Jesus' Existene [WARNING: REHASH]

[The Green Marine]

Ok ok, I know this was a thread allready, one that ultimately was closed. I missed it until it was closed, and I didnt read all of it when I stumbled across it(SEVEN FREAKIN PAGES). I just have a qestion. When skimming through, I noticed comments of no physical tangible proof of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. Im not talking son of God stuff, I mean the man. My question is, has anyone ever read the Archko Volume? Its been awhile since Ive read it, but basically it was the writings of the Sanhedrin Historians that documented occurences during the times before and after Jesus' death. The writings are (to my memory) religiously un-biased. In one section, a Sanhedrin Historian was documenting an interview with one of the shepherds that reported what had occured near Bethlehem. Basically its like an ancient newspaper, so to speak. I found it interesting. Comments ladies? ;D

[Cyb]

got any linkage?

[Silverwyvern]

I read a book nce saying that they discovered that Jesus was born from a firey dog in the sky and the people all came and roasted marshmallows at the time of his coming... but in that time they were called "mooshmoos"....

I -had- a link but I forgot it.

[deathbringer]

So we now have some ancient version of The sun to "prove" hesus was real?

[Bucket]

And what makes you think that those who require physical proof that Jesus existed wouldn't refute this proof on the basis that the "newspaper" could possibly have been forged, been a fabricaion made by fundamentalists or been a practical joke by aliens?

[Jonathan]

It's okay guys I found the article, from the Sanhedrin Post:

HOLY CHRIST!

The son of God has been born in BETHLEHEM, shepherd Ian Johnson has told The Sanhedrin Post, and he also said the birth had taken place in a STABLE.

Father of two Ian, 29, was tending his flock by night on December 24, when he saw a bright star in the sky above the town. Leaving his flock, he went to check out the strange light, which seemed to be floating above an Inn Keeper's stable.

The young shepherd was well used to stables, but he couldn't believe what he found in this one. Inside was a young couple, with a new born baby lying in MANGER. Also in the stable were THREE KINGS who said they'd come from afar to see the new born babe.

Ian said: "I could tell right away this wasn't any normal baby. It had a halo round it's head, and the three kings had come from far away with presents for it. One had brought Frankincense, another had brought Myrrh for some reason, but I couldn't believe it when I saw the third one had brought some GOLD."

"Obviously the parents were pretty chuffed, they said they knew their baby was special, and that they'd been told by an Angel that he was to be the Messiah. They said they'd come to town for the census, and there hadn't been any room at the Inn."

Ian left to get back to his flock, but he told other shepherds, who also went to see the new born King of Kings. Roman officials wouldn't comment on the Shepherds amazing claims, while a spokesman for King Herrod said the King was considering how to best respond to the events.

[Cyb]

rofl, niiiice rimmer

Numbermind said:

And what makes you think that those who require physical proof that Jesus existed wouldn't refute this proof on the basis that the "newspaper" could possibly have been forged, been a fabricaion made by fundamentalists or been a practical joke by aliens?

I won't really get into this too much again, but what other times have you ever believed some historical fact without any first hand evidence. If someone told me a certain event occured but there were no first hand accounts of it, and nothing even resembling a record of it anywhere, then I sure as hell wouldn't believe that the event had occured, and I'd like to think you'd be smart enough to do the same (if not, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you).

That said, I'm perfectly willing to believe Jesus the man existed if anyone could find some kind of proof (it's already very plausable that the current stories in the bible are combined stories of many people, exaggerated over time). I have no problems with that at all.

[Lord FlatHead]

I'm sure many ancient historical figures got into the history books with even less proof of their existence than Jesus.

[Cyb]

not really, among ones before Christ are guys like Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great, various Roman emperors, Egyptian pharaohs, all of who have first hand accounts and records about them, artifacts left behind, even manuscripts written by them in some cases... some kind of proof they existed. Of course no christian historian would discredit the life of Christ, and most others doing so catch a lot of denial and anger because it essentially tears down the entire belief system of a whole lotta people. Even the Mormon profit actually existed :P

[Sharessa]

You know, it's funny how everyone says Julius Caesar conquered Carthage, when in fact that was well before his time.

[deathbringer]

He didnt even conquer britannia till his 3rd time!, and then left a big mess (in the form of a chariot-riding woman from where i live) called boudicca behind for Nero to clean up.

heh
"Do you know who's in there?"
"Who?"
"The son of god!"
"Jesus christ!"
"Yeah, thats the one!"

heh

In other news:
Lady septiumus-I was mary's lesbian lover!, full story, page 2
The queen of Jordiania naked!-Page 3
Could bright new star herald fall in property prices?-Page 4
Asylum seekers from britannia tek oor jebs-Page 5
Flamma refuses rudis again, sensational sports news! turn to back page!

[Scabbed Angel]

Eddie Izzard said:

Blasphe-me! Blashpe-you!

[whatgoat]

http://mudhole.spodnet.uk.com/fist/simon.html

[HateFactor]

There is a number of Roman documents from 2 millennia ago that confirm that J.C. did in fact exist. Move on.

[myk]

You mean there are a number of Roman documents from 2 millennia ago that confirm that people called Jesus did in fact exist.

[Bucket]

myk said:

You mean there are

There are Roman documents.
There is a number.

Nouns like "number", "couple", "crowd" and "shitload" are still singular nouns. The plural exists only within the participle.

[myk]

I almost said "yeah" when I saw that, but of course...

A number of Roman documents from 2 millennia ago are confirming that someone did in fact exist.

Would you say otherwise? I doubt it unless you focused on it consciously. A number specifically has this quality where it turns into a modifier of the of the object of the preposition due to the object's semantical weight over the mere quantitative value of the true noun. Thus a number of becomes functionally an adjective of said object, as if it were numerous instead.

Look here:

A number of minds *takes this as grammatically correct.

In this even more solid case the semantical weight of the object of the preposition is such that saying it "correctly" produces a truly ridiculous result.

[Julian]

myk striking again! :P

[Bucket]

Well, then say "numerous".

You're displaying the same grammatical thinking that made "ain't" a real word.

[Cyb]

whoo grammar warz! getting back onto the dead horse:

HateFactor said:

There is a number of Roman documents from 2 millennia ago that confirm that J.C. did in fact exist. Move on.

there are not, actually. there are various documents of executions of would-be messiahs executed by the Romans, but most (if not all) are beheaddings and none of them are named Jesus.

and in the future if you could back your arguments up with something besides 'move on' I would appreciate it, because as I said before, I need some kind of factual evidence and not just the word of some random person on the internet.

[myk]

Talking about grammar warriors and spelling Nazis... look carefully at the thread title.

Numbermind said:
You're displaying the same grammatical thinking that made "ain't" a real word.

Welcome to the timeless gates of Babel and to one of the key elements in the making of new languages, or the development of existing ones; the deformation of grammatical systems. These ain't (heh) closed and seamless, but changing structures that put our discourse together.

Though ain't is pretty nonstandard and owes most of its weight to the lack of a contracted Am not in proper english, filling in a structural gap, albeit also meshing the 1st-3rd persons in the process; being nowhere near as pervasive as a number of are, which is pretty much the standard now.

[Fredrik]

I agree with Myk.

[Bucket]

I agree as well... wholeheartedly, even. But considering he originally set out to correct someone's grammar and ended up being wrong, all he did was argue himself into a corner.

Everyone needs an excuse for their compulsions, I suppose.[/zing]

[DooMBoy]

Who cares

I see no correlation between the grammar a person chooses to use (or abuse) and whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed, which, GETTING BACK ON TOPIC HERE, I believe He did. Say what you will to that, go off another pointless ramble if you will, but that's my opinion.

[Fredrik]

DooMBoy said:

Who cares

I see no correlation between the grammar a person chooses to use (or abuse) and whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed, which, GETTING BACK ON TOPIC HERE, I believe He did. Say what you will to that, go off another pointless ramble if you will, but that's my opinion.

Who cares

I see no correlation between pointing out the lack of correlation between the grammar a person chooses to use (or abuse) and whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed and whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed, which, GETTING BACK ON TOPIC HERE, is a question I don't care very much about. Say what you will to that, go off another pointless ramble if you will, but that's my opinion.

[Jonathan]

DooMBoy said:

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC HERE[/b], I believe He did. Say what you will to that, go off another pointless ramble if you will, but that's my opinion.

So you want to get back on topic, but you're going to dismiss anything anyone says about said topic as "pointless rambling" if it doesn't match your prejudices? If that's all you have to add to the topic then you needn't have bothered posting.

[myk]

Numbermind said:
But considering he originally set out to correct someone's grammar

Compare with measure HateFactor's and my sentences to see why I was moved to post.

and ended up being wrong,

Oh?

all he did was argue himself into a corner.

An intelligent post does marvels as opposed getting personal and accusing the other of posting sophistic bullshit.