The Historical Jesus

[brewer]

Remember when the thread was about the historical Jesus? I long for those bygone days.

Boru

Is hybrid a new gender?

[Belacqua]

If a person claims they are one gender or another, or none, how can this be falsified? If a person says "I'm female," is it EVER possible to say "no, you're not." If not, then we're dealing with some kind of truth which is not empirical, testable, scientific. We are to believe it based on an individual's claim -- not on evidence.

Like a vast host of things a person can say about themselves which can't be falsified but as a society we take them at their word as long as their actions are reasonably consistent with their claims about themselves. We can't falsify whether a person is a Christian or a communist, it could just be an act...but we take their word for it just the same. We're more likely to think someone who claims to be a communist but doesn't act like it is just confused about what communism means, because why would they lie?

Christianity and communism are value systems and beliefs. Does gender fall into this category?

People frequently convert from one religion or political belief, given a more complete education. Does this mean that gender is also something that could be changed? Or is a person born that way?

And what actions are reasonably consistent with being, say, female? Aren't there many females who do not conform to gender stereotypes about how females act?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Like a vast host of things a person can say about themselves which can't be falsified but as a society we take them at their word as long as their actions are reasonably consistent with their claims about themselves. We can't falsify whether a person is a Christian or a communist, it could just be an act...but we take their word for it just the same. We're more likely to think someone who claims to be a communist but doesn't act like it is just confused about what communism means, because why would they lie?

Christianity and communism are value systems and beliefs. Does gender fall into this category?

People frequently convert from one religion or political belief, given a more complete education. Does this mean that gender is also something that could be changed? Or is a person born that way?

And what actions are reasonably consistent with being, say, female? Aren't there many females who do not conform to gender stereotypes about how females act?

*sigh* ‘Female’ has to to with biological sex, not gender.

Boru

[Ferrocyanide]

Remember when the thread was about the historical Jesus? I long for those bygone days.

Boru

Well, what more is there to say?


The OP was claiming that there are 4 journalists and each wrote one gospel. That is doubtful, specially when there are large sections that are obviously copied from one to the other.

The story is written as if a camera is following the characters. At one point, it shows the conversation between Herod and the 3 magicians, then there is a conversation between just the 3 magicians. You have a conversation going on between John the Baptist and 2 of his followers.
One of them has a conversation between an angel and the lady that was going to give birth to John the Baptist.
One of them has a conversation between an angel and the Mary that was going to give birth to Jesus. Then another conversation with Joseph.

To me, it looks like Israel needed a savior and it had to be someone from the royal class. The savior is for saving Israel. He isn't there to save europeans or all of the world.
I imagine that at some point in time Rome invaded Israel and they probably executed all of the royal class. This creates a void and some people might claim that eventually, someone from the royal bloodline is going to show up. He would be sent by the jewish god and the savior is going to zap all the roman soldiers.

When you went to church or when your parents raised you christian, how much time did they spend teaching you about the political problem of ancient Israel?

[Mister Agenda]

Like a vast host of things a person can say about themselves which can't be falsified but as a society we take them at their word as long as their actions are reasonably consistent with their claims about themselves. We can't falsify whether a person is a Christian or a communist, it could just be an act...but we take their word for it just the same. We're more likely to think someone who claims to be a communist but doesn't act like it is just confused about what communism means, because why would they lie?

Christianity and communism are value systems and beliefs. Does gender fall into this category?

People frequently convert from one religion or political belief, given a more complete education. Does this mean that gender is also something that could be changed? Or is a person born that way?

And what actions are reasonably consistent with being, say, female? Aren't there many females who do not conform to gender stereotypes about how females act?

Sorry my example was of value systems and beliefs. I didn't mean to be confusing. The 'Big Five' personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience) are about equal parts from environment and inheritence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_p...ity_traits

I believe Boru addressed female being a sex, not a gender.

[h311inac311]

You're right Fake Messiah because I'm not telling women what to wear or what job to choose. I'm in favor of freedom and letting women choose whichever career they want.

You are just running in circles or, in internet slang, trolling. At one point you are saying that you want equality for women and men and that biology plays no part, but then you claim how there is big difference between men and women in biology - but if you say that it doesn't matter you are again saying nothing. You are just luring people into pointless conversations where they don't know what they are talking about.

Needless to say that any conversation with you is pointless, so I don't plan to waste my time on you.

Okay so according to you if I believe the truth that men and women have biological differences and I state this fact to be something I believe then that means I am also in favor of using the police to throw women in jail for not performing certain duties?

You're right fake messiah, you're living proof that someone with a debased mind struggles with reading comprehension and basic facts. Same goes for Boru. All you guys want to do is put words into my mouth and then criticize your own miss-understanding of my arguments. Watching you guys openly boast about digging your own graves is pretty fun for me so if you want to call that trolling then I guess that's how you will define that word for yourself.

I don't deny biology or behavioral psychology. I didn't use the phrase "gender equality" I used the term freedom. I think that women and men should be allowed to choose whichever career they see fit. But I also won't deny that there are differences between men and women. If you can't understand this last paragraph then that's on you.

[Pat Mustard]

You are just running in circles or, in internet slang, trolling. At one point you are saying that you want equality for women and men and that biology plays no part, but then you claim how there is big difference between men and women in biology - but if you say that it doesn't matter you are again saying nothing. You are just luring people into pointless conversations where they don't know what they are talking about.

Needless to say that any conversation with you is pointless, so I don't plan to waste my time on you.

Okay so according to you if I believe the truth that men and women have biological differences and I state this fact to be something I believe then that means I am also in favor of using the police to throw women in jail for not performing certain duties?

You're right fake messiah, you're living proof that someone with a debased mind struggles with reading comprehension and basic facts. Same goes for Boru. All you guys want to do is put words into my mouth and then criticize your own miss-understanding of my arguments. Watching you guys openly boast about digging your own graves is pretty fun for me so if you want to call that trolling then I guess that's how you will define that word for yourself.

I don't deny biology or behavioral psychology. I didn't use the phrase "gender equality" I used the term freedom. I think that women and men should be allowed to choose whichever career they see fit. But I also won't deny that there are differences between men and women. If you can't understand this last paragraph then that's on you.

Nice strawman there idiot.

[h311inac311]

Okay so according to you if I believe the truth that men and women have biological differences and I state this fact to be something I believe then that means I am also in favor of using the police to throw women in jail for not performing certain duties?

You're right fake messiah, you're living proof that someone with a debased mind struggles with reading comprehension and basic facts. Same goes for Boru. All you guys want to do is put words into my mouth and then criticize your own miss-understanding of my arguments. Watching you guys openly boast about digging your own graves is pretty fun for me so if you want to call that trolling then I guess that's how you will define that word for yourself.

I don't deny biology or behavioral psychology. I didn't use the phrase "gender equality" I used the term freedom. I think that women and men should be allowed to choose whichever career they see fit. But I also won't deny that there are differences between men and women. If you can't understand this last paragraph then that's on you.

Nice strawman there idiot.

I was asking a clarifying question because they straw-manned my position first.

That's why I also went on to clarify what I believe with the last 4 sentences.

[h311inac311]

Remember when the thread was about the historical Jesus? I long for those bygone days.

Boru

Well, what more is there to say?


The OP was claiming that there are 4 journalists and each wrote one gospel. That is doubtful, specially when there are large sections that are obviously copied from one to the other.

The story is written as if a camera is following the characters. At one point, it shows the conversation between Herod and the 3 magicians, then there is a conversation between just the 3 magicians. You have a conversation going on between John the Baptist and 2 of his followers.
One of them has a conversation between an angel and the lady that was going to give birth to John the Baptist.
One of them has a conversation between an angel and the Mary that was going to give birth to Jesus. Then another conversation with Joseph.

To me, it looks like Israel needed a savior and it had to be someone from the royal class. The savior is for saving Israel. He isn't there to save europeans or all of the world.
I imagine that at some point in time Rome invaded Israel and they probably executed all of the royal class. This creates a void and some people might claim that eventually, someone from the royal bloodline is going to show up. He would be sent by the jewish god and the savior is going to zap all the roman soldiers.

When you went to church or when your parents raised you christian, how much time did they spend teaching you about the political problem of ancient Israel?

     As I said the Gosples were written by people who recorded the stories that eye-witnesses told them. That's why It "feels like a camera is following Jesus". I think it's also safe to assume that the disciples played a role in telling this story as well.

As it is written,

             "Whereas many have undertaken to write a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed goot to me also, having accurately investigated all things from the very beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of the things which you have been told."

You say they copied off of each other, yes I find that this is the issue that the skeptic often raises and it's part of a 2 sided balance beam that the Gosples need to walk perfectly with one foot directly in front of the other. Careful not to fall to either side.

On the left side we have, "the Gosples are too diss-similar therefore they can't be about the same person."              On the right side we have, "the Gosples are too similar, therefore they are nothing but copies of one another."

When you say that you know that the Gosple authors copied off of each-other how do you know that to be the case? How do you know that the reason why some parts line up so well isn't because they're telling the same story about the same person?

Also, one of my pastors did tell me about the political issues that were going on as well as the conflict between Rome and Israel. That's why the Pharisees rejected Jesus, because he didn't fit the mold of the conquering king that they were looking for.

[Fake Messiah]

As I said the Gosples were written by people who recorded the stories that eye-witnesses told them.

That's not true because gospels are full of stories that could not have happened. For example, one of the first stories is that Mary and Joseph had to travel many miles to participate in census because Joseph's 35 grandfather was from Bethlehem. The reality is that people did not have to travel because of census, so this event never happened, meaning there were no eyewitnesses so the Gospel writer invented stories. And there are many impossible stories like that all the way till the end to invented Roman custom to free Jewish criminals on the Passover.

And some stories did not have witnesses like when Jesus is alone talking to himself.

Especially if we are talking about the so-called historical Jesus because historians don't take gospel stories at face value but as myths about some historical person.