• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Is this what Jesus looked like?
<<
<
19 of 22
>>
>
noodkleopatra
02-01-2017
Go on, give your opinion then! Instead of deflecting.

p.s. The line of "this discussion is about..." is worn and tired. You wouldn't say it if it wasn't an attempt to avoid answering. The discussion was actually about what Jesus looked like, but quelle surprise, the conversation moved on...
bollywood
02-01-2017
I would say it if you are pivoting away from providing evidence and links I asked for.

So..links or no links? Your sources?

Or is it just your personal opinion that Jesus was like Robin Hood?
noodkleopatra
02-01-2017
Deflecting again!!!!
noodkleopatra
02-01-2017
Just admit that you either can't answer, or you won't answer due to the answer being inconvenient.
bollywood
02-01-2017
Okay I take it your aren't going to give sources or links then.

Bye now.
barbeler
02-01-2017
I'm sure most of these ancient texts and gospels were written with the best intent, but it highlights the stupidity of following them rigidly when they include supposedly factual statements, incorrectly made at the time through lack of scientific knowledge.
noodkleopatra
02-01-2017
I asked for your opinion first, bolly.

But if you need links as to why I find stories of walking on water and feeding 5000 with a few fish and loaves of bread as implausible as what is attributed to Robin Hood, then I can only assume you're desperate to avoid answering.

Congratulations from upgrading from deflection to straight-up running away.
bollywood
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by barbeler:
“I'm sure most of these ancient texts and gospels were written with the best intent, but it highlights the stupidity of following them rigidly when they include supposedly factual statements, incorrectly made at the time through lack of scientific knowledge.”

I don't think anyone is recommending following them rigidly, barbeler. Nor rejecting them rigidly.

Nor thinking that we have all the answers in this age.
noodkleopatra
02-01-2017
I assume it's back to ignoring certain posters in order to avoid answering difficult questions, then?
SULLA
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“
Jesus was not a mythological figure like King Arthur, nor a nobody.”

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“
King Arthur is mythological. Jesus was not.
”

The majority of literature about Arthur is mythological. I believe that he was a real person

Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“Are you sure about that? Do you have any sources for that claim? I'm not saying you're wrong, but as far as I was aware, the Romans were quite keen on recording their history, as were the Ancient Greeks...”

So what is the earliest Roman record for these people ?

Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“Not to mention that Josephus never met Jesus, nor was witness to anything that Jesus supposedly did...”

Historians rarely meet the people they write about

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“No one has said he did meet Jesus. But Josephus was a historian and an aristocrat, who didn't mention 99% of the people who lived in Palestine. Yet he mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, who was thought to be the messiah. That shows that Jesus' reputation had spread by the time of Josephus.”

He had probably read at least one of the gospels

Conclusion.

Jesus was was an historical figure.

Was he more than that? This is where faith comes in. If you don't believe that God exists it's not difficult to dismiss the miracles.
bollywood
02-01-2017
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“The majority of literature about Arthur is mythological. I believe that he was a real person

So what is the earliest Roman record for these people ?

Historians rarely meet the people they write about

He had probably read at least one of the gospels

Conclusion.

Jesus was was an historical figure.

Was he more than that? This is where faith comes in. If you don't believe that God exists it's not difficult to dismiss the miracles.”

Or if Josephus had not, he was familiar with Jesus' reputation and what was being said about him.

Eubenius wrote about Papias, who talked to people who knew the disciples. In this day and age it would be like knowing someone who was at 9/11.

I agree that if you don't believe in God or spirit, then miracles will not make sense.

Reading Jesus' teachings alone would make it clear why people would want to follow him.
noodkleopatra
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“
Historians rarely meet the people they write about”

No, but they do use contemporary sources - this is the problem. There were none.

As said -

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Or if Josephus had not, he was familiar with Jesus' reputation and what was being said about him.

Eubenius wrote about Papias, who talked to people who knew the disciples. In this day and age it would be like knowing someone who was at 9/11.”

We have 'reputation' (opinion - do we really believe that's never embellished, biased or inaccurate?!), and then with that, someone who wrote about someone who talked to people about the disciples.

Which far be it from being like someone knowing someone who was at 9/11, would be someone writing about someone who talked to people who knew people at 9/11. Also ignoring that we have contemporary records of 9/11, and that (I assume) all of us here that might write about 9/11 were alive at the time of 9/11, and can recall it.

Very inaccurate comparison there.

Originally Posted by SULLA:
“
Conclusion.

Jesus was was an historical figure.

Was he more than that? This is where faith comes in. If you don't believe that God exists it's not difficult to dismiss the miracles.”

I totally agree with you, and respect you for saying it so frankly. I've never denied his existence (despite accusations by others here that I have), but everything that comes with it (and I've stated before that I admire the character of Jesus, although I scrutinise/question his reported teachings and views). That is faith - creating a difference between Jesus of History and Jesus of Theology. One requires plausibility, the other requires - as you have said - faith.

Which is fine - I have my own, equally as idealised version of Jesus (the tolerant, free-spirit, peace-loving, accepting version, whom I expect did fall in love and maybe marry, who wouldn't approve of modern capitalism nor the mainstream Churches as they are), and that's faith (or at least hope and bias) too.

Like Arthur or Robin Hood, it's nice to believe and idealise and there's no harm in that - as long as you know that is exactly what it is.

In regards to miracles, well yes, it easier to dismiss if you do not see evidence for miracles, but it's also easy to dismiss miracles when you're involved in selection of miracles (e.g. yes, this miracle happened, no that miracle didn't happen), based on the faith you subscribe to, or which parts of the gospel you take as truth.

I see it no more plausible that Jesus walked on water than Mohammed split the moon. A theological question, surely, and one that apparently makes some people so uncomfortable that they have to 'maturely' result to deflection and then finger-in-the-ear 'la la la, I can't hear you' (hardly in the spirit of the scholars they claim to respect).
noodkleopatra
03-01-2017
Interesting article on Big Think about scholars and Jesus:

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/a-g...tence-of-jesus

Also states many different theories around Jesus, including an articulation of my view - a historical figure who became mythicised, as well as those (like mushy) who may subscribe to the Christ Myth theory.

But certainly, isn't as clear cut as some would like to report it to be.
bollywood
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“If you don't believe that God exists it's not difficult to dismiss the miracles.”

I should add Sulla, that there are some researchers who think science will understand miracles eventually. So miracles are not necessarily implausible, then.

Just inexplicable to us at this time. Although we think our ourselves as enlightened related to people the past, we are probably still in the dark ages of what we can do.
mushymanrob
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Then you are agnostic about Jesus existing?

Because you've tried (unsuccessfully) to make a strong case that he did NOT exist and was constructed.

One article from a biased blog isn't evidence that all the scholars are wrong and you're right.

If you claim Jesus was constructed, you need evidence.

Where is your evidence. Who constructed him and how did they do it?

Who lied?”

i said many pages ago im 50/50 about him existing (as a character the biblical bloke is based on) and him not existing at all....

i do NOT in any way believe in the biblical magician.

ive clarified my position, why dont you clarify which version all these historians think existed?

how can i produce evidence jesus was a construct?... well i look at the ACTUAL FACTS... which is what a silence that screams does. you will ignore it because you have no reasonable explanation to excuse the evidence, or lack of it, a silence that screams highlights.

given a silence that screams presents the known, unbiased, facts then historians MUST conclude that in all probability he didnt exist. biased historians and even the unbiased ones start from a position of believing he existed in the first place... this is the problem... they accept the early biblical references and the later accounts that were based on early biblical accounts.

but it cannot be assumed he existed, you HAVE to strip away all the assumptions and conjecture.... THATS what a silence that screams does, and uncomfortably for you, it leaves the very existence of jesus in serious doubt.

can this religion be a construct?.... of course it can, because by thinking christianity is THE truth, by default all other religions must be false, constructs, proving it can be done.

Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Mushy, what you don't get is that it's totally illogical to ask me to refute the possibility that Jesus didn't exist.”

i know, its like....it IS asking you to recant your religion. you and others arent going to do that, so will argue endlessly using bad evidence, stretched points, assumption and conjecture all frim heavily biased pov to ignore the real facts.

Quote:
“In future there will be the possibility that you and I didn't exist. Or the possibility that we are computer simulations.

That is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Quite different though from your claim that Jesus was a construct, a deliberate invention.

Isn't it.”

here you go again, lowering jesus to that of us! IT DOESNT MATTER WHETHER WE EXIST OR NOT... the future of all mankind doesnt depend on us!

its absolutely crucial to your religion that not only did jesus exist, but WAS the magician the bible depicts.

the very fact that we are debating whether jesus existed or not proves he totally failed as the saviour of mankind to make a big enough impact , whilst 'creation' 'gods' known work is quite clear, unambiguous, precise.

you ask for proof on christianity being a construct, id cite the inaccuracy, contradiction, of the bible (supposed to be gods word) vs 'creation' - the natural world. we know the natural world exists , we can see it, examine it, explore it, understand its intricacy .

the bible and creation clearly dont have the same author.... pretty damning proof that christianity is a construct id say, then add in the lack of any supporting evidence and its pretty clear that the religion is a construct and believers are deluded.
bollywood
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“i said many pages ago im 50/50 about him existing (as a character the biblical bloke is based on) and him not existing at all....

i do NOT in any way believe in the biblical magician.

ive clarified my position, why dont you clarify which version all these historians think existed?

how can i produce evidence jesus was a construct?... well i look at the ACTUAL FACTS... which is what a silence that screams does. you will ignore it because you have no reasonable explanation to excuse the evidence, or lack of it, a silence that screams highlights.

given a silence that screams presents the known, unbiased, facts then historians MUST conclude that in all probability he didnt exist. biased historians and even the unbiased ones start from a position of believing he existed in the first place... this is the problem... they accept the early biblical references and the later accounts that were based on early biblical accounts.

but it cannot be assumed he existed, you HAVE to strip away all the assumptions and conjecture.... THATS what a silence that screams does, and uncomfortably for you, it leaves the very existence of jesus in serious doubt.

can this religion be a construct?.... of course it can, because by thinking christianity is THE truth, by default all other religions must be false, constructs, proving it can be done.



i know, its like....it IS asking you to recant your religion. you and others arent going to do that, so will argue endlessly using bad evidence, stretched points, assumption and conjecture all frim heavily biased pov to ignore the real facts.



here you go again, lowering jesus to that of us! IT DOESNT MATTER WHETHER WE EXIST OR NOT... the future of all mankind doesnt depend on us!

its absolutely crucial to your religion that not only did jesus exist, but WAS the magician the bible depicts.

the very fact that we are debating whether jesus existed or not proves he totally failed as the saviour of mankind to make a big enough impact , whilst 'creation' 'gods' known work is quite clear, unambiguous, precise.

you ask for proof on christianity being a construct, id cite the inaccuracy, contradiction, of the bible (supposed to be gods word) vs 'creation' - the natural world. we know the natural world exists , we can see it, examine it, explore it, understand its intricacy .

the bible and creation clearly dont have the same author.... pretty damning proof that christianity is a construct id say, then add in the lack of any supporting evidence and its pretty clear that the religion is a construct and believers are deluded.”

Really mushy you refer to waffling but it's you who waffle. First you deny Jesus existed, then you're 50/50 about his existing, then you go back to wanting researchers to conclude he didn't exist based on something you found on the internet. That's not clarifying your position, it's confusing people.

Tbh I'm not interested in what non-historians think off the top of their heads about whether Jesus existed or not. Scholars' results are based on years, months, weeks and days of research.

I'm not debating whether Jesus existed. I'm pointing out that there are junk conspiracy theories out there, and what you are referencing, is one of them. This is some new agey thing a few atheists came up with. No one thought Jesus didn't exist during his time or the centuries after.

There are contradictions in the Gospels, but there are other things that are consistent and we do know about Jesus. Historians may differ on Jesus, but I don't know one who thinks Christianity wasn't inspired by him.

You can't just set rules for a religion. Miracles were probably a way Jesus got people's attention when he was first preaching. Today you won't find many believers worrying about the miracles, because they're inexplicable. Only atheists worry about such.

It's just misinformation about believers that some atheists swallow. And I can guess the source of it because some atheists sing from the same hymnal.

Just saying that Jesus failed is an utterly senseless comment.
bollywood
03-01-2017
Mushy, you wouldn't have happened to read this tweet, would you:

Richard DawkinsVerified account
‏@RichardDawkins
"Why I think Jesus didn't exist: a historian explains the evidence that changed his mind."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc&app=desktop … Good, scholarly lecture.


And the following tweets that no scholar takes that lecturer seriously. Old ignorant Richard, now a Biblical historian, LOL.

By the way, mushy, Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater works than he did. So obviously what he did wasn't something he claimed only for himself. No lowering of him to say what he said in his own words.
anne_666
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by Dotheboyshall:
“AN ancient set of lead tablets showing the earliest portrait of Jesus Christ have proved to be around 2,000 years old, according to experts.

The metal “pages”, held together like a ring binder, were found in Jordan in around 2008 and make reference to Christ and his disciples.


The tablets suggest that Christ was not starting his own religion, but restoring a thousand year old tradition from the time of King David.
And the God he worshipped was both male and female.
Well that could put the cat among the pigeons”

Indeed.
Before it was manipulated to suit corrupt agendas, could it have been genuinely spiritually beneficial?
noodkleopatra
03-01-2017
Bolly, instead of reverting back to Dawkins, who you perceive as "King of Atheists", perhaps you could actually answer points levied at you instead of hiding away behind pathetic deflection, LOL! (to borrow a phrase from you).

And you don't know what Jesus said, you just BELIEVE what you have been told he's said. That doesn't answer any point raised (as per). LOL.


"Evolutionists have a blind-faith religion with a fictional story they impose on whatever fossil evidence they find."
- Ken Ham, LOL

'Cause Ken Ham and Bolly... One of the same, obviously, because they're both Christian.

Going to address why you're ignoring me for asking about miracles? Or just continue behaving like a child who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas?

Originally Posted by anne_666:
“Indeed.
Before it was manipulated to suit corrupt agendas, could it have been genuinely spiritually beneficial?”

You see, that tablet stuff IS interesting - should it be from the relevant time period. Certainly sheds new light, raises questions, and is historically interesting and worthy of debate and scrutiny.

As for "spiritually beneficial" - depends on what you define as 'spiritual'. Laughter, beauty and creativity are my spiritual fulfilments, no religion required.
noodkleopatra
03-01-2017
Oh, and not to mention that up until the 1900s, people thought the Gospels were historically factual in mainstream historical scholarly opinion. Not only does that show that historical opinion does indeed change (despite certain people who think they don't), but also how times have changed!
noodkleopatra
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Really mushy you refer to waffling but it's you who waffle. First you deny Jesus existed, then you're 50/50 about his existing, then you go back to wanting researchers to conclude he didn't exist based on something you found on the internet. That's not clarifying your position, it's confusing people.

Tbh I'm not interested in what non-historians think off the top of their heads about whether Jesus existed or not. Scholars' results are based on years, months, weeks and days of research.

I'm not debating whether Jesus existed. I'm pointing out that there are junk conspiracy theories out there, and what you are referencing, is one of them. This is some new agey thing a few atheists came up with. No one thought Jesus didn't exist during his time or the centuries after.

There are contradictions in the Gospels, but there are other things that are consistent and we do know about Jesus. Historians may differ on Jesus, but I don't know one who thinks Christianity wasn't inspired by him.

You can't just set rules for a religion. Miracles were probably a way Jesus got people's attention when he was first preaching. Today you won't find many believers worrying about the miracles, because they're inexplicable. Only atheists worry about such.

It's just misinformation about believers that some atheists swallow. And I can guess the source of it because some atheists sing from the same hymnal.

Just saying that Jesus failed is an utterly senseless comment.”

.....
mushymanrob
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Really mushy you refer to waffling but it's you who waffle. First you deny Jesus existed, then you're 50/50 about his existing, then you go back to wanting researchers to conclude he didn't exist based on something you found on the internet. That's not clarifying your position, it's confusing people.”

you show your inability to follow a thread.

what you posted above is a lie. ive been consistent throughout on what i believe and dont.

Quote:
“Tbh I'm not interested in what non-historians think off the top of their heads about whether Jesus existed or not. Scholars' results are based on years, months, weeks and days of research.”

..... but all come from a pre disposed position that he did exist, without examining the real evidence. and theres non.,.

Quote:
“I'm not debating whether Jesus existed. I'm pointing out that there are junk conspiracy theories out there, and what you are referencing, is one of them. This is some new agey thing a few atheists came up with. No one thought Jesus didn't exist during his time or the centuries after.”

already addressed that...

Quote:
“There are contradictions in the Gospels, but there are other things that are consistent and we do know about Jesus. Historians may differ on Jesus, but I don't know one who thinks Christianity wasn't inspired by him.

You can't just set rules for a religion. Miracles were probably a way Jesus got people's attention when he was first preaching. Today you won't find many believers worrying about the miracles, because they're inexplicable. Only atheists worry about such.

It's just misinformation about believers that some atheists swallow. And I can guess the source of it because some atheists sing from the same hymnal.

Just saying that Jesus failed is an utterly senseless comment.”

bored of this, see my last post above, then stop the waffle, accept the points i make even if you dont agree with them, because your waffle is just going around in circles.

you cannot counter the points made in my last post.

[quote]
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Mushy, you wouldn't have happened to read this tweet, would you:

Richard DawkinsVerified account
‏@RichardDawkins
"Why I think Jesus didn't exist: a historian explains the evidence that changed his mind."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc&app=desktop … Good, scholarly lecture.


And the following tweets that no scholar takes that lecturer seriously. Old ignorant Richard, now a Biblical historian, LOL.

By the way, mushy, Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater works than he did. So obviously what he did wasn't something he claimed only for himself. No lowering of him to say what he said in his own words.”

nope i didnt read that.

hide behind your biased scholars...its all you do... but they, and you, are deliberately ignoring the actual facts the silence that screams highlights.... to discredit asts, you need to provide EVIDENCE that what its says is wrong..... thats not opinion, but evidence, provide the writings or links to the writings that PROVE asts is wrong.

but you cant.... because asts is true.... you cant bluster and spit all you want, but it remains the truth, which is more then can be said for the bible.
anne_666
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“Bolly, instead of reverting back to Dawkins, who you perceive as "King of Atheists", perhaps you could actually answer points levied at you instead of hiding away behind pathetic deflection, LOL! (to borrow a phrase from you).

And you don't know what Jesus said, you just BELIEVE what you have been told he's said. That doesn't answer any point raised (as per). LOL.


"Evolutionists have a blind-faith religion with a fictional story they impose on whatever fossil evidence they find."
- Ken Ham, LOL

'Cause Ken Ham and Bolly... One of the same, obviously, because they're both Christian.

Going to address why you're ignoring me for asking about miracles? Or just continue behaving like a child who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas?



You see, that tablet stuff IS interesting - should it be from the relevant time period. Certainly sheds new light, raises questions, and is historically interesting and worthy of debate and scrutiny.

As for "spiritually beneficial" - depends on what you define as 'spiritual'. Laughter, beauty and creativity are my spiritual fulfilments, no religion required.”

God forbid! Not that I'm an atheist.
noodkleopatra
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“hide behind your biased scholars...its all you do... but they, and you, are deliberately ignoring the actual facts the silence that screams highlights.... to discredit asts, you need to provide EVIDENCE that what its says is wrong..... thats not opinion, but evidence, provide the writings or links to the writings that PROVE asts is wrong.

but you cant.... because asts is true.... you cant bluster and spit all you want, but it remains the truth, which is more then can be said for the bible.”

It's rather typical.

When mainstream Science discredits the things she believes in, she screams conspiracy and 'Atheist agenda', and quotes dodgy blogs and discredited theories. It's somewhat ironic now that she should be talking about 'the majority' and 'credibility'.

Yes. It's the Atheist 'agenda'. Not the 'agenda' of anyone else...
bollywood
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“God forbid! Not that I'm an atheist.”

But I haven't seen that you deny what most historians think.

Or disingenuously try to link believers to fundamentalists as is the atheist default.

I have no problem with people criticizing things about religion that are appropriate.
<<
<
19 of 22
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map