|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#326 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Accusing everyone - as often you do - as having some kind of 'atheist agenda', that all religious people need to fear for - VERY tin hat.
Had you correctly read what I wrote you would see that your reply was assuming something about believers. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#327 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,277
|
We know what Jesus looks like - he was in an episode of Gavin and Stacey, out with Gavin and his mates for Gavin's stag do. No one likes Jesus, apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#328 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
I don't think everyone. My statement is that what I posted was misrepresented and not for the first time.
Had you correctly read what I wrote you would see that your reply was assuming something about believers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#329 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
One of the most persuasive arguments for Jesus' existence and not as a myth, is that he and his teachings were the opposite of the hero archetype.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#330 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
We know what Jesus looks like - he was in an episode of Gavin and Stacey, out with Gavin and his mates for Gavin's stag do. No one likes Jesus, apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#331 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,277
|
Quote:
If you discount 2 billion people, yeah.
If you're going to try and answer back someone making a joke, it usually helps to actually understand the joke first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#332 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Whoosh!
If you're going to try and answer back someone making a joke, it usually helps to actually understand the joke first. ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#333 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
One of the most persuasive arguments for Jesus' existence and not as a myth, is that he and his teachings were the opposite of the hero archetype.
Used very loosely there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#334 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Like trying to explain why the Boston Marathon wasn't a false flag. Nothing will persuade some.
"Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant." skeptics.forum |
|
|
|
|
|
#335 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
Like trying to explain why the Boston Marathon wasn't a false flag. Nothing will persuade some.
"Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant." skeptics.forum Might be 'misinterpretation' again, but it seems you believe it's 'all or nothing' - that everything we know of "Jesus" is correct, else didn't exist at all. But please, keep talking about 'false flags', and then say that because there's an atypical hero narrative that it somehow proves the story must be true (which it doesn't at all - neither persuasive nor an argument). |
|
|
|
|
|
#336 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Totally the opposite of what I said in my posts, per usual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#337 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
Totally the opposite of what I said in my posts, per usual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#338 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
It's written quite clearly in my post, what historians can and cannot conclude about Jesus.
(Also what Jesus did and didn't say about himself). |
|
|
|
|
|
#339 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Brainwashed? I'd attribute that to the CTers.
It's like discussing a brain tumor and someone says, ignore all the brain surgeons. Quote:
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.
more predictable hiding behind scholars.... still no identifying which version of jesus they believe in .... still no answer to the question 'why do they believe he existed and where do they get their information from'? that puzzles me as theres NO hard evidence.Quote:
I can't reasonably respond to someone who says he was a minor preacher after I just said he wasn't famous.
you dont think a magician who was witnessed by many thousands, whos job it was to be high profile so he could get the most important message to mankind across , wasnt famous? seriously? ![]() of course if jesus wasnt the messiah, the total biblical figure but the story was based on an ordinary character, then he would be a minor figure.... if the biblical magician existed then he certainly would appear in unbiased accounts and contemporary accounts. he doesnt. Quote:
What do you regard as contemporary evidence ?
or letters from some of the thousands that witnessed him, to absent family/friends. there is no reasonable excuse why this high profile magician should go unnoticed in his time and only noticed afterwards by his followers, many years later. - unless he really was a minor figure and the whole biblical myth is based on this nonentity. |
|
|
|
|
|
#340 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
It's written quite clearly in my post, what historians can and cannot conclude about Jesus.
(Also what Jesus did and didn't say about himself). |
|
|
|
|
|
#341 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
..... except theres no brain tumor there.
more predictable hiding behind scholars.... still no identifying which version of jesus they believe in .... still no answer to the question 'why do they believe he existed and where do they get their information from'? that puzzles me as theres NO hard evidence. you dont think a magician who was witnessed by many thousands, whos job it was to be high profile so he could get the most important message to mankind across , wasnt famous? seriously? ![]() of course if jesus wasnt the messiah, the total biblical figure but the story was based on an ordinary character, then he would be a minor figure.... if the biblical magician existed then he certainly would appear in unbiased accounts and contemporary accounts. he doesnt. accounts from his lifetime from an unbiased source..... so roman accounts, documenting or at least mentioning this high profile character that was drawing vast crowds. or letters from some of the thousands that witnessed him, to absent family/friends. there is no reasonable excuse why this high profile magician should go unnoticed in his time and only noticed afterwards by his followers, many years later. - unless he really was a minor figure and the whole biblical myth is based on this nonentity. Or says on the one hand that he was just another person named Jesus and on the other hand that he drew crowds of thousands. Cognitive dissonance. More cognitive dissonance: Do you think all those sources would write about just another citizen called Jesus? No. |
|
|
|
|
|
#342 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Cognitive dissonance or the result of someone else having cognitive dysfunction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#343 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Important to read what is actually said about Jesus, and not distort it into something not said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#344 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
I totally agree... Which is why one shouldn't attribute more to him than can be attributed, which is really, very minimal. Birth and death - at best - and by agreement, rather than accurate record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#345 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
As I posted before (and anyone who read my posts would know this) Jesus was a real historical figure.
He was NOT a mythological figure like King Arthur. Almost all trained scholars agree that Jesus was a preacher and teacher in Jerusalem who was crucified under the reign of Tiberious. As Bart Ehrman said, Jesus was a religious genius. His profound teachings influenced his followers, and by the second Century, we have reports by Pliny the Younger of Christians singing to his name. Flavius Josephus wrote of him that At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the messiah. (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?) |
|
|
|
|
|
#346 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
As I posted before (and anyone who read my posts would know this) Jesus was a real historical figure.
He was NOT a mythological figure like King Arthur. Almost all trained scholars agree that Jesus was a preacher and teacher in Jerusalem who was crucified under the reign of Tiberious. As Bart Ehrman said, Jesus was a religious genius. His profound teachings influenced his followers, and by the second Century, we have reports by Pliny the Younger of Christians singing to his name. Flavius Josephus wrote of him that At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the messiah. (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?) "Religious genius"? That's the historical consensus, is it? Of course not. Nothing more than opinion. What you fail to understand - perhaps due to stubbornness, given that if this was anyone else and not a religious figure, you'd be unlikely to apply such loose allowances - is that what Jesus actually achieved in HIS LIFETIME was not recorded at the time, only after the fact, which makes it highly probable to be inaccurate, embellished and romanticised. He was a nobody. Fact. He didn't take the world - or even the land - by storm in his lifetime. Very few actual facts are known about him. To pretend otherwise, well, that's absolutely naive. Everything recorded about him and his life was recorded post-mortum. That's a very simple but pertinent point that you refuse to acknowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
#347 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quite wrong noodkle and not supported by any credible scholar.
Jesus was not a mythological figure like King Arthur, nor a nobody. Nobodies weren't seen as a threat to Nero. You can't just dismiss the writings of history because you don't like them, to the extent that Jesus was reported to do remarkable deeds. You can't dismiss how Jesus was perceived by others, just because you don't like it. You're essentially just inserting your opinion and go on to accuse trained scholars of having an opinion. Nothing wrong with having a well documented opinion, that Erhman documents much better than you document yours. Of course he didn't take the world by storm in his lifetime. That's what I argued with mushy about. If only you would read the posts correctly before replying to me. And going on about "all or nothing," that is the opposite of my posts and why you misrepresent what I say. |
|
|
|
|
|
#348 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
Quite wrong noodkle and not supported by any credible scholar.
Jesus was not a mythological figure like King Arthur, nor a nobody. Nobodies weren't seen as a threat to Nero. You can't just dismiss the writings of history because you don't like them, to the extent that Jesus was reported to do remarkable deeds. You can't dismiss how Jesus was perceived by others, just because you don't like it. You're essentially just inserting your opinion and go on to accuse trained scholars of having an opinion. Nothing wrong with having a well documented opinion, that Erhman documents much better than you document yours. Of course he didn't take the world by storm in his lifetime. That's what I argued with mushy about. If only you would rea the posts correctly. Jesus WAS a nobody in his lifetime, as in he wasn't particularly famous or extraordinary, HENCE WHY NOTHING WAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM IN HIS LIFETIME. The so-called remarkable deeds were WRITTEN AFTER HIS LIFETIME. The reasons for his crucifixion were recorded AFTER HIS LIFETIME. It is YOU that needs to read posts correctly, and it's absolutely hypocritical of you to accuse others of "adding opinion" when it is what you are famous for when it comes to interpreting Science and History to mould some distorted basis for whatever woo it is you're promoting. WHEN EVENTS ARE RECORDED AFTER THE EVENT - DECADES AFTER IN THIS CASE - IT MAKES THEM UNRELIABLE. Scholars do not agree AT ALL on the events of Jesus life - the only TWO things that seem to have consensus are BIRTH and DEATH. EVEN SO, scholarly opinion on the events of Jesus's life are HIGHLY CONTESTABLE due to VESTED INTERESTS (you'd know all about that) and HISTORICAL BIAS (evidently). Even the reasons for his crucifixion are contested. There's also the problem with the Historicity of Jesus due to what is plausible and what isn't (e.g. prior knowledge of crucifixion) which seems to be a problem for many scholars on the subject because they believe the implausible to be plausible (no surprise there). Also, had you bothered to step outside your bubble and bother to read what I had written, I never said Jesus didn't exist. I acknowledged there was NO actual evidence for Jesus, because, as said before, all evidence we have comes AFTER his lifetime. That's fact. Honestly, if you can't cognate the point with Alfred and Arthur, which was historical inaccuracy and postmortem romanticism, then forget it was ever mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
|
#349 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quite untrue and unscholarly to try to exclude what is written after Jesus' death from reliable sources. There are ways historians determine what is reliable or not.
Not just because you think it's unreliable. Much of history is put together after a person's death. It was not until after Jesus' death that Christians were seen as a threat and persecuted. If you compare Jesus to a mythological figure, you are essentially saying he did not exist. You need to make up your mind about that. Jesus was not famous in his lifetime, but after he was considered martyred, this had a profound effect on his followers. As did his reputation for healing and his remarkable teachings. Myth theory will not rise or fall in the future. It has been overwhelmingly debunked. Reading from wiki alone will not inform you of what is documented about Jesus. I'm the one who said Jesus was not famous in his lifetime. Not sure why you keep arguing that as if I said it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#350 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
Quite untrue and unscholarly to try to exclude what is written after Jesus' death from reliable sources. There are ways historians determine what is reliable or not.
Not just because you think it's unreliable. Much of history is put together after a person's death. It was not until after Jesus' death that Christians were seen as a threat and persecuted. If you compare Jesus to a mythological figure, you are essentially saying he did not exist. You need to make up your mind about that. Jesus was not famous in his lifetime, but after he was considered martyred, this had a profound effect on his followers. As did his reputation for healing and his remarkable teachings. Myth theory will not rise or fall in the future. It has been overwhelmingly debunked. No, I didn't say Jesus didn't exist, you just decided that's what I meant. That's your hang-up, not mine. It's not me who determined what's reliable, it's what historians deem reliable. Surely you're aware of historical bias? Things written after the events can't be considered totally reliable. Hence why there's no universal conclusion on Jesus's life. Yes, history is jigsawed together after death, but usually, with primary sources from the event/lifetime. When your primary sources are written many, many decades later, it can't be considered evident, or totally reliable, only plausible or implausible. This really isn't hard to understand - it's basic. The Jesus story is also corrupted due to centuries of believing gospels to be historically accurate - we now believe this (well, most sane people) not to be the case. As for your last sentence, you can't say that with any certainty. Like Science, what we know of history often changes. As for being famous post-death, well, plenty of legendary stories and characters are created this way, even those based on real people. Doesn't mean such things attributed to them actually happened. A lot of our history - especially to do with monarchs, etc, are entrenched with legendary stories that are widely believed but are most likely embellishments or myths. You can continue to argue all you want, but it is moot - which is why you rely on nitpicking silly things like "comparing him to Arthur means you think this...". It's basic historical scrutiny. But no doubt you're akin to that as you are to science - pick the bits you like and dismiss the rest. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:43.




