There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[lukethethird]

We agree there. The Jesus mythicists tend to be anti-Christian conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind, like the OP. I used to be one of them until I realized it didn't make sense at all.

I was disappointed to learn that the Jesus I assumed was historical did not exist, or at least we have no way of knowing. As a church member I knew of the Jesus we read about in the gospels, but when I looked into the matter in order to discern the historical from the mythical, well, like I said, disappointed.

 

[Alien826]

I'd say the issue lies in the idea of what God is and does. Why are we assuming God thinks like humans, where we may make a judgment call in matters of choices to do one thing or the other? This is an example of anthropomorphizing God. The solution to this is to get rid of thinking of God like another human being with thoughts and feelings and the range of human emotions.

This is an interesting approach, and one that I have thought about a lot. Let's try to approach it logically.

What do we actually know about "god"? I would suggest very little, in fact, approaching nothing. We observe that people throughout history have attempted to explain the natural world through the invention of supernatural entities. Understandable, yes.

Having done that, they tried to define the unknown by reference to the known. and have tended to define these "gods" by reference to themselves and other animals. Also understandable.

The idea of admitting that they didn't know the answer to something was not a good tactic, from the point of view of survival. Those that expect and prepare for a bad outcome tend to live longer.

With the advent of a more logical mindset, we can try another approach. Starting with the lack of observable "gods", what is "god" likely to be? Invisible, not part of this world, and all the rest. So we start from the position that we can't understand god, but still try to relate to it in terms that we do understand. Still understandable.

This takes us to your position, I think. But, if we can't understand god, what's the point of drawing conclusions at all? Take morality as an example. Supposedly god knows everything, therefore any moral rules that are attributed to god must be the ultimate truth of the matter. But if god is not understandable, why would we use its morality to guide us? And we can expand that to cover just about everything that we are told comes from god. No?

 

[lukethethird]

No, I absolutely AM NOT doing that. As I have always said, I believe that the Messengers of God ARE the evidence for God.

In that case you are merely assuming what it is that you are trying to prove to yourself, it's called circular reasoning.

 

[dybmh]

Okay, You pretty much confirm what I've already discovered but it's always possible someone out there is really up on ancient history and can show me something that is worth considering. Dyb, you're an individual (all Christians are, really) who can see past the lack of physical evidence and go with the possibility that the experts are wrong and the yeasayers are right. Perfectly fair, it's a free country.

Thank you.

Can you appreciate that some of us skeptics see the use of random diverse scriptures from all over the Bible as a "smoke and mirrors" device

Certainly.

even though I'm sure you are perfectly sincere when you quote 10-15 passages that on first glance have nothing to do with the legitimacy of Jesus.

Woah. I didn't do that. This thread has taken a few twists and turns. That's normal. The lack of evidence ( which is the primary topic of the thread ) was being supplemented, by you, with 3 arguments that are erroneous. These arguments were intended to bring evidence against the bible as true. But each of these arguments fail. When I directed you to verses in the bible, it was refuting the arguments against the bible as true. And those verses succeed in that purpose.

The result is that the "lack of evidence" is true, and agnosticsm is warranted. Certainly non-belief is warranted. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor that the authors were lying about the entire thing.

It's like using scripture to prove scripture, or using credit cards to pay off credit cards--ultimately it's self defeating, which is why scholars worth their salt want independent sources to prove what the Bible says is true. I'm not sure your way is a valid way of proving Jesus was real. I'm also not sure if you're aware that banks don't let you use credit cards to pay off credit cards.

I have not, nor will I ever try to prove that the Jesus of the gospels is real. If that happened, proving it, then faith would be impossible.

You've been the first Christian in 500-some posts to actually come out and admit there's not a single historian you can name who wrote about Jesus. That took courage. I applaud you. I'll get to Hercules later.

I'm not a Christian. I'm Jewish. It says so next to every post I write. Kindly tilt your eyeballs to the left of this reply.



Although, I am courageous. That's true. For good and for bad. Technically it's Chutzpah, beginning with the gutteral semetic "CH" sound.

You can read about it here:

Chutzpah - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I always go back to my key question:

If God wanted the human race to believe his son, Jesus came to earth to die for our sins and the resurrect to go back to heaven, then why wouldn't this God who claims to love us so much let Jesus leave with not so much as a single historian mentioning him?

And I answered. Bringing proof and evidence compromises belief. You are seeking knowledge. But God, in theory, wants belief. And there's good reasons for that.

Surely for a God who can do all thing, who didn't have a problem trampling on Pharaoh's free will to harden his heart to make it impossible for him to let the Israelites go, surely inspiring a few historians to say, "I witnessed the crucified and risen Jesus." Would that have been too difficult for an omnipotent God?

Not too difficult, but, it would naturally lead to idol-worship. People tend to think of idol-worship in very simple terms, like bowing to a totem-pole. Do you have totem poles where you are? I'm not sure if you're american? canadian? Anyway, idol-worship goes beyond bowing to a physical man-made thing. It could be bowing to an idea, not literally bowing, but you know what I mean. If a person worships "energy", that's a form of idol worship.

So, again, the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. It could mean that God would prefer atheism to idol worship.

 

[Trailblazer]

A Messenger who can't even properly communicate that he is, in fact, a Messenger, has failed as a Messenger on every conceivable level.

I have no idea who you are referring to, but it is not the Messenger that I believe in. He proclaimed loud and clear that He was a Messenger of God.

Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Trailblazer]

In that case you are merely assuming what it is that you are trying to prove to yourself, it's called circular reasoning.

That does not change reality. If Messengers of God are evidence for God that is what they are and there is nothing you can do about it.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

There is nothing wrong with this argument just because it is circular. The circularity does not reduce the validity of the argument in any way. However, this does not mean that the argument is sound.

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

A Messenger who can't even properly communicate that he is, in fact, a Messenger, has failed as a Messenger on every conceivable level.

Go ahead, try to blame the Messenger for your own failure.
The failure is not on the part of the Messenger, it is on the people who FAIL to recognize that He is a Messenger of God.
People who look at the Messenger and cannot recognize that He was a Messenger of God have failed on every conceivable level.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I was disappointed to learn that the Jesus I assumed was historical did not exist, or at least we have no way of knowing. As a church member I knew of the Jesus we read about in the gospels, but when I looked into the matter in order to discern the historical from the mythical, well, like I said, disappointed.

So now you a Christian are getting a taste of what we skeptics had to face when we first learned that there was no evidence for the historic Jesus. Now carry that to praying every day for decades and never seeing one major prayer getting answered (illness, job loss, eviction, financial. etc) never mind the itsy-bitsy occasional find your lost keys after praying. Now put it all together--no evidence for Jesus, no prayers get answered, no presence of God in the world, no miracles happening--and Christians are astounded that some people lose faith in Jesus and that he appears to be either a figment of people's imaginations OR a carefully assembled construct to accomplish a particular purpose like, say domesticating a very hostile anti-Roman group of Jews who were constantly causing problems for the Roman empire. Have a look at this and just consider the possibility:

Review: Creating Christianity: A Weapon of Ancient Rome by Henry Davis​

Davis’s main thesis is that the gospels and other New Testament books were written not by Jewish/Christian scholars such as Matthew, Luke or Paul, but were fabricated by an aristocratic Roman family with the name Piso, notably Arrius Flavius Josephus,

Review: Creating Christianity: A Weapon of Ancient Rome by Henry Davis | Self-Publishing Review

Since there is very little historical evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, many researchers, including author Henry Davis, assert that not only his person, but also the religion founded around him, were invented after his passing. Such is the case the Creating Christianity: A Weapon...

www.selfpublishingreview.com

Who Wrote The New Testament? Arius Calpurnius Piso, Pen Name Flavius Josephus​

Flavius Josephus wrote under so many other pen names, one can only know about christiantiy by reading more than a book or two, or going beyond using the bible and the works of Flavius Josephus as the basis of one's final conclusions about a lot of religious issues.

Who Wrote The New Testament? Arius Calpurnius Piso, Pen Name Flavius Josephus : Abelard Reuchlin : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

QUOTES: „I consider this book (really a pamphlet) a gold mine. Flavius Josephus wrote under so many other pen names, one can only know about christiantiy by...

archive.org

 

[Thrillobyte]

Thank you.



Certainly.



Woah. I didn't do that. This thread has taken a few twists and turns. That's normal. The lack of evidence ( which is the primary topic of the thread ) was being supplemented, by you, with 3 arguments that are erroneous. These arguments were intended to bring evidence against the bible as true. But each of these arguments fail. When I directed you to verses in the bible, it was refuting the arguments against the bible as true. And those verses succeed in that purpose.

The result is that the "lack of evidence" is true, and agnosticsm is warranted. Certainly non-belief is warranted. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor that the authors were lying about the entire thing.



I have not, nor will I ever try to prove that the Jesus of the gospels is real. If that happened, proving it, then faith would be impossible.



I'm not a Christian. I'm Jewish. It says so next to every post I write. Kindly tilt your eyeballs to the left of this reply.

View attachment 78051

Although, I am courageous. That's true. For good and for bad. Technically it's Chutzpah, beginning with the gutteral semetic "CH" sound.

You can read about it here:

Chutzpah - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And I answered. Bringing proof and evidence compromises belief. You are seeking knowledge. But God, in theory, wants belief. And there's good reasons for that.



Not too difficult, but, it would naturally lead to idol-worship. People tend to think of idol-worship in very simple terms, like bowing to a totem-pole. Do you have totem poles where you are? I'm not sure if you're american? canadian? Anyway, idol-worship goes beyond bowing to a physical man-made thing. It could be bowing to an idea, not literally bowing, but you know what I mean. If a person worships "energy", that's a form of idol worship.

So, again, the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. It could mean that God would prefer atheism to idol worship.

I apologize for the errors, I get a few of you confused. You're right, there was another Christian quoting about 15 random verses to support the existence of Jesus. As such none of my response you quoted is really worth anything. Please disregard.

 

[Alien826]

No, they are not assumptions, they are beliefs. A belief is not the same as an assumption. For one thing, my beliefs are based upon evidence whereas assumptions are not.

I think your beliefs are based on "trust" in your Messenger, in the same way as I trust my doctor, that is I acknowledge him as an expert in his field. Your evidence would be whatever led you to establish that trust. In my example it is based on prior performance. What is your basis for trust?

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything that I believe. All I can suggest is that my beliefs are based on my own research and investigation, NOT on what others tell me about their beliefs in God, for example that god wants us all to be saved. For one thing, I do not even believe that there is such a thing as 'saved' since I do not believe that there is anything to be saved from, except maybe ourselves, our own lower material nature.

It seems to me that God saves us from himself, in the same way that a gangster saves us from getting beaten up if we pay what he demands. He does so by refraining from doing what he threatens.

The Essence of God has remained hidden, but that has worked just fine, since people who are interested in God can find out about God from God's Manifestations (Messengers). Not even the Messengers of God know God's Essence, so how are we are supposed to know?

How indeed?

Nobody needs to know God's Essence in order to know God's message.

But understanding it, that's something else!

Good luck waiting for that to happen.

As an atheist I'm not waiting for anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think your beliefs are based on "trust" in your Messenger, in the same way as I trust my doctor, that is I acknowledge him as an expert in his field. Your evidence would be whatever led you to establish that trust. In my example it is based on prior performance. What is your basis for trust?

Prior performance.

Matthew 7:16 “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
Matthew 7:20 “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

It seems to me that God saves us from himself, in the same way that a gangster saves us from getting beaten up if we pay what he demands. He does so by refraining from doing what he threatens.

I'm not a Christian so I don't believe that God is threatening to DO anything to us.

But understanding it, that's something else!

What is difficult to understand about the message of Baha'u'llah? I think the basic message is rather simple.

As an atheist I'm not waiting for anything.

Well, you are probably waiting for something, just not what I am waiting for.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have no idea who you are referring to, but it is not the Messenger that I believe in. He proclaimed loud and clear that He was a Messenger of God.

Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh

If I may draw your attention to:

The Messengers of God did not fail at all. The only ones who failed are the people who did not recognize the Messengers.

If they don't recognize a Messenger, the chances of getting the message across are slim...

 

[Trailblazer]

If they don't recognize a Messenger, the chances of getting the message across are slim...

True, but whose fault is it if they did not recognize the Messenger? It is certainly not the Messenger's fault.

 

[dybmh]

I apologize for the errors, I get a few of you confused. You're right, there was another Christian quoting about 15 random verses to support the existence of Jesus. As such none of my response you quoted is really worth anything. Please disregard.

Completely understood, no problem-o. It would be good to defend the mythic ranking of Jesus, if you have the time. Although, perhaps it's off topic.

 

[TLK Valentine]

True, but whose fault is it if they did not recognize the Messenger? It is certainly not the Messenger's fault.

I wouldn't be so certain of that. Certainly "Who I am and on whose authority I speak" is often a vital part of the message...

 

[dybmh]

(Maybe I misunderstood, but please answer the following as you understand it, thanks.)
Again -- the history of the Jews, north and south, in Israel as a whole during the times of the kings, show that God had a voice in approval or disapproval. So when Jesus prayed that God's will be done, not only was he being humble, but very encouraging to those of us who look forward to Isaiah's promise of a beautiful future. For those, yes, who love God and want His will to be done on the earth. (It will be.)

My vote is, God's will be done regardless of what a person says. The distinction is, as Jesus says:

"Thy will be done on earth as it is heaven."

God's will is to bestow. And that will be done. A prayer is asking that God's will is bestowed directly, as it is in heaven. This is different, opposite of, the many twists and turns and complications the execute God's will in many phenomena on earth. Jesus teaches not to worry, that God will provide, just as the birds receive. But, how hard does a person have to work and suffer for that food?

My opinion is that prayer, when it is 100% true, connects directly to God. This encourages the direct influence of God's will on earth, and simultaneously encourages direct understanding in the petitioner of God's will. It is at least a double blessing, but could be compounded many times depending on what the petitioner does with this understanding.

What Jesus is offering, imo, is a method for establishing a 100% true connection to God, yes, through humility, also through the request of the bare essentials. Together this cultivates an emotional and intellectual response, dependence on God, which is 100% true.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe I had this wrong. Are you saying that the participants were told to pray that God's will be done? It sounds ridiculous anyway.

I don't know what the participants were told, and no one can really know what was in their hearts, except for God of course. But, it was the researchers will which would have been done if there was any conclusive evidence.

Sadly, if the participants wanted to prove it, yes, any conclusive evidence would have been their will, not God's will. God is not a light-switch.

 

[YoursTrue]

My vote is, God's will be done regardless of what a person says. The distinction is, as Jesus says:
hat is the source of the wars and fights among you? Do they not originate from your fleshly desires that carry on a conflict within you?*+ 2 You desire, and yet you do not have. You go on murdering and coveting, and yet you are not able to obtain. You go on fighting and waging war.+ You do not have because of your not asking. 3 When you do ask, you do not receive because you are asking for a wrong purpose, so that you may spend it on your fleshly desires.
"Thy will be done on earth as it is heaven."

God's will is to bestow. And that will be done. A prayer is asking that God's will is bestowed directly, as it is in heaven. This is different, opposite of, the many twists and turns and complications the execute God's will in many phenomena on earth. Jesus teaches not to worry, that God will provide, just as the birds receive. But, how hard does a person have to work and suffer for that food?

My opinion is that prayer, when it is 100% true, connects directly to God. This encourages the direct influence of God's will on earth, and simultaneously encourages direct understanding in the petitioner of God's will. It is at least a double blessing, but could be compounded many times depending on what the petitioner does with this understanding.

What Jesus is offering, imo, is a method for establishing a 100% true connection to God, yes, through humility, also through the request of the bare essentials. Together this cultivates an emotional and intellectual response, dependence on God, which is 100% true.

Unless one understands God's will, he will have to be taught. And willing to learn. James 4:1-3 says "what is the source of the wars and fights among you? Do they not originate from your fleshly desires that carry on a conflict within you? 2 You desire, and yet you do not have. You go on murdering and coveting, and yet you are not able to obtain. You go on fighting and waging war. You do not have because of your not asking. 3 When you do ask, you do not receive because you are asking for a wrong purpose, so that you may spend it on your fleshly desires."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I was disappointed to learn that the Jesus I assumed was historical did not exist, or at least we have no way of knowing. As a church member I knew of the Jesus we read about in the gospels, but when I looked into the matter in order to discern the historical from the mythical, well, like I said, disappointed.

I was disappointed too, because I spent the majority of my life believing in Jesus and God. Like most former Christians I know, it was a real eye-opener for me when I got into researching the authenticity of the Bible and Christian theology. It began with a seed of doubt being planted as I helped my nephew obtain his Master of Theological Studies degree. A seed of doubt was sown while we studied the Bible and Christian theology as part of the requirements to earn the degree. The seed began to sprout during this time, and by the time I completed extensive training in an evangelistic ministry, it had grown into a fully flowering plant. I had read the Bible cover to cover several times before I began to help my nephew, but this was the first time I had read it with the intent to authenticate it. I read it without the influence of other Christians telling me what I should or should not believe about it. I suppose you could say that I read the Bible in a different light, which completely changed my perspective on it and made me to question everything I believed as a Christian. I tried to ignore all of my doubts for a long time, but I eventually reached a point where I couldn't. I realized I had to be honest with myself, and that's when I began to reevaluate what I believed as a Christian. This ultimately led to my decision to finally stop believing in God and renounce my Christian faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

My vote is, God's will be done regardless of what a person says. The distinction is, as Jesus says:

"Thy will be done on earth as it is heaven."

God's will is to bestow. And that will be done. A prayer is asking that God's will is bestowed directly, as it is in heaven. This is different, opposite of, the many twists and turns and complications the execute God's will in many phenomena on earth. Jesus teaches not to worry, that God will provide, just as the birds receive. But, how hard does a person have to work and suffer for that food?

My opinion is that prayer, when it is 100% true, connects directly to God. This encourages the direct influence of God's will on earth, and simultaneously encourages direct understanding in the petitioner of God's will. It is at least a double blessing, but could be compounded many times depending on what the petitioner does with this understanding.

What Jesus is offering, imo, is a method for establishing a 100% true connection to God, yes, through humility, also through the request of the bare essentials. Together this cultivates an emotional and intellectual response, dependence on God, which is 100% true.

Allow me please to say something. It is also God's will to remove all unrighteousness from this earth. He will--the scriptures assure us of that: Psalm 45 goes into this to an extent giving those with faith hope--
"Strap your sword on your side, O mighty one,
In your dignity and your splendor.
4 And in your splendor go on to victory;
Ride in the cause of truth and humility and righteousness,
And your right hand will accomplish awe-inspiring things.
5 Your arrows are sharp, making peoples fall before you;
They pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies.
6 God is your throne forever and ever;
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness."