There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[YoursTrue]

Lol!

Historians and bloggers: the two pillars of modern scholastic research.



I wonder if they ever get together and compare notes.

I've seen a lot of junk from critics of the Bible. "Scholarly" critics. Junk.

 

[YoursTrue]

You attribute this to the mind? That is a good article you linked to. This is what I speak of all the time regarding the validity of religious experience as "evidence" of 'something', but not necessarily a validation of one's ideas about their beliefs about God and such, as objective proofs. From the article you linked to:

Religious experience—according to Jung (1982, 2010)—cannot be identified with what is psychological. Psychological factors could be only carriers of religious content.​

​

.......​

​

A man who participated in the religious experience perceives the world as friendlier to him (Oman and Thoresen 2005), feels more integrated, more uniform, more efficiently organized (Rogers 2012), more creative, and characterized by the uniqueness of the self (Rogers 1975). Religious experience helps in searching for the meaning of life. It releases man from the old paths of life (Azari et al. 2005), which favors a positive influence on the further development of personality and religiousness (Rydz et al. 2017). A man who has had the experience of the Absolut, is more diligent, has greater satisfaction with a job (Fromm 1966). Researchers show that the religious experience also have therapeutic implications. It is able to change the views of a person to themselves, their own lives, the world and to other people. It liberate more creative power in man (Płużek 1986). Religious people discover in themselves the feelings of gratitude to God. It is expressed in prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, sacrifice, love for others and even in commitments (Shear 2005).​

There's lots of good stuff in that article, but I hightled the above as showing that there in fact a great deal of merit in the depths and varieties of religious experience, that a reductionistic, "it's all just in your head" approach utterly fails to recognize or appreciate.

And yes, that presence will be translated by individuals within the context of their religious symbols there are exposed to culturally. The Christian experiences the Christ. The Hindu, Krishna. The Buddhist, Avalokiteshvara, and so forth. Those are just the mind trying to find a language, a word, a symbol to related to an experience that transcends linguistics. So it's not just 'in their heads', or ideas or concepts. Those come after the fact.

Poor Jung I used to read him when I was younger. Poor guy went berserk at the end. Poor thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen a lot of junk from critics of the Bible. "Scholarly" critics. Junk.

You often make such claims, but never seem to be able to support thee. What about the work of biblical scholars is "junk"? Remember, just because they refute your personal beliefs does not make their work junk.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You do? Describe it.

His spirit fills my soul with a sense of peace and happiness. I feel the power of Rubeus Hagrid come over me when I call on his name.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

His spirit fills my soul with a sense of peace and happiness. I feel the power of Rubeus Hagrid come over me when I call on his name.

Ingenious these Muggles.

Now, Thrillobyte, you must know all about Muggles. Tell me, what exactly is the function of a rubber duck?

 

[Thrillobyte]

I loved your OP. It was well-written and well-argued. But just for the intellectual thrills, I'd like to disagree with your last sentence. Even though, more-or-less, I concur with the general thesis of your OP.

What's so "careless" about throwing one's life away for a myth?

I would argue that all the carelessness happens when people read the body of myths and fashion them into a doctrine. If people want to throw their lives away, or die, for a cause, that's fine by me. I even admire it sometimes, even when I don't admire the cause which was died for.

It's not only a free country, it's a free universe. That is to say, the choice of religion is free in this country because you don't incur any (legal) penalty because you profess certain beliefs. The same is true for the universe. The universe doesn't impose a penalty on someone simply for believing or not believing in God. Bot the universe doesn't impose a penalty for believing many falsehoods either. Sure, if you believe that the laws of gravity don't apply to you, you may be in for a rude awakening. But if you believe that Jupiter is made of cotton candy, you may very well make it through life unscathed.

The same is true of any myth. Hell, the universe may even be more psychologically hospitable to those who rely on myths to carry them through hard times. The way the Jesus myth is framed and used to coerce people is unfortunate. But that doesn't declare all myths "equally untrue" or "not worth dying for."

Thanks, I appreciate that.

People can throw their lives away for a myth, that's their "God-given" right, I agree. But it's a shame because we only get one life in this current octillion years cycle of the Big Bang. One it's over that's it--you're gone forever. Might as well get some enjoyment out of it while you're here. To get philosophical for a minute, the poor kids who still-birth or die before they are five of disease, famine, natural disaster or abuse are the collateral damage of a universal system that doesn't give a damn about us. We're specks on a globe that is a speck in a galaxy that is a speck in a universe. To think that a God who created the universe can actually love a speck of a speck of a speck is so ludicrous it'd be a gut-buster if billions of people didn't actually believe such preposterous nonsense.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Ingenious these Muggles.

Now, Thrillobyte, you must know all about Muggles. Tell me, what exactly is the function of a rubber duck?

Lots of fun in the tub.

 

[Colt]

Yes, when our solar system supernovas. Until then, I have several artistic works registered with various agencies. My name is in the historic registry. Show me a single word Jesus wrote himself. Show me a single historian who says, "I witnessed Jesus' miracles, death resurrection and zombie saints who rose from their graves and walked through Jerusalem." Jesus appeared to 500 people according to Paul. Did a single one write about seeing a man risen from the dead? Did a single historian in the list below write a single word about Jesus?

View attachment 77754

Jesus deliberately didn't write anything lest it become a fetish. His was a spiritual revelation. After he returned to heaven some of his followers compiled notes and saying, interviewed eyewitness's and wroth the Gospels.

 

[Nakosis]

You attribute this to the mind? That is a good article you linked to. This is what I speak of all the time regarding the validity of religious experience as "evidence" of 'something', but not necessarily a validation of one's ideas about their beliefs about God and such, as objective proofs. From the article you linked to:

Religious experience—according to Jung (1982, 2010)—cannot be identified with what is psychological. Psychological factors could be only carriers of religious content.​

​

.......​

​

A man who participated in the religious experience perceives the world as friendlier to him (Oman and Thoresen 2005), feels more integrated, more uniform, more efficiently organized (Rogers 2012), more creative, and characterized by the uniqueness of the self (Rogers 1975). Religious experience helps in searching for the meaning of life. It releases man from the old paths of life (Azari et al. 2005), which favors a positive influence on the further development of personality and religiousness (Rydz et al. 2017). A man who has had the experience of the Absolut, is more diligent, has greater satisfaction with a job (Fromm 1966). Researchers show that the religious experience also have therapeutic implications. It is able to change the views of a person to themselves, their own lives, the world and to other people. It liberate more creative power in man (Płużek 1986). Religious people discover in themselves the feelings of gratitude to God. It is expressed in prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, sacrifice, love for others and even in commitments (Shear 2005).​

There's lots of good stuff in that article, but I hightled the above as showing that there in fact a great deal of merit in the depths and varieties of religious experience, that a reductionistic, "it's all just in your head" approach utterly fails to recognize or appreciate.

And yes, that presence will be translated by individuals within the context of their religious symbols there are exposed to culturally. The Christian experiences the Christ. The Hindu, Krishna. The Buddhist, Avalokiteshvara, and so forth. Those are just the mind trying to find a language, a word, a symbol to related to an experience that transcends linguistics. So it's not just 'in their heads', or ideas or concepts. Those come after the fact.

Yes, but as you've kind of pointed out, it transcends belief.
I've found belief in a God or following a specific religion is not necessary.
IOW, there are secular ways to gain the same benefits.
Which is not proof of anything. Only that Gods and religions are not a necessary part of it although it is usually the way one gains the initial experience.

 

[Quagmire]

I've seen a lot of junk from critics of the Bible. "Scholarly" critics. Junk.

I once saw a Michelob bottle turn into a dragonfly.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Jesus deliberately didn't write anything lest it become a fetish. His was a spiritual revelation. After he returned to heaven some of his followers compiled notes and saying, interviewed eyewitness's and wroth the Gospels.

That's what your churchmen tell you, Coulter to pull the wool over your eyes. IF historians say the Jesus of the Bible never existed then how could he write anything? All you have are four gospels written by anonymous Greeks roughly 50-100 years after the fact who didn't this Jesus and had only heard stories floating around the Mediterranean. They might as well have been writing about Hercules or Attis or Dionysus.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh he’s real. Really on earth

Sure. Inside people's brains.

 

[Colt]

That's what your churchmen tell you, Coulter to pull the wool over your eyes. IF historians say the Jesus of the Bible never existed then how could he write anything? All you have are four gospels written by anonymous Greeks roughly 50-100 years after the fact who didn't this Jesus and had only heard stories floating around the Mediterranean. They might as well have been writing about Hercules or Attis or Dionysus.

I have more, I have the presence of the spirit of Jesus in my life which bears the conviction of the truth of his existence. The truths that Jesus taught in the gospels, even if he never existed have had the power to change the entire world. Your fake spaghetti God offers nothing but pessimistic despair. So blessed to have gift!

 

[Jimmy]

Sure. Inside people's brains.

Nope. In the flesh.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nope. In the flesh.

Well the brain is kind of fleshy.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Might as well get some enjoyment out of it while you're here.

How does it measure out when you weigh the amount of enjoyment vs the amount of toil in your life, Mr. Truth Teller?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is NO secular historical evidence for Jesus, son of God or the apostles, period. Despite all the propaganda Christians put forth about there being so much evidence for Jesus in the historical record, it is just disinformation disguised as truth to keep Christianity afloat. The truth is there simply is no secular historical evidence an avatar god man named Jesus as described in the gospels ever lived--nor did the 12 men he supposedly gathered around him and walked with them for 3 years before being crucified. NONE of this is supported by historical fact. No historian mentions all the supernatural events that the gospels claim occurred after Christ's supposed crucifixion, even though the Gospels claim Jesus' fame spread far beyond the borders of Israel. There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one.

The two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having little to no value in trying to prove Jesus existed. Here are some pertinent facts that Christians should consider before they try to pass off these passages as proof of Jesus:

* The Testimonium Flavianum is never quoted by anyone until the 4th century (c. 324), when Bishop Eusebius begins quoting it. Scholars believe it was Eusebius who doctored the passage with references to Jesus' supernatural nature.

* It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a Jew working in concert with the Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

* Josephus is on record that the Emperor Vespasian was the messiah and had fulfilled prophecy.

* The second passage of Josephus, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” is a scribal interpolation. There are several indications that the sentence fragment “who was called Christ” was not original to the text.

Here is a link to some research that will help to clear up the controversy surrounding the Josephus passages:

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

The gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the fictional apostles. The gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus purportedly was crucified in 30 AD by anonymous Greek scholars who couldn't have known Jesus and certainly were not familiar with Israel's geographic terrain as evidenced by the numerous errors they made about towns' proximity to each other and to other natural terrain. The Romans were excellent record keepers of their trials but a trial of Jesus ben Joseph or similar name who was crucified under Pilate's order simply doesn't exist. The name Yeshua ben Joseph or Yeshua Moshiach (Jesus Christ) doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. A few historians like Tacitus made reference to a man referred to as "Chrestus" but we have no idea who that is nor can we know or reasonably ascertain if they were referring to Jesus, the son of God or another Chrestus who had a following. What we Do know is that Christians are constantly trying to pass off this passage and similar ones using the term, "Christ" as proof secular historians mention Jesus. But they don't. There were dozens of "Christs" in Jesus' time. Any of them could lay claim to being the Messiah.

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise.

But God left no such compelling evidence. The proof for this fact is truth No 1 above. That would mean the Christian god, if he even exists, doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not we believe in Jesus. God, if he exists, shows himself to not interfere or participate in human affairs. Thus, he could not have left any evidence for this Jesus fellow and this is exactly what we see in the secular historic record--NO mention of Jesus or the apostles.

An unassailable truth: prayers do not get answered, in contrast to what Jesus promises in the gospels. Millions upon millions of people pray every day for their sick loved ones to get well and their loved ones do not recover. If a person recovers it is usually on the order of 10% and here is the key thing: it occurs across all demographics with the SAME rate of frequency. Thus, a small percentage of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists all recover from serious illness at exactly the same rate. This proves without a doubt that praying to God has nothing to do with it; some humans are going to recover from their illness but ALL terminally ill people are going to die at some point in the near future. No one is cured as a result of prayer. Study after study has borne this fact out.

There is no reason for people to believe in Jesus as the savior son of God when we haven't a single entry in the secular historic record testifying that he is. People who choose to believe in Jesus as their savior are doing so in ignorance of all the above, or they are doing it on pure faith without any evidence for Jesus. It's a crying shame that people can throw their lives away so carelessly for a myth, but it's a free country and people are permitted to squander their lives on anything they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

View attachment 77669

Nice rude rant. Peace be with you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That should be easy to answer.
It takes away the beliefs which they hold dear. It takes away their hope for salvation, rising from the dead, going to heaven and the whole nine yards!

Nah, it doesn't take away **** as it's a bunch of nonsense that has been refuted time and time again. This is just an anti-Christian rant thread. Funny seeing you joining in on it. Disappointing. Don't get mad when people crap on your religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nah, it doesn't take away **** as it's a bunch of nonsense that has been refuted time and time again. This is just an anti-Christian rant thread. Funny seeing you joining in on it. Disappointing. Don't get mad when people crap on your religion.

To say that Jesus never existed is nonsense since all scholars agree that Jesus existed and almost universally agree that Jesus was crucified.

No, I am not taking sides, I am only sitting on the sidelines. I agree with 'some' Christian beliefs about Jesus but not 'everything' that is recorded the NT.
However, the details don't matter to me, because I believe that Jesus existed and died for our sins, which is what really matters.

As a Baha'i, what is important for me to know about Jesus I get from what Baha'u'llah wrote, which is not in conflict with Christian beliefs.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.​

​

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.​

​

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.”​

​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86​

 

[vulcanlogician]

Might as well get some enjoyment out of it while you're here.

Yes. I agree.