DS Forums

 
 

Is this what Jesus looked like?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 20:24
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
The many leading scholars who think Mark had access to earlier writings about the arrest and trial of Jesus.
Name them.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 21:12
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Joel Marcus, Bart Ehrman, April Deconick, Ronald Piper to name a few.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 08:59
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
Marcus, Piper and Ehrman are not historians. They are all theologians with a vested interest in promoting religion.

April Deconick has dedicated her life to trashing Christianity by defending those other belief systems which Christianity usurped. Or areas of Christianity which the 'accepted story' neglects. And she is also a theologian, not really a historian.

They interrogate texts but not in the way a historian would. They might as well interrogate The Odyssey as a true story.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 09:05
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Marcus, Piper and Ehrman are not historians. They are all theologians with a vested interest in promoting religion.

April Deconick has dedicated her life to trashing Christianity by defending those other belief systems which Christianity usurped. Or areas of Christianity which the 'accepted story' neglects. And she is also a theologian, not really a historian.

They interrogate texts but not in the way a historian would. They might as well interrogate The Odyssey as a true story.
You need to read more.

Ehrman is an agnostic atheist.

Deconick is a historian of Jewish and Christian studies.

Joel Marcus is an academic. Having attended Union Theological doesn't mean you hold any particular view. I attended Union.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 09:33
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
You need to read more.

Ehrman is an agnostic atheist.

Deconick is a historian of Jewish and Christian studies.

Joel Marcus is an academic. Having attended Union Theological doesn't mean you hold any particular view. I attended Union.
They all work for theology/divinity departments.

I'm an academic. That doesn't mean jack sh** to me. And you DO hold a particular view. You've accepted the traditional story wholesale. Deconick does not. Her work has largely contradicted it.

None of those people work in the history departments of respected institutions. Because what they study is mythology.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 09:38
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
They all work for theology/divinity departments.

I'm an academic. That doesn't mean jack sh** to me. And you DO hold a particular view. You've accepted the traditional story wholesale. Deconick does not. Her work has largely contradicted it.

None of those people work in the history departments of respected institutions. Because what they study is mythology.
Sorry that you totally misunderstood everything I've posted. Especially that bit about the traditional view. That couldn't be further from the truth.

You need to read Ehrman who I've been quoting so you know what he actually says. Nothing to do with myth.

Maybe you confused me with another poster.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 09:42
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
I know full well who he is. He's a 'born again' atheist after experimenting with fundamentalism for a while. It makes not a jot of difference to what I am saying. He is NOT a historian. He is a theologian. (You don't have to believe to be a theologian). His quests for the historical Jesus don't add up to historical evidence. They are just that. Quests.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 09:46
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
I know full well who he is. He's a 'born again' atheist after experimenting with fundamentalism for a while. It makes not a jot of difference to what I am saying. He is NOT a historian. He is a theologian. (You don't have to believe to be a theologian). His quests for the historical Jesus don't add up to historical evidence. They are just that. Quests.
If you think you have more evidence for your view ( and I'm not sure what that is as so far, you've just criticized others) then you need to present it, and your evidence for it.

Ehrman has more documentation than anyone else for his conclusions.

And for some odd reason you seem to be implying that those who studied Biblical history can't be historians. That is wrong. Ehrman is a credible scholar. No one disputes that, even those who disagree with him.

You can't take away someone's academic credentials just because you don't like what they say. Who else would know Biblical history than someone who studied it at Princeton? And then for years after that?
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:14
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Yes that's correct. No contemporary accounts. You said that many times now.

If it meant something to real historians it would be important.
by 'real' historians i assume you mean the biased biblical scholars.

no 'real' historian overlooks the known facts and makes something up to fill in the holes, or in this case a huge chasm.

Many scholars think he got it from a passion narrative that was written years earlier, on Jesus' arrest, trial and death.
so they are guessing. theres no evidence for this.

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?
lol.. this bullshit is one of the very reasons i rejected christianity...

the bible is either 'the truth' or it isnt, if it isnt what else is untrue? and how can any right minded person construct a religion on such doubt, contradiction, uncertainty? it does not make any sense and certainly isnt a sound basis for building a 'religion of truth' on. whatr you are saying here is - ignore what the bible says and make your own mind up, interpret it as you want!

I said I was bowing out of this thread but I must address this again.

You act as though TSTS has stumbled on some sort of holy grail of factual information that proves Jesus didn't exist.
it doesnt prove jesus didnt exist, it presents the facts that shows that jesus MIGHT not have existed and should be assumed he did.

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.
lol... nonsense! it doesnt prove he existed at all... sir, not even in 'a different way' and if he existed 'in a different way' to what the bible depicts then the religion collapses anyway!

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.
you fail to grasp the truth.... i did NOT say that mythicists have 'hard evidence' that proves jesus didnt exist... i said that there is no hard, contemporary evidence that he did. and all the 'evidence' can be traced back to a biased source. no conjecture there, just cold hard facts.


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".
.... and?....

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.
yet again you play down jesus... it matters not whether lucian or demonax existed, it matters like hell whether jesus existed or not... they were not sent to save mankind from hell (the same hell god allows to exist) .

i have researched the claims, the relevant ones, made by asts.... the salient points made are that there are NO contemporary accounts of jesus, and all early sources can be traced directly to biased sources. this is true.

oh and if you claim that you have identified 1 point asts makes which is wrong therefore the whole blog is wrong or 'falls apart' as you put it..... then the same thing applies to the bible, just 1 point thats untrue destroys the whole book....

the very basis for your religion is on very dodgy ground, no evidence for any of the claims needed to verify it.

it is entirely probable that jesus didnt exist, and the miracle man the bible describes certainly didnt - for reasons ive already mentioned.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:23
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
by 'real' historians i assume you mean the biased biblical scholars.

no 'real' historian overlooks the known facts and makes something up to fill in the holes, or in this case a huge chasm.

so they are guessing. theres no evidence for this.

lol.. this bullshit is one of the very reasons i rejected christianity...

the bible is either 'the truth' or it isnt, if it isnt what else is untrue? and how can any right minded person construct a religion on such doubt, contradiction, uncertainty? it does not make any sense and certainly isnt a sound basis for building a 'religion of truth' on. whatr you are saying here is - ignore what the bible says and make your own mind up, interpret it as you want!

it doesnt prove jesus didnt exist, it presents the facts that shows that jesus MIGHT not have existed and should be assumed he did.

lol... nonsense! it doesnt prove he existed at all... sir, not even in 'a different way' and if he existed 'in a different way' to what the bible depicts then the religion collapses anyway!

you fail to grasp the truth.... i did NOT say that mythicists have 'hard evidence' that proves jesus didnt exist... i said that there is no hard, contemporary evidence that he did. and all the 'evidence' can be traced back to a biased source. no conjecture there, just cold hard facts

.... and?....

yet again you play down jesus... it matters not whether lucian or demonax existed, it matters like hell whether jesus existed or not... they were not sent to save mankind from hell (the same hell god allows to exist) .

i have researched the claims, the relevant ones, made by asts.... the salient points made are that there are NO contemporary accounts of jesus, and all early sources can be traced directly to biased sources. this is true.

oh and if you claim that you have identified 1 point asts makes which is wrong therefore the whole blog is wrong or 'falls apart' as you put it..... then the same thing applies to the bible, just 1 point thats untrue destroys the whole book....

the very basis for your religion is on very dodgy ground, no evidence for any of the claims needed to verify it.

it is entirely probable that jesus didnt exist, and the miracle man the bible describes certainly didnt - for reasons ive already mentioned.
Mushy, your all or nothing thinking can be applied to anything in history, indeed even to conclusions made by scientists, as there is no 'proof' of anything on the planet.

You're wasting your time if you're trying to convince me that it diminishes belief if Jesus was the Son of Man. It does not.

God gave us brains so we can understand the history of Christianity, is all it amounts to.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:53
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Mushy, your all or nothing thinking can be applied to anything in history, indeed even to conclusions made by scientists, as there is no 'proof' of anything on the planet.
no it cant, there are known facts, there are possibilities of differing degrees of accuracy dependant on information/evidence - conjecture.

lol i like the way you suggest theres no proof for anything, which is the daftest thing ever posted here , in an attempt to liken the lack of 'proof' as an excuse to give credence to any old guff!

You're wasting your time if you're trying to convince me that it diminishes belief if Jesus was the Son of Man. It does not.
of course it wont. your mind is closed, you are convinced, nothing will sway you from your delusion not even facts.

God gave us brains so we can understand the history of Christianity, is all it amounts to.
lol... instead of making it perfectly unambiguous so even the thickest peasant in the back of nowhere had a chance of salvation, he made it an obsticle course! BONKERS!

yes he gave me a brain, to think, to reason, to think freely of all biased agendas. in conclusion im certain christianity is the biggest load of nonsense ever adopted by the human race. well, except for rastafarianism... .
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:55
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
If you think you have more evidence for your view ( and I'm not sure what that is as so far, you've just criticized others) then you need to present it, and your evidence for it.

Ehrman has more documentation than anyone else for his conclusions.

And for some odd reason you seem to be implying that those who studied Biblical history can't be historians. That is wrong. Ehrman is a credible scholar. No one disputes that, even those who disagree with him.

You can't take away someone's academic credentials just because you don't like what they say. Who else would know Biblical history than someone who studied it at Princeton? And then for years after that?
A 'Biblical historian' is NOT a historian. It looks at the Bible - which is a literary text. It is not history. History requires clear evidence of events which are contemporary and impartial. Biblical scholars are not historians. It doesn't matter if you want them to be so. They are not.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:00
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
Mushy, your all or nothing thinking can be applied to anything in history, indeed even to conclusions made by scientists, as there is no 'proof' of anything on the planet.

You're wasting your time if you're trying to convince me that it diminishes belief if Jesus was the Son of Man. It does not.

God gave us brains so we can understand the history of Christianity, is all it amounts to.
Oh, GOD (apparently) gave us brains to understand the history of Christianity.

Even before Jesus? Or just after Jesus?

God thought, "You know what, now I've got Jesus, I better update the brains on my next creations".

Yeah, total bollocks as usual.

Union Theological you say? A seminary. Haha. Yeah.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:01
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
A 'Biblical historian' is NOT a historian. It looks at the Bible - which is a literary text. It is not history. History requires clear evidence of events which are contemporary and impartial. Biblical scholars are not historians. It doesn't matter if you want them to be so. They are not.
What you says couldn't be further from the truth. They study the language, Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, study the culture of the time, the geography, literacy, oral tradition, mythology, the community surrounding the gospel writers, the classics, the secular writers, independent sources, other historical figures, and the political context in which Christianity arose.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:01
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
The biggest problem with the Jesus as son of god myth of course is that is runs absolutely counter to Jesus's own religion. Even if we assume he was a promised messiah; according to Jewish beliefs, that messiah won't be in any way supernatural. Messiah just means 'annointed one'.

The early Christians (who were Jewish) likely did not believe any of this. The man-god is clearly a Greek imposition. The Greeks and Romans all believed that humans could be divine. But it is absolutely anathema to Jewish thought,

That said, there was a Pharasaic convention of the time which referred to god as 'Abba' (father). Most of Jesus's teachings appears to run in the Pharasaic tradition and it may well be that dumb gentiles in the following decades took it literally.

Paul was a Hellenized Jew (the claim - even Paul's own that he was Pharasaic was always dodgy - he was from Tarsus and a Roman citizen) and much of his own views are Platonic rather than Jewish. The place he has for celibacy for instance; which would have been really odd to any Jewish audience apart from the Essenes.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:07
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
The biggest problem with the Jesus as son of god myth of course is that is runs absolutely counter to Jesus's own religion. Even if we assume he was a promised messiah; according to Jewish beliefs, that messiah won't be in any way supernatural. Messiah just means 'annointed one'.

The early Christians (who were Jewish) likely did not believe any of this. The man-god is clearly a Greek imposition. The Greeks and Romans all believed that humans could be divine. But it is absolutely anathema to Jewish thought,

That said, there was a Pharasaic convention of the time which referred to god as 'Abba' (father). Most of Jesus's teachings appears to run in the Pharasaic tradition and it may well be that dumb gentiles in the following decades took it literally.

Paul was a Hellenized Jew (the claim - even Paul's own that he was Pharasaic was always dodgy - he was from Tarsus and a Roman citizen) and much of this own views are Platonic rather than Jewish.
Not sure then why you criticize scholars who say Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, the Son of Man.

Or misrepresent what I said as I pointed out that Jesus implied in various places that he was not the Son of God. And didn't preach the Trinity.

Or maybe tell me how you think that's a traditional view I hold. Clearly it's not.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:19
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
Not sure then why you criticize scholars who say Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, the Son of Man.

Or misrepresent what I said as I pointed out that Jesus implied in various places that he was not the Son of God. And didn't preach the Trinity.

Or maybe tell me how you think that's a traditional view I hold. Clearly it's not.
I don't think the views of those scholars are any more provable than anything else. They are opinion. They add to the various academic pile on Jesus but they aren't historically valuable.

They still only have the gospel sources, epistles and Acts to go by. Even the tiny passages in Josephus are contested.

The problem for any historian is there are plenty of sources on other people around at the time (the various Herods, Pilot, Caiphas - even John the Baptist). Nothing of as much value exists for Jesus.

Now that's not evidence of non-existence. But it's not enough for a historian.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:22
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
no it cant, there are known facts, there are possibilities of differing degrees of accuracy dependant on information/evidence - conjecture.

lol i like the way you suggest theres no proof for anything, which is the daftest thing ever posted here , in an attempt to liken the lack of 'proof' as an excuse to give credence to any old guff!



of course it wont. your mind is closed, you are convinced, nothing will sway you from your delusion not even facts.



lol... instead of making it perfectly unambiguous so even the thickest peasant in the back of nowhere had a chance of salvation, he made it an obsticle course! BONKERS!

yes he gave me a brain, to think, to reason, to think freely of all biased agendas. in conclusion im certain christianity is the biggest load of nonsense ever adopted by the human race. well, except for rastafarianism... .
My mind isn't closed. It can expand to a perspective beyond the incessant atheist quibbling about the physical Bible.

Something that never fails to amaze me how much time some spend on something they don't believe in and don't understand.

I guess you think that in other religions, reincarnation of the evolved can only occur in the aristocrats. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why it's not strange at all that Jesus was a peasant.

You further confuse what Jesus said with organized religions. Two different things aren't they.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:24
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
My mind isn't closed. It can expand to a perspective beyond the incessant atheist quibbling about the physical Bible.

Something that never fails to amaze me how much time some spend on something they don't believe in and don't understand.

And I guess you think that in other religions, reincarnation of the evolved can only occur in the aristocrats. Nothing could be further from the truth.
'Don't understand'. That is one arrogant assumption. I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:30
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
'Don't understand'. That is one arrogant assumption. I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools.
What is misunderstood is that quibbling over various aspects of the gospelsdoesn't negate the historical Jesus, or belief.

Mushy's idea that if Jesus was the Son of Man it negates Christianity, is wrong.

And your assumption that I represent a traditional view when I do not, what is that.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:45
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
What is misunderstood is that quibbling over various aspects of the gospelsdoesn't negate the historical Jesus, or belief.

Mushy's idea that if Jesus was the Son of Man it negates Christianity, is wrong.

And your assumption that I represent a traditional view when I do not, what is that.
I couldn't care less what you represent. Whatever it is you are intent on maintaining that the historical Jesus is incontrovertible. While I think an historical person is more likely than not; the claim that the existence of Jesus is provable by historical norms is utterly untrue.

Indeed, it's perhaps more likely (in my view) that the Jesus of the gospels is a mish-mash of a few individuals, not one.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:53
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
I couldn't care less what you represent. Whatever it is you are intent on maintaining that the historical Jesus is incontrovertible. While I think an historical person is more likely than not; the claim that the existence of Jesus is provable by historical norms is utterly untrue.

Indeed, it's perhaps more likely (in my view) that the Jesus of the gospels is a mish-mash of a few individuals, not one.
You may not care what I represent, but kindly don't keep misquoting me. I never said anything about proof.

Did I use the word incontrovertible? Or did I say that conclusions by scholars are made on the preponderance of evidence? Based on that, almost all scholars think the historical Jesus existed. (Other than a few fringe mythicists, largely debunked).

There's no credible evidence that Jesus was a mish mash. Link to your sources.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:04
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
..."Link to your sources".

Right. Like the Gospel, and the people who study it, which are bolly's only sources.

(I'll refer to her in third person, now that's she put me on the ignore list! I must've been very naughty!)

It's just utterly hypocritical and absurd.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:06
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
You may not care what I represent, but kindly don't keep misquoting me. I never said anything about proof.

Did I use the word incontrovertible? Or did I say that conclusions by scholars are made on the preponderance of evidence? Based on that, almost all scholars think the historical Jesus existed.

There's no credible evidence that Jesus was a mish mash. Link to your sources.
There's no evidence. But I'm not claiming there is. It's an opinion. There's also no evidence (which would satisfy an historian) that he was a single man. Or any man. People's opinions (like those of the scholars you have quoted are not evidence.

The historical Jesus is still a theory, not a fact.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:07
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
There's no evidence. But I'm not claiming there is. It's an opinion. There's also no evidence (which would satisfy an historian) that he was a single man. Or any man. People's opinions (like those of the scholars you have quoted are not evidence.

The historical Jesus is still a theory, not a fact.
That's fine, your opinion.

But I prefer the conclusions of scholars who spent many years, months, days and hours on the research.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25.