DS Forums

 
 

Is this what Jesus looked like?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2017, 10:15
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740

Essentially, all we have is that a Jesus was baptised, and a Jesus was crucified
).
we dont even have that.... thats assumption, theres no evidence for these events.

why dont you subscribe to the jesus myth theory? i dont per se but will not write it off and think its got more credence then many give it credit for.

ive said many times why i think he might have been a construct.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-01-2017, 10:19
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
but anything less of true, according to the bible, invalidates the whole religion... see, the biblical version HAS to be true, if its not, what else isnt true?... the whole religion collapses.

completely different. conspiracy theorists use untruths and bad science to support their claims. im suggesting that as theres no first hand contemporary accounts of this high profile messiah , from any source, then its perfectly feasible to suggest the biblical version of jesus didnt exist. thats not untrue, thats not bad science, thats a simple fact.


who decides whos 'credible'?... no credible historian would accept supernatural events happened.


but WHICH version of jesus?.... the actual biblical messiah, son of god, spiritual entity ? ..... or does ehrman think hes just a high profile preacher, not the son of god, not the magician? you keep ducking that question.



the only think i dont get is why these historians (probably mostly biased) accept jesus existed when theres a huge hole of evidence contemporary to this high profile miracle man..... unless they dont think he was the biblical son of god, but just a normal preacher.




erm.... how much is wrong with this?

he was the saviour, according to the bible, the one we need to get back to god or we perish.. dont you think he HAD to be high profile?

but those making the story up, simply DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING HIM BE ARISTOCRACY. because no such person existed! if he was born to nobility, there WOULD be records of him.... so the construct HAD to be an ordinary person.

if he didnt go unnoticed, where are all the accounts of him from independent sources? roman authorities?

the story goes that he was rejected (seriously? thousands saw him perform miracles but still rejected him?... seriously? thats utterly bonkers!) and killed.... theres not 1 jot of evidence for this, nor that the magician was the one killed.

even if thats true.... so what? the salvation of mankind doesnt rely on whether these roman emporers existed or not (we have coins, statues, inscriptions though).

so what?.... that doesnt mean jesus existed, it means the christian sect had by the time josephus wrote.

hot air..... that cannot be proven, nor that jesus the miracle man existed or if he did perform miracles.

huh, thats convenient, we have the evidence but lost it, its here honest.... yeah right. it does not explain why theres nothing wrote, mentioned, accounted for, for 30 years after the event. this huge gap has no satisfactory explaination, theres no reason why this should be. unless of course he didnt exist and was a later fabrication.



more waffle... this means, it proves, its evidence for - absolutely nothing.



how strange..... youd chose josephus who doesnt mention jesus, over paul?...

josephus, anyone, has not got any more evidence then we have. he could not prove anything , the bottom line is that there is no contemporary evidence for jesus, nothing, not 1 jot, and all early 'evidence' is from a biased source.

you will not ever agree that jesus might not have existed, you want, you need, to believe he did. but it cannot be proven, by anyone, therefore its perfectly reasonable to suggest he didnt, and the whole religion is a construct.
Your posts have the scent of conspiracy theory when you use terms like "the construct had to be."

Or something deliberately done to fool people. Like conspiring to put actors in the Boston Marathon.

Why do you say Josephus didn't mention Jesus, when he clearly did? As "Jesus, who was said to be the messiah."

I think I said the last time, it would be the last time I would explain that there is no contemporary physical evidence for Jesus, but that's not the way real historians (as opposed to random persons hostile to Christianity) draw their conclusions.

And for the life of me, I can't see how you can determine what Christianity rises and falls on, if you aren't Christian.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:21
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
You called Jesus a nobody. He was far from that.

He was reputed to have healed the sick. If he didn't really heal the sick, then he would be an imposter or trickster. Yet there is nothing in Jesus' recorded behavior or teachings that make us think he was a trickster. Rather, a sincere and genuine person. A remarkable preacher. Not incongruous to think he was connected to healing. We have unexplained healing in our own time, via placebo.

There is no Robin Hood. If there was, he was a far cry from the Robin Hood we know.

We don't have any reason to think that Jesus was a far cry from how he was observed to be.

Hitler didn't do anything that any despot couldn't do, with enough military power. He was a little man hiding his own failure.

Can't see anything in your comparisons that rings true.
what part of 'there is no contemporary evidence for jesus' do you not understand? theres nothing at all to support this biblical characters existence, and that is a fact.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:22
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
what part of 'there is no contemporary evidence for jesus' do you not understand? theres nothing at all to support this biblical characters existence, and that is a fact.
I think I said the last time, and now another time after that, it would be the last time I would explain that there is no contemporary physical evidence for Jesus, but that's not the way real historians (as opposed to random persons hostile to Christianity) draw their conclusions.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:25
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
we dont even have that.... thats assumption, theres no evidence for these events.

why dont you subscribe to the jesus myth theory? i dont per se but will not write it off and think its got more credence then many give it credit for.

ive said many times why i think he might have been a construct.
By 'all we have', I essentially mean by way of the general historical consensus. They're the two things that seem to be agreed on - but we've often discovered later on that such things were incorrect. I know there is talk of Jesus surviving the crucifixion too (perpetuated in Islamic belief, if I recall correctly).

My own reasons for not subscribing is that I don't think it's improbable that there was a Jesus who proclaimed himself the messiah or prophet, only because we know of many other less-known people of that age who did as well, each with their own followers. So to me it doesn't seem unreasonable that there was a Jesus with followers - and it was with the followers that the embellishment and 'legend' began.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:26
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Your posts have the scent of conspiracy theory when you use terms like "the construct had to be."

Or something deliberately done to fool people. Like conspiring to put actors in the Boston Marathon..
The very same could be said for your posts.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:26
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Except you have no evidence of what was embellished or not. Just your opinion. While being opposed to historians you don't like, having their opinions.

There's no conspiracy in my posts at all. Everything I've said has been backed up by historians including atheist ones. What a bizarre comment.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:27
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740

I think I said the last time, it would be the last time I would explain that there is no contemporary physical evidence for Jesus, but that's not the way real historians (as opposed to random persons hostile to Christianity) draw their conclusions.

And for the life of me, I can't see how you can determine what Christianity rises and falls on, if you aren't Christian.
historians do not make things up then present them as facts.

some historians might believe jesus existed, not 1 can present it as a fact.

you still dont identify which version of jesus historians think existed..

of course i can decide what christianity rises and falls on... it tells us in the bible. you dont have to be a christian to read that
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:27
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
I think I said the last time, and now another time after that, it would be the last time I would explain that there is no contemporary physical evidence for Jesus, but that's not the way real historians (as opposed to random persons hostile to Christianity) draw their conclusions.
"...hostile to Christianity".

Proves my point about your hypocrisy in regards to conspiracy.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:28
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Except you have no evidence of what was embellished or not. Just your opinion. While being opposed to historians you don't like, having their opinions.

There's no conspiracy in my posts at all. Everything I've said has been backed up by historians including atheist ones. What a bizarre comment.
...And the hypocrisy sonar sounds once more: "historians you don't like"
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:29
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Hopefully the last time I will say that historians don't deal in proof, mushy.

They deal in probabilities.

And most credible historians looked at the evidence and concluded that Jesus was a historical figure.

If you have evidence that the historians were wrong, then the burden shifts to you to show how they were wrong.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:33
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
By 'all we have', I essentially mean by way of the general historical consensus. They're the two things that seem to be agreed on - but we've often discovered later on that such things were incorrect. I know there is talk of Jesus surviving the crucifixion too (perpetuated in Islamic belief, if I recall correctly).

My own reasons for not subscribing is that I don't think it's improbable that there was a Jesus who proclaimed himself the messiah or prophet, only because we know of many other less-known people of that age who did as well, each with their own followers. So to me it doesn't seem unreasonable that there was a Jesus with followers - and it was with the followers that the embellishment and 'legend' began.
fair play

Except you have no evidence of what was embellished or not. Just your opinion. While being opposed to historians you don't like, having their opinions.

There's no conspiracy in my posts at all. Everything I've said has been backed up by historians including atheist ones. What a bizarre comment.
no serious historian, scholar, scientist, person, believes in supernatural events as described and attributed to jesus in the bible. that IS evidence of embellishment.

hiding behind historians again yawn... historians cannot prove jesus existed, a silence that screams presents the facts, nothing there can be disproven and as such it makes a compelling, reasoned, argument for jesus being a total construct.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:33
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Hopefully the last time I will say that historians don't deal in proof.

They deal in probabilities.

And most credible historians looked at the evidence and concluded that Jesus was a historical figure.

If you have evidence that the historians were wrong, then the burden shifts to you to show how they were wrong.
....Am I speaking another language? Only, I seem to have to keep repeating myself that I do not deny (a) Jesus exists.

You seem to believe - wrongly - that because the consensus is that Jesus exists, that it automatically assumes everything believed about him is true. That is most certainly not the case.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:36
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Hopefully the last time I will say that historians don't deal in proof, mushy.

They deal in probabilities.

And most credible historians looked at the evidence and concluded that Jesus was a historical figure.

If you have evidence that the historians were wrong, then the burden shifts to you to show how they were wrong.
but how can the existence of jesus be 'probable' when theres no evidence for it?

and WHICH version of jesus do they think is probable? you still dont answer that question.

a silence that screams presents the evidence, or lack of it. given the facts presented there, i cannot understand why jesus existence in any form can be accepted by anyone (unbiased).
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:38
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
All but a few fringe scholars think Jesus existed as a historical figure.

So it's not who I like or don't like.

They can't speak as to whether Jesus did miracles or not. That's beyond the scope of historians.

Yet we have miracles in our own day, based on belief. So not far fetched that he was connected to some miracles.

From all accounts he was a remarkable person and a remarkable preacher. As I see it he did not claim he was the Son of God.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:39
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
...

You seem to believe - wrongly - that because the consensus is that Jesus exists, that it automatically assumes everything believed about him is true. That is most certainly not the case.
EXACTLY! thats why he/she wont/cant say which 'version' of jesus they believed probably existed.

it was said long ago that theres a huge difference between believing the biblical son of god existed, to believing a preacher called jesus existed (but not the son of god).
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:40
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
but how can the existence of jesus be 'probable' when theres no evidence for it?

and WHICH version of jesus do they think is probable? you still dont answer that question.

a silence that screams presents the evidence, or lack of it. given the facts presented there, i cannot understand why jesus existence in any form can be accepted by anyone (unbiased).
Mushy how can you not understand it when I explained several times how historians decide what is likely true or not, when physical evidence has been lost over time?

Maybe you should read on this subject and come back.

And not keep quoting from some un-evidenced atheist blog.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:42
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740

From all accounts he was a remarkable person and a remarkable preacher. As I see it he did not claim he was the Son of God.
biased accounts composed many years later...

but if he wasnt the son of god, surely the whole religion collapses! it really doesnt matter whether he claimed it or not, it matters whether he was or not.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:45
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
EXACTLY! thats why he/she wont/cant say which 'version' of jesus they believed probably existed.

it was said long ago that theres a huge difference between believing the biblical son of god existed, to believing a preacher called jesus existed (but not the son of god).
It doesn't have to be one version of Jesus. That's the cliche anti theist battle cry you're raising there. That believers have to share the same version of Jesus.

They do not.

Jesus can be the son of God as we are all the sons of God.. Just a more perfected example. He said himself that his disciples could do greater things than he did. That only God had knowledge of the coming kingdom.

You can't tell people what to believe or not believe. Sorry about that.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:45
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Mushy how can you not understand it when I explained several times how historians decide what is likely true or not, when physical evidence has been lost over time?

Maybe you should read on this subject and come back.

And not keep quoting from some un-evidenced atheist blog.
because theres no evidence from contemporary or unbiased sources.. thats why i dont undrstand why historians can declare jesus existed. the 'evidence' is from biased sources and as such is dodgy.

un-evidenced blog?.... its a blog that presents the facts. unbiased, cold hard facts.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:45
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
All but a few fringe scholars think Jesus existed as a historical figure.

So it's not who I like or don't like.

They can't speak as to whether Jesus did miracles or not. That's beyond the scope of historians.

Yet we have miracles in our own day, based on belief. So not far fetched that he was connected to some miracles.

From all accounts he was a remarkable person and a remarkable preacher. As I see it he did not claim he was the Son of God.
http://christianity.stackexchange.co...the-son-of-god

Well people seem to think he did.

I responded to the perception of 'miracles' in the other thread.

If then, you take extraordinary events as being possible 'cos of miracles', then there's any number of implausible events and stories you must also believe to be credible - e.g. Mohammed's splitting of the moon?

"Remarkable teacher and preacher" - that IS personal opinion, not historical. There may have been any number of preachers/teachers and self-proclaimed messiahs that could be considered 'remarkable' in that age - it just so happens that Jesus attracted the most after his death, decades to centuries after.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:48
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Not going to digress to the favorite subject here of bashing Islam.

I was referring to the likelihood that Jesus was connected to healing.

But that historians cannot say that he certainly was. They can only speak to his reputation for healing.

Nor can they say, as you imply, that Jesus did not do healing. That's just an atheist opinion. No better than any garden variety opinion.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:48
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
Mushy how can you not understand it when I explained several times how historians decide what is likely true or not, when physical evidence has been lost over time?

Maybe you should read on this subject and come back.

And not keep quoting from some un-evidenced atheist blog.
And another strike from la grande cloche de l'hypocrisie echoes...
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:49
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
It doesn't have to be one version of Jesus. That's the cliche anti theist battle cry you're raising there. That believers have to share the same version of Jesus.

They do not.

Jesus can be the son of God as we are all the sons of God.. Just a more perfected example. He said himself that his disciples could do greater things than he did. That only God had knowledge of the coming kingdom.

You can't tell people what to believe or not believe. Sorry about that.
you downplay your saviour....

thats just woolly nonsense, you cant have it both ways..... either the biblical jesus is 100% accurate and true, or its not, and if its not the religion collapses. no fudges, no excuses, its as black and white as that.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:49
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
I don't downplay Jesus. I look to his own words.

You just want to hold people to some non existent 100% that isn't there for atheists. Atheist is just a lack of belief, no proof.

The old double standard.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31.