Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

181 Excellent

About Ramandu

  • Rank
    Fan's Favourite

Recent Profile Visitors

2,041 profile views
  1. Ramandu

    In The News

    He was great in Team America.
  2. Aberdeen 1 Hibs 0 Celtic 1 St Johnstone 0 Dundee Utd 1 Motherwell 0 Hearts 1 Dundee 0 Ross County 0 Livingston 1 St Mirren 0 Rangers 1
  3. Started as a Jewish sect, from Jerusalem, and those guys were pretty firmly monotheistic. Paul seems to know Peter and James. I'm less confident than you about the ease of getting followers - proselytising is hard. Particularly getting ones who are prepared to die for the cause (e.g. Nero in 64AD). I thought that the question of whether there was a historical Jesus was more or less settled in the early 20th century. I don't come across people arguing it very often (unless they want to talk about Dan brown). Would point to Bart Erhman on this, who definitely isn't a Christian, and doesn't think Jesus was devine. I'm on holiday as of now, and whilst I enjoy it I suspect we're boring everyone else- so the last word is yours.
  4. Think Neil did alright at Preston, and is still quite liked there.
  5. The problem is that it would mean someone inventing a character who was supposed to have existed in living memory. Then convincing lots of people of this in a short time, including named people who were said to have known him. Alternatively, a Jewish rabbi built up a following, and after he died a cult developed about him, and rapidly spread. The latter seems more reasonable to me.
  6. Think you're misunderstanding me on the first bit. I'm not saying you have to believe what Paul writes. I'm saying the very fact he is writing to a church is evidence there were churches in turkey around 50AD. We know this religion came from judea. If Jesus wasn't historical, 15-20 years is far too short for myth to develop and spread like that. I'm not arguing for his divinity here, just the likelihood of his existence. Second point- I think the sources we have are older though. It's hard to say that Christianity borrowed heavily from Mithraism when the key Christian texts were written first. Again, I've not looked at this in a while. Your bottom line is fine of course, the argument was about whether there was a historical Jesus, not whether he was the son of God.
  7. Ramandu

    In The News

    Is that a norm reference?
  8. Go on bluto, you must have some thoughts. I hear you read a book a week.
  9. This asterisk thing is why it's rubbish arguing on forums. But since we're unlikely to be in the same pub any time soon... * Not really the same. We're talking about a timescale of 20 years between whatever happened and the first surviving writings. In historical terms (even in modern terms) that's contemporary. There are no Hindu writings which claim to be from the time of Ganesh. ** Geography and politics places it in a particular place and time. The source material came from 1st century Jews in Judea. The myths and legends you're talking about take time to grow, and there wasn't the time for that here. Myths are generally light on specific places/dates/events. *** Obviously I'd say that we do have records, written by eyewitnesses, but (unsurprisingly) they're believers. As for official records we have a tiny fraction of what was written at that time. There are revolts and wars from then we know next to nothing about. Even with the miracles, why would you expect much about a peasant from a backwater at the edge of the empire? **** Agree ***** It's been a few years since I last read about the Mithraic stuff, and I wasn't convinced then. Seem to recall that it doesn't actually predate christianity. Happy to give it another go though. The new testament is so tied up with Judaism (i.e. the old testament) that other sources seem unlikely.
  10. Not sure this is the place, but I’ll have a go. Earliest Christian document is probably the earliest of Paul’s letters (before or around 50 AD). These letters are sent to a church which worshipped Jesus, has roots in Judaism, and has a well developed theology. It’s fairly reasonable to conclude that there was some kind of church by that point. The gospels are a bit later, can’t say for sure but very likely 1st century for 3 of 4. They show knowledge of the local geography and politics, and are clearly reportage rather than myth (whether or not that reportage is reliable). It’s not a massive surprise that the documentation at the time comes from Christians – who else would be writing about it? What other documentation from the first century has survived? We know from Pliny that Christians were a known quantity in Turkey by 112AD. For Josephus (20 years earlier) the current consensus is that one of the passages on Jesus is genuine, though yes, another is clearly a later addition. Bad form to ignore anyone who is a Christian who contributes to the research. Of course Christians want it to be true, but you can’t discount someone’s reasoning because of their motivation. I can say ‘most historians agree’, you can say ‘no they don’t’ – that’s just arguing from authority. You can argue that it’s a myth developed from other religions if you want – I don’t think it works, but hey ho.
  11. Do agree to a certain extent. But the internet's amazing, isn't it? For example, no Hat in the 90s.
  12. Everyone thinks the time of their youth was the golden age.
  • Create New...