There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Windwalker]

And it wouldn't make any difference, anyway, because it's a mythical story, now. It's no longer about being factual. It's about conveying an ideology. Something you don't understand at all.

This is the crux of the issue right here. Many people cannot separate the meaning of the symbol from the symbol itself. You see that in fundamentalist Christianity where they think that if someone is an atheist and rejects God, they are untrustworthy and have nothing stopping them from killing people. That's because to them, the meaning of goodness and kindness if fused with the symbol of God. If you don't have God, you don't have goodness and kindness.

Likewise, fundamentalist atheists fuse the symbol of the literal factual story about Jesus with the message of the story, such as love your enemies. To them, if Jesus didn't actually exist, the gospels have no meaning.

If you've ever read James Fowler's Stages of Faith, he talks about that being a feature of those in the earlier stages of faith, the "mythic-literal", and in synthetic conventional (traditionalism). It's not until Stage 4, the Individuative Reflective stage where people are able to 'decouple' the meaning of the symbol from the symbol itself. They can see the same meaning in other symbols, and the "fact" of the symbol becomes unimportant.

This is a completely foreign idea to Stage 3 faith and earlier. "If you don't believe in God, what keeps you from killing someone", Or, "If Jesus didn't really exist, or the stories aren't factually true, the whole Bible is untrustworthy and should be ignored". Exact same thing. The idea of symbolic truth is quite literally beyond what they can grasp yet, even if they are getting the meaning symbolically without realizing it. Fowler's research shows this to be true.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I suggest it is believers like you who take on a huge burden.

A gigantic burden. Here is how life goes for hundreds of millions of Christians:

1. raised in the faith--pounded into their heads from the cradle to believe in and trust Jesus

2. grow up going to church, fellowship--Christian life becomes second nature. Like breathing Christian gets up every morning gets down on knees and prays. All day it's staying connected to what they believe is God and Jesus.

3. turn down lots of opportunities because they believe "This is what Jesus wants me to do."

4. when they pray, however nothing ever happens. No prayers are answered. Christians ignore it, "It's not God's will for my life.

5. sterile life, no real fun, just servitude to Jesus decade after decade.

6. late in life they have an "Aha" moment. Jesus doesn't talk to them, he doesn't communicate with them. it's like he doesn't even exist.

7. gradually drift away from Jesus. It's like he doesn't really exist anymore. Stop all Christian activities, no praying, no going to church. God does nothing to bring them back. Life goes on as usual.

8. On deathbed, they realize they have thrown away their life on a non-existent myth who never once interacted externally with them. It was all internal "feel-good" stuff.

But millions of Christians wake up from this nightmare of wasted lives every year and leave Christianity to live life to its fullest because they come to realize that this life is all they are going to get and then everything for them ends permanently.

 

[F1fan]

In my opinion, the post you responded to is certainly pompous, and it reeks of hypocrisy. I won't say anything else other than post these quotes.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

While I like Gandhi's quote, I like this quote by Brendan Manning even more: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Yes is the one big issue I find so odd with many, usually conservative, Christians. I would think believers would try to emulate how Jesus lived, and actually follow what he advoctaed for, but they are more interested in the personal benefits. They even behave in ways totally contrary to what Jesus taught, and to a degree that makes me think of them as anti-Christs. How can they even believe in Jesus, or God and behave this way. They behave much the way they accuse atheists of being, even though atheists aren't like what they think.

 

[F1fan]

Many Christians don't think the gospels are "factual", but they are still considered to speak and teach great truths.

Great truths like what?

I have argued with Christians that it would make more sense, and be a more spiritual exverience, IF they treated all the Christian concepts symbolically and not literally. No Christian has ever agreed with me, but there could be one out there that does. The more liberal Christians seems less literal that moderates and conservatives.

Can you figure out how that can be possible? PureX actually explained that if you didn't catch it.

He isn't very good at explaining things coherently, and I suspect he writes in a sort of secret language that can only be understood with certain religious assumptions. Critical thinkers don't use these assumptions so his language is missing information and thus incomprehensible. I've been critical of your comments for doing similar things, being vague. Let's note that what is implied isn't consistent with facts, that being religious assumptions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you telling Christians that the Gospels aren’t factual?

They're certainly not factually accurate -- but it's pointless telling most Christians that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes is the one big issue I find so odd with many, usually conservative, Christians. I would think believers would try to emulate how Jesus lived, and actually follow what he advoctaed for, but they are more interested in the personal benefits. They even behave in ways totally contrary to what Jesus taught, and to a degree that makes me think of them as anti-Christs. How can they even believe in Jesus, or God and behave this way. They behave much the way they accuse atheists of being, even though atheists aren't like what they think.

Because for far too many Christians, it's not about emulating Jesus, it's about the lip service.

 

[Audie]

In my opinion, the post you responded to is certainly pompous, and it reeks of hypocrisy. I won't say anything else other than post these quotes.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

While I like Gandhi's quote, I like this quote by Brendan Manning even more: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Winner frubal

 

[Audie]

Many Christians don't think the gospels are "factual", but they are still considered to speak and teach great truths. Can you figure out how that can be possible? PureX actually explained that if you didn't catch it.

" explain" does not mean either
" speak true" , or. " make sense "

 

[Brian2]

You'd be hard-pressed to find a positive reviews of Ehrman's "The Historical Jesus" from a non-Christian scholar. And that goes back to the opinion floating around in the academic sphere: that Ehrman couldn't have been less interested in writing a book defending someone he's made a career of blasting; that he was pressured to write something in defense of Jesus by the trustees of NCU to at least demonstrate he could be partial about Jesus rather than completely against him, and the shoddy writing and weakly supported arguments pretty much proves this:

Did Jesus Exist?–-Review of Bart Ehrman’s New Book​

I found the book disappointing, for two main reasons. The first is that it spends an inordinate amount of time in ad hominem argument. The second disappointment: there are in fact reputable scholars who do not agree with Ehrman’s key arguments, but he ignores them.

Did Jesus Exist?–-Review of Bart Ehrman’s New Book

At the SBL conference I ran across a new book of Bart Ehrman’s titled Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Why, you might ask, does a whole book need to be written about …

tomdykstra.wordpress.com

Once again, as I said with Brian: Christians will rally to the defense of anything no matter how crappy if it supports their avatar man god, Jesus. They cherry-pick what suits them and toss out any scholarship that refutes their beliefs no matter how solid the evidence.

I really only need Paul knowing whether Jesus had been a real person or not, and the fact that Paul knew also speaks for the rest of the Jews, Christian or not, at that time and either believed in Jesus or did not say that He did not exist.
So in reality the mythicist position relies on ignoring good evidence and trying to show that other evidence for Jesus is not true.
Is there actual evidence that Jesus did not exist?
I admit it is like trying to prove a negative, but is there?

 

[Audie]

I really only need Paul knowing whether Jesus had been a real person or not, and the fact that Paul knew also speaks for the rest of the Jews, Christian or not, at that time and either believed in Jesus or did not say that He did not exist.
So in reality the mythicist position relies on ignoring good evidence and trying to show that other evidence for Jesus is not true.
Is there actual evidence that Jesus did not exist?
I admit it is like trying to prove a negative, but is there?

Who* would believe anything from
the source of the absurd snake story?

* besides the naive and credulous
wanna-believers

 

[Brian2]

My apology for the rude remark, it wasn't called for.

There are explanations that apologists proffer to explain Jesus' wild jag. It's one of those things that neither proves nor disproves. Some scholars believe the writers of Mark didn't know the terrain; some Christian scholars explain away the odd path Jesus took by saying there were mountains that blocked Jesus' path to Decapolis. Or yours--that Jesus made pit stops to preach along the way. In the end one has to remember that none of the eyewitnesses to Jesus worte a word of the gospels; they were written up to a century later by Greek scholars who likely had never been to Israel nor did they have an inkling what went on there.

You are ignoring the fact that there is nothing in the text that says that Jesus was heading to any particular location. You are pretending that there still needs to be an explanation for a problem that does not even exist.
And no the gospels were written in the first century and there is evidence that the synoptics were written before 70 AD.

 

[Audie]

I really only need Paul knowing whether Jesus had been a real person or not, and the fact that Paul knew also speaks for the rest of the Jews, Christian or not, at that time and either believed in Jesus or did not say that He did not exist.
So in reality the mythicist position relies on ignoring good evidence and trying to show that other evidence for Jesus is not true.
Is there actual evidence that Jesus did not exist?
I admit it is like trying to prove a negative, but is there?

Nobody denys that some guy whose name was
not even " jesus' actually existed.

It's all the goofy stories concocted
as being about the guy that we dont believe.

See G. Washington and the silver dollar.

 

[Brian2]

Nobody denys that some guy whose name was
not even " jesus' actually existed.

It's all the goofy stories concocted
as being about the guy that we dont believe.

See G. Washington and the silver dollar.

Well no there are people who deny that Jesus actually existed. They are called Mythicists and they say that not only are the goofy stories unbelievable and made up but that the whole idea of a Jesus was made up and any external history about Jesus is by people who have been fooled about the existence of Jesus also.
Basically it is like debating an atheist who claims any evidence for God is not evidence that is scientifically verifiable or falsifiable so it is crap evidence and so God is not believable unless the standard of evidence is raised.

 

[YoursTrue]

Baha'u'llah did not have to 'read' the Koran in order to know what was in the Koran.

"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens."​

​

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)​

​

Schooling​

​

As He grew up, Bahá'u'lláh desired no schooling. He received a little customary education at home, in riding, using a sword or gun, good manners, calligraphy, poetries, and the ability to read out the words of the Qur'an.​

​

Despite a lack education, Bahá'u'lláh shone forth in wisdom and ability, and all who knew Bahá'u'lláh were astonished. It was usual for them to say, that such a child will not live beyond maturity.​

​

Birth and Childhood of Baha'u'llah​

​

I figure that Bahaullah had to learn how to read and write.

 

[Trailblazer]

I figure that Bahaullah had to learn how to read and write.

He did learn how to read and write.

 

[YoursTrue]

Baha'u'llah did not have to 'read' the Koran in order to know what was in the Koran.

"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens."​

​

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)​

​

Schooling​

​

As He grew up, Bahá'u'lláh desired no schooling. He received a little customary education at home, in riding, using a sword or gun, good manners, calligraphy, poetries, and the ability to read out the words of the Qur'an.​

​

Despite a lack education, Bahá'u'lláh shone forth in wisdom and ability, and all who knew Bahá'u'lláh were astonished. It was usual for them to say, that such a child will not live beyond maturity.​

​

Birth and Childhood of Baha'u'llah​

​

Thanks for explaining. (Count me out though, I don't buy it or believe it.) I know people today who believe in mystics and those who firmly believe that there are those receiving messages. Meanwhile from what I'm thinking, Bahaullah seemed to get messages that Moses and Jesus as portrayed in the Bible were liars. Look, many today say that in various ways. Including those who read, are members of churches, and say what the Bible says is based on myths and falsehood. Thanks again for explaining. Take care.

 

[Audie]

Well no there are people who deny that Jesus actually existed. They are called Mythicists and they say that not only are the goofy stories unbelievable and made up but that the whole idea of a Jesus was made up and any external history about Jesus is by people who have been fooled about the existence of Jesus also.
Basically it is like debating an atheist who claims any evidence for God is not evidence that is scientifically verifiable or falsifiable so it is crap evidence and so God is not believable unless the standard of evidence is raised.

Even if there are people who deny
the "jesus" I described ever existed- which I doubt-
or if the atheists you describe actually exist
you continue to debate dubious persons not even present

 

[YoursTrue]

Not if they believed in transmigration of a soul, like from cows to humans.

Baha'u'llah taught that the soul comes into existence at the time of conception and associates itself with the body at that time. Then, when the body dies, the soul continues on its journey in the spiritual world where it takes on a new form.

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157​

​

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.”​

Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194​

​

That we will have a spiritual body in heaven is what the Bible teaches:

1 Corinthians 15 New Living Translation​

​

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.​

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.​

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.​

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!​

Just to confirm, if you believe that Bahalluah told the truth, he is calling those who believe in transmigration of the soul liars. Right?

 

[YoursTrue]

He did learn how to read and write.

Unlike Mohammed, of course, who did not know how to read and write. I would assume if Bahaullah learned to read and write, he'd also have some knowledge of what the Bible and/or the Koran said. But that's me. I believe (not sure though) that Muslims are pretty insistent on learning what the Koran says -- including learning to read it and remember it. He was raised in a Muslim community. And diverted from it as I guess he thought he got special messages. Which of course, angered the community. OK, again -- I won't continue this but thanks for explaining.

 

[Windwalker]

I concur. My definition of "historic" has been different from yours and it appears from the Wiki yours has been the correct one. Yet again the question arises: when Wiki says "The "historical Jesus" is meant to speak of the Jesus seen through the eyes of a historian, versus the "theological Jesus" are they talking about a fully human rabbi Jesus who died and rotted to dust or a supernatural son of God who rose from the dead Jesus?" I"m still confused. Which are they referring to?

The Jesus of faith or the 'theological Jesus', is the supernatural, mythological, or symbolic aspects. What about him or the stories inspires faith. Just citing history is just history. There's not really faith involved in there.

I don't agree and neither does Wiki. According to Wiki in 300 CE right before Constantine Christianity accounted for just 10% of Rome's population.

That is actually a very sizable number. And to my point, it was large enough and prominent enough to have brought large scale persecutions against it because it was seen as a threat. Again, according the historians I heard, there were those in positions of political power that were associated with it, and it had a lot of support of the masses, even if they weren't all converts to the religion itself.

I seem to recall there was some discussion of this by one of the scholars in that great PBS special years ago called, From Jesus to Christ, which is a look at the history of Christianity through the eyes of modern scholarship. One of those on the program was John Dominic Crossan, who was the founder to the Jesus Seminar, and wrote on the Historical Jesus, which I've referenced and you now understand what the means.

This is not what I have read in many other histories. My understanding is that Christianity was just another religion in competition with four or five others for Constantine's attention, among them the Druids with their god, Hesus and the Indian god, Krishna. Read "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

I'm familiar with these popular notions about how Jesus is a copy of Osiris, or what have you Egyptian or Pagan deity. It was Gerald Massey in the mid 1800's that was first proposing this, and others have followed suit. At first I thought it was impressive, but there's been quite a lot of research to show just how sloppy the scholarship is with stuff like this.

But to answer, yes, while you may see similarities in religious themes, that does not mean Christianity is a copycat religion of them. There are other ways to understand this, which I won't bother getting into here. Too much to explain in brief.