Sunday, 5 October 2014

zakaj, look at this and this


  1. I'm replying only because you addressed me directly. I hope this doesn't sound disrespectful, but it takes something more than a YouTube video with some pictures showing superficial similarities to discredit the historical existence of Jesus.

    These kind of amateur documentaries are not serious research. This is as serious as "Moon landing was a hoax" documentaries you can find online, or "9/11 was an inside job"... incidentally, it's usually the same kind of people that believe in all these conspiracy theories (the docu Zeitgeist for instance, both tries to prove that Jesus was a myth AND that the september 11 attacks were really done by controlled demolition)

    All I can say is, let's see some evidence... let's see some peer-reviewed articles. Let's see something concrete. Or do you think there is a giant conspiracy to cover up these amazing discoveries by amateur filmmakers? That would be very improbable. The majority of historians researching the historicity of Jesus are actually atheist.

    The consensus among the historians, researches, scholars is that Jesus existed, historically. Just like the consensus is that 9/11 was an attack by radical Islamists taking over an airplane, and that "we" really landed on the moon. Now there's either a massive worldwide conspiracy involving thousands, millions of people... or, you know, it's some guys with too much time on their hands making superfluous connections between religions who have no background in comparative religion studies and aren't equipped to make such assessments.

    To conclude this... I don't understand why this is even important to you. It's not a question of faith. It's a historical question, let's leave it to the historians. Even if you received mystical transmission from Hui-neng, that doesn't make you an authority on all topics, does it? Do you know more about quantum physics because of the transmission? Do you know more about Chinese history? It's like Sam Harris said - I really dislike Sam Harris btw. but sometimes he says sensible things - that he lived with great mystics and meditators who had truly deep insights into the working of the mind... but when he talked about physics with them... they were as clueless as the average Joe on the street.

    So the historicity of Jesus is simply a question for historians. As for the miracles, the resurrection, the virginity of Mary, etc. - those are simply matters of faith. Historians would never take them seriously. There's nothing to research there. But has Jesus lived? They seem to agree: yes, he lived, he was a historical person. How much do we really know and how much is made up? Who knows - that's another question.

    The idea that Christ was copied from Horus, or from Dionysus, or from some Persian deity, or from who knows what else these people came up with... is as plausible as the theory that Christianity is a rip off of Buddhism, that Christ travelled to India and similar stories. One can make up stories. But peer-reviewed journals are a bit harder to produce.

    Scholars unanimously or almost unanimously agree: these theories are mere fantasies and Jesus was a real, historical person. And to repeat this point again: this decides absolutely nothing! that he existed, historically, says nothing about the most important things that are BELIEVED about him: that he was the Son of God.

    An atheist might have no problem believing Jesus existed. An atheist can simply say: he was a preacher among many.

    It's pointless to discuss this. There are more interesting things than speculations and conspiracy theories that are really gossip of the level of Dan Brown...

    1. lol, stung huh ! :o)

      my reply at this url gilgamesh

  2. (The Voynich manuscript for instance, is more interesting than the "Jesus myth" hypothesis. They claim to have decoded it: --- wasn't your theory that it's nonsense dressed up as meaningful language?)

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Andrew's point is the traditional story of Jesus dying on the cross is most likely hagiographized to the point of nonsense. Jesus did exist as a historical person, but the traditional Christian story of him is just hagiographical nonsense. Hello, one can say he didn't exist because these common conceptions of him are not based in reality, but then again, what story is? Is a story divorced from reality and has its own ebbing life in the stars?

    Check out Reza Aslan's book on Jesus.

    Btw, I know for certain Jesus looked more like this:

    And NOT this:

    It is similar to how Turks idolize Rumi's life and claim him as their own. What a bunch of idiots with a stupid culture... Rumi was a Persian and didn't live such a "OMG HOLLYWOOD MOVIE TIME" life.

    All of the prophets lives have been mundane, and the leaves falling down outside plus the birds chirping are far more interesting.

    Similarly, the story of Bodhidharma is bullshit. One can say Bodhidharma didn't exist. Historically he may have, but the stories of him do not even point to what he was.

    It's like a fading dream where people start babbling about their own projections. Some kinda recursive dilemma.

    1. Sepehr, why do you always talk about Persia? Are you from Iran? You must have personal reasons! I never understood why people like "their own stuff"! I am Slovenian and Catholic, but I dislike both Slovenia and Catholicism!

      Anyway, I agree with what you wrote. But let me ask you again: which question is more interesting... the question of what is historically true, or the question of WHY has the idea of the "Son of God", the resurrection, etc. inspired so many brilliant minds, and works, from Bach to Mozart to Beethoven to Descartes to Kant to Hegel to Kierkegaard literally everything great that came from the European civilization, has been done under the banner of Jesus Christ.

      Why is the historical truth even important? Isn't it more interesting to ask WHY has Saint Paul's interpretation of Christ been so immensely influential, and so important ,transformative, for all these great minds?

    2. "WHY has the idea of the "Son of God", the resurrection, etc. inspired so many brilliant minds, and works, from Bach to Mozart to Beethoven to Descartes to Kant to Hegel to Kierkegaard literally everything great that came from the European civilization, has been done under the banner of Jesus Christ'

      S P E W : o )

      mozart had a starling he use to pinch tunes from btw ! :o)

      I think you find the rest were very ambiguous

      zero talent mediocrities like yourself always push the bullshit to justify their cretinism and slackness ! : o)

    3. Andrew, you need to cool down.

      Also, Zakaj, I sympathize with your views. Check out more of Robert Bresson's films. Diary of a Country Priest is bound to become your favorite film, I bet.

      Also, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light. You should still watch both films and contrast the approaches. To me, having faith is important, yeah, especially for the community.

      Andrew, you have to understand the cultural context from which Zakaj speaks from. Stuff like Asatru does run the risk of undermining Christian values and culture. If something like Asatru became popular, stuff like wife swapping and polyamory amongst one's ethnic members would become more mainstream. While Zakaj may seem dogmatic, to me he is only being rational.

      I hope you succeed with your Christian efforts, Zakaj, and watch more Robert Bresson rather than Ingmar Bergman.

    4. zephyr, zakaj's problem is he needs to fill his space with junk like christianity to avoid any introspection

      everything he chooses is anti-introspective, even the rah rah blind faith stupidity christianity he now promotes because there are contemplative forms he won't go within a mile of

    5. an3drew, I think the mystic path works well for us, but for people like Zakaj I think it doesn't.

      Zakaj is kind of like one of the characters on the bus here:

      Stuff like self-sacrifice for one's family or community can still be practiced as a regular citizen who doesn't engage in introspection a lot. It's not for me, but I guess it's okay for Zakaj and others.

    6. I've seen Winter Light, it's interesting. I don't remember it in detail, though. Thanks for the Bresson recommendation, I'm DLing it.

      As for the rest, what can I say. I could say some things against introspection, but if I said them using my mouth, you'd disqualify them a priori, because... you know... I lack contemplative mileage...

      So instead I'll cop out by leaving you with something a guy whom Andrew posted on his own blog has to say about introspection...

      Today I stumbled upon an interview with the philosopher Žižek, he was asked to talk about contemplation and introspection. This is fresh, the interview is from today (posted on The Guardian):


      Q: What are your thoughts on meditation, especially in relation to the scientific studies? If you do not meditate in light of the findings of recent studies, why not? There is a Zen saying which states that if you are too busy to meditate for 20 minutes then you should meditate for twice as long!

      A: I don't know because I am not myself. I do all my work to escape myself. I don't believe in looking into yourself. If you do this, you just discover a lot of shit. I think what we should do is throw ourselves out of ourselves. The truth is not deep in ourselves. The truth is outside.

      Regarding Zen, this is also the cause of my ethical disagreement with Zen Buddhism. The way Zen Buddhism is perceived today is as telling ourselves we must not throw ourselves fully into reality, that we must not attach ourselves too much to earthly objects. Since external reality is just a flow of appearances. I believe on the contrary, that we should fully attach ourselves to earthly objects. If you write a book, forget about everything else, throw yourself into it. If you are in love, go to the end, sacrifice everything for the object of love. This is why we today no longer want to fall in love. We want it controlled, like safe sex. But what I like in love is precisely the fall. I feel alive only when I fall. And this goes up to the beginning: I think Hegel already knew that Adam's fall was the greatest achievement, the greatest event in history.


    7. slavoj žižek writes "I feel alive only when I fall"

      well, when one trips over the edge of a cliff through sheer slack incompetence ! :o) . .

      I think your issue zakaj is as simple as what I linked before

      zizek is a social philosopher and film critic btw, one would have expected him to have drawn back at some point and you can see it in that interview thanx ! :o)

      your words are "cop out" and as we know that has always been the case and it hasn't worked for you before and this christianity jag will also be destructive to you !

      have f u n ! : o )

    8. My advice: try not to spend too much time on Reddit!

      Why not follow your own advice and live a contemplative life?

      The guys I met in Japan, in the temple, they didn't just stay there for a few years and quit upon having the first "mystical vision". They're still there today.

      I imagine a contemplative life is not something you do once and then you get over it. It should take over one's whole existence... and if it requires celibacy and can't work in a "suburban setting", then I'm pretty sure it requires one to give up frivolous discussions on online forums! arguing with ewk online is as pathetic as arguing with a wife!

      "I am the 7th patriarch - no u r not - yes iam - no ur not - yes I am - go to see a doctor - no u - no u go!!! no u, u go!!!!" --- the fruit of the contemplative life! Isn't it similar to what you're doing now, posting that "Eureka Alert" link? Isn't that exactly what ewk is doing, posting to you on Reddit "You have to see a mental professional"?

      "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."

      The hermits in China, I know you watched "Amongst White clouds" , they stay in huts in the forests, in solitude. Without Internet. They live it, they don't talk of it as something in the past, to parade it. It's their actual life.

      The difference between talking about living a contemplative life, and actually living it. It has to be in the present, it has to be one's whole life.

      Ah! What will your next blog post be about? What will you reply to ewk today? Will you post the eurekaalert link? Or will you tell him about your spiritual XP and post your CV? Franciscan monks, was it?

    9. lol shouldn't you be sucking jesus's cock ! :o)

      "contemplative life" is just your fantasy . .

      what I am suggesting to you is get some contemplative time in your daily life. like ewk you twist everything I say to make yourself look reasonable. . .

      I am sure as soon as they get wifi in those hills those hermits will be on the i n t e r n e t ! :o)

      my latest reply about something bodidharma wrote on the famous reddit zen (grown men cry, ladies weep, children run for cover and the fakes get out their typewriters ! :o)