There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[PureX]

He might as well have been Muslim.

When the intent is to "amend" an existing religious revelation, that tends to make me very suspicious of the legitimacy of it (re: Joseph Smith's story).

 

[Colt]

Christianity forces itself into society, into people's lives.

It made a name for itself based upon the amount of violence and colonization it could muster up.

It teaches that humans are wretched sinners deserving of conscious torment.

The crusades. The inquisitions. The witch hunts.

Why wouldn't there be a grudge?

Sort of. Christianity was an adaptation of the original Gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Peter and Paul's new Gospel was institutionalized. The institutional church is guilty of a number of missteps which were not condoned by God.

Jesus sent his apostles out to establish a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of believers. His gospel could have benefited existing religions.

The crusades were in response to the Arab–Byzantine wars with the rise of militant Islam. but still, many dumb things were done in the name of Christianity.

 

[Colt]

The perpetrator (Christianity) doesn't get to tell the victim, "But you should forgive me!"

Christianity isn't a person, nor does it say "but you should forgive me. People don't have to forgive perpetrators, but carrying the grudge only hurts the person carrying it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The perpetrator (Christianity) doesn't get to tell the victim, "But you should forgive me!"

Very true. I've experienced sufficient emotional healing since I left Christianity a couple of years ago, so I'm now able to assist and support other survivors of childhood abuse who have either just left Christianity or are considering it. I participate in a support group for survivors of childhood abuse, and the majority of the people in this group are either former Christians or Christians on the verge of leaving Christianity. I don't discourage them from renouncing Christianity. Many of us go through the same struggles as former Christians, and the vast majority of us endured years of abuse from Christian parents.

 

[Colt]

That's my story - forty years ago. In conjunction with learning the think critically, it's the most valuable change I made in my life. Nothing else had a greater impact on life than that. And that was a nice description of going through an empty life based in false promises which ends with the hope that the reward after death will be more real than the "victory" in life that was promised.

My wife's family are mostly American conservative Christians, and my wife - also a liberal atheist - has always been the black sheep. They warned her all of her life how the path she chose would lead to ruin. She rejected religion, motherhood, and eventually, even American life - everything sacred to them.

But here we all are near the finish line, and it her sibs that have led the empty lives of quiet desperation and unhappy marriages, and she ended up happily married and having lived a full life. They struggled financially and lived cookie cutter lives. Their families are riddled with divorce. It's just not fair, they think. They did everything right and we did everything wrong, yet things turned out the opposite to what they expected. They financed braces and ran soccer practice shuttles while we travelled the world, ate out every night, and accumulate art. But they knew that as it occurred in morality fables, they would be rewarded in their later years and we would be left out in the cold regretting our "hedonistic" choices.

But that's not what happened. It must really nettle them. Being good Christians, they consider us immoral. They still think the worst of us and that we're going to hell and that they are going to end up the happy ones in the end, but I think that they're disappointed that our punishment didn't begin in this life.

Actually, it's you with the evil spirit - your religion - the one that teaches you to hate atheists, and the one that teaches me to

Why would he? A consensus of experts is different from a consensus of faith-based thinkers.

I would. That's a very ordinary life that didn't become extraordinary just because Jesus died. Jesus had nothing to do with the growth of that religion. That was the work of Paul, Constantine, the crusaders, the conquistadores, the missionaries, and the millions of people that made a living perpetuating the religion. Did you see the commercials for Jesus on the Superbowl? That's what made the religion, not the mundane travels and words of yet another itinerant preacher.

That's my reason for not reading any so-called holy books - a revelation that they were all written only by people. My revelation come from reading nature.

Atheists don't need proof of that Jesus didn't exist, nor that he wasn't a god if he did. One only need reject the claim for lack of sufficient evidence to support it.

Yes. The methods of critical analysis are the only valid means of evaluating evidence - the only method that can be used to discover how the world works and predict its unfolding. And yes, other "ways of knowing" and their "fruits" are rejected. Like astrology and Ouija boards, they fail to produce useful content. You can complain about that, and you do - "materialist, "scientism," "myopic") - but until you can produce something of value by another method, such complaints are empty vanities.

My religion doesn't teach me to hate atheists. I just think that atheists who put a lot of effort into trying to lead people way from faith are mean spirited and evil. The decent atheists are neutral, they aren't activists who join religious forums to mock believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Heckling believers, if that is what atheists are doing, is not respectful, but it is also not respectful for believers to call atheists blind or say they are not saved, etc. I see more of the latter than I see of the former.

I don't think anyone should be called evil for not believing in God. I consider that atrocious. Atheists don't believe in God for one simple reason - they don't see any evidence for any God. Believers believe for various reasons and some of us believe because we see evidence.

It is certainly not as if atheists have not looked at religions, and particularly Christianity and the Bible, and they probably know more about what is in the Bible and Christian history than most Christians, which is one reason why they are atheists.

 

[lukethethird]

My religion doesn't teach me to hate atheists. I just think that atheists who put a lot of effort into trying to lead people way from faith are mean spirited and evil. The decent atheists are neutral, hey aren't activists who join religious forums to mock believers.

Your religion has plenty to say about atheists and so do you. How is faith a virtue when faith is believing without evidence, as in bigotry, narrow-mindedness, prejudice, intolerance? You are claiming that atheists should stay offline and be quiet about it, well that's not happening.

 

[Trailblazer]

My religion doesn't teach me to hate atheists. I just think that atheists who put a lot of effort into trying to lead people way from faith are mean spirited and evil. The decent atheists are neutral, hey aren't activists who join religious forums to mock believers.

If atheists are trying to undermine the faith of believers that is mean-spirited, but I would not call it evil.
If atheists are trying to lead others away from belief 'just because they cannot believe' I consider that wrong.
But that is not mostly what I see atheists doing here. They are only debating from their own perspectives just as believers are doing.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't think much modern scholarship actually is objective and balanced, but it is a purported aim for scholarship.

In the past, it generally wasn't even a consideration.

Why would it not have been? The foundation for reporting objectively was laid down well over two thousand years ago.

The earliest known critical historical works were The Histories, composed by Herodotus of Halicarnassus (484 – c. 425 BCE) who later became known as the "father of history" (Cicero). Herodotus attempted to distinguish between more and less reliable accounts and personally conducted research by travelling extensively, giving written accounts of various Mediterranean cultures. Although Herodotus' overall emphasis lay on the actions and characters of men, he also attributed an important role to divinity in the determination of historical events. Thucydides largely eliminated divine causality in his account of the war between Athens and Sparta, establishing a rationalistic element that set a precedent for subsequent Western historical writings. He was also the first to distinguish between cause and immediate origins of an event, while his successor Xenophon (c. 431 – 355 BCE) introduced autobiographical elements and character studies in his Anabasis. wiki

 

[lukethethird]

If atheists are trying to undermine the faith of believers that is mean-spirited, but I would not call it evil.
If atheists are trying to lead others away from belief 'just because they cannot believe' I consider that wrong.
But that is not mostly what I see atheists doing here. They are only debating from their own perspectives just as believers are doing.

Atheists merely point out the hypocrisy of believing on faith, faith is not the virtue that the religious claim it to be. Faith, believing without evidence, leads to bigotry, narrow-mindedness, prejudice, intolerance. So there you have it, now you can deny it but considering what Jesus claims to have in store for non-believers, it's hard to argue against. Jesus might be forgiving, but that forgiveness does not extend to non-believers.

 

[dybmh]

Faith, believing without evidence, leads to bigotry, narrow-mindedness, prejudice, intolerance.

Not really. That comes from arrogance and over-generalizing.

Faith is nothing more than optimism.

 

[lukethethird]

Not really. That comes from arrogance and over-generalizing.

Faith is nothing more than optimism.

Nonsense, the whole point of religious faith is to believe your masters (priests and ministers), without question.

 

[dybmh]

Nonsense, the whole point of faith is to believe your masters (priests and ministers), without question.

No, that's submission, that's not faith.

Technically that's idol-worship. Making the human master into a god. In your Church are you expected to believe in your minister without question? Is that written anywhere?

 

[lukethethird]

No, that's submission, that's not faith.

Technically that's idol-worship. Making the human master into a god. In your Church are you expected to believe in your minister without question? Is that written anywhere?

Who do you think wrote The Bible in the first place and who do you think uses The Bible to support their own agendas ever since? Actually The Bible is used not only by priests today but by people of all walks of life to support agendas of power and control. Religious faith is not the virtue that believers are led to believe that it is, it is used to control and manipulate.

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheists merely point out the hypocrisy of believing on faith, faith is not the virtue that the religious claim it to be.

What does hypocrisy mean in simple terms?
: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel.May 25, 2023

Hypocrisy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster​

How is it hypocrisy to believe on faith?
Who is claiming that faith is a virtue? Not me. I only ever said that faith is necessary IF one wants to believe in God, since there is no proof that God exists.

Faith, believing without evidence, leads to bigotry, narrow-mindedness, prejudice, intolerance.

Faith is believing without proof. There is evidence but there is no proof that God exists.

So there you have it, now you can deny it but considering what Jesus claims to have in store for non-believers, it's hard to argue against. Jesus might be forgiving, but that forgiveness does not extend to non-believers.

I have no idea what Jesus claims since the New Testament was not written by Jesus, and therein lies the problem.
From a Baha'i perspective, forgiveness extends to everyone, whether they are believers or nonbelievers. I believe that would have been what Jesus thought as well, if we ever had a chance to know what Jesus thought. Instead we have 'what Christians believe' that Jesus thought, which varies greatly between Christians and is anything but reliable.

But even if we only go by what is in the New Testament and believer it represents what Jesus said or thought, there is only one sin that is unforgivable, and that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 12:31-32 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.”​

In those verses Jesus said it is unforgivable to hate the Holy Spirit (light of God) and one will not be forgiven in this life or in the afterlife.

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit. According to Baha’i beliefs, the Holy Spirit is the light of God. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is detestation of the light of God, the divine perfections. In a sense then it is detestation of God since one hates the divine perfections (God’s qualities).

Non-belief in God is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[lukethethird]

What does hypocrisy mean in simple terms?
: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel.May 25, 2023

Hypocrisy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster​

How is it hypocrisy to believe on faith?
Who is claiming that faith is a virtue? Not me. I only ever said that faith is necessary IF one wants to believe in God, since there is no proof that God exists.

Faith is believing without proof. There is evidence but there is no proof that God exists.

I have no idea what Jesus claims since the New Testament was not written by Jesus, and therein lies the problem.
From a Baha'i perspective, forgiveness extends to everyone, whether they are believers or nonbelievers. I believe that would have been what Jesus thought as well, if we ever had a chance to know what Jesus thought. Instead we have 'what Christians believe' that Jesus thought, which varies greatly between Christians and is anything but reliable.

But even if we only go by what is in the New Testament and believer it represents what Jesus said or thought, there is only one sin that is unforgivable, and that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 12:31-32 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.”​

In those verses Jesus said it is unforgivable to hate the Holy Spirit (light of God) and one will not be forgiven in this life or in the afterlife.

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit. According to Baha’i beliefs, the Holy Spirit is the light of God. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is detestation of the light of God, the divine perfections. In a sense then it is detestation of God since one hates the divine perfections (God’s qualities).

Non-belief in God is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Non-belief in God is blasphemy, and blasphemy laws are still in place in some countries, just ask the people that are rotting in jail for that very reason.

 

[dybmh]

Who do you think wrote The Bible in the first place and who do you think uses The Bible to support their own agendas ever since? Actually The Bible is used not only by priests today but by people of all walks of life to support agendas of power and control. Religious faith is not the virtue that believers are led to believe that it is, it is used to control and manipulate.

But that doesn't answer the question. You are describing submission, not faith.

I asked if the Church where you pay dues expects you to unquestioningly follow your minister? Is that expected, is that written anywhere?

 

[Trailblazer]

Non-belief in God is blasphemy, and blasphemy laws are still in place in some countries, just ask the people that are rotting in jail for that very reason.

Blasphemy according to who? These older religions and their definitions are outdated even if the laws do still stand in backward countries.

31: EXPLANATION OF BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT

 

[dybmh]

Non-belief in God is blasphemy, and blasphemy laws are still in place in some countries, just ask the people that are rotting in jail for that very reason.

Yeah, I don't think this is right.

Quiet non-belief isn't blasphemy. Here's a recent story, I'm looking for others. It's the people who do the harm, not the religious court.

Pakistan court jails Chinese national charged with blasphemy

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A Pakistani court has ruled that a Chinese national arrested on blasphemy charges be held in jail for two weeks, pending trial, a police officer said Tuesday.

apnews.com

 

[lukethethird]

Blasphemy according to who? These older religions and their definitions are outdated even if the laws do still stand in backward countries.

31: EXPLANATION OF BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT

Obviously blasphemy laws are not outdated if people are in jail at this very time.