• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Is this what Jesus looked like?
<<
<
6 of 22
>>
>
ags_rule
16-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“could all contemporary accounts of him be lost?... thats possible, but unlikely, surely all those who witnessed him and who supposed to have started the eary church would have gathered and kept all the evidence...

..... and still no one of you can explain why oral tradition from the thousands that saw him died out - thus rendering his message of salvation a failure!”

This is the only point I'm going to address because your posts are now becoming tiresome soundbites with absolutely no evidence to back-up your arguments.

Those who witnessed him DID keep the evidence - it's made very clear in the writings of Paul and in the Gospels that his disciples spread the message as far and as wide as they could. And as you've already been shown, the beginning of Luke's Gospel makes it clear that "many" had written accounts of Jesus' life, teachings and appearances.

The oral traditions certainly did not die out. One of the earliest church creeds - one that is still found today - is found in 1 Corinthians 3-5 and even atheists agree (http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11069 - the author of "The Christian Delusion"!) that this can be dated to within several years of Jesus' death.

You can ask until you are blue in the face for "contemporary" writings about Jesus and you will not find any. You won't find any for anyone. People were by and large illiterate and poorly educated. It was not accepted tradition to keep "diaries" or to write down information as it occurred. When it came to historical biographies, tradition dictated that these were only written about the most important people, and only after their deaths.

There are virtually no documents that have survived Christ's era. Velleius Paterculus (ca. 19 B.C. – A.D. 30), a retired army officer and amateur historian produced a“badly written history of Rome covering that age from the end of the Trojan War to the death of Livia (A.D. 29) - that's about the best we have.

The impossibility of what you are asking can be put into context through the life of Pontius Pilot. Our best evidence for his existence, prior to a discovery of a concrete slab bearing his name discovered in 1961, comes from the same external sources we have for Jesus' existence - Josephus and Tactius. Here was a man who served the Roman government for ten years in one of the political hotspots of the empire. He himself was embroiled repeatedly in controversy (we know this from Josephus' writings). And yet, there is not a solitary Roman, Jewish or any other contemporary archival document that so much as mentions his name. All we have to tie him to the era is a concrete slab - something that we will never find for Jesus, who was not a Roman prefect but, to the Romans, a common criminal, and to the Jews, a dangerous blasphemer.

And there's another very good reason why writings about Christ are only found after his death. Because, for Christians, the resurrection of Christ means everything. If that never happened, then Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish upstart who was crucified by the Romans - and there's no reason to write about him. But the disciples, his followers and those who he also appeared to clearly believed he had risen from the dead - now, whether you believe that or not is not the debate we're having, but it is a very logical reason why Jesus would not be written about until after his time. Resurrection from death moved Jesus from merely a great teacher or a prophet to being the Son of God - and that was something worth recording and writing about.
ags_rule
16-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“so what you are suggesting, is that out of all the very weak, dubious material pertaining to the mythical character, you are not only expecting us to believe a bloke existed, but he was a magician too capable of performing miracles!”

Neither of us have said that a belief in the historical Jesus requires any acceptance that he was the Son of God or a miracle worker. The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans. None of this requires any personal faith whatsoever.

Quote:
“you do not answer why theres a 30 year black hole where no oral tradition nor written word survives... you do not answer the charge that this black hole proves that either jesus failed in getting his message across, the most important message ever.... or he didnt exist.”

Please see my above post. The idea of there being a 30 year black hole with no oral tradition or written word is just plain false. You like to use the word "FACT" a lot and yet here you are spouting absolute rubbish that we KNOW to be incorrect!

I'll let DW2 handle the rest of the post as you were responding to him and not me, but I had to pick you up on these points as they are wrong on all accounts.

I'll also ask you to answer me one question. You talk a lot about "the silence that screams", so I'll challenge you with that - in all the writings of antiquity that are either neutral about Jesus or challenge Christianity, why does not a single one challenge that he never existed?
abigail1234
16-12-2016
I'm so used to atheists ruling on DS that this is a shock: to see intelligent, thoughful posts about the existence of Jesus, backed by strong debate.

This IS DS, right?
SULLA
16-12-2016
Originally Posted by lordOfTime:
“Evidence for Jesus? I thought it was an interesting read.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...d-jesus-exist/”

You are not allowed to post the views of actual experts.
barbeler
16-12-2016
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“But the disciples, his followers and those who he also appeared to clearly believed he had risen from the dead”

Perhaps he had a twin brother.
lordOfTime
16-12-2016
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“ You are not allowed to post the views of actual experts. ”

Sorry about that,
lordOfTime
16-12-2016
Originally Posted by barbeler:
“Perhaps he had a twin brother.”

Did he give himself crucifix marks too?
mushymanrob
17-12-2016
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“This is the only point I'm going to address because your posts are now becoming tiresome soundbites with absolutely no evidence to back-up your arguments.”

how can i produce evidence of nothing?... ive reasoned that the son of gods job was to spread the message of salvation, he preached to thousands, was hailed as he entered jerusalem - but for all of this, his church didnt take off until 30 years plus after he died. that, by any account, should raise eyebrows of suspicion. he clearly failed. i dont get why there should be this black hole.

Quote:
“Those who witnessed him DID keep the evidence - it's made very clear in the writings of Paul and in the Gospels that his disciples spread the message as far and as wide as they could. And as you've already been shown, the beginning of Luke's Gospel makes it clear that "many" had written accounts of Jesus' life, teachings and appearances.”

..... says the bible.... and do you think 'many' are a handful of disciples who didnt bother to do anything for over 30 years?... what about the testimonies of the thousands who supposed to have witnessed him?...

Quote:
“The oral traditions certainly did not die out. One of the earliest church creeds - one that is still found today - is found in 1 Corinthians 3-5 and even atheists agree (http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11069 - the author of "The Christian Delusion"!) that this can be dated to within several years of Jesus' death.”

yeah, referring back to the bible again, hardly 'evidence' is it...

Quote:
“You can ask until you are blue in the face for "contemporary" writings about Jesus and you will not find any. You won't find any for anyone. People were by and large illiterate and poorly educated. It was not accepted tradition to keep "diaries" or to write down information as it occurred. When it came to historical biographies, tradition dictated that these were only written about the most important people, and only after their deaths.”

5000 people supposed to have witnessed the loaves and fishes miracle, according to the bible. if only 1% were literate, thats 50 possibilities of multiple written accounts, letters to absent family members, who in turn would keep these writings and copy them.

bib... you cannot get more important then the son of god. and THATS the point.... its hard to 'get' why this messiah whos job it was to spread the news of salvation should not have left a bigger footprint. and THATS why it is possible, totally possible, that he simply did not exist.



Quote:
“There are virtually no documents that have survived Christ's era. Velleius Paterculus (ca. 19 B.C. – A.D. 30), a retired army officer and amateur historian produced a“badly written history of Rome covering that age from the end of the Trojan War to the death of Livia (A.D. 29) - that's about the best we have.”

i know, and ive said it is possible all were lost.... its also possible non were written because there was no such person!


Quote:
“The impossibility of what you are asking can be put into context through the life of Pontius Pilot. Our best evidence for his existence, prior to a discovery of a concrete slab bearing his name discovered in 1961, comes from the same external sources we have for Jesus' existence - Josephus and Tactius. Here was a man who served the Roman government for ten years in one of the political hotspots of the empire. He himself was embroiled repeatedly in controversy (we know this from Josephus' writings). And yet, there is not a solitary Roman, Jewish or any other contemporary archival document that so much as mentions his name. All we have to tie him to the era is a concrete slab - something that we will never find for Jesus, who was not a Roman prefect but, to the Romans, a common criminal, and to the Jews, a dangerous blasphemer.

And there's another very good reason why writings about Christ are only found after his death. Because, for Christians, the resurrection of Christ means everything. If that never happened, then Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish upstart who was crucified by the Romans - and there's no reason to write about him. But the disciples, his followers and those who he also appeared to clearly believed he had risen from the dead - now, whether you believe that or not is not the debate we're having, but it is a very logical reason why Jesus would not be written about until after his time. Resurrection from death moved Jesus from merely a great teacher or a prophet to being the Son of God - and that was something worth recording and writing about.”

you belittle jesus.... the point is though, which jesus are you supporting here? because the biblical messiah was a far more important person then pilate, or alexander to mankind. of course the construct built around a preacher version of jesus wouldnt have left a footprint.

tbh im not sure where you are coming from nor what your point is.

there is no contemporary accounts of jesus existence, the cold bare facts of the time highlighted in 'the silence that screams' IS compelling evidence that jesus could be a man made construct. you believe in him because you chose too.. and if you have faith then you will not, cannot, countenance the fact that he might never have existed in any form.
mushymanrob
17-12-2016
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“Neither of us have said that a belief in the historical Jesus requires any acceptance that he was the Son of God or a miracle worker. The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans. None of this requires any personal faith whatsoever.”

why say this?.... ive said that that is an option (option 2) .

you hide though.... who do you believe jesus was? the biblical son of god (miracle worker), or a jewish teacher? this is fundemental to christianity because if he wasnt the miracle working son of god the bible says he was - christianity is a complete lie, its untrue, its false, its nonsense.

like i posted to dw2, theres a huge difference between accepting a jewish teacher existed and a miracle performing son of god. and ive said on many occasions that i completely accept the biblical jesus could be based upon a teacher/preacher.


Quote:
“Please see my above post. The idea of there being a 30 year black hole with no oral tradition or written word is just plain false. You like to use the word "FACT" a lot and yet here you are spouting absolute rubbish that we KNOW to be incorrect!

I'll let DW2 handle the rest of the post as you were responding to him and not me, but I had to pick you up on these points as they are wrong on all accounts.

I'll also ask you to answer me one question. You talk a lot about "the silence that screams", so I'll challenge you with that - in all the writings of antiquity that are either neutral about Jesus or challenge Christianity, why does not a single one challenge that he never existed?”

there was clearly a 30 year black hole... otherwise christianity would have taken off much sooner, if it was real, if people actually saw these miracles, if they understood the message jesus was giving, if they had actually met the son of god. if you KNOW this to be incorrect, wheres the evidence? oh and please, not the bible... thats hardly unbiased, hard core, proven 'evidence' at all...

dont they?... do you actually KNOW that not one doubted his existence? how could they if he didnt?

but its back down to what everyone is doing, they were told he existed so they believed it, just like everyone does today. its accepted, its not scrutinised..

but it is possible, that he was a complete work of fiction, or at least a ficticious, embellished account of a real person.
lordOfTime
17-12-2016
Maybe the Bible should be released as an audio book. Carry on the oral tradition

Pity they didn't have that in those days.
bollywood
17-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“why say this?.... ive said that that is an option (option 2) .

you hide though.... who do you believe jesus was? the biblical son of god (miracle worker), or a jewish teacher? this is fundemental to christianity because if he wasnt the miracle working son of god the bible says he was - christianity is a complete lie, its untrue, its false, its nonsense.

like i posted to dw2, theres a huge difference between accepting a jewish teacher existed and a miracle performing son of god. and ive said on many occasions that i completely accept the biblical jesus could be based upon a teacher/preacher.


there was clearly a 30 year black hole... otherwise christianity would have taken off much sooner, if it was real, if people actually saw these miracles, if they understood the message jesus was giving, if they had actually met the son of god. if you KNOW this to be incorrect, wheres the evidence? oh and please, not the bible... thats hardly unbiased, hard core, proven 'evidence' at all...

dont they?... do you actually KNOW that not one doubted his existence? how could they if he didnt?

but its back down to what everyone is doing, they were told he existed so they believed it, just like everyone does today. its accepted, its not scrutinised..

but it is possible, that he was a complete work of fiction, or at least a ficticious, embellished account of a real person.”

Now you seem to be saying something different. He existed but not as the son of God, is what you're saying.

If Jesus was an eschatological prophet, as some think, he was the son of God as any of us believers are. He didn't claim that miracles were confined to him.
SULLA
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“i dont think the biblical miracle man ever existed
i do think the biblical character could be based on a real person
i do think its possible that jesus never existed and its all a work of fiction.”

Originally Posted by Nodger:
“Agreed. Perfectly rational stances.”

For an athiest.
spiney2
18-12-2016
Why did God send the 2nd part of himself to be born on earth, and not the 1st or 3rd parts ?
Ænima
18-12-2016
I don't think Jesus existed. At least, not the 'magic' Jesus written about in the bible. If you're of sound mind, you should know that type of stuff is ridiculous.
spiney2
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Now you seem to be saying something different. He existed but not as the son of God, is what you're saying.

If Jesus was an eschatological prophet, as some think, he was the son of God as any of us believers are. He didn't claim that miracles were confined to him.”

er, didn't he say he'd come to fulfil prophecy, then told Peter not to mention his actual name ?
lordOfTime
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by Ænima:
“I don't think Jesus existed. At least, not the 'magic' Jesus written about in the bible. If you're of sound mind, you should know that type of stuff is ridiculous.”

You don't think Jesus existed. That's an opinion, and one you're perfectly entitled to hold. So why, unless it's an indisputable verifiable fact that "Magic" Jesus as you put it never existed are believers not of sound mind? Because that's the implication you're making on people like me. Another excuse to have a go at those delusional Jesus believers eh?
mushymanrob
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Now you seem to be saying something different. He existed but not as the son of God, is what you're saying.

If Jesus was an eschatological prophet, as some think, he was the son of God as any of us believers are. He didn't claim that miracles were confined to him.”

i made my pov on the 3 'options' clear, i have not changed or shifted on anything, to clarify once moe

1- he existed and was the biblical son of god, the miracle worker.
2- the biblical jesus is a heavily embelished exageration based on one (or more) real people - but was not the son of god
3- the whole story is a total construct, a work of fiction, a lie.

'option 2' is the most favoured one by most, but 'option 3' is also a possibility.

Originally Posted by lordOfTime:
“You don't think Jesus existed. That's an opinion, and one you're perfectly entitled to hold. So why, unless it's an indisputable verifiable fact that "Magic" Jesus as you put it never existed are believers not of sound mind? Because that's the implication you're making on people like me. Another excuse to have a go at those delusional Jesus believers eh? ”

which religion though, is the 'real' one? because if christianity is then surely all the others are the deluded ones? if 'we' are right and no religion is 'the truth' , then arent all people with a religious conviction 'deluded'?.. islam might be right, in which case both you and i are 'deluded'...

someone, somewhere is not of sound mind, as they are convinced that their false belief is real.

i see no more evidence that christianity is 'the real' religion then any other, and the fact that there are so many other religions is strong evidence that actually, non are right! i cant understand why the god who supposed to have created everything, to such an exact, varied and precise extent could be so misunderstood by so many.

but that harks back to my old point... the natural world/creation and religion do not have the same author.
bollywood
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by spiney2:
“er, didn't he say he'd come to fulfil prophecy, then told Peter not to mention his actual name ?”

He said different things. He referred more than once to the Son of Man who would come in the future to establish his kingdom.
bollywood
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“i made my pov on the 3 'options' clear, i have not changed or shifted on anything, to clarify once moe

1- he existed and was the biblical son of god, the miracle worker.
2- the biblical jesus is a heavily embelished exageration based on one (or more) real people - but was not the son of god
3- the whole story is a total construct, a work of fiction, a lie.

'option 2' is the most favoured one by most, but 'option 3' is also a possibility.



which religion though, is the 'real' one? because if christianity is then surely all the others are the deluded ones? if 'we' are right and no religion is 'the truth' , then arent all people with a religious conviction 'deluded'?.. islam might be right, in which case both you and i are 'deluded'...
.”

So you would agree Jesus existed as a prophet, threatened the established doctrines of his time, was killed because authorities thought he was King of the Jews, and influenced many followers.

It isn't clear that Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of Man.

As he wasn't a Christian himself, but a Jew who kept many of the Jewish laws, he couldn't very well insist that people be Christians.

A bit of a faux argument there. Probably some misinterpreted passages as well.
ags_rule
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“there was clearly a 30 year black hole... otherwise christianity would have taken off much sooner, if it was real, if people actually saw these miracles, if they understood the message jesus was giving, if they had actually met the son of god. if you KNOW this to be incorrect, wheres the evidence? oh and please, not the bible... thats hardly unbiased, hard core, proven 'evidence' at all...”

Look, I'm done with this debate now, because it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the Bible.

The problem is that you've made up your mind already. You've never studied it. You don't have a clue what the "Bible" is actually composed of, who it was written by, why historians even today still use parts of it as a valid historical source to learn about that time period.

The letters of Paul are part of the Bible. But that is all they are - letters. They were never originally intended to be seen by anyone other than who he was writing to. They make it very clear that the early Church movement was active within several years of Jesus' death. They predate the Gospels. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Church didn't start until 30 years after Jesus died. You have offered no evidence to back-up this theory.

Let's use an analogy for what you are suggesting.

Let's say that Donald Trump, in his Presidency, starts a nuclear war. Humanity is very nearly wiped out - nearly all archival documents and all digital information is destroyed.

1000 years later, someone finds a copy of a letter from a senior member of the Republican party, writing to other members of the Republican Party. The information in it is clearly from a biased source, but it tells us so many things about pre-war life - internal squabbles within the party, who allies and enemies are, plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

The logical person concludes, "What an incredible historical find! Here we have a person who was actually involved in the pre-war Republican Party, and indeed was one of the most senior figures in it! They speak authoritatively about ideologies of the time and give us interesting insights into the way the party operated."

The illogical person concludes, "Well, this source is from the pre-war Republican Party, so it's pretty much useless to us. The Republican Party didn't come into existence until after the nuclear war and the so-called 'Donald Trump' that is referred to probably never existed."

This really isn't any different to your argument. What we have in Paul's letters is a senior member of the early Christian Church giving us clear, detailed ideological and operational insights into the early Christian Church! Only a fool would discard this as a useful historical source simply because it's found in the New Testament canon - something that didn't even exist when Paul wrote his letters!
lordOfTime
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“which religion though, is the 'real' one? because if christianity is then surely all the others are the deluded ones? if 'we' are right and no religion is 'the truth' , then arent all people with a religious conviction 'deluded'?.. islam might be right, in which case both you and i are 'deluded'...

someone, somewhere is not of sound mind, as they are convinced that their false belief is real.

i see no more evidence that christianity is 'the real' religion then any other, and the fact that there are so many other religions is strong evidence that actually, non are right! i cant understand why the god who supposed to have created everything, to such an exact, varied and precise extent could be so misunderstood by so many.

but that harks back to my old point... the natural world/creation and religion do not have the same author.”

They're all "real". half of them even worship the same God.. the abrahamic God. Judaism for example can be confidered the prequel to Christianity. The Muslim and Jewish faiths acknowledge Jesus but don't see him as the Messiah.

Christians believe that God made each and every one of us unique and will not force any of us to believe in him. And some people don't. The Bible also tells that Gods own people kept turning away from him to worship their old Gods or Idols. Is it any wonder then that with all the individuality of the world and cultures out there that other faiths have formed over the centuries?

It comes down to choice. Believe or don't believe.

I see no reason why the creation story in and the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe can be understood one and the same. Genesis is not a science book, I know that and it shouldn't be taken literally but if you look at in a non literal way, i.e. a way of coming to terms with Gods creation, I think you stop seeing problems and start to see a correlation.

That's the way I look at it.
SULLA
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“i made my pov on the 3 'options' clear, i have not changed or shifted on anything, to clarify once moe

1- he existed and was the biblical son of god, the miracle worker.”

Wrong. This option should say He exists.
Quote:
“2- the biblical jesus is a heavily embelished exageration based on one (or more) real people - but was not the son of god”

What is your evidence for 'More than one '
Quote:
“3- the whole story is a total construct, a work of fiction, a lie.

'option 2' is the most favoured one by most, but 'option 3' is also a possibility.”

Not according the the majority of serious historians
Richard46
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“Wrong. This option should say He exists.
What is your evidence for 'More than one '
Not according the the majority of serious historians”

Which version do they favour and who are these historians?
ags_rule
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by Richard46:
“Which version do they favour and who are these historians?”

It would be better for you to list historians who don't believe in a historical Jesus. The list for the opposite would be too long. They come from all walks of faith and none.
Richard46
18-12-2016
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“It would be better for you to list historians who don't believe in a historical Jesus. The list for the opposite would be too long. They come from all walks of faith and none.”

I suspect most would support option 2 to some extent or other. I was wondering which option SULLA thought they would support.

To be honest I don't think it matters a great deal. The value of what Christ is recorded as teaching stands or falls by its merits not by proof of his existence IMO.
<<
<
6 of 22
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

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

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