No overwhelming historical proof: Why I doubt Jesus

[Brian Schuh]

Sense

I guess everything in the entire universe somehow is about your Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if I buy a TV guide and somehow you will interpret it to be about Jesus. I guess if I flush my toilet and watch the water swirl around, I might see the image of Jesus. Right, Jesus Jesus Jesus, everything is about Jesus.

I believe you need to see a good psychiatrist.

 

[g2perk]

I guess everything in the entire universe somehow is about your Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if I buy a TV guide and somehow you will interpret it to be about Jesus. I guess if I flush my toilet and watch the water swirl around, I might see the image of Jesus. Right, Jesus Jesus Jesus, everything is about Jesus.

I believe you need to see a good psychiatrist.

Well you are speaking of the bible. What else did you think it was talking about. Its All about Jesus.

 

[Sapiens]

Well you are speaking of the bible. What else did you think it was talking about. Its All about Jesus.

Even if it is, so what? The Odyssey is all about Odysseus. Odysseus is mythical, unless you make the mistake of presupposing that the Odyssey is a history rather than a novel. If the Bible is all about Jesus, well ... Jesus is mythical, unless you make the mistake of presupposing that the Bible is a history rather than a novel.

 

[oldbadger]

I didn't know that part. I thought he was a Jewish historian.

That's cool......
He was an unusual man.
As Galilean commander he was defeated by the Romans, somehow lived to turn-coat and join them and then fight for and with them.

The Roman Generals obviously liked him. After one battle the Romans were crucifying enemy soldiers and Josephus noticed that three of the condemned were friends of his. He appealed for their lives and they were taken down from their crosses, and one survived his injuries.

Josephus was a most lucky and unusual man.......... and a member of the priesthood class, obviously (to become such a high ranking officer).

 

[Brickjectivity]

The concept of the church being the body of Christ is a viable starting point. There's no insistence that he be a man unless you just want to insist upon it.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> perhaps if my thoughts could only exist in the minds of my fellows then we could be as one thought but with diffirent emotions as they say
perhaps this could be true or there is something else meaning another option
that is existed before or will existed after
the time comes
which no mind could ever think of
for now

just for a thought
. ... probably someday (assuming)
not today i guess for we are not all knowing and not even a liar ... .


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

ive heard this before within the vicinity of a fellow atheist while talking to a philosopher stranger who ask him once
. ... if anyone havent knew this that our fellow atheist answered this philosopher
:read: (as a scenario )
then what if your thought would exist in them and still have a diffirent emotion
would you had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions

thats all i've heard before
better to ask him ~;> a brethren of ours
what happened next after that ... .


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[oldbadger]

Of course there was some poor rabbi who was crucified called Yeshua. All I am saying is that there were probably a half a dozen men named Yeshua over the course of over a century. And that a myth grew up around them, and over time they were all conglomerated into one man, the mythological Jesus.

Huh? Rabbi?
Yeshua BarYosef was a handworker, whose father was a handworker, these were displaced peasants who no longer held any land for various possible reasons. Yeshua was simply that, and had the 'zing' to (after meeting and listening to John the Baptist) initiate a mission for the peasantry in Galilee, which failed......

The gospels were written much later than the events they describe, but several of St. Paul's letters were written very early.

Because the Galilean Peasants could (mostly) not read, they passed along their histories and accounts by oral-tradition. This system is amazingly accurate, and it only had to ;'pass-along' for about 25 years before G-Mark was written, quite possibly by the young lad who was there at Jesus's arrest, and who tore out of his clothing to escape, leaving the Sanhedrin officials still clutching it.

I don't give a damn. I care more if there is actually a real person behind that fake character on TV they call Bill Clinton.

If you don't give a damn, what are you wasting time on this thread for?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Even if it is, so what? The Odyssey is all about Odysseus. Odysseus is mythical, unless you make the mistake of presupposing that the Odyssey is a history rather than a novel. If the Bible is all about Jesus, well ... Jesus is mythical, unless you make the mistake of presupposing that the Bible is a history rather than a novel.

I always wanted to read the Odyssey. Which one is the book about the Trojan War? I am aware that there was a Trojan War and that we have no history books from ancient times that have survived. Nevertheless, one can say the Bible and other books like that are historical fiction. There was a Yeshua, but the argument here is about this Christian robbing the Hebrew Scriptures of what they are really about by falsely claiming that they are Christian scriptures. Look, the Tanakh was written by and for Jews, and he wants to rob them of their book by claiming its all about his lord Jesus.

 

[RabbiO]

I always wanted to read the Odyssey. Which one is the book about the Trojan War?

The Iliad.

 

[Sapiens]

I always wanted to read the Odyssey. Which one is the book about the Trojan War? I am aware that there was a Trojan War and that we have no history books from ancient times that have survived. Nevertheless, one can say the Bible and other books like that are historical fiction. There was a Yeshua, but the argument here is about this Christian robbing the Hebrew Scriptures of what they are really about by falsely claiming that they are Christian scriptures. Look, the Tanakh was written by and for Jews, and he wants to rob them of their book by claiming its all about his lord Jesus.

Well then, fulfill the desire that you've always had: http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.html

Don't worry about the theft, If there was no Jesus the get of God, then no theft is possible,

 

[miodrag]

To my knowledge, none of us can claim to have personal, direct knowledge of anything in so-called "recorded history".

People are seeing Elvis, even today
History is supposed to be a reality recorded. We can surely have a direct experience of reality. Not the past events before our time. So we have to believe. Like, you may not have a direct experience of your grandfather, but your father does. Dharmic religions say that there are two paths of knowledge: ascending and descending. Ascending is by our own efforts, we can investigate about the past, like archaeology etc. Descending is accepting knowledge from someone who has it. Like, your father has the knowledge of his father, so you can learn about your grandfather. Secular aspect of that is what we call authority. We learn from authority, and that is of such a dramatic importance, that I call it an instinct - we are programmed to accept authority. As babies we are helpless to survive and our only chance is to learn from those who were already successful in survival. Later, in adolescence, we rebel against the authority, in order to become one ourselves. Religious aspect of descending knowledge is called dogma. Originally it means a truth revealed by God, and that is very different from a pejorative meaning of dogma we have today (but which is sadly well deserved).

I would imagine a true "Almighty God" would possess both the power and intent to deliver it's/his message directly to all beings, throughout space and time (and in a sense, I believe this is what the Dharmic religions teaches, more or less). None of this "well, this thing happened sometime in history, to a specific someone(s), and you just gotta believe it happened".

Power is not the issue, intent is. Why this world? There is God, present in the spiritual reality. We are not there. Why? Why were we placed away from experiencing God directly? One of the answers may have something to do with your "directly to all beings" revelation of Divine - maybe not all of us want it or can take it. What if we 'escaped' to this world, to forget about God. And now you suggest that He should force Himself, brutally revealing to everyone. This is just an example, which I hope is enough to understand why we have prophets. They are seekers, well prepared and qualified to experience spiritual without being harmed. And they provide a descending knowledge to those who are interested. "Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find..." Prophets are just those who knocked at the door earlier.

 

[g2perk]

I guess everything in the entire universe somehow is about your Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if I buy a TV guide and somehow you will interpret it to be about Jesus. I guess if I flush my toilet and watch the water swirl around, I might see the image of Jesus. Right, Jesus Jesus Jesus, everything is about Jesus.

I believe you need to see a good psychiatrist.

Can can't say anything worth listening to if you don't know the bible. You do believe in God so how can anyone believe what you say. ....jus sayin

 

[loverofhumanity]

I did that, read the bible cover to cover, prayed for guidance, and I WANTED to believe. Yet, I became an atheist. I'm incapable of purposely being intellectually dishonest. To believe in something like Christianity you literally have to shut down your rational mind. People who want you to shut down your rational mind want you to so they can more easily manipulate and exploit you. No thanks.

Christianity and Christ are two different things. Christ's message was the message of love. I can accept very easily the message to love one another and all humanity but Christian theology that is only their opinions not what Christ taught.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Gospels are proof Jesus existed, Billions of Christians is proof too. The Bible is the greatest selling Book in human history. Movies, books written about just the Gospels.

It's just too obvious to question. The Quran is another Book, authentic, which records Jesus life.

Does the Bhagavad Gita prove Krishna existed? Is he a legend, a myth, or real? Is everything recorded about him true? Even if total myth, he inspires people in the same way that Jesus does... Same with Buddha and other religious figures from other religions. So what do they all have in common? Spiritual truths that can and do work for people when followed. It fills them with the "Spirit" and "light", so it seems real even if it's all make believe. But, the more a person believes the more it seems real.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Don't forget to ask your belly button about the whichness of why.

Christian humility is a pose, it is really hubris (man created in god's image) disguised.
A failed analogy.
Stick to you own discipline because you clearly have no idea of how science works.

That is the religionist approach. Science does not work that way.

I was only appealing to your better sense of understanding and fairness which I believe you do possess.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Does the Bhagavad Gita prove Krishna existed? Is he a legend, a myth, or real? Is everything recorded about him true? Even if total myth, he inspires people in the same way that Jesus does... Same with Buddha and other religious figures from other religions. So what do they all have in common? Spiritual truths that can and do work for people when followed. It fills them with the "Spirit" and "light", so it seems real even if it's all make believe. But, the more a person believes the more it seems real.

Hello Didymus,my understanding is just like the physical senses we have like eyes that can see and ears to hear sounds, so too we have inner sight and inner hearing with which we see truth and understand things in an abstract way.

Now depending on if these spiritual sense are developed or not depends upon how well our spiritual eyesight and understanding are.

Everyone has these senses at birth but they are not developed fully.

So when we say there is a God it is through the uses of these abilities that we know. Just because someone can not see the same we see does not mean we have imagined these things. Maybe their insight and understanding still need to be developed further to understand these truths.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I have. Lots of them for years.
I have come to the realization that the fundamental source of religion is people who want to feel like they are superior to most other people.
Like you do.
You think you are better than me because you understand God and ancient scripture better than I do.
But you can't give me any reason to believe this except your own sense of superiority.
Tom

How can you say that! Of all people I'm the most ignorant. I'm not superior to anyone not you or anyone on this forum or atheists.

Why would you say that? I am only sharing but I'm no better than you or anyone here.

But I fully agree that religion has descended into a competition of who is superior and I detest it.

Humanity are all one family with no superior race, religion, colour or nationality yet this egotistical feeling to want to dominate and control by saying a certain religion or race or nationality is superior is a sickness of the mind.

All our current problems arise from these false feelings that we are intrinsically superior and we need to move on from this attitude if we are to have peace.

Again I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I'm not superior to you or anyone

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> indeed
as they say
For whatsoever things were written in old times were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[Sapiens]

I was only appealing to your better sense of understanding and fairness which I believe you do possess.

... and you received my better sense of understanding and fairness. Did it not please you? Sorry.

 

[buddhist]

People are seeing Elvis, even today
History is supposed to be a reality recorded. We can surely have a direct experience of reality. Not the past events before our time. So we have to believe. Like, you may not have a direct experience of your grandfather, but your father does. Dharmic religions say that there are two paths of knowledge: ascending and descending. Ascending is by our own efforts, we can investigate about the past, like archaeology etc. Descending is accepting knowledge from someone who has it. Like, your father has the knowledge of his father, so you can learn about your grandfather. Secular aspect of that is what we call authority. We learn from authority, and that is of such a dramatic importance, that I call it an instinct - we are programmed to accept authority. As babies we are helpless to survive and our only chance is to learn from those who were already successful in survival. Later, in adolescence, we rebel against the authority, in order to become one ourselves. Religious aspect of descending knowledge is called dogma. Originally it means a truth revealed by God, and that is very different from a pejorative meaning of dogma we have today (but which is sadly well deserved).

Why must we believe in recorded history? Has not science, even today, demonstrated that memory in living subjects are malleable and subject to distortion, even regarding events of the near past? Much less the allegedly remembered recordings, or reconstructions, of the distant past? Isn't "belief in recorded history" nothing more than simply another form of dogma, and distractions from the immediate present?

Power is not the issue, intent is. Why this world? There is God, present in the spiritual reality. We are not there. Why? Why were we placed away from experiencing God directly? One of the answers may have something to do with your "directly to all beings" revelation of Divine - maybe not all of us want it or can take it. What if we 'escaped' to this world, to forget about God.

Why ask these questions? The only relevant question - and our immediate reality - is the truth about our dukkha (suffering). A sane man who is shot and riddled with arrows or bullets does not immediately ask "why?" or "who shot these?" or "what is the sequence of events which led to my wounding?" Instead, that man realizes the immediate, present truth of his wounds and asks the one relevant question: "what is the cure for my immediate suffering?" - just as the Lord Buddha taught.

And now you suggest that He should force Himself, brutally revealing to everyone. This is just an example, which I hope is enough to understand why we have prophets. They are seekers, well prepared and qualified to experience spiritual without being harmed. And they provide a descending knowledge to those who are interested. "Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find..." Prophets are just those who knocked at the door earlier.

Early Buddhism does not value prophets with messages which we cannot verify for ourselves (dogma). There are endless numbers of such "prophets", all with dubious value. We would exhaust our lifespan before having the chance to indoctrinate ourselves with all of their unverifiable claims.

Instead, early Buddhism esteems elders along the way who beckons and invites us to walk the exact same path which they walked, to personally discover the answers which they found themselves - towards answering the one immediately relevant question which we struggle with every moment of our lives regarding dukkha. From the early Buddhist perspective, the universal laws which govern all of Reality itself (I can see why some might even consider them the "Laws of God") are expressed for and directly to all sentient beings equally throughout space and time (e.g. regarding dukkha, it's resolution, rebirth, etc.) There is no "hidden" or "secret" message which needs to be revealed by "specially chosen prophets". Isn't this "universal message" superior to so-called "prophetic messages", the latter of which are bound to certain points in space, time, or to a specific people(s) group, and thus unverifiable by the rest of us?