There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Thrillobyte]

I thought it was a known fact that much of the historical sources, from historians can't be trusted.
I don't know of Christians who depend on outside sources, when the strongest evidence is the internal evidence, which is often found to destroy secular sources.

Of course you don't know any Christians who trust outside sources. That's because the outside sources say Jesus never existed. Of course Christians trust the internal sources like the gospels. That's because they say Jesus was real. If you were an atheist would you trust the internal sources? If you were a Christian would you trust the external sources? People go with what validates their personal emotions and beliefs, that's just human natural. Nothing supernatural about it.

Why doesn't God answer prayers? Answer: because he either doesn't exist or if he does he doesn't give a damn about us.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why doesn't God answer prayers? Answer: because he either doesn't exist or if he does he doesn't give a damn about us.

The perfect answer is that he works in mysterious ways.

So they can find faith in results they like, & dismiss as
unknowable things they dislike....or blame Satan....whom
God created, but doesn't control...but could control...but
chooses against for mysterious reasons.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course you don't know any Christians who trust outside sources. That's because the outside sources say Jesus never existed.

A lie repeated remains a lie, albeit a less compelling one.

(I sense a "No True Scotsman" fallacy about to erupt onto the scene. Wait for it ...)​

 

[Windwalker]

That is what I mean. I've found non-spiritual ways of experiencing the benefits which I'd suspect are normally thought exclusive to spiritual pursuits.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to use the term "secular" in association with any spiritual experience, considering it excludes spirituality. I think what you are trying to say is something more like non-religious. That I get.

For instance, someone can have a spiritual experience riding a bike through the woods. God knows I do. But bike riding is not a religious practice. It's also not really a 'secular' endeavor either. It's just a human activity. Hell, any human activity can a spiritual experience, just simply being human can be spiritual, if we let it be.

I prefer to call them spiritual practices, such as meditation. Meditation transcends religions, but I don't think I'd ever call it 'secular meditation'. I'd just call it meditation. You see my point? It just doesn't feel right to associate it with the non-spiritual, when it fact it is spiritual in nature.

Anything that helps connect and ground you and expand your consciousness and being, is spiritual. It's what the word really means. It really is more about how one approaches any activity. It's more about intentionality or openness, that makes it either spiritual or just simply 'secular', I suppose.

I see secular as empty of spiritual content. But if everything is spiritual in one's life, from doing dishes to a sitting meditation, then is anything actually secular at all?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically ...

see Wikipedia: Historical Jesus > Historical Existence​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

That's the truth and the reality.

No, that is based on the assumption that the universe is natural

 

[Thrillobyte]

How are you saying this? I know plenty of Christians who don't believe the stories in the Bible are all literally true, and that things like walking on water and such are symbolic in nature and not literal. I sense that you are speaking of fundamentalist, evangelical literalists, and not mainline Christians. "Bible believers" are a different breed from mainline Christians.

As I said before, the 'true believer' is one who actually has the weakest faith. They rely on their ideas about what God is, or their 'beliefs', as opposed to their faith of their hearts. Someone with faith is has a lot easier of a time with letting their beliefs change than someone without faith. Those people have nothing but their beliefs, and so they'd better be right, otherwise it's all wrong. I've often said of the most ardent 'true believer' that they are just one failed belief away from becoming an atheist. Their beliefs are stretched so tightly it just takes a little pinprick for it to snap and then they become an evangelist for anti-theism.

If Christianity were the one true religion based on the one true savior, Jesus then ALL Christians would be believing the same things because the unifying power of the Holy Spirit would be drawing them all together into one belief. True or not?

 

[Thrillobyte]

First, to compare God to a human father is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human being.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

Secondly, it is not God's responsibility to see to it that grown adults get through the narrow gate. If they want to get through it there are requirements, there is no free pass.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.​

There are reasons why few people find it.
Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

First, to compare God to a human father is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human being.

Beats me. All I know is Matthew 23:9 says:

"Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven."

That's pretty explicit.

 

[wellwisher]

Islam has also survived, persisted, and even thrived to the present and now has over a billion followers. The same can be said about Hinduism, which dates back over 4,000 years, has over a billion followers, and is the third largest religion in the world behind Christianity and Islam (see here). What's your point?

The original topic targeted Jesus, and not these other prophets. The Atheist are less likely to attack the other religions, since these others do not have to turn the other cheek. Bullies will not go after someone how hits back.

In Christianity, the main spiritual leader, although claimed to be the Son of God, allows himself to be abused and even killed by humans. This example is not an easy cross to bear, but the group survived and grew, knowing it would be abused.

Once Christianity teamed up with Rome in the 4th century, with Rome known to attack and conquer and not turn the other cheek, the flock could be at ease practicing weakness shielded by strength. Today with that Roman bond broken, many Christians again become a target; history repeating itself.

The other main religions that survived and still thrive have more assertive God figures that do not have to turn the other cheek. This has more security, than just strength perfected in weakness. Although the descendants of Rome; US and EU now provide for their defense; religious freedom and human rights. While also supporting the Atheist and secular mirror religions competing for flock.

 

[Windwalker]

If Christianity were the one true religion based on the one true savior, Jesus then ALL Christians would be believing the same things because the unifying power of the Holy Spirit would be drawing them all together into one belief. True or not?

No. Not true at all, on almost every point above. Not even most fundamentalists believe that everyone has to believe everything exactly the same ways. The only groups I've ever seen that demand everything think identically on all matters of faith are authoritarian led cults which are way out there on the fringes, typically dangerous and unhealthy groups which drink the kool-aid when dear leader goes over the edge because they have given over all control of independent thoughts to them.

From such an extreme at one end there is a wide spectrum of views away from that point which can be called Christian faith. Being united in faith, is not the same thing as being of one "belief", which is how you put it above. There is a difference between faith and belief. Beliefs are ideas of the mind. Faith is a confidence of the heart, or a gut feeling. Beliefs are mental in nature. Faith is visceral in nature. Different, albeight interrelated and interconnected domains.

So first from above, "the one true religion". Not all Christians imagine Christianity as exclusive in that way, that unless someone converts to the religion and adopts Christian symbols and rites, that they are lost on on their way to hell. Certainly there are those who do believe that. And there are those who do not believe that. A "true religion" really means an authentic religion that brings about authentic, genuine spiritual transformation through its teachings and practices.

There can in fact be many true religions in this sense. Not just one to the exclusion of others. It is not seen as "If this is true, than everything else has to be false", mentality. That's binary black and white thinking. It is 'either/or' thinking. But there is the more realistic and rational understanding of a 'both/and' mentality, which sees that truth is not exclusive, but inclusive.

"Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon", said the Zen poet. That reflects my view on these things.

Now, as far as the "unifying power of the Holy Spirit", I would agree that is the factor that can and does unite disparate views and personalities, and cutures, and beliefs. But NOT at all in the sense of a common ideaology or belief system. The exact opposite of that. There is a massive difference between uniformity and unity. Unity requires diversity. Sameness of ideas and views creates weakness. It's all the grains running the same direction. Whereas a woven material of criss-crossing patterns is far more strong. That unity is LOVE, not beliefs.

In this sense, it is the mystical heart of all religions, that unifies them in a common connection. It is a spiritual unity, of the heart, of the soul, not of our ideas about things that is considered the "Spirit". Unitive Consciousness, is another way to think about that. It's our connection of the heart that unites, not our agreement of our ideas.

And this too is a view that is found not only in Christianity, but also all religions at the deeper realization of the nature of what a "true religion" is about. Which is the mystical heart of faith itself, which transcends religions.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The original topic targeted Jesus, and not these other prophets. The Atheist are less likely to attack the other religions, since these others do not have to turn the other cheek. Bullies will not go after someone how hits back.
In Christianity, the main spiritual leader, although claimed to be the Son of God, allows himself to be abused and even killed by humans. This example is not an easy cross to bear, but the group survived and grew, knowing it would be abused.
Once Christianity teamed up with Rome in the 4th century, with Rome known to attack and conquer and not turn the other cheek, the flock could be at ease practicing weakness shielded by strength. Today with that Roman bond broken, many Christians again become a target; history repeating itself...............

I'd like to take the liberty to add, ' Once 'so-called Christianity' teamed up with Rome ( Constantine )......'
Gospel writer Luke forewarned that after the apostles would be off the scene an apostasy would settle in - Acts 20:29-30
Genuine ' wheat ' Christians would grow together with the fake ' weed/tares ' Christians until the Harvest Time.
The Harvest Time of separation as found at the soon coming time of Matthew 25:31-34,37.
Yes, Jesus did also forewarn international hatred for his modern-day followers at Matthew 24:9

 

[Thrillobyte]

As free will beings we have to want to know God to be lead by him.

This is not true, Coulter. John 6:37 makes it perfectly clear that it is the Father who makes the first move, not us of our free will:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me"

We do not have the power to come to God of our free will. We were born in sin and dead to God as Paul makes perfectly clear in Ephesians 2:5 :

"Even when we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us together with Christ, 6 And hath raised us up together.

You were dead in your sins. A dead man has no power to exercise free will to accept Jesus. God chose a particular people to be his children in heaven. The rest he has chosen not to save and to allow them to go into damnation. That's clearly evident in the scriptures:

READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY FOLKS BECAUSE THIS SHOWS HOW ROTTEN THE CHRISTIAN GOD REALLY IS!

“Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" Romans 9:20-23

Translated: God prepared some of us for glory (heaven) and some of us for destruction (hell). Although he desired to make known his wrath and power to those he destined for destruction (hell), instead He endured with patience those he prepared for destruction (hell) to make known to those he prepared for glory (heaven) the riches of his glory. And if you think this is unfair do you have a right to say to your maker, "Why did you destine me for destruction (hell)?" Doesn't God have the right to destine you to anywhere that he wills?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If Christianity were the one true religion based on the one true savior, Jesus then ALL Christians would be believing the same things because the unifying power of the Holy Spirit would be drawing them all together into one belief. True or not?

I'd like to add " ALL true Christians....... "
The genuine 'wheat ' are separate from the fake ' weed/tares '
Remember: Matthew 7:21-23 because MANY profess to follow Jesus but mostly in name only.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

If Christianity were the one true religion based on the one true savior, Jesus then ALL Christians would be believing the same things because the unifying power of the Holy Spirit would be drawing them all together into one belief. True or not?

Of course, Christians aren't united, and they never have been. The majority of Christians have the perpetual habit of accusing other Christians of not being "true Christians," and this accusation is as old as Christianity itself (read 1 Corinthians 1:10–17). The problem I have with Christians accusing other Christians of not being true followers of Jesus is that they can never agree on what the Bible truly says, and they constantly argue, insult, and fight one another about what they believe the Bible teaches. The truth is that if you ask the same theological question to a broad group of Christians, you will receive very different answers. All of these Christians will cite the Bible in an attempt to defend their answers, even though their answers are very different and contradictory.

It is also worth noting that they don't agree on whether salvation in Jesus Christ is unconditional or not, although they all read the Bible. Some Christians claim that a person's salvation is conditional, and they would quote a few scriptures they believed supported their belief. Some Christians claim that a person's salvation is unconditional, and they would quote a few scriptures they believed supported their belief. Yet other Christians claim that baptism or speaking in tongues is required for salvation, and they would quote a few scriptures they believed supported their belief. They contradict each other.

Questions about how to properly baptize believers (fully immersed in water or sprinkled with water), whether it is biblical for women to be pastors, and about the alleged end times (pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation, and the rapture of Christians) would elicit the same kind of derision among Christians. Not to mention the churches staking their claim as the "true church" and implying that Christians in other churches are wrong in their theology and biblical interpretation. They even argue about whether Jesus' mother remained a virgin after giving birth to him or if she had other children after him.

The truth is that Christians are very divided and intentionally separate themselves into different churches and adhere to different doctrines and scriptural interpretations, which has occurred in both historical and contemporary Christianity. Catholics and Protestants have different church doctrines, dogmas, and interpretations of the Bible. So do Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Messianic Judaism, and Orthodox Christians, which include Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox. Also, there are Baptists (First Baptist, Second Baptist, Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Anabaptist, Freewill Baptist), Methodists, Mennonites, Seventh-day Adventists, Assemblies of God, Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Quakers, Church of God, and many other Protestant churches that aren't on the list. In fact, the precise number of Christian denominations is debatable.

Ironically, they all believe that they are correct about their beliefs and everyone else (including other Christians) is wrong about theirs, but then they have the audacity to claim that the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the only true religion in the world. In my opinion, there's no reason to believe any of them. I think it's ridiculous for any Christian to claim that their biblical interpretation and theology are correct while insisting that other Christians are wrong, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that Christianity is the only true religion in the world. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, that Christians apparently expect non-Christians to accept the Bible as divinely inspired and the final authority on moral issues, yet they can't agree on what the Bible actually says.

 

[Windwalker]

Atheists don't mock, at least they shouldn't. But it's possible there's a thin line between mocking and informing. I try to inform. I never try to mock.

Some atheists do, just as some Christians do. Atheists are human and can be equally as insecure as as anyone else can be. It's good you don't do that. I've encountered more than a lion's share who do, to the point I called them the "pitchforks and woo' crowd, where anytime a topic of spirituality came up, out they'd come crying "woo woo! Where's your evidence?? God is as much a reality as Leprechauns and pink unicorns are!", and such.

I used to be a moderator on a different site for former Christians, where that was more the norm than the exception. So yes, some atheists do mock. Plenty do.

 

[Alien826]

Mr. Optimistic.

What do you disagree with? The silliest, most trivial things go "viral" on the Internet. Why do you think this wouldn't?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY FOLKS BECAUSE THIS SHOWS HOW ROTTEN THE CHRISTIAN GOD REALLY IS!
“Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" Romans 9:20-23
Translated: God prepared some of us for glory and some of us for destruction (hell). Although he desired to make known his wrath and power to those he destined for destruction (hell), instead He endured with patience those he prepared for destruction (hell) to make known to those he prepared for glory (heaven) the riches of his glory. And if you think this is unfair do you have a right to say to your maker, "Why did you destine me for destruction (hell)?" Doesn't God have the right to destine you to anywhere that he wills? Some God!

Yes, we are the clay and we 'the clay' presents oneself to the Potter. (Pharaoh would Not let himself be molded or formed in righteousness - Romans 9:17)
The Potter does Not force the clay to be a good lump of workable clay. - Romans 9:18 B
( like Pharaoh for example who hardened his own heart and became un-moldable clay - Exodus 8:32 )
The 10 plagues were giving Pharaoh enough rope, so to speak, for Pharaoh to work out the wickedness in his hardened heart.
Righteous clay is the work of God's handiwork - Isaiah 64:8
Besides those who will have a first or earlier resurrection - Rev. 20:6; 5:9-10; - Jesus has 'other sheep' Ephesians 3:6; Romans 9:25-26.

Please note that biblical hell is Not destruction.
Dead Jesus was Not destroyed in hell because bilblical hell is just the temporary grave for the sleeping dead - Acts 2:27; John 11:11-14.
Temporary grave until Resurrection Day meaning Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day governing over Earth for 1,000 years - 1st. Cor. 15:24-26
KJV wrongly translated the word Gehenna into English as hell fire.
Gehenna was just a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were: destroyed.
The wicked will simply be gone forever ( Psalms 37:38; 92:7; 104:35; 145:20 )

So, God chooses who are resurrected to heavenly life like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18
As for the majority of mankind they can have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection on Earth when there will be No more death on Earth - Isaiah 25:8

 

[Alien826]

As free will beings we have to want to know God to be lead by him. We don’t have to be religious against our will. Plenty of people who were once loyal to God turned their backs on the Universal Father, usually because he didn’t play the role of a Santa Clause like deity!

If you truly want to know God then the evidence will be provided. If you were born of the spirit you would still be just as unable to prove your experience with others.

Suppose God stooped to our demands to prove himself without a doubt, like suddenly appeared in human form to have coffee with us. We chatted for a couple of hours then he left? Going forward you would still need to be lead in spirit and you would be just as unable to prove your experience with God to others.

Yes, it's always about free will, isn't it?

The thing I find most puzzling is embodied in the question "From god's point of view, what is the purpose of it all?" Without an answer to that, what hope do we have? Is salvation a reward for giving correct answers in a game of Trivial Pursuit? Is it, as Mark Twain supposedly said, "Believing what you know dern well ain't so"? Is it some kind of game where the winners and losers are predetermined, and there is nothing any of us can do about it? Is salvation, as it seems to me, dependent on a sacrifice system where our sins can be magically transferred to an innocent person, and torturing that person to death satisfies god's need for revenge? Does god really care about us, and if so why put us through all this crap? Does god really want all of us to be saved, and if so why make salvation so friggin difficult to understand?

I really don't see what is so wrong with god revealing himself and his purposes clearly. It would be no different from a benevolent human government that laid out plain laws for us to follow, and following them proved to be overwhelmingly beneficial. We could still break the law if we chose to, but why would we?

Imagine this. Here's us, lost. Over there is a place where life is wonderful, we just have to get there. And here's god, with a map. What makes more sense? He appears to us and says, look, I've set out sign posts, just follow them. I'll keep an eye on you as you go. Or, I've set out various clues, hidden along the way. You have to find each one and solve the riddle to get to then next clue. Oh, and there are deep holes you can fall into if you get the clues wrong. Now I'll just go away and let you get on with it. Good luck!

Which of these two methods seem more likely, if god is truly benevolent?

 

[Alien826]

If Christianity were the one true religion based on the one true savior, Jesus then ALL Christians would be believing the same things because the unifying power of the Holy Spirit would be drawing them all together into one belief. True or not?

One would think so. One conclusion is obvious. God is a very poor communicator.

 

[Thrillobyte]

One would think so. One conclusion is obvious. God is a very poor communicator.

When are the Christians going to wake up and realize that?