|
||||||||
Is this what Jesus looked like? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#201 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
|
Quote:
There are something like 200 passages on killing non believers. Muhammad was a war lord who would slaughter anyone who wouldn't bow to him.
Doesn't sound very peaceful to me. Let's look at it a different way. The Old Testament, even aspects of the New Testament in the Bible contain passages that "don't sound peaceful". The Muslim faith is widely regarded and rightly so as every bit as peaceful as the Christian faith. The New Testament is grounded on Jesus who tells us to love our enemies, treat others as we would like be treated ourselves. So if people killing in the name of their faith, I suggest they've got it badly wrong. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#202 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
I was replying to the comment in context. You of all people should know that our posts don't have to reflect the topic of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#203 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Why would I when most historians reject what you're saying.
Ehrman, an agnostic gives the evidence for Jesus' existence and why the myth idea is all wet. for once in your life, stop hiding behind 'experts', and for your own view based on the facts not the conjecture. |
|
|
|
|
|
#204 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Depends how you see the religion.
Jesus of the gospels referred to himself in as 'son of man', not 'son of god'. However, he used the word 'Abba' to describe god (the Aramaic word for 'father'). It seems the gentile converts might have taken this literally and merged it with their own incarnation myths. In fact referring to god as 'father' was a pretty standard Pharisaic convention of the time and (despite the claims of antagonism), most of Jesus's teaching were Pharisaic. He throws in a bit of end of world stuff that the Essenes were speaking about then but that's because they would have been relatively 'normal' stuff to hear. The original followers of Jesus were a select group of Jews who wouldn't have believed all that stuff about him being god. They certainly would have held him up as a messiah figure but there is nothing supernatural about a Jewish messiah. Paul is the one who created a god-man type theory and given his reach far extended that of Peter (they had a huge fall-out at Antioch and Paul was even threatened by the Jerusalem sect for teaching stuff that was heretical); it was Paul's version that won out in the end. And Christianity ended up being the Hellenized, western tradition espoused by Paul. And contrary to what people think of Paul, he was not Jewish in the same way the original apostles were. He was from a tentmaking family in Tarsus (modern day Turkey), a Roman citizen and completely Hellenized. theres a lot of assumption and conjecture in there. theres no firm evidence for any of this... however, you ask me how i see the religion. i cannot see it as being anything other then how the bible describes it, because if it isnt, then its open to interpretation and that means inconsistency which leads to conflict and uncertainty. to me, it has to be black and white, the bible is totally true, or untrue. Quote:
You accuse us of "side-stepping" and "fudging" the issue yet continue to make outlandish claims with no basis.
Please list contemporary accounts that we have found from the period AD 1 to AD 33 - they can be to do with any event or person you want. Quote:
Most people didn't read. Most people didn't write. Testimonies were almost certainly passed down in oral form, and this is backed up by a knowledge of Jewish custom as well as references in Luke to "many accounts" of Jesus having come before.
we have covered this.... there was a lot more literacy then you think as the vindolanda tablets/letters have proven. but if only 1% were literate, thats 50 people who witnessed the loaves and fishes... is it really conceivable that FIFTY people didnt write it down? write to absent family members and friends? that these words spread which is what they were supposed to do? and ALL have been lost despite their importance? and thats just from 1 event... i believe there was 37 miracles according to a very quick search.the very scale of the witnessing makes it inconceivable that every written and oral testimony was lost to all but... oh yeah, those who created the religion many years later. Quote:
It was also explained to you before that what Jesus was doing was, while remarkable, not Messianic. Many prophets had come before him and the concept of miracles was well established in Jewish teaching. There was no reason for people to write about Jesus while he was alive. It was the belief in his Resurrection that made him worth writing about - that made him worth dying for. Without that, he was at best a Prophet and at worst, a mad man.
seriously? making a blind man see, bringing back someone from the dead? walking on water? not worth writing about? ![]() Quote:
But we're retreading old ground. You state the Bible is a biased source yet if there were contemporary, authentic written accounts of Jesus discovered, guess where they'd end up?! It's a circular argument. The New Testament is largely a compilation of information and ideologies about Jesus and the early Christian Church.
thats because the writings in the bible cannot be proven, the originals dont exist, they cannot be dated. if new material was discovered, in this day and age it COULD be scrutinised scientifically and if such writings are proven to refer to jesus and proven to be from the right date - id accept that.on the other hand, you would not do the same if such writings emerged that proved jesus was a man made construct. Quote:
The historians who agreed on the historical Jesus come from all backgrounds, all faiths and none. The evidence is incredibly strong.
more dodging again..... WHICH jesus do they think existed? that is the fundamental question. the evidence is NOT 'incredibly strong', there is NO evidence just assumption and conjecture.Quote:
However, that is not what you have been debating us on, despite your best attempts to shift the goalposts. This is about whether Jesus existed as a historical character.
eh? what 'shifting goalposts'?... i made it perfectly clear that there are 3 options.. ive stuck with that and still do.Quote:
This is utter nonsense. Not only have you misquoted but you're tying yourself in knots as before you have spoken about "the silence that screams" and 30 years of nothingness, and now you're admitting that there WAS an early church and that we have evidence for it! Make up your mind!
eh?... im in no nots at all, there clearly was an early church but i have no idea when it started, i think no one does. it could well have started 30 years later when the first biased writings were created. theres not 1 jot of evidence anything was happening in that 30 years - the very time when all those witnesses would still be vibrant and talking about this miracle worker.you might be able to accept this, but i cant, it makes no sense to me at all. Quote:
You have been open, I'm just asking if you think jesus was a real historical figure or not.
i can accept the character the bible depicts could be based on a real person. i totally reject that he was a miracle working son of god, i dont believe in supernatural events/magic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#205 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Because no one likes being referred to as deluded.
me? im fallible, i know and accept i might be deluded. Quote:
I'm not sure the word is magic. Perhaps what you mean to say is you don't believe in supernatural power.
thats semantics... Quote:
So if people killing in the name of their faith, I suggest they've got it badly wrong. it makes the whole idea of religion ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
#206 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
|
Quote:
hit a nreve there i think, at least theres some acknowledgement that you might be deluded
me? im fallible, i know and accept i might be deluded. thats semantics... its utterly bonkers, that if theres a god who is capable of creating such an intricate universe with all the varied, exact, systems of life and who supposed to 'love' us, could get his message so wrong that people are conflicted enough to do the very opposite of what this god wants us to do. billions have died in 'gods' name, both inter-religion and from sects within the religion. it makes the whole idea of religion ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. You don't believe in God. Let's for the sake of this argument say he exists. What do you want from God? Do you want a God who forces you to believe in him but have world peace and no death in his name? Or have your free will and be allowed to make your own decision about decision about following him but accept the consequences of free will? Life is unfortunately not fair and we can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
|
#207 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
: Quote:
lol... seriously? how can you debate an issue when you ignore the counter argument?
for once in your life, stop hiding behind 'experts', and for your own view based on the facts not the conjecture. Aren't you the one who directed me to read something else? Isn't most of what you're saying just shades of Richard Carrier? The myth movement petered out with the realization that there are many more dissimilarities between Jesus and Greek and other myth, than there are similarities. Further that much of what is known about pagan beliefs in that location, is known from after Jesus' time. Anyone who studies history would know that miracles aren't something a historian can judge. That's firmly in the belief column. Historians can only study what can be observed or reconstructed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#208 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
God can't win. I think it's what happens when you give your creation free will.
You don't believe in God. Let's for the sake of this argument say he exists. What do you want from God? Do you want a God who forces you to believe in him but have world peace and no death in his name? Or have your free will and be allowed to make your own decision about decision about following him but accept the consequences of free will? Life is unfortunately not fair and we can't have it both ways. free will?... not that old chestnut... free will , you can do what you want but if you dont do what i want you to chose, you die in hell..... huh.... what sort of 'love' is that? Quote:
:
Hiding behind experts? Would that be the same as, paying attention to the majority of credible historians who don't question that Jesus existed? Quote:
Aren't you the one who directed me to read something else?
yes...the facts, not someones opinion.Quote:
Isn't most of what you're saying just shades of Richard Carrier? more woolly waffle.... no credible historian, scholar, thinker, scientist, would believe anything supernatural is possible, because its not.
The myth movement petered out with the realization that there are many more dissimilarities between Jesus and Greek and other myth, than there are similarities. Further that much of what is known about pagan beliefs in that location, is known from after Jesus' time. Anyone who studies history would know that miracles aren't something a historian can judge. That's firmly in the belief column. Historians can only study what can be observed or reconstructed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#209 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 274
|
Quote:
i told you that a week ago..... im repeating my charges because you have not directly addressed them. its all side stepping and fudge.
You say that historians don't accept bias sources - this is fundamentally wrong. The BBC Bitesize revision page for history stresses that "a source is never completely useful or totally useless." Your understanding of how history works is below secondary school level! |
|
|
|
|
|
#210 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
|
Quote:
like any loving parent, i wouldnt give up on 'my children', id make sure they learned the right way to behave, if they failed - as a loving parent it would be MY fault for not making it clear enough.
free will?... not that old chestnut... free will , you can do what you want but if you dont do what i want you to chose, you die in hell..... huh.... what sort of 'love' is that? you keep saying that but 1- doesnt back it up, 2 dont tell us which jesus they think existed... (of the 2 options ive identified). yes...the facts, not someones opinion. more woolly waffle.... no credible historian, scholar, thinker, scientist, would believe anything supernatural is possible, because its not. Plus you don't actually answer questions, mushy. You just ignore them and move on to something else. After I asked what your sources are. Waffle is a meaningless term related to a definite statement. Jesus existed. Scholars accept it. They agree he wasn't a myth. Or based on myth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#211 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
Quote:
just how would the romans do that?... how could romans deny he existed?... if he didnt exist youd get exactly what you have now........ silence.
Quote:
as for the jews..... after prophesising the coming of the messiah for many years, they didnt recognise him when he was there! this very fact actually works in favour of my point! id argue the jews DID deny his existence, by not recognising the very bloke they were expecting!
Wrong. They denied that Jesus was the Messiah Quote:
so which version of jesus do these historians who believe he existed do they believe existed? the embelished preacher man, or the magician son of god?...
![]() Quote:
I already said I suspect Christ was probably based on a real person.
But it is an interesting contradiction; either it it not true and supports the idea that bits of the gospels are made up. Or it is true and we have the Son of God destroying out of season fruit trees because he was in a bit of a huff. The BBC should do a Gardeners Question Time/Thought for the Day combined special to help us find the answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#212 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
I'm not quite sure what answers you're expecting.
Quote:
You say that historians don't accept bias sources - this is fundamentally wrong. The BBC Bitesize revision page for history stresses that "a source is never completely useful or totally useless." Your understanding of how history works is below secondary school level!
theres more to it then that, and if in 'fundamentally wrong' then its by not explaining more fully what i mean. historians dont accept as true bias sources, they do consider every source upon its own merit. i am an amateur historian, i am fully aware about how history works, how to gather evidences and data, the difference between probability and conjecture. this is the very method used to support the notion of jesus possibly never have existing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#213 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Wrong and misreading of what was said. A scholar just has no say in the supernatural part.
[quote Plus you don't actually answer questions, mushy. You just ignore them and move on to something else. After I asked what your sources are.[/quote] ive answered every question, ive stopped repeat answers though. if youd rewad the thread youd get those answers PLUS where my sources are from. Quote:
Waffle is a meaningless term related to a definite statement. Jesus existed. Scholars accept it. They agree he wasn't a myth. Or based on myth.
no he didnt. you cannot prove he existed, ive provided the source of my information to show why he might well have never existed and ive provided a reasoned argument to why he didnt. i cannot see at all why any historian or scholar who, from an unbiased pov (as opposed to being a biblical scholar whos life has been trying to explain the early bible) can possibly say with certainty that jesus existed. there is NO hard evidence for this... |
|
|
|
|
|
#214 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
So you think that the Romans preferred persecution rather than telling the Christians they were totally deluded.
Quote:
Wrong. They denied that Jesus was the Messiah
which is what i said..... how come the 'chosen people' who expected a messiah, denied his very existence when he was there?.. you think that makes sense?Quote:
Any historian who was not a believer, would not be picking the 'magic son of god' would they EXACTLY! which is my point! all you believers keep hiding behind historians and scholars saying (but not proving) they all think jesus existed. but how many of these are believers?... because believers WILL say they think he existed wont they!
so we have to listen to the unbiased ones, those without a pre-determined agenda to prove. the whole 'historians think he existed' line is total rubbish, you lot keep using it but are referring to biased believers. NO unbiased historian or scholar would believe that the miracle working son of god existed. the most they could agree to is 'option 2', the biblical jesus being based upon one or more preachers at the time... but not the miracle worker. |
|
|
|
|
|
#215 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
as for delusion..... i dont think im deluded, because i only believe in known facts and not on faith. when you believe something based on faith, you know as well as anyone does that you leave yourself open for being very very wrong.
i believe EVERY follower of any religion is deluded, that includes all the various pagan religions or beliefs. ps...... happy christmas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#216 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,795
|
Quote:
~
50/50 over whether he existed (as an embellished character based on one or more preachers but not the miracle worker) - or whether he didnt exist at all. i can accept the character the bible depicts could be based on a real person. i totally reject that he was a miracle working son of god, i dont believe in supernatural events/magic. ![]() You simply don't want to come down on one side or another - and that's fine but it makes you're entire contribution to this thread somewhat of a irrelevance. Unless you can come out with a stated position- like everybody has bravely done on this thread- it's all rather pointless. |
|
|
|
|
|
#217 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
That is hedging your bets, or sitting on the fence
![]() You simply don't want to come down on one side or another - and that's fine but it makes you're entire contribution to this thread somewhat of a irrelevance. Unless you can come out with a stated position- like everybody has bravely done on this thread- it's all rather pointless. but i certainly do not accept the magical man, religion starting, supernatural being the bible describes as being even slightly possible. its not rather pointless, in fact its the very point ive been making, that the real evidence for anyone called jesus the preacher is actually very thin and despite his supposed 3 year campaign of preaching and miracle working, nothing contemporary exists. that is a fact, and it boils down to whether is plausible that every contemporary account and oral tradition has been lost (thus making jesus high profile campaign of salvation an abject failure) or that there was never any contemporary accounts in the first place - because he simply never existed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#218 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
|
Quote:
i did, i quoted ehrman "I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.": - Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp55-56, 2001[1]"
"whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist." Once again, you have taken a quote wildly out of context - Ehrman is an atheist who has studied the Bible and early Christian writings from a historical perspective. He believes that elements of the Christian story have been embellished, but nevertheless, argues that the evidence that points towards the historical existence of Jesus is "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind". He backs up the arguments that have been made by myself and others in this thread that the lack of contemporary sources for Jesus' existence is irrelevant, and that the letters of Paul, together with mentions of Jesus in Roman histories only decades after his death, provide very strong corroborating evidence for his existence. He argues that those who say Jesus never existed at all are more motivated by a desire to prove religion wrong than from any quest for historical truth. I wonder is there anyone in this thread that could apply to? |
|
|
|
|
|
#219 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,086
|
Quote:
im not hedging my bets. the evidence presented suggests there 2 possibilities. neither , imho, is more compelling then the other and both must be seen as plausible.
but i certainly do not accept the magical man, religion starting, supernatural being the bible describes as being even slightly possible. its not rather pointless, in fact its the very point ive been making, that the real evidence for anyone called jesus the preacher is actually very thin and despite his supposed 3 year campaign of preaching and miracle working, nothing contemporary exists. that is a fact, and it boils down to whether is plausible that every contemporary account and oral tradition has been lost (thus making jesus high profile campaign of salvation an abject failure) or that there was never any contemporary accounts in the first place - because he simply never existed. I think it is safe to assume that you do not believe he existed and are spending a great deal of time and energy saying so via argument, but not actually stating it. There is no 50/50. That's fine. You have looked up a blog or book or whatever your source was and have reached this conclusion and are closed to any other viewpoint from what I can see. Perhaps we are closed to your viewpoint too. It's become very circular now. I have found the scholarly posts extremely interesting and it has prompted me to look more deeply into the subject, so I'm grateful for that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#220 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Is this the same Bart Ehrman who wrote a book in 2012 entitled "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus", in which he stated...
"whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist." Once again, you have taken a quote wildly out of context - Ehrman is an atheist who has studied the Bible and early Christian writings from a historical perspective. He believes that elements of the Christian story have been embellished, but nevertheless, argues that the evidence that points towards the historical existence of Jesus is "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind". He backs up the arguments that have been made by myself and others in this thread that the lack of contemporary sources for Jesus' existence is irrelevant, and that the letters of Paul, together with mentions of Jesus in Roman histories only decades after his death, provide very strong corroborating evidence for his existence. He argues that those who say Jesus never existed at all are more motivated by a desire to prove religion wrong than from any quest for historical truth. I wonder is there anyone in this thread that could apply to? i disagree that lack of contemporary accounts is irrelevant, in fact its VERY relevant in proving whether he existed or not. in fact its bizarre that you think the lack of contemporary accounts are irrelevant, but uncorroborated later accounts are... theres absolutely nothing to prove these later accounts were not works at least in part, of fiction.why would anyone want to reject eternal happiness in heaven? hes WRONG. and dont forget, i was a christian, i did buy into the story, i wanted it. but it was only, over a period of time, that important questions were fudged or ignored, explained away in an unsatisfactory style, that the holes in the doctrine became too large to gloss over. in the end, i couldnt support it with an open and honest heart. |
|
|
|
|
|
#221 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Your points have been addressed several times by intelligent posters and you have simply ignored them.
look at it like this..... i asked why theres no contemporary accounts. answer - could have all been lost. true. that is an answer.... but its not a definitive answer, it doesnt nullify the other possibility that there are no contemporary accounts, because there was no contemporary accounts! id suggest the 'intelligent' option would be the one that sees both sides of the argument. it is not 'intelligent' to present an answer and expects it to be accepted when its doesnt destroy the other pov. the answer to my question was conjecture, not killer evidence, . the point i make about there being no contemporary accounts because he didnt exist, stands. its not been disproven. Quote:
I think it is safe to assume that you do not believe he existed and are spending a great deal of time and energy saying so via argument, but not actually stating it. There is no 50/50.
oh please, what part of my quoted post dont you understand?.... i said im 50/50 and i mean im 50/50 , thats 50% he didnt exist, 50% the biblical account is an embelished account of a real person/s. im ceratinly 0% on the son of god.Quote:
That's fine. You have looked up a blog or book or whatever your source was and have reached this conclusion and are closed to any other viewpoint from what I can see. Perhaps we are closed to your viewpoint too. It's become very circular now. I have found the scholarly posts extremely interesting and it has prompted me to look more deeply into the subject, so I'm grateful for that.
yes, yes you are closed to my viewpoint, you have to be... you have no choice but to be closed to it. because if he didnt exist, or was based on an ordinary preacher and not the son of god - your religion, your belief, your life, falls apart.... i get that. the source is http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...e_That_Screams . that deals with the facts, from an unbiased view. but it wasnt the source for my reasoning behind the lack of contemporary evidence, it was the starting block. from there the questions i asked about the thousands that failed to make contemporary accounts , the rise of other religions, the 30 year black hole.. and none of these points have been addressed properly with reasoned, supported, unbiased evidences. you lot can argue all you want, but the fact is that there is a possibility, quite a large one, that jesus did not exist in any shape or form. youll ignore that though. oh....and i see no ones challenged the points made in 'freethoughtpedia'. |
|
|
|
|
|
#222 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
|
Quote:
......... but WHICH version of jesus doers ehrman think existed?... this is the fundamental point!
i disagree that lack of contemporary accounts is irrelevant, in fact its VERY relevant in proving whether he existed or not. in fact its bizarre that you think the lack of contemporary accounts are irrelevant, but uncorroborated later accounts are... theres absolutely nothing to prove these later accounts were not works at least in part, of fiction.The one thing he does not do is give any credence to the idea Jesus never existed. Because it's ridiculous. And THAT is the fundamental point. Let me take you back to your very first post in this thread: Quote:
jesus didnt exist... so he looked like this (between the v ^ ) That is a definitive statement, nailing your colours to the mast. v v v v v And now you're saying you're 50/50 between he existed and he didn't? Maybe myself and other posters have actually made you question why you held these beliefs - if so, great. But more likely you are just back tracking to make yourself look less foolish. Here is a summary by the way of what Ehrman believes (adapted from an Amazon review of one of his books): Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who believed that the millennium was imminent. He was born in Nazareth, and had originally been a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus taught that the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed, and that a saviour figure known as the Son of Man would establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Jesus himself would become the ruler of this kingdom. Thus, Jesus saw himself as the Messiah. The new kingdom would exalt the poor, downtrodden and oppressed, and humble the mighty and powerful. Salvation was based on works, not faith. Jesus didn't question Jewish laws and customs, and often participated in Jewish celebrations. However, he believed that the commandment of love trumped the other commandments, both love of God and love of thy neighbour. To some extent, the small community around Jesus was a foretaste of the kingdom, since it was based on the commandment of love, as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus created a disturbance at the Temple in Jerusalem, where his apocalyptic preaching was seen as a threat by both the Jewish leadership and the Romans. After eating a Passover meal, Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples, and sentenced to death. The crucifixion was a real event, but the traditions about the resurrection are so confusing and contradictory, that it's impossible to say what actually happened. The disciples, however, were steadfast in their belief that Jesus was resurrected, and seeing him as God incarnate, spread this teaching as far as they could. He explains this further in an interview with TBS: Quote:
The view I have of Jesus’s resurrection, or of his other miracles, or of anyone else’s miracles (say, Apollonius of Tyana’s or Elijah’s) is the view I had when I was a Christian, when I believed in God, and when I believed that miracles could and did happen. I have the same view now as I had then. So, it’s not an atheist view. Do you agree or disagree with this as a logical, rational viewpoint on how Jesus can exist as an historical figure without you needing to have a personal faith or belief in God?The view is that even if miracles did happen in the past — let’s simply grant that they happened — there is no way to establish that they happened using the historical disciplines (i.e., to show they are, using your term from earlier, “objective historical truth”). Again, that’s not a result of atheist, anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. It is the result of historical method. Historians simply have no access to supernatural activities involving the actions of God. Only theologians (among the scholars) have access to God. Theologians can certainly affirm that God has done miracles, but they are affirming this on theological grounds, not historical grounds. I recommend you read the entire interview - http://www.thebestschools.org/specia...man-interview/ You keep asking for a non-Christian scholar who believes fully in the historical Jesus - there you go. While I don't agree with him from my own personal faith standpoint, he is far more rational, scholarly and, most importantly, historical in his reasoning than you have been in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
#223 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
Quote:
free will?... not that old chestnut... free will , you can do what you want but if you dont do what i want you to chose, you die in hell..... huh.... what sort of 'love' is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#224 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
|
Quote:
I told you already, Ehrman is agnostic. He does not believe the evidence is strong enough for Jesus' resurrection, and in terms of his miracles, he cannot prove them but cannot disprove them either.
The one thing he does not do is give any credence to the idea Jesus never existed. Because it's ridiculous. And THAT is the fundamental point. Let me take you back to your very first post in this thread: That is a definitive statement, nailing your colours to the mast. And now you're saying you're 50/50 between he existed and he didn't? Maybe myself and other posters have actually made you question why you held these beliefs - if so, great. But more likely you are just back tracking to make yourself look less foolish. Here is a summary by the way of what Ehrman believes (adapted from an Amazon review of one of his books): Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who believed that the millennium was imminent. He was born in Nazareth, and had originally been a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus taught that the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed, and that a saviour figure known as the Son of Man would establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Jesus himself would become the ruler of this kingdom. Thus, Jesus saw himself as the Messiah. The new kingdom would exalt the poor, downtrodden and oppressed, and humble the mighty and powerful. Salvation was based on works, not faith. Jesus didn't question Jewish laws and customs, and often participated in Jewish celebrations. However, he believed that the commandment of love trumped the other commandments, both love of God and love of thy neighbour. To some extent, the small community around Jesus was a foretaste of the kingdom, since it was based on the commandment of love, as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus created a disturbance at the Temple in Jerusalem, where his apocalyptic preaching was seen as a threat by both the Jewish leadership and the Romans. After eating a Passover meal, Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples, and sentenced to death. The crucifixion was a real event, but the traditions about the resurrection are so confusing and contradictory, that it's impossible to say what actually happened. The disciples, however, were steadfast in their belief that Jesus was resurrected, and seeing him as God incarnate, spread this teaching as far as they could. He explains this further in an interview with TBS: Do you agree or disagree with this as a logical, rational viewpoint on how Jesus can exist as an historical figure without you needing to have a personal faith or belief in God? I recommend you read the entire interview - http://www.thebestschools.org/specia...man-interview/ You keep asking for a non-Christian scholar who believes fully in the historical Jesus - there you go. While I don't agree with him from my own personal faith standpoint, he is far more rational, scholarly and, most importantly, historical in his reasoning than you have been in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
#225 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
I told you already, Ehrman is agnostic.
Quote:
He does not believe the evidence is strong enough for Jesus' resurrection, and in terms of his miracles, he cannot prove them but cannot disprove them either.
oh come on! he cant disprove them therefore they might have occurred?.. that is not rational. thats like saying that jesus was an octopus, it might be true because it cannot be disproven. but the glareing gap is still the fact that according to the bible thousands of people witnessed these miracles - but not 1 person appeared to have wrote about it, nor pass it down by oral tradition. yeah i keep coming back to that point because its still not been properly resolved. Quote:
The one thing he does not do is give any credence to the idea Jesus never existed. Because it's ridiculous. ..... and yet the charge stands. there is no contemporary evidence of him, and no unbiased evidence for him. what is ridiculous is dismissing the possibility that he never existed. you quote ehrman as saying about the miracles - he cant prove nor disprove them - exactly the same thing can be said for jesus existence. And THAT is the fundamental point. Quote:
Let me take you back to your very first post in this thread: i was being mischievous That is a definitive statement, nailing your colours to the mast. Quote:
And now you're saying you're 50/50 between he existed and he didn't?
because thats what i truely think. Quote:
Maybe myself and other posters have actually made you question why you held these beliefs - if so, great. But more likely you are just back tracking to make yourself look less foolish.
im not backtracking at all.... this is a view ive held and posted before as others know.Quote:
Here is a summary by the way of what Ehrman believes (adapted from an Amazon review of one of his books): very nice, but not 1 jot of that can be proven to be the truth! it might well be correct, or near correct, or it might be fantasy.Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who believed that the millennium was imminent. He was born in Nazareth, and had originally been a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus taught that the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed, and that a saviour figure known as the Son of Man would establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Jesus himself would become the ruler of this kingdom. Thus, Jesus saw himself as the Messiah. The new kingdom would exalt the poor, downtrodden and oppressed, and humble the mighty and powerful. Salvation was based on works, not faith. Jesus didn't question Jewish laws and customs, and often participated in Jewish celebrations. However, he believed that the commandment of love trumped the other commandments, both love of God and love of thy neighbour. To some extent, the small community around Jesus was a foretaste of the kingdom, since it was based on the commandment of love, as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus created a disturbance at the Temple in Jerusalem, where his apocalyptic preaching was seen as a threat by both the Jewish leadership and the Romans. After eating a Passover meal, Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples, and sentenced to death. The crucifixion was a real event, but the traditions about the resurrection are so confusing and contradictory, that it's impossible to say what actually happened. The disciples, however, were steadfast in their belief that Jesus was resurrected, and seeing him as God incarnate, spread this teaching as far as they could. Quote:
Do you agree or disagree with this as a logical, rational viewpoint on how Jesus can exist as an historical figure without you needing to have a personal faith or belief in God?
disagree. because it is not logical, nor rational, to believe that miracles can or have been performed by anyone. i do agree though that jesus might have existed as an historical figure, as ive said, but not a miracle worker, not the son of god. ive said that. Quote:
I recommend you read the entire interview - http://www.thebestschools.org/specia...man-interview/ what do you mean 'fully' in the historical jesus? ive said many times now im 50/50 about accepting that either he didnt exist and is a man made construct (a point that cannot be disproven) or the biblical character was based on one or more preachers of the time... You keep asking for a non-Christian scholar who believes fully in the historical Jesus - there you go. While I don't agree with him from my own personal faith standpoint, he is far more rational, scholarly and, most importantly, historical in his reasoning than you have been in this thread. but it is not rational, nor reasonable, to declare someone existed without and hard facts, without any hard evidence. he/you/they have only conjecture, thats all. what isnt rational?, what isnt reasoned? about my questioning of the lack of contemporary evidence ? NO contemporary testimonies orally nor written, from thousands that supposed to have witnessed these miracles/teachings? sorry sir, the point about him never existing stands, it is a possibility, you nor ehrman nor anyone appears to be able to disprove this point, nor provide a rational , compelling reason why not. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:24.







theres absolutely nothing to prove these later accounts were not works at least in part, of fiction.