• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Christian newspaper turns to manga and cosplay to save our souls

R

Rudimental

Member
FlowersisBritish said:
Jesus looks like one of those peaceful guys who you know when shit goes down, he's gonna rip off his shirt, twirl that staff around, and wreck all kinds of ass.
Click to expand...

A9N7hB4.jpg
 
B

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Ratrat said:
He might as well be fictional if 90% of what he is supposed to have done or said is made up.
Click to expand...

Jesus is like Dracula. Based on a real person, but all the really good parts are fiction.
 
O

Oberon

Banned
PdotMichael said:
Jesus is a fictional character, so he can be blue if you want.
Click to expand...

Whatever you might believe, logically speaking someone of jewish ancestory living in the middle east would probably not look like Johnny depp.
And maybe the world would be a bit different if most people didnt see him as a white dude.
 
A

AlexFlame116

Member
While Jesus wasn't white, he was believed to be Jewish. But he was a fair skinned Jewish (whatever that means) according to records. From Nazareth.

As for what he did in the Scriptures? That's up to you to decide.

EDIT: Crap, he spoke Aramaic.
 
P

Professor Beef

Banned
AlexFlame116 said:
While Jesus wasn't white, he was believed to be Aramean. But he was a fair skinned Aramean (whatever that means) according to records.

As for what he did in the Scriptures? That's up to you to decide.

EDIT: Crap, he spoke Aramaic.
Click to expand...

*my* jesus did a kamehameha wave and parted the red sea for moses-sama to save the jews from persecution
 
A

AlexFlame116

Member
Satan onii-san can be a huge jerk sometimes. No wonder he was kicked out.
Professor Beef said:
Um exCUSE you, but SBC is only good at piercing, not for curvature

Owned
Click to expand...

Jesus can do whatever he wants! So can God! It's a beam that fanned the waves! After that the fishes held it in place.

Okay so God and Jesus can't REALLY break their own rules so there's that
 
K

kitsunelaine

Banned
wandering said:
It's generally agreed upon that Jesus was an actual historical figure, akin to Muhammad and Gautama Buddha.
Click to expand...

It's actually a lot murkier than you think. Historians take a "Yeah if he's talked about in this text that's popular that doesn't treat itself as fictional there probably was a guy" approach. Hell, there's similar debate over whether or not Socrates existed and how much of what we know actually happened. It's the same thing here. It tells you nothing about who Jesus was, or the surrounding evidence about his actual existence, or the actual veracity of his existence. Basically, it comes down to historians saying "We won't dispute his existence because this makes our job easier".

Believe it or not, there is an actual debate to be had here. A very interesting one, to be sure. There's very little to no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus ever existing, which is kind of shocking when you consider all the supposed miracles he caused and the purported impact his presence had on the middle east.

But, you see, Christians like to say "Historians say Jesus existed so there" and pretend like it's a done deal. So that's where this popular idea of "It's generally agreed upon that Jesus was an actual historical figure" comes from. They're technically right. Which for them is the only kind of being right they need.
 
P

Principate

Saint Titanfall
Christian manga has existed for many many years now. There'a even a manga bible.

kitsunelaine said:
It's actually a lot murkier than you think. Historians take a "Yeah if he's talked about in this text that's popular that doesn't treat itself as fictional there probably was a guy" approach. Hell, there's debate over whether or not Socrates existed. It's the same thing here. It tells you nothing about who Jesus was, or the surrounding evidence about his actual existence, or the actual veracity of his existence.

Believe it or not, there is an actual debate to be had here. A very interesting one, to be sure. There's very little to no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus ever existing, which is kind of shocking when you consider all the supposed miracles he bestowed and the purported impact his presence had on the middle east.
Click to expand...
No they don't this is insulting to actual historians. The common consensus among most well regarded historical scholars is that his existence is high.
 
K

kitsunelaine

Banned
Principate said:
No they don't this is insulting to actual historians. The common consensus among most well regarded historical scholars is that his existence is high.
Click to expand...

Again. You are technically correct. Historians say that at some point there probably was a guy named Jesus at some point, because the New Testament (and the New Testament alone) says so.

Historians do not have a consensus that the biblical Jesus existed as depicted, because the Bible by it's very posthumous nature is not a reliable source. All you need to do is look at the datings on the gospels surrounding the empty tomb to know this to be true; The later and later the different variations of the story are told and recorded, the more embellished the tale gets. There are even forged passages which were clearly not a part of the original work that are retained even in modern copies of the Bible-- and Christians don't dispute this.

Next you have to consider that the Bible as we know it was constructed over time by various means by people who according to their own biases decided upon which books to include and which books not to include. And even then, our best known sources, the texts themselves, are copies and copies of translations of copies of translations, with the original source being both undiscovered and a product of oral tradition. Nothing in the Bible can be treated an eyewitness account, and we don't even know how much of it is supposed to be treated literally or as parable. And with the fact that we know that there are proven forged passages, since we don't have access to the original, that's yet another reason we can't actually say for sure how close to it we are.

The bible cannot be treated as a source for itself, and if we were to accept the historical Jesus, that is what we must do. This is why "Historians say Jesus existed" is a clever truth that is meant to imply something that is very false.
 
P

Principate

Saint Titanfall
kitsunelaine said:
Again. You are technically correct. Historians say that at some point there probably was a guy named Jesus, because the New Testament (and the New Testament alone) says so.

Historians do not have a consensus that the biblical Jesus existed as depicted, because the Bible by it's very posthumous nature is not a reliable source. All you need to do is look at the datings on the gospels surrounding the empty tomb to know this to be true; The later and later the stories are told and recorded, the more embellished the tale gets. There are even fraudulent passages which were clearly not a part of the original work that are retained even in modern copies of the Bible-- and Christians don't dispute this.

Next you have to consider that the Bible as we know it was constructed over time by various means which arbitrarily decided upon which books to include and which books not to include. And even then, our best known sources, the texts themselves, are copies and copies of translations of copies of translations, with the original source being both undiscovered and a product of oral tradition. Nothing in the Bible can be treated an eyewitness account, and we don't even know how much of it is supposed to be treated literally or as parable.

The bible cannot be treated as a source for itself, and if we were to accept the historical Jesus, that is what we must do. This is why "Historians say Jesus existed" is a clever truth that is meant to imply something that is very false.
Click to expand...
Well no shit. If historians all had achieved consensus on that they would all be Christians. The point I was how poor your arguments for Jesus existing at all were from a historians perspective. No one here is going to argue with you about the validly of all of his acts in the bible.
 
K

kitsunelaine

Banned
Principate said:
Well no shit. If historians all had achieved consensus on that they would all be Christians. The point I was how poor your arguments for Jesus existing at all were from a historians perspective. No one here is going to argue with you about the validly of all of his acts in the bible.
Click to expand...

The entire point of my posts is to say that "Historians say Jesus existed" is a very leading claim that can't be taken at face value. I never said that anyone here in particular was disputing this, but it is a phrase that is used often very dishonestly by apologists to the point where people may throw it out without question, which is something that I wanted to highlight because the foundation of the Christian mythos is something that I find very fascinating, and also something that I think more people should be aware of when discussing the historicity of Jesus.

Now, of course. I don't take the Bible for it's (sole) word that Jesus existed, but historians have to based on their standards of proof, since it would make their job so much harder otherwise. In general the way they do it is good, but it's a little lax in specific situations like these in my opinion. This is where I disagree with the historical standards, and I don't think I'm being very "Insulting" at all.

I apologise if you felt like I was calling anyone out.
 
K

Kwixotik

Member
I think the Bible could be great source material for secular entertainment, but i dont think ill be reading this
 
L

legend166

Member
kitsunelaine said:
Again. You are technically correct. Historians say that at some point there probably was a guy named Jesus at some point, because the New Testament (and the New Testament alone) says so.

Historians do not have a consensus that the biblical Jesus existed as depicted, because the Bible by it's very posthumous nature is not a reliable source. All you need to do is look at the datings on the gospels surrounding the empty tomb to know this to be true; The later and later the different variations of the story are told and recorded, the more embellished the tale gets. There are even forged passages which were clearly not a part of the original work that are retained even in modern copies of the Bible-- and Christians don't dispute this.

Next you have to consider that the Bible as we know it was constructed over time by various means by people who according to their own biases decided upon which books to include and which books not to include. And even then, our best known sources, the texts themselves, are copies and copies of translations of copies of translations, with the original source being both undiscovered and a product of oral tradition. Nothing in the Bible can be treated an eyewitness account, and we don't even know how much of it is supposed to be treated literally or as parable. And with the fact that we know that there are proven forged passages, since we don't have access to the original, that's yet another reason we can't actually say for sure how close to it we are.

The bible cannot be treated as a source for itself, and if we were to accept the historical Jesus, that is what we must do. This is why "Historians say Jesus existed" is a clever truth that is meant to imply something that is very false.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into a debate about the transmission of the biblical text, but I'll just say this because I see this weird idea posted all the time - the vast majority of English Bibles read and circulated today have been translated once. There is no "translations of translations." Translations are done from the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale was doing this 500 years ago.

On top of this, the sheer number of manuscripts make transmission errors easy to spot. You're massively overstating this issue.

And yes, there are extra-biblical sources that discuss Jesus of Nazareth and the early church.
 
Lister

Lister

Banned
legend166 said:
I'm not going to get into a debate about the transmission of the biblical text, but I'll just say this because I see this weird idea posted all the time - the vast majority of English Bibles read and circulated today have been translated once. There is no "translations of translations." Translations are done from the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale was doing this 500 years ago.

On top of this, the sheer number of manuscripts make transmission errors easy to spot. You're massively overstating this issue.

And yes, there are extra-biblical sources that discuss Jesus of Nazareth and the early church.
Click to expand...

1. Even if the translations are from the original greek and hebrew there is much context that is lost if you dont examine the original text and take other historical things into account, which most believers dont do.

2. Im not aware of any extra biblical sources for jesus that arent in the context of decades after his death and basically boil down to, these cult guys calking themselves cristians worship some jesus dude.
 
T

Tye The Czar

Member
As a Christian, I find trying to appeal to pop culture incredibly pathetic. I hope these die off in those Family Christian stores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Interview with Shuji Utsumi (SEGA Co-COO) by Japanese media outlet Seizo-Trend
Business Game Dev
1
1K
Unknown? replied
Disgaea 7 announced for PS5, PS4, and Switch
42
3K
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
SEGA / Atlus announce TGS 2020 Online lineup, schedule
News 2 3
102
11K
TintoConCasera replied
Square Enix announces TGS 2019 lineup, stage schedule
29
3K
Contica replied
Shuntaro Furukawa Is Ready to Take Nintendo to the Next Level
2 3
134
11K
-Arcadia- replied
Top Bottom