Historical "facts" and popular representations of histrical figures that are wrong

[irishmanwithagun]

The claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ is an historical figure is laughable.

With absolutely no primary historical evidence to support his existence he should be considered as real as Krishna, Woden, & Marduk.

I remember reading that there was A Jesus in Jerusalem at the time but that there aren't any records of Bible-Jesus.

 

[Spinozaad]

All historical writing is representation. The past as an objective entity (the "true" past, as it were) is forever gone and irretrievable.

Those written remains of the past, the basis of history, was written with a purpose, by individuals who were "subjective" in the sense that they perceived their world through a certain mental model/frame of reference. The same goes for historians who try to piece together the past based on mere fragments.

Basically, all history is representation and therefore "wrong". No single statement about history refers to an identical historical past. For example: "Napoleon conquered Moscow".

Yay for the philosophy of history, annoying (amateur) historians since the the 1950s.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ is an historical figure is laughable.

With absolutely no primary historical evidence to support his existence he should be considered as real as Krishna, Woden, & Marduk.

Erm

There is substantial evidence to suggest that a holy man called Jesus existed there is even mention of him in plenty of non Christian sources.

I'm an atheist and even I know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

:/

 

[BroJing]

Vikings wearing horned helmets.

Celts not wearing any armour (fun fact, there are more finds of mail armour in Celtic europe then in any period before or after until the mid fuedal period.)

Anything regarding how awesomely awesome Katanas are and how the Japanese invented carbon-trapping. We did this in Europe too, through a process called pattern welding different metal rods were twisted around eachother and then hammered flat. This traps carbon and improves the blade strength (also gives a very cool 'wavy' pattern through the blade. Another metal was hammered onto the outside to give the actual cutting edge. Also, we could get two sided blades.
This was abandoned as we started making better steel.

Japanese swordsmithing is entirely due to the crap steel they produced and needing to improve it.

 

[IrenIvy]

This traps carbon and improves the blade strength (also gives a very cool 'wavy' pattern through the blade.

Isn't it Damaskus Steel, which wasn't probably produced in Europe?

 

[3quency]

Napoleon Bonaparte wasn't actually that short. If anything he was tall for his time.

True story.

 

[RoBi3.0]

The claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ is an historical figure is laughable.

With absolutely no primary historical evidence to support his existence he should be considered as real as Krishna, Woden, & Marduk.

Erm

There is substantial evidence to suggest that a holy man called Jesus existed there is even mention of him in plenty of non Christian sources.

I'm an atheist and even I know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

:/

Interesting point of view. I once read a paper that purposed that Jesus was Buddhist and was actually teaching his "type" of Buddhism. It presented sticking similarities between stuff he said and lessons taught by the Buddha over 200 [500ish, my bad] years before.

It also quoted a few manuscripts found at Buddhist temple and monasteries that mention a "white pilgrim". They never mention him as Jesus of course but the Manuscripts do place the "white pilgrim" in India around the gape in the Bibles time line were it does really mention what Jesus was doing.

It didn't really present enough evidence to convince me but it still is a very interesting theory.

Edit: Wow got on Google to see if I could find the paper I was referring to only to find that the idea has gotten a lot more support and more evidence and such. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Patrick Buck]

Hitler may not have only had one testicle. Only 1 person during WWI stated he did but none of his medical records after then made any reference to it whatsoever. Even his private physician never mentioned it. Although it can't be proven to be false, it can't be proven to be true either

...

I never heard about that.

No wonder the guy was so mad.

I'm 99% certain the was a rumour started by the British as Allied Properganda, in similar manner to the Germans making fun of Winson Churchills intials spelling "WC" which is on signs for toliets on Germany.
I think that last bit is right, might need to double check it though.

 

[tmande2nd]

About the Greeks:

They were not a bastion of democracy and goodness.
They were tyrants, slave owners, corrupt, and nasty as anyone else.

Athens treated women like dirt and had an insanely easy to manipulate system
Sparta was a backwards thinking land that brutalized an entire people(the Helots)

The "evil" Persians who invaded them? That was a response to Greek soldiers attacking their holdings in Asia Minor.
The Greeks were worshiped as heroes of Europe, but they were no better then the Persians.

I am tired of hearing people rave about the Greeks.
Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates may have written some of the more important dialogues about philosophy for Western civ, but the Greeks were still regular people.

I mean honestly they screwed around with each other politically, enslaved others (where do you think Athens got rich? The slaves who worked their mines), or just did some nasty things.

I wanted to scream at this girl who said "They could not be all bad, because they treated gay people better then we do!"

ARGH!

 

[RoBi3.0]

The claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ is an historical figure is laughable.

With absolutely no primary historical evidence to support his existence he should be considered as real as Krishna, Woden, & Marduk.

Erm

There is substantial evidence to suggest that a holy man called Jesus existed there is even mention of him in plenty of non Christian sources.

I'm an atheist and even I know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

:/

Interesting point of view. I once read a paper that purposed that Jesus was Buddhist and was actually teaching his "type" of Buddhism. It presented sticking similarities between stuff he said and lessons taught by the Buddha over 200 [500ish, my bad] years before.

It also quoted a few manuscripts found at Buddhist temple and monasteries that mention a "white pilgrim". They never mention him as Jesus of course but the Manuscripts do place the "white pilgrim" in India around the gape in the Bibles time line were it does really mention what Jesus was doing.

It didn't really present enough evidence to convince me but it still is a very interesting theory.

Edit: Wow got on Google to see if I could find the paper I was referring to only to find that the idea has gotten a lot more support and more evidence and such. Very interesting indeed.

I'm Buddhist and I've got to tell you, Monotheism, Christianity and Judaism are quite unlike Buddhism; the latter urges personal search of wisdom and the seeking of truth, while preaching no doctrine or set of laws (Buddhist monks in China actually regularly get together to very aggressively debate and argue their opinions on the right and wrong paths) whereas Jesus taught people of very specific laws and asserted certain requirements to get into heaven after death.

Christianity is everything Buddhism is not--strict, idol worshiping and god loving. Buddhism is entirely centered on person growth and the acquiring of knowledge and a clam nature.

While I am not prepared to call myself Buddhist, I do have a keen love of Buddhist philosophy and teachings. And I agree with you Buddhism and Christianity are very different. Which is why I said Jesus was teaching his 'type" of Buddhism or rather a mix of Judaism and Buddhism. Love your enemies and the Meek shall inherit the earth were teachings not taught in Palestine, before Jesus taught them, but are cornerstones for Buddhist teachings. I suppose I could give a breakdown of stuff the Buddha said that Jesus said 100's of years later if you want, but I think we can both agree that similar and exactly alike are 2 different things.

I meant no disrespect. And was not in anyway trying to suggest that Christianity and Buddhism are close enough related to be considered the same, because they are not. Nor did I actually state I believe that theory was true.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

This traps carbon and improves the blade strength (also gives a very cool 'wavy' pattern through the blade.

Isn't it Damaskus Steel, which wasn't probably produced in Europe?

I think I read about this, and Damascus steel was entirely dependent on the iron ore gathered from a specific mine in India, which had a specific set of impurities that gave the steel the wavy pattern.

 

[BENZOOKA]

There's lots and lots of these things on the table on Quite Interesting, a.k.a. QI [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380136/].

 

[Shiftygiant]

Hmm.

Communism is a blanket statement used to represent a socialist state, when in reality it was an economic doctrine written up by a sober Fredrick Engels and an inebriated Karl Marx (They were both sober when it was published).

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

All historical writing is representation. The past as an objective entity (the "true" past, as it were) is forever gone and irretrievable.

Those written remains of the past, the basis of history, was written with a purpose, by individuals who were "subjective" in the sense that they perceived their world through a certain mental model/frame of reference. The same goes for historians who try to piece together the past based on mere fragments.

Basically, all history is representation and therefore "wrong". No single statement about history refers to an identical historical past. For example: "Napoleon conquered Moscow".

Yay for the philosophy of history, annoying (amateur) historians since the the 1950s.

You make an extremely good point. History is never perfect, and that is part of the reason why I get annoyed when people say with such certainty that their version of history is correct. In a way you have to absorb history with some degree of faith, because unless you fought on that battlefield or were there for a historic speech a leader gave then you can never know with absolute certainty the truth of the matter. History is nothing more than human memory passed down from person to person, and the truth can be forgotten given enough time for it to decay.

However just because history is filled with bias, subjectivity, and mistakes, doesn't mean that the pursuit of history is meaningless. 100% accurate history would be nice but a representation of the truth is better than no truth at all, that is why we seek out history because we are in pursuit of the truth and how that historical truth can serve to set us free in the modern world. Recording history serves the purpose of allowing us to learn from previous generations' mistakes and triumphs, that gives us some foundation to build the future upon.

 

[RoBi3.0]

[]I suppose I did take your comment the worst way I could have. I apologize for that.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus was teaching any form of Buddhism, his own creation or not, I would agree there are some parallels between some of what Jesus is reported to have said and the ideals Buddha possessed. Then again, perhaps the same could be said of a great many religious leaders and philosophers.

It's interesting to note that it's virtually impossible to be certain of what Buddha actually believed the path to enlightenment to be, as his supposed theories were not put into words until something like half a millennium after his death. We know roughly that he came to dislike the purposeful poverty many spiritual people put themselves in, believing the path to peace was not one that required the utter removal of comfort from one's life. He also think he came to ponder on the meaning of life (as everyone does) and laid the foundation for what would eventually become the Noble Truths.

Jesus didn't have quite as rough a time with the written word. Although very, very few people of his time knew how to read or write, his words were much more quickly passed on to physical records, making it less difficult to accurately work out what he actually said, as opposed to what has been attributed to him (as doubtlessly much of his life is fiction at this point).

It's a bit of a tangent, but I just wanted to point out that we know very little of the actual Jesus and even less about the Buddha. What they believed, what they said and what they did is forever a part of myth and fiction now, sadly.

No worries, and you are correct what Jesus taught differs more then enough from Buddhism, to warrant not calling it Buddhism.

Besides the obvious that what The Buddha wasn't written down for many many years, I believe even when Buddha was teaching it himself he was purposely vague on what that exact path to enlightenment was, because it is very different path for every person. He taught the tool needed for enlightenment more then anything. Not surprising he we also somewhat vague on the specifics for what Enlightment was, aside from freedom from suffering and what not. Again cause it is different for every individual. A Dharma teacher I respect once described it as being set free from prison what I do after being set free will greatly differ from what you do once being set free. For me that was the perfect explanation of the concept of Nibbana was something I struggled to wraps my head around up until that point.

I really also wouldn't say he disliked anything, he did see certain practices as unhelpful or even a hindrance to achieving enlightenment things like sever self deprecation.

I also agree with you on the point that most of the stories told about the Buddha and Jesus are myths at this point. The thing that makes Buddhism interesting in comparison to Chirstianty is that Buddhist are like "So what they still teach valuable lessons"

 

[hermes]

The movie 300 is a thorn in my side. As someone who had looked into the battle of Thermopylae, it got a little bit frustrating with the poor representation of the phalanx, giving the persians elephants, gunpowder, that massive guy, the last stand only containing 300 Spartans (when in reality, there was around two thousand people in the last stand), no mention of Admiral Themistocles, the reasoning for Spartans not sending the full force and the representation of Spartan training as being solely about strength, when in fact they were trained to win at all costs (the right of passage was to murder a slave without being caught, requiring stealth over brute force).

Annoyingly, there are people I know who believe that film was accurate.

Frank Miller has stated several times that its comics were a dramatic representation and not to be taken as a serious revision of history. He even stated that, since they are the recollection of the surviving soldier, they were not an unbiased source. It may also help that Miller always writes in a romanticized, and almost misogynistic, version of reality...

Since the movie is basically the comic book with movement, its not surprising that it went on verbatim.

Genghis Khan wasn't a mindless Barbarian who raped and pillaged his way across Asia.

Well... that is debatable. He was surely a barbarian who raped and pillaged his way across Asia, but he sure wasn't mindless. In fact, some of its strategies were way ahead of its time, he won entire wars with an impressive numerical disadvantage and his intelligence services were second to none in the ancient world.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Genghis Khan wasn't a mindless Barbarian who raped and pillaged his way across Asia.

Well... that is debatable. He was surely a barbarian who raped and pillaged his way across Asia, but he sure wasn't mindless. In fact, some of its strategies were way ahead of its time, he won entire wars with an impressive numerical disadvantage and his intelligence services were second to none in the ancient world.

Let me clarify. He did pillage and some of his men did rape, but he preffered to leave settlements intact (you cannot recruit or tax a corpse) unless they insulted him in some way. That encouraged most people to either join his side or surrender. He did eradicate some countries to such a state that you have never heard of them, such as Khwarezmid empire for killing his ambassadors, but after that EVERYBODY treated Mongol ambassadors seriously and listened to what they said.

Also, the tactics his enemies were using were such a joke that it his hard to tell if the Mongols genius or the stupidness of their enemies won them battles more often. European Knights tactics began and ended at "charge with valor and make them dead," while the Mongols were able to stay out of their reach while pelting their enemies with arrows from horse back.