NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting, very interesting:

July 6, 2008
Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

Still, its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.

Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.

“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.
Rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If validated (The missing words I mean, it seems if everyone is agreeing to the age of the thing) this could really shake up our notions of what was going on then. I can already see several interpretations from proof positive that Jesus was made up to prophecy, all of course dependent upon what you believe.

Makes you wonder what else might be hanging around in someone's shop in Israel though.

Interesting, very interesting:


Rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If validated (The missing words I mean, it seems if everyone is agreeing to the age of the thing) this could really shake up our notions of what was going on then. I can already see several interpretations from proof positive that Jesus was made up to prophecy, all of course dependent upon what you believe.

Makes you wonder what else might be hanging around in someone's shop in Israel though.

The fact that there has been no real objection to the alleged age of the thing, doesn't actually equate directly to "everyone is agreeing to the age of the thing". It might just not have passed through enough hands yet... or those that have examined it may not have been entirely objective, for whatever reason.

Regardless - it's pretty much common knowledge that the 'Jesus' story is only one 'messiah' account of the time and place. This text might help show the place of the Jesus-mythos in context, but it's not likely to lend any extra credibility to that particular story... at least, not to the objective observer.

at least, not to the objective observer.
Aye, there's the rub.

Originally Posted by The New York Times:
...
believe
...
may
...
If ... really
...
suggests
...
probably
...
the stone is broken ... text is faded... open to debate.
...
likely
...


Maybe, if it really is true and probably readable, one could perhaps suggest the writers believed that something special might have been about to happen.

It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

This did make me smile.

One of these days God is going to send us something that is absolutely crystal clear and leaves no room for argument. Until then, he's either testing our faith or playing with our minds. :p

I'd more expect it to be written after the fact than anything else.

Or it would show that even one of the most base writings of christianity is stolen, like pretty much everything else, from other religions before it.

The only way to shake up the foundations of Christianity is an earthquake in the Vatican.

This did make me smile.

One of these days God is going to send us something that is absolutely crystal clear and leaves no room for argument. Until then, he's either testing our faith or playing with our minds. :p

God has already sent us something absolutely crystal clear.

Deuteronomy 25:5 through 25:10.

There is no room for argument anywhere within it.

God has already sent us something absolutely crystal clear.

Deuteronomy 25:5 through 25:10.

There is no room for argument anywhere within it.

5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

7And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

8Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

9Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

10And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.



I actually understood that. :)

I actually understood that. :)

*loosens your shoe*

*loosens your shoe*

Unless you are his dead brother's wife whom LG has refused to marry and inseminate, you have no right to loosen his shoe.

Please do not mock my faith.

Until then, he's either testing our faith or playing with our minds. :p
What a ****...

i can see where it would shake up christian scholarship but not where it would make any difference to christian belief.

and im sure that christian scholarship could USE a bit of outside-generated excitement.

None of the articles I've been able to find mentioned how the tablet has been dated. Until this can be answered this whole thing is a non-event. Also, whilst direct confirmation of the idea that the resurrection myth was borrowed from earlier traditions hasn't been found, it's been a fairly widely held assumption for a long time.

None of the articles I've been able to find mentioned how the tablet has been dated. Until this can be answered this whole thing is a non-event. Also, whilst direct confirmation of the idea that the resurrection myth was borrowed from earlier traditions hasn't been found, it's been a fairly widely held assumption for a long time.

Indeed. After all, both Mithras and Osiris were resurrected long before Jesus even considered it.

Indeed. After all, both Mithras and Osiris were resurrected long before Jesus even considered it.

Yep. I think that most Christian tradition comes from a bizarre marriage between the Isis-Osiris-Horus triad and Judaism. Christianity and Isis-Osiris-Horus were major rivals for a long time, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that in order to get ahead the Christians were prepared to steal the clothes of their rivals to Win Hearts And Minds.

I think a lot of Old Testament stories are lifts from the Osiris myths as well, with a dollop of Atenism thrown in here and there.

Yep. I think that most Christian tradition comes from a bizarre marriage between the Isis-Osiris-Horus triad and Judaism. Christianity and Isis-Osiris-Horus were major rivals for a long time, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that in order to get ahead the Christians were prepared to steal the clothes of their rivals to Win Hearts And Minds.

I think a lot of Old Testament stories are lifts from the Osiris myths as well, with a dollop of Atenism thrown in here and there.
Christianity is nothing more then a series of fusions of old dead religions

Yep. I think that most Christian tradition comes from a bizarre marriage between the Isis-Osiris-Horus triad and Judaism. Christianity and Isis-Osiris-Horus were major rivals for a long time, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that in order to get ahead the Christians were prepared to steal the clothes of their rivals to Win Hearts And Minds.

While not entirely certain that was the case with the Egyptian pantheon (though the case one can make is reasonably strong), we know for certain that many Christian traditions have non-Christian roots. Take the date of Christmas for instance: close to imortant Pagan festivals, far from Jesus supposed birthdate.

I'd more expect it to be written after the fact than anything else.


After the fact? Which 'fact'?

Here's something.... Christmas actually had nothing to do with Jesus..... So... Hah?

Here's something.... Christmas actually had nothing to do with Jesus..... So... Hah?

Yeah, it was the Catholic Church trying to convert Pagans by putting the date of Christmas either near, or on, some pagan holiday. Scholars back then estimated the date of Jesus' birth closer to April.

i can see where it would shake up christian scholarship but not where it would make any difference to christian belief.

and im sure that christian scholarship could USE a bit of outside-generated excitement.

I don't think it shakes up Christian scholarship at all, Christian theology has always held the opinion that Jewish tradition is the 'prophesy' that Christ fulfilled. Thus they are always referring to predictions of Jewish tradition that they say points to the person of Christ.

On the other hand though, modern Jewish theology, which denies that the suffering Christ was a 'prediction' of Jewish teaching before Christ, is hard pressed to explain this away (if it is in fact older than Christian tradition) because it flies in the face of the claim that the Christ isn't supposed to suffer by Jewish tradition. Clearly then, with this and other dead sea scroll writings, there were groups of Jews then that don't have the same expectations as their modern descendants today.

Yep. I think that most Christian tradition comes from a bizarre marriage between the Isis-Osiris-Horus triad and Judaism. Christianity and Isis-Osiris-Horus were major rivals for a long time, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that in order to get ahead the Christians were prepared to steal the clothes of their rivals to Win Hearts And Minds.

I think a lot of Old Testament stories are lifts from the Osiris myths as well, with a dollop of Atenism thrown in here and there.

Jewish expectations and understandings, dealing with the properties of God, should very well be influenced by the Egyptian point of view, the scriptures says they spent many generations there. And likewise Babylonian influences as well, hundreds of years later when they spent a couple of generations in Babylon as well.

Of course, the modern naysayer likes to try and argue that things like the Exodus never happened, so your argument would have less weight if they are correct. If your observations is correct though, that they have been influenced by the Egyptians, that would make perfect sense with what the scripture says happened.

Of course Christianity is not unique. It is quite similar to all other Abrahamic religions.

I don't think it shakes up Christian scholarship at all, Christian theology has always held the opinion that Jewish tradition is the 'prophesy' that Christ fulfilled. Thus they are always referring to predictions of Jewish tradition that they say points to the person of Christ.

On the other hand though, modern Jewish theology, which denies that the suffering Christ was a 'prediction' of Jewish teaching before Christ, is hard pressed to explain this away (if it is in fact older than Christian tradition) because it flies in the face of the claim that the Christ isn't supposed to suffer by Jewish tradition. Clearly then, with this and other dead sea scroll writings, there were groups of Jews then that don't have the same expectations as their modern descendants today.

and therein lies the excitement eh?

by shakeup i meant more like "tremor" where a new and somewhat verifiable assertion can be made on the basis of this odd hunk of stone (who writes on stone with ink??). some scholar should be able to make something of it that has to be vigorously defended by someone else--as opposed to coming up with a new idea that doesnt have an odd bit of archeological evidence behind it.

as to BELIEF, i dont see what possible difference it might make. i agree with your analysis above. its not on its face a blow to any christian theology.

Jewish expectations and understandings, dealing with the properties of God, should very well be influenced by the Egyptian point of view, the scriptures says they spent many generations there. And likewise Babylonian influences as well, hundreds of years later when they spent a couple of generations in Babylon as well.

Of course, the modern naysayer likes to try and argue that things like the Exodus never happened, so your argument would have less weight if they are correct. If your observations is correct though, that they have been influenced by the Egyptians, that would make perfect sense with what the scripture says happened.

The Exodus story can be untrue, without it somehow mystically meaning that Hebrew scripture must be independent of it's precedents and contemporaries.

Of course Christianity is not unique. It is quite similar to all other Abrahamic religions.

But more similar to other (non-Abrahamic) ones.

In the main triad of Abrahamic traditions, 'Christianity' is very much the odd-man-out.

Yeah, it was the Catholic Church trying to convert Pagans by putting the date of Christmas either near, or on, some pagan holiday. Scholars back then estimated the date of Jesus' birth closer to April.

'Twas the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus, a celebration of the sun, I believe. Early Church fathers didn't want Christians participating in the old tradition of the holiday.

'Twas the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus, a celebration of the sun, I believe. Early Church fathers didn't want Christians participating in the old tradition of the holiday.

I thought it was a Celtic holiday they put it over...

I thought it was a Celtic holiday they put it over...

No, it was Sol Invictus. Part of Saturnalia. That's what 5 years of Latin gets ya!:)

No, it was Sol Invictus. Part of Saturnalia. That's what 5 years of Latin gets ya!:)
*Sniff* I want to take Latin....

No, it was Sol Invictus. Part of Saturnalia. That's what 5 years of Latin gets ya!:)

Sol Invictus AND Yule;)

Which all just confirms the point: Christianity has borrowed things from other religions. Which may well include the whole resurrection story.

*Sniff* I want to take Latin....

Ha! No, you don't. It is the most confusing "WTF?!?!" language there is.

Ha! No, you don't. It is the most confusing "WTF?!?!" language there is.Oh really? Have you tried every language? :p

Oh really? Have you tried every language? :p

Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus! Cur, mea Lesbia, facis hic canes? Sordidi sunt. Esne sordida? Nonne iussit tibi cumbitum ire? Cur me vexas? Scio, igitur sum. Tu, tamen, non scis, sic non es. Momento, habeo magnum baculum.

There, now I hope we can all get back on track?

Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus! Cur, mea Lesbia, facis hic canes? Sordidi sunt. Esne sordida? Nonne iussit tibi cumbitum ire? Cur me vexas? Scio, igitur sum. Tu, tamen, non scis, sic non es. Momento, habeo magnum baculum.

There, now I hope we can all get back on track?
Vivamus , my Lesbia , and amemus! Why , my Lesbia , a bundle this canes? To be dirty are. Esne to be dirty? Not at the command of to you cumbitum to go? Why me shakeup? To know , therefore to be. You , nothwithstanding , not scis , so not are. Momento , to have large baculus.
Using an online phrase translator, that's what I got.

Now what did you say?:confused:

Sigh....this is why Latin is confusing.

"Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us love. Why, my Lesbia, do you do these dogs? They are dirty. Are you dirty? Surely I have ordered you to go to bed. Why do you annoy me so? I think, therefore I am. You, however, do not think, therefore, you are not. Remember, I have the big stick."

20 freakin' forms for each noun, adjective and pronoun, 50 freakin' forms for each verb. Trust me, it's a black hole.

Sigh....this is why Latin is confusing.

"Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us love. Why, my Lesbia, do you do these dogs? They are dirty. Are you dirty? Surely I have ordered you to go to bed. Why do you annoy me so? I think, therefore I am. You, however, do not think, therefore, you are not. Remember, I have the big stick."

20 freakin' forms for each noun, adjective and pronoun, 50 freakin' forms for each verb. Trust me, it's a black hole.
Sounds like I can confuse people with it....

I'm in :).

Or maybe I could confuse myself... HA! Take THAT self!

Interesting, very interesting:


Rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If validated (The missing words I mean, it seems if everyone is agreeing to the age of the thing) this could really shake up our notions of what was going on then. I can already see several interpretations from proof positive that Jesus was made up to prophecy, all of course dependent upon what you believe.
I don't see this as too amazing. Christians have cited older texts that prophesize of a messiah for a long time, it's even in the Nicene Creed. I think it goes, "on the third day, he rose again, in fulfillment of the Scriptures."
Makes you wonder what else might be hanging around in someone's shop in Israel though.
That's very true.

Sigh....this is why Latin is confusing.

"Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us love. Why, my Lesbia, do you do these dogs? They are dirty. Are you dirty? Surely I have ordered you to go to bed. Why do you annoy me so? I think, therefore I am. You, however, do not think, therefore, you are not. Remember, I have the big stick."

20 freakin' forms for each noun, adjective and pronoun, 50 freakin' forms for each verb. Trust me, it's a black hole.

A much easier translation would have been "Catullus is a whiny bitch." :D

The truth is that only Jesus can save you from your sins regardless what is suddenly discovered.

For anyone that actually cares, they may want to read the papers that brought about the news reports, the Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elitzur opinions published by Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi ...

http://ybz.org.il/?ArticleID=1713

Now I can't find the actual 'translation' of the stone itself, I wish I could, but if I do find it I will post a link here. The article briefs from the quarterly do not have the actual translation and edition 123 doesn't seem to be on-line. Who owns a subscription, anyone? How about you type the 80 lines for us :D

The truth is that only Jesus can save you from your sins regardless what is suddenly discovered.

Agreed. I don't know about this unprovinced stone find, dated correctly or incorrectly, it reads too much like a perfect prophesy, almost too good for it to be true.

Ink on a stone would normally be found on a wall or in a dwelling place, but this stone is a complete mystery. It must have been protected from the weather, but why write it if it isn't a prophesy of things yet to come or of a report of things already happened.

The article writers think it might have been written about a rebel leader named Simon, in 4BC, but if so, was it written before his death? And if he expected to die, why was he fighting with weapons and armies? Was it written after his death, but the writer knew that he didn't rise from the dead, unless it was supposedly written during the three days after his death, but that's awfully odd sounding and stretching credibility in my mind.

The most likely explanation is going to be the least popular, if the stone was written ca. 4BC, then is was a prophesy of things to happen, not of things already done. And if so, then Christ fulfilled it.

Interesting, very interesting:


Rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If validated (The missing words I mean, it seems if everyone is agreeing to the age of the thing) this could really shake up our notions of what was going on then. I can already see several interpretations from proof positive that Jesus was made up to prophecy, all of course dependent upon what you believe.

Makes you wonder what else might be hanging around in someone's shop in Israel though.
If recent history is anything to judge by, then what might hanging around in some Israeli shop would likely be more fake antiquities. That part of the world is cheesy with forgeries, both old and new. Some more convincing than others. This one has a "Shroud of Turin" vibe to it that leaves me cold.

Also, who cares? Was there anyone on the planet who thought Christianity was the only religion with a killed and resurrected god/demi-god/prophet/hero? Was there anyone who didn't know such prophecies had been made long before the Jesus story was put out there?

I have a feeling this is not going to shake the foundations of either scholarship or belief for anyone.

Sol Invictus AND Yule;)

Which all just confirms the point: Christianity has borrowed things from other religions. Which may well include the whole resurrection story.
Sol Invictus, Yule, and a slew of others. Every religion has mid-winter holidays. The early Christians merely copied the earlier pagan Romans in superimposing their own religious forms onto pre-existing religious calendars and gods. Basically, people did all the same things they did before; they just put new labels on the stuff. It was a very efficient means of bringing all the colonies into the official fold without undue conflict for the pagans. Why wouldn't the Christians do it, too? After all, they were still Romans, doing things the Roman way.

After the fact? Which 'fact'?

Ooh, that's actually a very good question. I was referring to the supposed fact of the reincarnation story. It's easier to call it "fact" than write two lines worth of clarification that I don't believe in it :p

Of course, it could just be a knock off of all the other religions of the time. Mithras rose from the dead after three days. There are several Gods in Greek myths who rose from the dead after three days. Baldur rose from the dead after three days. The whole deity dying to save his people and rising from the dead is not exclusive to Christianity, but the Christians keep after it as if it were their own private bailiwick.

Jewish expectations and understandings, dealing with the properties of God, should very well be influenced by the Egyptian point of view, the scriptures says they spent many generations there. And likewise Babylonian influences as well, hundreds of years later when they spent a couple of generations in Babylon as well.

Of course, the modern naysayer likes to try and argue that things like the Exodus never happened, so your argument would have less weight if they are correct. If your observations is correct though, that they have been influenced by the Egyptians, that would make perfect sense with what the scripture says happened.

I read the Exodus story a while back. I don't accept it as literally true to any events in Egypt, since there are no mention of any corresponding events in any surviving Egyptian texts, nor any archaeological evidence that I am aware of. Ergo, I see no reason for it to be true.

Stories, common themes and myths travel by trade and diplomacy. You do not need to move entire populations. In addition, Egypt long had a policy of bringing the children of local rulers to Egypt, to raise and educate them, before returning them to their own people and enthroning them. These rulers would have been every bit as familiar, if not more familiar, with Egyptian culture and beliefs as much as those of their own people.

The Exodus story can be untrue, without it somehow mystically meaning that Hebrew scripture must be independent of it's precedents and contemporaries.

Exactly

Ha! No, you don't. It is the most confusing "WTF?!?!" language there is.

Trust me, it really isn't...

*loosens your shoe*

Its a sandle


Anyway cast it away and follow the gourd!

Ha! No, you don't. It is the most confusing "WTF?!?!" language there is.

Ever tried finnish? Whenever I get annoyed by immigrants speaking lousy finnish I remind myself that it's in the top 5 hardest languages in the world along with chinese IIRC...

Agreed. I don't know about this unprovinced stone find, dated correctly or incorrectly, it reads too much like a perfect prophesy, almost too good for it to be true.... The most likely explanation is going to be the least popular, if the stone was written ca. 4BC, then is was a prophesy of things to happen, not of things already done. And if so, then Christ fulfilled it.

The MOST likely explanation is that the stone describes a common contemporary fable, and that the Jesus myth describes the SAME fable.

It wouldn't lend any weight to either fable being true. And you're right on one thing, that probably IS going to be the least popular explanation.

Of course, it could just be a knock off of all the other religions of the time. Mithras rose from the dead after three days. There are several Gods in Greek myths who rose from the dead after three days. Baldur rose from the dead after three days. The whole deity dying to save his people and rising from the dead is not exclusive to Christianity, but the Christians keep after it as if it were their own private bailiwick.

Baldr didn't rise from the dead after three days.

The whole deity dying to save his people and rising from the dead is not exclusive to Christianity, but the Christians keep after it as if it were their own private bailiwick.
It's all about brand!

The only way to shake up the foundations of Christianity is an earthquake in the Vatican.
Something like the tapestry to be broken, no?

Baldr didn't rise from the dead after three days.

Yeah, didn't Baldur just die? I don't remember any resurrection, unless you count what hapens after Ragnarok. But I think that story didn't begin until after Christians went to Norway, which would suggest the Norse adopted the Jesus story.

Yeah, didn't Baldur just die? I don't remember any resurrection, unless you count what hapens after Ragnarok. But I think that story didn't begin until after Christians went to Norway, which would suggest the Norse adopted the Jesus story.
As far as I know, Baldur was killed and the gods tried to persuade Hel to release him, but she said she only could if everyone in the living world was mourning for him, and Loki screwed that deal, so Baldur continued his existence with all the other dead people in the underworld until they all returned at Ragnarok -- longer than three days.

As far as I know, Baldur was killed and the gods tried to persuade Hel to release him, but she said she only could if everyone in the living world was mourning for him, and Loki screwed that deal, so Baldur continued his existence with all the other dead people in the underworld until they all returned at Ragnarok -- longer than three days.

Ah, Norse mythology...none of this "hope" crap you find in all of the other religions.

Ah, Norse mythology...none of this "hope" crap you find in all of the other religions.

Well, better than Mesopotamian mythology, I suppose. At least if you die well in battle, you might get an afterlife of drinking and fighting.

Ah, Norse mythology...none of this "hope" crap you find in all of the other religions.
Yeah, well, they were Scandanavian. I mean, have you seen any Ingmar Bergman movies? ;) One of the things I like about the Norse myths is that they are just this slow, inevitable slide towards doom, all brought about by the gods themselves, committing one divine fuck-up after another. They're not "overly competent"* the way Jesus is.



*that's a phrase I found in a site that reviews scifi and fantasy novels; "overly competent" heroes, the kind who just happen to have full command of every skill they're going to need for the story, was one of their minor peeves.

Well, better than Mesopotamian mythology, I suppose. At least if you die well in battle, you might get an afterlife of drinking and fighting.
Those Mesopotamians -- they're some of the ones with 3-day dead gods. I think they had a couple who died and came back. There was one whose name I can't remember, but he was the precursor to the Adonis myth -- a vegetation god who is ritually sacrificed and resurrected annually. Also, I think the Inana descends into the underworld story had the goddess dead for three days, and then she returns bringing the hosts of death with her -- but then the tablet is broken, so we don't know how the story ends.

Yeah, well, they were Scandanavian. I mean, have you seen any Ingmar Bergman movies? ;) One of the things I like about the Norse myths is that they are just this slow, inevitable slide towards doom, all brought about by the gods themselves, committing one divine fuck-up after another. They're not "overly competent"* the way Jesus is.



*that's a phrase I found in a site that reviews scifi and fantasy novels; "overly competent" heroes, the kind who just happen to have full command of every skill they're going to need for the story, was one of their minor peeves.

Also, Jesus never plucked out his own eye as a sacrifice to gain wisdom/knowledge.

Also, Jesus never plucked out his own eye as a sacrifice to gain wisdom/knowledge.
Yeah, well, all I can say is, if Jesus had had the sense of irony that the Norse gods had, the world might be a different place today.

Ah, Norse mythology...none of this "hope" crap you find in all of the other religions.

RAGNAROK:

http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Content/Images/Journal/2002/Spring/SeaSerpents/MidgardSerpent.jpg

Yeah, you're pretty much fucked

if Jesus had had the sense of irony that the Norse gods had, the world might be a different place today.Ohhellyeah.

Also, Jesus never plucked out his own eye as a sacrifice to gain wisdom/knowledge.

In fairness, he did get nailed to a cross. Also, in older translations of one of the Creeds, it says, "He descended into Hell, and on the third day rose again." I've always imagined his three days in Hell as a non-stop battle royal between Jesus and Satan, and have often wondered what superpowers they both possessed.

It's the sort of thing that I think would be interesting to ask my pastor, but not being a sociopath, I don't. :)

not being a sociopathWHAT-evah :rolleyes:

WHAT-evah :rolleyes:
"It's not being a sociopath, it's being sociophat!"

"It's not being a sociopath, it's being sociophat!"Ah, true, true. *nods*

Just a question. Didn't the Jewish prophets already tell of the Messiah and that he will rise three days after his death? If so then this tablet is nothing new. (IN fact it's about 2000 years old ;))

Just a question. Didn't the Jewish prophets already tell of the Messiah and that he will rise three days after his death? If so then this tablet is nothing new. (IN fact it's about 2000 years old ;))

Confirming that interpretation is the debate. Most naysayers have, until recently, argued that such things as Jesus predicting his own death three times, for example, had to be things that were inserted into the traditions after the fact by authors that were modifying the story to match the end result. Those that have taken that position argue that Jesus couldn't have actually predicted such things as the destruction of the Temple and his own death and resurrection, because the suffering Messiah was not a part of Jewish expectations for the Christ before Jesus. (this sort of evidence puts the final nail in the coffin of that type of argument)

Different topic: I found another article about this tablet. A 12 page .pdf file, a scholarly work by [I]Israel Knohl of Hebrew University of Jerusalem
EDIT: The link stoped working, so I will host it somewhere to make sure it keeps working
http://www.host-files.com//out.php/i2179_Israel_Knohl_on_Hazon_Gabriel.pdf
The file was found at this (http://www.hartman.org.il/SHInews_View_Eng.asp?Article_Id=124) location... click on the Read the full article by Israel Knohl 'here (ftp://tichonadmin:tichonadmin@80.179.136.36/site/Israel_Knohl_on_Hazon_Gabriel.pdf)'

The MOST likely explanation is that the stone describes a common contemporary fable, and that the Jesus myth describes the SAME fable.
Oh? And why would that be the MOST likely explanation?

Oh? And why would that be the MOST likely explanation?
Because he said so. :D

Confirming that interpretation is the debate. Most naysayers have, until recently, argued that such things as Jesus predicting his own death three times, for example, had to be things that were inserted into the traditions after the fact by authors that were modifying the story to match the end result. Those that have taken that position argue that Jesus couldn't have actually predicted such things as the destruction of the Temple and his own death and resurrection, because the suffering Messiah was not a part of Jewish expectations for the Christ before Jesus. (this sort of evidence puts the final nail in the coffin of that type of argument)

Different topic: I found another article about this tablet. A 12 page .pdf file, a scholarly work by [I]Israel Knohl of Hebrew University of Jerusalem
ftp://80.179.136.36/site/Israel_Knohl_on_Hazon_Gabriel.pdf

I thought it was in one of the books of the Prophets like Isaiah (I know I have spelt that wrong). So if the tablet is proven to be true than what it is saying that these accounts were predicted accurately.

Thanks to the Biblical Archaeology Society (http://www.bib-arch.org/about.asp)and the Biblical Archaeology Review (http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dss-in-stone-news.asp) website specifically, an English translation of the Tablet is finally available.

Translation (Semitic sounds in caps and\or italics)
Column A
(Lines 1-6 are unintelligible)
7. [… ]the sons of Israel …[…]…
8. […]… […]…
9. [… ]the word of YHW[H …]…[…]
10. […]… I\you asked …
11. YHWH, you ask me. Thus said the Lord of Hosts:
12. […]… from my(?) house, Israel, and I will tell the greatness(es?) of Jerusalem.
13. [Thus] said YHWH, the Lord of Israel: Behold, all the nations are
14. … against(?)\to(?) Jerusalem and …,
15. [o]ne, two, three, fourty(?) prophets(?) and the returners(?),
16. [and] the Hasidin(?). My servant, David, asked from before Ephraim(?)
17. [to?] put the sign(?) I ask from you. Because He said, (namely,)
18. [Y]HWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: …
19. sanctity(?)\sanctify(?) Israel! In three days you shall know, that(?)\for(?) He said,
20. (namely,) YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: The evil broke (down)
21. before justice. Ask me and I will tell you what 22this bad 21plant is,
22. lwbnsd/r/k (=? [To me? in libation?]) you are standing, the messenger\angel. He
23. … (= will ordain you?) to Torah(?). Blessed be the Glory of YHWH the Lord, from
24. his seat. “In a little while”, qyTuT (=a brawl?\ tiny?) it is, “and I will shake the
25. … of? heaven and the earth”. Here is the Glory of YHWH the Lord of
26. Hosts, the Lord of Israel. These are the chariots, seven,
27. [un]to(?) the gate(?) of Jerusalem, and the gates of Judah, and … for the
sake of
28. … His(?) angel, Michael, and to all the others(?) ask\asked
29. …. Thus He said, YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of
30. Israel: One, two, three, four, five, six,
31. [se]ven, these(?) are(?) His(?) angel …. 'What is it', said the blossom(?)\diadem(?)
32. …[…]… and (the?) … (= leader?/ruler?), the second,
33. … Jerusalem…. three, in\of the greatness(es?) of
34. […]…[…]…
35. […]…, who saw a man … working(?) and […]…
36. that he … […]… from(?) Jerusalem(?)
37. … on(?) … the exile(?) of …,
38. the exile(?) of …, Lord …, and I will see
39. …[…] Jerusalem, He will say, YHWH of
40. Hosts, …
41. […]… that will lift(?) …
42. […]… in all the
43. […]…
44. […]…

Column B
(Lines 45-50 are unintelligible)
51. Your people(?)\with you(?) …[…]
52. … the [me]ssengers(?)\[a]ngels(?)[ …]…
53. on\against His/My people. And …[…]…
54. [… ]three days(?). This is (that) which(?) …[… ]He(?)
55. the Lord(?)\these(?)[ …]…[…]
56. see(?) …[…]
57. closed(?). The blood of the slaughters(?)\sacrifices(?) of Jerusalem. For He said,
YHWH of Hos[ts],
58. the Lord of Israel: For He said, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of
59. Israel: …
60. […]… me(?) the spirit?\wind of(?) …
61. …[…]…
62. in it(?) …[…]…[…]
63. …[…]…[…]
64. …[…]… loved(?)/… …[…]
65. The three saints of the world\eternity from\of …[…]
66. […]… peace he? said, to\in you we trust(?) …
67. Inform him of the blood of this chariot of them(?) …[…]
68. Many lovers He has, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …
69. Thus He said, (namely,) YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …:
70. Prophets have I sent to my people, three. And I say
71. that I have seen …[…]…
72. the place for the sake of(?) David the servant of YHWH[ …]…[…]
73. the heaven and the earth. Blessed be …[…]
74. men(?). “Showing mercy unto thousands”, … mercy […].
75. Three shepherds went out to?/of? Israel …[…].
76. If there is a priest, if there are sons of saints …[…]
77. Who am I(?), I (am?) Gabri’el the …(=angel?)… […]
78. You(?) will save them, …[…]…
79. from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three …[….]
80. In three days …, I, Gabri’el …[?],
81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…
82. to/for … […]… and the …
83. to me(?), out of three - the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri’el.
84. YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of(?)[ Israel …]…[….]
85. Then you will stand …[…]…
86. …\
87. in(?) … eternity(?)/… \
\

Thanks to the Biblical Archaeology Society (http://www.bib-arch.org/about.asp)and the Biblical Archaeology Review (http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dss-in-stone-news.asp) website specifically, an English translation of the Tablet is finally available.

Translation (Semitic sounds in caps and\or italics)
Column A
(Lines 1-6 are unintelligible)
7. [… ]the sons of Israel …[…]…
8. […]… […]…
9. [… ]the word of YHW[H …]…[…]
10. […]… I\you asked …
11. YHWH, you ask me. Thus said the Lord of Hosts:
12. […]… from my(?) house, Israel, and I will tell the greatness(es?) of Jerusalem.
13. [Thus] said YHWH, the Lord of Israel: Behold, all the nations are
14. … against(?)\to(?) Jerusalem and …,
15. [o]ne, two, three, fourty(?) prophets(?) and the returners(?),
16. [and] the Hasidin(?). My servant, David, asked from before Ephraim(?)
17. [to?] put the sign(?) I ask from you. Because He said, (namely,)
18. [Y]HWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: …
19. sanctity(?)\sanctify(?) Israel! In three days you shall know, that(?)\for(?) He said,
20. (namely,) YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: The evil broke (down)
21. before justice. Ask me and I will tell you what 22this bad 21plant is,
22. lwbnsd/r/k (=? [To me? in libation?]) you are standing, the messenger\angel. He
23. … (= will ordain you?) to Torah(?). Blessed be the Glory of YHWH the Lord, from
24. his seat. “In a little while”, qyTuT (=a brawl?\ tiny?) it is, “and I will shake the
25. … of? heaven and the earth”. Here is the Glory of YHWH the Lord of
26. Hosts, the Lord of Israel. These are the chariots, seven,
27. [un]to(?) the gate(?) of Jerusalem, and the gates of Judah, and … for the
sake of
28. … His(?) angel, Michael, and to all the others(?) ask\asked
29. …. Thus He said, YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of
30. Israel: One, two, three, four, five, six,
31. [se]ven, these(?) are(?) His(?) angel …. 'What is it', said the blossom(?)\diadem(?)
32. …[…]… and (the?) … (= leader?/ruler?), the second,
33. … Jerusalem…. three, in\of the greatness(es?) of
34. […]…[…]…
35. […]…, who saw a man … working(?) and […]…
36. that he … […]… from(?) Jerusalem(?)
37. … on(?) … the exile(?) of …,
38. the exile(?) of …, Lord …, and I will see
39. …[…] Jerusalem, He will say, YHWH of
40. Hosts, …
41. […]… that will lift(?) …
42. […]… in all the
43. […]…
44. […]…

Column B
(Lines 45-50 are unintelligible)
51. Your people(?)\with you(?) …[…]
52. … the [me]ssengers(?)\[a]ngels(?)[ …]…
53. on\against His/My people. And …[…]…
54. [… ]three days(?). This is (that) which(?) …[… ]He(?)
55. the Lord(?)\these(?)[ …]…[…]
56. see(?) …[…]
57. closed(?). The blood of the slaughters(?)\sacrifices(?) of Jerusalem. For He said,
YHWH of Hos[ts],
58. the Lord of Israel: For He said, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of
59. Israel: …
60. […]… me(?) the spirit?\wind of(?) …
61. …[…]…
62. in it(?) …[…]…[…]
63. …[…]…[…]
64. …[…]… loved(?)/… …[…]
65. The three saints of the world\eternity from\of …[…]
66. […]… peace he? said, to\in you we trust(?) …
67. Inform him of the blood of this chariot of them(?) …[…]
68. Many lovers He has, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …
69. Thus He said, (namely,) YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …:
70. Prophets have I sent to my people, three. And I say
71. that I have seen …[…]…
72. the place for the sake of(?) David the servant of YHWH[ …]…[…]
73. the heaven and the earth. Blessed be …[…]
74. men(?). “Showing mercy unto thousands”, … mercy […].
75. Three shepherds went out to?/of? Israel …[…].
76. If there is a priest, if there are sons of saints …[…]
77. Who am I(?), I (am?) Gabri’el the …(=angel?)… […]
78. You(?) will save them, …[…]…
79. from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three …[….]
80. In three days …, I, Gabri’el …[?],
81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…
82. to/for … […]… and the …
83. to me(?), out of three - the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri’el.
84. YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of(?)[ Israel …]…[….]
85. Then you will stand …[…]…
86. …\
87. in(?) … eternity(?)/… \
\Simon says ... what?

People have claimed all throughout history that the foundations of Christianity would be shaken, it's never really happened yet.

If we keep shaking it, will it eventually just go away?

Oh? And why would that be the MOST likely explanation?

Because there already were several resurrection fables out there, and our daily experience suggests people do not really resurrect themselves outside fantasyland ?

Hell - why is the resurrection story of Jesus more likely than that of Osiris ?

People have claimed all throughout history that the foundations of Christianity would be shaken, it's never really happened yet.

Or the Christians simply do not care ;)

Oh? And why would that be the MOST likely explanation?

Because it requires the least extrapolations. You have two stories, with similarities. Is it more of a stretch to assume they must correspond to real events, with the miraculous nature and the prophecy that implies... or that they are just stories in a shared tradition.

(And, of course, those aren't the only times that any of those events make it into the local literature...)

It's not how I want it to be, per se... it's about Occam.

Because it requires the least extrapolations. You have two stories, with similarities. Is it more of a stretch to assume they must correspond to real events, with the miraculous nature and the prophecy that implies... or that they are just stories in a shared tradition.

(And, of course, those aren't the only times that any of those events make it into the local literature...)

It's not how I want it to be, per se... it's about Occam.
Ah, so using that same razor then, did the Greeks visit Japan or were the Japanese sightseeing in Ancient Greece?

Ah, so using that same razor then, did the Greeks visit Japan or were the Japanese sightseeing in Ancient Greece?

Who did what with how many cookies?

So... you don't believe in Zebras, then?

We're not talking absolutes here, as I'm sure you know. Occam deals in probability, not binary responses.

*Insert witty comment about not using Razors if you aren't sure how they work*

Or the Christians simply do not care ;)

Either way, Christianity has yet to have gone through a major shock like people have predicted. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Either way, Christianity has yet to have gone through a major shock like people have predicted. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

That's not for lack of shocks. That's 'ignoring evidence to the contrary'.

Thanks to the Biblical Archaeology Society (http://www.bib-arch.org/about.asp)and the Biblical Archaeology Review (http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dss-in-stone-news.asp) website specifically, an English translation of the Tablet is finally available.

Translation (Semitic sounds in caps and\or italics)
Column A
(Lines 1-6 are unintelligible)
7. [… ]the sons of Israel …[…]…
8. […]… […]…
9. [… ]the word of YHW[H …]…[…]
10. […]… I\you asked …
11. YHWH, you ask me. Thus said the Lord of Hosts:
12. […]… from my(?) house, Israel, and I will tell the greatness(es?) of Jerusalem.
13. [Thus] said YHWH, the Lord of Israel: Behold, all the nations are
14. … against(?)\to(?) Jerusalem and …,
15. [o]ne, two, three, fourty(?) prophets(?) and the returners(?),
16. [and] the Hasidin(?). My servant, David, asked from before Ephraim(?)
17. [to?] put the sign(?) I ask from you. Because He said, (namely,)
18. [Y]HWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: …
19. sanctity(?)\sanctify(?) Israel! In three days you shall know, that(?)\for(?) He said,
20. (namely,) YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: The evil broke (down)
21. before justice. Ask me and I will tell you what 22this bad 21plant is,
22. lwbnsd/r/k (=? [To me? in libation?]) you are standing, the messenger\angel. He
23. … (= will ordain you?) to Torah(?). Blessed be the Glory of YHWH the Lord, from
24. his seat. “In a little while”, qyTuT (=a brawl?\ tiny?) it is, “and I will shake the
25. … of? heaven and the earth”. Here is the Glory of YHWH the Lord of
26. Hosts, the Lord of Israel. These are the chariots, seven,
27. [un]to(?) the gate(?) of Jerusalem, and the gates of Judah, and … for the
sake of
28. … His(?) angel, Michael, and to all the others(?) ask\asked
29. …. Thus He said, YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of
30. Israel: One, two, three, four, five, six,
31. [se]ven, these(?) are(?) His(?) angel …. 'What is it', said the blossom(?)\diadem(?)
32. …[…]… and (the?) … (= leader?/ruler?), the second,
33. … Jerusalem…. three, in\of the greatness(es?) of
34. […]…[…]…
35. […]…, who saw a man … working(?) and […]…
36. that he … […]… from(?) Jerusalem(?)
37. … on(?) … the exile(?) of …,
38. the exile(?) of …, Lord …, and I will see
39. …[…] Jerusalem, He will say, YHWH of
40. Hosts, …
41. […]… that will lift(?) …
42. […]… in all the
43. […]…
44. […]…

Column B
(Lines 45-50 are unintelligible)
51. Your people(?)\with you(?) …[…]
52. … the [me]ssengers(?)\[a]ngels(?)[ …]…
53. on\against His/My people. And …[…]…
54. [… ]three days(?). This is (that) which(?) …[… ]He(?)
55. the Lord(?)\these(?)[ …]…[…]
56. see(?) …[…]
57. closed(?). The blood of the slaughters(?)\sacrifices(?) of Jerusalem. For He said,
YHWH of Hos[ts],
58. the Lord of Israel: For He said, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of
59. Israel: …
60. […]… me(?) the spirit?\wind of(?) …
61. …[…]…
62. in it(?) …[…]…[…]
63. …[…]…[…]
64. …[…]… loved(?)/… …[…]
65. The three saints of the world\eternity from\of …[…]
66. […]… peace he? said, to\in you we trust(?) …
67. Inform him of the blood of this chariot of them(?) …[…]
68. Many lovers He has, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …
69. Thus He said, (namely,) YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …:
70. Prophets have I sent to my people, three. And I say
71. that I have seen …[…]…
72. the place for the sake of(?) David the servant of YHWH[ …]…[…]
73. the heaven and the earth. Blessed be …[…]
74. men(?). “Showing mercy unto thousands”, … mercy […].
75. Three shepherds went out to?/of? Israel …[…].
76. If there is a priest, if there are sons of saints …[…]
77. Who am I(?), I (am?) Gabri’el the …(=angel?)… […]
78. You(?) will save them, …[…]…
79. from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three …[….]
80. In three days …, I, Gabri’el …[?],
81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…
82. to/for … […]… and the …
83. to me(?), out of three - the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri’el.
84. YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of(?)[ Israel …]…[….]
85. Then you will stand …[…]…
86. …\
87. in(?) … eternity(?)/… \
\
Oh, well that settles it then! :D

Because it requires the least extrapolations. You have two stories, with similarities. Is it more of a stretch to assume they must correspond to real events, with the miraculous nature and the prophecy that implies... or that they are just stories in a shared tradition.

(And, of course, those aren't the only times that any of those events make it into the local literature...)

It's not how I want it to be, per se... it's about Occam.

I've never really understood Occam's Razor as a philosophical axiom. As a practical rule of thumb, it works great: my adorable little brain can only hold so much information, and the simpler the explanation for the force of gravity or how electricity works, the better. But to go from, "out of the two ways that describe gravity, the simpler is best" to "out of the two ways that explain the purpose (if any) of life, the simpler is best" doesn't seem logical.

Your particular post doesn't exactly do that, since you're not explaining, say, Jesus so much as a stone tablet. It just reminded me of when Occam's Razor is used as I described.

Who did what with how many cookies?

So... you don't believe in Zebras, then?

We're not talking absolutes here, as I'm sure you know. Occam deals in probability, not binary responses.

*Insert witty comment about not using Razors if you aren't sure how they work*
Simply put, the Greek myth of Orpheus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpheus#Death_of_Eurydice ) bears a remarkable similarity to the Japanese myth of Izanagi and Izanami ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izanami ) so using your claim that the MOST likely explanation is a common shared source, I ask again, did the Greeks head off to Japan or did the Japanese come to visit the Greeks?

Your MOST likely explanation has some rather large holes in it, it might be the simplest, but only if you ignore said holes.

I don't see why that would shake the foundations of Christianity at all. A Christian will look at that and say, simply, "Well that figures. It's a prophecy of what was to come. The Old Testament is filled with them."

:shrug:

Simply put, the Greek myth of Orpheus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpheus#Death_of_Eurydice ) bears a remarkable similarity to the Japanese myth of Izanagi and Izanami ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izanami ) so using your claim that the MOST likely explanation is a common shared source, I ask again, did the Greeks head off to Japan or did the Japanese come to visit the Greeks?

False comparison. We are quite certain that the contemporaries of Jesus knew about Mithras and the Egyptian tales of resurrection. Especially the Egyptian tales were even quite dominant in that area and era. As such, a common source is a likely explanation - while it is indeed slightly less likely when it concerns two stories of civilisations far apart.

However, that humans tend to think up the same story with small variations all over again, or that we just like to gravitate to certain themes and ideas, is indeed also possible.

Or we could just assume that Izanagi, Orpheus and so on were all real.

Sol Invictus AND Yule;)

Which all just confirms the point: Christianity has borrowed things from other religions. Which may well include the whole resurrection story.

Jews borrowed TONS of things from older religions.... the christianity came as a schism of judaism.... and then it got all traslated wrong.... and then they split in tons of factions and then came islam as a reloaded version of judaism...and thats how we got here today.

False comparison. We are quite certain that the contemporaries of Jesus knew about Mithras and the Egyptian tales of resurrection. ...

We are quite certain of that? Which evidence are you thinking of when you say that? (I'm not disputing your overall post point, just that bit made me think you must have some information I haven't seen.) From what I've seen and from my understanding, the Roman version of Mithras is at best a contemporary but more likely newer tradition, nothing older than Christian artifacts.

We are quite certain of that? Which evidence are you thinking of when you say that? (I'm not disputing your overall post point, just that bit made me think you must have some information I haven't seen.) From what I've seen and from my understanding, the Roman version of Mithras is at best a contemporary but more likely newer tradition, nothing older than Christian artifacts.

The character Mithras dates back to about 500 BC (some fans of Zoroaster claim 6000 BC, but there is no reason to believe that). While actual worshipping of him did not occur until much later, and in Rome indeed did not happen before about 100 AD, it is quite likely scribes and "cultured" patricians knew his story.
The Egyptian gods otoh were very popular amongst the common folk.

The character Mithras dates back to about 500 BC (some fans of Zoroaster claim 6000 BC, but there is no reason to believe that). While actual worshipping of him did not occur until much later, and in Rome indeed did not happen before about 100 AD, it is quite likely scribes and "cultured" patricians knew his story.
The Egyptian gods otoh were very popular amongst the common folk.

Oh, I see, you associate the Persian Mitra name with the Roman Mithras traditions, I on the other hand though don't see any reason to assume the Roman Mithras traditions are transferable backward to the older Mitra, as in, Mitra wasn't worshiped like the Roman soldiers worshiped him until after Christian influence hit the scenes. So in that case, the reverse is more likely than the prior, IMO. Christian theology more likely influenced the theology of the roman soldiers who borrowed the name of Mithras and worshiped a new creation warrior God for men only, rather than the other way around...

If you have something contrary to that, please feel free to educate me, I'm interested.

If we keep shaking it, will it eventually just go away?Like any other sandbox, it'll end up slipping through the mesh. Maybe some nuggets, but mostly flakes.

Or the Christians simply do not care ;)
Doesn't that martyr complex factor in to the confabulation process? Perhaps that's why it's SO different now and so split/schism'd/splintered?

Like any other sandbox, it'll end up slipping through the mesh. Maybe some nuggets, but mostly flakes.

Personally, I think we have much to thank Christianity for. If it weren't for two medieval empires that we don't hear anything of today which drew their strength mostly from their religion, we would all be muslim and living under a totalitarian conservative government, one that we wouldn't be able to complain about constantly like we can here. We also would not have a lot of things we enjoy today. Christianity was responsible for ensuring this.

That's not for lack of shocks. That's 'ignoring evidence to the contrary'.
Word.

we would all be muslim and living under a totalitarian conservative governmentBullshit. You give credit where it simply doesn't belong. Perhaps, also, you've never heard of the Orient.
one that we wouldn't be able to complain about constantly like we can here. We also would not have a lot of things we enjoy today.I don't enjoy it, and i don't enjoy it's delusional principles, nor do i enjoy the apologists and the twofaced warmongers who have it as their rallying cry. As is, it merits every bit of criticism it gets, what with it being a giant delusional take on spurious historical accounting. Besides that, fuck the idea that peoples' minds should be ruled over by what they shouldn't be fearing in the first place. The Dark Ages are over. Not even soon enough.
Christianity was responsible for ensuring this.Are you being willfully ignorant of quite a few counts on what Christianity has actually contributed to the being of the world? Cherry picking, perhaps?

Oh, well that settles it then! :DIt's like you doubt that faith will fill in those uncomfortable blanks. Woe is you.

Bullshit. You give credit where it simply doesn't belong. Perhaps, also, you've never heard of the Orient.

The Byzantines and 'holy' romans nullified the the strong chance that the Arabs would take over all of Europe long before the Mongols ever showed up.

Are you being willfully ignorant of quite a few counts on what Christianity has actually contributed to the being of the world? Cherry picking, perhaps?

What, oppostion to abortion? Imperialism? The Crusades? These were all political and only used religion as a cover.

The Byzantines and 'holy' romans nullified the the strong chance that the Arabs would take over all of Europe long before the Mongols ever showed up.Again, you're speaking as though Europe was/is the worldseed. Simply untrue.
These were all political and only used religion as a cover.
I would task you to quantify the difference 'twixt the two.

Again, you're speaking as though Europe was/is the worldseed. Simply untrue.

How did most countries in both America's come to be? We were colonized by Europe. We lived and continue to live as most Europeans do.

I would task you to quantify the difference 'twixt the two.

Imperialism was done in order to gain more resources for the colonizer's industry. They had to make it sound prettier by calling it holy work to bring religion to the heathens.

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Christian, I am actually atheist, however I feel Christianity does have to be defended on some points.

Where was America first colonized from? Europe.So you're an american, and everyone else here is? And every christian is too? Every race in the happy world owes something to Europe and christianity? You said, and i quote:
we would all be muslim and living under a totalitarian conservative government
*looks around*
They had to make it sound prettier by calling it holy work to bring religion to the heathens.Sounds political, perhaps? :p Heathens, eh? double- :p

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Christian, I am actually atheist, however I feel Christianity does have to be defended on some points.Fair that you can argue it, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. This might even be the place to do it (as i said, "task") ... I feel it has good points too. But, as the saying goes, and i horribly malign the phrase ... when i became a man, i put away my childish things.

So you're an american, and everyone else here is? And every christian is too? Every race in the happy world owes something to Europe and christianity? You said, and i quote:

*looks around*
Sounds political, perhaps? :p Heathens, eh? double- :p


Check my edited post.

Also, I don't think you understood my entire post. It looks like you skimmed through it and gave your own interpretation without even understanding what I wrote. Come on, my posts are short. and. Easy to understand!!

Anywho, this thread bores me. 'Night.

Check my edited post.Better, but still ethnocentric.
It looks like you skimmed through it and gave your own interpretation without even understanding what I wrote.Maybe. I think i took off from where you took from my response to Intestinal Fluids. That pretty much added up in my estimation ...
my posts are short. and. Easy to understand!!
:confused: Now you sound religious. A round of kai for the bunch! *clangs bell*