No overwhelming historical proof: Why I doubt Jesus

[loverofhumanity]

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

Oh so that's what those rocks you were throwing at me were? I could have sworn they were knives. My mistake. LOL.

I'm ok with people having their own opinion. You've got to follow you're own path not others. I'm against being a blind sheep anyway. Better not to accept anything you feel is against your beliefs.

So I'm glad you rejected my views because it shows you are not a blind sheep and try and think for yourself.

 

[oldbadger]

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

Wow! I'll bet that you'd change your opinion on that if your home was burgled!
That almost reads like a licence for atheists to do bad things.....

 

[godnotgod]

 

[LuisDantas]

Wow! I'll bet that you'd change your opinion on that if your home was burgled!
That almost reads like a licence for atheists to do bad things.....

If anyone was inclined to believe such an oddity, is that what you mean?

 

[Brickjectivity]

'Early Buddhism' ? Did you read about that in history books of some kind? I have wondered from time to time if there is such a thing.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think your a little confused kelly

Not really. Well, I wasn't, until you didn't really specify where I went wrong.

I don't believe that. Most real Christians never measure up any Gods besides Jesus Christ.

But Jesus told us to worship God and our religion refused.

Why would a person hate Christ when his whole teaching is about love. The history in the bible is made up of horrible war stories wrote by men. Jesus is love.

Not all of it. You don't go chasing around people with bullwhips if you're only into love.

I don't know about a Krishna like Jesus.

Me neither. I mean, while Jesus said with a tiny amount of faith you can move a mountain, but he never proved it, while Krishna was able to use an entire mountain like an umbrella while he was still just a kid.

The whole bible including the OT is all pointing to Jesus. The proof is how can all these men from diff times say the same thing in unison about one man. That's the miracle.

It's a miracle that so many people can look at authors specifically referring to previous authors and acting like it proves anything other than the latter authors knew how to read.

Like, I just bought Dark Disciple, a Star Wars book. To be considered "canon", the author must write so that there are little to no contradictions with previously established characters, plots, etc. Does that make the characters real or divine because of the attention given to consistency?

It's not like that. All one needs to do is contemplate and ponder on the Words of God with an open and unbiased mind.

And what happens when the dogmas you were taught are revealed by such pondering to be, if not false, then heavily biased as to be inconsistent with reality?

The mountain stands tall and proud and the river sits lowly but the water all flows into the river.

Truth is like that. If we are proud it truth deserts us because if we are full of ourselves there is no room for learning,. We have to empty our prejudices and biases and approach with an open and unbiased mind to learn.

But rivers empty out too by definition, so I'm unclear as to your point.

I have doubts that I have a great great great great great great grandfather. I mean, I have no historical proof.

Try ancestry.com. You can find lots of neat stuff there.

Teachings of Jesus is through out the bible. Every book.

God in Genesis is clearly not enthused with us trying to be like Him. Jesus specifically tells us to be like God. No, every book does not confirm Jesus' teachings.

In the OT it is about the coming of Jesus and the NT is about the cross.

The cross is to miss the point. I've heard it compared to the brazen serpent, but what is usually ignored is that the thing was eventually turned into an object of worship and was destroyed AS AN IDOL.

This system is amazingly accurate

Meh, not according to this book

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

Which is God: the deity or the book about the deity?

I can criticize the bible all day long because I WORSHIP God Himself, not paper.

Christ's message was the message of love.

For Jews. He was shocked to disover gentiles could have faith, so he was also a bigot and not very omniscient. I thought the "Shepherd" knew which were "his" sheep. Guess not, huh?

 

[g2perk]

Not really. Well, I wasn't, until you didn't really specify where I went wrong.


But Jesus told us to worship God and our religion refused.



Not all of it. You don't go chasing around people with bullwhips if you're only into love.


Me neither. I mean, while Jesus said with a tiny amount of faith you can move a mountain, but he never proved it, while Krishna was able to use an entire mountain like an umbrella while he was still just a kid.


It's a miracle that so many people can look at authors specifically referring to previous authors and acting like it proves anything other than the latter authors knew how to read.

Like, I just bought Dark Disciple, a Star Wars book. To be considered "canon", the author must write so that there are little to no contradictions with previously established characters, plots, etc. Does that make the characters real or divine because of the attention given to consistency?


And what happens when the dogmas you were taught are revealed by such pondering to be, if not false, then heavily biased as to be inconsistent with reality?


But rivers empty out too by definition, so I'm unclear as to your point.


Try ancestry.com. You can find lots of neat stuff there.


God in Genesis is clearly not enthused with us trying to be like Him. Jesus specifically tells us to be like God. No, every book does not confirm Jesus' teachings.


The cross is to miss the point. I've heard it compared to the brazen serpent, but what is usually ignored is that the thing was eventually turned into an object of worship and was destroyed AS AN IDOL.


Meh, not according to this book


Which is God: the deity or the book about the deity?

I can criticize the bible all day long because I WORSHIP God Himself, not paper.


For Jews. He was shocked to disover gentiles could have faith, so he was also a bigot and not very omniscient. I thought the "Shepherd" knew which were "his" sheep. Guess not, huh?

You have a lot of replies. I will focus on one. You say you believe in God and He is the one you worship. Ok so how is it that you can't see Jesus in the entire bible.

Tell me what is the OT about.

 

[g2perk]

Not really. Well, I wasn't, until you didn't really specify where I went wrong.


But Jesus told us to worship God and our religion refused.



Not all of it. You don't go chasing around people with bullwhips if you're only into love.


Me neither. I mean, while Jesus said with a tiny amount of faith you can move a mountain, but he never proved it, while Krishna was able to use an entire mountain like an umbrella while he was still just a kid.


It's a miracle that so many people can look at authors specifically referring to previous authors and acting like it proves anything other than the latter authors knew how to read.

Like, I just bought Dark Disciple, a Star Wars book. To be considered "canon", the author must write so that there are little to no contradictions with previously established characters, plots, etc. Does that make the characters real or divine because of the attention given to consistency?


And what happens when the dogmas you were taught are revealed by such pondering to be, if not false, then heavily biased as to be inconsistent with reality?


But rivers empty out too by definition, so I'm unclear as to your point.


Try ancestry.com. You can find lots of neat stuff there.


God in Genesis is clearly not enthused with us trying to be like Him. Jesus specifically tells us to be like God. No, every book does not confirm Jesus' teachings.


The cross is to miss the point. I've heard it compared to the brazen serpent, but what is usually ignored is that the thing was eventually turned into an object of worship and was destroyed AS AN IDOL.


Meh, not according to this book


Which is God: the deity or the book about the deity?

I can criticize the bible all day long because I WORSHIP God Himself, not paper.


For Jews. He was shocked to disover gentiles could have faith, so he was also a bigot and not very omniscient. I thought the "Shepherd" knew which were "his" sheep. Guess not, huh?

I think you are confused because you said how can it be about love when people are being chased with whips...What the...

Jesus teachings in the bible is not about whips, now they may have used it against Jesus but Jesus never hit anyone. He teaches love concurs all.

Do you all so know about the Trinity.

 

[columbus]

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

Sorry if I came across as harsh.
But you have several posts in this thread stating pretty clearly that religious people like yourself have special knowledge and insights into Jesus and the Bible.
It is not unique to you by any stretch, it is annoyingly common amongst Abrahamic religionists.
Tom

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wonder when people began to give some thought to whether Jesus ever existed as a literal person.

From what I know of Anthropology, I don't think it was a significant concern until after some centuries had passed. It may well be that it was Islam, or even Muhammad specifically. that raised the matter to the level of significant subject matter.

Hi Luisdantes. This is a grand question to ask a professor of History (which I am not). I have heard lay people come up with different ideas, some accusing Rome or Paul of creating a religion to keep slaves docile. I do not buy that explanation. Instead I perceive a gradual change in the churches.

Responsibility for Truth was originally with God in Heaven but was taken from God and then transferred 'Down' until it became the responsibility of people to defend it -- whatever they thought it to be -- correlating over time with the historical hardening of the church. Christianity became brittle enough to break into pieces, and then when stresses came it did so. So instead of its original soft nature it became breakable. The heated arguments and famous church divisions (over icons for example) became never-ending. This hardening was probably the result of politics tainting an originally awesome movement.

That's my lay opinion.

For the most part, religious figures tend to be considered for their messages and their inspirational value. It is almost implied that they are not expected to actually have existed.

Even Socrates in Plato's Republic is a fairly fictional character, despite having been based on the historical Socrates. I don't think all that many Hindus necessarily believe that Krishna existed and walked over Earth as Arjuna's charioteer, either. But most of all, that is not supposed to be important far as I can tell.

It is astonishing to me how similar Jesus is to Krishna, a character established a thousand years before Jesus. It is astonishing and somewhat upsetting.

Christianity (and Islam)'s obsession with proclaiming to have "the truth" is very much an oddity, if not an all-out flaw.

The claim to have 'The truth' not new but is probably 2nd century. I feel like its also harmful both to individuals and to society for so many Christians to claim this. Your profile says you advocate letting go of theism, but I think that if people simply let God be the master of truth again that you won't have so much of a complaint against theism. I also think that militant atheism is doomed to fail. People need community and cultural continuity -- a place where they belong and people that understand them. Without continuity there is discontinuity, and then all of the progress you make with individuals is lost. I see occasional complaints on RF from self described atheists that they feel isolated and I think many convert because of it. One told me in person that secular culture was cold, and they were baptized soon after -- not due to any effort on my part. So the struggle against this boast of 'The truth' seems capital to me, and thus this point about the existence of Jesus, the man, is painful but a reasonable point to press. Rather then creating atheists it will hopefully regenerate Christians.

 

[g2perk]

Sorry if I came across as harsh.
But you have several posts in this thread stating pretty clearly that religious people like yourself have special knowledge and insights into Jesus and the Bible.
It is not unique to you by any stretch, it is annoyingly common amongst Abrahamic religionists.
Tom

Its true we do have special insight.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Sorry if I came across as harsh.
But you have several posts in this thread stating pretty clearly that religious people like yourself have special knowledge and insights into Jesus and the Bible.
It is not unique to you by any stretch, it is annoyingly common amongst Abrahamic religionists.
Tom

You make some very valid and true points and i agree with you fully.

Here is what we are told about the different senses innate in every human being.

"He has given us material gifts and spiritual graces, outer sight to view the lights of the sun and inner vision by which we may perceive the glory of God. "

"He has designed the outer ear to enjoy the melodies of sound and the inner hearing wherewith we may hear the voice of our Creator"

So according to this we say that we all do possess the innate ability to know God and that once these abilities have been developed enough, all of us will eventually know God.

 

[columbus]

You make some very valid and true points and i agree with you fully.

g2perk's post 131 is exactly what I am talking about.

Its true we do have special insight.

Here is what we are told about the different senses innate in every human being.

You are told this by humans claiming to have special insight. And you are told that if you accept them as authorities you too can have this. But when I look around me I see very good reasons to doubt that it is anything but humans inventing fictional characteristics. The Emperor's New Clothes show less than zero evidence of existence.
Tom

 

[oldbadger]

If anyone was inclined to believe such an oddity, is that what you mean?

Have you ever come across any folks who you thought would believe in oddities?

But me? I was just reacting to what I read...... with some humour, hence the

 

[ukok102nak]

That is what I believe about the fictional character found in the Gospels.
I have a different opinion about the historical figure the legend was based upon.
Tom

:smoke: some say
history repeats itself as some history
were too legendary to be repeated
as they say
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it has been already of old time, which was before us.

Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and abundance of evil, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
But be all of you doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
For he beholds himself, and goes his way, and immediately forgets what manner of man he was.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[oldbadger]

Meh, not according to this book...........

Ah yes......
(Wait for it....... wait for it!....) .................. But ( )......... those were some of the Christians!
I reckon that G-Mark was an attempt (played about with afterwards) by some folks to lay out the real story. And I reckon that nearly all of the anecdotes in the original (unlengthened) version can be debated to be real events, enlarged by hyperbole later on.

That might be worth a thread at some time.

 

[oldbadger]

Not all of it. You don't go chasing around people with bullwhips if you're only into love..

Please Miss......... although I've never actually been to any, it is said that there are places where naughty ladies .............

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus teachings in the bible is not about whips, now they may have used it against Jesus but Jesus never hit anyone. He teaches love concurs all..

Do you believe in the Gospel of John?
If you do, then you know that Jesus made a whip and used it when he cleared the Temple of Dealers and Money-changers....... Yes?...... No?

 

[g2perk]

Do you believe in the Gospel of John?
If you do, then you know that Jesus made a whip and used it when he cleared the Temple of Dealers and Money-changers....... Yes?...... No?

Yes you are right but it was not made to hit and beat people. It was because people were making a mockery out of Gods house.

 

[LuisDantas]

'Early Buddhism' ? Did you read about that in history books of some kind? I have wondered from time to time if there is such a thing.

There is definitely such a thing, and it is fairly well documented too.

It is also very significantly different from the current situation. For the most part that is not a bad thing. Religion is supposed to change with culture.

Hi Luisdantes. This is a grand question to ask a professor of History (which I am not). I have heard lay people come up with different ideas, some accusing Rome or Paul of creating a religion to keep slaves docile. I do not buy that explanation. Instead I perceive a gradual change in the churches.

Responsibility for Truth was originally with God in Heaven but was taken from God and then transferred 'Down' until it became the responsibility of people to defend it -- whatever they thought it to be -- correlating over time with the historical hardening of the church. Christianity became brittle enough to break into pieces, and then when stresses came it did so. So instead of its original soft nature it became breakable. The heated arguments and famous church divisions (over icons for example) became never-ending. This hardening was probably the result of politics tainting an originally awesome movement.

That's my lay opinion.

Sounds reasonable - but of course, that is one possible reading among many.

It is astonishing to me how similar Jesus is to Krishna, a character established a thousand years before Jesus. It is astonishing and somewhat upsetting.

I don't see too much of a resemblance, myself. What little there is is almost meaningless and should IMO be attributed to the evolution of anthropological needs and expectations.

The claim to have 'The truth' not new but is probably 2nd century. I feel like its also harmful both to individuals and to society for so many Christians to claim this. Your profile says you advocate letting go of theism, but I think that if people simply let God be the master of truth again that you won't have so much of a complaint against theism.

Perhaps. There are other downsides to theism, though. Particularly monotheism.

I also think that militant atheism is doomed to fail.

Here is hoping that it does not have the chance to succeed or fail. It would be a nightmare to reach such a situation.

People need community and cultural continuity -- a place where they belong and people that understand them.

Sure.

Without continuity there is discontinuity, and then all of the progress you make with individuals is lost. I see occasional complaints on RF from self described atheists that they feel isolated and I think many convert because of it. One told me in person that secular culture was cold, and they were baptized soon after -- not due to any effort on my part. So the struggle against this boast of 'The truth' seems capital to me, and thus this point about the existence of Jesus, the man, is painful but a reasonable point to press. Rather then creating atheists it will hopefully regenerate Christians.

I can't comment on that. It is too far from my personal experience.