In non apocolypse related news...jesus's childhood home may have been found

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by nik-

Or you could just not come into a thread and post about a topic that clearly bothers you so much. It seems like that would be easier because no one really cares if you're atheist or religious.

I'm not bothered but apparently a free form of exchange of ideas is too much for some.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I'm not bothered but apparently a free form of exchange of ideas is too much for some.

It's not an "idea", it's a widely held stance that isn't really relevant because most people can compartmentalize discussions. There's nothing really interesting there because it's basically a cliche now. We get it, you're athiest, it's just that no one cares.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's not an "idea", it's a widely held stance that isn't really relevant because most people can compartmentalize discussions. There's nothing really interesting there because it's basically a cliche now. We get it, you're athiest, it's just that no one cares.

Obviously, you care enough about order that you felt compelled to tell me nobody cares. I couldn't give a $#!t if anybody cares. So, next time you're confronted with a post you find offensive you can either get spun out over it or you can keep scrolling. I just respond to people responding to me but you keep on deciding who should say what and when.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Obviously, you care enough about order that you felt compelled to tell me nobody cares. I couldn't give a $#!t if anybody cares. So, next time you're confronted with a post you find offensive you can either get spun out over it or you can keep scrolling. I just respond to people responding to me but you keep on deciding who should say what and when.

No one is offended here. I'm telling you that your opinion isn't as interesting as you think it is because it's not the late 90's anymore and your "ideas" are a cliche that have been done to death.

So either use that information or get pissy (which I think is clearly the route you're taking) and be the next DuffMan of the forum that everyone laughs at as he goes around making sure everyone knows just how athiest he is like an angsty teenager.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by nik-

No one is offended here. I'm telling you that your opinion isn't as interesting as you think it is because it's not the late 90's anymore and your "ideas" are a cliche that have been done to death.

So either use that information or get pissy (which I think is clearly the route you're taking) and be the next DuffMan of the forum that everyone laughs at as he goes around making sure everyone knows just how athiest he is like an angsty teenager.

Thanks, Sport. Keep on keeping on.

[undercoverbrother]

[AltaGuy]

If I remember my "Historical Jesus" class from university accurately, it does seem like there was a dude named Jesus. Just one of many doomsday-prophets running around during those days (and all days, really). John the Baptist was one too.

Sort of like the guy at the mall holding up a sign saying "The End is Nigh!"

Seems extremely unlikely to me that his house is somehow known. Actually, seems downright ridiculous.

I just realized that this kind of does fall under the category of "apocalypse-related news".

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't believe this is at all true. While the Gospels are the first books in the New Testament, they are not the first books written.

Much of the New Testament is attributed to St. Paul. He died approximately 30 years after Jesus (if Jesus existed) and his earliest work in the bible is often dated around 50 AD, making it approximately 15 years after the death of Jesus.

Now Paul never met Jesus, but based on his writings it becomes almost unquestionable that a decade or two after Jesus' death, early groups of Christians had formed. Paul was one of them. He also wrote of persecuting followers of Jesus prior to Jesus' death and prior to Paul converting.

So now you have a guy who was alive during Jesus' life saying he was persecuting early Christians (or at least radical Hebrews following new traditions) prior to the crucifixion.

Then he's involved in the Council of Jerusalem which, while debated, is believed by historical scholars to have occurred around 20 years after Jesus death. Again, showing that there is now groups of people believing in Jesus shortly after his death if nothing else. That council also included the apostles James and Peter who were followers of Jesus while he was still alive (or in James case perhaps Jesus' brother).

The lack of writing probably has more to do with the fact that these were a small group of poor disenfranchised people who were the early Christians. If they could write at all, they still had to fear crucifixion for their writings.

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.


So basically, I told you a story and you passed it on and on and on for 40 years amongst uneducated sheep herders...and IF it was even true to begin with, the story remained accurate?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.


So basically, I told you a story and you passed it on and on and on for 40 years amongst uneducated sheep herders...and IF it was even true to begin with, the story remained accurate?

It depends on your requirement of accurate. All the details of his ministry? Yeah probably not. The fact that he existed as a person? Yes, why not.

[afc wimbledon]

I think we have plenty of examples of modern day church's/cults to figure out there was almost certainly someone at the begining that formed the basis for the church to form, if there wasnt a Jesus of some sort why would anyone bother to invent him? but what the Mormons 7th day adventists etc also teach us is that the 2nd and 3rd generations of the church leaders take the work of the 'founder' and conflate a vast amount of rubbish to make the theology more saleable to a wider audience if the church is to grow and thrive, I doubt a damn thing Paul propounded had any more to do with Jesus than the currant wack doodle that runs Scientology has to do with Hubbard's bizarre rubbish either.

It is likely just random chance that Paul wanted to expand the Church massively and so made up a bunch of stuff to achieve that rather than the more usual aim of cult leaders which is to persuade the church members to let them sleep with their wives and daughters

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.


So basically, I told you a story and you passed it on and on and on for 40 years amongst uneducated sheep herders...and IF it was even true to begin with, the story remained accurate?

Should also be mentioned that the average life expectancy during this time was 35-40 years. So we are talking about an oral tradition about someone it is highly likely these people never met. Oral retellings are not exactly good at maintaining detail and many times completely reshape narratives all together over time. Just go back to playing telephone in school for an example. Now multiply that by a generation or two. Great stories, but so were the stories from the Old Testament. Both are probably as accurate.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by New Era

Should also be mentioned that the average life expectancy during this time was 35-40 years.

That's because of infant mortality. Life expectancy is an average, life span is what you should be looking at.

Roman Consul's at the time had to be at least 43 years old to serve. Emperor Augustus lived until he was 75, he was followed by Tiberius who lived for 77 years.

If you lived past childhood and could avoid war, the occasional plague and of course getting crucified, you were expected to live a lot longer than 40 years.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That's because of infant mortality. Life expectancy is an average, life span is what you should be looking at.

Roman Consul's at the time had to be at least 43 years old to serve. Emperor Augustus lived until he was 75, he was followed by Tiberius who lived for 77 years.

If you lived past childhood and could avoid war, the occasional plague and of course getting crucified, you were expected to live a lot longer than 40 years.

If you were wealthy enough to avoid all of the pitfalls of everyday Roman life of course.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

As to the article and the claim itself, the "evidence" seems a little flimsy. A well built hovel underneath a church? I mean to be charitable, maybe the folks who built the church thought it was the home of Jesus, but there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of distinguishing it from any other hole built a few thousand years ago.

[troutman]

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this [shall be] a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

[monkeyman]

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

If you were wealthy enough to avoid all of the pitfalls of everyday Roman life of course.

The point is people dying of old age weren't dying of it at 30 lol. The idea that out lifespan has increased much is simply a myth.

Of course if I brought up John the Apostle dying at 95 the same people will say that's some Christian conspiracy. Or Thomas at 70. Or Peter being executed at 60 something. Certainly all of those can be debated so instead I just went with the two emperors during Jesus' life.

Also the wealthy and powerful had their own perils because of their wealth and power. How many were emperors were assassinated? Other political leaders like Caesar killed? Military leaders in battle?

Plutarch was 70 something when he died. And of course long before any of them, Plato was 80 when he died. Socrates was 70 something when he died...because he was still spry enough to be a dick and was executed for it.

But want to take a guess what the life expectancy of an American was at 1900? If you guessed under 50, you'd be correct. Because, again,, it's not that our lifespan has increased much (if at all), it's our infant mortality that has changed.

And again, the point was there's document evidence that earlier Christians had formed no later than a decade or two after the supposed death of Jesus. We aren't talking generations upon generations here before anyone brought up Jesus. People who alleged to have known Jesus were at the Council of Jerusalem.

[Matata]

Modern good health is basically trying to recreate how everyone would have lived in Jesus time: everyone got a healthy amount of daily exercise, had lots of free time, spent lots of time outdoors, only had access to healthy food, strong community bonds, etc.

Sure there was a 50% chance of the baby, or mom, or both dying during childbirth and it was near impossible to protect yourself against natural phenomena (pestilence, plague, bears, etc.), but otherwise they had it pretty good.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Matata

Modern good health is basically trying to recreate how everyone would have lived in Jesus time:

I don't know about that - no antibiotics, no dentistry, mentally ill were shunned, no radiation/chemo/immunotherapy, no evidence based medicine. No sanitation. No knowledge of germ theory, malnutriton, famine. The Argument From Antiquity is a type of logical fallacy.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't know about that - no antibiotics, no dentistry, mentally ill were shunned, no radiation/chemo/immunotherapy, no evidence based medicine. No sanitation. No knowledge of germ theory, malnutriton, famine. The Argument From Antiquity is a type of logical fallacy.

I'm pretty sure the leading cause of death in antiquity was bears, so I got it covered.