Jedi Council Forums - The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/13/02 2:36pm Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	Up. -----signature----- Omar: "Can you fix this, Joe?" clock bangs on table Prop Joe: "What's the problem?" Omar: "Run out of time."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
AdmiralZaarin Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 7/13/02 6:29pm Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	be baptized Excuse me if I'm wrong but don't most Christian denominations baptize people? I know mine (Anglican Protestant) does. Catholics = Christian, but Christians don't always = Catholic. -----signature----- "You filthy...Zaarin." -Nithrak
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Chris2 Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 8/19/02 9:04pm Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	Thought I'd bring this up again--can we be sure about Jesus's age and appearence? The traditional POV of Jesus is that of a thin man with long hair and a beard. However this view of Jesus did not surface until Christianity became a major religion in the fourth century, so therefore it cannot be relied on.... So what did he really look like? It's been suggested that perhaps Jesus had short hair(Since many Jews needed to keep their hair cropped, except for particular tribes). He probably still had a beard. As for his size, let's keep in mind he was a carpenter, and in those days being a carpenter meant more than it does today(You technically had to be a lumberjack too!). So therefore he was probably muscular, although he might been a little thin from fasting at times. Also, about Jesus's age-although apparentally it's said he started his ministry at 30, there are two problems with this: -Jesus compares himself to the Herodian temple in age. Thefore, wouldn't that make him around 50? -Also, in order to legally be a teacher in Judaism, one had to be 50. So the meek, young, hippie-looking Jesus we're all familiar with probably was more physically closer to Judd Hirsch... -----signature----- Vote for me!(A 10!)http://www.gundamshop.com/gallery/models/view.cgi?ID=180
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Grand_Moff_Monkey Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 8/20/02 8:37am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	-Jesus compares himself to the Herodian temple in age. No. He doesn't. He only refers to the temple in reference to "knock the temple down and I will raise it again in 3 days". Thefore, wouldn't that make him around 50? No. -Also, in order to legally be a teacher in Judaism, one had to be 50. Not true. Even if it was, it wouldn't make any difference. Jesus wasn't a teacher in Judaism - legally or otherwise. -----signature----- Now that all has been heard, here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TeeBee Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 8/20/02 8:44am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	So the meek, young, hippie-looking Jesus we're all familiar with probably was more physically closer to Judd Hirsch... No doubt. Coming from the Middle East, I'm sure he wasn't the blond, pale man often depicted in Euopean art either. -----signature----- If I am me because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am me and you are you. But if I am me because I am not you, and you are you because you are not me, then I am not and you are not. - Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
solojones Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 8/20/02 10:19am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	Yeah, I know the image of Jesus is really distorted. I have always believed he was probably rather dark-skinned, dark-haired.. you know, like Jewish people are? -sj loves kevin spacey -----signature----- 6 x 9 = 42 Proud member of the Colbert Nation All Hail Cliegg's Blue Leg!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Force-User Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 8/26/02 10:41am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	While I agree that Jesus was definitely dark haired, don't discount the fact that blonde-haired people did in fact live in palestine at that period of time. It was a major caravan route so no doubt there were light-haired people going throught there. -----signature----- TPM Defense Force - Thunder 3
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
sleazo Registered: Aug '01	Date Posted: 8/26/02 11:45am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	a solojones, not all jewish people are dark haired and dark featured. There are many blonde, red and brrown haired Jews, and there are accounts of at least red and brown haired jews from the before the suppossed birth of Jesus. -----signature----- Vive La France I love how i got into fights with Anakin fans before AOTC saying how he would be a butcher. ROTS the Sith proved me right. Anakin Skywalker-Slaughterer of the Innocent
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Murishani Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 8/26/02 5:15pm Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	"Excuse me if I'm wrong but don't most Christian denominations baptize people? " I'm not baptized, and I'm going to heaven, because I believed that Christ died as a substitute for me, so I don't have die on a cross to go to heaven. Baptism was used for identification with God, not as the means by which one gets to heaven. Like when there was a war. A hunter would bring his sword, and they would dip it in a vat of blood, to identify it with war, to say "This is a warrior's sword." The sword didn't change, but it identified it with war. The same with the baptism that John the Baptist performed. You aren't changed at baptism, its just a way for people to say "He's believed in Christ, we know this because he's been baptized." In reality, you usually have know idea why the big people are getting you wet.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
EvilEmperorJohn Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 8/27/02 7:43am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread - Date Edited: 8/27/02 7:51am (2 edits total) Edited By: EvilEmperorJohn
	A few comments: Jesus probably was dark skinned and dark haired, per his contemporaries. Jesus was a common Jewish name, only the title Christ separated him. Many scholars believe that Jesus may have been a Pharisee, per his seemingly vast knowledge of Scripture. As such, it is possible he was married before he began his ministry. There is also the matter of the 30 years of unrecorded time. What did he do? Was he learning to be a Pharisee or learning in the East or doing something else? There are also scholars who support various aspects of this question. The earliest Gospel account, as I have been taught in my Religious Studies major - after studying quite a few scholars, was written in 90 AD (that would be the Gospel of John). The earliest writings that were incorporated into the Bible were the Writings of Paul, which, I think, are dated as early as 10 to 15 years after Jesus died (as Paul was a Pharisee who persecuted and arrested Jesus' and the Apostles' followers). From my studies, there is a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar who study the text of the Gospels along with extracanonical sources to figure out what was actually said by Jesus, what was inserted by the Church (many years later), and what was attributed to him but said by someone else. It would seem that many of the controversial statements (i.e. leave your families, cut off your hand, if you murder in your heart you are guilty even if you don't commit the act, etc.) were probably said by Jesus. These scholars are from all denominations and include several Jewish scholars. Incidentally, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that Jesus was a revolutionary or soldier. The main reason the Jews rejected him as the Messiah, aside from calling himself God, was that he wasn't a Military Messiah who had come to release them from Roman rule. That's really what the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied - a strong military leader who would drive out the Romans and establish himself as the King of Israel, reestablishing the line of Davidian kingships. He posed a different kingdom to his followers (one that had no boundaries) and that is why they were all made to suffer by the Jews. I'm not making any statements here that I haven't read in a book written by a scholar, but I'll go back and look for the specific quotes if you desire. I agree, if you want a completely unfiltered version of the bible, I suggest you take up learning Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic (sp?). P.S. I can provide a list of the books I've read if it'll help anyone, until I get the quotes, that is. P.P.S. This is slightly OT, but since it's been mentioned, I'll have a go. There are also Catholics who don't think non-Catholics are really Christians either. The real basis is whether you believe in Jesus as the Son of God and that He died on the cross for your sins. End of story. Everything else, like previously stated, is just gravy. That is really where the controversy for Mormonism being a Christian denomination comes up (I'm not saying either way because I don't know enough about it, but that's what I've heard). -----signature----- "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you to their level, then beat you with experience."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Hope Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 8/27/02 4:27pm Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	whoa, that last post was a mouthfull. Thats a noodle baker for sure.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 8/27/02 6:33pm Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	"Many scholars believe that Jesus may have been a Pharisee, per his seemingly vast knowledge of Scripture." Lol. Pure unsubstantiated hogwash, and little more relevent than my suggesting all pharisees flew in on flying saucers from a planet called Disney World, close to Pluto. Yet those same scholars ignore what Jesus said of Himself as recorded in the Gospels. Btw, the 90 year deal isn't a fact and more theologians are accepting that the evidence points to much earlier dates. "From my studies, there is a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar who study the text of the Gospels along with extracanonical sources..." The problem with the Jesus seminar is that they are logically inconsistant and contridictory, and that fallibility in their approach is glaringly obvious. They routinely attempt to use the Gospel accounts to decipher a Jesus devoid of any deity, which means simply they are singling out verses out of context. On the one hand they dismiss the miraculous events in scripture as too incredible, and thus an embellished fabrication, such that those records are unreliable, and on the other hand use the very same gospels for their 'more accurate portrayal of Jesus.' Logically you can't have it both ways. Either the writers of the Gospels are credible, and it's reliable history, or the writers are unreliable. If unreliable then nothing in the Gospels is valid in an approach to historically portraying Christ. How could they know which account was legitimate or which material is illegitimate? If the Gospels are reliable then the Jesus seminar is way off base. But either way the Jesus seminar is itself logically invalidated for spurious scholarship. On another account, they are trying to establish an unverifiable revisionist history 2,000 years later, which again is poor scholarship, and more suggestive of incompetency. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
WormieSaber Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 8/27/02 9:06pm Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread - Date Edited: 8/27/02 9:12pm (1 edits total) Edited By: WormieSaber
	For anyone who is interested, read the book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. It is loaded with archeological and theoretical evidences of the Christian faith. I believe he has written one solely for the OT and another book solely for the NT. *My take on this debate of the validity of the historical Jesus is that first and foremost, Christianity is an intelligent faith. One can not denounce it easily; in fact, it merits higher discussions*, despite centuries of scientific growth and the modern age. Archeologists consider The Holy Bible an excellent tool of history; many excavations have been conducted solely on the information in the Bible. The Bible is taken very seriously, for this reason alone, in the field of archeology. Concerning the Gospels, and whether or not they were written when they were...again, archeologists will point out that it is authentic to the time period; the atmosphere of the early 1st century time-frame, and so was Jesus' "Jewishness". Also, the way in which Jesus instructed and taught his disciples and followers was very authentic to 1st century Jewish Priesthood way of teaching, which appeared to have changed after the 1st century. Also, regarding the Messianic Prophecies which were strikingly fulfilled in Jesus' life/time, or at least, by the writtings in the Gospel...one can not deny that these prophecies do indeed sound like Jesus. Almost to the "Tee". And as the Jews were spread around the world during the end of 1st century, it is impossible that these prophecies could have been rewritten, as the Jews are not Christians and they took great pride in the accuracy of their holy books. -----signature----- "Award winners don't push brooms" -- Turbo
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
EvilEmperorJohn Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 8/28/02 6:37am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread - Date Edited: 8/28/02 6:42am (1 edits total) Edited By: EvilEmperorJohn
	Right, so you know more about the Bible than a bunch of scholars who have been studying it for most of their lives? Ok. As to your question of whether you can have it both ways, YES. If you want it. Their purpose is not to debate or prove Jesus' diety, it's to examine the historical, human person who was Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The writers of the Bible are reliable. What's not reliable, especially of the NT, is the repeated copying and recopying of manuscripts over the last 2000 years. The manuscrips are not consistent, and what makes it into the Bible is what is most common. Therefore, the original Gospels, along with the letters of Paul are lost. All we have are manuscripts from centuries after the books and letters were originally written. Furthermore, the use of extracanonical literature, especially other Gospels, help to show what others wrote of Jesus and his works. It sounds like you don't really want to know the historical Jesus, just the Jesus you put in a box and labeled it as such. If you can't allow for all possibilities for God, they you don't know God. What exactly do you mean "Yet those same scholars ignore what Jesus said of Himself as recorded in the Gospels"? He could have been a Pharisee who saw that the whole group was doing it the wrong way. It's possible, you know. Were you there? Did you know Jesus before he began his ministry? Also, what evidence points to dates earlier than 90 A.D. for the Gospels? I know I said that Paul's writings are dated much earlier. The Gospel of John was not written by John the Apostle but by John the Beloved, almost certainly, again by what I have read and learned, an entirely different person. If the 90 years later is a correct dating, then John the Apostle would have been over 100 years old (much, much longer than the average life expectancy of that time period). Hey, just show me some evidence or something. I'm trying to learn something here, but the scoffing tone of your post left much to be desired in the way of spreading knowledge. -----signature----- "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you to their level, then beat you with experience."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 8/28/02 11:22am Subject: RE: The Official Jesus Q&A, Debate and Historical View thread
	EvilEmperorJohn, There was no "scoffing tone," there was actual scoffing at the ridiculous inconsistent and unjustified approach I've seen taken by The Jesus Seminar. However, my tone to you is friendly, not hostile. I fully understand that you are to some degree an investigative reader, attempting to be open-minded, impartial, and objective in your approach to this subject matter, or at least I assume that is the reasonable and logical case here. Before I was a Christian I was exposed to numerous sources akin to the Jesus Seminar, such as, for example, Holy Blood Holy Grail, a once somewhat popular best seller list book authored by a couple of journalists. I found the book intriguingly controversial, and considered the contents factual, naively not paying very close attention to all of the sensationalistic speculation that made up the body of those pages, assuming there must be some actual legitmacy for it to be so prominently featured as a best seller. Such books by "experts" are myriad. As a matter of related fact, one of the journalists who authored the book's hypothetical content is featured occasionally touted as an "expert/scholar" on Biblically related documentaries viewable on A&E. He is certaily no "expert," nor was the book he co-authored in any way a serious approach to actual history. But there you are. Show me the credentials of these scholars, please. A degree doesn't necessarily hinder incompetence. Regardless, I've been doing my own study of the subject for quite a number of years myself. I am no author, or "expert," although I've located numerous errors in the contents of books on my own shelves. Some of the errors so obvious all the author had to have done was a minutes worth of research in cracking a Biblical concordance. Ah, well, they made the pay check, not I. "As to your question of whether you can have it both ways, YES. If you want it." That of course isn't indicative of good scholarship, but of spurious unfounded speculations and imaginative hypotheticals. It's a position that can't be truly justified with any academic seriousness. "Their purpose is not to debate or prove Jesus' diety, it's to examine the historical, human person who was Jesus Christ of Nazareth." The problem here is that in their treatments you will often find contents of miraculous events depicted in the Gospels "scoffed" at due to membership in the Jesus Seminar basically arbitrarily deciding those events as being merely too incredulous. What they are doing is haphazardly picking and choosing verses to their personaly liking without any legitimate cohesive basis in doing so. "The writers of the Bible are reliable." Then, it's to be accepted whole cloth. " What's not reliable,..." I sense a contridiction coming on. "... especially of the NT, is the repeated copying and recopying of manuscripts over the last 2000 years." Contridiction. Said so. There was no way around it. Why is that not reliable? You don't believe the texts could be copied reliably, despite the utmost diligence and care, which has certainly been the historically verifiable case per documentation? But then, how can you suggest the writers of the Gospel are reliable, but not the copyists? Can you substantiate this with any historical proof? Do not take out of context in an attempt to bolster a response Bibles that were discarded after errors were found in the integrity of the texts. If the copyist's weren't reliable, then we really can't determine if the Gospel Writers were reliable since the body of evidence would be corrupt and we can't ascertain which parts of the content are corrupted and which are not. Therefore everything in the content is held questionably suspect. But, you haven't substantiated any this. " The manuscrips are not consistent, and what makes it into the Bible is what is most common." Really? You can back this up beyond hearsay with hard evidence, right? What in the Gospels is inconsistent? On what grounds do you make this charge? "Therefore, the original Gospels, along with the letters of Paul are lost." In the same sense that Herman Melville's original copy of Moby Dick is probably lost, however, you can buy a copy at the book store that will be identical. "All we have are manuscripts from centuries after the books and letters were originally written." Okay, and if those weren't reliably transcribed by copyists, which seems to be your contention here, then how can you suggest the original writer's of the Gospels were reliable since we wouldn't have have any reliable text to prove it? Do you see the contridiction? It's an either/or proposition, not an and/but. Even if the manuscripts are corrupt, as you assert, then what is the methodology for determing what is authentic regarding the exceptional character of Christ? "Furthermore, the use of extracanonical literature, especially other Gospels, help to show what others wrote of Jesus and his works." Which other Gospels? The Gospel of Thomas, perhaps? Before dicussing this quasi-gnostic text, please list this other "Gospels" so that I can fully address this issue without ambiguity. "It sounds like you don't really want to know the historical Jesus, just the Jesus you put in a box and labeled it as such." Actually, that is attacking the person and not the issue. But, I'm glad you brought it up since I am one of those particularly blessed individuals whose lives were literally saved in acts of divine intervention. I know Jesus personally, and yourself? "If you can't allow for all possibilities for God, they you don't know God." No, you do not know God. On what authority, other than your own opinion, do you base that statement? If you are suggesting God can be all possibilities, then you are suggesting God is schizophrenic, and that His Word as condescendingly bestowed to His creation in the form of humanity is as unreliable as the Gospels He had set forth to us for the understanding and revelation of His divine and gracious nature? Or will you argue that not your definition was intended to be more reasonably finite and less comprehensive in the overall usage of "all possibilities". That being the case, why don't you present a more specified and clarrified statement in order that I can more clearly understand what you were attempting to convey. "What exactly do you mean "Yet those same scholars ignore what Jesus said of Himself as recorded in the Gospels"? " I made it very plain what I was saying. Either the accounts are reliable or they are not. If they are not reliable then nothing conjectured by the Jesus Seminar could be considered reliable or even more than a waste of time to read historically speaking. "He could have been a Pharisee who saw that the whole group was doing it the wrong way. It's possible, you know. Were you there? Did you know Jesus before he began his ministry?" Conjecture and speculation without firm basis is nothing but fiction, and certainly not good history in an serious historians book. Jesus Christ might have worn a Mickey Mouse outfit 24/7. It's possible, you know. Were you there? Did you know Jesus before He began His ministry? This is preposterous of course. Because you suggest something doesn't legitimate it as an actual realistic possibility, nor does it offer any serious hard evidence to foster such a possibility. Of course I wasn't there, and neither was a single member of the Jesus Seminar, but I have the reliable eye-witness account of individuals who were there, as well as personally having the Lord's confirmation His Word is reliable, not to mention countless 1,000's of reliable scribes and scholars over 2,000 years, and the strongest preserved historical record from antiquity, to say that the Gospel accounts are wholly reliable. On the otherhand, you have presented the Jesus Seminar, a group of contemporary individuals, 2,000 years removed from the actual events, of dubious scholatic approach, picking and choosing out of context from the content of cohesive documents few serious scholars choose to question considering the seriously vast body of corroborating evidence on any meritorious grounds. For instance, the Gospels are internally consistent with each of the other texts of the Old and New Testaments' books. Does the significance of this escape you? Consider that the books of the Bible were the most frequently transcribed and widely circulated books in ancient history, and probably as well today. There are more than 5,300 existant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, more than 10,000 of the Latin Vulgate,, and over 9,300 early versions, and more than 24,000 copies of portions of just the New Testament. There is no other document from antiquity that even comes close to those figures. An example given would be that of Homer's Iliad with 643 manuscripts, and of Ceaser, there are 10. Some of the tests for determining a texts reliability; 1.)Bibliographical 2.)internal evidence test 3.)external evidence test. The Holy Bible passes all in flying colors. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »