Can someone please explain to me how the Q source theory is more viable than the account given by Papias of Hierapolis? The synoptic Gospels cover a lot of the same territory, but...they don't do it verbatim, they do it in different styles, and except for Luke (which was the only Gospel not written by one of Christ's direct disciples), in very Hebraic syntax and style, which evinces a translation (Harold Bloom criticized the literary merit of the Gospels precisely because they read like they are written in the style and syntax of Hebrew or Aramaic, which he finds unsuitable to Greek). Then there is the this idea that the Gospel of John came from a wildly different sect than the rest of the Gospels, when the truth is simply that the Gospel of John was the Gospel that was only for full Christians (even today, before saying the Nicene Creed, which takes the place of the traditional Christian confession formula stating Jesus Christ is God, the Orthodox Church says "guard the doors!", which was something started to give the alarm in case Pharisees were coming by, and this is also the time when catechumens, that is, Christians who were not fully initiated, had to depart).
The biggest mark against Papias' account is---the Gospels give indications that the Temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed (now that Christ's Body replaces it), so historians beg the question and say they must have been composed after the Destruction of the Temple, since actually predicting it is out of the question.
Herodotus. He merely lists what he has heard and allows people to judge if it's bullshit or not. Thucydides just tells you the narrative that he believes is closest truth, and rarely brings up secondary accounts while telling his histories.
>>539345 Have you guys heard of the Sikh Nihangs? They fought against mass-converting Muslims in India. Their most famous battle is Chamkaur wherein 60 Nihangs faced more than 100,000+ Muslims, effectively killing themselves whilst taking out 100s of Muslims.
It serves two excellent purposes: firstly, to offer an accessible digest of historical consensus on major historical events, and secondly, to provide a hate-totem for desperately insecure history students (and presumably the occasional autodidact).
the orange glow of the setting sun, covered my armor in a vibrant reddish hue, the waves lapped and tugged against the wooden vessel, as I watched carefully for any glimpse of that familiar shore. For untold months we had wandered the desolate emptiness of the vast ocean in search of loot and fame, finding none and returning a few men less then when we had set forth. "A blasted thing war does to men", my first mate grunted as he rowed, his back sweat glistened off the purple and red backdrop. "A fine thing it gives back in character", I retorted simply,... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
While the Mongols killed a lot of people, medieval chroniclers are known to exaggerate death tolls either to make the side they support seem more bad ass or to make the side they don't support seem more evil.
Most deaths caused by the Mongols were probably caused by their destruction of infrastructure, not simply their slaughtering people with swords
Don't you find it odd that atheists say "God doesn't exist," when the God they say doesn't exist was determined by a man who was in the trough of an intellectual wave created by war, famine, and death, and who is almost universally deemed as the worst philosopher of European history? Almost all, save the modern Protestant devotees who back Ockham as being on par with Thomas Aquinas. Fools.
So yes, atheists, good job. You have successfully swatted a theological fly. Congratulations.
How will the rise of modern genetics affect people's identity?
An example is England. The English have historically considered themselves to be anglo-saxons, contrasting themselves with the surrounding celtic peoples. However, modern genetic studies show that the English are almost entirely celtic by genetics.
It turns out that the anglo-saxons for them most part assimilated the celts, rather than displace them.
Will information like this change people's self-perception of identity?
>>538569 I'd hope not. It annoys me to no end when people get all "muh hurritage" about genetics, when identity is much more about culture and inheriting the worldviews, rather than the genetics, of various groups in the past. Whatever their genetics, the English Anglo-Saxon culture was more based on continental Germanic traditions than Celtic ones, and that's whats important.
Why does nearly everyone on this board consider the French Revolution more significant to world history than the American Revolution? Without the success of the American Revolution the French Revolution wouldn't have happened.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.