Slashdot Mirror
Explorer Plans Hunt For Genghis Khan's Long-Lost Tomb
Velcroman1 writes "The tomb of brutal Mongolian emperor Genghis Khan — the one who created the world's most powerful empire by raiding and invading across Eurasia, not Kirk's nemesis — is a lost treasure archaeologists have sought for years. And one man thinks he knows where it is. Last fall Alan Nichols, the president of The Explorers Club, mapped out possible locations for the tomb of Khan (also known as Chinnggis Qa'an). His hypothesis: Khan's tomb is located in the Liupan Mountains in Northern China, where the emperor who was born in 1162 and is said to have perished from an arrow wound in August 1227. Next fall, Nichols plans the next phase of his research: pinpointing Khan's exact resting place. 'Ghengis Khan's tomb is my obsession,' Nichols, a noted authority on the emperor, said recently. 'I couldn't stop thinking about it. But I'm not happy just reading about it, or knowing about it. I need to have my feet on it.'"
*gestures*
Will it be possible to identify his tomb after all these years? How are we sure that even if we find such an ornately decorated tomb, that Khan is the one buried there, instead of some relative or whatnot. I don't know, but many cultures have superstitions about their corpse in the afterlife, so that might be a motivation to "hide" the real corpse?
"But I'm not happy just reading about it, or knowing about it. I need to have my feet on it.'"
Sounds liike somebody needs to double up on their meds.
Better Living Through Chemistry
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Perhaps China has ideas of it own on this subject. I'd think they would want to do this search themselves.
http://www.khaaan.com/
(Dopey Stupid slashdot filter kept blocking me from just typing it out... "too many caps makes it look like you're yelling" O'RLY?!)
Virtually all historians, whether Christian, atheist or of some other religion, hold that a man Jesus existed, even if his biography is just so much myth accreted around the historical figure.
>Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.
Jesus is everywhere, tending gardens across the United States. Cash only.
(Indiana Jones voice) That's usually when the ground falls out from underneath your feet.
Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.
That's the difference.
Repeating a fallacy often does not make it true.
Very few reputable scholar who have no axe to grind dispute that there was a historical Jesus figure.
If I had a dime for every time I saw the same thing stated verbatim, I would be a very rich man.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Random fact, Khan has 16 million descendants.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.
There is strong evidence that Jesus existed. He may not have been divine, but he was almost certainly a real person.
>Virtually all historians, whether Christian, atheist or of some other religion, hold that a man Jesus existed, even if his biography is just so much myth accreted around the historical figure.
All the honest ones are clear that there is no direct evidence and many of the myths clearly relate to different people at different times. There have been many people names Jesus. With high probability, there has never been magic Jesus, born of a virgin, 2000 years ago, who could perform miracles.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
until I took an arrow to the chest. (MongoliaRim)
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
The Wikipedia page talks plenty about how convinced scholars are (who have a vested interest in that answer) but doesn't actually cite any evidence. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And to think, this imaginary person will have a greater effect on Mankind than you'll ever have. That is the true power of magic!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm certain the discovery was chronicled in the book "Treasure Of Khan" where Dirk Pitt ... oh wait ;)
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
He could try asking the Rocking Son of Dschinghis Khan.
Proverbs 21:19
There are too many gaps in the historical record for him to be made up. If he was fiction there would be better records.
Founded in New York City in 1904, The Explorers Club promotes the scientific exploration of land, sea, air, and space by supporting research and education in the physical, natural and biological sciences. The Club’s members have been responsible for an illustrious series of famous firsts: First to the North Pole, first to the South Pole, first to the summit of Mount Everest, first to the deepest point in the ocean, first to the surface of the moon—all accomplished by our members.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
That guy is a rich retired lawyer, not an archeologist or historian. See his profile at
http://www.explorers.org/index.php/about/explorers_club_president
There are zero indications in the linked article that they plan to include any professionals on their expedition, and in his portrait there is no record that he has ever teamed up with such on previous endeavors. Looting or just damaging a tomb of this importance by amateurs, should it be found, would be an enormous cultural loss. A painstaking archeological dig would probably take 20 years and proceed with extreme caution. These guys do not look like they have the patience - to me they certainly look like they would prefer instant gratification and fame by brandishing a few choice artefacts from the tomb if they can find it.
Just because someone at Fox News put "Noted Authority" on the Chiron under a TV guest doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.
I actually did a fair bit of research myself into this a few months back, to answer a question on History.SE. There is indeed a romantic notion of there being some undiscovered tomb with untold wealth in it. Then there's the reality:
Depositing the corpse in the steppe was meant to sacrifice it to predatory animals. According to Mongolians this is the last virtous act a person can carry out. This idea is much older than Lamaism and exhibits a really strong shamanistic element of spiritual thought.
has brought to the world, it would be a good idea that some try to find his tomb and make sure he's dead.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
The guy cited the wrong source. Here is a better one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_Historicity_of_Jesus
Basically what it boils down to is that there are multiple independent sources attesting to his existence.
See Q Source and the Gospel of Mark. Or the Gospel of Thomas. Those are the 2 big ones I can think of. I will grant you that they were oral traditions before being written traditions. I will grant you that there are differences and contradictions between the various sources. But the differences are consistent with the way that oral history spreads.
The Wikipedia page talks plenty about how convinced scholars are (who have a vested interest in that answer) but doesn't actually cite any evidence
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. The passage cites a reference to Roman documents that mention the crucifixion of Jesus. What are you expecting? A giant Iridium plated monument that says "Jesus Was Here"? Jesus had a tremendous influence on future generations, but very, very little on his own generation. So there is little contemporaneous evidence, just like there is little direct evidence that 99.99% of any other specific first century individuals existed. But Christianity began to take off when there were still people alive that would have had a memory of him, and there were plenty of opponents of what, at the time, was an extremist cult. Yet none of them denied that he had lived.
There is strong, but not conclusive, evidence that he was a real person. There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated. Many of his disciples were tortured and crucified, yet they refused to denounce him. Why would they do that, for something that (in your opinion) they had made up?
Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.
There is strong evidence that Jesus existed. He may not have been divine, but he was almost certainly a real person.
Imagine if Jesus had hooked Genghis up with his breakthrough water-walking technology. Khan could have taken over the entire world. 100% of the earth's population would be related to him, rather than 10% of Asia or whatever it is. You couldn't ask a girl out without then discovering she's some distant relative. Earth would become Planet Redneck.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
So now Kirk yells, "Qa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'aa'an!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Actually it is the response of people to other people that has had a great effect.
At least I can claim to have done less damage. Yet.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I'm not sure which logical fallacy that one falls into. Maybe we need a new one.
The fallacy of the missing documentation.
It could work for software too.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
LOL, Genghis Khan has way more up his sleeve than you give him credit for. Show me a U.S. president that had about a thousand 1st-generation descendants. 800 years later - today - Genghis has about 15 million descendants. This is based on hard science genetic testing, not historic record, by the way. An average male person living 800 years ago has a bit above 500 descendants living today.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Joke all you want, but according to a Darwinian fitness perspective he was one of the most successful humans to have ever lived.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Honest question: why the apostrophe in the name?
Do you consider power to a absolute or relative measure? If absolute one might be able to make the argument that Luxemburg was more power.
If we are talking about relative, we are talking about one small tribe that was able to conquer Russia, China, raid Poland at will, etc. Nobody ever even came close at being able to match Khan’s army.
Empire and Commonwealth are not the same. Whatever nominal fealty the Australians and Canadians claim to honor, that rubber hasn't met the road since WW2. How many Australian and Canadian military units assisted in the Fawklands War? Zero.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
One theory is that the abominable snowman is Genghis Khan. They have never been seen together ever. Genghis Khan is immortal but to ensure his survival, he chooses to hide from humans including paparazzi. How did the creature become abominable anyway One is not born like that; it takes hard work.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
That's the way it is.
Most historians have more important things to deal with, like, for example: history.
There is a vanishingly small proportion of historians who run around arguing about the evidence for the New Testament Jesus, and they write an awful lot about very weak secondary sources.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Anonymous Coward is not talking about the Commonwealth: http://what-if.xkcd.com/48/
You know, it's always hard to prove things, just by accounting other people stories. To really prove something you have to show evidences!
Now prove that Genghis Kahn existed!!! It's not easy, and remember that he is +1000 years more recent.
Lets do the opposite... prove that Hercules/ Héracles didn't exist.
when all you have are stories, it's very hard to prove anything. Yes, you can prove some events, but what come first, the event or the story/person?
by the way, do you really exist? are you sure!! prove it!! -> cogito ergo sum :D
Higuita
While the thrust of the military power of the British empire is truly not what it was, he is accurate in saying that "the sun never sets". :-)
Nobody really refers to it as an "empire" anymore, but in addition to Britain and Northern Ireland, the U.K. still controls territories including "Gibraltar, Bermuda, numerous Caribbean islands, Ascension, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia." Some have argued that the sun finally set over the empire after the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. But some argue this view ignores two tiny but crucial territories which bridge the gab: the Pitcairn Islands in the South Pacific and the British Indian Ocean Territory -- also known as the Chagos Islands, where Britain and the United States maintain a joint military facility at Diego Garcia. The question is "on midwinter's day in the southern hemisphere, does the sun set over Pitcairn before it rises over Diego Garcia?"
Here's what Peter Hammond's calculations found:
---
[The] results allow for the refraction of the sun's rays when it is close to the horizon. They indicate that, on 21st June, the sun rises over Diego Garcia at 01:22 hrs GMT, more than half an hour before it sets over Pitcairn at 01:59 hrs GMT.
Thanks to Diego Garcia (uninhabited except temporarily by various U.K. and U.S. military personnel) and to Pitcairn (population now about 50), the British Empire appears safe from sunsets for the time being.
---
Jesus was a hugely important figure in history, though barely so in his lifetime, and many people who were alive when he was purported to be have written about him. There's as much evidence that he existed as, say, Socrates. It's as conclusive as historical evidence ever is, when all you ever have to go on is contemporary writing.
When you have several people arguing about public speeches the guy made, and none of his detractors claiming he's fictional (you'd think people arguing against his positions would have pointed that out, somewhere along the way), that's about as good as it gets.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, maybe they will when they can ferry their own astronauts up to the ISS again...
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
Do you have a source on this? Any time this myth is repeated, it all goes back to Tacitus and has been debunked time and time again. You should actually do some research instead of just repeating things you've heard. The "most historians agree there was a Jesus" line hasn't been true for a long time, if ever.
There is no contemporaneous documentation of the existence of Jesus, the closest thing is Josephus, writing about his disciples seventy years later. On the other hand, there is abundant documentation of Genghis Khan from people who had met him personally and official documents from the time of his rule. Cities he built and trading posts he had established exist to this day.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Marco Polo writes of Chingis-khan's death:
But at the end of those six years he went against a certain castle that was called CAAJU, and there he was shot with an arrow in the knee, so that he died of his wound. A great pity it was, for he was a valiant man and a wise.
—Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo, Book 1, Chapter 50
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The passage cites a reference to Roman documents that mention the crucifixion of Jesus.
It cites Roman documents written well after it supposedly happened and after the myth of Jesus became fairly popular. Hopefully you don't need to be reminded why this does not count. I wouldn't really put it past this crowd these days, however.
There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated.
This is a flat out lie. There is ample evidence that Jesus (and of course the Christian God) are modeled after various ancient mythologies. A little Egyptian influence here, some Greek there, basically all the same story. You take that away and you're left with nothing whatsoever. No historical record, nothing.
Is this why all those asians look the same?
Most of the initial consensus originally came from the christian historian. Following up historian never really changed that position no matter their belief. All of the "evidence" are actually from textual criticism. IOW "they can't have invented all that story!" : if you scratch down the paint, there is next to no other evidence than that. Even Bart Ehrman (at least until recentely) admitted that it was only "most likely" that Jesus existed.
The ultimate honesty, is to admit in this specigfic case, that we do not know, but most probably a human at the origin of all the myth existed. Anybody telling you there is a "consensus" of historian, really exagerate the case here. There are many historical figure older than jesus for which we have a LOT of physical and written evidence. For jesus ? Nothing practically beyond the bible. Even Josephus is recognized as dubious, most probably a fraud. And nobody else reported the existence of the guy. That said carrier and other "full" mythicist haven't shown anything reliable in the academic arena (and no a book do not count --- peer review do).
Draw you own conclusion. Me after reading a lot of the litterature I am split 60/50. 60% chance he existed, 40% chance it was either a composite (more than 1 persons) or an elaborate myth.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Let’s consider you point. What is your Epistemology in this situation?
Do you reject evolution? It’s got massive holes. There are bits that don’t (yet) make sense. Yet I still believe it because of the strong evidence. The holes take some extrapolation to move from point to point, but the logic to do so is consistent.
Or, let’s choose an example more on point. Should I disbelieve in Socrates? Like Jesus no primary source material exists. None of his writings exist. Should I take the position that he was just the figment of somebody’s imagination?
It only shows that there was a localized in place and time source. It does not show that that source be ONLY a person. That is jumping to the conclusion. In fact taking into account the contradiction, you quickly realize there is absolutely nothing you can do about the person jesus, except it was an homo sapiens male, and his mother. The rest is in dispute. Again the best contemporain specialist, Bart ehrman himself admit that it was highly likely that jesus existed. There is no certainty, as opposed to contemporain people which have a lot of artifact. Jesus , contrary to what fundemmentalist state , has none solid except the bible.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Relevant link: http://what-if.xkcd.com/48/
There had to have been at least one - if I recall 'Jesus' was Aramaic for 'Joe' or some such.
Which makes sense if you are going to invent a religion where the whole point is that the hero is an average Joe...
There are too many gaps in the historical record for him to be made up
ah, the old "god of the gaps argument";
oh, wait, hang on...
Most expensive is not something to brag about.
Empire and Commonwealth are not the same
...today.
I'm sure Anonymous Coward was referring to the British Empire at its height, in the early Twentieth Century.
Same as the US meant the US empire before it started its journey of self-destruction after September 11th
The point is behind the scriptures, are there actually any of the multiple living historians at the time, talking about Jesus? There were already written records at the time...
I never understood why The Ark of the Covenant, The Holy Grail and some Hindu relics are so believable to so many but aliens is just bat shit crazy... especially out of the supposed atheist crowd we have here.
Pretty much the rest of it comes down to creative license in the tradition of pulp fiction which the series does a fantastic job of.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Let me get this straight. His hypothesis is that Khan is buried somewhere in the geographic region in which he died? And his next "phase" is just to pinpoint the location?
This is a great way to solve problems! I'd like to hypothesize that P=NP can be proven using clever mathematical methods. I plan to do this next fall. My next phase is to pinpoint which mathematical methods to use.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Hitchhikers, and Oolon Colluphid Jr's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters: Where Jesus Went Wrong, Some More of Jesus's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This Jesus Person, Anyway? "I refuse to prove that I exist", says Jesus, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But", says Man, "a complete historical record would be a dead giveaway wouldnt it? So an INCOMPLETE record proves you exist, and therefore you dont, QED."
It cites Roman documents written well after it supposedly happened and after the myth of Jesus became fairly popular.
Jesus's crucifixion was stated as a known fact by a Roman senator that would have had access to source documents. Is that absolute mathematical proof that Jesus existed? Of course not. But it is certainly strong evidence.
There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated.
This is a flat out lie. There is ample evidence that Jesus (and of course the Christian God) are modeled after various ancient mythologies.
Look, not one here is claiming that there is "strong evidence" that Jesus was divine. Just that he was an actual person. Mormonism was based on preexisting Christian beliefs. That doesn't mean that Joseph Smith wasn't a real person.
How to remember the order of the planets:
[M]ary's
[V]irgin
[E]xcuse
[M]ade
[J]oseph
[S]uspect
[U]pstairs
[N]eighbour
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
There were multiple references to a person who could be Jesus, but it's also at least as likely that there were a number of similar figures spread over years that could have been converted to a single hybrid single person.
That's right, Jesus was his own disciple.
Learn to love Alaska
'I couldn't stop thinking about it. But I'm not happy just reading about it, or knowing about it. I need to have my feet on it.'
I'd much rather stand within the Pleasure Dome / Decreed by Kubla Khan / To taste anew the fruits of life / The last immortal man...
Wait until they wake up The Great Khan's Mommie Werewolf Vampire Army.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I've seen the gaps explained by multiple figures at around the same time. What if 2000 years from now, David Koresh and Jim Jones are confused and considered one person. After all, there are multiple records of a mass-suicide under a Jesus-like religious leader. That there are some minor inconsistencies and such means it's too true to be a fiction, thus David Koresh *must be* Jim Jones.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes, there are written records from that time but they are not many. Historians (or even journalist), as a class barely existed. Paper was expensive. And a couple of wars, rebellions, sieges etc. destroyed much of what existed. The existence and execution of a single preacher is not something that would normally be captured. Jesus was (probably) not that well know during his lifetime.
It is one of the reasons why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important. From an absolute viewpoint there is not a lot there. From a relative viewpoint, since so little exists from that era, it was a huge find.
There is no evidence that his existence was fabricated.
What would that look like? Many consider LDS/Mormons to be "fabricated", as well as Xenu/Scientology. Yet, there is little evidence of fabrication.
Learn to love Alaska
Bit of a woosh, I was just going for a +1 funny :-) I really know almost nothing about the 'gap' other than some History Channel dribble about how that was when he lived with the aliens. Is there really some reputable work explaining it? If you have a cite Id be interested.
From your sig & handle, you from Alaska? Very cool, have always wanted to spend some time there.
Jesus doesn't get special treatment. I'm saying the available evidence for the biblical Jesus is very weak. It is. That was the subject in the title.
The evidence for the last 3 popes is considerably stronger but if you want that answer, start a thread about the existence of evidence for popes.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Why are we even reading about this? Are they using interesting technology to find it? Is it open-source technology? If not, why mention any of this?
Any particular reason this was tagged with 'global warming'?
I never understood why ... aliens is just bat shit crazy... especially out of the supposed atheist crowd we have here.
I've long wondered the same thing. They insist that life sprang from chemicals in the mud, but then also say aliens don't exist, because it's impossible for it to have happened on another planet. It doesn't make sense.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I'm saying the available evidence for the biblical Jesus is very weak.
That is NOT what you said. You said Jesus didn't exist. That is not claiming the evidence for his existence is weak, but that evidence for his nonexistence is strong. That is not the same thing at all.
Unless you consider the Bible "reputable" there isn't much that refers to that Jesus guy. The religious complain about how the records were poor back then, but nobody is confused about whether Socrates lived.
I'm not "from" Alaska, for most definitions of "from". I was born in Dallas, lived 8 years in Alaska before moving out of the US. I got tired of the politics, and it's a better life outside the US (unless you measure "quality of life" by the size of the gun under your pillow). Alaska was nice. Winters in Anchorage aren't that bad. Better than MN or most of NY.
Learn to love Alaska
B.S. I did not say Jesus didn't exist. I said it is very probable that a miracle casting Jesus born of a virgin never existed. Find me a modern day person that can perform miracles and I'll revise my opinion of a person performing miracles 2000 years ago.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
No.
--
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Aliens do exist. Far far away. But they can't visit us. (Distance!) Huge difference.
Why is that the assumption?
You don't think that in a million years, our descendents couldn't figure out how to travel between the stars?
But as for my original point, I hear it far more often than your statement.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
B-b-b-but Osiris is a Black God!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The religious complain about how the records were poor back then, but nobody is confused about whether Socrates lived.
Actually, some scholars do think that Socrates may have actually been an allegorical construct of his "students", although there is little doubt that Aristotle and Plato existed. Most scholars still hold that Socrates probably did actually exist, but that his own writings haven't survived.
There were lots of writings about Socrates. Aristophanes wrote an entire play about him, that seemed to match other writings about him. The large amount of contemporary writings support it.
Learn to love Alaska
"The Clouds" was written in Socrates supposed lifetime, and describes him. And not the only surviving written work from within his lifetime that references him. Nothing postdated here.
Learn to love Alaska
1) Indeed the authenticity of josephus passage is highly disputed. basically the grammar and the spelling suddenly change, a good sign of copyist adding their own "stuff".
2) So what if jesus existed ? That would be a human which died. the rest the miracle the resurrection are myth. In fact since we are speaking of historical consensus, all historian will recognize that the consensus is that it was a really normal human and he died. The rest is religious baggage. The best proof that I am not desperate as you pretend I am , is that I assign a higher probability of jesus existence as human (60%). . That alone directly contradict your diatribe.
3) and finally, you are reversing the "reverse the burden of proof" fallacy of most religious people. We agnostic-atheist do not search for proof of non-existence, it would be rather hard for obvious reason. It is up to others to bring up evidence of their claim. And therein is the problem. Even if there is weak evidence for the existence of jesus, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of anything else.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Says the white explorer of European decent. That should sit well with the locals.
Which is kind off point. Believing that Jesus lived – which is what we are talking about - is a point of evidence, not of faith.
In evolution theory, there are 2 schools of thought: Natural selection and Lamarckism. Should we accept Lamarckism regardless of evidence? The theory has some attractions, regardless of the evidence against it. But no, we do not. Natural selection wins because the evidence is stronger.
One would be hard pressed to put together a cohesive theory that Jesus did not exist. There are too many eye-witnesses accounts. To the point that Jesus was the son of God, the miracles, etc. – that is for faith.
Myths are nothing to do with the historical Jesus, that's pretty much in the definition.
You won't have to tear up your atheist card for accepting that there was a political activist/philosopher who came a cropper for annoying the Romans (and some of the locals too) by suggesting that people should be nice to each other.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Kind of reminds me of the kinds of voices that were shouting down Hertz, Tesla and Marconni about radio... oh well, their opinion doesn't matter in the real world, thankfully.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Joshua, actually.
Dyolf Knip
100,000 descendants alive today? It's not about how many have lived over the years, it's about them alive today.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
You cannot be sure of that hypothesis since we have no idea what the result otherwise would be, except your faith. Your life is not over, and we don't know the consequences of your choices will be, and I'm 100% sure you'll never know. However, blaming Jesus for what his followers do that was explicitly or implicitly against his teachings is hardly his fault.
I suspect that you don't care about false equivalences, but here is a challenge for you, name one thing Jesus said or did that cause any harm to anyone, magical or otherwise?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
As to your question, where there multiple living historians at the time. And the answer is yes – kind of. As I have stated before, few documents from professional objective records are few and far between. What we do have is multiple different traditions. The 4 official gospels have at least 2. But there are a dozen other gospels which implies more and different sources.
Which goes back to my earlier comment that the gospels having differences and contradictions. These differences are within the normal bonds of different oral traditions. If they were very similar this would imply a single source with all of the basis that come with stories from a single source.
He almost certainly was real, and the majority of scholars think so. I was just pointing out that even for Socrates, there is some doubt as to his existance. A better example for the original poster might have been Augustus Caesar. He was actually alive during the time that Jesus was said to be alive, although he died about 16 years before the majority of the events attributed to him in the bible are said to have taken place. In any case, there's pretty much zero question that Augustus Caesar existed. Interestingly some question the existance of his step-great-grandson Caligula. Caligula himself surely existed, but many of the details of his life have been obscured by political propaganda.