Why do most "Christians" celebrate Xmas in a pagan way?

[Soon]

i dont think religion is the only problem. people will always be problematic. stalin, mao, and pol pot were problematic without religion. religion is just one of the things helping to motivate certain actions. political ideology and cults of personality can fill the void that a lack of religion will leave. they both thrive where there is a lack of critical thinking and both can make people feel justified in harming others.

if you get rid of religion, you still have to get rid of people's tendencies toward authoritarianism and superstiitous thinking or it will manifest itself in some other way. some shortsighted atheists may think the world will be better without religion, but that is missing the forest for the trees. the world will be better with an informed and educated public encouraged to think and ask questions.

People will be people.

But the non religious and the Atheist are not informed and not educated don't think and ask questions. Makes me wonder why not target everyone?

So how does someone prove outside the bible that Jesus existed ?

By disproving the first hand accounts by Jesus disciples, brothers and sisters.

Dr. Richard Carrier only brings rhetoric, he doesn't dispute any of the evidence, just rhetoric on top of rhetoric. Same rhetoric I've heard over and over again.

 

[Mess World]

People will be people.

But the non religious and the Atheist are not informed and educated who think and ask questions. Makes me wonder why not target everyone?



By disproving the first hand accounts by Jesus disciples, brothers and sisters.

Dr. Richard Carrier only brings rhetoric, he doesn't dispute any of the evidence, just rhetoric on top of rhetoric. Same rhetoric I've heard over and over again.

No I'm
Asking for sources outside the bible

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So how does someone prove outside the bible that Jesus existed ?

Well, Jesus is discussed in the Didache, at least twice in the historical writings of Josephus, in Tacitus, in Clement's first letter, in the seven letters of Ignatius, in some correspondence by Pliny the Younger, in two places in Suetonius, in Lucian, and in the Jewish Talmud. That's just a few, going with Roman, Greek, Jewish, and Chrsitian souces.


But why invent a random criteria like, "outside the Bible". Why shouldn't letters a guy named Paul wrote to various communities 20-30 years after Jesus's death be part of the historial evidence? Why shouldn't biographies written about a man 30-50 years after his death be part of the evidence we use to figure out who the man is?

Your proposal is basically, "Prove that Jesus was who the Christians claim he was using only sources who don't think that Jesus was who the Christians claim he was."

The easiest answer to the question of "should Jesus be considered a historical figure" is "How could that much literature have been produced claiming detaisl of the life of that historical figure, if the people right there knew that this "Jesus" guy didn't exist?


On top of all the literary evidence is also the historical fact of the early Chrstian church, and why all of these Jews were willing to split off from the rest of the Jewish body (to the point of being persecuted and killed by Jews and Romans both), and why Gentiles were willing to join them and get persecuted too, if such a Jesus never existed.

So yeah, the Roman/Greek sources, the Jewish sources, the Biblical sources, the other Christian sources, and the historical existence of the Christian church itself. Why is that not enough for any serious historian who doesn't have an anti-Jesus axe to grind?

Wait...it is. Which is why all the serious historians say that Jesus existed.

 

[Mess World]

Well, Jesus is discussed in the Didache, at least twice in the historical writings of Josephus, in Tacitus, in Clement's first letter, in the seven letters of Ignatius, in some correspondence by Pliny the Younger, in two places in Suetonius, in Lucian, and in the Jewish Talmud. That's just a few, going with Roman, Greek, Jewish, and Chrsitian souces.


But why invent a random criteria like, "outside the Bible". Why shouldn't letters a guy named Paul wrote to various communities 20-30 years after Jesus's death be part of the historial evidence? Why shouldn't biographies written about a man 30-50 years after his death be part of the evidence we use to figure out who the man is?

Your proposal is basically, "Prove that Jesus was who the Christians claim he was using only sources who don't think that Jesus was who the Christians claim he was."

The easiest answer to the question of "should Jesus be considered a historical figure" is "How could that much literature have been produced claiming detaisl of the life of that historical figure, if the people right there knew that this "Jesus" guy didn't exist?


On top of all the literary evidence is also the historical fact of the early Chrstian church, and why all of these Jews were willing to split off from the rest of the Jewish body (to the point of being persecuted and killed by Jews and Romans both), and why Gentiles were willing to join them and get persecuted too, if such a Jesus never existed.

So yeah, the Roman/Greek sources, the Jewish sources, the Biblical sources, the other Christian sources, and the historical existence of the Christian church itself. Why is that not enough for any serious historian who doesn't have an anti-Jesus axe to grind?

Wait...it is. Which is why all the serious historians say that Jesus existed.

Tacticus Writings have been altered

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus

 

[calixprynce]

yall sho do know how to derail a thread

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Tacticus Writings have been altered

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus

No, serious historians believe that Tacticus's writings are legitimate.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[42][43] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[43] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[5][6][7][43]

Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator.[44][45] His writings shows no sympathy towards Christians, or knowledge of who their leader was.[5][46] His characterization of "Christian abominations" may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism by Christians.[46][47] Andreas Köstenberger states that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe.[48] Van Voorst also states that the passage is unlikely to be a Christian forgery because of the pejorative language used to describe Christianity.[42]

Suggestions that the whole of Annals may have been a forgery have also been generally rejected by scholars.[54] John P. Meier states that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.[55]

Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ".[42] John Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."[56] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."[57]

On his own page, Christian critic Bart Ehman states:

I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” that the reference to Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery.

He then contacts James Rives, one of the leading Roman history scholars in the world, to ask his view. Rives states:

I’ve never come across any dispute about the authenticity of Ann. 15.44; as far as I’m aware, it’s always been accepted as genuine, although of course there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind it.

You linked to "Acharya S" as your source.

Take a quote agreed by almost every academic historian in the world to be genuine, and claim to refute it because someone with no cred at all who sits around pounding away on her laptop says so.

Even her fellow "Christ-myth" proponets like Carrier and Price have said that a lot of "Acharya S" claims are pure b.s. This is what Price said about her "Christ conspiracy" book:

After referring to it as “sophomoric,” Price comments, “She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. One of the most intriguing claims made repeatedly in these books is that among the mythical predecessors of Jesus as a crucified god were the Buddha, the blue-skinned Krishna, and Dionysus. Is there any basis to these claims, which Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again, she does not explain where they come from, much less why no available book on Buddha, Krishna, or Dionysus contains a crucifixion account. . . . When Murdock speaks of the ‘Christ Conspiracy,’ she means it. She really believes that ‘people got together and cooked up’ early Christianity like a network sitcom. And who were these conspirators? The, er, Masons (pp. 334 ff.). It is remarkable how and where some people’s historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt. But it gets much, much weirder than that. We start, in the last chapters, reading bits and pieces drawn from James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu; Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchen, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia; and of course all that stuff about the maps of the ancient sea kings. The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney.”(123)

Here's Dr. Richard Carrier's assessment of "Zeitgeist", which repeats a lot of Archaya S's lame assertions:

But it's nowhere near as egregiously full of sh*t as Zeitgeist: The Movie, which has been thoroughly debunked as absolute garbage by several knowledgeable commentators (the best critiques are catalogued by Jim Lippard at the end of his own blog post on that awful doco). I wouldn't recommend Zeitgeist at all.

One of the reasons Murdock’s methodology goes off the rails is that she assumes everyone is out to get her and that there is always some sort of evil conspiracy against her work. Which insulates her from listening to criticism and correcting the way she does things. That is one of the surest ways to fail as a scholar. It likely also prevents her from having useful dialogs with experts in ancient history. Which is the surest way to make yourself irrelevant as a scholar. But that’s her own lookout.

Or take Bart Ehrman's words:

Acharya S was not a scholar who could be trusted (in part because she is not a scholar) in the context of eleven rather egregious mistakes that I picked out, more or less at random, in her book.

Of course, this is what Acharya S. said herself about Dr. Richard Carrier, who you quoted earlier:

Richard Carrier is dishonest, deceptive and hypocritical. He constantly invokes credentialism, while he himself is not an expert on the subject of Jesus mythicism, as he admittedly has not studied the massive body of Jesus mythicist literature dating back centuries. He is doubly hypocritical in making repeated derogatory remarks about my work when he has not studied it. His justifications for such dishonesty are simply excuses to be lazy and to monopolize the field for himself.

Here's an obvious dig at me:

"But obviously there's a zillion more threads to follow on this so I highly recommend that you explore it more thoroughly but, I do recommend not trusting amateur writers unless you hear an expert author tell you to trust them or tell you to look at them. What you want to look for is not websites that talk about how many parallels there are between Jesus and Horus - that's generally crap."

What is "generally crap" is Carrier's assessment of this field. He does not know what he is talking about; his knowledge is very shallow, and his ego is big as a bus, as Earl Doherty observed.

Sounds like even these "Jesus myth" people think that all the other "Jesus myth" people are full of crap.


R.I.P. - Just found out that Acharya S. just died this Christmas.

 

[Mess World]

No, serious historians believe that Tacticus's writings are legitimate.







On his own page, Christian critic Bart Ehman states:

He then contacts James Rives, one of the leading Roman history scholars in the world, to ask his view. Rives states:



You linked to "Acharya S" as your source.

Take a quote agreed by almost every academic historian in the world to be genuine, and claim to refute it because someone with no cred at all who sits around pounding away on her laptop says so.

Even her fellow "Christ-myth" proponets like Carrier and Price have said that a lot of "Acharya S" claims are pure b.s. This is what Price said about her "Christ conspiracy" book:





Here's Dr. Richard Carrier's assessment of "Zeitgeist", which repeats a lot of Archaya S's lame assertions:





Or take Bart Ehrman's words:





Of course, this is what Acharya S. said herself about Dr. Richard Carrier, who you quoted earlier:





Sounds like even these "Jesus myth" people think that all the other "Jesus myth" people are full of crap.


R.I.P. - Just found out that Acharya S. just died this Christmas.

Stop using wiki as a source it's not credible

A history prof. Would never let wiki fly for essays

 

[Professor Emeritus]

No, if I were writing an essay for a history prof, I would simply use the exact same quotes and cite the original sources that are provided right there by wikipedia.

So, you don't want me quoting serious academic history professors just because their quotes (with the full cites linked) come from wikipedia.

But you're quoting a random blogger with a B.A. in history like her words are fact.

I'm linking James Rives, Craig Evens, Watson Mills, Bart Ehrman, Robert Van Voost, Helen Bond, Paul Eddy, Gregory Boyd, Robert Renehan, William Portier, and Andreas Köstenberger.


You're hanging your entire argument on the mysterious "Archaya S", some girl with a B.A. in history and a lot of ridiculous theories who even the other "Jesus Myth" proponents say is full of crap.

We're not writing essays for a history professor. If that was our task, you already would have failed at every letter.

 

[Mess World]

No, if I were writing an essay for a history prof, I would simply use the exact same quotes and cite the original sources that are provided right there by wikipedia.

So, you don't want me quoting serious academic history professors just because their quotes (with the full cites linked) come from wikipedia.

But you're quoting a random blogger with a B.A. in history like her words are fact.

We're not writing essays for a history professor. If that was our task, you already would have failed at every letter.

No in academia they don't allow you to use wiki because anyone can edit it

 

[Mess World]

Why isn't Wikipedia a reputable source?

 

[Mess World]

You've never seen me post any wiki links on this site since I've been here

The info can be corrupted

You have to use other sources to make points

There's stories of history students who used wiki for essays and got the wrong info

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Christianity and Islam are both pagan last I checked.

 

[Soon]

No in academia they don't allow you to use wiki because anyone can edit it

Wiki is just a bad idea. I would hate to stake my beliefs or sanity on what a wiki page states.

 

[Mess World]

Christianity and Islam are both pagan last I checked.

Nope

Pagan is the worship of nature and deities not one God

What is Paganism? - Pagan Federation International

 

[Professor Emeritus]

No in academia they don't allow you to use wiki because anyone can edit it

Why isn't Wikipedia a reputable source?

You've never seen me post any wiki links on this site since I've been here

The info can be corrupted

Do you even read your own links? This is what the link you just posted states:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents information from consensus....

Wikipedia is not really the problem. Academic writing requires that we look at primary or secondary sources, that is studies or an author’s write up about a study. These are typically presented in academic journals....

Wikipedia is an overview of information; it’s general and written for the general public. Even if you were to use a print Encyclopedia, you would still not be approaching your writing from an academic’s perspective.....

So the reason we don’t use Wikipedia is not really because the information can change and the information is somehow unreliable, but Wikipedia is general information and simply not the type of sources required in academics....

In other words, history profs require the kind of sources found in academic journals, NOT the general consensus information that wikipedia provides, and certainly NOT the random B.S. from personal blogs that you keep posting.

In other words, history profs would love the original sources cited and linked right there in the wikipedia article, like I just said.

There isn't a single source you've posted in this entire debate that would have been acceptable in an academic paper.

Wiki is just a bad idea. I would hate to stake my beliefs or sanity on what a wiki page states.

If you had to choose between:

1) A wikipedia page
2) A random personal blog
3) A random Coli poster

Which one is most likely to be accurate?

I'm on here posting links to wikipedia pages AND plenty of links to academics supporting my position. In response, I'm getting random opinions spouted by Coli posters and the occasional personal blog by an "activist athiest" as a response.

Is there seriously the slightest bit of doubt as to who has cited better sources?