There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Windwalker]

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

Funny, it made perfect sense to me.

 

[blü 2]

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.

How now, old friend? I hope all things are good at your place.

I've taken to expressing my view of how I should be trying to act as, Do no harm; and treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense.

I offer only these justifications for them ─ that they appeal to me ─ that they're an extension of the old Golden Rule (which can be traced back long before Jesus) and so are arguably concordant with one branch of our instincts ─ that they're DIY, so that you don't need, say, a community before you can practice them ─ and that no postmortal hellfire or reward is involved.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

First, if you can recognize it would be more spiritual if understood symbolically, then you have your answer to your own question of what great truths it may teach. Whatever you just had in mind that Christians could see if they just saw it symbolically. I agree.

No Christian has ever agreed with me, but there could be one out there that does.

I guarantee there are more than just one out there. While I don't like to identify myself as any religion, I don't not see myself as Christian. It is my "native tongue", and I certainly have a great deal of respect for it, once your strain off all the bathwater that pollutes it, particularly the bathwater of literalism and anti-modernity.

The more liberal Christians seems less literal that moderates and conservatives.

That's not necessarily the case, however I wouldn't argue that point too much.

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.

Perhaps I get what he is saying right away because I can hear the way he thinks, as it reflects my own understanding. I suppose there are certain things we are aware of that I take for granted, such as the nature of mythology and symbolism, for instance. To some people, when they hear "mythology", they think falsehoods, bull****, or lies. But nothing could be further from what we are talking about. It's hard to communicate truths when you can't penetrate a lack of basic understanding of the nature of what religious mythologies are all about like that.

Critical thinkers don't use these assumptions so his language is missing information and thus incomprehensible.

First off, I am very much a critical thinker. I'm highly analytical, as well as creative. I will critically deconstruct understandings and deep dive into a multitude of different discipline in trying to put together a cohesive framework. So, no lack of critical thinking on my part. The problem is, as you touched on, some don't have the same contexts or access to understandings that someone like he does or I do. But it certainly is not because you're not dealing with critical thinkers that is the problem.

And to clarify strongly here, I'm certainly not meaning to toot my own horn, as I really don't need to. I'm just saying, be real about this. Plus, it's a bit insulting to presume you are a critical thinker and others are not, which is what you just said.

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.

If you aren't clear about something, ask for clarification. Don't assume we're not as smart as you.

 

[dybmh]

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

Listen to you! Wow! The person who started a thread asking for real evidence, and is now asserting how life goes for hundreds of millions of Christians. Yeah, OK. *eye-rolls*

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

Pounded. Tortured with love and patience... oh how awful to have that impressed on them, like a hot poker in the groin.

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.

Uh, on their knees? All of them, we've alredy established you don't know what prayer is mentally, and now it doesn't seem you kno what it is physically.

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

Why would they turn down opportunites? That doesn't make sense. Hundreds of millions of Christians, all of them, not going to College, not getting jobs, not going on vacations, not buying homes, or cars, or writing books, or anything.

Something tells me this is your rear end speaking.

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

Most Christians I know have reported some sort of answer. Even non-Christians get their prayers answered sometimes. It's just not like a light switch.

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

No fun? Are you kidding, Christians are lots and lots of fun. You never went to Christian summer camp. Strange but true, I wasn't raised in a very Jewish environment, and yes, I went to Christian summer camp, and it was great. I grew up in a very Christian area, many PKs, preacher-kids, went to my school, and many of them were friends of mine.

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.

Ohhhhhh, you're talking about YOUR life experience and pretending that it's the same for hundreds of millions of other people. I mean it MUST be true for everyone, since it was true for you.

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.

That's how it goes, maybe you were meant to be an atheist. Everyone has their lot in life, maybe this is yours.

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.

What a minute, wait a minute, you just contradicted yourself. All this timw time you were writing a sob-story about being pounded wih Christianity, and skipping opportunities, having no fun, and being sterile. And NOW it was "feel-good" stuff. Make up your mind. Was it torture being a Christian, or was it feel-good stuff? I mean if it felt good, maybe you're just sore because your prayers for stuff werent magically conjured.

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.

Yes, eat drink and be merry ex-Christians. Of course, if your idea of merriment is coming to forums and preaching, it's kind of sad/funny to see that.

OK, this is pretty funny. What am I even looking at here? There's no scale at all on the left. This could be a ripple in a pond. Don't you know that stats can be fudged to look like anything? And the author, who's that? A blog? J. T. Grant is a politicol scientist, this reseach is out of their expertise. They're not a statistician either. If one goes to look at the actual data, and method, of course, you can't. The academic journal is for profit; all you get is an abstract. According to that, the data only goes to 2005. So what is this graph showing data to 2012? That's pretty suspicious. And just because it's "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean anything.

The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science

Publication bias resulting from so-called "p-hacking" is pervasive throughout the life sciences; however, its effects on general conclusions made from the literature appear to be weak.

journals.plos.org

This happens all the time, people publish nonsense, and until the research is read to see what methods were used and the sample size a graph like this doesn't say anything. If you go to read the article on the blog that published this, J T Grant wrties the tiniest bit about how th data was collected. It amounts to "we collected data and stuff, and ran it through a computer, and I can't tell you what the scale is because all the data has different scales, but... look at that decline."

The graph was updated for 2013, and look what happens when the scale is adjusted:



Hey.... it went from 80, whatever that means, to 70, whatever that means. Compare that to the faux-graph that makes it look like the line is falling off a cliff. And we still don't know what's actually being measured.

Let's see what Pew has to say about it.

5 key findings about religiosity in the U.S. – and how it’s changing

Our new report finds that whether U.S. adults are becoming more or less religious depends, in part, on how religious observance is measured.

www.pewresearch.org

So, the pros who actually do this sort of thing, are saying the complete opposite of what that faux-graph was describing. Imagine that. And I'm wondering, did you even think to question that graph, even though it had no scale, and came from a blog? Of course not. Because you know what hundreds of millions of Christians are experiencing all over the world. *eye-rolls*

 

[Windwalker]

How now, old friend? I hope all things are good at your place.

Hey! How you doing? Yes things are going well. I'm getting older and feeling younger. So I must be doing something right.

I've taken to expressing my view of how I should be trying to act as, Do no harm; and treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense.

I offer only these justifications for them ─ that they appeal to me ─ that they're an extension of the old Golden Rule (which can be traced back long before Jesus) and so are arguably concordant with one branch of our instincts ─ that they're DIY, so that you don't need, say, a community before you can practice them ─ and that no postmortal hellfire or reward is involved.

I agree that we don't need threats of punishment to be good. I've never believed that to be effective. Being good has its own reward, and it's better that someone wants to be good because it's makes their own life better. If we are happy with ourselves, then we naturally can be kind to others. I think that is the really message in the world's great wisdom traditions. "Love your neighbor, as yourself."

 

[PearlSeeker]

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?

History is concerned only with fully human Rabbi Jesus who lived and died. Theology is concerned with divine Son of God, resurrection etc.

From a debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig on resurrection (Ehrman said):

/... / historians cannot presuppose belief or disbelief in God, when making their conclusions. Discussions about what God has done are theological in nature, they’re not historical. Historians, I’m sorry to say, have no access to God. The canons of historical research are by their very nature restricted to what happens here on this earthly plane. They do not and cannot presuppose any set beliefs about the natural realm. I’m not saying this is good or bad. It’s simply the way historical research works.​

​

Source:

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

William Lane Craig vs. Bart D. Ehrman

www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[Truthseeker]

Why is it written in quasi-kjv english?

Shoghi Effendi translated it that way. What is your point? I don't see how the style it was written in affects the meaning. It can make it sound strange to your ears, but we got used to it.

 

[lukethethird]

Shoghi Effendi translated it that way. What is your point? I don't see how the style it was written in affects the meaning. It can make it sound strange to your ears, but we got used to it.

But why?

 

[Truthseeker]

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​

​

Did you read all of that in the link? It is a wonderful summary in the space of not very many words!

 

[Trailblazer]

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

No, Baha'u'llah was not calling them liars. He never even mentioned them.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Baha'u'llah knew how to read and write but He did not know the Bible and the Qur'an from reading them.
I already explained how He knew them. His knowledge came from God.

"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)​

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you read all of that in the link? It is a wonderful summary in the space of not very many words!

Yes, I read it all even though I did not quote it all.

 

[Trailblazer]

But why?

The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi, went to England to study English so He could better translate the Writings of Baha'u'llah from Persian and Arabic into English.

From his studies Shoghi Effendi determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.

Apparently Persian and Arabic have a form of poetic prose that is hard to portray to English speakers. King James English must in a small way convey some of that poetic prose experienced by Persian and Arabic speakers.

Shoghi Effendi said that the future may see different translations.

 

[Colt]

So, you label people as evil for not sharing in your beliefs.

I see.

Evil people labor to undermine faith. Hecklers on the road of life! Malcontents with nothing better to do than join religious forums to antagonize religious people.

“Why do the heathen rage? Because they know not the truth.”

Imop

 

[blü 2]

I think that is the really message in the world's great wisdom traditions. "Love your neighbor, as yourself."

I think our views are substantially similar, and perhaps it's just personal semantics, but I don't set out to love my neighbors, or people generally. For me the word 'love' suggests an intimacy that I reserve for a smallish group of people close to me. My intention, which of course I sometimes execute imperfectly, is to have respect as my starting point with others, and accordingly to treat them decently.

But meanwhile I'm pleased to hear you're in good form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

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.

Your last claim may be a bit of a strawman. The claim was more likely that early Christians lifted parts of various myths. They did not copy them word for word.

 

[Colt]

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.

View attachment 78185

LoL! "On deathbed, they realize they have thrown away their life on a non-existent myth"...

So says the man who will be laying on his own death bed realizing he wasted so much time trying to disprove the myth!

 

[PureX]

You have no idea what secular scholars consider evidence, do you?

If it wasn't evidence, they wouldn't be studying it as if it were. I think it's you that doesn't seem to understand what evidence is.

And there are all kinds of scholars specialized in all kinds of methods of investigation. But not a single one of them was there, and not a single one of them knows what actually happened. And neither do you or I.

But clearly something extraordinary did. And the evidence is the story and it's legacy. Which is why all those experts are studying it.

 

[Colt]

"To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man’s only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.

But such is not man’s end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God’s children on earth.

This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity." UB 1955, open source


IMOP

 

[Audie]

Funny, it made perfect sense to me.

So pretty much any word can mean anything.