Mercury69 3 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 From ages 12 to 30 there appears to be no account of what Jesus was doing, so I'm curious... Link to post Share on other sites
BWToth 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 From ages 12 to 30 there appears to be no account of what Jesus was doing, so I'm curious...carpentering Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 carpenteringReally good stuff, by the way. You should see what that guy could do with some sand, balsawood and palm leaves. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 From ages 12 to 30 there appears to be no account of what Jesus was doing, so I'm curious...There is a fair bit of speculation based on some clues the gospels have but not a whole lot of concrete fact. Some people say that he spent the time in India based on the fact that a lot of his teachings' departures from traditional Judaism seem more eastern in nature. Others believe that he spent a lot of time with Joseph of Arimathea who had the wealth and influence to help prepare Jesus for his future ministry. It is pretty likely that Jesus spent some of his early teenage years close to John the Baptist. It is also quite likely that he spent some time as an aprentice to His father. It is also possible that he spent time ministering to the lost tribes of Israel. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 From ages 12 to 30 there appears to be no account of what Jesus was doing, so I'm curious...most likely that gap exists because there were no OT prophecies of what a jewish savior would be doing at those ages. it's probable jesus was not socially notable in any way until he interacted with john the baptist at age 30, and accounts of his birth/childhood are a fabricated combination of sensationalized oral legend and gospel authors' agenda to fit the legend to their pre-existing notions of jewish prophecy. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 It is pretty likely that Jesus spent some of his early teenage years close to John the Baptist.it may be true that jesus was a follower of john the baptist in early life, since the latter was apparently somewhat of a cult figure for many years before jesus' (supposed) baptism. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 it may be true that jesus was a follower of john the baptist in early life, since the latter was apparently somewhat of a cult figure for many years before jesus' (supposed) baptism.Are you taking the next logical step and rethinking your disbelief in the existence of Jesus? Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Are you taking the next logical step and rethinking your disbelief in the existence of Jesus?the logical step is to accept that nothing is proven either way. if you want you could certainly make a case that it's more likely than not that the biblical stories of jesus are based on a person who actually existed, but that has no relevance whatsoever to whether that person was actually the son of god and worked miracles or not. many fables are known to be based loosely in actual history in one way or another. that doesn't make them any less fables. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 the logical step is to accept that nothing is proven either way. if you want you could certainly make a case that it's more likely than not that the biblical stories of jesus are based on a person who actually existed, but that has no relevance whatsoever to whether that person was actually the son of god and worked miracles or not. many fables are known to be based loosely in actual history in one way or another. that doesn't make them any less fables.It's just good-natured ribbing.I'd rather not hi-jack this thread with arguments on the historicity of the gospels and the divinity of Jesus so if you're interested we can start a new thread on it. Link to post Share on other sites
BWToth 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 It's just good-natured ribbing.I'd rather not hi-jack this thread with arguments on the historicity of the gospels and the divinity of Jesus so if you're interested we can start a new thread on it.There isn't really much up for 'discussion' as it is pretty straight forward what we know about the uh, histroicity, of the gospels...that being not much, at least from any reliable source.Most of it is based on 'faith' and as we all know that is the way out of any arguement for a christian when they are back into a corner, and their really isn't much response to it. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 There isn't really much up for 'discussion' as it is pretty straight forward what we know about the uh, histroicity, of the gospels...that being not much, at least from any reliable source.Most of it is based on 'faith' and as we all know that is the way out of any arguement for a christian when they are back into a corner, and their really isn't much response to it.This isn't true.The historicity of the gospels can be proven without an appeal to faith. If I have time tonight I'll start a new thread on it. If you're really interested, though, Strobel interviews some great experts in the area in The Case for Christ.It's pretty much a pointless argument without an open mind though. The pointlessness comes from the fact that there is a very small set of people who don't already accept Christianity but are willing to objectively consider evidence in support of it. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 There isn't really much up for 'discussion' as it is pretty straight forward what we know about the uh, histroicity, of the gospels...that being not much, at least from any reliable source.Most of it is based on 'faith' and as we all know that is the way out of any arguement for a christian when they are back into a corner, and their really isn't much response to it. Dude, I enjoy talking to you, but let it go already. You don't accept the bible. I don't care. This being a religous forum, it tends to be used as evidence for or against something. You not buying it means absolutely nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 This isn't true.The historicity of the gospels can be proven without an appeal to faith. If I have time tonight I'll start a new thread on it. If you're really interested, though, Strobel interviews some great experts in the area in The Case for Christ.It's pretty much a pointless argument without an open mind though. The pointlessness comes from the fact that there is a very small set of people who don't already accept Christianity but are willing to objectively consider evidence in support of it.Only if you accept some gospels as truth and dismiss others. Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Only if you accept some gospels as truth and dismiss others.Do you mean religious truth or historical truth? Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Only if you accept some gospels as truth and dismiss others.not even then obviously. the fact that the gospels, canonical or otherwise, blatantly contradict each other in detail is more or less irrelevant, since metaphysical claims made after the fact are simply unprovable using empiricism/logic. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Do you mean religious truth or historical truth?semaj claimed the gospels can be proven to be historically accurate without resorting to faith, so that would have to be historical (empirically verifiable) truth - not religious (faith required) "truth". Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 semaj claimed the gospels can be proven to be historically accurate without resorting to faith, so that would have to be historical (empirically verifiable) truth - not religious (faith required) "truth".That's what I thought, so was Copernicus saying there are major historical innaccuracies amongst the gospels (maybe among those which were and were not included in the bible)? It may be the case, I haven't looked into it. I wasn't aware that there were like towns or land masses mentioned that didn't really exist. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Only if you accept some gospels as truth and dismiss others.To which gospels are you referring? Canonical, Gnostic? Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 not even then obviously. the fact that the gospels, canonical or otherwise, blatantly contradict each other in detail is more or less irrelevant, since metaphysical claims made after the fact are simply unprovable using empiricism/logic.Not in any meaningful and/or irreconcilable way. Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 That's what I thought, so was Copernicus saying there are major historical innaccuracies amongst the gospels (maybe among those which were and were not included in the bible)? It may be the case, I haven't looked into it. I wasn't aware that there were like towns or land masses mentioned that didn't really exist.There weren't. Even in instances where this has been claimed archaeology later reinforced the accuracy of the Bible. Link to post Share on other sites
rahula 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 It's possible that he went to India and learned healing techiniques from Hindu Masters. There's a story of a document found in a temple in India that speaks of "Issa" who came to India from the West who learned these techniques. Of course, as far as I know there is no evidence that the document exists or that "Issa" was in fact Jesus. But, it makes for good storytelling. Peace...rahula Link to post Share on other sites
BWToth 0 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Dude, I enjoy talking to you, but let it go already. You don't accept the bible. I don't care. This being a religous forum, it tends to be used as evidence for or against something. You not buying it means absolutely nothing.How can the bible be used as evidence for or against it's own factuality?That's all I'm saying, you can't use any religious loophole to argue this one. So fine, let's debate the historical accuracy of the Gospels.By the way Lois, I'm curious as to what your take on the Economic thread is. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Not in any meaningful and/or irreconcilable way.as i said that's irrelevant compared to the issue of treating metaphysics as necessarily accurately related in the bible just because it might contain some physical historical accuracy, but i started a new thread for you anyway lol. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 There weren't. Even in instances where this has been claimed archaeology later reinforced the accuracy of the Bible.that is false. there is a TON of stuff in the OT contradicted by archeological evidence.http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm Link to post Share on other sites
semaj550 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 that is false. there is a TON of stuff in the OT contradicted by archeological evidence.http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm For criticisms of many of Bidstrup's positions see http://www.tektonics.org/af/bidstrup01.html.Edit - Updated URL, I originally linked to the wrong article. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now