|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#426 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
I can only say I agree with Ehrman when he says that atheists who go on about the Gospels not being reliable, are as bad as the religious fundamentalists who take everything in the Bible literally.
There is no reason, for example, for a scholar to think that Luke lied about the earlier writings (now missing) about Jesus. There is no reason to assume that the early writers, like Paul, were constructing things just to fool people and convince them of something not true. This was their perception of Jesus. If you, like mushy, claim these things were constructed, then you need to show evidence they were. Otherwise I don't have to accept them. You can be in denial that a person such as Jesus could exist. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#427 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
No I agree with Ehrman about contradictions in the Bible.
That has nothing to do with Jesus being a deliberate construct though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#428 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Or that all the implausibilities - even the physical and biological impossibilities - are true, but not when it is Mohammed splitting the moon.
No doubt you also believe that all the other messiahs and saviours of the age were indeed what they claimed to be? |
|
|
|
|
|
#429 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
I'm not going to digress into other fields.
Sticking with this one. That's another subject entirely. |
|
|
|
|
|
#430 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
No I agree with Ehrman about contradictions in the Bible.
That has nothing to do with Jesus being a deliberate construct though. But sure, it's all just coincidence that much of the story - Virgin Birth, resurrection, for example - can also be found in other stories and theologies before Jesus. And it isn't just contradictions - it's implausible and inaccuracies in the Bible. They do not speak well for the Gospels credibility. As pointed out by most historians. |
|
|
|
|
|
#431 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
I'm not going to digress into other fields.
Sticking with this one. That's another subject entirely. |
|
|
|
|
|
#432 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Deflecting when I agree there are contradictions in the Bible?
Where did I say that everything in the Bible is literally true? Why are you bringing up other topics than what history can reasonably conclude or not conclude about Jesus? Is that because you lack evidence that he was just an ordinary man in Palestine? |
|
|
|
|
|
#433 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
No, noodkle, it's about not changing the subject when I made it clear there's evidence from later writings that Jesus did exist.
And that you have no evidence that his works were embellished, or which ones were. (Other than what I already pointed out). Only your opinion, no more valid than anyone else's. You are the one doing "look over there." Changing the subject to another religion because you didn't get far with this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
#434 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
Deflecting when I agree there are contradictions in the Bible?
Where did I say I agree that everything in the Bible is literally true? Why are you bringing up other topics than what history can reasonably conclude or not conclude about Jesus? Is that because you lack evidence that he was just an ordinary man in Palestine? What makes the story of Jesus and the Bible so different? Do you avoid answering that question because you realise that all you have is a BELIEF in one and not the other? |
|
|
|
|
|
#435 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Sorry bolly, you're completely off the mark and you know it. You won't answer because you can't.
All the implausible, discredited events attributed to Jesus - where did they come from? They either happened or they didn't, and if they didn't, they had to have been invented, no? |
|
|
|
|
|
#436 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Where did I say all the supernatural events are plausible?
I said the healings were plausible. The others are inexplicable. Why they are called miracles. Historians can't rule for miracles or against them. You can have your opinion about miracles, but it is only your opinion. Just like an opinion you would hold about miracles, today. Doesn't make you right. |
|
|
|
|
|
#437 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
So you essentially select which apparent "miracles" (impossible events) you believe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#438 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Where did I say that?
Why are you confusing belief with evidence? This is getting silly. This started out to be about what scholars know, and what research shows. Now you are asking my opinion. Your opinion against my opinion. Means nothing, does it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#439 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
You were the one who insisted that events of Jesus's life were plausible, when clearly, they are not. Now you're avoiding that discussion, because it hit a dead end for you. When extraordinary events are CLAIMED about Jesus - ones that are impossible, implausible if you're being liberal, it does discredit the rest.
Now if these things are impossible and implausible - which we know them to be - then they have to be made up, no? "Constructed" in other words. Which is why it is ONLY his baptism and crucifixion that receives assent from most secular historians. |
|
|
|
|
|
#440 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Yes healings are entirely plausible. As in the 21st Century, we see people healed from pain and disease based entirely on the belief they will be healed.
Other than that, it's all opinion. Scholars have nothing to say about it. Your take on it is just your opinion. Nope, secular writers wrote about the remarkable deeds of Jesus. "Made up" implies falsely constructed and then you have to give evidence of that. Who falsely constructed it and why? What was their motive (when they didn't even know Christianity would "take off")? |
|
|
|
|
|
#441 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
"The reality is that the authors of the books that became the Bible did not know they were producing books that would later be considered scripture, and they probably had no intention of producing scripture." (Ehrman).
So where is this constructing and falsehood? |
|
|
|
|
|
#442 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Nope, 'remarkable' is opinion, and as stated to you numerous times, only two events receive almost universal consent. The rest is divided, which inevitably, means 'secular writers are going to write about it'... Obviously.
Leave healing aside for one moment (if you can possibly), then you're left with lots of other implausible claims about his life. Now if these didn't happen, then clearly they wee constructed, like a great deal of the Christian religion was after his death. Is that not correct? |
|
|
|
|
|
#443 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
The crucification is an important event and historians of the time (1st to 4th Century) wrote about why he was crucified.
His profound effect on his followers can't be denied. There are consistent accounts of his teaching and the emergence of Christianity. Luke who read the earlier writings of Jesus and based Luke on those writings. If you try to say that nothing in the NT is historically true, that's just as bad as the fundamentalists who claim everything is. I have not said that the other events are constructed. Nor did I say they were implausible. But this is opinion, not history. If you're saying they're constructed, then YOU need to say who did it, how and why. Why you keep confusing opinion with scholarship. |
|
|
|
|
|
#444 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
I think rather it is you who is trying to dodge the questions you cannot answer.
Reasons for the crucifixion are debated - look it up. The content of his teachings are debated - look it up. IF you read more than one source (e.g. the author you keep quoting) you might realise this. Still, you have not answered - if the implausible/impossible events of Jesus's life are not true - that is, false - then they are constructed, are they not? Try and actually give an answer to that without poor attempts at deflection. Considering things we know to be implausible or impossible isn't opinion, either. To say it ISN'T impossible - to make an extraordinary assertion or claim - that's what requires evidence, not the other way around. Once again, you do not know where the burden of proof lies. p.s. Once again, you're making incorrect inferences - I never said everything in the NT is false, but it is - according to modern historical opinion - full of inaccuracies, and contradictions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#445 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
p.s. How can the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries be considered "of the time"?!?! Come on, bolly. The accounts of the crucifixion also weren't contemporary - they came decades after. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#446 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
How about you give a link.
Yes, historians who were close enough to have contact with people who knew the disciples. Of the time as opposed to, atheist bloggers writing stuff on the internet without evidence in the 21st Century. Mmmm, who would I trust, those who knew people close the the disciples or fringe bloggers? ![]() I've read a number of sources and Ehrman has an extensive bibliography of sources. What are yours? |
|
|
|
|
|
#447 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Knew the disciples in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century? Seems very implausible. And not eyewitness accounts. Gossip, essentially. Hearsay.
You still haven't answered the question of impossibilities and construction, just more deflection, which says a lot. |
|
|
|
|
|
#448 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
It's okay if you don't understand how historians make conclusions when physical evidence is missing.
Rather like courts do, I assume. Since you mentioned forensics. ![]() Can you just link to your sources. Once again you are asking for my opinion, after disparaging opinion. And even disparaging those with evidence (like Ehrman, who you dislike for some reason). Not sure you are familiar with what he said. You are the one who is supposed to be showing what was constructed, what, how and why. |
|
|
|
|
|
#449 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
You're deflecting again.
It's okay if you can't answer it. I bet most historians could, and in fact, do comment on such things. It's okay if you don't understand how historians come to conclusions, though... |
|
|
|
|
|
#450 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
This is a discussion about academic scholarship if you noticed.
Not about my personal opinion or yours. That I thought you pointed out earlier. I can give you my opinion, but it's neither here nor there related to proving what Jesus did in the way of miracles. Are you going to give the links? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25.





