Pontius Pilate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chairman

Horst and Reno: thanks for your great example of a civilized, decent conversation and exchange of ideas. Too often, these subjects end in moderators closing a thread. I am impressed by the way that you two discussed differing opinions while maintaining a hospitable atmosphere! Thank you from the rest of us!:2thumbsup:

About Pilate: like I said earlier, the Gospels' description fits with incompetence and eventual recall. As others have said, Pilate was so concerned about keeping his superiors in the dark about the true circumstances of his governorship that he was willing to circumvent due process of Roman law. His collaboration with the Sadducees, indeciveness and his unwillingness to take responsibility for his decisions show a shamefully un-Roman character.

In response to the idea that early Christians wanted to distance themselves from the Jews to appease Roman sensibility, might I say that the Romans were much more comfortable with the Jews than they were with the Christians. Jews were the only people who were excepted from emporer worship and duty on the Sabbath while in the military. This is because the Romans, like the Ptolemies and Seleucids before them, recognized the vast fighting potential of the Jews, both within the Roman army and in rebellion. So the Romans appeased the Jews by giving them exemption from normal protocal. Also, for Paul there was no need to distance himself from the Jews because he was both Jewish, Roman as well as educated in Greek philosophy. So Paul could call himself both a Jew and a Roman citizen at the same time.

Jolt: I think you are confusing Horus with his father Osirus. Osirus was the King of the Egyptian gods until the rise of Amun-Ra. However, his brother Seth grew jealous and murdered him and cut him into small pieces. Osirus' wife Isis was so grieved that she searched the whole earth until she had gathered all of the pieces and used a spell to temporarily brought Osirus back to life long enough to become pregnent with their son, Horus. Osirus died again after the spell wore off and was established as the King of the Dead, where he judged souls who had died. So Horus wasn't actually born of a virgin and it was his father who was murdered and temporarily resurrected. It is true that the cult of Isis later game impetus to the semi-diefication of Mary in the Orthodox and Catholic churches. But it was not the original reason behind this.

Actually, I have heard a strange theory advocated by one historian who said that Jewish monotheism was derived from Akenaton's worship of the single god Aton. However, this seems to not be widely accepted among historians.

Just my mites.

Chairman

---

I heard some days ago there was a movie about these paralels. If you guys wanna see them (Since I only have net here in college, I'm unable to see it.)

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

I heard it was well fundamented, and I suppose it should present the view points clearly. Then feedback it at me please. :P

chairman said 'Horst and Reno: thanks for your great example of a civilized, decent conversation and exchange of ideas. Too often, these subjects end in moderators closing a thread. I am impressed by the way that you two discussed differing opinions while maintaining a hospitable atmosphere! Thank you from the rest of us! '


Well it was never and never it shall happen that I make enemies of people due to there views on religion and what god they worship. I had seen many of these movies when i was younger, The Last Temptation of Christ, the Live of Brian, and recently The da Vinci Code. If in the future enough info is found that Christ was married, I would not be surprised. In my opinian Jesus was human first, than son of God, so if got married, maybe to Mary of Magdalene, that would have been a natural thing, as almost all humans do. But of course I doubt, such a thing, and even more if he had children, they could not had vanished in obscurity, with all the hard line cristian cults around in the first millenium Anno Domini.

It's a piece of Atheist fundalmentalist propeganda, and it really only speaks to the fundamentalist American Right.

Yes, the Roman state Church borrowed iconography from Mithras and Sol Invictus but that has been known since 334 AD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It's a piece of Atheist fundalmentalist propeganda

---

Atheist fundamentalist? Say what?! There needs to be a set of principles, rules or something like that for someone to be a fundamentalist. What principles do you think a fundamentalist atheist would cling to? (Hint: atheism is just not holding belief in any god.)

As for propaganda... sigh... no. It's no more propaganda than any history book you've read.

Sadly, 'fundementalist' is thrown around today too often. :-\ But these ideas are nothing new, they come around every few decades and people are like: "OMG This is a new understanding of stuff, I didn't know that, it must be true since we correct our understanding of the past all the time."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

Atheist fundamentalist? Say what?! There needs to be a set of principles, rules or something like that for someone to be a fundamentalist. What principles do you think a fundamentalist atheist would cling to? (Hint: atheism is just not holding belief in any god.)

As for propaganda... sigh... no. It's no more propaganda than any history book you've read.

---

Well, Fundalmentalist Anti-Deist then. They want to discredit God because they see belief in Him as the root cause of all evil. They are as missionary about their agenda as anyone.

As to the bias, well it mentions Dionysus as "born of a virgin" but he wasn't and it moves Exodus from around 1,200 to 2,500 BC in order to fit things together.

Now, don't sigh at me, don't pity me and don't patronise me. I am well aware there is no factual basis for my belief, I will even help you discredit parts of the Bible but this film is about attacking religion because you are scared or it.

It's as bad as anything coming from the christian right in America.

Uhh BTW what is the proper way to pronounce "Pilate"? :inquisitive:

Pontius Pilatus.

The proper way :P

Bloody English, Anglicizing awesome Romani names.

I usually pronounce it with a capital "I" sound followed by either capital "A" or small "a" as in "at". Not terribly sure if this is the correct way or not.

Chairman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reno Melitensis

christian, not a fundamental one of course, these comments about Jesus should be addressed in a way not to offend anyone. I too when was younger, now I am 35, maybe a veteran and a bit old to play EB, had my doubts about god and heaven...to those atheist out there, who I respect because I was one of them, what about Lourdes and Fatima, where those too invented by poor stupid christian fundamentalists. Cheers.

---

Doubting the existence of God doesn't make you an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God (whereas anti-theist go futher). Mother Teresa doubted Jesus quite often...?

Now my question is, if you were an atheist, how did you jump from atheism to Christianity? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

"there needs to be a set of principles, rules or something like that for someone to be a fundamentalist. What principles do you think a fundamentalist atheist would cling to? (Hint: atheism is just not holding belief in any god."

---

Well, there is a branch of atheism that is considered a religion, called anti-theism. Whether or not that's fundamentalist is up for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, Fundalmentalist Anti-Deist then. They want to discredit God because they see belief in Him as the root cause of all evil. They are as missionary about their agenda as anyone..

---

It's not fundamentalist anti-Deist. It's Anti-Theist (specifically Judeo-Christian).

A Deist believes in an all powerful creator God that set into motion the events involved in the creation of the universe, but does not intervene afterwards with divine intervention. The God in Deism isn't the same god in the Abrahamic religions.

Did you just pretty much say that the Deistic God uses autocalc while the Abrahamic God fights all battles?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Did you just pretty much say that the Deistic God uses autocalc while the Abrahamic God fights all battles?:laugh4:

---

lol, that's an oversimplification of terms, but yeh - pretty much. :yes:

The Deist God uses RTW's built in mathematical formulas to calculate world events.

Whereas the Abrahamic God goes into the console to type "auto_win," "add_money, Jews 99999" or "Jericho" to help out the people who worship him. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

lol, that's an oversimplification of terms, but yeh - pretty much. :yes:

Sometimes the Abrahamic God goes into the console to type "auto_win," "add_money, Jews 99999" or "Jericho" to help out the people who worship him. :)

---

Don't forget the "create_character, Messiah."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Don't forget the "create_character, Messiah."

---

That's been done to death... The Abrahamic God should just go into desc_export units and give the Messiah/his Chosen People unit(s) 100 hp, 100 shield, and 100 armor, so they doesn't keep getting killed by the Romans.

Defeating the Egyptians via "add_plagues" and then getting steam rolled by Babylonians the next turn seems to be very inefficient. :2thumbsup:

Then there was "give_trait, hates_babylonians 3 Cyrus"

OMG, love the last few posts.

As for the topic, I would heartily suggest Geza Vermes' "Jesus the Jew" as an excellent introduction into New Testament Study, particularly focusing on the gospels and the life of jesus. In it, you really get to hear some of the true words of Jesus of Nazareth, the man. The comparisons between Jesus and a singular type of Jewish Rabbi really are quite striking.

As for the OT, it was a key part in the discovery of Urartu, which was a kingdom, rivalling the Assyrian Empire in power at times, that until the early 20th century had been completely forgotten. Mentions of Ararat in the Bible along with a few mentions in Assyrian texts put the archaelogists and historians onto the track of one of the greatest kingdoms of the ancient world. The Persian title of "King of Kings" actually comes from the title given to the Urartean King, and Urartu herself brought the Assyrian Empire to its knees before finally succumbing to bad leadership and the nomadic raides of the Cimmerians and the Scyths. To discount the OT is a mistake, light can be gleamed from it, but not as a definitive work of history but rather as a collection of misfit tales that were written during a time and a mindset quite alien to our own, but that were still written during that time.

Foot

Thanks for that bit on Urartu, Foot. I didn't know that. It's true though. People these days totally ignore important empires like Urartu, Mitanni, Elam, Media, and sometimes even the Hittites :no: .

LOL, that is too funny about if God were playing EB. The question I have though, is which faction would he play? Mighty Roma? Great Arche Seleukia? Distant Lusotannon? Or the awesome Bartixian Space Empire with their impotent laser beams and 20W light bulbs?! Please, members, tell me who do you think God would play?

Chairman

i suppose the OT has many interesting features in it referring to the political constellation of those times. but you have to realise it was written later. as i recall the actual OT came into being during the babylonian exile (ending with the persian conquest) which grouped the whole hebrew elite together. i think the only historical thing about the OT is mentioning for example urartu. like biblical accounts of 'gods' miraculous intervention during warfare.

like this one: the liberation of jerusalem from the assyrian siege under Sennacherib (701 bce) in 2 Kings 19:35 "the angel of the lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the assyrians", thereafter Sennacherib went back to Nineveh. divine intervention! or not... in 2 Kings 18:14-16 King Hezekiah of Judah pays Sennacherib a great tribute to leave.

the OT however a lot more historically valable than the NT; just think of all the inner conflicts amongst Jesus his followers.

as atheïst i have a hard time accepting biblical accounts, not enough 'hard' evidence you know.

rather than posing the judeans modelled their religoin after that of the heretic pharao Akenaton, he modelled his religion after the many 'monotheïstic' inspired sun-cults in the east (not truly monoth. since they didn't necessarily banned other gods). the hebrew god was probably originally one of many gods, eventually their polytheïsm evolved into a polytheïsm with a supreme god, finally ending in monotheïsm. i doubt Akenatons policy would have been of much influence since he reigned so shortly and the priest of Amon were pretty pissed at him, erasing his heresy as much as they could.

I will try to keep this short and without inciting more answers, because this doesn't belong in here. I just feel obliged to answer what claims have already been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

Well, there is a branch of atheism that is considered a religion, called anti-theism. Whether or not that's fundamentalist is up for debate.

---

There are no "branches" in atheism no more than there are branches in aSantaClausism.

Quote:

---

Doubting the existence of God doesn't make you an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God (whereas anti-theist go futher). Mother Teresa doubted Jesus quite often...?

---

Wrong. Look at the word! The prefix a- means without, and theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism thus means "without belief in one or more gods". That's not the same as believing there is no gods, and while those are also atheists, they are a minority amongst us. The majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter, but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, Fundalmentalist Anti-Deist then.

---

No. Again with the fundamentalism. What set of rules/principles does anti-deism (btw, Christianity isn't a deistic faith) have?

Quote:

---

They want to discredit God because they see belief in Him as the root cause of all evil. They are as missionary about their agenda as anyone.

---

No. They don't want to "discredit god because they see him as the root cause of all evil" because there is not a one god to discredit. They want to remove religion (that includes all millions of gods that's being worshipped today, not just your's) because they see that as a big cause of evil, but not the only one.

What it's trying to do is to shed light on delusional beliefs. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Now, don't sigh at me, don't pity me and don't patronise me. I am well aware there is no factual basis for my belief, I will even help you discredit parts of the Bible but this film is about attacking religion because you are scared or it.

---

I didn't mean to patronise you, I was honestly just tired of hearing such baseless accusations. I respect you as a person - it's your beliefs I don't respect.

Can we agree that this is the last thing to be said in this debate? Or at least open up a new thread somewhere else and continue it there instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

I will try to keep this short and without inciting more answers, because this doesn't belong in here. I just feel obliged to answer what claims have already been made.

There are no "branches" in atheism no more than there are branches in aSantaClausism.

Wrong. Look at the word! The prefix a- means without, and theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism thus means "without belief in one or more gods". That's not the same as believing there is no gods, and while those are also atheists, they are a minority amongst us. The majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter, but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one.

---

Actually, that's where YOU'RE wrong. Atheist does indeed mean that one does not believe in any god, but it means that one believes there IS NO god. Not believing in a god, yet not rejecting the existence of a god/gods, is called Agnosticism, which is a belief in which one has no need to deny, or accept and praise, the existence of a higher power. If you don't believe me, wiki the term.

And you have to accept that atheism is, in its own way, a system of belief, in which one believes in the non-existence of gods, therefore, it is logical that there are what could be called 'branches' in atheism where there are those atheists who simply do not believe in god/s, and those who strive to disprove religion and belief systems of a higher power, because in your words they are 'delusional'.

It's also contradictory, not to mention rude, to say to a person that you 'respect them as a person but don't respect their beliefs'. I think you meant to say, or if not then it is more accurate and respectful to say, that you respect that person but do not AGREE with their beliefs. Saying you do not 'respect' a person's beliefs is tantamount to not respecting the person, since beliefs, of any kind, are a large part of what makes a person.

And by using that phrase, and mentioning 'delusional beliefs' and 'shedding light on all religions', you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-theist, which is someone who, as I mentioned before, is of the opinion that belief in any god, or adherence to any religion, is erroneous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Valerius

i suppose the OT has many interesting features in it referring to the political constellation of those times. but you have to realise it was written later. as i recall the actual OT came into being during the babylonian exile (ending with the persian conquest) which grouped the whole hebrew elite together. i think the only historical thing about the OT is mentioning for example urartu. like biblical accounts of 'gods' miraculous intervention during warfare.

like this one: the liberation of jerusalem from the assyrian siege under Sennacherib (701 bce) in 2 Kings 19:35 "the angel of the lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the assyrians", thereafter Sennacherib went back to Nineveh. divine intervention! or not... in 2 Kings 18:14-16 King Hezekiah of Judah pays Sennacherib a great tribute to leave.

---

With the dating of the "silver scrolls" that were found in the valley of Hinnom 25ish years ago, there's now circumstantial evidence that places the Torah text the bible before the fall of Jerusalem. So I wouldn't say that all its writing was definitively placed after 607 BCE.

As for the accounts of Sennacharib, something happened during the siege that caused Sennacharib to withdraw and gloss over the outcome of the siege from his records. Herodotus records divine retribution by Seth when the Assyrians fought the Egyptions:

Quote:

---

when Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his [i.e., the Pharaoh Sethos'] aid. On this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary, and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send those who should help him. Sethos, then, relying on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of Sethos, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect - "Look on me, and learn to reverence the gods."

---

In all likelyhood, something happened to that army, no one knows what exactly though. So its not without historic significance.:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

With the dating of the "silver scrolls" that were found in the valley of Hinnom 25ish years ago, there's now circumstantial evidence that places the Torah text the bible before the fall of Jerusalem. So I wouldn't say that all its writing was definitively placed after 607 BCE.

As for the accounts of Sennacharib, something happened during the siege that caused Sennacharib to withdraw and gloss over the outcome of the siege from his records. Herodotus records divine retribution by Seth when the Assyrians fought the Egyptions:



In all likelyhood, something happened to that army, no one knows what exactly though. So its not without historic significance.:smash:

---

I heard a recent theory that they left because the Kushite/Nubian allies of the Israelites marched up into the Levant to pwn the Assyrian Menace....but whether this is true or not, I have not the foggiest idea.

I don't think anyone will know for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"Gentle Jesus" does not exist. I'm also not keen on people saying they want to be more "Christlike" because the Christ was not the nicest or gentlest of people, though he may have been fair, just and compassionate he was also harsh, unilatteral and judgemental.

The "I come not to bring peace..." statement refers to family strife specifically and nothing creates more strife in families than Christianity.


In general those who attack Christianity as "fake" or "cobbled together" are usually attacking modern right-wing Evangelical Christianity.

Pullo, Jolt; I suggest you dig a lot deeper before making any pronouncements.

---

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Titus Pullo

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

---

Please, let's keep things respectful here. Oh, and you're right, christianity WAS, in a way, cobbled together from the very beginning, but then, so has every other religion that has ever existed on this planet. Name me but ONE religion, polytheistic or monotheistic, that you think is entirely original, and you will be met with a barrage of proof that shows it in fact built itself out of pre-existing beliefs, values, stories, and then used those elements to build its own identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

Please, let's keep things respectful here. Oh, and you're right, christianity WAS, in a way, cobbled together from the very beginning, but then, so has every other religion that has ever existed on this planet. Name me but ONE religion, polytheistic or monotheistic, that you think is entirely original, and you will be met with a barrage of proof that shows it in fact built itself out of pre-existing beliefs, values, stories, and then used those elements to build its own identity.

---

I don't think anyone religion as original or genuine, but Christianity is one truly well documented example of a patchy faith, so it deserves mention on that.

You want me to be respectful? Well I don't exactly appreciate being shot down by some high-strung arsehole, telling me "I'm wrong" every fucking time I post here. This place knows how to make a man feel welcome. Theres my fucking respect. Bye bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Titus Pullo

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

---

:inquisitive: Did you actually read what I wrote? Go back and take another look. I have admitted the dubious nature of the early religion. However, it was always admitted those things were borrowed. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury recently said (over Christmas in fact) that he's fairly sure Jesus wasn't born of 25/12/00. In the same vein, the Church has always known that our calender is miscalculated by five years.

My point was that the fundamentalist Evangelical groups in America take the end result dogma and preach it as scripture. So saying "Jesus' birthday is on a pagan holiday" to me or the Pope, or any other serious theologin will simply recieve a "yes, and?" If you want to be an atheist fine, but you have to do a lot of reading, both Christian and non-Christian before you have a grasp of the arguements against belief.

I'm sorry, but thus far you haven't demonstrated that reading. May I suggest you begin with Epicurus, google him and you'll likely find his disproof of a good God fairly easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian II

I heard a recent theory that they left because the Kushite/Nubian allies of the Israelites marched up into the Levant to pwn the Assyrian Menace....but whether this is true or not, I have not the foggiest idea.

---

at the time of Sennacherib the 25th dynasty ruled. they weren't egyptian, well, by means of defining them based upon location, since they were nubian/kushite and came from way beyond the 4th cataract (Napata), from Meroë. they were of course 'egyptian' in culture, and for that, very orthodox ones. they marched from the south to the delta, reuniting egypt with their divine mission by amon and later got their ass kicked by the assyrians, the farao ran away to nubia never to return :laugh4: :egypt:





- actually debating christiany, or any faith is realy impossible. as an atheïst i believe you are wrong. there is no god, no divine judgement, no afterlife - you die its over it sucks but its true, no fairy tales. ppl dont walk over water, nor do they change it into wine. the funny thing with miracles is they all happened in times they couldn't be recorded. any footage of miracles? video-images? no... since we have photo and camera miracles seemed to have disappeared. and if they happen nobody can prove them.

and thats the point. you wanna believe? fine. i think your beliefs are wrong, but that doesn't make them necessarily bad, if it helps ppl to live their lives. but you cant convince a believer to not believe. rational arguments dont work cause religion is irrational, it has no scientific basis.

historically religious documents can shed interesting light, if you approach them with the necessary scepticism.


SO PPL WTF ARE YOU/WE DOING DISCUSSING FAITH... loooool


its easier to explain the basics of quantumphysica to a retarded squirrel than to try to convince ppl in religious matter.

PS: the squirrel is entirely fictional, as of yet nobody has tried to do so and i also have no knowledge of any existence of a retarded squirrel :clown:

Quote:

---

- actually debating christiany, or any faith is realy impossible. as an atheïst i believe you are wrong. there is no god, no divine judgement, no afterlife - you die its over it sucks but its true, no fairy tales. ppl dont walk over water, nor do they change it into wine.

---

Imagine a swimming pool of wine...

Oh, yon Hangovers!