Quote: Timbo @ March 3 2012, 9:54 AM GMTIt might have been less confusing for her if you had said that you believe there was a man called Jesus who lived in the time of the Romans. Just saying.
Ah, but I don't believe that. I make a point of never lying to them (except where Santa is involved, which I absolutely hate lying about).
I do a bit about burning people alive in tudor times during my Henry day and there is an old drawing of Thomas Cramner being burnt. - I like to give them nightmares! - anyway you would be shocked at how many primary school kids think its Jesus.
Quote: Harridan @ March 3 2012, 9:59 AM GMTAh, but I don't believe that. I make a point of never lying to them (except where Santa is involved, which I absolutely hate lying about).
All you have to do to fix that, is believe in Father Christmas yourself. Like I do.
Then it ain't lying!
On the flipside kids believe in Santa, Ghosts, Optimus Grime and Ben 10.
Seriously my cousins an actor and dresses up as Ben 10 for kids parties and does magic tricks.
Kids don't know stuff. So you know who cares? It's not a bad thing.
Quote: Harridan @ March 3 2012, 9:59 AM GMTAh, but I don't believe that. I make a point of never lying to them (except where Santa is involved, which I absolutely hate lying about).
Noble...but make the parents aware of issues like this, and agree on a strategy...besides, Nannies can be a huge influence on their charges.. have you seen the Omen??? 
Quote: sootyj @ March 3 2012, 10:03 AM GMTSeriously my cousins an actor and dresses up as Ben 10 for kids parties and turns tricks.
Kids don't know stuff. So you know who cares? It's not a bad thing.
Dude that's twisted.
Quote: Harridan @ March 3 2012, 9:59 AM GMTAh, but I don't believe that. I make a point of never lying to them (except where Santa is involved, which I absolutely hate lying about).
I think his historical existence is pretty much accepted.
PS. Jesus, I mean not Santa.
Quote: Shandonbelle @ March 3 2012, 10:04 AM GMTNoble...but make the parents aware of issues like this, and agree on a strategy...besides, Nannies can be a huge influence on their charges.. have you seen the Omen???
Quote: sootyj @ March 3 2012, 10:03 AM GMTOn the flipside kids believe in Santa, Ghosts, Optimus Grime and Ben 10.
Seriously my cousins an actor and dresses up as Ben 10 for kids parties and does magic tricks.
Kids don't know stuff. So you know who cares? It's not a bad thing.
Well, believing in Santa and Ben 10 and the Tooth Fairy aren't disastrous because the adult world doesn't reinforce those beliefs, so most people (except zooo) grow out of those beliefs. But being misinformed about something that the adult world doesn't correct is something I find deeply worrying. We have a moral duty to teach children properly - you can teach religion, if you must, but you can't jumble it up with everything else.
Having grown up in a sort of religious background and having friends who grew up in much more religious ones. I can say the best way to breed an aetheist is to bring 'em up religious. Serioulsy gives you something to rebel against.
Unless you go for the whole black hatted religious full on indoctrination.
Quote: Timbo @ March 3 2012, 10:05 AM GMTI think his historical existence is pretty much accepted.
PS. Jesus, I mean not Santa.
Oh no, definitely not. There's absolutely no historical evidence for Jesus - zilch, nada, not a scrap. Nothing written about him closer to his apparent time than a century later. No historian worth his salt would say there was evidence for a historical Jesus.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are just all versions of Platonic monotheism grafted onto existing faiths. As this meant saying what their originators was bunkum, they're histories have been completely rewritten.
Jesus was probably an amalgam of various Israelite scholars who felt there needed to be more of a complete break with traditions.
Quote: Harridan @ March 3 2012, 10:13 AM GMTOh no, definitely not. There's absolutely no historical evidence for Jesus - zilch, nada, not a scrap. Nothing written about him closer to his apparent time than a century later. No historian worth his salt would say there was evidence for a historical Jesus.
From a histiographical perspective, evidence from a century after the event is not necessarily to be sniffed at. There are plenty of historical figures for whom we rely on evidence more removed.
The cult of Christianity came from somewhere, and the logical conclusion is to accept that its putative founder was the leader of one of the very many unorthodox Jewish mystic cults operating around that time. I don't see any problem with that. We might be sceptical of the details of his life, but if you put aside the miracles, the gospels are actually an account of the fairly humdrum career you would expect from such an individual.
Quote: Timbo @ March 3 2012, 10:29 AM GMTFrom a histiographical perspective, evidence from a century after the event is not necessarily to be sniffed at. There are plenty of historical figures for whom we rely on evidence more removed.
The cult of Christianity came from somewhere, and the logical conclusion is to accept that its putative founder was the leader one of the very many unorthodox Jewish mystic cults operating around that time. I don't see any problem with that. We might be sceptical of the details of his life, but if you put aside the miracles, the gospels are actually an account of the fairly humdrum career you would expect from such an individual.
My issue with trying to establish a historical Christ is that all of the sources are invested in converting people. The Bible as a historical source is an absolute nightmare - unknown authors, unknown compilers, unknown translators, unknown editors, historical inaccuracies throughout (almost everything in the bible that can be checked is wrong), completely biased intention in presenting the stories. If people didn't still believe in it nobody would give it a second glance when trying to establish historical facts. I'm used to dealing with scant historical sources (spent the better part of a decade studying ancient and mediaeval history) but sources for Jesus are of such a poor quality that they are useless.
I would agree that someone must have kick-started it, but I would agree with SootyJ, that it is more likely to have been several different people combined. Perhaps one guy amassed followers, another few people said clever things, a fair few indo-european myths added into the mix.
If you look at the ancient aramaic and hebrew versions you rapidly spot multiple variants. Differing names for God certainly implying a translation from square old polytheism, to trendy new monotheism.