90% of Americans believe at least one conspiracy theory (2 Viewers)

[Taurus]

I believe Q'ers are all Christians, the majority being evangelicals.

More now, in total numbers, than Jesus did at a similar time after becoming a thing.

Or a riff on Q followers and the apostles.

 

[Bleu Raeder]

It's been assumed and pushed heavily by biblical scholars but a consensus is hard to come by in the larger historical community primarily because almost all the sources come from the church.

The earliest non-biblical mentions of "Jesus" date at least 50 years after his death and those accounts come second hand via quotation another 100 years after the fact. There are no contemporary accounts of a man known as, "Jesus of Nazareth." There are many, many accounts of many, many "messiahs" running around the middle east in that time period and it's likely Jesus is an amalgamation of some of those people.

An actual historical Jesus likely wouldn't have even been known as Jesus. The name derives from Yeshua and there are tons of Yeshuas in the bible. There just isn't a lot of solid evidence that this individual existed that doesn't come from at least 100 years after he would have died or from the bible itself and that simply isn't a reliable historical account.

Do with the following what you may...

From https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed.[7][15][16] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[17]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[6][8][47][48][49] Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[50] Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[8] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[51][35]: 24–26

And this long but interesting read https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/

Dina Avshalom-Gorni, an IAA official who oversaw digs in northern Israel, ordered all hands to this square of the excavation grid. The workers squatted in the mealy soil and dusted carefully with brushes. Soon, a series of rough-cut stone benches emerged around what looked like a sanctuary.

It can’t be, Avshalom-Gorni thought.

The Gospels say that Jesus taught and “proclaimed the good news” in synagogues “throughout all Galilee.” But despite decades of digging in the towns Jesus visited, no early first-century synagogue had ever been found.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I believe Q'ers are all Christians, the majority being evangelicals.

I thought he was talking about the Borg

 

[SystemShock]

I’m doing my best to abstain…but I can’t resist this one.

“No one denies something until there is proof, one way or the other.” Do you deny the existence of unicorns, vampires, smurfs, etc?

Interesting...

Let me ask you a more germane question:
do you deny the existence of Ganesha, Zeus, Gucumatz, etc?

Still, when it comes to unicorns, I can't deny they exist or existed at one point. We find new species of various animals - like the frogs in Peru last month - and re-encounter species long thought to be extinct - many examples of those - somewhat frequently. We have not found unicorn fossils, but just like animal species, fossilized remains of long extinct animals are still being found - like the one in Brazil in 2020. Finally, a unicorn is simply a horse with a horn, and both occur in nature - plenty of animals with horns; rhinoceros are . So, given the evidence at hand, it is not out of the realm of probability that some kind of animal with a single horn resembling a modern horse existed in the past. Or even that someone saw a rhinoceros for the first time and thought it to be a horse.

Smurfs, we know who created the cartoons, and they are a figment of his imagination.

Vampires do exist, but I take it you are referring to humanoid vampires... I can't confirm or deny that a humanoid vampire ever existed, but we do know that human hematophagy is a thing. Now, by vampire you mean Dracula, well, that's a different story.

​

 

[Sailorsaint]

Do with the following what you may...

From https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence



From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus



From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus



And this long but interesting read https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/

I'm going to claim that the Greek and Roman pantheon of gods and demigods existed. Prove me wrong. There are lots of texts out there that chronicle them. Again, there may have been a teacher that went by the name of Jesus, but all we really have are stories written hundreds of years after his death. And those stories say that he had supernatural powers. Same as all the other gods of antiquity. Christianity simply overpowered them, usually by might of arms (see Roman history).

 

[Taurus]

Interesting...

Let me ask you a more germane question:
do you deny the existence of Ganesha, Zeus, Gucumatz, etc?

Still, when it comes to unicorns, I can't deny they exist or existed at one point. We find new species of various animals - like the frogs in Peru last month - and re-encounter species long thought to be extinct - many examples of those - somewhat frequently. We have not found unicorn fossils, but just like animal species, fossilized remains of long extinct animals are still being found - like the one in Brazil in 2020. Finally, a unicorn is simply a horse with a horn, and both occur in nature - plenty of animals with horns; rhinoceros are . So, given the evidence at hand, it is not out of the realm of probability that some kind of animal with a single horn resembling a modern horse existed in the past. Or even that someone saw a rhinoceros for the first time and thought it to be a horse.

Smurfs, we know who created the cartoons, and they are a figment of his imagination.

Vampires do exist, but I take it you are referring to humanoid vampires... I can't confirm or deny that a humanoid vampire ever existed, but we do know that human hematophagy is a thing. Now, by vampire you mean Dracula, well, that's a different story.

​

Some things, by their definitions, are self-contradictory.

We might find a fossil of something close enough to the description to call a unicorn, but we'll never find Pegasus. Because you can't have a creature sturdy enough to carry a full-grown man on the ground that's light enough or has the musculature and wingspan necessary to carry that same man in self-powered flight.

For one you can say "Doesn't currently exist and 99.9% sure never existed," and for the other "Cannot exist."

 

[SystemShock]

Do with the following what you may...

Oh, I will

I have many bones to pick with those statements in wikipedia, starting with:

Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[17]

It is telling that he chose to throw in the word pagan in there, but in any case, I find the statement misleading and fallacious, if not dishonest.

The issue is not merely whether someone existed or not, but the attributes given to said person. I can state that Alvin of Yorkshire lived in San Francisco in 1873, or that Alvin of Yorkshire lived in San Francisco in 1873 and rose from the grave after being dead for 3 days. Which statement is the more believable statement?

We don't question the reality of many historical figures because those figures are not attributed what is attributed to Jesus: virgin birth, son of a god and a human, raised the dead, cured the sick, made water into wine, walked on water, died and resurrected, rose to heaven, etc...

Unfortunately we can't ask Mr Grant, but I wonder if he applied his standards to the Bhagavad Gita, and believed Krishna to be the 8th avatar of Vishnu.

Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Where is this very abundant evidence?

Dina Avshalom-Gorni, an IAA official who oversaw digs in northern Israel, ordered all hands to this square of the excavation grid. The workers squatted in the mealy soil and dusted carefully with brushes. Soon, a series of rough-cut stone benches emerged around what looked like a sanctuary.

It can’t be, Avshalom-Gorni thought.

The Gospels say that Jesus taught and “proclaimed the good news” in synagogues “throughout all Galilee.” But despite decades of digging in the towns Jesus visited, no early first-century synagogue had ever been found.

This is one of those "found real place, therefore Jesus" arguments. Synagogue ruins found where Hebrews lived... what are the odds of that?

 

[Sailorsaint]

Oh, I will

I have many bones to pick with those statements in wikipedia, starting with:



It is telling that he chose to throw in the word pagan in there, but in any case, I find the statement misleading and fallacious, if not dishonest.

The issue is not merely whether someone existed or not, but the attributes given to said person. I can state that Alvin of Yorkshire lived in San Francisco in 1873, or that Alvin of Yorkshire lived in San Francisco in 1873 and rose from the grave after being dead for 3 days. Which statement is the more believable statement?

We don't question the reality of many historical figures because those figures are not attributed what is attributed to Jesus: virgin birth, son of a god and a human, raised the dead, cured the sick, made water into wine, walked on water, died and resurrected, rose to heaven, etc...

Unfortunately we can't ask Mr Grant, but I wonder if he applied his standards to the Bhagavad Gita, and believed Krishna to be the 8th avatar of Vishnu.



Where is this very abundant evidence?



This is one of those "found real place, therefore Jesus" arguments. Synagogue ruins found where Hebrews lived... what are the odds of that?

The only thing I can find on Mr Grant is on Wikipedia and it states he has a degree in the Humanities (he's a author) and is an award winning coin collector. Not sure he is a credible source on actual history. I did find this on wikipedia:

"As early as the 1950s, Grant's publishing success was somewhat controversial within the classicist community. According to The Times:

Grant's approach to classical history was beginning to divide critics. Numismatists felt that his academic work was beyond reproach, but some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that "even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit". The academics would keep cavilling, but the public kept buying."

 

[SystemShock]

Because you can't have a creature sturdy enough to carry a full-grown man on the ground that's light enough or has the musculature and wingspan necessary to carry that same man in self-powered flight.

Quetzalcoatlus probably could.

 

[Sailorsaint]

Quetzalcoatlus probably could.

Yeh, if we can have a full grown man walk on water, why can't we have a full grown horse that can fly?

 

[Bleu Raeder]

The issue is not merely whether someone existed or not, but the attributes given to said person. I can state that Alvin of Yorkshire lived in San Francisco in 1873, or that Alvin of Yorkshire lived in San Francisco in 1873 and rose from the grave after being dead for 3 days. Which statement is the more believable statement?

Why can we not separate a man from the attributes? Why should historians of any ilk ignore the search for a man given the history attributed to that man? Would it not be interesting to have evidence of a human (or group of humans) from which this story emanated understanding that so many of the events ascribed to that man (or group) may be derivatives of other stories/rituals/contexts?

We don't question the reality of many historical figures because those figures are not attributed what is attributed to Jesus: virgin birth, son of a god and a human, raised the dead, cured the sick, made water into wine, walked on water, died and resurrected, rose to heaven, etc...

Correct. It is only those ascribed with alleged supernatural powers that we question the reality of. Why is that?

Where is this very abundant evidence?

You would have to ask the author their sources.

This is one of those "found real place, therefore Jesus" arguments. Synagogue ruins found where Hebrews lived... what are the odds of that?

Had you actually done more than skimmed the article, you would know that first-century synagogue ruins are quite the rarety as many Hebrews gathered in homes to study and worship.

Look - in a debate about faith, there are two groups: those with faith and those without. The faithful do not demand the unfaithful prove there was nothing to base their faith on. Only the unfaithful place the burden of proof in the debate on the faithful while decrying that faith can be proven.

So, re: the Dinosaur thread and so many others, there is only debate here in which the ground rules are different for the participating groups. In the end, no one changes their mind, the debate is, at best, a draw.

 

[bclemms]

I believe Q'ers are all Christians, the majority being evangelicals.

I posted that joking but there is a lot of truth in jest.

I mean, the argument of "everybody else is doing it" never sits very well with me. I can't help but think through history how many times a charasmatic leader used rhetoric and repetition to create a huge following and to do so quickly. That person doesn't even have to exist or at least, doesn't have to exist in the form of an actual person. All we have to do is look at the leader of Q and the inventor of Bitcoin to see how frequently this plays out.

As my friend who is 100% athiest says, "Jesus sounds like a really good guy, It's too bad his prinicipals are fundamentally the opposite of what the Christian groups as a whole are doing in the country at the moment". I mean, can't really sum it up much better.

The logic behind some of the crap that is being spewed is so thin and naive that it's a huge turn off to Christianity for anyone with half a mind. It's no wonder we are seeing the drastic reduction in religion throughout the country. I was in Kentucky doing follow up stories on the tornado and one of the journalists I was working with kept wanting to make these faith based stories for his own personal record. No regard for my time or will to be there for that reason. Then he starts getting into the anti-vax stuff before I had finally said it sure was nice of God to save that old lady. Those 4 kids he threw across the road into that pond must have been really bad children. I got the Jesus talking to. He then starts going on about how I'm obviously not a Christian because I have been vaccinated and at this point I was just ready to bail but instead decided to have some fun. His whole argument was that he has faith and doesn't walk in fear. That God will protect him and if he doesn't then it's his will. So in order to get this conversation over I was that logic completely makes sense and I would be a better person if I started to apply that logic in my daily life. He agreed.

So we go get in my car, cranked it up, put it in drive and put a tee shirt around my face. He was like, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING". I simply replied, "trusting in god's will". The end, we will not be working together again.


It's the same group of people that walk around thumping a bible, flaunting the US Flag as an ideological symbol or white supremacy while mumbling crazy sheet that represent a third of country. Yeah, maybe only half of them are the people I'm talking about but the other half will not condemn them because of political and religous affiliation. That is who represents Team Jesus at the moment.

So when Team Jesus starts trying to validate anything else, including Jesus himself, it will be met with a giant scoop of skepticism regardless if warranted or not.

That's my take and with it, I will fade back into the bushes Homer Simpson style.

 

[Sailorsaint]

Why can we not separate a man from the attributes? Why should historians of any ilk ignore the search for a man given the history attributed to that man? Would it not be interesting to have evidence of a human (or group of humans) from which this story emanated understanding that so many of the events ascribed to that man (or group) may be derivatives of other stories/rituals/contexts?

Honestly, I don't think anyone is saying that an actual person named Jesus didn't exist. But, if you believe in Jesus the savior, you can't seperate him from his attributes. His attributes are what makes him the savior. Virgin birth, rose from the dead, etc.

 

[SystemShock]

Why can we not separate a man from the attributes? Why should historians of any ilk ignore the search for a man given the history attributed to that man?

We can separate a man from the attributes, but without the attributes, what's his historical significance? Why take the time and effort to find out if a Joe Schmoe lived 2000 years ago?

Correct. It is only those ascribed with alleged supernatural powers that we question the reality of. Why is that?

Science.

Had you actually done more than skimmed the article, you would know that first-century synagogue ruins are quite the rarety as many Hebrews gathered in homes to study and worship.

Sure, rare. But not non-existent, or never found before.

Look - in a debate about faith, there are two groups: those with faith and those without. The faithful do not demand the unfaithful prove there was nothing to base their faith on.

Throughout history, it's been the faithful who not only questioned non-believers, but also executed and burned non-believers at stakes for their non-belief in a particular deity. Religion put Europe through the dark ages, and religion is trying really hard to bring the U.S. into the dark ages as well. So, there is that...

Only the unfaithful place the burden of proof in the debate on the faithful while decrying that faith can be proven.

Who is decrying that faith can be proven?

So, re: the Dinosaur thread and so many others, there is only debate here in which the ground rules are different for the participating groups. In the end, no one changes their mind, the debate is, at best, a draw.

People may not change their mind in a debate on an internet board, especially when it comes to religion, but maybe they will take it upon themselves to find the truth about their beliefs and religions in general. Just moving from religion to deism would be a great improvement.

 

[DaveXA]

I posted that joking but there is a lot of truth in jest.

I mean, the argument of "everybody else is doing it" never sits very well with me. I can't help but think through history how many times a charasmatic leader used rhetoric and repetition to create a huge following and to do so quickly. That person doesn't even have to exist or at least, doesn't have to exist in the form of an actual person. All we have to do is look at the leader of Q and the inventor of Bitcoin to see how frequently this plays out.

As my friend who is 100% athiest says, "Jesus sounds like a really good guy, It's too bad his prinicipals are fundamentally the opposite of what the Christian groups as a whole are doing in the country at the moment". I mean, can't really sum it up much better.

The logic behind some of the crap that is being spewed is so thin and naive that it's a huge turn off to Christianity for anyone with half a mind. It's no wonder we are seeing the drastic reduction in religion throughout the country. I was in Kentucky doing follow up stories on the tornado and one of the journalists I was working with kept wanting to make these faith based stories for his own personal record. No regard for my time or will to be there for that reason. Then he starts getting into the anti-vax stuff before I had finally said it sure was nice of God to save that old lady. Those 4 kids he threw across the road into that pond must have been really bad children. I got the Jesus talking to. He then starts going on about how I'm obviously not a Christian because I have been vaccinated and at this point I was just ready to bail but instead decided to have some fun. His whole argument was that he has faith and doesn't walk in fear. That God will protect him and if he doesn't then it's his will. So in order to get this conversation over I was that logic completely makes sense and I would be a better person if I started to apply that logic in my daily life. He agreed.

So we go get in my car, cranked it up, put it in drive and put a tee shirt around my face. He was like, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING". I simply replied, "trusting in god's will". The end, we will not be working together again.


It's the same group of people that walk around thumping a bible, flaunting the US Flag as an ideological symbol or white supremacy while mumbling crazy sheet that represent a third of country. Yeah, maybe only half of them are the people I'm talking about but the other half will not condemn them because of political and religous affiliation. That is who represents Team Jesus at the moment.

So when Team Jesus starts trying to validate anything else, including Jesus himself, it will be met with a giant scoop of skepticism regardless if warranted or not.

That's my take and with it, I will fade back into the bushes Homer Simpson style.

Yep, it bugs me that so few believers like myself have the self-awareness to recognize that a lot of the crap they read and watch on the internet is complete BS. And critical thinking is a lost art. It's baffling, really. And it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what faith means and why we so often see it misapplied and/or misused.

Garbage in-Garbage out. It's funny. Some look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them I'm a believer, and I'm fully vaxxed and my politics are night and day different than theirs.

I want to say Christians aren't a monolithic group, and they actually aren't, but the perception out there doesn't do any favors for Chrisitans who aren't bat guano crazy.