|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#276 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Fact: something demonstrated or known to have occurred
Quote:
And that is the judgement of the scholars you dislike in favor of your fringe theory that offers nothing to history.
thats OPINION.... not 'fact'. it cannot be demonstrated as there is no evidence, that jesus existed. its all conjecture.Quote:
Posters have already shown where you are wrong. Ehrman wrote an entire book about the historical evidence for Jesus.
hiding behind scholars again, ehrman might believe jesus existed but he cannot prove it. Quote:
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?
WHAT evidence?.... there is NO evidence that doesnt come from a biased, dated, uncorroborated source. IF jesus is a man made construct, then so is the bible, it cannot be demonstrated that any of it is true! Quote:
Who is Erhman hiding behind?
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? your problem is that you dont know the difference between fact, opinion, conjucture. Quote:
Your problem is that you quote other posts but you don't actually read them and consider what they say.
what was presented has been woolly excuses, 'ifs' and 'buts' , they take a stretch of the imagination to believe, are half cocked, are not supported, are unreasonable, simply do not answer the questions posed adequately. my problem isnt that, its that i still dont get reasoned, adequate, killer answers. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#277 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
|
Jesus was cool. Its just that some of this followers were complete dicks.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#278 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
|
Quote:
you mean i dont accept the strength of 'evidence' produced. thats because its not compelling, its doesnt explain anything in a reasoned and logical way. what was presented has been woolly excuses, 'ifs' and 'buts' , they take a stretch of the imagination to believe, are half cocked, are not supported, are unreasonable, simply do not answer the questions posed adequately. my problem isnt that, its that i still dont get reasoned, adequate, killer answers. The figure hanging on a tree And stumble on and blindly grope Upheld by intermittent hope, God grant before we die we all May see the light as did St. Paul. |
|
|
|
|
|
#279 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
|
There is no room for atheists at Christmas, away with you
|
|
|
|
|
|
#280 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
But most of us turn slow to see
The figure hanging on a tree And stumble on and blindly grope Upheld by intermittent hope, God grant before we die we all May see the light as did St. Paul. christian to atheist :- you are like a blind man searching for a black cat in a dark cellar atheist to christian :- and you are like the bloke that found it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#281 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
|
What a bummer - birthday on Christmas Day
|
|
|
|
|
|
#282 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,086
|
Quote:
What a bummer - birthday on Christmas Day
![]() Quote:
But most of us turn slow to see
The figure hanging on a tree And stumble on and blindly grope Upheld by intermittent hope, God grant before we die we all May see the light as did St. Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#283 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
|
Quote:
reminds me of the old adage...
christian to atheist :- you are like a blind man searching for a black cat in a dark cellar atheist to christian :- and you are like the bloke that found it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#284 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
reminds me of the old adage...
christian to atheist :- you are like a blind man searching for a black cat in a dark cellar atheist to christian :- and you are like the bloke that found it. Or in the words of your own Wiki: "Christ Myth theories find virtually no support from scholars" It's like trying to convince someone the moon landing wasn't a hoax. |
|
|
|
|
|
#285 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Except you still haven't accepted that even agnostic atheists agree Jesus existed.
Or in the words of your own Wiki: "Christ Myth theories find virtually no support from scholars" It's like trying to convince someone the moon landing wasn't a hoax. of course they have no support from (biblical biased) scholars! believers arent going to say or even accept the possibility that jesus didnt exist are they! no comparison. the moon landings can be proven to have happened, jesus existence cannot. now until you have learned the difference between fact and opinion, theres no point in continuing this. |
|
|
|
|
|
#286 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
not all of them...
of course they have no support from (biblical biased) scholars! believers arent going to say or even accept the possibility that jesus didnt exist are they! no comparison. the moon landings can be proven to have happened, jesus existence cannot. now until you have learned the difference between fact and opinion, theres no point in continuing this. There are lots of whackos who insist the moon landings were faked. In much the same way you think people conspired to invent Jesus. The moon landing hoaxers come across with similar arguments to yours. They insist the moon landing isn't a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
#287 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
yep..... and it is not a fact that jesus even existed let alone did those things you claim.
thats OPINION.... not 'fact'. it cannot be demonstrated as there is no evidence, that jesus existed. its all conjecture. hiding behind scholars again, ehrman might believe jesus existed but he cannot prove it. WHAT evidence?.... there is NO evidence that doesnt come from a biased, dated, uncorroborated source. IF jesus is a man made construct, then so is the bible, it cannot be demonstrated that any of it is true! waffle, waffle and more meaningless waffle. your problem is that you dont know the difference between fact, opinion, conjucture. you mean i dont accept the strength of 'evidence' produced. thats because its not compelling, its doesnt explain anything in a reasoned and logical way. what was presented has been woolly excuses, 'ifs' and 'buts' , they take a stretch of the imagination to believe, are half cocked, are not supported, are unreasonable, simply do not answer the questions posed adequately. my problem isnt that, its that i still dont get reasoned, adequate, killer answers. "Mythicists" are the historical equivalent of the anti-vaccination crowd in medical science. They are controversial enough to get media attention. They have just enough doctors, or doctors in training, among them to establish a kind of "plausible deniability." But anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus will quickly discover that mythicists are regarded by 99.9% of the scholarly community as complete "outliers," the fringe of the fringe. And when mainstream scholars attempt to call their bluff, the mythicists, just like the anti-vaccinationists, cry "Conspiracy!" http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...24/4154120.htm Sorry, I compared them to the moon landing hoaxers when they're more like the anti vacs. And apparently show up on cue at Christmas. |
|
|
|
|
|
#288 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Of course Biblical scholars can say Jesus was a myth if that's what they found. It's not what they found though.
There are lots of whackos who insist the moon landings were faked. In much the same way you think people conspired to invent Jesus. The moon landing hoaxers come across with similar arguments to yours. They insist the moon landing isn't a fact. the moon landing can be proven to be a fact. the existence of jesus cannot. it might be a fact that some scholars believe he existed, but thats not the same as it being a fact that he did. Quote:
Speaking of facts, one of the mythicists own professors takes him to task:
"Mythicists" are the historical equivalent of the anti-vaccination crowd in medical science. They are controversial enough to get media attention. They have just enough doctors, or doctors in training, among them to establish a kind of "plausible deniability." But anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus will quickly discover that mythicists are regarded by 99.9% of the scholarly community as complete "outliers," the fringe of the fringe. And when mainstream scholars attempt to call their bluff, the mythicists, just like the anti-vaccinationists, cry "Conspiracy!" http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...24/4154120.htm Sorry, I compared them to the moon landing hoaxers when they're more like the anti vacs. And apparently show up on cue at Christmas. "But anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus " .... where are these?.. what evidence do they use to base their beliefs on? the fact is, that when all assumption, bias, supposition is stripped away, when you examine the actual evidence as a silence that screams does - there bugger all to support jesus ever existed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#289 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
ive already addressed this...
the moon landing can be proven to be a fact. the existence of jesus cannot. it might be a fact that some scholars believe he existed, but thats not the same as it being a fact that he did. more opinion. not facts. "But anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus " .... where are these?.. what evidence do they use to base their beliefs on? the fact is, that when all assumption, bias, supposition is stripped away, when you examine the actual evidence as a silence that screams does - there bugger all to support jesus ever existed. Or we could just say that by your criteria, nothing is true. " Leaving aside the question of whether there are eyewitness accounts in the New Testament - many think there are - such a statement overlooks the fact that virtually everything we know from ancient history comes to us from sources that are neither "contemporary" with events, nor written by eyewitnesses. What we know of Emperor Tiberius, for instance, comes mainly from the Roman chronicler Tacitus, who writes some 80 years after the emperor's death. This is typical of ancient history, and it poses no dilemma to the contemporary scholar because it is clear that authors such as Tacitus, like the Gospel writers, employed earlier sources within their works." |
|
|
|
|
|
#290 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
It's a conspiracy to keep the thousands of historical research pieces hidden from you, obviously.
Or we could just say that by your criteria, nothing is true. " Leaving aside the question of whether there are eyewitness accounts in the New Testament - many think there are - such a statement overlooks the fact that virtually everything we know from ancient history comes to us from sources that are neither "contemporary" with events, nor written by eyewitnesses. What we know of Emperor Tiberius, for instance, comes mainly from the Roman chronicler Tacitus, who writes some 80 years after the emperor's death. This is typical of ancient history, and it poses no dilemma to the contemporary scholar because it is clear that authors such as Tacitus, like the Gospel writers, employed earlier sources within their works." and it doesnt really matter much if theres no or little contemporary evidence for historical figures.... the salvation of mankind doesnt depend upon whether they existed or not. you lot dont half play down the importance of the messiah, likening him to a minor historical character quite often when according to your religion he was THE most important person ever to have lived. |
|
|
|
|
|
#291 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
erm... we have coins, statues, etc for tiberius...
and it doesnt really matter much if theres no or little contemporary evidence for historical figures.... the salvation of mankind doesnt depend upon whether they existed or not. you lot dont half play down the importance of the messiah, likening him to a minor historical character quite often when according to your religion he was THE most important person ever to have lived. Of course Jesus was a minor character until Christianity took off. You expect him to be a rock star. That's typical of many that their fame grew after their deaths. Further, what you say causes cognitive dissonance because you can't explain how Jesus affected people. And you wrongly use history written after his death to try to discount him. When that is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#292 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
There's evidence of Pilate and per the atheist Gert Lundeman, "Jesus death as a consequence of crucifixtion is indisputable."
Of course Jesus was a minor character until Christianity took off. You expect him to be a rock star. That's typical of many that their fame grew after their deaths. Further, what you say causes cognitive dissonance because you can't explain how Jesus affected people. And you wrongly use history written after his death to try to discount him. When that is irrelevant. it wasnt his job to be 'minor' but to save mankind... how the hell could that work if he was 'minor'?.. see... this is the scale of the 'screaming silence'.... such a huge character, witnessed by thousands, yet nothing contemporary is written about him - nothing. you might be able to explain or ignore this gaping hole, but i cant. and i reject BIASED historical writings, because if jesus is a man made construct, even partially, then so are all the 'evidences' in writing . what you cannot grasp, or even can accept as a believer, is that its perfectly possible that the whole jesus story is an embellished myth. it is perfectly plausible that jesus did not ever exist, despite the biblical jesus being a high profile character theres nothing contemporary to prove he existed. the whole religion might be based on a complete lie. |
|
|
|
|
|
#293 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
jesus was NOT a minor character IF the biblical version is correct... he preached to THOUSANDS (5000 loaves and fishes, and thats 5000 men - so plus women and children) . he supposed to have performed 37 miracles... and you claim he was 'a minor character'?...
it wasnt his job to be 'minor' but to save mankind... how the hell could that work if he was 'minor'?.. see... this is the scale of the 'screaming silence'.... such a huge character, witnessed by thousands, yet nothing contemporary is written about him - nothing. you might be able to explain or ignore this gaping hole, but i cant. and i reject BIASED historical writings, because if jesus is a man made construct, even partially, then so are all the 'evidences' in writing . what you cannot grasp, or even can accept as a believer, is that its perfectly possible that the whole jesus story is an embellished myth. it is perfectly plausible that jesus did not ever exist, despite the biblical jesus being a high profile character theres nothing contemporary to prove he existed. the whole religion might be based on a complete lie. His reputation took time to spread. Tacitus wrote about him, Thallus, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Pliny the Younger and so on. Historians generally write about the past, not the present. Who will survive as famous occurs over time. 'Might be' a lie is just conjecture. Nothing you've posted is firm evidence of your position although you are welcome to it. It isn't a matter of being a 'believer,' as I pointed out atheist historians who don't doubt Jesus' existence either. |
|
|
|
|
|
#294 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
You probably have a different definition of famous than I do. Crowds followed Jesus, but that doesn't mean he was known outside of his small nation. It was virtually impossible to be famous outside of one's own area in a time of no mass communication. He was rejected in his own birth town of Nazareth. It would be more like a preacher being famous in Arkansas but not heard of in Washington D.C.
His reputation took time to spread. Tacitus wrote about him, Thallus, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Pliny the Younger and so on. Historians generally write about the past, not the present. Who will survive as famous occurs over time. 'Might be' a lie is just conjecture. Nothing you've posted is firm evidence of your position although you are welcome to it. It isn't a matter of being a 'believer,' as I pointed out atheist historians who don't doubt Jesus' existence either. your problem (not only hiding behind scholars and what these say) is that the whole basis of your pov is based on unconfirmable accounts. all references to jesus later on come from biased sources, later writers like josephus got their informartion second/third hand off earlier writings. its a fact that there is no contemporary accounts of him and no unbiased ones at first. yes, it is conjecture that jesus might not have existed, its based on the complete lack of evidence. it is conjecture also that he did exist, as the evidence is biased and weak. we could go on forever in this loop.... its pointless, i cannot prove he didnt exist or was an embelishment, you cannot prove he did and not only that was the biblical son of god. |
|
|
|
|
|
#295 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
|
Quote:
That's beautiful.
![]() Quote:
I hope you had a lovely Christmas You too
|
|
|
|
|
|
#296 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
a gathering of thousands to watch a miracle man is certainly enough to make him noticable within his nation... to the local rulers, to the authorities... but nothing was mentioned.
your problem (not only hiding behind scholars and what these say) is that the whole basis of your pov is based on unconfirmable accounts. all references to jesus later on come from biased sources, later writers like josephus got their informartion second/third hand off earlier writings. its a fact that there is no contemporary accounts of him and no unbiased ones at first. yes, it is conjecture that jesus might not have existed, its based on the complete lack of evidence. it is conjecture also that he did exist, as the evidence is biased and weak. we could go on forever in this loop.... its pointless, i cannot prove he didnt exist or was an embelishment, you cannot prove he did and not only that was the biblical son of god. I guess I won't bother explaining again that atheist scholars aren't biased sources when they say Jesus' death by crucifiction is indisputable. Or explain again that it's not about proof but about the preponderance of evidence. So I'm not interested in proving anything. Tacitus, Tallus, Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Suetonius all wrote about Jesus. No reason to think they made it up. Haven't seen anything from you that makes me doubt those sources, so I'll stick with the mainstream evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
#297 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
As I said if you read my post, that doesn't mean he was famous outside his small nation. He wasn't famous in Rome.
Quote:
I guess I won't bother explaining again that atheist scholars aren't biased sources when they say Jesus' death by crucifiction is indisputable.
theres so much wrong with this- WHAT atheist scholars? ALL of them? anything less makes this point void. - where do they get their EVIDENCE from? because no scholar on earth can possibly present anything as a fact unless there is hard evidence to support it. there is non for this. - which version of jesus do they believe was crucified? because if its anything less then the biblical version , he may as well not have existed at all, it makes the whole basis for your religion a lie. you lot NEVER identify this point although its absolutely crucial to the foundation of the religion. Quote:
Or explain again that it's not about proof but about the preponderance of evidence. So I'm not interested in proving anything.
there is no evidence, thats the point! all you 'evidence' comes from a biased viewpoint and not from an unbiased nor contemporary source which would certainly be the case IF such a crowd drawing magician ever existed.Quote:
Tacitus, Tallus, Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Suetonius all wrote about Jesus. No reason to think they made it up.
tacitus - did not mention jesus, the pages pertaining to jesus years are missing.thallus - did not write about jesus, most of his work is missing, christians say the missing bits confirm jesus existence but this cannot be proven. pliny - "Pliny the Elder (~23 CE - 79 CE) wrote a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; he even writes about the Essenes in Natural History, section V, 15 . Yet nowhere in his works is any mention of the Jesus phenomena described in Mark" pliny the younger doesnt appear to have mentioned jesus. justyn the martyr - lived nearly 300 years later... what would he know that others didnt? oh yes, nothing! josephus - did not write anything about the life of christ, although he does mention christians many years later. seutonius - not a contemporary of jesus, only mentions christians many years later. see?.... your 'evidence' isnt evidence at all. its all conjecture, supposition, biased assertions. what you are trying to do is cite ancient historians as providing evidence that jesus existed, but thats untrue! its a lie, they do not. Quote:
Haven't seen anything from you that makes me doubt those sources, so I'll stick with the mainstream evidence.
yep, mainstream biased evidence that suits your closed mind. the real evidence is that there no evidence at all to prove jesus existed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#298 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
didnt need to be, but as this hugely charasmatic magician who supposed to have been witnessed by thousands - he WOULD have been locally, to the ruling occupying romans. if the biblical accounts are correct of course. the absence of evidence IS evidence of his absence.
theres so much wrong with this - WHAT atheist scholars? ALL of them? anything less makes this point void. - where do they get their EVIDENCE from? because no scholar on earth can possibly present anything as a fact unless there is hard evidence to support it. there is non for this. - which version of jesus do they believe was crucified? because if its anything less then the biblical version , he may as well not have existed at all, it makes the whole basis for your religion a lie. you lot NEVER identify this point although its absolutely crucial to the foundation of the religion. there is no evidence, thats the point! all you 'evidence' comes from a biased viewpoint and not from an unbiased nor contemporary source which would certainly be the case IF such a crowd drawing magician ever existed. tacitus - did not mention jesus, the pages pertaining to jesus years are missing. thallus - did not write about jesus, most of his work is missing, christians say the missing bits confirm jesus existence but this cannot be proven. pliny - "Pliny the Elder (~23 CE - 79 CE) wrote a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; he even writes about the Essenes in Natural History, section V, 15 . Yet nowhere in his works is any mention of the Jesus phenomena described in Mark" pliny the younger doesnt appear to have mentioned jesus. justyn the martyr - lived nearly 300 years later... what would he know that others didnt? oh yes, nothing! josephus - did not write anything about the life of christ, although he does mention christians many years later. seutonius - not a contemporary of jesus, only mentions christians many years later. see?.... your 'evidence' isnt evidence at all. its all conjecture, supposition, biased assertions. what you are trying to do is cite ancient historians as providing evidence that jesus existed, but thats untrue! its a lie, they yep, mainstream biased evidence that suits your closed mind. the real evidence is that there no evidence at all to prove jesus existed. Yes credible atheist scholars accept that Jesus existed. You'll only find atheists with an agenda who say otherwise. Were it anyone but Jesus, they would accept it. You're entitled to hold a conspiracy theory if you want, and I'm not going to talk you out of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#299 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
RE: Jesus
It's not at all like the moon landings, or anti-vaccers. No. It's more like King Arthur. We have stories, we have folklore, and we have historical records written long after the fact. Like King Arthur, through folklore and storytelling, things attributed to Jesus may actually have originally been attributed to someone else - a cornucopia of different legends and myths. Like King Arthur, the events of Jesus' life cannot be verified to any plausible extent. Like King Arthur, the legend is more exciting, and more enticing to believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
#300 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
It's not at all like King Arthur and no credible scholar thinks that.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:40.





