DS Forums

 
 

Is this what Jesus looked like?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 13:07
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Yes it is. It really is.

The only difference is, there's not an entire religion of over-sensitive King Arthur enthusiasts who refuse to acknowledge the fact, just enthusiastic historians who are swayed towards one historical perspective or another.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-12-2016, 13:16
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Only to a few fringe types who aren't familiar with their history. And aren't offered respectable academic positions. And have been debunked even by their atheist peers. If you mean those maybe.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:38
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Hahahaha, totally missing the point once more. What was that about you talking about conspiracies?

While there is a general consensus that Jesus existed - as in, a figure called Jesus, all that surrounds him cannot be verified. It's folklore, it's romance, pure legend. Much like Arthur, although granted, his historical existence stands on much shakier ground than Jesus's. The myths surrounding Jesus are only kept 'alive' due to centuries of believing the Bible to be historically accurate - we lost this with Historica Brittonum and Annales Cambriae much longer before than we did with the Bible.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with Alfred the Great - we have evidence of the man, but not of all the stuff attributed towards him. A lot of it most likely invention. Very common in Folklore, and very common when historical records - as often they were at such a time - were written numerous decades, even centuries, after the event. They were simply folklore compilations.

Certainly, like it's very unlikely Saint Patrick rid Ireland of snakes, or that Saint George killed a dragon, it's very unlikely Jesus could walk on water, rose from the dead, and healed the sick - let alone being the 'Son of God'. That's not being nasty, that's simply the way it is.

All we have to show is a crude caricature surrounded in unverifiable legend. Did he marry? Did he have offspring? Did he do most/some/a bit/any of what the Bible said he did? Such things are unverifiable, bordering on the impossible in parts. I mean, we can't even get his skin colour right in most portraits and nativity scenes, so as for the rest of it...

I don't think the caricature we have of Jesus is necessarily a bad one... Well, the view of Jesus as some caring, tolerant, help the needy, don't be a greedy, money-hungry bastard caricature we have.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:46
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Actually, I take that back. We probably have more reliable evidence for Alfred the Great's life than we do Jesus's. A lot more.

Jesus is inbetween Arthur and Alfred, perhaps.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:18
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
Actually, I take that back. We probably have more reliable evidence for Alfred the Great's life than we do Jesus's. A lot more.

Jesus is inbetween Arthur and Alfred, perhaps.
Did you decide to look up Alfred ?
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:28
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Hahahaha, totally missing the point once more. What was that about you talking about conspiracies?

While there is a general consensus that Jesus existed - as in, a figure called Jesus, all that surrounds him cannot be verified. It's folklore, it's romance, pure legend. Much like Arthur, although granted, his historical existence stands on much shakier ground than Jesus's. The myths surrounding Jesus are only kept 'alive' due to centuries of believing the Bible to be historically accurate - we lost this with Historica Brittonum and Annales Cambriae much longer before than we did with the Bible.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with Alfred the Great - we have evidence of the man, but not of all the stuff attributed towards him. A lot of it most likely invention. Very common in Folklore, and very common when historical records - as often they were at such a time - were written numerous decades, even centuries, after the event. They were simply folklore compilations.

Certainly, like it's very unlikely Saint Patrick rid Ireland of snakes, or that Saint George killed a dragon, it's very unlikely Jesus could walk on water, rose from the dead, and healed the sick - let alone being the 'Son of God'. That's not being nasty, that's simply the way it is.

All we have to show is a crude caricature surrounded in unverifiable legend. Did he marry? Did he have offspring? Did he do most/some/a bit/any of what the Bible said he did? Such things are unverifiable, bordering on the impossible in parts. I mean, we can't even get his skin colour right in most portraits and nativity scenes, so as for the rest of it...

I don't think the caricature we have of Jesus is necessarily a bad one... Well, the view of Jesus as some caring, tolerant, help the needy, don't be a greedy, money-hungry bastard caricature we have.
You're off on a tangent about something no one was arguing.

It's already been said that historians can't judge whether Jesus was the Son of God or not.

They can only verify to a reasonable extent (preponderance of evidence) that Jesus did exist, that he had a profound effect on his followers and that many scholars accept that there were witnesses to his preaching and healing.

And that's it. Not sure why you would think historians can do more than that.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:29
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Actually, I take that back. We probably have more reliable evidence for Alfred the Great's life than we do Jesus's. A lot more.

Jesus is inbetween Arthur and Alfred, perhaps.
Evidence? Sources? Links?
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 19:15
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
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.

Who has believed what he has heard from us?
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
He had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
He was despised, and we esteemed him not.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 00:54
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
You're off on a tangent about something no one was arguing.

It's already been said that historians can't judge whether Jesus was the Son of God or not.

They can only verify to a reasonable extent (preponderance of evidence) that Jesus did exist, that he had a profound effect on his followers and that many scholars accept that there were witnesses to his preaching and healing.

And that's it. Not sure why you would think historians can do more than that.
Nope. Historians agree that it is likely there was a Jesus born and baptised, and a Jesus crucified. They are the only two things the majority of history scholars accept completely.

Profound effect cannot be judged from the available reliable histories. Witnesses to preaching and healing - nope, that's not accepted by all scholars, only that there were stories of such, and that he had disciples and preached. To what extent is also debated, as is the timeline of his life.

The rest is - as you say - beyond the realms of available evidence. Just conjecture based on accounts written way after the fact.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 01:05
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Evidence? Sources? Links?
Well, we've got coins featuring Alfred minted in his reign.
We have the beautiful Alfred Jewel.
We have documents of the time written about Alfred (e.g. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)

Still plenty of myths/legend surrounding him, but we do have some solid evidence relating to his life, his reign and his family.

For Jesus, we do not. Unsurprisingly, as Jesus was a nobody in life and Alfred was a King.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 01:16
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Did you decide to look up Alfred ?
Nope, funnily enough I remembered the Alfred Jewel afterwards (I've always been fascinated by it), and of course family lineage, events of his reign etc. But still, more is attributed to his life because he's a heroic, romance figure and such figures capture imaginations.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:00
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Well, we've got coins featuring Alfred minted in his reign.
We have the beautiful Alfred Jewel.
We have documents of the time written about Alfred (e.g. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)

Still plenty of myths/legend surrounding him, but we do have some solid evidence relating to his life, his reign and his family.

For Jesus, we do not. Unsurprisingly, as Jesus was a nobody in life and Alfred was a King.
So you conveniently left out all the sources for Jesus?

Were you expecting a Jesus coin maybe?

Why I say only those who don't know history would believe the silly Jesus CT.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:51
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
No I'm not trying to do anything. I'm looking at the evidence that's there.

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.
bolly... you are brainwashed, you are not listening to the facts.

the facts are (yet again) that there is no contemporary evidence for jesus existence in any form. you keep hiding behind scholars, "they think this so it must be true" really isnt an argument.

all 'evidence' comes from a biased, tainted, therefore unreliable source. i have no idea why all these people you claim believe he existed and yet again you duck the point about which version of jesus do they think existed.

YOU believers are the ones with the agenda, making very weak excuses, dodging the big questions, ignoring the known facts, in order to prop up your beliefs.

my agenda is wanting to know the truth.... the reality... the only way to discover that is by examining all the unbiased evidence. and there is non.

It's not at all like King Arthur and no credible scholar thinks that.
historians though do accept the figure might be based upon a celtic warlord/tribal leader fighting against the incoming saxon invaders.... they do not believe the story with all the magic, but the possibility of such a character existing.

liken that to the jesus myth and it makes sense.... as ive said, 'jesus' might well be based upon a minor preacher and that would explain the lack of contemporary evidence exactly as it does for arthur. but theres NO evidence for the magical arthur, anmd theres NO evidence for the magical jesus.


Well, we've got coins featuring Alfred minted in his reign.
We have the beautiful Alfred Jewel.
We have documents of the time written about Alfred (e.g. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)

Still plenty of myths/legend surrounding him, but we do have some solid evidence relating to his life, his reign and his family.

For Jesus, we do not. Unsurprisingly, as Jesus was a nobody in life and Alfred was a King.
exactly.... alfred existed, we know that, we even believe that his bones have been discovered from an unmarked grave... science will prove or disprove this.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:02
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
So you conveniently left out all the sources for Jesus?

Were you expecting a Jesus coin maybe?

Why I say only those who don't know history would believe the silly Jesus CT.
Nope.

But we do not have much evidence for the events of Jesus's life. That's just a simple fact. Just two events - baptism, crucifixion - are what's largely agreed on. That may change, in either direction.

But no doubt you'll still, despite accusing others of having an agenda, pursue yours in saying that Jesus was definitely what we all *believe* him to be. Certainly, Jesus - as we know him - is the result of a cult-of-personality. What's actually true is a far-cry away from that (a bit like Arthur or Robin Hood)... Still, they're all good for business. My neighbour home-county of Nottingham would be bust without dear Robin!
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:41
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Nope.

But we do not have much evidence for the events of Jesus's life. That's just a simple fact. Just two events - baptism, crucifixion - are what's largely agreed on. That may change, in either direction.

But no doubt you'll still, despite accusing others of having an agenda, pursue yours in saying that Jesus was definitely what we all *believe* him to be. Certainly, Jesus - as we know him - is the result of a cult-of-personality. What's actually true is a far-cry away from that (a bit like Arthur or Robin Hood)... Still, they're all good for business. My neighbour home-county of Nottingham would be bust without dear Robin!
Edit. Appears you don't know what I did say or are debating me about something I never said.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:49
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Of course the ones who are doing this have an atheist agenda. They aren't respected by academics. There isn't one credible scholar claiming what you're claiming.
Right, and you don't think there's those with a religious agenda who aren't respected by academics?

And I'm sorry, what exactly IS IT that you think I'm claiming?

I know you like to live in your own little bubble where YOU determine what is respected and what isn't, but the historical agreement of Jesus only lies with two events - birth and death. The events of his life aren't verifiable to any degree; they all came long after the fact.

This isn't an "agenda" on my part, it's just fact. There weren't historical records available for common people back then - and that's all he was. And even so, Jesus was born with a common name for the times.

As for all the "magic mystery tour" stuff - well, we don't need historical records to tell us that it's highly improbable - near impossible - for such events to have occurred.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:50
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Right, and you don't think there's those with a religious agenda who aren't respected by academics?

And I'm sorry, what exactly IS IT that you think I'm claiming?

I know you like to live in your own little bubble where YOU determine what is respected and what isn't, but the historical agreement of Jesus only lies with two events - birth and death. The events of his life aren't verifiable to any degree; they all came long after the fact.

This isn't an "agenda" on my part, it's just fact. There weren't historical records available for common people back then - and that's all he was. And even so, Jesus was born with a common name for the times.

As for all the "magic mystery tour" stuff - well, we don't need historical records to tell us that it's highly improbable - near impossible - for such events to have occurred.
I edited my post because you're debating me about something I didn't say. You need to read the posts and then reply.

It's a real problem with the atheist threads. Finding oneself asked to defend something not said, because of the stereotyping.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 14:41
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Nope.

But we do not have much evidence for the events of Jesus's life. That's just a simple fact. Just two events - baptism, crucifixion - are what's largely agreed on. !
is there any actual evidence for those?... certainly theres no contemporary evidence, so the rest is hearsay and conjecture.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 14:58
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
is there any actual evidence for those?... certainly theres no contemporary evidence, so the rest is hearsay and conjecture.
Well, no, but it is simply something that the majority of historians agree on. Which is about as much as we can ask for!

I edited my post because you're debating me about something I didn't say. You need to read the posts and then reply.

It's a real problem with the atheist threads. Finding oneself asked to defend something not said, because of the stereotyping.
Oh, don't be so ridiculous. Honestly, you need to grab a tin-hat.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:06
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Well, no, but it is simply something that the majority of historians agree on. Which is about as much as we can ask for!



Oh, don't be so ridiculous. Honestly, you need to grab a tin-hat.
Edit: You misrepresent what I say.

If you want to go off on a rant about Jesus compared to King Arthur, don't do it in response to my posts. I wrote about what historians can claim and can't claim. And nothing related to what you replied with.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:15
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
bolly... you are brainwashed, you are not listening to the facts.

the facts are (yet again) that there is no contemporary evidence for jesus existence in any form. you keep hiding behind scholars, "they think this so it must be true" really isnt an argument.

all 'evidence' comes from a biased, tainted, therefore unreliable source. i have no idea why all these people you claim believe he existed and yet again you duck the point about which version of jesus do they think existed.

YOU believers are the ones with the agenda, making very weak excuses, dodging the big questions, ignoring the known facts, in order to prop up your beliefs.

my agenda is wanting to know the truth.... the reality... the only way to discover that is by examining all the unbiased evidence. and there is non.



historians though do accept the figure might be based upon a celtic warlord/tribal leader fighting against the incoming saxon invaders.... they do not believe the story with all the magic, but the possibility of such a character existing.

liken that to the jesus myth and it makes sense.... as ive said, 'jesus' might well be based upon a minor preacher and that would explain the lack of contemporary evidence exactly as it does for arthur. but theres NO evidence for the magical arthur, anmd theres NO evidence for the magical

exactly.... alfred existed, we know that, we even believe that his bones have been discovered from an unmarked grave... science will prove or disprove this.
Brainwashed? I'd attribute that to the CTers.

It's like discussing a brain tumor and someone says, ignore all the brain surgeons.

As long as you're going to keep claiming that academic scholarship doesn't count, knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, knowledge of Greek myth and pagan culture don't count, knowledge of sources, then there's nothing more to discuss.

I can't reasonably respond to someone who says he was a minor preacher after I just said he wasn't famous.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:28
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Why I don't usually respond to your posts. Because you misrepresent what I say.

If you want to go off on a rant about Jesus compared to King Arthur, don't do it in response to my posts. I wrote about what historians can claim and can't claim. And nothing related to what you replied with.
Misrepresent, or misinterpret? I'm not being funny bolly, but you can accuse me of 'going off on rants', but it's not always clear what your point exactly is, it tends to be a mish-mash of contradictions, 'most likely's and a complete diversion of common definition. Or just shifting the goalposts and claiming "atheist" conspiracy.

And yes, it is something to do with. But as per, you have to make any stuff you BELIEVE in, the exception. Outside of the rules. Different to any equivalent. Just because.

p.s.. I actually never stated that I didn't think "Jesus" didn't exist. Maybe that's why you deleted your 'atheist agenda' post. I actually *BELIEVE* he may have, I just think his life story was completely embellished.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:57
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Misrepresent, or misinterpret? I'm not being funny bolly, but you can accuse me of 'going off on rants', but it's not always clear what your point exactly is, it tends to be a mish-mash of contradictions, 'most likely's and a complete diversion of common definition. Or just shifting the goalposts and claiming "atheist" conspiracy.

And yes, it is something to do with. But as per, you have to make any stuff you BELIEVE in, the exception. Outside of the rules. Different to any equivalent. Just because.

p.s.. I actually never stated that I didn't think "Jesus" didn't exist. Maybe that's why you deleted your 'atheist agenda' post. I actually *BELIEVE* he may have, I just think his life story was completely embellished.
Misrepresent because I never said anything tin hat. And if you correctly read my posts, you would see that.

Ehrman is an agnostic atheist.

I edited my post because I hadn't the things you were 'replying' to.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:10
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
is there any actual evidence for those?... certainly theres no contemporary evidence, so the rest is hearsay and conjecture.
What do you regard as contemporary evidence ?
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:17
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Misrepresent because I never said anything tin hat. And if you correctly read my posts, you would see that.

Ehrman is an agnostic atheist.

I edited my post because I hadn't the things you were 'replying' to.
Accusing everyone - as often you do - as having some kind of 'atheist agenda', that all religious people need to fear for - VERY tin hat.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28.