Battlestar Galactica goes metal?!

[Rose Immortal]

No, he's considered the "Son of God" to Christians. He is no different in his "tool-ness" or his earthliness than Muhammad. Jesus was originally considered to be a prophet as Muhammad is, but was later considered to be messianic (in other words, the one prophesized about).

Just a point of interest for you: if, as you believe, Jesus was originally considered a prophet, it didn't seem to have taken long for it to happen. The Crucifixion, which is attested to in a wide variety of historical sources, seems to have been somewhere from 27 to 33 AD, and the earliest epistles seem to have come from around 48 AD. Before the writing of the Synoptic Gospels (earliest dating to the late 60s/early 70s), there seems to have been a draft version going around before that, that all three pulled material from...no way to know how old that thing is, but it's pretty clear it had to exist.

 

[Fossil Records]

Just a point of interest for you: if, as you believe, Jesus was originally considered a prophet, it didn't seem to have taken long for it to happen. The Crucifixion, which is attested to in a wide variety of historical sources, seems to have been somewhere from 27 to 33 AD, and the earliest epistles seem to have come from around 48 AD. Before the writing of the Synoptic Gospels (earliest dating to the late 60s/early 70s), there seems to have been a draft version going around before that, that all three pulled material from...no way to know how old that thing is, but it's pretty clear it had to exist.

Yes, it didn't take long at all for Jesus to move from "prophet" to "Messiah." I don't believe there was any reference to him being the Messiah until Matthew or Luke (60's/70's as you mentioned). And it isn't as I believe - people claiming him to be a prophet is a documented reality (and I'm not talking about the Bible). If the Romans did anything right, it was paperwork. :Smug:

One interesting thing is that there were many (MANY) people being called (or claiming to be) a prophet during that time. Jesus just happened to win in the popularity contest (or, if you're of the Christian/Muslim faith - his true nature won out).

I say "Christian/Muslim" because even Muslims believe in the divinity of Jesus (as prophet and Messiah) - but may disagree on the events of the crucifixion. (Check local listings for differences in programming).

And don't take what I say above as theological "truth". I'm just paraphrasing historical accounts (ie. not-Biblical). And I'm not trying to convert anyone. Converting someone to ANY religion is kind of impossible for an atheist.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Before I respond to Fossil Records, I thought I'd just pass along the fact that I got a quick note in reply from the composer of the Battlestar Galactica soundtrack. Looks like I might've convinced him to try out Orphaned Land. Oh, and fairly good odds that piano theme from "Torn," while Baltar is on the basestar, will show up on the Season 3 disc.

Now, on to hijacking my own thread.

Yes, it didn't take long at all for Jesus to move from "prophet" to "Messiah." I don't believe there was any reference to him being the Messiah until Matthew or Luke (60's/70's as you mentioned). And it isn't as I believe - people claiming him to be a prophet is a documented reality (and I'm not talking about the Bible). If the Romans did anything right, it was paperwork. :Smug:

Now that part--that the Romans also had documentation of it--was something I thought, but I didn't want to say because I wasn't sure of it. And I don't like opening my mouth when I'm not sure about something like that.

Conclusively proving the idea of there being no belief at all in Christ being the Messiah is a bit of an argument from silence (not one of the strongest rhetorical tools), though I'm not one to argue about the dates of the documents we have located. It's not unreasonable, though, that people would've waited to write the definitive narrative that has survived until they were older and more sure of their understanding.

I do think, though, that if you accept that the Epistle to the Galatians was written in 48 AD, which I know at least that there's some scholarly belief in, you can "officially" push the date of a Messiah reference back at least that far. Mind you, not everybody agrees on that date, but it's a distinct possibility.

And don't take what I say above as theological "truth". I'm just paraphrasing historical accounts (ie. not-Biblical). And I'm not trying to convert anyone. Converting someone to ANY religion is kind of impossible for an atheist.

Haha, tell that to some of the atheists who have tried to convert me to non-belief. And I do mean pushy proselytizing just as bad as the "judgmental jerks for Jesus" type. Whom I've had just as many problems with...let's just say some people don't take kindly to it if you think God created the world with a Big Bang and evolution.

 

[turke]

I am happy that is settled. I don't want to argue about a show that i never liked anyway. Yesterday i just watched it to look for something interesting to find, but all i see is that scientist having sex with an invisible Cylon woman and getting caught to Starbuck. Cylons started to cry. I don't think i'll ever watch it again. All the colonists act childish like they are in a kindergarden

So may be you are right, there is nothing that i think i found in it.

 

[turke]

Yes, it didn't take long at all for Jesus to move from "prophet" to "Messiah." I don't believe there was any reference to him being the Messiah until Matthew or Luke (60's/70's as you mentioned). And it isn't as I believe - people claiming him to be a prophet is a documented reality (and I'm not talking about the Bible). If the Romans did anything right, it was paperwork. :Smug:

One interesting thing is that there were many (MANY) people being called (or claiming to be) a prophet during that time. Jesus just happened to win in the popularity contest (or, if you're of the Christian/Muslim faith - his true nature won out).

I say "Christian/Muslim" because even Muslims believe in the divinity of Jesus (as prophet and Messiah) - but may disagree on the events of the crucifixion. (Check local listings for differences in programming).

And don't take what I say above as theological "truth". I'm just paraphrasing historical accounts (ie. not-Biblical). And I'm not trying to convert anyone. Converting someone to ANY religion is kind of impossible for an atheist.

Hmm, christian/muslim. Can you open this up a little ? I couldn't understand. A new religion was born ?

About the divinity of prophets, yes, muslims accept that Jesus was a messenger of god, but the thing that muslims disagree is not the crucifixion. It is the written text of the religion. Muslims don't accept the Bible as the words of god. They think it is corrupted in time and it doesn't represent the real orders and words of god. The touchstone is this. The most important part of islam religion is the holly book Kuran. So the words of god. Muslims call the words of Muhammed as "hadis". And they have secondary importance in the religion. The most important thing in islam is the words of god, so "Kuran".

But of course that is just the "theory" of islam. There are a lot of differences in the practice. Some muslims blindly commit their lives in the hands of a man and act under his hegemony.

 

[Fossil Records]

Looks like I might've convinced him to try out Orphaned Land. Oh, and fairly good odds that piano theme from "Torn," while Baltar is on the basestar, will show up on the Season 3 disc.

Sweet!

Now that part--that the Romans also had documentation of it--was something I thought, but I didn't want to say because I wasn't sure of it. And I don't like opening my mouth when I'm not sure about something like that.

Yeah, I went looking for the reference but couldn't find it. It's probably boxed up in the attic. What little I remember from the reference, it was talking about Jesus' arrest after the "Temple incident" and how he was "a person of interest" (to use the modern vernacular) because of his sermons and miracles.

Conclusively proving the idea of there being no belief at all in Christ being the Messiah is a bit of an argument from silence (not one of the strongest rhetorical tools), though I'm not one to argue about the dates of the documents we have located. It's not unreasonable, though, that people would've waited to write the definitive narrative that has survived until they were older and more sure of their understanding.

You're absolutely right, I was just referring to the non-existence of a definitive reference. Since we know that the books of the New Testament were written significantly after the crucifixion, I discount them as being historical accounts - they're anecdotal accounts. So, when Matthew (?) talks about Peter admitting that Jesus is the Christ (which is loosly Greek for Messiah) I discount that as being hindsight - especially since it supposedly occurred BEFORE the crucifixion which was one of the Messianic prophecies. As a result, there's no positive record of Jesus being referred to as the Messiah until the early books of the New Testament. Doesn't mean he wasn't, as you allude to. But either way, he went from prophet to Messiah pretty quickly - regardless of whether it happened right after his death or 20 years later.

I do think, though, that if you accept that the Epistle to the Galatians was written in 48 AD, which I know at least that there's some scholarly belief in, you can "officially" push the date of a Messiah reference back at least that far. Mind you, not everybody agrees on that date, but it's a distinct possibility.

Well, I'd be picking nits to disagree, but I believe that John's writing is fairly consistently agreed to have been closer to the 60's (as per my reference previously). I want to say 58 (I almost wrote '58, but no, it'd be "58").

Haha, tell that to some of the atheists who have tried to convert me to non-belief. And I do mean pushy proselytizing just as bad as the "judgmental jerks for Jesus" type. Whom I've had just as many problems with...let's just say some people don't take kindly to it if you think God created the world with a Big Bang and evolution.

I hear you loud and clear.

I'm of the opinion that "people who DO good things" are a million times better than "people who BELIEVE in good things." I've known die-hard Christians that deserve the fiery pits and I've known die-hard Atheists who deserve paradise. Unfortunately, I believe we're all worm-food, either way.

But any way you look at it, if theism or religion helps a person to become a better human being, I'm all for that person following his/her beliefs and would never try to change that.

 

[Fossil Records]

Hmm, christian/muslim. Can you open this up a little ? I couldn't understand. A new religion was born ?

As cool as it would be to be able to say I spawned a new religion, no. It's just my sloppy shortcut for "Christian OR Muslim."

About the divinity of prophets, yes, muslims accept that Jesus was a messenger of god, but the thing that muslims disagree is not the crucifixion. It is the written text of the religion. Muslims don't accept the Bible as the words of god.

As I mentioned, "check local listings for differences in programming" (which may be an American-ism not globally understood which is attributed to television and time-zones). I did speak very generally about Islam and there are many different interpretations, translations, and (as you mentioned) practices for this diverse religion. Generalizations always get one in trouble. I'll try to explain my (VERY) general understanding.

It is my understanding that Islam... no wait. I just did a Google for Jesus and Islam and found what I meant. I apologize for the length of the reference, but it had a lot of interesting info in it. The first three sentences of the second paragraph are what I had always understood (and referred to, rather loosly, in my previous post).

"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa in Arabic, Arabic: عيس&#1609, is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets and the Messiah.[71] Like Christian writings, the seventh-century Qur'an holds that Jesus was born without a biological father to the virgin Mary, by the will of God (in Arabic, Allah) and for this reason is referred to as Isa ibn Maryam (English: Jesus son of Mary), a matronymic (since he had no biological father). (Qur'an 3:45, 19:21, 19:35, 21:91) In Muslim traditions, Jesus lived a perfect life of nonviolence, showing kindness to humans and animals (similar to the other Islamic prophets), without material possessions, and abstaining from sin.[72] Most Muslims believe that Jesus abstained from alcohol, and many believe that he also abstained from eating animal flesh. Similarly, Islamic belief also holds that Jesus could perform miracles, but only by the will of God. [73] However, Muslims do not believe Jesus to have divine nature as God nor as the Son of God. Islam greatly separates the status of creatures from the status of the creator and warns against believing that Jesus was divine. (Qu'ran 3:59, 4:171, 5:116-117). Muslims believe that Jesus received a gospel from God called the Injil in Arabic that corresponds to the Christian New Testament, but that parts of it have been misinterpreted over time so that they no longer accurately represent God's message (See Tahrif).[74]"

"Muslims also do not believe in Jesus' sacrificial role, nor do they believe that Jesus died on the cross. In fact, Islam does not accept any human sacrifice for sin (See Islamic conceptions of atonement for sin for further information). Regarding the crucifixion, the Qur'an states that Jesus' death was merely an illusion of God to deceive his enemies, and that Jesus ascended to heaven.[71] (Qur'an 4:157-158.) Based on the quotes attributed to Muhammad, some Muslims believe that Jesus will return to the world in the flesh following Imam Mahdi to defeat the Dajjal (an Antichrist-like figure, translated as "Deceiver"). [75] Muslims believe he will descend at Damascus, presently in Syria, once the world has become filled with sin, deception, and injustice; he will then live out the rest of his natural life. Sunni Muslims believe that after his death, Jesus will be buried alongside Muhammad in Medina, presently in Saudi Arabia. [76] However, the sects of Sunni and Shi'ite Islam are divided over this issue. Some Islamic scholars like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi question quotes attributed to Muhammad regarding a second coming of Jesus, as they believe it is against different verses of the Qur'an.[77][78][79][80]"

# ^ a b Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro, "What is Islam? Jesus", Kuftaro.org
# ^ III&E, "Prophethood in Islam"
# ^ "The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus: a comparison", ISoundvision
# ^ Abdullah Ibrahim, "The History of the Quran and the Injil", Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry
# ^ Mufti A.H. Elias, "Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming", Islam.tc
# ^ Mufti A.H. Elias, "Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming", Islam.tc Network
# ^ Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Quran, p.121, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1996. ISBN 1-85168-094-2
# ^ Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Qur'anic Verse regarding Second Coming of Jesus.
# ^ The Second Coming of Jesus, Renaissance - Monthly Islamic Journal, 14(9), September 2004.

 

[Fossil Records]

Some muslims blindly commit their lives in the hands of a man and act under his hegemony.

That is, unfortunately, a human trait. I could list a hundred different examples, but let's hit the Top 10.

10) The Spanish Inquisition (hey, no one expected it...) headed by Torquemada under the Catholic Church. ~3,000 killed
9) The Srebrenica Massacre under Ratko Mladic. 8,000+ killed
8) The Kurdistan Exterminations directed by Saddam Hussein. ~100,000 killed
7) The Crusades approved by the Catholic Church. ~200,000 killed
6) The Soviet Socialist Republic under Comrade Stalin. ~500,000 killed
5) The Mongols under Ghengis Khan. ~750,000 killed
4) The Bangladesh Atrocities directed by Agha Khan. ~1.5 million killed
3) The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot. ~1.7 million killed
2) The Chinese Revolution under Mao Tse-tung. ~2 million
1) The European "Axis" under Adolph Hitler during World War II. 11 million +

Of course there were a lot of others that could be in this list, but these are (in my opinion) the ones where a group followed the edict of a single person or that person's direct advisors. And where that person had a specific bigotry or other legitimization for his actions (otherwise I could put Augustus and Julius Ceaser here as well as many others). I'm sure I left some out (like Kim Il Sung, though I don't know if anyone can say with certainty that they didn't just starve or die of disease).

The numbers I list don't take into consideration deaths by war, famine, or disease. They are outright exterminations. For example, 30-60 Million are believed to have died during the Chinese Cultural Revolution and 17 Million are believed to have died during Stalins reign over Russia. I also left out cultural genocides like the Armenian Genocide by the Ottomans, though whether that was state-sponsored or under the direction of a single individual is questionable. Or the destruction of the American Indian population - though catastrophic to entire nations of the indigenous people, it was more a cultural extermination than a programmed extermination led by a single entity.

 

[CantoX]

Wow loads of info in here ! Some I didn't even know, and lots I do know of ! lol

I am a muslim, and being raised in Kuwait its of government standards to be taught Islam in any school here since the government is based upon Islam, so I know alot about it lol.

I think that Fossil Records post with the quote that I believe is from wikipedia pretty much summerizes things about Jessus ( or Essa ) in the best way.
We believe he is a prophet, but do not believe that he has been crucified.

 

[turke]

Yeah that quote pretty much sums it up. Except the messiah part.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Yeah, I went looking for the reference but couldn't find it. It's probably boxed up in the attic. What little I remember from the reference, it was talking about Jesus' arrest after the "Temple incident" and how he was "a person of interest" (to use the modern vernacular) because of his sermons and miracles.

That's interesting--the Roman source cited the miracles as a reason? Interesting...you'd think they'd have reasons to not want to report that part.

You're absolutely right, I was just referring to the non-existence of a definitive reference. Since we know that the books of the New Testament were written significantly after the crucifixion, I discount them as being historical accounts - they're anecdotal accounts. So, when Matthew (?) talks about Peter admitting that Jesus is the Christ (which is loosly Greek for Messiah) I discount that as being hindsight - especially since it supposedly occurred BEFORE the crucifixion which was one of the Messianic prophecies. As a result, there's no positive record of Jesus being referred to as the Messiah until the early books of the New Testament. Doesn't mean he wasn't, as you allude to. But either way, he went from prophet to Messiah pretty quickly - regardless of whether it happened right after his death or 20 years later.

From a strictly scientific point of view, you're right that those comments are reported so far after the fact that it's not the same as if someone had Jesus and Peter on camera saying it. Still, it doesn't preclude them from having been said. Sometimes people do tell the truth...and one thing I find interesting is that such consistency in doctrine emerged so fast, a consistency which yielded the books of the New Testament that we know today. That's pretty striking considering the difficulty we human beings have agreeing on things of much lesser importance.

I think, though, that there's a reference in Josephus--depending on which translation you look at--that suggests the speed with which the early Christians came to their understanding of what had happened. Best to look at the second or third columns, as the first column is believed to have taken some heavy editing from he Christians. Still, there's a suggestion that the title Messiah came either during or immediately after Christ's crucifixion: Testimonium Flavianum

While written in 94 AD, he still could've talked to a lot of people who saw and experienced the events in question...but the interesting thing is, it would've been in Josephus' interests to leave a gap between Christ's death and the reverence of Him as Messiah. In textual analysis from ancient days, it's considered quite important when you get a "hostile" writer who must concede certain facts for credibility's sake.

Well, I'd be picking nits to disagree, but I believe that John's writing is fairly consistently agreed to have been closer to the 60's (as per my reference previously). I want to say 58 (I almost wrote '58, but no, it'd be "58").

Do you mean Paul? He's the one who wrote Galatians.

I hear you loud and clear.

I'm of the opinion that "people who DO good things" are a million times better than "people who BELIEVE in good things." I've known die-hard Christians that deserve the fiery pits and I've known die-hard Atheists who deserve paradise. Unfortunately, I believe we're all worm-food, either way.

But any way you look at it, if theism or religion helps a person to become a better human being, I'm all for that person following his/her beliefs and would never try to change that.

Interestingly enough, C.S. Lewis said that he'd known some atheists who seemed to him closer to Heaven than some Christians he'd known. He then says something that I can't believe hasn't turned into a major source of controversy among the fundamentalists:

"Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to peoplewho have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth of God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

--Mere Christianity, pg. 64

There's a scene at the end of his children's series that's even more revealing about what Lewis means with this quote. In it, a boy who has worshipped another god all of his life, believing that god to be the source of virtue and seeking after him, finds himself in the afterlife and expects Aslan to strike him down. This doesn't happen--instead Aslan tells him that no one seeks so sincerely and earnestly unless he's put that desire into the person's heart. In othe words, a very explicitly-crafted scene of somebody of another religion gaining the afterlife.

I'll be interested to see if this causes any controversy if/when The Last Battle is made into a movie.

I posted that because it pretty much sums up my own thoughts on salvation. At the very least, I think Christians ought to behave towards each other as if this is the case.

 

[Fossil Records]

I think that Fossil Records post with the quote that I believe is from wikipedia

Ack! My quote didn't work. Sorry about that - yes, it's directly from Wikipedia.

I'd never paid attention to Wikipedia before since I'd always understood it to be "open-source" definitions so WHO KNOWS what kind of answer you might get. I was pleasently surprised to find such detail (and references!!). If you've never checked it out, you should.

 

[turke]

Ack! My quote didn't work. Sorry about that - yes, it's directly from Wikipedia.

I'd never paid attention to Wikipedia before since I'd always understood it to be "open-source" definitions so WHO KNOWS what kind of answer you might get. I was pleasently surprised to find such detail (and references!!). If you've never checked it out, you should.

No no don't worry. It is mostly correct. I mean the quote about islam.

 

[Fossil Records]

That's interesting--the Roman source cited the miracles as a reason? Interesting...you'd think they'd have reasons to not want to report that part.

Sorry - no. That was my extrapolation. As I recall, it was the notariety that followed him in his travels they referenced. They didn't care so much about a single person, but what he was saying and what was being disseminated was discordant to keeping the peace (the Roman "peace" of occupation, that is).

Still, it doesn't preclude them from having been said.

Absolutely.

Testimonium Flavianum

Excellent reference! Though I believe that the Testimonium Flavianum has been called into question on a number of points (similarly to the books of the Apocrypha). But a great reference, nonetheless.

Do you mean Paul? He's the one who wrote Galatians.

D'OH! Yeah. John... Paul... They both have 4 letters...

"Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to peoplewho have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth of God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

--Mere Christianity, pg. 64

Great quote!

 

[Rose Immortal]

Sorry - no. That was my extrapolation. As I recall, it was the notariety that followed him in his travels they referenced. They didn't care so much about a single person, but what he was saying and what was being disseminated was discordant to keeping the peace (the Roman "peace" of occupation, that is).

Oh, whoops...I must've misunderstood. It would certainly be interesting if we could find the wording of those records and see what they did and didn't say. Of course, the notion that the Romans' main complaint was basically "disturbance of the peace" squares up well with the Biblical account, so what you describe would certainly be expected.

Excellent reference! Though I believe that the Testimonium Flavianum has been called into question on a number of points (similarly to the books of the Apocrypha). But a great reference, nonetheless.

The page I cited does discuss some of the problems and that's why, as favorable to my position as the leftmost column would've been, I recommended against using that one as backing to my position. You can also see a pretty wide variance between the other two translations, so the one conclusion that can be drawn is that the "Messiah doctrine" was pretty immediate although from that source alone, how much so is hard to prove.

D'OH! Yeah. John... Paul... They both have 4 letters...

Not to mention that these days, those two names kinda go together...

Great quote!

My jaw literally dropped when I first read it.

As you would expect from a Christian apologist, Lewis then goes on to say that he believes Christianity to be the "surest" route, but the wonderful thing about this attitude is the requirement that then flows from it to treat everyone as if you might encounter them in the next life.

I have to say, I'm impressed with this conversation as well, that we've managed to get through all of this without a single slugfest.

 

[turke]

I sometimes think about the threads i ignored just because of their titles. There must be a treasure to discover in them. Look where we came from the title "Battlestar Galactica"

 

[Fossil Records]

Not to mention that these days, those two names kinda go together...

As you would expect from a Christian apologist, Lewis then goes on to say that he believes Christianity to be the "surest" route,

It somewhat reminds me of Winston Churchill's quote about Democracy being a horrible form of government, but it being so much better than all of the other governments we've tried.

 

[Fossil Records]

I sometimes think about the threads i ignored just because of their titles. There must be a treasure to discover in them. Look where we came from the title "Battlestar Galactica"

Excellent point! I tend to home-in on the topics I think will be interesting and avoid the others, but you're absolutely right. What have I been missing?

 

[Rose Immortal]

It somewhat reminds me of Winston Churchill's quote about Democracy being a horrible form of government, but it being so much better than all of the other governments we've tried.

Considering he was from the same time and age as Churchill, who knows...maybe that was in the back of his head somewhere!

 

[hibernal_dream]

Battlestar Galactica is a great show
a bit of Distortion would have been nice during the Aerial battles,

I'm not a big fan of star trek
though i think babylon 5 was best sci-fi series out there

Yeah, BSG just doesn't come close or any other sci-fi. Only thing that can sit next to B5 at its best is ST:TNG at its best (Tomorrow's Enterprise, All Good Things, Tapestry, The Inner Light). B5 at its worst, however, is truly awful.