and its position are separate issues. Every educated person knew it was round. And I agree there were uneducated people, who didn't know and probably didn't care. 

In the Somnium Scipionus, from the 1st century AD, the earth is described as a sphere. In the Divine Comedy, c1300, Dante describes the earth as a sphere, and even imagines the pilgrim crawling through a tunnel through the earth, and when he passes the mid-point, to keep going in the same direction, he has to turn over and start crawling upwards again. In other words, Dante knew that the earth is round and gravity aims to the center point. 

You are right that it took longer to gather the evidence pointing to a heliocentric system.

It is worth pointing out in the Cosmos series hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, in just about every episode he pointed to world wide history where the powers in charge got scared by questioning and discoveries that challenged or conflicted with their social norms. It is quite common in our species that those who hold power are very reluctant to change and can and do often push back on questioning.

I watched the first episode, and was appalled that Tyson repeated a myth concerning Giordano Bruno. That was either a careless mistake or a deliberate bit of ideological propaganda. It is made-for-TV story-telling (i.e. dumbed down) to say that Bruno was a martyr to science. 

It is common in our species to demand a large amount of empirical evidence when you're trying to replace a system that has worked for millennia. Every time a sailor navigated safely by the stars, or an astronomer predicted an eclipse, it increased their credence in the Ptolemaic system. It was reasonable to be skeptical when people with little empirical evidence started challenging that system. When the evidence becomes overwhelming, it is unreasonable not to change. 

Suppose a lone theorist proposed a theory today that called our whole paradigm a falsehood. Do you think that everyone would jump on the bandwagon right at the beginning? Or would it be reasonable to demand significant evidence? And if he went out of his way to write personal insults against the authorities, as Galileo did, do you think this guy would continue to get funding or tenure? I agree that house arrest was bad. I'm glad it wouldn't happen today. (But have you seen the house he was in at the time? Not exactly Alcatraz.)

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Right, lucky for you beer just "banged" from nothing and made itself.

I honestly do not care if there was something or nothing prior to the big bang. It could be this universe we are in is the result of the death of a prior universe, much like when a tree dies and rots it becomes fuel for new life. What is not required either way, something or nothing prior is a super cognition, but I am sure a smart guy like you has run across the problem of infinite regress.

If the universe was created by a super cognition, then that super cognition had an even bigger super cognition that created it, and that super cognition also had an even bigger super cognition create it. But if you want to claim God was not caused, seems to me less complex to say the universe doesn't need a super cognition to cause it.

Right, beer didn't "bang" out of nothing, so? Hurricanes also don't "bang" into existence as a result of Poseidon. But, what did happen with beer becoming an outcome, wasn't because of Spuds McKensy, but because of conditions that lead to evolution starting 4 billion years ago, then with 5 mass extinctions that allowed mammals to arise, that lead to primates, that lead to humans, whom eventually earned how to make beer.

I am sorry it bothers you when someone tells you we are not factory products, but we are not a product made by a super being,  but an outcome of natural processes. No magic guy in the sky needed to explain anything.

Of course, you can explain it all.  What was anybody else thinking?  No point, just ask you.

[Brian37]

I honestly do not care if there was something or nothing prior to the big bang. It could be this universe we are in is the result of the death of a prior universe, much like when a tree dies and rots it becomes fuel for new life. What is not required either way, something or nothing prior is a super cognition, but I am sure a smart guy like you has run across the problem of infinite regress.

If the universe was created by a super cognition, then that super cognition had an even bigger super cognition that created it, and that super cognition also had an even bigger super cognition create it. But if you want to claim God was not caused, seems to me less complex to say the universe doesn't need a super cognition to cause it.

Right, beer didn't "bang" out of nothing, so? Hurricanes also don't "bang" into existence as a result of Poseidon. But, what did happen with beer becoming an outcome, wasn't because of Spuds McKensy, but because of conditions that lead to evolution starting 4 billion years ago, then with 5 mass extinctions that allowed mammals to arise, that lead to primates, that lead to humans, whom eventually earned how to make beer.

I am sorry it bothers you when someone tells you we are not factory products, but we are not a product made by a super being,  but an outcome of natural processes. No magic guy in the sky needed to explain anything.

Of course, you can explain it all.  What was anybody else thinking?  No point, just ask you.

Hello, McFly, I never claimed I could explain it all.

I am saying the claims o antiquity were made back then, for the people back then, and do not translate any remote close knowledge we have today. In laymen's terms, "That was then this is now".

What we do know now, is that the brain, not the heart do the thinking, but back then people had no clue that the brain was the regulatory organ of the body. Back then males thought females were merely deposits, like fields you plant corn in, that is why the word "seed" is used in antiquity to refer to male sperm. Humans had no clue back then that females contributed half the DNA.

No, I don't know everything. But I do know that life existed long before claims of Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Jesus, Thor, Apollo, Osiris, Yahweh, and long before the first known writings, and long before even humans existed. I also know that this planet will be here long after we go extinct.

Maybe you need to consider "all this" is not a product of a super cognition, but merely a natural temporary blip of an outcome.  Maybe you need to consider that humans are merely projecting their own qualities on the world around them in fictional form.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Of course, you can explain it all.  What was anybody else thinking?  No point, just ask you.

Hello, McFly, I never claimed I could explain it all.

I am saying the claims o antiquity were made back then, for the people back then, and do not translate any remote close knowledge we have today. In laymen's terms, "That was then this is now".

What we do know now, is that the brain, not the heart do the thinking, but back then people had no clue that the brain was the regulatory organ of the body. Back then males thought females were merely deposits, like fields you plant corn in, that is why the word "seed" is used in antiquity to refer to male sperm. Humans had no clue back then that females contributed half the DNA.

No, I don't know everything. But I do know that life existed long before claims of Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Jesus, Thor, Apollo, Osiris, Yahweh, and long before the first known writings, and long before even humans existed. I also know that this planet will be here long after we go extinct.

Maybe you need to consider "all this" is not a product of a super cognition, but merely a natural temporary blip of an outcome.  Maybe you need to consider that humans are merely projecting their own qualities on the world around them in fictional form.

- Your statement about heart vs mind has already been proven false.  The physiology of the heart is a determining factor of rational thought, but we can become less rational when we interject biases. See - Wisdom is a Matter of Both Heart and Mind, - Neuroscience News

- Sure, will consider that you are merely projecting your own qualities on the world around you in fictional form, as you did with your statement about the mind and heart.

- Your statement about women is also false.  It actually addresses this in the book of Genesis.