|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#251 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,031
|
Quote:
exactly!..... and some arent! THATS MY POINT! ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#252 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
|
Quote:
it has not been established that the quote is taken out of context. thats your woolly excuse for trying to dismiss it. the quote is quite clear and unambiguous.
of COURSE its got everything to do with the existence of jesus! you cannot ignore it because you cannot disprove it! You have taken a quotation that is not about denying the historical existence of Jesus to try and make an argument that Jesus never existed! This is the very definition of taking a quotation out of context! I know that Ehrman is not a Christ mythicist (given that he wrote a book discrediting it) so whatever he was getting at was not the point you are trying to extrapolate from it. Quote:
ill point you to 'the silence that screams' , read the article on josephus and tacitus along with others. youll see that josephus DIDNT write about jesus, but that it was inserted later by others [...] ok... read the bit on josephus, then tell me with corroborating evidence, not wolly fudge opinion, but evidence, that proves what is written about josephus is wrong.
Most of the claims about Josephus from the article are based on conjecture rather than hard evidence. It states: Logic itself tells us that had Josephus written the Testimonium, he would have written more than 3 lines concerning the existence of the Jewish Messiah in a book dedicated to Jewish History! You can't mention the Jewish messiah in passing in a book dedicated to a history of Judaism. You might as well write a book called "The Solar System" without mentioning the sun, except in a footnote on page 474. This is flawed for a number of reasons. The argument goes that the lack of detail about Christ indicates that it is a Christian interpolation - yet if Christians were trying to edit the history books in a favourable way, why would they only insert three lines? As TSTS itself admits, there is more in Testimonium Flavium about John the Baptist than there is about Jesus! If the early Church was trying to make Jesus sound like a massively important and influential figure, then this interpolation was a tremendous failure. Moreover, TSTS fails in its understanding of Jewish history. There are constantly references to "Why has Josephus not written more about a Messiah?" or "Why is he not mentioned in the Jewish sects?" The answer is rather obvious, even today - The Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. While the early Christian Church maintained some close ties with Judaism, it is clear that by the time Josephus was writing, it was a small religion onto itself and therefore it makes sense that Josephus would not write about Christianity in a book about Jewish history and Jewish sects. But you're right on one thing - most scholars do agree that Testimonium Flavium is not a fully authentic passage. It is likely to have been based on an authentic passage that was edited through the ages to sound more "Christian". Which is why it's not the passage most people are talking about when they refer to Josephus writings on Jesus. TSTS gingerly skirts over the passage (dedicating a whole five lines to it) that is widely accepted as the authentic one (quoted in my last post) which describes James as "the brother of Jesus, called the Christ". The fact that this passage simply refers to Jesus as "being CALLED the CHRIST" is highly significant - Josephus acknowledges that Jesus was known as this, without accepting it himself. The term 'the Christ' is also more neutral than the laudatory language of the Christians, which would have been more direct EG. 'Messiah' or 'Lord'. The assertion in TSTS that this is referring to another Jesus is baseless and doesn't have any scholarly support whatsoever. TSTS also conveniently ignores the fact that Josephus wrote about John the Baptist in a way that does not match with New Testament writings in terms of how his death is described. If this were a Christian interpolation, it would certainly have been made to do so. TL;DR - While I accept Testimonium Flavium is most likely not a fully authentic passage, it is good that it is not the only Josephus reference we have. The neutral wording of the other references, alongside other historical facts, mean that the James passage is accepted as authentic by 99.9% of scholars. TSTS shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Josephus was writing and who he was writing for, alongside his own personal beliefs. Quote:
you will not ever concede that its true, because it will severely challenge the grounds of your belief. but, from where im sitting, it makes perfect sense and strongly suggests that jesus did not exist.
I can very easily throw this back in your face. As Ehrman himself states, Christ mythicists are usually not approaching it from a neutral historical perspective, but rather one that is determined to disprove a religion. Their methods and sources are just as subject to bias as any other.I won't concede it's true that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure, because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that he did. I will, of course, concede that the Jesus of the Bible - the miracle working son of God - cannot be proved through historical or scientific research, and belief in that Jesus is therefore largely a matter of personal faith. But that's not what this debate is about. Quote:
not so..... once the religion had got going it was assumed he existed. they hadnt got the resources to prove he didnt.
Wait wait, let me get this straight, they hadn't got the resources in the first century to prove somebody didn't exist?! They had EVERYTHING we don't have today! They had birth certificates, death certificates, Roman proclamations; heck, they could talk to their next door neighbour - "Did you hear about that Jesus guy who was here last week?" "Nah I was at the Temple at the time, he wasn't there" - their religious leaders could issue proclamations, Caesar himself could have produced the documents and the evidence that proved there was no Jesus.And yet you want us to believe that now, over 2000 years later, we somehow have more resources and evidence to prove that Jesus didn't exist, despite the vast majority of ancient literature and works either having been destroyed or being buried under modern day Jerusalem and Rome? Despite the fact your evidence being a lack of evidence, which if this same lack of evidence was around in the first century would have ended the religion right there and then? Oh MAN this is good stuff! ![]() Quote:
you say why would they die for it if they didnt believe it to be true? but people have done that for many many years... look at that massacre/mass suicide in waco texas 20 odd years ago. mohammad atta flew a plane into the twin towers because he believed in his religion. being prepared to die for your beliefs do not validate it as being 'true'.
Again, as I explained to you, these comparisons do not match up.If we accept that Jesus was a historical figure, then the disciples martyrdom makes sense. They had seen Jesus in the flesh and believed that he had resurrected - that was worth dying for. If we say that Jesus was not a historical figure, then we have a historical first - they became the first religious martyrs to die for something they made up, and they knew they had made it up! Feel free to believe in that if you want - for me, that is one massive stretch. Mohammed Atta believed that he was right, the people in Waco believed that they were right. If Jesus didn't exist, the the disciples knew that they were wrong! Why on earth would you die for that?! To use a modern day comparison, I'd say if a bunch of Pastafarians were lined up and told they were going to be stoned to death unless they recanted their religion, you wouldn't see any blood on the streets that day. Quote:
.... if it was proven to be genuine, it would support that james had a brother called jesus. Conceded on the latter point, of course, but the first is a bit of a stretch. I can't imagine there being too many people with a dad called Joseph and two kids called Jesus and James. Moreover it was very unusual for the brother's name to be inscribed onto a tomb - this suggests that the brother was of historical significance. This again links into Josephus' passage where James is described as "the brother of Jesus", suggesting that this was a common way to refer to him.
doesnt mean this was the biblical jesus, nor that this jesus was the son of god. |
|
|
|
|
|
#253 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Who composed the silence that screams then?
And if that's your source, and you assume it's scholars, why accuse someone else of hiding behind them? ![]() Clearly you're hiding behind whoever wrote that article. I myself asked the question about there being no writings contemporary to jesus despite thousands witnessing him...or supposed to have... all through this thread ive posted my own thoughts and only used the silence that screams when asked where my info comes from. |
|
|
|
|
|
#254 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
But you are unable to tell the difference
|
|
|
|
|
|
#255 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
nope... i said i used it only as a starting point.
I myself asked the question about there being no writings contemporary to jesus despite thousands witnessing him...or supposed to have... all through this thread ive posted my own thoughts and only used the silence that screams when asked where my info comes from. Maybe that's why you don't understand how isolated the place was where Jesus preached, and how unlikely anyone was writing about a humble Jewish preacher. |
|
|
|
|
|
#256 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Do you even know what taken out of context means?
You have taken a quotation that is not about denying the historical existence of Jesus to try and make an argument that Jesus never existed! This is the very definition of taking a quotation out of context! Quote:
Most of the claims about Josephus from the article are based on conjecture rather than hard evidence.
really? they cite his actual early writings, hows that conjecture? Quote:
It states: not sure what your point is here sir.... the point is surely that jesus supposed to have been the messiah, spreading the message of salvation. he was supposed to be bigger then john the baptist, yet theres no mention of him. no alarm bells ringing here? what TSTS suggests that the mention of christ was inserted at a later date (4th cent) by christians. Logic itself tells us that had Josephus written the Testimonium, he would have written more than 3 lines concerning the existence of the Jewish Messiah in a book dedicated to Jewish History! You can't mention the Jewish messiah in passing in a book dedicated to a history of Judaism. You might as well write a book called "The Solar System" without mentioning the sun, except in a footnote on page 474. This is flawed for a number of reasons. The argument goes that the lack of detail about Christ indicates that it is a Christian interpolation - yet if Christians were trying to edit the history books in a favourable way, why would they only insert three lines? As TSTS itself admits, there is more in Testimonium Flavium about John the Baptist than there is about Jesus! If the early Church was trying to make Jesus sound like a massively important and influential figure, then this interpolation was a tremendous failure. the point here being that there shouldnt be any need for later christians to doctor the book, so trying to make a point about them not adding much, a tremendous failure, really isnt the point. Quote:
Moreover, TSTS fails in its understanding of Jewish history. There are constantly references to "Why has Josephus not written more about a Messiah?" or "Why is he not mentioned in the Jewish sects?" ............ or there was nothing to write about, because there was nothing there TO write about. the elephant in the room is one you highlighted yourself.... the jews did not recognise jesus as the messiah... WHY? The answer is rather obvious, even today - The Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. While the early Christian Church maintained some close ties with Judaism, it is clear that by the time Josephus was writing, it was a small religion onto itself and therefore it makes sense that Josephus would not write about Christianity in a book about Jewish history and Jewish sects. Quote:
But you're right on one thing - most scholars do agree that Testimonium Flavium is not a fully authentic passage. It is likely to have been based on an authentic passage that was edited through the ages to sound more "Christian".
fair play ![]() Quote:
TSTS gingerly skirts over the passage (dedicating a whole five lines to it) that is widely accepted as the authentic one (quoted in my last post) which describes James as "the brother of Jesus, called the Christ". The fact that this passage simply refers to Jesus as "being CALLED the CHRIST" is highly significant - Josephus acknowledges that Jesus was known as this, without accepting it himself. The term 'the Christ' is also more neutral than the laudatory language of the Christians, which would have been more direct EG. 'Messiah' or 'Lord'. The assertion in TSTS that this is referring to another Jesus is baseless and doesn't have any scholarly support whatsoever.
'widely accepted as authentic'?... by who? believers? Quote:
TSTS also conveniently ignores the fact that Josephus wrote about John the Baptist in a way that does not match with New Testament writings in terms of how his death is described. If this were a Christian interpolation, it would certainly have been made to do so.
maybe thats evidence that the new testiment is wrong! not everything was a christian interpolation... Quote:
TL;DR - While I accept Testimonium Flavium is most likely not a fully authentic passage, it is good that it is not the only Josephus reference we have. The neutral wording of the other references, alongside other historical facts, mean that the James passage is accepted as authentic by 99.9% of scholars. TSTS shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Josephus was writing and who he was writing for, alongside his own personal beliefs.
i dont think TSTS has any misunderstanding about josephus at all. Quote:
I can very easily throw this back in your face. As Ehrman himself states, Christ mythicists are usually not approaching it from a neutral historical perspective, but rather one that is determined to disprove a religion. Their methods and sources are just as subject to bias as any other.
my bias is towards the truth of what we know, not conjecture, assumption, faith, unproven theory, but to the real hard evidence. let that show us what it may.Quote:
I won't concede it's true that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure, because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that he did. I will, of course, concede that the Jesus of the Bible - the miracle working son of God - cannot be proved through historical or scientific research, and belief in that Jesus is therefore largely a matter of personal faith. But that's not what this debate is about.
no no no! there is NO 'overwhelming evidence he did', it all comes from people who believe. the fact is that there is NO evidence he existed from non believer/neutral sources. but at least you have the grace to accept the miracle worker cannot be proven, and thats a matter of faith.... i accept that. Quote:
Wait wait, let me get this straight, they hadn't got the resources in the first century to prove somebody didn't exist?! erm... they had birth certificates? death certificates? roman proclaimations? they could talk to the person next door?.... yet NON OF THESE sources mention jesus! They had EVERYTHING we don't have today! They had birth certificates, death certificates, Roman proclamations; heck, they could talk to their next door neighbour - "Did you hear about that Jesus guy who was here last week?" "Nah I was at the Temple at the time, he wasn't there" - their religious leaders could issue proclamations, Caesar himself could have produced the documents and the evidence that proved there was no Jesus.
erm, how could caesar produce documents to prove jesus didnt exist, if jesus didnt exist?.. "ill issue a proclaimation denying this person who doesnt exist, doesnt exist, just in case sometime in the future somebody asks'!! how odd. Quote:
And yet you want us to believe that now, over 2000 years later, we somehow have more resources and evidence to prove that Jesus didn't exist, despite the vast majority of ancient literature and works either having been destroyed or being buried under modern day Jerusalem and Rome? Despite the fact your evidence being a lack of evidence, which if this same lack of evidence was around in the first century would have ended the religion right there and then? Oh MAN this is good stuff! erm, of course we have more resources... scientific method for examining writings, dating things by carbon and by stylistically doing so. we can gather in one place all info, oh and we DO have a lot of early 1st century writings, ehrman said so!
i find it incomprehensible that ALL writings and references from a non biased point were lost. Quote:
Again, as I explained to you, these comparisons do not match up.
no, what you did was make a statement then raise the drawbridge so it couldnt be countered.the notion that only early christians were the only religious people prepared to die for their religion thus making it true - is the most biased nonsense youve said! ![]() Quote:
If we say that Jesus was not a historical figure, then we have a historical first - they became the first religious martyrs to die for something they made up, and they knew they had made it up! Feel free to believe in that if you want - for me, that is one massive stretch. Mohammed Atta believed that he was right, the people in Waco believed that they were right. its called delusion... i have no doubt that IF they existed and IF they died for their beliefs, they did believe in their story. but it doesnt mean they sat around and made the religion up deliberatey... its perfectly feasible that they have misunderstood, embellished, exaggerated, in good faith something they witnessed, or did they? If Jesus didn't exist, the the disciples knew that they were wrong! Why on earth would you die for that?! of course we do know know with any certainty who died believing what. Quote:
Conceded on the latter point, of course, but the first is a bit of a stretch. I can't imagine there being too many people with a dad called Joseph and two kids called Jesus and James. Moreover it was very unusual for the brother's name to be inscribed onto a tomb - this suggests that the brother was of historical significance. This again links into Josephus' passage where James is described as "the brother of Jesus", suggesting that this was a common way to refer to him.
until this reliquary can be understood fully, and decisively, it matters not. youve raised some interesting points, non of which though can prove the existence of a jesus more then i can disprove it. all we can do is add up what we see as 'the facts' or the most likely explanation . i will never change your mind, i accept that, and its highly unlikely you can produce the evidence to make me change mine (from the 50/50) . cheers !
|
|
|
|
|
|
#257 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
You have thoughts without scholarship?
Maybe that's why you don't understand how isolated the place was where Jesus preached, and how unlikely anyone was writing about a humble Jewish preacher. shock horror... yes, i am an intelligent human being who knows how to think for myself, you should try it sometime. |
|
|
|
|
|
#258 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
it wasnt an isolated place.... why would the messiah with such an important message be shoved in the back of nowhere?.. according to the bible, thousands witnessed him, hardly 'isolated'..
shock horror... yes, i am an intelligent human being who knows how to think for myself, you should try it sometime. Not to mention that Jesus could have done many of the same things while being the Son of Man. As he said himself. |
|
|
|
|
|
#259 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
That's what you totally do not understand.
Not to mention that Jesus could have done many of the same things while being the Son of Man. As he said himself. it was not an isolated place, he had thousands witnessing him, what is there to 'not understand' about that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#260 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
it wasnt an isolated place.... why would the messiah with such an important message be shoved in the back of nowhere?.. according to the bible, thousands witnessed him, hardly 'isolated'..
shock horror... yes, i am an intelligent human being who knows how to think for myself, you should try it sometime. Jesus was born at a time when no one had even circumnavigated the known world. He was born in poverty of working class parents. Nazareth was far from a center of power. You try to make it appear as if people's reactions to Jesus were the same as would occur today. Clearly you don't understand the time Jesus lived in, and you haven't read Ehrman's book. People with the kind of conspiracy theories you repeat, write radical free thought blogs. They aren't credible scholars. |
|
|
|
|
|
#261 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
What the Archeological Project thinks Nazareth was like at the time of Jesus:
“the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.” No wonder this place is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, or the Talmud. It was far too small, poor, and insignificant. Most people had never heard of it and those who had heard didn’t care. Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources." |
|
|
|
|
|
#262 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,031
|
Quote:
eh?.... of course i can. a theory with absolutely no evidence to support it is clearly untrue, especially when we are supposed to believe in supernatural activities which simply do not exist.
![]() Quote:
it wasnt an isolated place.... why would the messiah with such an important message be shoved in the back of nowhere?.. according to the bible, thousands witnessed him, hardly 'isolated'..
Quote:
shock horror... yes, i am an intelligent human being who knows how to think for myself, you should try it sometime.
But you reject all of the evidence presented to you No. I am not going to repeat it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#263 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
|
I think we're at a permanent impasse, Mushy - you reject the evidence I present you with as biased, while I will always maintain that your evidence is nothing I haven't heard before and based on pseudohistory rather than actual critical thinking.
So for that, I'm bowing out of this thread rather than dedicating any more of the festive season to it. Merry Christmas all the same (or in your case, merry fictional characterness )
|
|
|
|
|
|
#264 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Thinking for yourself isn't the same as being a scholar, is it.
Quote:
You try to make it appear as if people's reactions to Jesus were the same as would occur today.
of course ... whyever not?... [quote] Quote:
What the Archeological Project thinks Nazareth was like at the time of Jesus:
“the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.” No wonder this place is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, or the Talmud. It was far too small, poor, and insignificant. Most people had never heard of it and those who had heard didn’t care. Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources." they had no choice but to pick a remote village, if he was born in a big city more evidence would be available, those birth records you mentioned. but there was no record of his birth, so they HAD to write him into a quiet place. the other point, is that he did not stop in nazareth , according to the bible, if he had the thousands witnessing him, which was his very job, it was no insignificant backwater. its ridiculous to suggest the son of god, who came with a message of salvation, the most crucial thing ever for mankind - was shunted away to a remote backwater where hardly anyone would hear the most important message ever. Quote:
That's all right then.
![]() Thousands witnessed him when he travelled about. Quote:
But you reject all of the evidence presented to you No. I am not going to repeat it all.
yes, yes i do.... because the 'evidence' as you put it, simply does not add up. its not strong enough, its flawed, its stretched, it is not supported, its not factual, its not verifiable, its biased, most of it is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#265 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
I think we're at a permanent impasse, Mushy - you reject the evidence I present you with as biased, while I will always maintain that your evidence is nothing I haven't heard before and based on pseudohistory rather than actual critical thinking.
So for that, I'm bowing out of this thread rather than dedicating any more of the festive season to it. Merry Christmas all the same (or in your case, merry fictional characterness )your evidence might work for you, but its not enough for me and doesnt fully, completely, explain the points TSTS raises which really isnt pseudohistory, it just lays down the cold hard facts that we know for certain. that doesnt mean TSTS is right, it means as right as it can be given the hard evidence we have. but i do respect your input , and wish you a merry crimbo- no christmas,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#266 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,086
|
Quote:
I think we're at a permanent impasse, Mushy - you reject the evidence I present you with as biased, while I will always maintain that your evidence is nothing I haven't heard before and based on pseudohistory rather than actual critical thinking.
So for that, I'm bowing out of this thread rather than dedicating any more of the festive season to it. Merry Christmas all the same (or in your case, merry fictional characterness )I think at the end, we have to look at the evidence of 2000 years ago as far as it is possible, and then decide which side we are on. We choose to believe, based on the evidence presented, or we choose not to believe based on the evidence presented. Our hearts, more than our intellects, will lead us to the decision, as has been shown in this thread. There can never be absolutes. I looked at the evidence as far as I was able and then made that choice to believe - that leap of faith - and I have a relationship with God that thrills me. Until then, it is simply an intellectual argument but one we should have, "You shall love your God with all your heart, with all your MIND, with all your strength..." There is an excellent book "Searching for Allah: Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Qureshi, once a devout Muslim and now a devout Christian who raises questions about evidence for both Islam and Christianity and seeks answers to both. Well worth reading. I hope all who have contributed to this thread will have an enjoyable Christmas |
|
|
|
|
|
#267 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
hiding behind scholars again..... yawn
of course ... whyever not?... they had no choice but to pick a remote village, if he was born in a big city more evidence would be available, those birth records you mentioned. but there was no record of his birth, so they HAD to write him into a quiet place. the other point, is that he did not stop in nazareth , according to the bible, if he had the thousands witnessing him, which was his very job, it was no insignificant backwater. its ridiculous to suggest the son of god, who came with a message of salvation, the most crucial thing ever for mankind - was shunted away to a remote backwater where hardly anyone would hear the most important message ever. exactly... tell bolly that, he/she seems to think it was a deserted desert... lol. yes, yes i do.... because the 'evidence' as you put it, simply does not add up. its not strong enough, its flawed, its stretched, it is not supported, its not factual, its not verifiable, its biased, most of it is nonsense. It was just explained to you that the thousands you refer to, weren't in an auditorium, just spread out in remote villages where he traveled. When you say ' they had no choice,' who is THEY? Now it sounds like a conspiracy theory for sure. 'They did this and 'they' did that. I'm sure you can read as well as I, all the researchers who dismiss this pseudo history you've been presenting. Take one here from McGrath: "Mythicism isn't about treating historical sources in the same way across the board. It is entirely the purview of people with a vendetta against Christianity, although even in such circles there are plenty who do not find it persuasive. And it must be emphasized that it is taken no more seriously among mainstream historians than in Biblical studies." Not taken seriously anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
#268 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Rome was highly populated, Nazareth was not. No reason then that people would be writing about Jesus before his death.
It was just explained to you that the thousands you refer to, weren't in an auditorium, just spread out in remote villages where he traveled. i know it wasnt in an auditorium, so what? what difference does that make? that is nonsense, it simply makes no sense. if these events happened its inconceivable that they went unnoticed. Quote:
When you say ' they had no choice,' who is THEY? Now it sounds like a conspiracy theory for sure. 'They did this and 'they' did that.
the people who constructed the myth... whoever started this story COULDNT make jesus a war lord, a high profile figure, born/lived in a highly populated developed area where records were kept. Quote:
I'm sure you can read as well as I, all the researchers who dismiss this pseudo history you've been presenting.
oh lets pick up on the latest soundbite to make me seem more intellectual... i do not present "pseudohistory", i presented the silence that screams - that deals with the known facts, not conjecture, not biased writings of believers, but known, verifiable facts. theres NOTHING pseudo, about that. Quote:
Take one here from McGrath: more hiding behind biased scholars... this is meaningless. "Mythicism isn't about treating historical sources in the same way across the board. It is entirely the purview of people with a vendetta against Christianity, although even in such circles there are plenty who do not find it persuasive. And it must be emphasized that it is taken no more seriously among mainstream historians than in Biblical studies." Not taken seriously anywhere. what i presented IS the same as id treat any other historical figure or event. you strip away all the flannel, conjecture, assumptions , and examine what the actual, known, facts tell you. IF you apply this to the story of jesus, youll end up with NOTHING. and this is the very point.... all known references about jesus come from biased sources, there is nothing, not 1 jot, from an unbiased pov. that strongly suggests that the jesus myth is a total construct, as no one else mentions him. no contemporary accounts, records, letters, etc etc etc despite there being plenty around. that, is a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
#269 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
seriously?....all these miracles is said he performed over a 3 year period and no one wrote about them anywhere for 30 years?.... all those thousands that witness this and no one wrote a letter to absent friends/family? these gatherings of thousands attracted nothing from the ruling romans?
i know it wasnt in an auditorium, so what? what difference does that make? that is nonsense, it simply makes no sense. if these events happened its inconceivable that they went unnoticed. the people who constructed the myth... whoever started this story COULDNT make jesus a war lord, a high profile figure, born/lived in a highly populated developed area where records were kept. oh lets pick up on the latest soundbite to make me seem more intellectual... i do not present "pseudohistory", i presented the silence that screams - that deals with the known facts, not conjecture, not biased writings of believers, but known, verifiable facts. theres NOTHING pseudo, about that. more hiding behind biased scholars... this is meaningless. what i presented IS the same as id treat any other historical figure or event. you strip away all the flannel, conjecture, assumptions , and examine what the actual, known, facts tell you. IF you apply this to the story of jesus, youll end up with NOTHING. and this is the very point.... all known references about jesus come from biased sources, there is nothing, not 1 jot, from an unbiased pov. that strongly suggests that the jesus myth is a total construct, as no one else mentions him. no contemporary accounts, records, letters, etc etc etc despite there being plenty around. that, is a fact. Once again, trying to apply 21st Century thought to the era of Jesus. Of course people "wrote" and we have what survived. "The people who constructed the myth" is just paranoid thinking. It's just not true that you end up with 'nothing' when you examine the facts. Or rather, if you bother to examine the facts. At the very least, it's factual that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John the Baptist, was crucified by Pilate, was an apocalyptic preacher, and influenced many followers. That there were witnesses to his preaching and healing. That Christianity grew exponentially after his death. At the very least. That is not 'nothing.' It gets rather boring and like the other poster, I am tired of ruining the Christmas season continually telling you that you are coming from pseudo history, not actual history. No one but you thinks that the silence that screams, a piece from some lunatic fringe 'free thought' blog (speaking of bias) is actual history. By the way, it's A silence that screams, not The silence. |
|
|
|
|
|
#270 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
What Ehrman (agostic atheist) says about the mythicists:
“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” |
|
|
|
|
|
#271 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
There is so much unscholarly thought in what you write, I had trouble getting past your first sentences. You confuse "not written about," with "not noticed," as if they are the same.
Once again, trying to apply 21st Century thought to the era of Jesus. Of course people "wrote" and we have what survived. "The people who constructed the myth" is just paranoid thinking. It's just not true that you end up with 'nothing' when you examine the facts. Or rather, if you bother to examine the facts. At the very least, it's factual that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John the Baptist, was crucified by Pilate, was an apocalyptic preacher, and influenced many followers. That there were witnesses to his preaching and healing. That Christianity grew exponentially after his death. At the very least. That is not 'nothing.' It gets rather boring and like the other poster, I am tired of ruining the Christmas season continually telling you that you are coming from pseudo history, not actual history. No one but you thinks that the silence that screams, a piece from some lunatic fringe 'free thought' blog (speaking of bias) is actual history. By the way, it's A silence that screams, not The silence. the rest is just more waffle... ignoring the uncomfortable facts that A silence that screams clearly identifies. dismiss it as 'lunatic fringe' is just your way of coping with this uncomfortable fact. if what is written in that is wrong - please, simply, without waffle, produce the hard evidence to highlight this as being wrong. but you wont, you cant, all you have is ridiculous, unscholarly (to quote you) put downs because you cannot disprove the known facts the/a silence that screams presents. |
|
|
|
|
|
#272 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
What Ehrman (agostic atheist) says about the mythicists:
“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” |
|
|
|
|
|
#273 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
bib.... you clearly have no idea what a 'fact' is. it is NOT a 'fact' that jesus existed or did those things you mention...
the rest is just more waffle... ignoring the uncomfortable facts that A silence that screams clearly identifies. dismiss it as 'lunatic fringe' is just your way of coping with this uncomfortable fact. if what is written in that is wrong - please, simply, without waffle, produce the hard evidence to highlight this as being wrong. but you wont, you cant, all you have is ridiculous, unscholarly (to quote you) put downs because you cannot disprove the known facts the/a silence that screams presents. And that is the judgement of the scholars you dislike in favor of your fringe theory that offers nothing to history. Posters have already shown where you are wrong. Ehrman wrote an entire book about the historical evidence for Jesus. Yet you continue to ignore all the evidence, not read the books, or read parts and misquote them, so what is a poster to do? |
|
|
|
|
|
#274 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
|
Quote:
waffle..... pure waffle, its just unsubstantiated opinion. but you are hiding behind someone elses thoughts yet again.... are you really that incapable of thinking for yourself?
How about just using scholarship and forgoing catch phrases like waffle, silence (where there is no silence) and hiding behind a very biased atheist blog that quotes people from 1919? You can't reasonably "think for yourself" on a subject that requires a great deal of education, knowledge of antiquity and language of Jesus' time, and research. Yes, you can read the research and make up your own mind, but you are clearly not familiar with the research. What is not clear about agnostic atheists agreeing that Jesus existed? |
|
|
|
|
|
#275 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,031
|
Quote:
ok, fair play.
i neither love nor hate ehrman. i have some respect for his opinion, but unlike others i dont believe everything he says. it has not been established that the quote is taken out of context. thats your woolly excuse for trying to dismiss it. the quote is quite clear and unambiguous. of COURSE its got everything to do with the existence of jesus! you cannot ignore it because you cannot disprove it! lol, more fudging! answers like this are the very reason i gave up my faith, ignore the difficult questions... whether ehrman or anyone believes in the biblical jesus, or the ordinary guy the biblical version was based on, is absolutely fundamentally at the center of the religion. please see the answer i posted to bollywood above on this. because that where all early information on jesus comes from, indirectly i should have said, i dont mean personally. ill point you to 'the silence that screams' , read the article on josephus and tacitus along with others. youll see that josephus DIDNT write about jesus, but that it was inserted later by others. lol... its not 'unhistorical nonsense', its factual, everything in it can be checked and verified. it strips away all the flannel and bs surrounding jesus... and guess what, theres nothing left! you will not ever concede that its true, because it will severely challenge the grounds of your belief. but, from where im sitting, it makes perfect sense and strongly suggests that jesus did not exist. and its rather funny that you think its silly nonsense but are willing to believe in supernatural events that simply do not happen! ok... read the bit on josephus, then tell me with corroborating evidence, not wolly fudge opinion, but evidence, that proves what is written about josephus is wrong. not so..... once the religion had got going it was assumed he existed. they hadnt got the resources to prove he didnt. we do not know when the church started... theres absolutely no reason why a church, a religion, shouldnt have started based upon a charismatic preacher. you say why would they die for it if they didnt believe it to be true? but people have done that for many many years... look at that massacre/mass suicide in waco texas 20 odd years ago. mohammad atta flew a plane into the twin towers because he believed in his religion. being prepared to die for your beliefs do not validate it as being 'true'. you keep claiming this but dont provide the evidence. the first gospel was written about 30 years later. why, after preaching to thousands, was there apparently nothing going on? it would have been a huge visible movement, not a quit secret one. .... if it was proven to be genuine, it would support that james had a brother called jesus. doesnt mean this was the biblical jesus, nor that this jesus was the son of god. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:46.






