Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2014, 04:15 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-06-2014 10:05 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I found someone who says Jesus traveled to England and that he went to the south coast of Cornwall and then up to Glastonbury:

I found someone who said the Cat in the Hat traveled to Mount Olympus.
Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-06-2014 09:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Modern Europeans are not descended from people of the AME, nor were people of the AME in any way descended from Europeans. The DNA confirms this. Was there some small amount of mixing? Sure.

Europe was populated by anatomically-modern humans from 40,000 years ago. The last ice age covered a bit more that half of Europe, so there were still Europeans in Europe and non-Europeans in the Middle East. One has to go back long before civilization to make the genetic connection.


Oh dear! Chas, you are a dumbo.

Here we go again:

"Over the past 10,000 years a small coterie of farming populations expanded rapidly and replaced hunter-gatherer groups which were once dominant across the landscape. So, the vast majority of the ancestry of modern Europeans can be traced back to farming cultures of the eastern Mediterranean which swept over the west of Eurasia between 10 and 5 thousand years before..."

Source: a new paper in PNAS which uses a coalescent model of 400+ mitochondrial DNA lineages to infer the pattern of expansions of populations over the past ~40,000 years. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/6044.short

FacepalmGaspLaugh out loadDrinking Beverage

Thank you for the link - it's a good paper.
However, what it says is that a small number of Near Eastern individuals had a large genetic impact in Europe. It doesn't say that Europe was populated by people from the Near East.

Also, that contribution is before the times you stated by thousands of years.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-06-2014 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 09:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Oh dear! Chas, you are a dumbo.

Here we go again:

"Over the past 10,000 years a small coterie of farming populations expanded rapidly and replaced hunter-gatherer groups which were once dominant across the landscape. So, the vast majority of the ancestry of modern Europeans can be traced back to farming cultures of the eastern Mediterranean which swept over the west of Eurasia between 10 and 5 thousand years before..."

Source: a new paper in PNAS which uses a coalescent model of 400+ mitochondrial DNA lineages to infer the pattern of expansions of populations over the past ~40,000 years. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/6044.short

FacepalmGaspLaugh out loadDrinking Beverage

Thank you for the link - it's a good paper.
However, what it says is that a small number of Near Eastern individuals had a large genetic impact in Europe. It doesn't say that Europe was populated by people from the Near East.

Also, that contribution is before the times you stated by thousands of years.

That is your reading of it. Europeans, genetically, linguistically and culturally are from the Near East. They migrated because Europe became inhabitable after the ice melted and later because the Near East became much hotter and much of it turned into a desert, as late as the sixth century AD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 11:47 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 11:51 AM by Chas.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-06-2014 11:27 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  Thank you for the link - it's a good paper.
However, what it says is that a small number of Near Eastern individuals had a large genetic impact in Europe. It doesn't say that Europe was populated by people from the Near East.

Also, that contribution is before the times you stated by thousands of years.

That is your reading of it. Europeans, genetically, linguistically and culturally are from the Near East. They migrated because Europe became inhabitable after the ice melted and later because the Near East became much hotter and much of it turned into a desert, as late as the sixth century AD.

It is not 'my reading' of it. They literally say a small number of people from the Near East settled in Europe.

Quote:The samples in our dataset were from European populations living in mainland Europe (Table S1). If a demic diffusion event had involved massive population movement from the Near East, the European Holocene dataset would show an expansion time before 10,000 ya reflecting the earlier adoption of agriculture in the Near East. The concordance between dates inferred from our genetic data and archaeological dates from central Europe suggests that our European Holocene sample set largely contains lineages that are derived from a founding event of Near Eastern individuals. Thus, a relatively small number of Near Eastern founder individuals had a major genetic impact in Europe.

There was no wholesale migration of people to an empty Europe.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-06-2014 11:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:27 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  That is your reading of it. Europeans, genetically, linguistically and culturally are from the Near East. They migrated because Europe became inhabitable after the ice melted and later because the Near East became much hotter and much of it turned into a desert, as late as the sixth century AD.

It is not 'my reading' of it. They literally say a small number of people from the Near East settled in Europe.

Quote:The samples in our dataset were from European populations living in mainland Europe (Table S1). If a demic diffusion event had involved massive population movement from the Near East, the European Holocene dataset would show an expansion time before 10,000 ya reflecting the earlier adoption of agriculture in the Near East. The concordance between dates inferred from our genetic data and archaeological dates from central Europe suggests that our European Holocene sample set largely contains lineages that are derived from a founding event of Near Eastern individuals. Thus, a relatively small number of Near Eastern founder individuals had a major genetic impact in Europe.

There was no wholesale migration of people to an empty Europe.

Northern Europe was completely covered by a mile deep glacier so it was empty all the way down to Serbia. Have you heard of perma-frost? Even south of the glacier, the land could not be farmed so apart from some hunters, the entire population of the arable, ice covered parts of Europe migrated over time there from the Near East. They may have followed some earlier hunters but those would also have come from the Near East, or are you suggesting they were Sub-Saharan Africans who swam across the Mediterranean?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 12:22 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 12:30 PM by Chas.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-06-2014 12:10 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is not 'my reading' of it. They literally say a small number of people from the Near East settled in Europe.


There was no wholesale migration of people to an empty Europe.

Northern Europe was completely covered by a mile deep glacier so it was empty all the way down to Serbia. Have you heard of perma-frost? Even south of the glacier, the land could not be farmed so apart from some hunters, the entire population of the arable, ice covered parts of Europe migrated over time there from the Near East. They may have followed some earlier hunters but those would also have come from the Near East, or are you suggesting they were Sub-Saharan Africans who swam across the Mediterranean?

There were people in Europe prior to the LGP, they moved south as the glaciers progressed, they moved north following glacial retreat.

Your argument fails as you have the facts wrong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I occurred to me that the New Testament was written in Greek but there are a lot of other people who spoke different languages who claimed to have converted to Christianity before the Romans. Armenians for instance.

I looked into it and it seems that other Christian religions didn't even use the New Testament and it was only translated into their language hundreds of years later and they relied on books like the Septuagint.

The Syriac Christian Church, Coptic Christians, Armenians all seem to have had texts which I assume were "Christological" rather than "Christian" and may predate the New Testament and even Jesus. I think Carrier has written about Philo of Alexandria writing about a "christos" figure.

So, was there already a religion resembling "Christianity", as D.M.Murdoch says, a Horus based religion?

If the New Testament was written after 66 AD, then how was it circulated and to whom? My understanding is that it wasn't circulated to these other sects of Christianity until considerably later so that if they were worshipping a "Christ" figure, then it wasn't the Jesus in the New Testament. Was it a "christos" who still hadn't arrived? Or was it some messianic figure, like Ellis says, a Jesus of Gamala or Izates who the Didache describes as a servant of god, rather than his "son". The Albigensians never accepted the divinity of Jesus so they saw him as a preacher of a religion which appears to have already existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
08-06-2014, 02:00 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-06-2014 12:51 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I occurred to me that the New Testament was written in Greek but there are a lot of other people who spoke different languages who claimed to have converted to Christianity before the Romans. Armenians for instance.

I looked into it and it seems that other Christian religions didn't even use the New Testament and it was only translated into their language hundreds of years later and they relied on books like the Septuagint.

The Syriac Christian Church, Coptic Christians, Armenians all seem to have had texts which I assume were "Christological" rather than "Christian" and may predate the New Testament and even Jesus. I think Carrier has written about Philo of Alexandria writing about a "christos" figure.

So, was there already a religion resembling "Christianity", as D.M.Murdoch says, a Horus based religion?

If the New Testament was written after 66 AD, then how was it circulated and to whom? My understanding is that it wasn't circulated to these other sects of Christianity until considerably later so that if they were worshipping a "Christ" figure, then it wasn't the Jesus in the New Testament. Was it a "christos" who still hadn't arrived? Or was it some messianic figure, like Ellis says, a Jesus of Gamala or Izates who the Didache describes as a servant of god, rather than his "son". The Albigensians never accepted the divinity of Jesus so they saw him as a preacher of a religion which appears to have already existed.

"If the New Testament was written after 66 AD,"

Be careful how you word this. "The New Testament" is a collection of stories, with multiple different authors written at multiple different times.

"then how was it circulated and to whom?"

Ah! The $64 million question. My guess is that the Roman government circulated the original copies of the Gospels (or maybe just Mark.) It went all around the Empire… anywhere where there may be trouble causing Jews.

"My understanding is that it wasn't circulated to these other sects of Christianity until considerably later so that if they were worshipping a "Christ" figure, then it wasn't the Jesus in the New Testament." If you mean by "it" the Gospels, I can buy that. There were probably many groups of Christians impressed by Christ who knew nothing about Jesus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 05:53 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2014 06:51 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-06-2014 12:51 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I looked into it and it seems that other Christian religions didn't even use the New Testament and it was only translated into their language hundreds of years later and they relied on books like the Septuagint.

The Syriac Christian Church, Coptic Christians, Armenians all seem to have had texts which I assume were "Christological" rather than "Christian" and may predate the New Testament and even Jesus. I think Carrier has written about Philo of Alexandria writing about a "christos" figure.

References ? Or did you just cook that up ? Carrier has discussed Philo's Jesus, not a "Christos" figure. Of course you have no references, cuz if you did, you and your boy Ellis would have to stop committing the Etymological Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 06:23 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-06-2014 12:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 12:10 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Northern Europe was completely covered by a mile deep glacier so it was empty all the way down to Serbia. Have you heard of perma-frost? Even south of the glacier, the land could not be farmed so apart from some hunters, the entire population of the arable, ice covered parts of Europe migrated over time there from the Near East. They may have followed some earlier hunters but those would also have come from the Near East, or are you suggesting they were Sub-Saharan Africans who swam across the Mediterranean?

There were people in Europe prior to the LGP, they moved south as the glaciers progressed, they moved north following glacial retreat.

Your argument fails as you have the facts wrong.


All of the papers in your Wikipedia article which you link to predate DNA studies which now show that modern Europeans migrated to Europe from the Near East. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...133508.htm

Have you ever looked at a map of the world? You might notice that the Near East is between Europe and Africa and at the center of the Indo-European "world". The out of Africa theory would mean that even the people who lived in Europe before the ice age migrated there and would have got there from the Near East.

Or do you not believe in evolution? Or maybe you think humans descend from other primates who lived in the jungles of northern Europe??
Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: