The Pub - Discuss Anything

[Stingray 9,441]

there are enough amount of evidence and studies 'proving' a influencial jewish man called Jesus Christ existed 2000 years ago!

Well, my boss-professor worked on the historicity of Jesus all his life and is truly an expert on the field here in Europe. There is NO strictly historical source on him. Flavius Josephus - a far and second hand witness - mentions the brother of a certain Jacbus to be a man called Jesus. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus and new Palestina well, but never mentions him in his writings, which is weird.

Also, we have writing of christian authors but none of them actually knew Jesus . The oldest writing are from Paul's letters, written 50-60 AD. after that you have the evangelizes (if thats the english word) but they are written at best 40 years after he died. The oldest is Marc (70 ad). The earliest texts (Paul) don't mention Jesus as such, just the ressurected 'Christos' (in greek) which does NOT mean Jesus at all. He does mention that a certain Petrus was the first to have seen that resurrected Christos (1 Cor 15,3-12).

Also, all the texts that are written and that made the cut into the bible (there were more - ) have major contradictions.

So proof would be an overstatement., really. The texts that were written IN the right timeframe and place don't have any mentions of a historical Jesus ... There has been secondary mentioning of a Jeshua - but there is no reason to think that is Jesus.

[Amblève. 4,995]

But that is not how it works...

Hospitals will do everything to find the type of blood of a determined patient before even starting to think to give a different one (even if compatible). There are doctors who prefer to reuse the patient's lost A- blood than to use someone else's O-.

There are more complications and even different systems besides the ABO and Rh. It is not as easy as we learn in high school!

Sinine is studying medicine AFAIK...

[Rmpr 8,977]

Sinine is studying medicine AFAIK...

So he should know better!

[Rmpr 8,977]

Well, my boss-professor worked on the historicity of Jesus all his life and is truly an expert on the field here in Europe. There is NO strictly historical source on him. Flavius Josephus - a far and second hand witness - mentions the brother of a certain Jacbus to be a man called Jesus. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus and new Palestina well, but never mentions him in his writings, which is weird.

Also, we have writing of christian authors but none of them actually knew Jesus . The oldest writing are from Paul's letters, written 50-60 AD. after that you have the evangelizes (if thats the english word) but they are written at best 40 years after he died. The oldest is Marc (70 ad). The earliest texts (Paul) don't mention Jesus as such, just the ressurected 'Christos' (in greek) which does NOT mean Jesus at all. He does mention that a certain Petrus was the first to have seen that resurrected Christos (1 Cor 15,3-12).

Also, all the texts that are written and that made the cut into the bible (there were more - ) have major contradictions.

So proof would be an overstatement., really. The texts that were written IN the right timeframe and place don't have any mentions of a historical Jesus ... There has been secondary mentioning of a Jeshua - but there is no reason to think that is Jesus.

That is why I added quotation marks...

But the fact he isnt mentioned is easily explained, he wasnt nearly as important until they wrote the Bibble.

You are confusing things, the debate is not whether he created Cristianity or if he did the things we all know, it is whether he actually existed. And that is a general conscensus amongst historians (at least the ones I have met in USP and Yale)...

The most probable scenario is that Constantin took a man that was known and transformed him into a divinity. Addind and creating basically everything we know!

I am a total non-believer in the Bibble, it is still a beautiful book though and everyone should read it because it is worth it, but just a book written by humans in the end.

On the other hand, I trully believe an intelligent and good guy called Jesus Christ existed, not a divinity, just a normal man. Someone normal, like everyone else...

[Stingray 9,441]

You are confusing things, the debate is not whether he created Cristianity or if he did the things we all know, it is whether he actually existed

No no, I am not confused at all, mate. Just reread. I don't believe the stuff he is claimed to have done at all. I am in no way talkin about what he has or hasn't done.

The question was indeed if there was historically a man called Jesus back then. As I said, there probably was a Jeshua guy - even though we have no real 'proof' of that as well - just secondary indications (hence the consensus - mind you most of those historians are religious themselves - hence the controversy) . Nothing more.

a beautiful book

Some parts yes. Others (especially Old Testament) read a bit horror like ...

[Rmpr 8,977]

Some parts yes. Others (especially Old Testament) read a bit horror like ...

I like the Old Testament way more than the New One...

The Pentateuch is just amazing, IMO.

[Dion 2,476]

You can't really separate the things he supposedly did and the persona of Jesus. Because I guess whenever we discuss whether he existed or not we're interested in talking about Jesus the Messiah, he is the person I wouldn't be surprised to have never existed. Whether there was a Jesus who also was a carpenter in that time frame, I couldn't care less and it may have existed for all I care. Dang, I have known myself a Jesus that was a carpenter, he worked in the construction of one of my family houses. What's in stake really is whether the Messiah was a myth or a fact. Let's suppose all this biblical story had started just a few years ago and then, two thousand years later, when they're discussing whether it is true or not, they find historical evidences of the Jesus who built my house. Does that accomplish anything in regards to the existence of the Messiah? Not at all.

It doesn't really matter if there was a good guy with the same name. It matters just as much as if we find out there was a Peter Parker who studied genetics and was a huge fan of spiders back in 1962 (when the comics started).

[Dion 2,476]

I'm A-. Only 7% of people in the UK have my blood type, meaning I'm fucked if I need a transfusion

I feel bad for Rh-negative people. On the bright side, it could be worse, B- are the ones really, really screwed.

[Rmpr 8,977]

You can't really separate the things he supposedly did and the persona of Jesus. Because I guess whenever we discuss whether he existed or not we're interested in talking about Jesus the Messiah, he is the person I wouldn't be surprised to have never existed. Whether there was a Jesus who also was a carpenter in that time frame, I couldn't care less and it may have existed for all I care. Dang, I have known myself a Jesus that was a carpenter, he worked in the construction of one of my family houses. What's in stake really is whether the Messiah was a myth or a fact. Let's suppose all this biblical story had started just a few years ago and then, two thousand years later, when they're discussing whether it is true or not, they find historical evidences of the Jesus who built my house. Does that accomplish anything in regards to the existence of the Messiah? Not at all.

It doesn't really matter if there was a good guy with the same name. It matters just as much as if we find out there was a Peter Parker who studied genetics and was a huge fan of spiders back in 1962 (when the comics started).

It actually does matter by the historic point of view, even if that isnt what interest most people...

There are three possible scenarios for Jesus.1) 'Everything' is true. 2) Everything is made up. 3) They took an existing person and made him son of God.

You might be interest in finding out if he was or wasnt a Messiah, but there are a group of people (including me) who simply dont care about that and just want to know what percentage of it was true and what wasnt. And his existance is part of that!

It might not mean anything for you if people came with 'proof' that Jesus really existed, but we still dont know much about what he did in life. But that would be actually a great pass foward to discovering more about the thing he did or didnt do...

[SinineUltra 1,164]

But that is not how it works...

Hospitals will do everything to find the type of blood of a determined patient before even starting to think to give a different one (even if compatible). There are doctors who prefer to reuse the patient's lost A- blood than to use someone else's O-.

There are more complications and even different systems besides the ABO and Rh. It is not as easy as we learn in high school!

I'm a med student mate, I'm in the system. No need to explain.

This wasn't about different systems of blood nor what is preferred. O blood is not perfect fit for A but the diglutination is minimal. Having a direct match is always the best option. Only thing is that Rh must match, otherwise it can bring about antigeneD antibodies and rh confict in the long haul. (Rh+ mother and 2nd child of her's with Rh-)

[Rmpr 8,977]

I'm a med student mate, I'm in the system. No need to explain.

This wasn't about different systems of blood nor what is preferred. O blood is not perfect fit for A but the diglutination is minimal. Having a direct match is always the best option.

Ok, but still...My mom is a doctor and she doesnt use any other type of blood because it causes complications.

You can give O- to an A- patient, but you cant at the same time. So, it is not like what Alex was saying was absurd!

[SinineUltra 1,164]

Ok, but still...My mom is a doctor and she doesnt use any other type of blood because it causes complications.

You can give O- to an A- patient, but you cant at the same time. So, it is not like what Alex was saying was absurd!

Definitely, I might have misunderstood. I thought @ implied that he can only receive a blood transfusion from a person with A- (only 7%). Might have jumped the gun there, didn't want to be a smartass or a douchbag about it. Don't ban me.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Definitely, I might have misunderstood. I thought @ implied that he can only receive a blood transfusion from a person with A- (only 7%). Might have jumped the gun there, didn't want to be a smartass or a douchbag about it. Don't ban me.

Hahahaha, be careful, Thor 2 is coming out soon and he will want reasons to use the new GIFs!

I dont meant to know more than you do (because I obviously dont, my thing is maths and physics and our talks in the Health Thread proove you sure know about your biology), but the way you answered Alex gave (to me) the impression you were dismissing his concern over his A- blood. That's why I quoted saying it wasnt that easy.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I REALLY hate biology!

[Rmpr 8,977]

I REALLY hate biology!

But when the end of the world arrives and the zombies of Walking Dead attack us, no one will need your electrical engineerig abilities. While Sinine and I will survive by combining our medical and mechanical engineering skills!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

But when the end of the world arrives and the zombies of Walking Dead attack us, no one will need your electrical engineerig abilities. While Sinine and I will survive by combining our medical and mechanical engineering skills!

Oh please, you mechanical engineers are just glorified plumbers

:P

[Spike 12,049]

Relgion? Human physiology? Getting the fuck outta here, this is bat country.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Oh please, you mechanical engineers are just glorified plumbers

:P

Glorified plumbers? Oh please, go fix the lighting bulb and call yourself an engineer!