Sam Harris

mormovies - 24 August 2012 11:45 PM

Sorry Jesus just isn’t that impressive next to the great Greek philosophers.  Jeez, even Jules Verne blows away Jesus by writing about a moon landing and splashdown off Florida!  If you want someone who walks on water, go worship Criss Angel!

Yeah….......and have you seen his girlfriend?

This latest news item about the scrap of paper that mentions Jesus and his wife shows how low science and journalism has sunk.  They don’t even question and base their findings and reporting on the assumption that there was a singular ‘Jesus.’  How can this be happening in 2012?  The mainstream news continues to treat religious nuts legitimate.  My stomach turned last night watching Piers Morgan interview those freak-whores, the Osteen’s.  How do these con artists get air time let alone sell millions of books?  There aren’t any singular, strong opposing voices out there right now.

mormovies - 19 September 2012 09:44 AM

This latest news item about the scrap of paper that mentions Jesus and his wife shows how low science and journalism has sunk.  They don’t even question and base their findings and reporting on the assumption that there was a singular ‘Jesus.’  How can this be happening in 2012?  The mainstream news continues to treat religious nuts legitimate.  My stomach turned last night watching Piers Morgan interview those freak-whores, the Osteen’s.  How do these con artists get air time let alone sell millions of books?  There aren’t any singular, strong opposing voices out there right now.

The Osteen’s glassey eyed grin scares the hell right out of me.

:-0

mormovies - 19 September 2012 09:44 AM

This latest news item about the scrap of paper that mentions Jesus and his wife shows how low science and journalism has sunk.  They don’t even question and base their findings and reporting on the assumption that there was a singular ‘Jesus.’

“Jesus” was a fairly common name when Jesus was supposed to be alive, so a scrap of paper with the name on it with a provenance of the 14th century is useless in adding credibility to the story.

Many people shared the name. Christ’s given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus’ death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2).

Skipshot - 20 September 2012 01:25 PM

mormovies - 19 September 2012 09:44 AM

This latest news item about the scrap of paper that mentions Jesus and his wife shows how low science and journalism has sunk.  They don’t even question and base their findings and reporting on the assumption that there was a singular ‘Jesus.’

“Jesus” was a fairly common name when Jesus was supposed to be alive, so a scrap of paper with the name on it with a provenance of the 14th century is useless in adding credibility to the story.

Many people shared the name. Christ’s given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus’ death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2).

Ok….Let’s give benefit of the doubt.
Suppose that maybe the letter refers to the real Jesus of the New Testament.
That does not validate in any way that he was the son of God and could walk on water.

mormovies - 19 September 2012 09:44 AM

This latest news item about the scrap of paper that mentions Jesus and his wife shows how low science and journalism has sunk.  They don’t even question and base their findings and reporting on the assumption that there was a singular ‘Jesus.’  How can this be happening in 2012?  The mainstream news continues to treat religious nuts legitimate.  My stomach turned last night watching Piers Morgan interview those freak-whores, the Osteen’s.  How do these con artists get air time let alone sell millions of books?  There aren’t any singular, strong opposing voices out there right now.

They said it’s from the 4th century with ZERO corroborating evidence.  It might as well be Hercules’ or Zeus’ wife!

I’m so amazed at the low level of journalism and how this ‘finding’ is being sold to the public.  It’s a disgrace.  Yes, if we found an ancient scrap of paper mentioning Zeus, which we have many, does that mean that Zeus actually existed?  Pretty nuts!

toombaru - 20 September 2012 01:32 PM

Ok….Let’s give benefit of the doubt.
Suppose that maybe the letter refers to the real Jesus of the New Testament.

I don’t believe the Jesus of the Bible existed.  For someone who claims to be the son of God he didn’t leave behind any evidence from primary sources.  The earliest mention of Jesus Christ is by Paul, and Paul himself doesn’t say he met Jesus in the flesh.  The Jews and Romans were very literate people who kept good records, and Jesus doesn’t show up in any of their records.  Yeah, the Son of God doesn’t show up in the records of the people who believed in God nor the people who ruled the place, but you just have to take the Christians’ written word for it he existed.

Oh, and Paul wrote his letters in Greek, not Hebrew, not Latin.  Sure, Greek was something of a lingua franca but if Paul was trying to give his story credence by writing in the language of the erudite (much like Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon in 17th century English) then why that one if he’s trying to convert the illiterate locals?

The whole Jesus story stinks.

Excellent point.  Just the very fact that truly great minds before Christ’s time left behind writings and evidence of their existence leads me to conclude that if a guy named ‘Jesus’ existed, he just wasn’t that amazing to his contemporaries.  In reality, he’s probably an ancient middle eastern Paul Bunyan, a myth, not a real man.

mormovies - 22 September 2012 12:40 PM

Excellent point.  Just the very fact that truly great minds before Christ’s time left behind writings and evidence of their existence leads me to conclude that if a guy named ‘Jesus’ existed, he just wasn’t that amazing to his contemporaries.  In reality, he’s probably an ancient middle eastern Paul Bunyan, a myth, not a real man.

Hummm…......Big guy…......big axe…......big blue ox….........

Bunyanism.