|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#451 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
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... |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#452 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#453 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Deflecting again!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#454 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Just admit that you either can't answer, or you won't answer due to the answer being inconvenient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#455 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Okay I take it your aren't going to give sources or links then.
Bye now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#456 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,692
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#457 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#458 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
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.
Nor thinking that we have all the answers in this age. |
|
|
|
|
|
#459 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
I assume it's back to ignoring certain posters in order to avoid answering difficult questions, then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#460 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
Quote:
Jesus was not a mythological figure like King Arthur, nor a nobody. Quote:
King Arthur is mythological. Jesus was not. Quote:
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...
Quote:
Not to mention that Josephus never met Jesus, nor was witness to anything that Jesus supposedly did...
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#461 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#462 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
Historians rarely meet the people they write about As said - Quote:
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. 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. Quote:
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. 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). |
|
|
|
|
|
#463 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#464 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
If you don't believe that God exists it's not difficult to dismiss the miracles.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#465 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
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 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. Quote:
Mushy, what you don't get is that it's totally illogical to ask me to refute the possibility that Jesus didn't exist.
Quote:
In future there will be the possibility that you and I didn't exist. Or the possibility that we are computer simulations. 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! 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#466 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#467 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#468 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,190
|
Quote:
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 Before it was manipulated to suit corrupt agendas, could it have been genuinely spiritually beneficial? |
|
|
|
|
|
#469 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
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? Quote:
Indeed.
Before it was manipulated to suit corrupt agendas, could it have been genuinely spiritually beneficial? As for "spiritually beneficial" - depends on what you define as 'spiritual'. Laughter, beauty and creativity are my spiritual fulfilments, no religion required. |
|
|
|
|
|
#470 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#471 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#472 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
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.
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. 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 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. you cannot counter the points made in my last post. [quote] Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#473 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,190
|
Quote:
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. Not that I'm an atheist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#474 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
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. 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... |
|
|
|
|
|
#475 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
God forbid!
Not that I'm an atheist.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. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25.



