|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 265
|
Quote:
how come theres no widespread corroborative accounts passed down orally ?
Quote:
you mean people who disputed pauls version.... hmmm.... you think thats solid ground?
Quote:
writings on papyrus mean nothing
Quote:
they are only evidence that they are writings on papyrus, it doesnt mean what the writing says is real.
The scholarly thing to do is to treat Paul's letters in the same way you'd treat any other letter written by a first century religious leader. That means reading it sceptically, but it doesn't mean assuming it has no worth whatsoever. Quote:
but even so.... there is no writings contemporary to the life of jesus that support he existed.
Quote:
i dont accept that 'nearly every scholar' accepts jesus existed
You come across as somebody who hasn't even read the sceptical end of scholarship on this subject. Quote:
Im guessing your scholars are of a biblical/religious persuasion,
If Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity then whoever did start it left even less evidence behind! |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
see... thats my problem. christianity is so entrenched in western society/culture, that people just accept he existed in some way.... that the biblical character was based on a real figure, and indeed that is one explaination. but its also possible that the whole jesus story is complete fiction. that point cannot be ignored, it is possible.
of course many doubt the biblical jesus, most i think would think he was an embellished character based on a real person - and that is possible. but on the other hand 'he' might be a complete work of fiction. Something must of happened to kick start christianity. We know Paul converted not long after the crucifixion and we know he met other historical figures who met with Jesus in the flesh after Paul converted. Your right Paul could've made all this up but when you analyse it alongside the gospels and other source's independent to biblical writing in tacitus or Josephus - you can only conclude that it's very probable that he existed. That probability IS the mainstream historical view - and it doesnt have much to do with Christian entrenchment in western society / culture. The mainstream historical view is based on textual analysis and balance of probability. In fact the view amongst historians that he probably existed is so mainstream that the POV that Jesus definitely didn't exist is viewed a somewhat left field and eccentric. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
|
I'm surprised that scholar say Jesus existed given the minimal information there is about Him.
What is probable is that one or more preachers existed around that time whose preaching formed the basis of Christianity. It was a fairly common job in those times of uncertainty. What we can be fairly certain of is that anything that occurred before He started preaching is back story written to justify that He was the Messiah. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
|
Quote:
Uuuummmmmm that's precisely what the new testament is isn't it?! At some point people got around to documenting the life and work of Jesus from the various stories & sources most of which are likely to have been passed down orally until that point.
Why would people that were not interested in what he did bother documenting it? relying on a mere handful who have a vested interest some 30 years + after the events are nothing short of tenuous. Quote:
I don't think you understood where I'm coming from.
Something must of happened to kick start christianity. Quote:
Your right Paul could've made all this up but when you analyse it alongside the gospels and other source's independent to biblical writing in tacitus or Josephus - you can only conclude that it's very probable that he existed.
not true, tacitus and josephus existed long after 'jesus', their accounts are almost certainly a direct link to paul. in fact all accounts can be traced back to paul.... Quote:
That probability IS the mainstream historical view - and it doesnt have much to do with Christian entrenchment in western society / culture. no one can say that jesus did, or didnt, exist. there is no evidence to support either pov... of course i cannot ever prove he didnt exist, in any form, but until theres concrete evidence that he was at least based on a character it has to be accepted that he may never have existed in any way shape or form.
The mainstream historical view is based on textual analysis and balance of probability. In fact the view amongst historians that he probably existed is so mainstream that the POV that Jesus definitely didn't exist is viewed a somewhat left field and eccentric. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,384
|
I thought he looked like a slice of toast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
|
Quote:
How do you know there weren't oral accounts? Have you gone back in your time machine and listened to everything that was said around the time?
Quote:
That's like saying "many people don't like the Labour party, therefore Jeremy Corbyn doesn't exist." The fact that there were multiple traditions at the time Paul was writing is evidence that Paul wasn't the sole inventor of Christianity.
that doesnt add up. we know jeremy corbyn exists, we can see him. but there arent, it all traces back to paul. Quote:
So historians aren't allowed to critically study ancient texts now?
eh? how do arrive at that conclusion?... i said ancient texts only prove that ancient texts exist, it doesnt mean the content is factual. geoffrey of monmouths account of arthur being the prime example.Quote:
The scholarly thing to do is to treat Paul's letters in the same way you'd treat any other letter written by a first century religious leader. That means reading it sceptically, but it doesn't mean assuming it has no worth whatsoever.
talking of other first century leaders, how come no other mentions jesus? there were thousands of letters, writings, accounts written at the time, but despite his very high profile theres nothing..... Quote:
Most people in the ancient world were illiterate (even the wealthy would often use scribes). There was also no printing press meaning that books etc were very rare. As a result hardly anything was written down by ordinary people. Out of that small number of writings only a few of them are still around today as materials like papyrus don't tend to last thousands of years. What sort of contemporary writings are you expecting there to be?
there were a lot of accounts, census's, chronicles being kept at the time. its strange that this miracle worker who performed to thousands would go unnoticed.... then theres the oral tradition ive already mentioned in other posts.Quote:
Name me one scholar who doubts Jesus' existence? The nearest you'll find is Robert Price and Richard Carrier, neither of which teach in a university or publish in mainstream journals.
richard dawkins, hitchens, thousands of learned men. your scholars are the same as bollywoods - religious ones so are not neutral but biased. Quote:
Take somebody like Bart Ehrman. He's one of the leading scholars in the field of Biblical studies and known for his sceptical approach. He got so fed up of non-scholars disputing Jesus' existence that he took a break from attacking the Bible and decided to write a book explaining how historians know Jesus existed. thats not true.... NO ONE knows jesus existed, especially historians. people might think and [/i]believe[/i] he did.... but thats not knowing. If Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity then whoever did start it left even less evidence behind! and thats the bottom line..... there is NO solid evidence that anyone called jesus existed, that the biblical character was real. the evidence there is is very tenuous and the elephant in the room is the lack of contemporary evidence, written or oral. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 265
|
Quote:
because non exist, out of possible thousands, dont you think that the 3000 that saw him perform the miracle of loaves and fishes wouldnt have spread that astounding story?
Secondly, this isn't as suspicious as you think. For example we know that Mount Vesuvius erupted around 79AD, covering Pompeii, because of the unprecedented archaeological evidence left behind. But how many people wrote about it? Surely a disaster that killed over two thousand people and wiped out a major city would have been written about all over the Roman Empire...yet the only surviving textual source to mention the eruption is Pliny the younger's written 25 years after the event. Why didn't more people write about the eruption of Vesuvius? The same reasons lots of people didn't write about Jesus (i.e. newspapers and Facebook didn't exist, few people could read and write and little of what was written has survived two thousand years). Perhaps you could name a text from the first century that you think should have mentioned Jesus but didn't? Quote:
but there arent, it all traces back to paul.
Why do you think Paul was putting so much effort into refuting 'false teachers' and arguing with other church leaders in his writings if these people didn't exist? Quote:
i said ancient texts only prove that ancient texts exist, it doesnt mean the content is factual
Quote:
there were thousands of letters, writings, accounts written at the time, but despite his very high profile theres nothing.....
Where did you get that figure from? Wikipedia lists nine works of literature that date to the first century, one of which is the New Testament. Out of those nine first century works, Jesus is mentioned in three of them.Maybe if you include engravings on buildings, most of which are only a few words long, then you could arrive at a figure of thousands. Name one text written by somebody living near Jerusalem around 33AD? Quote:
richard dawkins, hitchens, thousands of learned men. your scholars are the same as bollywoods - religious ones so are not neutral but biased.
You remind me of the young earth creationists who think that there's some conspiracy amongst scientists to suppress the truth. Suggesting that scholars such as Bart Ehrman or James Crossley are religious is as absurd as suggesting that every scientist who believes in evolution is a biased atheist! Quote:
thats not true.... NO ONE knows jesus existed, especially historians. people might think and [/i]believe[/i] he did.... but thats not knowing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
what kickstarted arthur? or robin hood? or santa claus?... it simply is not evidence of anything. Quote:
not true, tacitus and josephus existed long after 'jesus', their accounts are almost certainly a direct link to paul. in fact all accounts can be traced back to paul....
happy to be proved wrong here. Quote:
no one can say that jesus did, or didnt, exist. there is no evidence to support either pov... of course i cannot ever prove he didnt exist, in any form, but until theres concrete evidence that he was at least based on a character it has to be accepted that he may never have existed in any way shape or form.
This isn't to say the narrative is true or accurate but theirs enough circumstance to say he he probably existed. Not much more to add really! |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
|
sorry guys.... cannot reply atm, im off out and dont have the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
|
Quote:
That's being pedantic. Obviously historians work with probabilities, but no other explanation for the rise of Christianity makes any sense, based upon the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle the have survied. Writing the words 'NO EVIDENCE' in capital letters doesn't automatically make it true.
BTW there are other sources to the eruption of Vesuvius, not just Pliny. Claiming that Jesus existed because there are few sources to the eruption of Vesuvius is dodgy history of the highest sort. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,612
|
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. Well that could put the cat among the pigeons |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: A bunker
Posts: 5,957
|
Jesus was just a Hipster trendsetter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,456
|
I think Jesus was probably hot and naturally lean muscle-defined and sinewy, and all the gays would have had a pash on him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
|
Quote:
Jesus won't have looked like the handsome man that you see in images and the statues that you see in churches all over Britain and beyond. He'll have most likely looked like the average man, or maybe even not that good looking. I think the Church has made him out to be an attractive man because they know that this will be appealing to a lot of females. I wonder how many females would be drawn to the statues if the handsome looks were replaced with his true looks? The same goes for Our Lady as well when it comes to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
Scientology, Mormons. Just because something - in your mind - doesn't make sense, doesn't prove that it was created the way you believe it.
BTW there are other sources to the eruption of Vesuvius, not just Pliny. Claiming that Jesus existed because there are few sources to the eruption of Vesuvius is dodgy history of the highest sort. |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: A bunker
Posts: 5,957
|
Quote:
I think Jesus was probably hot and naturally lean muscle-defined and sinewy, and all the gays would have had a pash on him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,456
|
Quote:
Did he turn down Judas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 25,845
|
Quote:
Well I don't think he ever bottomed for anyone, let's put it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,456
|
Quote:
Well, he did get nailed in the end.
![]() Took one for the team! |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
|
Quote:
Firstly, that would only cast doubt on the feeding of the five thousand being historical, not the existence of Jesus.
besides, it was supposed to be the most important message of all time to mankind, how could this message be so shrouded in uncertainty and myth? just compare that message to the intricate and exact creation of earth. its clear the bible and 'creation' do not have the same author! Quote:
Secondly, this isn't as suspicious as you think. For example we know that Mount Vesuvius erupted around 79AD, covering Pompeii, because of the unprecedented archaeological evidence left behind. But how many people wrote about it? Surely a disaster that killed over two thousand people and wiped out a major city would have been written about all over the Roman Empire...yet the only surviving textual source to mention the eruption is Pliny the younger's written 25 years after the event. Why didn't more people write about the eruption of Vesuvius? The same reasons lots of people didn't write about Jesus (i.e. newspapers and Facebook didn't exist, few people could read and write and little of what was written has survived two thousand years). ..... but doesnt explain why theres no oral tradition being passed down by the familes of the thousands who supposed to have witnessed his teachings. Perhaps you could name a text from the first century that you think should have mentioned Jesus but didn't? Quote:
Where's your evidence for that? You complain about the lack of evidence for Jesus and then make claims, such as this one, that are backed up by no evidence whatsoever!
interesting read here http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...e_That_ScreamsQuote:
Why do you think Paul was putting so much effort into refuting 'false teachers' and arguing with other church leaders in his writings if these people didn't exist?
who says they were 'false'?... to me that reads like paul was fighting to get his idea of what the new religion should be like. doesnt mean it was real.Quote:
But you could literally dismiss any textual source with that line of reasoning. Historians don't just assume that every writer in the ancient world was a compulsive liar!
yes, and you have too... just because its written doesnt make whats written a fact. no credible historian would think otherwise. and theres still no contemporary accounts of jesus anyway.Quote:
Thousands jesus is mentioned in 3 of them, but they all reference one source... paul. they are not 3 individual references. not 1 is contemporary to jesus life. Where did you get that figure from? Wikipedia lists nine works of literature that date to the first century, one of which is the New Testament. Out of those nine first century works, Jesus is mentioned in three of them.
oh was that it? only 9?.... nobody else write anything then? we know from the vindalanda tablets that writing was common in roman times, they might not be big classical works like the new testiment or the apocrypha (and lets face it, the new testiment is only a gathering of writings used to support the agenda, out of thousands of such writings). Quote:
Name one text written by somebody living near Jerusalem around 33AD?
roman accounts. do you imagine there was no writing going on?... like ive just mentioned, the vindalanda tablets prove otherwise.Quote:
Richard Dawkins is a scientist with no background in first century history whatsoever, Christopher Hitchens was a journalist...if this is the best you can do then I rest my case.
yep biased againt the idea.... where as 'scholars' are biased for the case. they are coming from a point of assuming christ existed. Quote:
That's being pedantic. Obviously historians work with probabilities, but no other explanation for the rise of Christianity makes any sense, based upon the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle the have survied. Writing the words 'NO EVIDENCE' in capital letters doesn't automatically make it true.
.......... so if you think that the rise of christianity makes sense because its probable that its real..... how come other religions have also risen? islam is younger and stronger.yes there is an explaination as to why christianity took off. and it very nearly didnt... it was a tool for controling the people, they were deeply supersticious and christianity was forced on many....even here in the uk.. they hadnt the knowledge we have now, this new religion gave people an explanation for life, hope, and comfort. it took off because people wanted what it promised, and it was forced on others. we have seen how other myths have become part of the british psyche, from arthur to robin hood. even in my lifetime ive seen people re-write history - michael jackson fans have been fed bullshit about how great he was and what he did for music. wildly exaggerated claims based on some truth. thats exactly how religions take off... a willingness to accept something they want based on faith not on fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
|
Quote:
Not sure about Arthur but santa claus was probably St Nicklaus. I'm not sure though
Josephus discusses James's death and describes him as Jesus's brother. Paul was imprisoned or martyred when James died and as far as I'm aware did not write about James's death - so Josephus must have had a different source and thus is an independent account to Paul. happy to be proved wrong here. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...e_That_Screams Quote:
I can only reiterate the non theological, sceptical academic's who accept his existence. true, but i think its lazy. we all seem to think 'oh he must have existed, probably based on some rebel or preacher' ..... its just an assumption, and as that its fine....the biblical character could be based on a real person, but equally he might be a complete construct.
This isn't to say the narrative is true or accurate but theirs enough circumstance to say he he probably existed. Not much more to add really! |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,888
|
He may have lived, but the 'resurrection' might have been lightning hitting the rock by his tomb and a peasant on hallucinogenic plants seeing things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,789
|
Quote:
somwhere in here should answer that
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...e_That_Screams true, but i think its lazy. we all seem to think 'oh he must have existed, probably based on some rebel or preacher' ..... its just an assumption, and as that its fine....the biblical character could be based on a real person, but equally he might be a complete construct. Quote:
"There is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed." The BIB is certainly true. The question is why would anybody expect a contemporary historical mention? There's no contemporary historical mention of any non aristocratic person without any power - not one mention at all.- Dan Barker As far as I'm aware their aren't any contemporary mentions of Pontious Pilot - and he was the prefect of Judea - why would anybody expect a mention of a Jewish peasent carpenter? It's bizarre to suggest it casts doubt on anything. Quote:
The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. ......... This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.: Again it would be odd to expect mentions of Jesus - a peasant carpenter. Doherty goes further to query why there is no mention of him if he performed all these miracles. He might not have performed any miracles - they are likely to be embellishments of the story. If they didn't happen - why would any body expect a mention of it?- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle Quote:
"What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. ..... mentioned.": - Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp55-56, 2001
Yet Ehrman, a man with much greater credentials than Doherty, is in no doubt that Jesus existed - he even wrote a book debunking 'mythacists'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Je...ist%3F_(Ehrman) Quote:
The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which in turn is likely to be a form of 'Midrash', not historical documentation
Factually wrong. There are elements of Mathew and Luke that are independent to Markhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source Beyopnd Q-Source there is also L and M source that indicate distinct and independent sources to Luke and Mathew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Source Quote:
While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus" would not have been a noteworthy figure, this apologetic tactic contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus. One cannot hold, at the same time, that the Gospels are true eyewitness accounts of actual events, AND that the Jesus figure in those works would not attract the attention of men like Philo, Pliny or Seneca. It's an absurd contradiction.
The point is Historical Jesus is not dependent on the accuracy of the gospels; Historical Jesus is dependent on the source of the gospels - ie manuscripts lost to us and the oral tradition.Quote:
true, but i think its lazy. we all seem to think 'oh he must have existed, probably based on some rebel or preacher' ..... its just an assumption, and as that its fine....the biblical character could be based on a real person, but equally he might be a complete construct.
It's not an assumption - it's based sound textual analysis of the writing we have from within 100 years of his death and conclusion based on probability.Your 'lazy' assumption has know basis in fact. In fact the assumption that he did not exist is the lazy one and is somewhat based on a tin foil hat conspiracy - such as the article you linked to |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 265
|
Quote:
Scientology, Mormons. Just because something - in your mind - doesn't make sense, doesn't prove that it was created the way you believe it.
Mormonism - earliest sources suggest that it was started by a man named Joseph Smith. I believe that Joseph Smith existed. Christianity - earliest sources suggest that it was started by a man named Jesus. I believe that Jesus was a historical person. The idea that a religion was started by the person it's original followers claim started it is not a massive leap of faith! Quote:
BTW there are other sources to the eruption of Vesuvius, not just Pliny.
Quote:
Claiming that Jesus existed because there are few sources to the eruption of Vesuvius is dodgy history of the highest sort.
Quote:
not sure how you could seperate the two... even if there was no mention of a miracle, surely someone preaching to thousands would have attracted attention.
Quote:
besides, it was supposed to be the most important message of all time to mankind, how could this message be so shrouded in uncertainty and myth? just compare that message to the intricate and exact creation of earth. its clear the bible and 'creation' do not have the same author!
![]() You are confusing two very different issues - whether the Bible is God's infallible word is a theological question with very little to do with this debate. Historians approach the Bible not as God's word but as a collection of documents written in the first century. To understand how critical source analysis works think of it like this - I think that the Daily Mail is a load of rubbish. I treat the Daily Mail with a high amount of scepticism. That doesn't mean, however, that I assume that literally everything in it is made up. Even as a Daily Mail sceptic I can accept that some of the characters mentioned in it are real people and loosely inspired by real events. Sceptical historians can approach the Bible in a similar way. Quote:
..... but doesnt explain why theres no oral tradition being passed down by the familes of the thousands who supposed to have witnessed his teachings.
Quote:
..... interesting read here http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...e_That_Screams
Quote:
..... who says they were 'false'?...
Quote:
..... to me that reads like paul was fighting to get his idea of what the new religion should be like.
Quote:
..... theres still no contemporary accounts of jesus anyway.
Quote:
..... nobody else write anything then? we know from the vindalanda tablets that writing was common in roman times
Quote:
..... like ive just mentioned, the vindalanda tablets prove otherwise.
It doesn't matter how many letters were written around the time of Jesus - if hardly any of them survive and are still around today we have no idea whether or not they mentioned Jesus. Quote:
..... yep biased againt the idea.... where as 'scholars' are biased for the case. they are coming from a point of assuming christ existed.
Quote:
..... how come other religions have also risen? islam is younger and stronger.
Quote:
..... yes there is an explaination as to why christianity took off. and it very nearly didnt... it was a tool for controling the people, they were deeply supersticious and christianity was forced on many....even here in the uk..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
|
Quote:
It's been mentioned numerous times in this thread, we're working with probabilities not absolute proof - the evidence we have points towards a certain direction taking into account the early sources that we have and the evidence we have for early Christianity.
I could accept that Jesus never existed and was the product of mythmakers Everything else is conjecture. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51.




Where did you get that figure from? 
