Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 198

Thread: Jesus and other "historical" figures

  1. #81
    Dance Magic Dance CloudCuckooLander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see Jesus as an -subtype ESI - I don't see much from the New Testament, he had no real personal aversion to hierarchy (merely corrupt hierarchy), and how he handled the moneychangers in the temple seemed very to me.

    The common typing of Jesus as EII may stem from the common societal misperception of Jesus as some sort of "hippie," when in fact he was anything but - he explicitly said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword," (Matthew 10:34) advocating a rather doctrinally militant stance towards sin and salvation. Additionally, the very first Roman convert to Christianity was in fact a soldier, one who did not give up his trade upon accepting the Christian faith but incorporated that faith into his career (as well as, of course, the rest of his life).
    Last edited by CloudCuckooLander; 10-27-2010 at 02:39 PM.
    2-subtype system: IEI-Fe
    8-subtype system: D-IEI-Fe
    16-subtype system: IEI-ESE

    IEI-Fe 2w3 > p6w5 > 8w7 sx/so

    "He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of living." - Edmond Dantes (The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas père)

  2. #82
    Darn Socks DirectorAbbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    7,123
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CloudCuckooLander View Post
    I see Jesus as an -subtype ESI - I don't see much from the New Testament, he had no real personal aversion to hierarchy (merely corrupt hierarchy), and how he handled the moneychangers in the temple seemed very to me.

    The common typing of Jesus as EII may stem from the common societal misperception of Jesus as some sort of "hippie," when in fact he was anything but - he explicitly said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword," (Matthew 10:34) advocating a rather doctrinally militant stance towards sin and salvation. Additionally, the very first Roman convert to Christianity was in fact a soldier, one who did not give up his trade upon accepting the Christian faith but incorporated that faith into his career (as well as, of course, the rest of his life).
    Yes, ESI would work. I tend not to type people as ESI unless I can find nothing else that fits. I don't have much experience with ESIs.

    LSE
    1-6-2 so/sx
    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  3. #83
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aixelsyd View Post
    On another note, I always saw the four Gospels as being relative to the Jungian dichotomies of Logics, Sensing, Ethics, and Intuition in respect to their canonical order (in how they tell the account and in how they represent Jesus' personality).
    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John = ?, Sensing, Logic, Feeling

    Matthew is themed Jewish, so I don't know what it would be Socionically (perhaps Logic, but a Jewish logic to Luke's Greek logic). Mark wrote the words of Peter, who I see as SLE. Luke, the doctor, was the most scientific in his approach. John went on and on about love... though he probably works best as an NF, so relating Intuition to that book works decently.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  4. #84
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Some creepy ENxj type.

  5. #85
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aixelsyd View Post
    I saw Jesus as being typeless.
    I think the word you're looking for is "homeless."
    Last edited by Aleksei; 10-29-2010 at 02:54 PM.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  6. #86
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starfall View Post
    Jesus from the Bible is an obvious EIE imo.

    I don't think he was ESI because remember people, ESIs have a Ne PoLR, and Jesus certainly did not. Si PoLR makes far more sense
    Where do you see the Ne? And more importantly, where do you see him display Fe-valuation?
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  7. #87
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some creepy ENxj type.
    FTR: I was typing The Jesus, not Jesus. JC seems like an unproblematic INFj to me.

  8. #88
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "unproblematic"?
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  9. #89
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, totally.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Don't infj's have a problem with judging people for their mistakes? Does that sound like jesus to you?

    And who said istp? Do you find istp's going around preaching forgiveness to those who have wronged them? No way, revenge is their creed, not forgiveness.

    His characteristics are infp/enfpish.

  11. #91
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Bible is definitely suited for INFps and ENFjs, though Jesus seems to come off as INFj.

  12. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    The Bible is definitely suited for INFps and ENFjs, though Jesus seems to come off as INFj.
    Yea, it's quite poetic to say the least.

  13. #93
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,377
    Mentioned
    323 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CloudCuckooLander View Post
    I see Jesus as an -subtype ESI - I don't see much from the New Testament, he had no real personal aversion to hierarchy (merely corrupt hierarchy), and how he handled the moneychangers in the temple seemed very to me.

    The common typing of Jesus as EII may stem from the common societal Alsomisperception of Jesus as some sort of "hippie," when in fact he was anything but - he explicitly said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword," (Matthew 10:34) advocating a rather doctrinally militant stance towards sin and salvation. Additionally, the very first Roman convert to Christianity was in fact a soldier, one who did not give up his trade upon accepting the Christian faith but incorporated that faith into his career (as well as, of course, the rest of his life).
    Thank you - someone who has actually read the Gospels. The moneychangers bit is definitely hard to explain if Jesus is an type. I type Jesus as SEE, although ESI is not unreasonable. Jesus hardly ever uses and frequently uses . In his parables he talks at length about hypothetical power relations between kings and sons, farmers and their workers, and conflicts that issue between them. His teaching is a challenging, no-nonsense one - you have to pick up your cross and bear it.

    I can't really see him as EIE either. He uses far more than , frequently pointing out the moral errors of the Jewish clergy, and evoking sympathy for the poor and disheartened. You could also argue that his teaching against their codified tradition suggests devalued (as well as irrationality).

    And although Jesus supposedly tried to keep a low profile, he attracted a lot of attention to himself and created his own little posse to spread his teachings. His teachings were controversial and political. "The Kingdom of Heaven"! Osho is another SEE spiritual leader with a similarly controversial profile.

    If you want an example of an EII spiritual leader, take a look at Ramana Maharshi. Ramana was totally apolitical and had a much more philosophical, conceptual teaching.

  14. #94
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    It seems that there is a significant amount of sources to "prove" to a considerable level that people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Jesus did exist...in the cases of Alexander and Caesar, there are a few stories that are not possible to verify, or are unlikely to be true.

    But in the case of Jesus, this goes to another level. It would seem to me that it difficult to invent a Roman emperor, but not to invent a religious icon. I don't doubt that Jesus did exist (in the sense that I know people have been called that), but with the "historical" one, of course the stories about him are disputable, as is his very existence (although this is not so important an issue to me as the alleged stories).

    There may well be many cases in history of things being misappropriated...it even happens now. It is puzzling to me sometimes when earnest historians talk of the historical Jesus as if they are aware of some source that I am not (although I am aware that it may not be desirable to define what is meant by Jesus everytime you simply want to discuss the early church etc.).

    It's quite frustating not having certainity about recent events\people...although it's not like it really matters much of the time. It is rather a peeve to have people have certainity though, and to take things to heart all the time.

    The bible itself is a historical document. The gospels are eye witness accounts that describe what they saw and experienced with Jesus. They all describe the same account from different point of views. If you read closely, you'll notice that the smallest details (artifacts, cultural norms, etc.,) align with recorded history.

    Then the question is if the bible is accurate and reliable. Well its been proved that the bible is the most preserved and most accurate text than any other ancient writing. And between all these numerous copies, there's a lot accuracy and consistency:

    There are currently 5600 new testament manuscripts with 99.5% accuracy between them.

    The next backed up writing is Homer (Iliad) with 643 copies and 95% accuracy between them. The next is Sophocles with 193, Aristotle with 49...etc etc.,

    People find the reliability of the bible hard to believe, but then you would have to disregard other historical texts such as Plato, Homer, etc., with much less evidence.

    And yes, since these are eye witness accounts, human error will cause there to be some inconsistencies between different accounts, but this only strengthens its reliability.

    I'm sorry if this didn't really answer your question. Just wanted to point out that faith is a large part in believing his existence, yeah, but there's also a lot of concrete evidence to support it as well. There are also tons of archeological and historical records that proves its validity. Its a matter of putting the pieces together from all sources

    "Search your feelings...You know its true!"


    "Nooooooo!!!!"
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 12-26-2010 at 09:50 PM.

  15. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    The bible itself is a historical document.
    And I am a jolly green giant.

  16. #96
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    And I am a jolly green giant.
    coooool man, can I get yo autograph

  17. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,470
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I especially like the ascension where he flies back up to the moon. Just a pity the facts show that he doesn't actually live there.

  18. #98
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,144
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    The bible itself is a historical document. The gospels are eye witness accounts that describe what they saw and experienced with Jesus. They all describe the same account from different point of views. If you read closely, you'll notice that the smallest details (artifacts, cultural norms, etc.,) align with recorded history.

    Then the question is if the bible is accurate and reliable. Well its been proved that the bible is the most preserved and most accurate text than any other ancient writing. And between all these numerous copies, there's a lot accuracy and consistency:

    There are currently 5600 new testament manuscripts with 99.5% accuracy between them.

    The next backed up writing is Homer (Iliad) with 643 copies and 95% accuracy between them. The next is Sophocles with 193, Aristotle with 49...etc etc.,

    People find the reliability of the bible hard to believe, but then you would have to disregard other historical texts such as Plato, Homer, etc., with much less evidence.

    And yes, since these are eye witness accounts, human error will cause there to be some inconsistencies between different accounts, but this only strengthens its reliability.

    I'm sorry if this didn't really answer your question. Just wanted to point out that faith is a large part in believing his existence, yeah, but there's also a lot of concrete evidence to support it as well. There are also tons of archeological and historical records that proves its validity. Its a matter of putting the pieces together from all sources
    The oldest gospel available dates a good time after Jesus supposedly died and rose again. The current versions of the gospels (or at least the most popular) regularly contradict the oldest versions of the gospels too...indeed, many of these copies have two versions of the same text on the same page. The authors of the four gospels themselves are hardly proven in themselves - and the gospels may have been cut and edit and rewrite jobs from other texts.

    I'm not convinced of your figures regarding the fidelity of the New Testament documents.

    You do realise that the Iliad isn't a true history?

    As for even "the smallest details" aligning with recorded history...there is also so much that does not. Even quite substantial things actually - and I'm not merely talking about the supernatural matters. Often those bits that it does get right are ripped off from older texts and oral traditions (as evidenced by their inability to tell the difference between fact and fiction when ripping off the story), or they refer to very local sources. There are things that it gets disastrously wrong even in its own backyard.

  19. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    coooool man, can I get yo autograph
    Yup, you're the second one to ask for one - ThanksArthur was first. Where do you want it ?

    And some say that history doesn't repeat itself

  20. #100
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not convinced of your figures regarding the fidelity of the New Testament documents.
    McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57.

    You do realise that the Iliad isn't a true history?
    Yeah dude, I was just making a point that no other literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed. Its historical facts are backed up- no other ancient documents comes close.

    As for even "the smallest details" aligning with recorded history...there is also so much that does not.
    What kind are you referring to? Historical fact, eyewitness? Stuff like this?

    "Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization."

    "Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."

    Nelson Glueck. Rivers in the Desert (New York: Farar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959), p. 136.

    Often those bits that it does get right are ripped off from older texts and oral traditions (as evidenced by their inability to tell the difference between fact and fiction when ripping off the story), or they refer to very local sources. There are things that it gets disastrously wrong even in it's own backyard.
    Disastrously wrong as in it changes the significant meaning of the gospels? Can I get some examples? I want to look into this edit/rip off stuff.

    But yeah...I understand your frustrations and I'm also annoyed when people take these things for granted. Its better to be skeptical and question everything rather than blindly accept stuff.
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 12-26-2010 at 11:55 PM.

  21. #101
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,144
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57.
    That is a pretty crummy book - and the title pretty much sums it up. "Evidence" should never demand a verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    Yeah dude, I was just making a point that no other literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.
    This is a rather vague statement. The Bible took many centuries to be compiled into a final form, and many other texts have been just as well preserved. I suspect also when you say "historically confirmed", you are not referring to miraculous events, but a select number of things that have corresponded with hard evidence, along with a lot that has circumspect evidence or none at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    What kind are you referring to? Historical fact, eyewitness? Stuff like this?

    "Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization."

    "Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It ... may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."

    Nelson Glueck. Rivers in the Desert (New York: Farar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959), p. 136.
    I mean for example claims that the City of Jericho was completely demolished by an earthquake (with the exception of one part), when the actually archaeological record shows many layers, some affected by earthquakes, but none that were completely disastrous. Jericho is one of the oldest continually inhabited settlements, and the archaeological record there for example perhaps has one of the oldest towers in history there, about 27 feet tall and almost completely intact.

    The Bible has a prophecy where the city of Tyre is thrown to the wind, and is then never again inhabited...and yet...people still live there.

    The stories attributed to Jesus are also very similar to those attributed to many other deities predating the supposed time of Jesus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    Disastrously wrong as in it changes the significant meaning of the gospels? Can I get some examples? I want to look into this edit/rip off stuff.

    But yeah...I understand your frustrations and I'm also annoyed when people take these things for granted. Its better to be skeptical and question everything rather than blindly accept stuff.
    I was referring particularly to the Old Testament, so naturally, those trifles wouldn't be so relevant to the gospels.

    As for the gospels themselves, you would be hard pressed to prove that the gospels were written by people called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (or even 4 individual people). There is also reason to suspect that Peter (or someone of his school) edited some of the lines in those gospels to fit his own views, as represented in letters allegedly written by him. There is also a theory amongst some scholars that the four central gospels are based on two or even three key texts, which were then churned out into what you might call four separate eyewitness accounts.

    I think that Thomas was the only true eyewitness, but even then, without a proper doctor and some form of DNA analysis, I'm a doubter.

  22. #102
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    It seems that there is a significant amount of sources to "prove" to a considerable level that people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Jesus did exist...in the cases of Alexander and Caesar, there are a few stories that are not possible to verify, or are unlikely to be true.

    But in the case of Jesus, this goes to another level. It would seem to me that it difficult to invent a Roman emperor, but not to invent a religious icon. I don't doubt that Jesus did exist (in the sense that I know people have been called that), but with the "historical" one, of course the stories about him are disputable, as is his very existence (although this is not so important an issue to me as the alleged stories).

    There may well be many cases in history of things being misappropriated...it even happens now. It is puzzling to me sometimes when earnest historians talk of the historical Jesus as if they are aware of some source that I am not (although I am aware that it may not be desirable to define what is meant by Jesus everytime you simply want to discuss the early church etc.).

    It's quite frustating not having certainity about recent events\people...although it's not like it really matters much of the time. It is rather a peeve to have people have certainity though, and to take things to heart all the time.
    Hmm, this is something I haven't thought about before. These people having actually existed or not... I think that at the end of the day, it really depends on what convinces you that some historical "fact" is true, especially since you can't really perceive events that happened before your time with your own senses (obviously).

  23. #103
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,144
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well I had been talking about "historical" figures and events initially in this thread...that is an area that can never be completely proven one way or another, but there is less at stake there.

    If you have the same perspective on religious texts, then I don't believe the critical doctrine you are supposed to hold true can ever be decisively proven - so in my view, the only thing bordering on satisfactory is to have my own divine audience. But of course even then, my mortal senses will not be good enough to get rid of all doubt.

  24. #104
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is a pretty crummy book - and the title pretty much sums it up. "Evidence" should never demand a verdict.
    Why is it crummy?

    And why would people lie about having 5,600 manuscripts man. Thats a pretty big assertion (and a verifiable one at that). Its a fact. Here are some more sources:

    The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts edited by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1999,2001.

    Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : An Introduction to Palaeography by Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford University Press, Inc. 1981.

    The Greek New Testament : fourth revised edition by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. United Bible Societies 1988.

    The Bible took many centuries to be compiled into a final form, and many other texts have been just as well preserved.
    Just as well? Which ones?

    I suspect also when you say "historically confirmed", you are not referring to miraculous events...
    I also believe in the credibility of the gospels so I guess the miraculous events too.

    ...but a select number of things that have corresponded with hard evidence, along with a lot that has circumspect evidence or none at all.
    Yeah, tons and tons of select things. But mostly the very, very specific pieces. Ex: "Joseph's price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive." Again, everything lines up with history.

    Perhaps the greatest piece of evidence is the fact that in the first century A.D literally thousands of Christians including the apostles gave up their lives as martyrs for Jesus. So many crazy ass mother fuckers died for someone that didn't exist.

    There is also reason to suspect that Peter (or someone of his school) edited some of the lines in those gospels to fit his own views, as represented in letters allegedly written by him.
    What kind of reason/views?

    There is also a theory amongst some scholars that the four central gospels are based on two or even three key texts, which were then churned out into what you might call four separate eyewitness accounts.
    What are you talking about? The two-source hypothesis? The hypothesis examines why there are many similarities and overlaps between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It says that Mark wrote first then Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as a second unknown source called "Q". Its not about two or three becoming four. This is saying that maybe Matthew and Luke took Mark and "cleaned it up." John wasn't similar to the three. So still four authors.

    I mean for example claims that the City of Jericho was completely demolished by an earthquake...
    The Wall of Jericho? (Joshua 1-6) After the wall collapsed, the Israelites charged in and destroyed the city themselves. And the passage never specifically mentioned an earthquake, though that was probably the cause. And if it was an earthquake, it was an unusual one at that- it caused all parts, except the north part to collapse- this allowed Rahab, the prostitute that helped the spies, to be spared.

    Evidence for this event:

    "...Jericho had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her (Kathleen Kenyon) result was confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%" (Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.)


    The Bible has a prophecy where the city of Tyre is thrown to the wind, and is then never again inhabited...and yet...people still live there.
    It never says "never again inhabited," it says "When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited..." (Ezekiel 26:19)

    If you look at the whole context, God was pissed off because Tyre was a "wicked city." He wanted to get rid of this proud city at the time. And the city in the present day does not necessarily mean its the same as the one before. You have to be careful with interpretation and consider all the facts.

    We know indisputably that 1) Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland for 12 years 2) Alexander the great came and destroyed the islands two centuries later.

    I think the Ezekiel's main point was: "City of Tyre, you're gonna get fucked up"


    The stories attributed to Jesus are also very similar to those attributed to many other deities predating the supposed time of Jesus.
    Like what?

    I think that Thomas was the only true eyewitness, but even then, without a proper doctor and some form of DNA analysis, I'm a doubter.
    "Evidence" should never demand a verdict
    ???




    ---

    Also, the bible isn't the only ancient text that mentions Jesus:

    "There was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good...Pilate condemned him to be crucified...His disciples didn't abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive." Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus (about AD 37-101)

    "Christ suffered the ultimate penalty at the hands of procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor of Rome." Annals of Imperial Rome, by Tacitus (about AD 55-120)

    "Chrestus" caused the riots in Rome in AD 49. This is probably a reference to Christ and to the hostility that erupted when traditional Jews clashed with Jews who believed Jesus was the promised Messiah. Acts 18:2 supports this theory, reporting that Claudius Caesar expelled all Jews from Rome at the time. The lives of the Caesars, by Suetonius (about AD 70-130)
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 01-11-2011 at 09:38 PM.

  25. #105
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,144
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    Just as well? Which ones?
    Various Egyptian texts, Greek plays etc., Mesopotamian literature, many Sanskrit texts.

    Some of these older texts appeared to have "inspired" later Bible texts too, which undermines its credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    Yeah, tons and tons of select things. But mostly the very, very specific pieces. Ex: "Joseph's price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive." Again, everything lines up with history.
    Why focus on the small things when there are major things that do not line up with history? I did not doubt that there are many things that are historical accuracy at the smaller level - you would expect a book written at the time to get at least some things right. It's just laughable when the writers are describing events that they allegedly lived through and witnessed which simply do not correlate with history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    Perhaps the greatest piece of evidence is the fact that in the first century A.D literally thousands of Christians including the apostles gave up their lives as martyrs for Jesus. So many crazy ass mother fuckers died for someone that didn't exist.
    Many cults have done this - it does not make them more valid - especially if the cults die trying to kill each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    What kind of reason/views?
    If I recall, his conservative views on women particularly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    What are you talking about? The two-source hypothesis? The hypothesis examines why there are many similarities and overlaps between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It says that Mark wrote first then Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as a second unknown source called "Q". Its not about two or three becoming four. This is saying that maybe Matthew and Luke took Mark and "cleaned it up." John wasn't similar to the three. So still four authors.
    ok, fair enough. But I don't think you can say there were four authors definitively, rather than three or ten, and I don't think you can be sure of the names of the authors or even if those names correlate with the apostles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    The Wall of Jericho? (Joshua 1-6) After the wall collapsed, the Israelites charged in and destroyed the city themselves. And the passage never specifically mentioned an earthquake, though that was probably the cause. And if it was an earthquake, it was an unusual one at that- it caused all parts, except the north part to collapse- this allowed Rahab, the prostitute that helped the spies, to be spared.

    Evidence for this event:

    "...Jericho had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her (Kathleen Kenyon) result was confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%" (Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.)
    As far as I know, the walls have never completely fallen down (the parts other than those were going to be protected).

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    It never says "never again inhabited," it says "When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited..." (Ezekiel 26:19)

    If you look at the whole context, God was pissed off because Tyre was a "wicked city." He wanted to get rid of this proud city at the time. And the city in the present day does not necessarily mean its the same as the one before. You have to be careful with interpretation and consider all the facts.

    We know indisputably that 1) Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland for 12 years 2) Alexander the great came and destroyed the islands two centuries later.

    I think the Ezekiel's main point was: "City of Tyre, you're gonna get fucked up"
    12 They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. 13 I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken,’ says the Lord GOD.
    so...you can't take the prophecy literally or metaphorically? The text says that they would have even their soil cast into the water and would never be rebuilt - and yet buildings from the time still exist, and indeed, people continued to live in the houses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    Like what?
    The Osiris-Horus story would be just one such example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    ???
    Evidence should always be neutral and impartial - it should not ask things of it - that would lead your mind astray.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    ---

    Also, the bible isn't the only ancient text that mentions Jesus:

    "There was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good...Pilate condemned him to be crucified...His disciples didn't abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive." Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus (about AD 37-101)

    "Christ suffered the ultimate penalty at the hands of procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor of Rome." Annals of Imperial Rome, by Tacitus (about AD 55-120)

    "Chrestus" caused the riots in Rome in AD 49. This is probably a reference to Christ and to the hostility that erupted when traditional Jews clashed with Jews who believed Jesus was the promised Messiah. Acts 18:2 supports this theory, reporting that Claudius Caesar expelled all Jews from Rome at the time. The lives of the Caesars, by Suetonius (about AD 70-130)
    Yes, I am aware of that. Not incredibly significant sources are they? I never disputed that there was a Jesus - I think there was a Jesus who was chairman of Real Madrid for example. One of those texts records something which I'm sure you'd disagree with - that Jesus cause those riots. With ancient texts where things are not easily verified, you should hold a certain sense of incredulity - and you should naturally see why the New Testament might be biased in Jesus' favour, being a religious text about him.

    These other texts that you source are also disputed at least in part - they in themselves may have been edited at a later date to suit someone's agenda, and even at the time they were written, it is not possible to ascertain the author's source of the "information" and the exact extent of its accuracy. This "Chrestus" for example could be a reference to a deity who was invented by some cult, and not to a person who once lived...or it could be a reference to a person who started a cult but who was not in any sense divine except in pretension (whether before or after his death).

  26. #106
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thanks for the response.

    i respect your opinion/views

  27. #107
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,144
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default



    that's very understanding, considering some would have me burn in hell for having them .

  28. #108
    Uncle Ave ipbanned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,730
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    From the gospels Jesus seems E8 with a strong connection to two(which is why you get people typing him as two).

    EDIT: I dont know about his socionics type but he doesnt seem Fi dom, especially not INFj. I vouch for EIE,Ni.

    I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or the president of the university.

    ― Albert Einstein

  29. #109
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    .
    IMO that's pretty narrow-minded. IEs are antagonist, to say that something can be Fi as well as Ti, it's wrong by default. Oh but wait, you didn't mention Fe and Ti, are those the weaknesses but you're just afraid to speak of the devil?
    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post


    that's very understanding, considering some would have me burn in hell for having them .
    For the record: in case you missed that, Peretonfireee is ESE, not LSI by any stretch of <put anything here>. I'm serious about it.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  30. #110
    Dance Magic Dance CloudCuckooLander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    From the gospels Jesus seems E8 with a strong connection to two(which is why you get people typing him as two).

    EDIT: I dont know about his socionics type but he doesnt seem Fi dom, especially not INFj. I vouch for EIE,Ni.
    I don't see Fe-valuation in Jesus at all, so I'd wager ESI (or possibly SEE, but he strikes me as more Se-creative than Se-base) is the better typing. I additionally would disagree with E8 - he seems primarily concerned with the perfection of his father's kingdom, enforcing the law of God on Earth (in fact, his superficially 8-like outbursts tend to stem from 1 motivations, like how he felt the moneychangers were desecrating a sacred temple, making it "a den of thieves"), rather than with maintaining his independence and self-control. Thus, I'd type him as a 1 with a strong 2 wing. 1w2 sx/so, to be exact.
    2-subtype system: IEI-Fe
    8-subtype system: D-IEI-Fe
    16-subtype system: IEI-ESE

    IEI-Fe 2w3 > p6w5 > 8w7 sx/so

    "He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of living." - Edmond Dantes (The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas père)

  31. #111
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    peteronfire: your logic is clear and precise. your arguments strongly persuasive. i'm impressed by the information you brought forth. it strengthens my faith. thanks

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  32. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CloudCuckooLander View Post
    I don't see Fe-valuation in Jesus at all
    He liked fries. It is written that he liked fries.

  33. #113
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jesus existed, but he was only a man. I still can't tell which XNFj he was, mostly cause it's hard for me to open a bible for more than a few seconds. That shit burns.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  34. #114
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze View Post
    peteronfire: your logic is clear and precise. your arguments strongly persuasive. i'm impressed by the information you brought forth. it strengthens my faith. thanks
    welcome Blaze

    most of it was influenced by this teacher (who i think was enfj) at church back in high school. she had so much passion and intelligence about this stuff...she made a very inspiring impression on me.
    Last edited by Computer Loser; 01-16-2011 at 11:44 PM.

  35. #115
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze View Post
    peteronfire: your logic is clear and precise. your arguments strongly persuasive. i'm impressed by the information you brought forth. it strengthens my faith. thanks
    Logic + persuasion = faith. The quintessential reasoning of an ILE, indeed.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  36. #116
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Guys... an Se valuing type doesn't preach "turning the other cheek". In fact, there are few types beside INFj that are at all capable of subscribing to that philosophy.

  37. #117
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jesus claimed a lot of things, like walking on water, letting the blind see.

    If you would claim such things nowadays, you would be called a fraud. Like Char and all those mediums who speak with the dead etc.

    So there are a billion people who admire a fraud. Isn't that funny when you think of it.

  38. #118
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Guys... an Se valuing type doesn't preach "turning the other cheek". In fact, there are few types beside INFj that are at all capable of subscribing to that philosophy.
    yeah, this makes sense.

    I once turned my cheek, like jesus said.
    ...and I got a black eye. Thanks jesus. Asshole.

  39. #119
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Historical Jesus - EII
    Biblical Jesus - SEI
    Pocket Jesus - LSI
    God The Jesus - EIE
    Internet Jesus - ILE
    most other Jesus - SLE

  40. #120
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peteronfireee View Post
    welcome Blaze

    most of it was influenced by this teacher (who i think was enfj) at church back in high school. she had so much passion and intelligence about this stuff...she made a very inspiring impression on me.

    dualizing religious influence...could be a good thread topic

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •