[ SECRET POST #2667 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2667 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 041 secrets from Secret Submission Post #381.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

So was Jesus. He just wasn't a warlord slave-owner like Muhammad.

[a_potato]

Well, that's open to some debate. It's possible that he's an amalgamation of many different people, and it's also been argued that he doesn't correspond to any real figure at all, but instead arose out of some of the unusual/controversial spiritual and philosophical constructs of the time.

I'll have to go looking for that talk.

[(Anonymous)]

Muhammad or Jesus?

[a_potato]

The only arguments I've come across are about Jesus.

[sarillia]

I thought even most historians who doubt Jesus's historicity acknowledge that they're in the minority on this opinion.

[a_potato]

They do, but it's still something that's out there, and I think it's worth mentioning, at least.

[sarillia]

Ah okay. I agree that it's worth mentioning and on a second look, you're comment definitely comes across in that spirit. I just have a couple atheist friends and have come across some others who act like Jesus not being a real historical figure is an obvious fact that the ignorant masses refuse to accept rather than one of many theories so I guess I knee jerked a bit.

[a_potato]

I can understand that. There are some...very frustrating atheists out there, to put it nicely, heh.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, both Pliny and Tacitus mention Jesus in their histories, and so does Josephus, though scholars think that some of what appears in our modern version of Josephus may have been added in by early Christian editors. But the bare mention of him in J.'s work is considered to be authentic.

[a_potato]

My understanding with regards to Josephus is that he's considered unreliable on some matters, due to his odd position during the time period in which he wrote. But, grant you, I'm only familiar with what he wrote as regards Rome's conflict with Jerusalem, so I can't really say too much.

But these are good points, nonetheless. When I find the talk that I was thinking of, I'll have to dig a bit deeper and look at what evidence is being used. Maybe it's not as up for debate as I thought. :)