"America won't vote for a Socialist Jew"

[kpete]

https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/606121057343414272

[Marie Marie]

1. There he goes again..

John nails it perfectly.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

22. I still shake my head over John being passed up for The Daily Show host

I hope he was offered the job and turned it down

[Electric Monk]

2. 253 recs and counting

here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026772493

[PatrickforO]

3. Nice. So most of us do!

Sanders is genuinely a good guy and would make a very good president.

[former9thward]

4. Christ was a Jew.

He was not remotely a socialist. Maybe you should either read the New Testament or Karl Marx.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. As a fictitious character, he has the advantage of being whatever people want him to be.

[former9thward]

8. He was no more fictitious than you or I.

Unless you think Roman historians were commenting about fictional beings.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. You mean the widely discredited Josephus account, which is generally believed to have been

forged after the fact by 3rd century Christians? That Roman Historian, singular?

Because that is the ONLY "Roman Historian" who provides any corroboration for Jesus's existence as described in the NT.

[former9thward]

11. LOL

Do you think Julius Caesar was fictional? There are no existing documents by him or about him that survive. I think he was real because I apply the same historical standards to him as I do to Jesus. Others don't because of blind hatred or fear.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. You said "Roman Historians", plural.

So, okay, where are the accounts?

Or are you changing your story now.

There are coins with Caesar's head on them, aren't there? Beyond that, I think you're wildly incorrect about there not being any historical record of Caesar's existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

But, you know, facts are such a pesky thing.

[former9thward]

15. Then I am sure you will point out how I am "wildly incorrect".

And no, an entry in wiki doesn't do it. The wiki people were not around in the first century B.C. Please point to me a library or museum that holds anything by Ceasar or about him by historians of the time. BTW the Romans and Greeks put all sorts of gods on their coins if that has become their standards. I am not going to tell you about the other accounts because you will automatically say they are "made up" or "discredited". That is what closed minds do.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. No, they don't actually exist.

Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Except for the Josephus account- and the reason it's discredited, among other things, is that to take it seriously one has to believe that a 1st Century Jewish historian would suddenly change his tone radically and write a vastly out of character account in the words of a 3rd Century Christian- there ARE NO other contemporary historical accounts of the life of Jesus. The Bible is the only source.

That is, simply, a fact. Whether or not "Jesus" or someone like him (I suspect there were certainly itinerant rabbis in Nazareth, as well as numerous religious figures and well-documented "mystery cults" of which early Christianity was certainly one. John the Baptist, most likely, was a historical figure) existed, is debatable and will never be resolved without some serious additional historical evidence.

If you want to accuse me of having a closed mind, that's rich. All I'm doing is questioning an assertion that is held as axiomatic in many circles despite having zero corroborating real-world evidence. Maybe Jesus existed, but the evidence isn't there outside of the Bible (obviously, not an unbiased source)... so to assert "oh yes he definitely did" and then accuse others of having a closed mind... pretty funny.

[former9thward]

17. You still haven't pointed out a single source

that now exists that Julius Caesar ever existed. Other than Roman coins who also show various gods. But of course you have different standards for Caesar than Jesus because of your hatred for Christianity. Jesus was a minor figure in the Roman empire. The fact that he was mentioned anywhere by anyone would be exceptional. Historians at time were employed by rich Roman benefactors. There was no free speech. It was against their interests to mention anyone who opposed the Roman system.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Yes, it was a conspiracy.

If the entire Roman Historical record can't be trusted (but apparently the Bible can?) then what's the point of even bringing it up?

Let's see. Okay, evidence that Caesar existed: For starts, there is his own writing:

http://sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/index.htm

In addition to Caesar writing about himself, Sallust wrote about Caesar:

https://davidallsopclassics.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/representation-of-caesar-and-cato-by-sallust/

Cicero wrote about Caesar, as well there is a record of correspondence between the two:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4344010?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

shall I go on?


"your hatred of Christianity"... boy, that's fucking goofy. Piece of friendly advice; don't quit your day job and take up armchair psychoanalysis professionally.

A mild dislike of assertions with no objective evidentiary facts to back them up, fine, guilty as charged.

[former9thward]

23. Where are Caesar's writings?

Where are Cicero's? They no longer exist. You are linking to things created in 1958. At least many portions of the Bible, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, still survive. Double standards. I don't wonder why...

[Warren DeMontague]

24. oh ffs.

The coin doesn't count, because...

And the writings were all "created" in 1958.

Yes, and Satan COULD HAVE planted those dinosaur bones, to trick people into believing in evolution!

This is why "debates" with theists generally end up being a waste of time.

also, is Jesus mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls? I don't think so.

[former9thward]

25. A debate with you is truly a waste because of your intellectual dishonesty.

You have a double standard of how you judge historical figures. One for political figures and one for religious figures. BTW the Dead Sea Scrolls don't mention Caesar either and he was a hell of a lot more famous at the time.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. No, I don't. But I'll tell you this- if someone were to put forth a convincing argument that Caesar

didn't actually exist, I would find it surprising, but it wouldn't materially change the way I view the Universe-- or my position within it.

To wit, I'm not deeply and personally emotionally invested in "Caesar did TOOOO exist!" to the point that I'm unable to consider the alternative.

And in that vein, to a Theist operating from an argument of faith, what difference does any of it make? Sure, there are plenty of people who believe "Jesus" had an objective historical existence, he was a preacher or rabble-rouser in Galilee, etc. and yet they consider this entirely separate from assertions regarding water into wine, son of God, came back from the dead, etc. A lot of the people who firmly believe there was a real guy Jesus reject the magic Jesus stuff as mythical hokum anyway.

The mystical, mythical, magical Jesus is a totally different set of assertions. And the arguments I've seen around the non-existence of historical "Jesus" posit that early Christianity was a "mystery cult" in the vein of similar (Mithras, Osiris, the Eleusinian Mysteries, etc.) movements of the time-- that while, again, figures such as JTB had an actual historical veracity, the Christ/Redeemer figure was originally entirely spiritual, and only later was retroactively given the narrative of a 1st Century existence.

But it is the spiritual Jesus, the redeemer Jesus, the son-of-God Jesus, which is central to arguments pertaining to faith, that there is no point in debating on a rational, logical, evidentiary basis.

So, really, again- what difference does it make?

[JonLP24]

28. There are more than 1 secular references to the crucifixion

from within the first 100 years -- I think probably 60-70 AD which was the same era as Pontious Pilate so there is Tacitus. There was someone else though not sure who but it was consistent with the "King of the Jews" title upset the power. anyway I do believe he existed but I doubt most of the accounts in the bible as unreliable that wish there was a CNN and on-the-ground journalists covering the story because I don't know if he was saying he was this divine person or the people following him around him saying that but the "resurrection" or any of the supernatural claims. I'm not a follower of any religion but the history of religion fascinates me. I'm interested in Reza Aslan's book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus Christ

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I'd be interested to see that- seriously.

I came at this question from the position most people do, I think; I'm not a believer, but I assumed that there was a historical figure Jesus who preached, upset some apple carts, and was subsequently crucified.

Later I read some books which laid out a pretty compelling case- based upon the contemporary stuff of early Christianity, which puts forth a fairly compelling case that the original religious movement (or movements, as what became Christianity may have started as more than one which merged or became an amalgam) was a "mystery cult" a la Osiris or Mithras, etc. and the Christ figure was entirely divine. Later, due to things like the sociopolitical climate of the 1st-2nd century, Jesus was retroactively given an objective historical existence.

It's not a slam dunk but it's an interesting hypothesis.

[JonLP24]

30. I had more but my connection hit a wall

yellow triangle shows up when I have a post open too long plus I thought everything locked up but realized when I rebooted (twice) that it didn't lock up but the left click quit working when I hit it on the mouse keys (I had an issue before with it quitting on me)

This is the Wiki link on the Tacitus reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

There were others, one in particular I was looking for but couldn't remember who or where as far as terms to search but remember a woman associated with monarchy or powerful family somewhere 100s AD

I also spare what else I posted plus I'm having copy and paste issues due to being limited to the mouse key for the left key but as far as the bible and a lot of the claims I find to be unreliable account of what actually took place considering there are historical events they got wrong or exaggerated so the Osiris stuff, virgin birth and a lot of the mythical stuff I don't buy. Scholars generally find the Book of Mark to be the most reliable because he wasn't a known insider like the Peter, Paul, or John that would be targets to make up stuff under his name but it has a "strange" ending. The main thing was he didn't make attempts to cover embarrassments. Especially the "Its not right to take food from the children toss it to the dogs" with children being the people of Israel and dogs gentiles where the woman replies "even dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs". I only read bits and pieces of the bible but from what I understand, under the context of everyone being very religious themselves, didn't include much of the divinity stuff but was the earliest accounts where the same accounts were later downplayed or whitewashed --- scholars find Revelations to be the most unreliable and if I remember correctly it almost wasn't added to the bible plus it is the latest one (with more of the incentive to make up stuff on their hero)

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Yeah, but America wouldnt vote for Irving Berlin, either.

[PDittie]

7. Upon retweet, someone actually tweeted back at me

"We celebrate Hana Meisel's birthday?"

My response was "You and Wikipedia got her birthday wrong".

[MisterP]

9. a troika of Iranian clerics come to proclaim a Palestinian subversive ruler of all Jews?

[fadedrose]

12. All through my parochial school years

All I heard from the Nuns (whom I really liked) was that a Catholic could NEVER be elected President of the US because of predjudice.

Lo and behold in 1960, a Catholic ran and won.

Then, I was told that a BLACK could NEVER be elected President of the US, and black man (actually mixed, same difference) was elected to be our President (and we love him)...

The year ahead will bring us something new again - a Jewish male or a Protestant female elected to be our president.


Any damned thing can happen, trust me.

[Electric Monk]

19. or a Canadian "Latino"

[UglyGreed]

13. What a great comment

[Vinca]

20. I'm a big fan of John Fugelsang. He always nails it.

[B Calm]

21. LOL +1

[B Calm]

27. K&R