andrewcriddle

Although the Rastafarian movement began on the basis of media reports about Haile Selassie, the movemen received a major boost due to the 1966 visit to Jamaica of the Emperor. Without this visit the movement might never have become as popular and significant as it has done.

See Haile Selassie

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. Many, many rastafarians do not worship Haile Selassie. Many of them worship the God called "Jesus" or "Jah" Rastafari.

And further, there are many different sects of Rastafarians throughout the Caribbean.

ApostateAbe

I think your second objection is relevant and your first objection is not relevant. It was very difficult for historical information to be written and preserved before printing presses and durable manuscripts. We wouldn't expect any non-Christian information to be contained on a character mildly influential of the time like Jesus, since Christians were the only ones motivated to repeatedly copy information on Jesus. The earliest information we have on Jesus, in fact, are copies of copies of copies of copies. All other information, if it was written down at all, turned into rubble after a few decades.

aa5874

The information about Jesus does not in any way show he was midly influential.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus had thousands of followers and was known throughout and around the region of Judaea. And in Acts of the Apostles, Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, converted over 3000 people.

Even Herod, according to the NT, heard about Jesus as a miracle worker.

It is not true that Jesus was midly influential based on the NT and the church writings.

It is also not true that there should be no expectation that writers of antiquity would write about a character like Jesus if he lived, since there were writers who wrote about other mythical entities that were worshipped as Gods in antiquity.

Josephus, a Jew, mentioned some of the mythical Gods of the Greeks, like Apollo, so it should be expected that Josephus, writing about the Antiquities of the Jews, The Wars of the Jews, and The Life of Flavius Josephus, would have made mention of Jesus, since it is claimed Jesus was worshipped as the son of the God of the Jews, with power to forgive sins while Josephus was still alive living where Jesus and Peter supposedly preached.

Amaleq13

Only to one ignorant of basic logic.

But the evidence does not "show guilt" (ie entirely fictional origin).

It is consistent with guilt but it is also consistent with an historical figure about which little or nothing has survived except mythical stories.

It is easy but not reasonable because such a leap is obviously logically flawed.

We know it is flawed because we know that it is possible for factual descriptions of an historical figure to become completely overwhelmed by mythical descriptions to the point where only the latter is left.

That entirely reasonable possibility logically precludes the leap you suggest.

I do not expect you to understand or accept this because I do not think you have made any effort to improve your understanding of logic since joining IIDB. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.

It isn't. It continues to be possible that an actual person inspired some or all of the mythical stories we have today.

It is certainly a possibility and ignoring it is what results in the logically flawed leap you describe.

I'm sure you will continue to do so in favor of the "easy" solution. Thinking is hard and should be left to those with sufficient ability and training.

ApostateAbe

Yes, you are right, the earliest manuscripts attest that Jesus had massive crowds of thousands of people listening to him, and he controlled the weather, rose people from the dead, multiplied loaves and fishes, turned water into wine, conversed with Satan, walked on water, cast out demons, healed paralysis, healed leprosy, and resurrected himself from the grave. I know you would object that either all of it is true or none of it should be considered true, and I simply don't care to argue with that position. You win. Go now.

bacht

The problem is that none of these (non-Christian) witnesses ever said anything about the miracles of Jesus as far as we know. This could be explained by dating the gospels well into the 2nd C, when the original participants were all dead, and official Jewish records were all destroyed.

Or these miracles simply never happened.

aa5874

I have nothing to win.

I am just pointing out that your claim that Jesus was midly influential is really not true based on the NT and church writings.

Now, even if you believe the NT and church writers wrote fiction, your claim that Jesus was mildly influential was manufactured by you since no other sources wrote a single word about Jesus of the NT that is credible.

ApostateAbe

Yes, except you don't need to date the gospels into the second century. Evidence first, theory next.

bacht

Well, I think we both know that traditionalists want to date NT texts as early as possible, while skeptics want to push the other way, dating everything well past the alleged events. If all we have to go on is internal textual evidence it remains an open question doesn't it?