| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
HackettFan 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
 Posted: January 22 2017 at 23:22 |
 EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
npjnpj wrote:
To me there's only one certain fact concerning the matter and that's: nobody
knows. ........ Any deeply religious person is, in my mind, in the grip of some powerful mass
hysteria..
|
Everyone is born with the capability of believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first. This capability is commonly called INTUITION, which is historically found to be pretty more developed and mastered on ancient eastern cultures than on our occidental cultures, much more based on empirical evidences. Just as an ilustration of it, one very well-known example is the development of the intuition on the formal training of Samurais. But the most well know geniuses of our occidental culture also naturally developed intuition. Einstein (BTW an ardent beliver in God's existence) wondered about the existence of the gravitational waves (as well as on the existence of their own sounds) without having the least remote empirical evidence of it. Of course his experience and knowledge on that field helped him, however he was the very first to say those two words, as well as kind of 'feel' the possible existence of the gravitational waves. Intuition? Much likely, I would say no wonder about it! And just recently, the scientific community were able to prove their existence. What am I suggesting with all this subject? Just have this perspective in account, and think about it.
|
Since when are atheists anti-intuition? In any event, Einstein did not kind of 'feel' the possible existence of gravity waves. |
First off, care to read again what I posted or tell me where I implicitly or explicitly said that about atheists. And yes indeed man, Albert Einstein did have a sort of 'insight' when predicting the existence of the gravitational waves, undoubtedly the greatest scientific discovery of the last centuries. |
Well, I presume you're making some connection between religiosity and intuition. That seems to be the point here, which would set it in contrast with a lack of religiosity as a counterpoint. I can't see any other purpose. You also use the idea of "...believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first". This is used relentlessly in attempts of persuasion by religionists, so my interpretation of what you were trying to say, right or wrong, is not far-fetched. It does seem a stretch to define intuition as you did, but okay. Maybe I'm being a bit difficult with the physics part of this because "intuition" (abduction) is often posited as responsible for hypotheses, but Einstein in particular was well known for thought experiments. He would suppose, for instance, what would happen using Newtonian physics if you could sit on a beam of light and approached two other objects traveling two different velocities, knowing the speed of light is constant. This sort of thing is a reasoning process. It is not intuition. I noticed, though, in your reply that you converted "intuition" to "...a sort of 'insight'...", and I don't think that intuition is at all equivalent to insight. Intuition tells me that 'Man slow the bit dog' is an ungrammatical sentence. It's not the result of any reasoning process and it is certainly not insightful. |
Your improving  |
More emoticons might help. 
|
|
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)
|
 |
EddieRUKiddingVarese
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
|
Posted: January 22 2017 at 23:30 |
HackettFan wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
npjnpj wrote:
To me there's only one certain fact concerning the matter and that's: nobody
knows. ........ Any deeply religious person is, in my mind, in the grip of some powerful mass
hysteria..
|
Everyone is born with the capability of believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first. This capability is commonly called INTUITION, which is historically found to be pretty more developed and mastered on ancient eastern cultures than on our occidental cultures, much more based on empirical evidences. Just as an ilustration of it, one very well-known example is the development of the intuition on the formal training of Samurais. But the most well know geniuses of our occidental culture also naturally developed intuition. Einstein (BTW an ardent beliver in God's existence) wondered about the existence of the gravitational waves (as well as on the existence of their own sounds) without having the least remote empirical evidence of it. Of course his experience and knowledge on that field helped him, however he was the very first to say those two words, as well as kind of 'feel' the possible existence of the gravitational waves. Intuition? Much likely, I would say no wonder about it! And just recently, the scientific community were able to prove their existence. What am I suggesting with all this subject? Just have this perspective in account, and think about it.
|
Since when are atheists anti-intuition? In any event, Einstein did not kind of 'feel' the possible existence of gravity waves. |
First off, care to read again what I posted or tell me where I implicitly or explicitly said that about atheists. And yes indeed man, Albert Einstein did have a sort of 'insight' when predicting the existence of the gravitational waves, undoubtedly the greatest scientific discovery of the last centuries. |
Well, I presume you're making some connection between religiosity and intuition. That seems to be the point here, which would set it in contrast with a lack of religiosity as a counterpoint. I can't see any other purpose. You also use the idea of "...believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first". This is used relentlessly in attempts of persuasion by religionists, so my interpretation of what you were trying to say, right or wrong, is not far-fetched. It does seem a stretch to define intuition as you did, but okay. Maybe I'm being a bit difficult with the physics part of this because "intuition" (abduction) is often posited as responsible for hypotheses, but Einstein in particular was well known for thought experiments. He would suppose, for instance, what would happen using Newtonian physics if you could sit on a beam of light and approached two other objects traveling two different velocities, knowing the speed of light is constant. This sort of thing is a reasoning process. It is not intuition. I noticed, though, in your reply that you converted "intuition" to "...a sort of 'insight'...", and I don't think that intuition is at all equivalent to insight. Intuition tells me that 'Man slow the bit dog' is an ungrammatical sentence. It's not the result of any reasoning process and it is certainly not insightful. |
Your improving |
More emoticons might help. |
|
|
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 22 2017 at 23:48 |
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
npjnpj wrote:
To me there's only one certain fact concerning the matter and that's: nobody
knows. ........ Any deeply religious person is, in my mind, in the grip of some powerful mass
hysteria..
|
Everyone is born with the capability of believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first. This capability is commonly called INTUITION, which is historically found to be pretty more developed and mastered on ancient eastern cultures than on our occidental cultures, much more based on empirical evidences. Just as an ilustration of it, one very well-known example is the development of the intuition on the formal training of Samurais. But the most well know geniuses of our occidental culture also naturally developed intuition. Einstein (BTW an ardent beliver in God's existence) wondered about the existence of the gravitational waves (as well as on the existence of their own sounds) without having the least remote empirical evidence of it. Of course his experience and knowledge on that field helped him, however he was the very first to say those two words, as well as kind of 'feel' the possible existence of the gravitational waves. Intuition? Much likely, I would say no wonder about it! And just recently, the scientific community were able to prove their existence. What am I suggesting with all this subject? Just have this perspective in account, and think about it.
|
Since when are atheists anti-intuition? In any event, Einstein did not kind of 'feel' the possible existence of gravity waves. |
First off, care to read again what I posted or tell me where I implicitly or explicitly said that about atheists. And yes indeed man, Albert Einstein did have a sort of 'insight' when predicting the existence of the gravitational waves, undoubtedly the greatest scientific discovery of the last centuries. |
Well, I presume you're making some connection between religiosity and intuition. That seems to be the point here, which would set it in contrast with a lack of religiosity as a counterpoint. I can't see any other purpose. You also use the idea of "...believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first". This is used relentlessly in attempts of persuasion by religionists, so my interpretation of what you were trying to say, right or wrong, is not far-fetched. It does seem a stretch to define intuition as you did, but okay. Maybe I'm being a bit difficult with the physics part of this because "intuition" (abduction) is often posited as responsible for hypotheses, but Einstein in particular was well known for thought experiments. He would suppose, for instance, what would happen using Newtonian physics if you could sit on a beam of light and approached two other objects traveling two different velocities, knowing the speed of light is constant. This sort of thing is a reasoning process. It is not intuition. I noticed, though, in your reply that you converted "intuition" to "...a sort of 'insight'...", and I don't think that intuition is at all equivalent to insight. Intuition tells me that 'Man slow the bit dog' is an ungrammatical sentence. It's not the result of any reasoning process and it is certainly not insightful. |
Your improving |
Unlike your spelling. 
|
|
What?
|
|
EddieRUKiddingVarese
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 00:51 |
Dean wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
npjnpj wrote:
To me there's only one certain fact concerning the matter and that's: nobody
knows. ........ Any deeply religious person is, in my mind, in the grip of some powerful mass
hysteria..
|
Everyone is born with the capability of believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first. This capability is commonly called INTUITION, which is historically found to be pretty more developed and mastered on ancient eastern cultures than on our occidental cultures, much more based on empirical evidences. Just as an ilustration of it, one very well-known example is the development of the intuition on the formal training of Samurais. But the most well know geniuses of our occidental culture also naturally developed intuition. Einstein (BTW an ardent beliver in God's existence) wondered about the existence of the gravitational waves (as well as on the existence of their own sounds) without having the least remote empirical evidence of it. Of course his experience and knowledge on that field helped him, however he was the very first to say those two words, as well as kind of 'feel' the possible existence of the gravitational waves. Intuition? Much likely, I would say no wonder about it! And just recently, the scientific community were able to prove their existence. What am I suggesting with all this subject? Just have this perspective in account, and think about it.
|
Since when are atheists anti-intuition? In any event, Einstein did not kind of 'feel' the possible existence of gravity waves. |
First off, care to read again what I posted or tell me where I implicitly or explicitly said that about atheists. And yes indeed man, Albert Einstein did have a sort of 'insight' when predicting the existence of the gravitational waves, undoubtedly the greatest scientific discovery of the last centuries. |
Well, I presume you're making some connection between religiosity and intuition. That seems to be the point here, which would set it in contrast with a lack of religiosity as a counterpoint. I can't see any other purpose. You also use the idea of "...believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first". This is used relentlessly in attempts of persuasion by religionists, so my interpretation of what you were trying to say, right or wrong, is not far-fetched. It does seem a stretch to define intuition as you did, but okay. Maybe I'm being a bit difficult with the physics part of this because "intuition" (abduction) is often posited as responsible for hypotheses, but Einstein in particular was well known for thought experiments. He would suppose, for instance, what would happen using Newtonian physics if you could sit on a beam of light and approached two other objects traveling two different velocities, knowing the speed of light is constant. This sort of thing is a reasoning process. It is not intuition. I noticed, though, in your reply that you converted "intuition" to "...a sort of 'insight'...", and I don't think that intuition is at all equivalent to insight. Intuition tells me that 'Man slow the bit dog' is an ungrammatical sentence. It's not the result of any reasoning process and it is certainly not insightful. |
Your improving |
Unlike your spelling. |
Wot ya meen
|
|
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 00:59 |
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
Dean wrote:
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Tillerman88 wrote:
npjnpj wrote:
To me there's only one certain fact concerning the matter and that's: nobody
knows. ........ Any deeply religious person is, in my mind, in the grip of some powerful mass
hysteria..
|
Everyone is born with the capability of believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first. This capability is commonly called INTUITION, which is historically found to be pretty more developed and mastered on ancient eastern cultures than on our occidental cultures, much more based on empirical evidences. Just as an ilustration of it, one very well-known example is the development of the intuition on the formal training of Samurais. But the most well know geniuses of our occidental culture also naturally developed intuition. Einstein (BTW an ardent beliver in God's existence) wondered about the existence of the gravitational waves (as well as on the existence of their own sounds) without having the least remote empirical evidence of it. Of course his experience and knowledge on that field helped him, however he was the very first to say those two words, as well as kind of 'feel' the possible existence of the gravitational waves. Intuition? Much likely, I would say no wonder about it! And just recently, the scientific community were able to prove their existence. What am I suggesting with all this subject? Just have this perspective in account, and think about it.
|
Since when are atheists anti-intuition? In any event, Einstein did not kind of 'feel' the possible existence of gravity waves. |
First off, care to read again what I posted or tell me where I implicitly or explicitly said that about atheists. And yes indeed man, Albert Einstein did have a sort of 'insight' when predicting the existence of the gravitational waves, undoubtedly the greatest scientific discovery of the last centuries. |
Well, I presume you're making some connection between religiosity and intuition. That seems to be the point here, which would set it in contrast with a lack of religiosity as a counterpoint. I can't see any other purpose. You also use the idea of "...believing in the existence of something without having to see and hear it first". This is used relentlessly in attempts of persuasion by religionists, so my interpretation of what you were trying to say, right or wrong, is not far-fetched. It does seem a stretch to define intuition as you did, but okay. Maybe I'm being a bit difficult with the physics part of this because "intuition" (abduction) is often posited as responsible for hypotheses, but Einstein in particular was well known for thought experiments. He would suppose, for instance, what would happen using Newtonian physics if you could sit on a beam of light and approached two other objects traveling two different velocities, knowing the speed of light is constant. This sort of thing is a reasoning process. It is not intuition. I noticed, though, in your reply that you converted "intuition" to "...a sort of 'insight'...", and I don't think that intuition is at all equivalent to insight. Intuition tells me that 'Man slow the bit dog' is an ungrammatical sentence. It's not the result of any reasoning process and it is certainly not insightful. |
Your improving |
Unlike your spelling. |
Wot ya meen |
Deliberate misspelling doesn't count.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 03:57 |
CosmicVibration wrote:
Dean wrote:
CosmicVibration wrote:
I now recognize
it’s just too deep and mysteriously complicated for me and the human intellect
to decipher. To unravel the many
mysteries it contains one needs to be somewhat enlightened. But if one is enlightened there’s no need to read
it. How’s that for a catch 22? |
That's utter drivel and isn't an example of catch 22. It was written by humans for humans and the intellects that wrote it were no smarter (or no dumber) than us. Calling it "the word of god" doesn't mean that god played any part in its production. Aside from some very vague prophecies in the later books of both testaments (where I suspect the effects of the frankincense and myrrh were starting to kick-in) there are no deep mysteries in the bible, it is merely a collection Bronze and Iron Age writings that are open to ambiguous interpretation when read through modern eyes. |
Ahh… but it’s not utter drivel at all my friend. |
I ain't your friend nor am I your enemy, however my apologies, it's not utter drivel it's complete tosh...
CosmicVibration wrote:
There is learned knowledge that is derived
from the egos outer self and there is inner intuitive wisdom that comes from the
omniscient Soul. |
... and it may even be absolute piffle.
CosmicVibration wrote:
The authors of the
Bible and many other such texts were able to access their higher states of
consciousness and pierce through the illusion of the material realm. |
... or even arrant hogwash.
CosmicVibration wrote:
Granted some authors were more spiritually advanced than
others, thus being able to dive deeper and access greater pearls of actuality. |
...or maybe even unfounded codswallop. There are 31,102 verses in the bible, by simple dumb-luck at least one of them should support your thinking so the more examples you can provide the merrier.
CosmicVibration wrote:
Nonetheless, true intuitive wisdom is never
wrong. |
Intuitive wisdom is another way of saying "making it up as you go along" and that is not only frequently wrong it's irresponsible.
CosmicVibration wrote:
St. John was probably one of the most advanced apostles and
I don’t think Revelation is prophetic. |
Except that John of Revelations fame is unlikely to be St John the Apostle. Just as there were several people called James, Joseph and Mary around at that time, John was also a common enough name for there to have been several of them. The authorship of the Book of Revelations is uncertain but St John would have been long dead by the time it was written, so more likely candidates are John the Elder or John of Patmos. At that time the island of Patmos was a Roman penal colony and it's probable that John of Patmos would have been a prisoner thereof when he wrote it. Therefore re-reading the text from that contextual view-point can lead to completely different conclusion, just as reading Pilgrims Progress knowing that its author was banged up in jail at the time puts a completely different complexion on the whole thing.
CosmicVibration wrote:
It’s
highly garbed in metaphor and it’s an account of his personal journey towards enlightenment. |
That is highly improbable. While the symbolism within Revelation is difficult and open to some widely contradictory interpretations not all those interpretations stand up to scrutiny. The first verse clearly explains what it is about: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John". There is a slight ambiguity in the use of "of" in the opening phrase as it could be interpreted as "the revelation about Jesus Christ" or "the revelation from Jesus Christ" but suffice to say either and/or both interpretations can be used and that doesn't alter the prophetic nature signified by the subsequent "things which must shortly come to pass" phrase, which is wholly unambiguous and cannot be regarded as metaphoric.
CosmicVibration wrote:
It also contains an entire yogic system used
by him and the other apostles. Instruction
on focus, mind control, breath control, as well as movement of energy throughout
the body opening up the seven chakras or “seals”. By the opening the seventh seal one
penetrates through the star of the east, the gateway into omnipresent
perception and ever new joy. |
No it doesn't, that's simply a contrived misreading of the text.
CosmicVibration wrote:
The word of god as referenced in the bible is not about the
book and the actual words printed in it.
The word of God is the makeup of this material realm; it’s synonymous
with the Holy Ghost. |
I think you are maybe confusing the holy ghost with the archangel Metatron  
CosmicVibration wrote:
“The
Holy Symphonic Vibration that makes up all of vibratory creation is the Holy
Ghost. Think string theory here…”
|
Nope. Justifying one hypothesis using another hypothesis is bad enough but using an unproven hypothesis to support an untestable belief is inexcusable. The "cosmic vibration" imagined by ancient cultures were completely unrelated to each other and have no connection with quantum physics and the hypothesised string theory. Just because things share the same words does not mean they are in any way related.
|
|
What?
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 05:41 |
|
Wow! Now I know how and why religious wars start
People getting all hot under the collar about how to interpret some pissy myth.
Edited by npjnpj - January 23 2017 at 05:46
|
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 08:14 |
npjnpj wrote:
Wow! Now I know how and why religious wars start
People getting all hot under the collar about how to interpret some pissy myth.
|
You may be correct but I don’t feel that here. I’m certainly not hot under the collar and I don’t
get the sense that Dean is either. Of
course I could be wrong..
When it comes down to
the different interpretations from the both of us, who’s right and who’s wrong? Maybe we’re both wrong. Or maybe in some weird quantum sense where
both right.
Doesn’t really matter, what matters is personal experiences. I’ll copy a post from this thread and
probably sign off till the end of the week, very busy at work here.
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=58500&PID=5422687#5422687
Yes, I’ve had a few personal
experiences. And they are just that,
personal..
However, God is both personal and
impersonal. I’ll share some universal
aspects of the Divine, that of peace and joy.
In a certain sense these would be personal in that I’ve personally
experience them.
I’ve been practicing various
meditation techniques for over 20 years now.
When my focus is right the first thing that happens is an overwhelming
sense of peace ensues. This peace
intensifies to the point that is seems that nothing can penetrate it and
nothing else really matters. The entire
world could be crumbling all around me and it wouldn’t matter, my peace would
not be broken.
In this high state of overwhelming
peace joy starts percolating from within.
This joy also intensifies to extreme levels.
You know, sometimes I think god is a
drug pusher. LOL.. I get hooked and then for many days
sometimes weeks and months of meditation sessions I may experience a little
peace and maybe a little joy but still it’s faint and pale in comparison to the
last big fix. The former serious high
starts to become a distant memory. And
then one day bam! a new high! So I’m
hooked... I keep on coming back for more.
Yep, gods a drug pusher.. so put
that in your pipe and smoke it
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 08:40 |
I had a personal experience with god once.
I prayed. Nothing happened.
Then I didn't pray. Nothing happened.
Then I started thinking.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 09:10 |
CosmicVibration wrote:
npjnpj wrote:
Wow! Now I know how and why religious wars start
People getting all hot under the collar about how to interpret some pissy myth.
|
You may be correct but I don’t feel that here. I’m certainly not hot under the collar and I don’t
get the sense that Dean is either. Of
course I could be wrong.. |
You are not wrong.
CosmicVibration wrote:
When it comes down to
the different interpretations from the both of us, who’s right and who’s wrong? |
I haven't said anything that can be judged as right or wrong.
CosmicVibration wrote:
Maybe we’re both wrong. |
Nope. Only you can be wrong because you are the one making absolute pronouncements. I merely observe whether something is probable or possible (I tend to chose my words very carefully).
CosmicVibration wrote:
Or maybe in some weird quantum sense where
both right. |
That's not what quantum superposition means.
CosmicVibration wrote:
Doesn’t really matter, what matters is personal experiences. |
Personal experiences are by very definition personal and therefore caution must be exercised when using those experiences to make broader statements.
CosmicVibration wrote:
I’ll copy a post from this thread and
probably sign off till the end of the week, very busy at work here. |
I read it in the other thread thanks.
|
|
What?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20609
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 12:59 |
Dean wrote:
One of the problems with history is perspective - the further back in time we look the more compressed our perception of the timeline becomes. Tacitus was born 30 years after the presumed date of the crucifixion and Suetonius 11 years after him so neither were contemporaneous with the events they documented. What we cannot gauge is how periods of 48 and 80 years were perceived by people alive at that time and how much of the factual history they would know of earlier events but it is fairly certain that it would be considerably different to how we perceive 1969 and 1937 today and the vast archive of data we have from those years.
Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge.
AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.
|
That Tacitus and Suetonius, to our modern perceptions, wrote their accounts of early Christianity under the reign of various Roman emperors, decades after the events, seems incongruous to us as there was no story following in the next day's press or reviewed in a magazine like Time a few months later.
However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE. Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition.
Where Tacitus and Suetonius had political agendas tied to their histories, Josephus, in his "Testimonium Flavianum" and "The Jewish Wars", laid out what was truthfully wrong with both Rome's decades old barbaric handling of occupied Judea and the futility of the Jew's fanaticism when fighting Rome to free themselves of Rome's yoke. This lack of sugar coating is quite remarkable for it's time and its these series of attestations, when taken together, that make the probability of Jesus of Nazareth being a real fresh and blood person both very high and difficult to contest.
Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.
Edited by SteveG - January 23 2017 at 13:29
|
|
EddieRUKiddingVarese
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 13:53 |
The T wrote:
I had a personal experience with god once.
I prayed. Nothing happened.
Then I didn't pray. Nothing happened.
Then I started thinking. |
Thats my man
|
|
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20609
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 13:57 |
Yes Fact: 24 No Fiction: 10
No amount of disdain can change that tally.
|
|
EddieRUKiddingVarese
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 14:14 |
|
^ just goes to show the sorry state of Prog today...............
|
|
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!
|
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 15:53 |
EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote:
The T wrote:
I had a personal experience with god once.
I prayed. Nothing happened.
Then I didn't pray. Nothing happened.
Then I started thinking. |
Thats my man
|
Mr. T,
That’s been your problem all along - thinking.
When you were praying was it with razor sharp focus or were your
thoughts wondering?
When you are not praying are you in control of your thoughts
or do your thoughts control you?
I think therefore I am, says the little ego. This is not correct, you are not the
ego. Your true self is more of a
thoughtless observer. I think therefore I’m not is more realistic.
As it seems that eastern philosophies are somewhat shunned
by some here I will not discourse emptying your cup or stilling your mind. I’ll try to use a less ambiguous dialogue.
For truly marvelous plays in life you need to get into the
zone as most professional athletes call it.
Ever listen to an interview after a spectacular play or feat that was
performed by a professional? The
questions are usually the same and the answers are the same.
What was going through your mind when you
made that spectacular play? What were you thinking? How did you feel?
I wasn’t thinking about anything. It’s as if time slowed down for me and I was
just going through the motions with no thought involved. I was in the zone mofo..
To get to that elite level takes a ton of practice. Tossing out one mindless prayer will not make
you an elite spiritual quarterback. To
still the mind is one of the hardest things to do.
|
|
EddieRUKiddingVarese
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 04 2016
Location: Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 1802
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 16:17 |
^ I'll stick to Erinmore Flake thanks 
|
|
"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"
and I need the knits, the double knits!
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 16:27 |
Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing...
SteveG wrote:
Dean wrote:
One of the problems with history is perspective - the further back in time we look the more compressed our perception of the timeline becomes. Tacitus was born 30 years after the presumed date of the crucifixion and Suetonius 11 years after him so neither were contemporaneous with the events they documented. What we cannot gauge is how periods of 48 and 80 years were perceived by people alive at that time and how much of the factual history they would know of earlier events but it is fairly certain that it would be considerably different to how we perceive 1969 and 1937 today and the vast archive of data we have from those years.
Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge.
AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.
|
That Tacitus and Suetonius, to our modern perceptions, wrote their accounts of early Christianity under the reign of various Roman emperors, decades after the events, seems incongruous to us as there was no story following in the next day's press or reviewed in a magazine like Time a few months later. |
Yup. That's pretty much covers part of what I was driving at. Consider how much debate and disagreement undocumented events of 60 years ago create today and then take another view of the 60 years between the presumed date of the crucifixion and the first [non-christian] written account of it.
SteveG wrote:
However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE. Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition. |
Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum.
Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.
SteveG wrote:
Where Tacitus and Suetonius had political agendas tied to their histories, Josephus, in his "Testimonium Flavianum" and "The Jewish Wars", laid out what was truthfully wrong with both Rome's decades old barbaric handling of occupied Judea and the futility of the Jew's fanaticism when fighting Rome to free themselves of Rome's yoke. This lack of sugar coating is quite remarkable for it's time and its these series of attestations, when taken together, that make the probability of Jesus of Nazareth being a real fresh and blood person both very high and difficult to contest. |
Except for those dang christian alterations to his text and the only probable source of his knowledge, makes it very easy to contest. (see above)
SteveG wrote:
Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.
|
I never said they did, so what's your point?
Edited by Dean - January 23 2017 at 16:28
|
|
What?
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 16:33 |
 who needs good judgement... its the internet!!!! come on Dean.. you know better than that...
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 16:46 |
Time will tell Micky, time will tell. Meanwhile, more beer
|
|
What?
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: January 23 2017 at 16:48 |
I hate you I'm on my 3rd week on the wagon and I'd kill for a beer right now
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Jesus Christ! Fact or fiction?