spamandham

If you wish to argue that a baby was born who was the first human (oh not just 1 by the way 2 at the same time, one male, one female!), and it's parents were not human, I recommend you take it over to the EC forum. I'm sure they'll all be excited to hear about this groundbreaking discovery.

No, there isn't. You fundamentally do not understand evolution, nor the concept of a myth.

Elijah

Are you saying that the first human's parents were human?

spamandham

No, I'm saying that there was no first human man nor first human woman. You're claim requires that non-humans gave birth to two first humans, one male, and one female. It's odd that you don't see the problem with that.

avi

I doubt this assertion. The Analects (LunYu) written, ostensibly by
KongZi, were first commented on by MengZi, twentyfour hundred years ago. KongZi's writings are fundamentally not religious in scope, but rather, ethical commentaries. The evidence for existence of his life, subject of this thread, is scanty, but not so insufficient as to warrant the conclusion that he was "probably" a mythical figure, unless one also considers Socrates "probably mythical".

(translation by ChiChung Huang)

Vaguely reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt: talk softly, but carry a big stick?

avi

Yes, I have slightly less skill than the average sunday school child, and that skill level is decreasing daily, nevertheless, I am a little bit surprised on reading this post.
It is my most unlearned opinion, that the Christians genuinely believe, in all sincerity, irrespective of my own ignorance, that Jesus is God, and that he was God, while here on Earth. May I inquire, what will "get the job done here"?

Toto

The case for the mythical Confucius

avi

Thanks Toto, I enjoyed reading her article.
She cites the research of E. Albert Brooks, and his Japanese wife, A. Taeko Brooks, authors of "The Original Analects" They are of course, entitled to their opinion:
Hmm.
That is quite different from claiming that KongZi was a "mythical" figure. Even the Brooks' claim that KongZi wrote something. That's quite difficult for an imaginary figure to accomplish.

Do you have some Chinese source who would support Brooks' repudiation of KongZi as author of LunYu?

One of my many criticisms of the Brooks' hypothesis, is that they refuse to follow PinYin standard romanization, which makes it unnecessarily arduous to read what they have to communicate:

Here, the Brooks' seek to write "daoist", i.e. Dao De Jing, written by LaoZi.

Who benefits from this clumsy attempt to repudiate PinYin?

fromdownunder

In fact if what Elijah is saying is true, he has just falsified the Theory of Evolution, and overturned 150 years of conclusions based on biological research, including genetics.

Norm

Elijah

So humans have always had humans perpetually thru out time in your understanding? You are being ridicules or terribly misunderstanding what I am saying. My claim doesn’t require the birth of two simultaneously just a first to everything, which I don’t see how you can get around no matter how you slice it.

Elijah

Understand what the man was trying to do politically and understand the type of philosophy he was coming from so his language and actions makes sense. You have to be aware of the revolution of the sons of man against the rulers of man and the god of the philosophers to understand whats going on with Christ.

The genie god coming down to earth as a man to teach us to be kind is not a very informed interpretation in my mind. The guy was a messiah claimant who used his death to spread his message.