|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#151 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
Quote:
Which version do they favour and who are these historians?
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#152 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
Quote:
I suspect most would support option 2 to some extent or other. I was wondering which option SULLA thought they would support.
Quote:
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.
A non existence of Jesus would certainly suit your agenda
|
|
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,595
|
Although it is generally accepted that it was a time of religious turmoil when there were a lot of Jewish leaders/prophets/messiahs who were seen as a threat to the Roman establishment we have the names of none of them.
So does that mean that none of them existed ~ they were obviously well known enough to have been perceived as a threat to Rome. |
|
|
|
|
|
#154 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
They would support a historical Jesus of Nazareth.
A non existence of Jesus would certainly suit your agenda Edit I am even a supporter of some of his teachings. |
|
|
|
|
|
#155 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
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.
l. please read what i actually said again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#156 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
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! i dont give a damn about what these nebulous historians think, because i bet they are believers, people dedicated to interpreting and 'proving' the bible is correct. the point is.... this cannot be done. and IF theres any embellishment at all, or anything thats not 100% true, then that sinks the whole religion. the point being that if it was a construct or corruption of something its based on... then it would self validate wouldnt it! the 'evidence' i use is found in the silence that screams. |
|
|
|
|
|
#157 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,595
|
It is interesting that although Judaism does not recognise Jesus as the son of God or as being the one who has been foretold it does acknowledge his existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#158 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,795
|
Quote:
but you are assuming that these letters are 100% accurate, that they are totally true. you assume the same of the bible, yet these letters do not physically exist, and theres nothing at all to suggest the bible is an actual accurate historic account, thats 100% accurate.
i dont give a damn about what these nebulous historians think, because i bet they are believers, people dedicated to interpreting and 'proving' the bible is correct. the point is.... this cannot be done. and IF theres any embellishment at all, or anything thats not 100% true, then that sinks the whole religion. the point being that if it was a construct or corruption of something its based on... then it would self validate wouldnt it! the 'evidence' i use is found in the silence that screams. |
|
|
|
|
|
#159 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
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. there is some seriously deluded people here.... and i do include atheists, who could be as wrong as anyone with a religious belief. Quote:
Wrong. This option should say He exists.
What is your evidence for 'More than one ' Not according the the majority of serious historians i have no evidence, but its generally accepted that there was a lot of religious teachers/preachers at the time and the biblical jesus could be a construct of more then one person. note COULD not IS. Quote:
Which version do they favour and who are these historians?
i dont see how any serious historian or scholar could assume jesus existed when theres such a huge lack of evidence, and the large leaps of faith needed to explain this whilst unbiasedly theres no logical, reasonable, explanation to validate his existence. Quote:
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.
but as ever, which version of jesus?.... many people might well believe that there was a character, but not the miracle working son of god version. see..... you never answer this.... you keep saying that 'most historians believe there was a jesus' ... but WHICH version is absolutely vital. because only the biblical son of god would validate the religion. if they think he was an embelished character , a ordinary preacher (but not the miracle man) then that is very damaging to your assertion /most historians believe he existed'.. Quote:
So does that mean that none of them existed ~ they were obviously well known enough to have been perceived as a threat to Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Good grief, the abject ignorance demonstrated in this post is cringworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#161 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,795
|
Quote:
ignorance?, to suggest the bible cannot be regarded as the truth? nothing in it can be verified, proven, so cannot be regarded as hard evidence. its all storytelling.
We had no archaeological evidence of the existence of Pilate until 1961. The bible proved his existence so why reject a historical Jesus! |
|
|
|
|
|
#162 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
There are truths to be gleaned even from non fiction.
We had no archaeological evidence of the existence of Pilate until 1961. The bible proved his existence so why reject a historical Jesus! ive said why theres a possibility that jesus never existed, or that he was an embelished character based on a real person, and why i dont accept the biblical miracle worker. |
|
|
|
|
|
#163 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
i did not say that.
please read what i actually said again. What information do you have that changes the accepted view? |
|
|
|
|
|
#164 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 274
|
Quote:
theres no contradiction.... jesus did go unnoticed (assuming he existed) to all contemporary sources. there are no contemporary sources for him.
Therefore, just because no contemporary accounts of Jesus have been discovered doesn't mean that none were written. Quote:
im not sure why you are still arguing this either... i cannot prove whether he existed or not ........... neither can you.
Quote:
exactly..... end of discussion.
Quote:
.... but the same can be said for every other religion. so which ones right?
Of course, most of Muhammad's miracles are recorded in the Hadith which was written later than the Koran, so even if you did want to move onto miracles I'm not sure there would be as strong comparison as you imagine. Quote:
except theres NO evidence that james was his brother,
![]() Paul refers to the fact James was Jesus' brother in passing, as if his audience already knew this and he was simply clarifying which James he was referring to. Therefore, we have to ask where this tradition came from if Jesus didn't have a brother called James. Quote:
NO evidence that jesus had family and friends, NO evidence that these things are fact and NO evidence that tacitus and jospehus writing nearly 80-90 years later had any more knowledge then anyone else and they clearly got their information from earlier sources.
Quote:
you cannot prove a negative!
Quote:
...but which version of jesus?.
Quote:
.
thats nonsense..... the early church certainly would, and did, gather all the material pertaining to jesus. whats a guard got to do with it? The early church, prior to Constantine, was very different to the medieval church with it's resources, power to take any document they want and large trade in religious relics. Considering that no other first century group did a better job of collecting and preserving important documents why do you think the first Christians would have been different? Quote:
.jesus failed in getting his message across, the most important message ever.... or he didnt exist.
It is also a bad argument against Christianity. Do you really think that if it was announced on the news tomorrow that archeologists had discovered a contemporary written account of the feeding of the five thousand or a letter by some Roman who's granddad claims to have been there, suddenly atheists everywhere would see the light and rush down to their local church? |
|
|
|
|
|
#165 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
|
Quote:
so you dont actually answer my question. you claim we all worship the same god, but every religion claims to be 'the truth', . if it was all one big happy family as you suggest, then why dont these religions get on? and if jesus came to save us as the messiah and he is the onle and only way back to god as christianity proclaims, how come islam offers another way?
there is some seriously deluded people here.... and i do include atheists, who could be as wrong as anyone with a religious belief. . We do "get on" as it were. I'm no theologian so I can't give you a theological view as to why there are so many different world faiths but I can tell you at Christianity is unique in the message that it offers. Christianity is I believe, the only religion that accepts the need for a Messiah and offers one. So you accept you could be wrong when you deny Jesus as the "biblical miracle worker" as you put it? Christians could be wrong about Christ. My hunch is we're not but it is after all, a faith. |
|
|
|
|
#166 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
true.... (fiction and pilate)
ive said why theres a possibility that jesus never existed, or that he was an embelished character based on a real person, and why i dont accept the biblical miracle worker. |
|
|
|
|
|
#167 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,795
|
Quote:
true.... (fiction and pilate)
ive said why theres a possibility that jesus never existed, or that he was an embelished character based on a real person, and why i dont accept the biblical miracle worker. What do you think is most probable, existence or non existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
#168 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,703
|
Even if jesus existed, and their no reason not to assume that. Theres a huge leap between a historical jesus, and a supernatural Agent.
Jesus probably existed. He was probably a great man too. But son of god...... I dont think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#169 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
Even if jesus existed, and their no reason not to assume that. Theres a huge leap between a historical jesus, and a supernatural! Agent.
Jesus probably existed. He was probably a great man too. But son of god...... I dont think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#170 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
Jesus himself didn't insist he was the Son of God. So that's beside the point.
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. |
|
|
|
|
|
#171 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
Matthew 16:15-17English Standard Version (ESV)
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. |
|
|
|
|
|
#172 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
And yet he says this in Mark 10:17-18. When a man called Jesus “good,” Jesus replied “no one is good but God alone."
|
|
|
|
|
|
#173 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
|
Quote:
Matthew 16:15-17English Standard Version (ESV)
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. |
|
|
|
|
#174 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,086
|
Quote:
Matthew 16:15-17English Standard Version (ESV)
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. |
|
|
|
|
|
#175 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
Well as you like bolly it is only of academic interest to me who he thought he was. Your disagreement would appear to be with Christians who do think he was the Son of God & think that he did.
If they want to believe in the Trinity, fine, if not fine, there is room for different beliefs. Only of concern to atheists who wish to drive a wedge between believers. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28.





