|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#476 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
|
It's difficult for a rationalist to suggest Jesus did not exist because pretty soon after the events described; people were willing to die for him. Now that doesn't prove anything of course (Oscar Wilde said that a thing isn't necessarily true because a man dies for it). But it is very difficult to look at the writings of Paul (for whom there is historical evidence) who describes quarrels he had with Peter and James and then say that the personage of Jesus is more likely myth than fact.
But the gospels were written considerably after the event (way after Paul's letters) and definitely not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Actually Luke may have had a hand in his to be fair). To a genuine historian, they are worse than useless. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#477 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
It's difficult for a rationalist to suggest Jesus did not exist because pretty soon after the events described; people were willing to die for him. Now that doesn't prove anything of course (Oscar Wilde said that a thing isn't necessarily true because a man dies for it). But it is very difficult to look at the writings of Paul (for whom there is historical evidence) who describes quarrels he had with Peter and James and then say that the personage of Jesus is more likely myth than fact.
But the gospels were written considerably after the event (way after Paul's letters) and definitely not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Actually Luke may have had a hand in his to be fair). To a genuine historian, they are worse than useless. It's just as wrong to say the Bible is useless historically as it is to say it should be taken literally, We at least can conclude that Paul wouldn't have any reason to construct a lie because he didn't know that what he was writing would be regarded as scripture. There are however many other sources for his existence. Historians can't say whether or not he was the Son of God. Or whether he did miracles. . |
|
|
|
|
|
#478 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
....No, but theologians apparently can. How exactly, who bloody knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#479 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,190
|
Quote:
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. ![]() Apart from a brief interest in the subject of the OP and the possibility of unadulterated reality about Christ emerging, I don't and won't ever have the level of interest in organised religions which would make me interested in or qualified to discuss historians thinking. I also don't have much need to discuss or try to convince others of my own beliefs. Without question, they're just as loopy to atheists. The random use of insult via the fundamentalist default is only to be expected. |
|
|
|
|
|
#480 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
[quote=mushymanrob;85035675]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. ..... but all come from a pre disposed position that he did exist, without examining the real evidence. and theres non.,. already addressed that... 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:
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. A piece that isn't 50/50 but slanted to the non existence of the historical Jesus? That takes Ehrman out of context (because Ehrman doesn't doubt Jesus' existence) and further doesn't deal in facts but conspiracy that someone forged Josephus. Why it's confusing as to what you mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
#481 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Although it is broadly agreed that Josephus's writings were subject to Christian alteration/expansion. But sure, everything written about Jesus in the centuries following his death must be completely accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#482 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#483 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#484 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,086
|
Quote:
It's difficult for a rationalist to suggest Jesus did not exist because pretty soon after the events described; people were willing to die for him. Now that doesn't prove anything of course (Oscar Wilde said that a thing isn't necessarily true because a man dies for it). But it is very difficult to look at the writings of Paul (for whom there is historical evidence) who describes quarrels he had with Peter and James and then say that the personage of Jesus is more likely myth than fact.
But the gospels were written considerably after the event (way after Paul's letters) and definitely not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Actually Luke may have had a hand in his to be fair). To a genuine historian, they are worse than useless. |
|
|
|
|
|
#485 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
Happy new year bolly
![]() Apart from a brief interest in the subject of the OP and the possibility of unadulterated reality about Christ emerging, I don't and won't ever have the level of interest in organised religions which would make me interested in or qualified to discuss historians thinking. I also don't have much need to discuss or try to convince others of my own beliefs. Without question, they're just as loopy to atheists. The random use of insult via the fundamentalist default is only to be expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#486 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
BIB: Where are your sources for stating this? The gospels, even the latest (John's) were writtten within the lifetime of eye-witnesses. Evidence shows that Pauls letters were written only a few years after Jesus' death and already referred to established church creeds. The evidence for the historical Jesus' life and death is actually strong. The gospels are certainly not useless to a genuine historican.
Quote:
"The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; some say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[12][13][14] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[15][16][17][18][19][20]"
- (From Wikipedia, cardinal referencing sin, but the references are there)As for a "few years", more in the region of a few decades, which in itself doesn't make them historically invalid, but of course does raise concerns about reliability and bias, (as well as narrative diversion from the historical). Should also be pointed out that the dating of the gospels doesn't really have definite consensus - again, this is subject to bias, with Christian scholars preferring earlier dates, secular ones tending to prefer later dates, and that of course the gospels were still subject to alteration and written on the basis of rumour (such as stories of Jesus's early life). To a "genuine historian" it seems the consensus is that they're not totally useless, but not totally useful either. The trouble is also that their reliability has been skewed due to the Gospels being seen as factually accurate up until the turn of the 20th century, which as is the case of many historical accounts with extraordinary claims, leaves a feeling of 'it's not impossible, but it's probably unlikely', and a whole lot of belief based on generations of believing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#487 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
BIB: Where are your sources for stating this? The gospels, even the latest (John's) were writtten within the lifetime of eye-witnesses. Evidence shows that Pauls letters were written only a few years after Jesus' death and already referred to established church creeds. The evidence for the historical Jesus' life and death is actually strong. The gospels are certainly not useless to a genuine historican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#488 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
|
Quote:
BIB: Where are your sources for stating this? The gospels, even the latest (John's) were writtten within the lifetime of eye-witnesses. Evidence shows that Pauls letters were written only a few years after Jesus' death and already referred to established church creeds. The evidence for the historical Jesus' life and death is actually strong. The gospels are certainly not useless to a genuine historican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#489 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
|
Quote:
Even if the Gospels were written anonymously (that some historians have good evidence for), how much difference would that make. If Luke was not Luke, but another person with another name, it wouldn't matter.
They were not written by eye-witnesses and it is false to claim they were. |
|
|
|
|
|
#490 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
It matters because there is a tradition that two of the four gospels are written by apostles. (Matthew and John). This is clearly not the case - particularly as they were written after Mark (they use Mark as the principle source).
They were not written by eye-witnesses and it is false to claim they were. The writers used some things that are found in Mark, and in other ways there are significant differences. |
|
|
|
|
|
#491 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
[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. ..... but all come from a pre disposed position that he did exist, without examining the real evidence. and theres non.,. already addressed that... 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. So people who aren't scholars have the actual facts, do they? Then why do you keep mentioning a blog piece that quotes scholars the writer hides behind? Including the discredited mythicists. A piece that isn't 50/50 but slanted to the non existence of the historical Jesus? That takes Ehrman out of context (because Ehrman doesn't doubt Jesus' existence) and further doesn't deal in facts but conspiracy that someone forged Josephus. Why it's confusing as to what you mean. the actual facts exist, they are there for all to see, to examine, to test. a silence that screams highlights the FACTS of what we know, just go and check out what asts says... its no conspiracy, no biased atheist blog, it makes no difference who wrote it , it coiuld be ronald mc donald ! it doesnt matter as long as what is written can be confirmed or refuted. no one has nor can refute what asts says, because its dealing with known facts, not opinion, not biased, but facts that can be checked. as such it highlights the huge elephant in the room.... the way there is no contemporary accounts for this supposed high profile magician, and the only accounts there are come from later biased sources. by anyones standards, that is very weak, dodgy 'evidence', and it is perfectly plausible that jesus did not ever exist..... the biblical character certainly didnt. |
|
|
|
|
|
#492 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
oh lord... at least learn to post a reply with a quote properly... otherwise it makes your waffle look like even more gibberish.
the actual facts exist, they are there for all to see, to examine, to test. a silence that screams highlights the FACTS of what we know, just go and check out what asts says... its no conspiracy, no biased atheist blog, it makes no difference who wrote it , it coiuld be ronald mc donald ! it doesnt matter as long as what is written can be confirmed or refuted. no one has nor can refute what asts says, because its dealing with known facts, not opinion, not biased, but facts that can be checked. as such it highlights the huge elephant in the room.... the way there is no contemporary accounts for this supposed high profile magician, and the only accounts there are come from later biased sources. by anyones standards, that is very weak, dodgy 'evidence', and it is perfectly plausible that jesus did not ever exist..... the biblical character certainly didnt. If it meant something to real historians it would be important. |
|
|
|
|
|
#493 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Still avoiding answering inconvenient points and questions, bolly?
How strong faith and your case must be! |
|
|
|
|
|
#494 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,724
|
Quote:
Yes that's correct. No contemporary accounts. You said that many times now.
If it meant something to real historians it would be important. |
|
|
|
|
|
#495 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
The gospels were written DECADES after the event. In all likelihood none of the principle players were alive. The earliest (Mark) doesn't even pretend to be a Jewish source and the other synoptics largely use that text as the basis while much of John is a load of anti-semitic claptrap.
Where did Mark get his information? Many scholars think he got it from a passion narrative that was written years earlier, on Jesus' arrest, trial and death. |
|
|
|
|
|
#496 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
|
Quote:
The other writers used Mark, but not all of what they say can be traced back to Mark. There are significant differences between Mark and Luke. The Lords Prayer and the Beatitudes are not in Mark.
Where did Mark get his information? Many scholars think he got it from a passion narrative that was written years earlier, on Jesus' arrest, trial and death. I'm not suggesting Jesus didn't exist. As mentioned; the rationalist in my accepts he did - because of the historicity of Paul. Who talks about the squabbles he has with some of the people who supposedly witnessed events. It's astonishing to me for example how the nativity is accepted wholesale. When the main source for the three synoptic gospels doesn't mention it at all. Neither does John, who is more concerned about 'logos'. It's an added embellishment. Even Paul (responsible for the Hellenization of the story) does not think the nativity is important. Certainly no mention of a virgin birth. If this wasn't a religion, historians would say quite categorically that it's a total nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
#497 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
|
And who are the 'many scholars' you talk of when you talk of the author of Mark? The gospel didn't appear in book form until AD200 and was likely written around AD70. There are glaring inaccuracies (geographical) in the story pointing to the author almost certainly never having set foot in Palestine.
And of course there is no account of any resurrection (the final bit with the tomb is likely a much later addition). |
|
|
|
|
|
#498 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
All the added bits show is that its even MORE likely that most of the stories are heavily embellished.
I'm not suggesting Jesus didn't exist. As mentioned; the rationalist in my accepts he did - because of the historicity of Paul. Who talks about the squabbles he has with some of the people who supposedly witnessed events. It's astonishing to me for example how the nativity is accepted wholesale. When the main source for the three synoptic gospels doesn't mention it at all. Neither does John, who is more concerned about 'logos'. It's an added embellishment. Even Paul (responsible for the Hellenization of the story) does not think the nativity is important. Certainly no mention of a virgin birth. If this wasn't a religion, historians would say quite categorically that it's a total nonsense. Even if Jesus were not born in a manger, but in a spare room of a house where animals came inside at night, would that change Christianity? Are believers able to accept that words in the gospels may have different meanings, or things may not have occurred exactly as once thought, does it matter? What does all this picking at the Bible accomplish? |
|
|
|
|
|
#499 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
|
Quote:
oh lord... at least learn to post a reply with a quote properly... otherwise it makes your waffle look like even more gibberish.
the actual facts exist, they are there for all to see, to examine, to test. a silence that screams highlights the FACTS of what we know, just go and check out what asts says... its no conspiracy, no biased atheist blog, it makes no difference who wrote it , it coiuld be ronald mc donald ! it doesnt matter as long as what is written can be confirmed or refuted. no one has nor can refute what asts says, because its dealing with known facts, not opinion, not biased, but facts that can be checked. as such it highlights the huge elephant in the room.... the way there is no contemporary accounts for this supposed high profile magician, and the only accounts there are come from later biased sources. by anyones standards, that is very weak, dodgy 'evidence', and it is perfectly plausible that jesus did not ever exist..... the biblical character certainly didnt. You act as though TSTS has stumbled on some sort of holy grail of factual information that proves Jesus didn't exist. It does no such a thing. All it does is interpret the same facts we use to prove Jesus DID exist in an entirely different way. The references from Tacitus, for example, are interpreted as interpolations - there is NO EVIDENCE from TSTS to back this up. Only conjecture. Please, please PLEASE stop going on about the "hard evidence" that Christ mythicists apparently have for proving he didn't exist. There is no such a thing. It is pure conjecture and interpretation. For example, there is a wild claim made in TSTS: Quote:
It is very implausible, for instance, that a biography would be written for the obscure itinerant philosopher Demonax in his own lifetime (by Lucian), yet God Incarnate, or a Great Miracle Worker who riled up all Judaea with talk, should inspire nothing like it until decades after his death.
Richard Carrier describes Demonax as an "obscure" philosopher.Yep, so obscure the people of Athens gave him "gave him a magnificent public funeral, long lamented him, worshipped and garlanded the stone seat on which he had been wont to rest when tired". He also casually name-drops Lucian, who was actually Demonax's pupil. And you know what? The only evidence we have that Demonax ever existed comes from Lucian! There are even some who believe that Demonax is just a character invented by Lucian - here was someone who supposedly had a massive public funeral and yet is not mentioned by any other contemporary writer, or indeed at all until the fifth century. This is pitiful compared to the evidence that we have for Jesus' existence, yet Richard Carrier uses the example of Demonax to try and make his argument stronger?! It beggars belief. Use your brain and actually research the claims made in TSTS and it absolutely falls apart. |
|
|
|
|
|
#500 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
And who are the 'many scholars' you talk of when you talk of the author of Mark? The gospel didn't appear in book form until AD200 and was likely written around AD70. There are glaring inaccuracies (geographical) in the story pointing to the author almost certainly never having set foot in Palestine.
And of course there is no account of any resurrection (the final bit with the tomb is likely a much later addition). |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25.




