CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So in your book it is verboten for anyone to apply modern terms to ancient historical figures? So when scholars call Nero a sociopath it's problematic for you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To The Jesus Myth Theorist
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
So in your book it is verboten for anyone to apply modern terms to ancient historical figures? So when scholars call Nero a sociopath it's problematic for you?
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Sure it is. It can't be proven so there is doubt, what is unreasonable is insulting and attacking those who are acknowledging that fact.
Twig pentagram
High Priest
To be honest, I'm one of those people who are not entirely convinced
that Yeshua existed.
that Yeshua existed.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
It would be a problem to compare him to Ted Bundy or Joesph Stalin because they are modern day sociopaths. It is one thing to make a diagnosis but quite another thing to start making judgements of historical figures based on modern day contexts.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Oy fracking vey!
What possible difference is there? A sociopath is a sociopath whether in the modern or ancient world just a cult leader is a cult leader regardless of the era or whether the people of his era had the terms we use.
The ancients didn't have the term Microcephaly so does it mean that microcephy didn't exist in ancient times. The ancient didn't have modern germ theory so does that mean we can't apply germ theory when discussing disease in the ancient world?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Have you looked at the evidence?
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
The difference is in how the society in question judges them. Our modern culture judges Joseph Stalin by one set of standards but the Romans judged Nero with a completely different standard. Today's society considers bike gangs to be leather clad thugs existing on the fringe of society while the same individuals in the 4th and 5th centuries would have been the Knights of the Round Table. You can't hold up a person of this era who is unversally condemned for his actions and beliefs as an example of how people 2000 years ago would have viewed the same personality type. Chances are they saw him differently.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
What are you getting at? You're not even making sense anymore. What does applying modern terminology to ancient sociological phenomena have to do with bikers being knights of the round table.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
That's the whole point of some mythicist as well. But what do we really know about Yeshua (Jesus)?
arcanum
Active Member
There a few books that would get you to an informed position. I'd suggest Who on earth was Jesus, the Jesus Puzzle and for some good fuel for thought the Jesus Mysteries. If that isn't enough reading than I suggest Robert Eisenamn who is a very well respected scholar but get ready for some serious tomes. The search for the historical Jesus will take you in many different directions.
Last edited:
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
*sigh*
Do try to keep up.What I'm saying is that the society of any given period will judge these personalities in extremely differnt ways. You say that Jesus was like Koresh because in our society that is who you think he would be judged the same as. But in his society he would have been not judged that way at all so it is a poor comparison.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I have and I still have own personal doubts. I'm 50/50 though. His existence isn't really a big deal to me.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yep.....
arcanum
Active Member
lol you captured a mistype on part, it's actually Who on earth was Jesus, which is a great cross scholarly survey. If I were to recommend one book on the subject this would be it.
Amazon.com: Who On Earth Was Jesus?: The Modern Quest for the Jesus of History (9781846940187): David Boulton: Books
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That's a position I really respect.
This next part isn't directed specifically at you but I wanted to add it. There is a possibility that Jesus didn't exist. I think too many people view history in absolutes. However that isn't how history works. Unlike sciences, history isn't proven. Instead, it is based off of probability. We can look at a historic event, and based on the evidence, put it on a spectrum of probability.
It isn't a 100% sure Jesus existed, and this isn't true just for Jesus. However, I, among many others, put him as having a very high probability of existing.
why don't you stop being so prude and share some then?
all your doing is giving people the run around. obviously if i am say their is no evidence then i have looked and failed to find any, and any that i have received has been lacking and sounds like a Nostradamus prophecy....
sooo get off your high horse and be useful. what is all this evidence for historic Jesus?
stop ranting and belittling us and educate us.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
^^ This ^^
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
We have Paul, the Gospels, and Josephus. That should be enough evidence. Instead of explaining more, and rehashing my arguments, I'm just going to link to a post earlier in this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2807477-post39.html
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
*sigh*
What I'm saying is that the society of any given period will judge these personalities in extremely differnt ways. You say that Jesus was like Koresh because in our society that is who you think he would be judged the same as. But in his society he would have been not judged that way at all so it is a poor comparison.
No he would have been a false prophet in his time, in ours he is a cult leader.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I seen the OP and thought "someone has an ax to grind." There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever existed. Does that mean he didn't? No. That just means to believe in Jesus is something that has to be taken on faith. I personally don't know whether he existed or not. I don't believe he did, because I see no evidence for it. That's one of the million and one reasons why I left Christianity in the first place. The only evidence for the existence of Jesus, outside the Bible, is a handful of second and third hand testimonies dozens of years after the fact, which is no real evidence at all.