What era would you choose to live in.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

You'd think this country is riven with racism the way they bang on instead of everybody just jogging on which is what really happens. It's a manufactured problem.

Not getting back into this 

 

Zzz

[Torry Tosser]

7 hours ago, BrianFaePerth said:

Germany 1930s

Aye,the Art Deco era,all they did was party and fuck all the time.?

[Poodler]

4 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

Happy to have smashed it up in the era i lived through, wouldn’t change 90 onwards for any era

 

rave on

Love Phoenix nights 

[Ke1t]

5 hours ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

* Jesus was real. That's something most historians agree upon. 
 

The shit the bible says he did, obviously wasn't real. However, ** Jesus Christ was indeed a man who existed, and had followers. 
 

I'd be interested to see it all first hand. 

* That's incorrect.

** You may as well say the Loch Ness Monster is indeed a monster that exists. 

Historians tend strongly towards factual data rather than anecdote before they declare something to be conclusive, and unfortunately for christians factual evidence for jesus' existence is pretty sparse beyond christian texts (wholly unreliable) and the Josephus addendums, the shakiest of shaky after-the-fact writing that has largely been debunked. You'll find the word 'Scholar' slapped on to the title of most people who make the claim jesus definitely existed, and that term almost exclusively comes with 'religious' or 'christian' preceding it.  And, to be fair, taking the word of a 'Biblical Scholar' regarding the existence of jesus is like taking a Nazi's word on what Jews are like. 

The 'Most historians agree jesus existed' line is pushed by christians in an attempt to create the narrative for any subsequent debate, and is exactly the kind of 'You can't prove he DIDN'T exist' Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy that most people don't grasp, and fail to counter,  because they haven't learned how debate works. 

'Jesus' is far more likely a Frankenstein's Monster amalgamation of previous religious hokum, not least the Mithraic cults that schlepped around the Middle East prior to the cult of christianity.

Check out the similarities between the jesus myth and those of Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Western Pagansim, etc... then try making the argument the parallels are purely coincidental. 

 

 

[Torry Tosser]

1 minute ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Great at being PJ and Duncan

?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

* That's incorrect.

** You may as well say the Loch Ness Monster is indeed a monster that exists. 

Historians tend strongly towards factual data rather than anecdote before they declare something to be conclusive, and unfortunately for christians factual evidence for jesus' existence is pretty sparse beyond christian texts (wholly unreliable) and the Josephus addendums, the shakiest of shaky after-the-fact writing that has largely been debunked. You'll find the word 'Scholar' slapped on to the title of most people who make the claim jesus definitely existed, and that term almost exclusively comes with 'religious' or 'christian' preceding it.  And, to be fair, taking the word of a 'Biblical Scholar' regarding the existence of jesus is like taking a Nazi's word on what Jews are like. 

The 'Most historians agree jesus existed' line is pushed by christians in an attempt to create the narrative for any subsequent debate, and is exactly the kind of 'You can't prove he DIDN'T exist' Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy that most people don't grasp, and fail to counter,  because they haven't learned how debate works. 

'Jesus' is far more likely a Frankenstein's Monster amalgamation of previous religious hokum, not least the Mithraic cults that schlepped around the Middle East prior to the cult of christianity.

Check out the similarities between the jesus myth and those of Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Western Pagansim, etc... then try making the argument the parallels are purely coincidental. 

 

 

So, you don't think it's probable that there was a man at that time, by the name of Jesus Christ, who had followers? 
 

You'd have to be a real idiot to think that just because he existed he could turn wine into water or whatever shit he did 

 

Gonna go ahead and hold my hands up here; 

 

Ive repeated something I've heard often enough, and believed it to be true. The existence of Jesus is still highly contested, more so favouring his lack of existence than anything else, all it took was speed reading a few sources. 
 

I'd like to change my answer, to go to Judea, and see if he did exist. 
 

 

[Guest]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died 
 

@Ke1t found what they said here about King Arthur interesting. 
 

 

[NEM]

39 minutes ago, Bad_Mobby said:

Add the Pelican, Kef and Drum and we had some cracking clubs to go to 

Drum the last one standing, unless it’s shut now inna? 

The Works was ace as well.

Drum still there but called something else now I think?

[Ke1t]

4 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

So, you don't think it's probable that there was a man at that time, by the name of Jesus Christ, who had followers? 
 

You'd have to be a real idiot to think that just because he existed he could turn wine into water or whatever shit he did 

Possible? Anything's possible. 

Probable? There needs to be evidence before making that leap.

Were there numerous lunatics wandering around at that time claiming divinity, certainly... if The Life of Brian teaches us anything it's that you could buy a sack of prophets for a few Groats/Denarii/Shekels and get a free gourd thrown in as part of the deal... but to say, "AHA! Then Jesus COULD likely have existed" is an extraordinarily lazy attempt at glomming the specific jesus mythology onto just any random false prophet... it's almost 'Existence by Association', and you'll see yourself that that kind of argument wouldn't bear even the most basic of scrutiny. 

It's POSSIBLE. jesus existed.. but then the same goes for the Loch Ness Monster. 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

Possible? Anything's possible. 

Probable? There needs to be evidence before making that leap.

Were there numerous lunatics wandering around at that time claiming divinity, certainly... if The Life of Brian teaches us anything it's that you could buy a sack of prophets for a few Groats/Denarii/Shekels and get a free gourd thrown in as part of the deal... but to say, "AHA! Then Jesus COULD likely have existed" is an extraordinarily lazy attempt at glomming the specific jesus mythology onto just any random false prophet... it's almost 'Existence by Association', and you'll see yourself that that kind of argument wouldn't bear even the most basic of scrutiny. 

It's POSSIBLE. jesus existed.. but then the same goes for the Loch Ness Monster. 

 

But even then, it's more likely Jesus did exist, like, literally just a guy called Jesus of Nazareth, than a prehistoric sea creature in the Loch Ness? No?

[Ke1t]

6 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died 
 

@Ke1t found what they said here about King Arthur interesting. 
 

 

I'm aware of the whataboutery arguments... but here's the thing... King Arthur, if this is your example , is recounted as a myth.

"King Arthur is a medieval, mythological figure who was the head of the kingdom Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table. It is not known if there was a real Arthur, though it is believed he may have been a Roman-affiliated military leader who successfully staved off a Saxon invasion during the 5th to 6th centuries."

So, if christians want to point to King Arthur as a solid foundation for claiming the likely existence of jesus, then they fail at the very first hurdle.  

[maryhilldon]

5 hours ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Im thinking that the parting of the sea and walking on water are more David Blaine style tricks? 

Moses parted the sea Hanzo (he didn't really of course), not JC.

[Ke1t]

1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

But even then, it's more likely Jesus did exist, like, literally just a guy called Jesus of Nazareth, than a prehistoric sea creature in the Loch Ness? No?

Nope, for a couple of reasons. 

First, the 'Existence by Association' falls into a numbers argument.  There were a bunch of prophets, one of them might have been jesus. 

Well, there were likely billions of marine dinosaurs, and one of THEM might have been Nessie. And since there were way more marine dinosaurs than false prophets, clearly the Loch Ness Monster becomes way more likely than jesus. 

And, a further, more tangible blow to the argument is that we dig up bits of marine dinosaurs all the time, so they DEFINITELY existed. How often, by comparison, have we dug up the bones of false prophets? 

Nessie 2 - 0 Jesus

 

[Ke1t]

...anyway, Scandinavia circa the end of the 1st millennium. 

Stoatin' aboot in your Longboat, drinking, pillaging, raping, murdering christians, burning churches, chopping down trees, and playing with swords.

 

[Zeus]

Early 90s

 

[Poodler]

4 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

...anyway, Scandinavia circa the end of the 1st millennium. 

Stoatin' aboot in your Longboat, drinking, pillaging, raping, murdering christians, burning churches, chopping down trees, and playing with swords.

 

Unless you arrive at Cruden Bay where they got turned over 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I'm aware of the whataboutery arguments... but here's the thing... King Arthur, if this is your example , is recounted as a myth.

"King Arthur is a medieval, mythological figure who was the head of the kingdom Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table. It is not known if there was a real Arthur, though it is believed he may have been a Roman-affiliated military leader who successfully staved off a Saxon invasion during the 5th to 6th centuries."

So, if christians want to point to King Arthur as a solid foundation for claiming the likely existence of jesus, then they fail at the very first hurdle.  

I'm not arguing with you. I admitted in the edited post above that I just repeated something I'd heard often enough and believed to be true. 
 

I would change my answer to Judea the time Jesus was meant to be about, to see if he was real, and remove all doubt. 
 

I spoke in ignorance, my hands are up

[Ramandu]

26 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

* That's incorrect.

** You may as well say the Loch Ness Monster is indeed a monster that exists. 

Historians tend strongly towards factual data rather than anecdote before they declare something to be conclusive, and unfortunately for christians factual evidence for jesus' existence is pretty sparse beyond christian texts (wholly unreliable) and the Josephus addendums, the shakiest of shaky after-the-fact writing that has largely been debunked. You'll find the word 'Scholar' slapped on to the title of most people who make the claim jesus definitely existed, and that term almost exclusively comes with 'religious' or 'christian' preceding it.  And, to be fair, taking the word of a 'Biblical Scholar' regarding the existence of jesus is like taking a Nazi's word on what Jews are like. 

The 'Most historians agree jesus existed' line is pushed by christians in an attempt to create the narrative for any subsequent debate, and is exactly the kind of 'You can't prove he DIDN'T exist' Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy that most people don't grasp, and fail to counter,  because they haven't learned how debate works. 

'Jesus' is far more likely a Frankenstein's Monster amalgamation of previous religious hokum, not least the Mithraic cults that schlepped around the Middle East prior to the cult of christianity.

Check out the similarities between the jesus myth and those of Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Western Pagansim, etc... then try making the argument the parallels are purely coincidental. 

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.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

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.  

Are you a Christian, Ramandu?

[Ke1t]

8 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

I'm not arguing with you. I admitted in the edited post above that I just repeated something I'd heard often enough and believed to be true. 
 

I would change my answer to Judea the time Jesus was meant to be about, to see if he was real, and remove all doubt. 
 

I spoke in ignorance, my hands are up

Also wasn't arguing...

The line about historians believing jesus existed is one of my triggers, though.

Like Pavlov's dog when the doorbell goes.

'Biblical Scholars' believe jesus existed, but you may as well be a Lord of the Rings 'Scholar', or a Harry Potter 'Scholar'. 

Tacking 'Scholar' onto your name because you read a bit of fiction doesn't give you any extra leverage in a debate about reality. 

 

 

 

 

[Ke1t]

24 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

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.  

* Hindus have temples to gods with elephant heads. They talk very highly of Ganesh. But until we dig up a lad with an elephant head... 

** All this proves is that geography exists. 

*** Who else would be writing about it? If there was genuinely an individual performing miracles I would suggest the Roman, Greeks, Egyptians, and other Mediterranean powers would hear about it,, and likely write about it. 

**** The source isn't the problem, the argument brought forward is the problem. 

***** There are multiple direct parallels between christianity and previous cults. What part of those direct parallels doesn't work? 

[Poodler]

And at fechtin in Aberdeen bars this week 

[Ramandu]

1 hour ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Are you a Christian, Ramandu?

Sure am consi.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

Sure am consi.

Fair dos. 

[Bluto10]

LOL

[Ramandu]

1 hour ago, Ke1t said:

* Hindus have temples to gods with elephant heads. They talk very highly of Ganesh. But until we dig up a lad with an elephant head... 

** All this proves is that geography exists. 

*** Who else would be writing about it? If there was genuinely an individual performing miracles I would suggest the Roman, Greeks, Egyptians, and other Mediterranean powers would hear about it,, and likely write about it. 

**** The source isn't the problem, the argument brought forward is the problem. 

***** There are multiple direct parallels between christianity and previous cults. What part of those direct parallels doesn't work? 

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.

[Ramandu]

23 minutes ago, Bluto10 said:

LOL

Go on bluto, you must have some thoughts. I hear you read a book a week.

[Bluto10]

1 minute ago, Ramandu said:

Go on bluto, you must have some thoughts. I hear you read a book a week.

I read the good book a week

[Bluto10]

read a newspaper a day

[daytripping]

40's for me so I could have went to war.