-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Ok, we all know that the Church tells us that Jesus really did exist, that the Gospels are historical documents and should be taken at face value. But are they indeed historical? Did Jesus really exist? Does it matter?
Simple answer to all 3 questions: No.
Here's a passage from a book I've been reading, called The Pagan Christ written by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest who teaches Theology at the University of Toronto.
"Can we say with any authority that Jesus of Nazareth actualy existed as a historical person? I have grave doubts that we can. It is abundantly clear to me that while there are indeed certain historical elements in the Gospel accounts -- specific place names, actual persons (such as Herod, Pilate, and Caiaphas the High Priest), and alleged dates -- these alone don't constitute a genuine history or biography in any modern sense. When we review the exact parallels between early saviour stories and the sayings and actions of Jesus, it's more than obvious that what we're dealing with is another variant of the overarching archetypal theme of the same mythos in all ancient religion -- only this time in Jewish dress.
[...]
"The reality is that God calls us to use his divine gift of reason, and we ignore this not just at our peril but to our ultimate loss. What we are considering now is the logical consequence of all we have been through so far. Be patient and hear the argument to its end. You will find, as I have promised from the start, that we are being called not to an impoverished vision but to one that radiates with fresh understanding and hope. Jesus lives on for us, but in a new way.
[...]
"In spite of a mass of scholarship on the topic, in spite of the evidence from the study of comparative religion in particular, the historical view of Jesus's life is still stubornly maintained. Kuhn is correct when he says that all this scholarship 'points with steady directness' to the truth that the events of the Gospel narratives are matched with amazing fidelity 'by the antecedent careers of such world saviours as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Adonis, Atys, Orpheus, Mithras, Zoroaster, Marduk, Izdubar, Witoba, Apollonius of Tyana, Yehoshua ben Pandera, and even Plato and Pythagoras.'
[...]
"Massey testifies that neither Philo, the brilliant Alexandrian Jew who laboured so hard to effect a syncretism of Greek Platonism, Egyptian mysticism, and Mosaic Hebraism, and who was an exact contemporary of Jesus (c. 20 B.C. - A.D. 50), nor Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200), bishop of Lyons and one of the earliest Church Fathers, believed that the divine Word (Logos) could ever become incarnate in one man. Kuhn says that Philo no more knew of a Christ that could be made flesh than he knew of a Jesus in human form -- and he lived at the time of the alleged historical Jesus! The same is true of Tatian, the Christian apologist and Gnostic (c. A.D. 160) who wrote the first-ever attempted harmony of the four Gospels, the Diatesseron. He completely disclaimed the notion of the Christ having assumed an actual body, as did all the Gnostic Christians. They declared it impossible that he (the divine Logos) should suffer, since he was by nature both incomprehensible and invisible, a divine emanation of the one God.
[...]
"What is even more curious is that the closer one gets to Jesus' actual alleged time, the greater and more general is the denial or ignorance of his existence. But the further one draws away from it, the greater and more insistant are the 'proofs' of it. This again entirely reverses the universal phenomenon of a historical recording. Most living characters are familiar entities during and immediately after their lives, and they wax romantic and are haloed only after centuries have elapsed. But Jesus was airy and ethereal in the first century and crystallized into quite a concrete personality only after several centuries. Something quite strange was going on."
---
Ok, that's enough typing for today, but this was just a small exerpt from a very good and interesting book, and ultimately makes me want to return to Christianity, but not the one promulgated by any organized Church with dogmas and literal interpretation of everything in the Bible.
In the end, Harpur argues, and correctly, I might add, that the Gospels are as true as the many parables Jesus relates in them. The story of Jesus is not true in a superficial way, it didn't actually happen the way they say it does in the Gospels. However, there is a deeper truth, an allegorical or metaphorical truth, which makes God and Jesus relevant to us.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
i think jesus and the jewish/christian god are myths built upon older myths. but i dont see any real truth in any of these myths that relates to a divine being, the number one reason i think theres a common thread of, creation, a fall from grace, and a redemption, among western religions is due to geography and not a type of universal truth. what i mean by geography is the western mediteranian world is pretty small and ideas flowed from egypt to greece and rome and palestine.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
You're right, Jug, in another chapter of the book the author talks about just that, and goes into detail about similarites between Jesus and Horus, son of Osiris and ancient Egyptian religion. The similarities are striking, and numerous. I swear, in some passages you could replace one name for the other and it would be the same thing.
But his point in the book is to show that the bible, and the Gospels in particualr, were never meant to be taken literally, as any Christian church would tell us. They are allegory, myth, and possess a certain truth the same way a Shakespeare lay, or Greek mythology, possess a certain allegorical, satiric, or moral, truth. His point is that it's absolutely irrelevant whether Jesus actually existed or not, it's the moral message behind the story is where the truth lies. In essence, Jesus stands for the kernal of divinity which resides in all human beings, thus every one in other words has God withing them, and Jesus' life is an allegory of every one's life. His suffering represents our every day trials, the hard moments in our life, and that if we believe in ourselves, in our potential to surpass these difficulties, our ability in effect to become God, we will have a much more fulfilling spiritual life. That is the salvation, and that is the Kingdom of Heaven.
What's the most striking in the book, though, is that this idea was, contrary to what most believe, around for maybe as long as 3,000 years before Jesus allegedly live. In fact, the author, and countless other scholars, have proven that this concept existed all over the world, and that virtually all spiritual faith derives from this concept. He lists examples of divnities in other religions, whether existing or not, who had at least a section of their story that was identical to Jesus, and many their entire story. I listed some in my first post, and if you look it up and look at their stories in this light, you'll be amazed.
As for myself, I can say that it also caused anger in me, knowing that the Christian establishment has consisitently lied since almost the beginning, withholding knowledge from the rest of humanity just to keep them docile and obediant. But, in the end, it encouraged to be more spiritually aware, without being outright religious. God, or Jesus, or whatever you want to call it, truly lies within us all, and that's comforting thought, because know I know I can really make a difference to myself and others.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Hi flesh, have you ever read anything by Jodan Maxwell, he has some good stuff on religion similar to what you are saying. He talks aboutt the ancient mystrys etc and how they are as prominent today. He's also an expert on symbology...ancient, masonic, lucifarian, any way just wondering if you know of him.
Peace
Peace
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Do you mean Jordan Maxwell? I never heard of him, but I might check him out.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
y does everyone think their assumption of something they dont know for sure...is the right one....if u cant even prove it?
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronick
y does everyone think their assumption of something they dont know for sure...is the right one....if u cant even prove it?
Umm, wrong!
Everything written here IS proven, you just choose not to believe it
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
On TV tomorrow night there's a show called 'The Real da Vinci Code'.. its basically exploring whether the claims made in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are real or not. The books premis is basically that Jesus WAS real, but that he wasnt the son of God, he was only a politican/king, and the idea to make everyone believe he was the son of God was decided a long time after he died. I believe it.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
i dont believe that book or the story...but i do think its more probable than the idea of god and the first post in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
Umm, wrong!
Everything written here IS proven, you just choose not to believe it
there is that opinion again....forcing your beliefs on someone else.
if i give you the impression that im forcing my thoughts on you....im sorry but that is not my intention.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
It's not a question of forcing my beliefs on anyone, in fact I'm trying to dispel wrong beliefs that the church forced on all Christians.
Besides, it's not a belief, everything I wrote in the first post is completely factual and verifiable. However, it's my belief that these facts do not destroy christianity, but make it better.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
It's not a question of forcing my beliefs on anyone, in fact I'm trying to dispel wrong beliefs that the church forced on all Christians.
Besides, it's not a belief, everything I wrote in the first post is completely factual and verifiable. However, it's my belief that these facts do not destroy christianity, but make it better.
wow....and i thought i knew some arrogant people...but u take the cake.
you cannot say anything someone writes down is "completely factual and verifiable" cause humans are exaggerating bastards...if you believed what you had read that made you think god and jesus didnt exist...whats stopping you from believing in the bible? because you choose not to...and you choose to believe what you want...but DO NOT say what you think is fact...cause the fact is you cannot prove it...SO DONT TRY!
wait...no go ahead and try to prove your point...cause u havent proven it to me yet...i wanna see where this is going...by all means...talk away...
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
I'd argue with you more, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying.
Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell:
The Gospels are not, and never were, meant to be taken literally. Moreover, the concepts of Chrisitanity are much older than 2,000 years, and have existed for maybe up to 3,000 years before Jesus actually, supposedly, lived. I'm not bashing in any way the religion, and in my opinion makes it that much more worthwhile. In fact, whether or not Jesus was truly historical doesn't even matter ultimately, because his story represents humanity in a much deeper way than the Church has been telling us for the past 2 millenia.
However, as almost all scholars point out, the period of Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, the two emperors who were active during Jesus' life, are relatively well documented, and there's absolutely no proof that Jesus did exist. Even the most prominent Christians of the time say that Jesus was not an actual man. It's only 200-300 years later that the Church claimed that Jesus was in fact real and that the Gospels were to be taken as completely factual. This, in essence, was to discredit other religions.
What's wrong with what I'm saying? If you need more details, tell me, and I'll look for it.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
On TV tomorrow night there's a show called 'The Real da Vinci Code'.. its basically exploring whether the claims made in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are real or not. The books premis is basically that Jesus WAS real, but that he wasnt the son of God, he was only a politican/king, and the idea to make everyone believe he was the son of God was decided a long time after he died. I believe it.
That's definitely one view that some scholars support. There's one guy, I think I mentioned him before, who was a bishop of Lyons, France, around A.D. 100. Now, if the story of Jesus were true, he would surely know of it, right? What he says is actually pretty funny: he said that the real Jesus lived to be an old man, and that he never died on a cross. In fact, to him the concept of Jesus dyiing on a cross was almost funny, since he could never believe that the incarnation of God would die like a regular criminal... And this wasn't some pagan writer, he was a bishop, Irenaeus by name.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
I'd argue with you more, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying.
Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell:
The Gospels are not, and never were, meant to be taken literally. Moreover, the concepts of Chrisitanity are much older than 2,000 years, and have existed for maybe up to 3,000 years before Jesus actually, supposedly, lived. I'm not bashing in any way the religion, and in my opinion makes it that much more worthwhile. In fact, whether or not Jesus was truly historical doesn't even matter ultimately, because his story represents humanity in a much deeper way than the Church has been telling us for the past 2 millenia.
However, as almost all scholars point out, the period of Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, the two emperors who were active during Jesus' life, are relatively well documented, and there's absolutely no proof that Jesus did exist. Even the most prominent Christians of the time say that Jesus was not an actual man. It's only 200-300 years later that the Church claimed that Jesus was in fact real and that the Gospels were to be taken as completely factual. This, in essence, was to discredit other religions.
What's wrong with what I'm saying? If you need more details, tell me, and I'll look for it.
you had me at hello
i understand what ur saying and what im trying to say is that ur trying to disprove something that is not even proven...with no facts none the less...but with VERY VERY good assumptions. which probably are true,but dont tell people they are tru unless you know for sure...and can prove it....or people wont believe you. im agnostic....and empathetic...i kno how people think...i try not to takes sides...ill fight both sides of the story...untill the real truth comes out. arrogance does not win arguments.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Did you even read my first post? I put enough proof in there, from scholars who actually read these ancient authors.... What more do you want? Of course there's a certain interpretation that comes along with the evidence, but that's how you construct an argument. I putt all the necessary proof in my first post, read it again.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
ive read it more than once....
"Proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it". "
"Fact - a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts". "
you have given neither....all you have stated is a theory
"Theory - hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices". "
like i said...it maybe a correct theory....but there is no proof reliable enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
I personally don't like Dan Brown's writing. I started demons and angles or something and i just couldn't get into it. He was mixing some fact with some fiction and i could never really get a good internest in it. Some say his book 'the davinici code' is also ficitional in some aspects of the book,.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Hey kronick, I'm getting a little annoyed, what do you want proof of? Yeah, I have a dictionary too, I know what those words mean.
You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...
this is from josephus, hes a 1st century jewish historian- 'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day' (Antiquities 18:63-64).
well some say thats independant proof jesus exsists, but others contend it was added to his book by monks in the 3rd or 4th century to give additional credibility to christianity, i agree with the latter, but i guess its still up in the air whether its legit or not.
i definetlty 100 percently believe jesus isnt the son of god and theres no god, but he may have existed i just think the gospels exagerate the hell out of him.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...
when the dead sea scrolls were found...they were apparently found with another set of scrolls. jesuses scrolls. so...why should i believe what you say...over what ive heard for a more reliable source?
saying there is not proof of someones existance does not mean the person MUST have never existed. the odds are he did exist....but he probably wasnt the son of god.
right when you say "except"(there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament) that totaly contradicts what you had said in the first part of the sentance....seeing as how he lived only to 30....there probably wasnt much writen about him except in the new testament (and most of the origional gospils were taken out) so there is more proof against what you had to say.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Ok, you're right to say that there's no proof that Jesus didn't or did exist. For all we know, there could very well have been a man named Jesus, or maybe there wasn't. But that wasn't really my point.
What I was trying to show was that people today, the Church as much as lay believers, feel that they need to believe in the Gospels as HISTORICAL (meaning true) documents, that the stories written in them actually happened as they appear in the books.
The author of the book I read showed, convincingly, I think, that whether or not he existed, the Gospels are myths, similar, if not almost identical, to other stories of saviours that existed in the ancient world. If you want me to type the parts where he compares Jesus' life with that of Horus, I could do it, but it's long :D Even the miracles ascribed to Jesus are often copied off miracles performed by these other religious figures.
But ultimately, if someone does have a strong and solid faith, and is able to read the Gospels on a deeper level than just blindly believing it word for word, whether Jesus existed or not is inconsequential, because the story is true on a mythological level. It represents humanity's struggle to live and to understand itself, its purpose, and it serves to show us that the Divinie is inside each of us, not only Jesus.
I hope I explained myself better this time.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
you dont have to explain yourself at all...i understand exactly what you're saying, but who are you to tell people that jesus didnt exist? or that his storys are fictitious? let them believe what they wish.
we can choose for ourselves...just like we can tie up our shoes.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
So the question is: Was Jesus a real man? Or is Jesus only talked about in the Bible?
So I went to the Public Library and walked down those rows and rows of books and found a book by Cornelius Tacitus, in it he says
"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius." Annals XV.44
And when I saw this for the first time my skin crawled and I got chills down my spine Because right there for the first time in my life I was seeing the physical evidence in something other than the Bible that Jesus Christ really lived and walked on this earth. Jesus Christ really lived, he really lived, do you understand that, he walked on earth, he had legs, he had hair, he had blood and flesh, he was like me and you!! He really lived!
Here is another reference, although some claim it was added later by forgerers, in a book by Flavius Josephus (but then they would also have had to add the second reference in XX 9:1 where Josephus talks about James the brother of Jesus being executed).
Josephus wrote:
There was about this time a wise man named Jesus - if it is lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of the type of men who enjoy hearing the truth. He drew many of the Jews and Gentiles to him; he was the Christ. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the Jewish leaders, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold along with many other wonderful things concerning him. The tribe of Christians named for him still exists today............
And here was a non-Christian, an unbiased historian telling us this!
But that wasn't the only occurrence.
Suetoneous talks about Jesus, Plinius Secundus talks about Jesus, Thallus talks about Jesus, and the Jewish Talmuds talk about Jesus.
Flavius Josephus Antiquities, xviii 33, & XX 9:1; Cornelius Tacitus Annals XV.44; Lucian of Samosata The Passing Peregrinus; Suetonius Life of Claudius; Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) Epistles X.96.
So there it is, non biased historians, saying that Jesus did live and he was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar! Isn't funny that that is exactly what the Bible has been saying for the last 2000 years!
There's the proof that Jesus was a real man, not a metaphor, not a legend, not a fairy tale. He was a real man, real flesh and blood, real as you and me.
Rev. Michael T
Soldier for Christ
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
just like flesh....you dont give real solid proof. all you've given us is what someone else told you. if it cant hold its own in court, then its not good enough to be called proof. dont try and tell me that it would...cause i know for a "fact" that hearsay does not hold up in court.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
I dont doubt that Jesus was real.. But I dont believe that he was the son of God, or that he performed miracles.. All that was just propaganda
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
I dont doubt that Jesus was real.. But I dont believe that he was the son of God, or that he performed miracles.. All that was just propaganda
im not saying that i dont believe that too...im just stating that the possibility could be either way (true or not true) and there is NO WAY to know for certain. unless god actually came down and told you, or you use a time machine...but the odds of time travel to be possiable are probably way less, than if jesuses odds, if he really did exist. (not the odds of him being the real son of god...or if god exists at all...but jesus as a human, and only a human)
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronick
you dont have to explain yourself at all...i understand exactly what you're saying, but who are you to tell people that jesus didnt exist? or that his storys are fictitious? let them believe what they wish.
we can choose for ourselves...just like we can tie up our shoes.
Let me tell you something. I feel that humanity has been lied to for the past 2000 years, and if I successfully convince one person to change their views, then I'm happy. Who are you to decide to let people live in ignorance? I'm not forcing my message down anybody's throat, the information is just there and if people choose to read it and understand it, it's their choice.
I feel the need to expose something closer to the truth and make it available. Before you tell me what right I have to do this, tell me what right did the Catholic Church have to keep its members in the dark for almost a thousand years, what right did they have to kill in the name of a man who wanted nothing more than peace?
Meek Mike, it's actually been proven that those 2 exerpts were added in later by monks trying to create proof that Jesus existed. Document forgery was somewhat common in the Middle Ages, almost everytime someone copied a book, they sometimes added their own commentary and tried to make it look authentice. However, modern linguists are able to figure out which is authentice and which is added later.
Also, assuming the passages were not added later, maybe Tacitus and Josephus, who were not Christians, as you say, didn't know anything about the religion and just asked somebody "who do venerate?" and they asnwer him as you wrote above.
Look, again, my point is not to say for certain whether he existed or not, it's to say that ultimately it doesn't matter, because the Gospels follow a set pattern for religiou saviours that had existed for thousands of years before Jesus.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
w.e....you dont have the right to call other people ignorant...fool
im done talking about this. i feel like ive been talking to a wall this whole time...no offence
i hope there will be no bad blood between us in the future. i have my opinions, and you have yours.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Kronick, you're a loser. I NEVER called anyone ignorant, the only one throwing insults around here is you. I'm up for any kind of debate, provided the other person actually undertands what I'm talking about, which clearly isn't the case here.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
Who are you to decide to let people live in ignorance?
there! right fucking there! you said it...not me, you're implying that if people dont believe you...they must be ignorant.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
ignorant, meaning 'not knowing'. not intended as an insult. besides, no one used that specific word until YOU brought it up. I never said to begin with.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
the word ignorant is more commonly used in a negative way. just like how retard is used to describe the mentaly disabled. (retard: cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate; "This drug will retard your heart rate") i brought up the word to describe you, and people like you.
who are you to decide what is truth or fiction?
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
FUCK you, and fuck this shit. I type up this stuff to start a debate aboput spitiriuality, and you come here be be an asshole and tell me I have no right.
I have no right to question religion? I have no right to make other people question religion? I have no right to contradict you? fuck you and go to hell.
Thanks for ruining what could have been an interesting debate.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
FUCK you, and fuck this shit. I type up this stuff to start a debate aboput spitiriuality, and you come here be be an asshole and tell me I have no right.
I have no right to question religion? I have no right to make other people question religion? I have no right to contradict you? fuck you and go to hell.
Thanks for ruining what could have been an interesting debate.
F L E S H, as much as I agree with %99.9 of the stuff you say, I have to disagree with you on this one, mate.. surely this guy is just debating the issue with you the same as anyone else? he's just taking a different approach and saying that nobody will ever know..
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
F L E S H, as much as I agree with %99.9 of the stuff you say, I have to disagree with you on this one, mate.. surely this guy is just debating the issue with you the same as anyone else? he's just taking a different approach and saying that nobody will ever know..
THANK YOU!!!! that is EXACTLY what im trying to say!!!
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Nah, I'm not mad because he said we'll never know, which I agree with anyway. I'm pissed because he's telling me I have no right to tell people what I believe. That's what's pissing me off.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
I think he was saying that you have no right to say that what you believe is the truth.
I disagree to some extent, but I also agree.. I mean, you should and you do have the right to say whatever you want, but then again, nothing is ever %100 true.. Nothing that we think we know can ever be %100 proved, and no matter how much we believe it, it still may be wrong.. So to say that what we think is definately true is kind of arrogant. I see what he's trying to say.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
But then again (again) to say that nothing can ever be proved to be %100 true is also just as arrogant, because it's can't be %100 proved that nothing can ever be %100 proved ;)
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
But then again (again) to say that nothing can ever be proved to be %100 true is also just as arrogant, because it's can't be %100 proved that nothing can ever be %100 proved ;)
whoa. ghosttokers got a point there.
-
The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
I think he was saying that you have no right to say that what you believe is the truth.
I disagree to some extent, but I also agree.. I mean, you should and you do have the right to say whatever you want, but then again, nothing is ever %100 true.. Nothing that we think we know can ever be %100 proved, and no matter how much we believe it, it still may be wrong.. So to say that what we think is definately true is kind of arrogant. I see what he's trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
But then again (again) to say that nothing can ever be proved to be %100 true is also just as arrogant, because it's can't be %100 proved that nothing can ever be %100 proved.
you may have a point but 1+1= 2....and that is 100% proven...so some things can be proven...and others...just cant
flesh...im sorry if i offended you...i just couldnt explain it as good as ghostoker did... :P