There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

Prescribed, nonetheless.

No, merely taught. Is mathematics prescribed? How about physics? You make words meaningless by diluting them.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I don't see how that question is relevant to the OP.
What does that have to do with what Tacitus wrote?
Are you suggesting we can decide whatever we want to assume is the source of his knowledge, and that makes it fine?

I feel like I'm in some kind of religious Twilight Zone here. Do either you or Augustus know ANYTHING about how Biblical scholarship works? Or even the law?

There's a very good reason why hearsay is not allowed into court: it's unreliable witness. And that's just 2nd hand testimony. In the case of Tacitus writing about Chrestus a full 100 years later that's what? 200th-hand information? And there's a question if the Chrestus is even a mistaken Christus. I showed you the facsimile of the word, Chrestus and how the "e" in Chrestus was changed to an "i" to make it appear like Christus instead of Chrestus. Who do you think made the change, God? Here it is again for those of you who missed it:

I've learned over the years that Christians cannot be persuaded of something no mater how strong the evidence against it is if it contradicts their deeply-held beliefs. It's pointless for me to try to convince you and Augusta that there's simply no evidence for Jesus. As for Tacitus, here's what Bart Ehrman says about reliable witness for something. This is from his debate with WL Craig and it occurs at 23:56 of the video below:

"What evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past? Well, the best kind of evidence of course consists of contemporary accounts; people who were close to the time of the events themselves."

We have nothing in Tacitus contemporary with Jesus' crucifixion--unless you're crazy enough to try to pass off 200th hand narrative as contemporary. Go for it, nPeace and Augustus. I mean that's what Christians are so good at.

 

[nPeace]

Someone did so I learned to think for myself, anybody can believe a prescribed set of religious beliefs because that requires no thought process whatsoever.

You don't think for yourself. You follow every wind that tickles your fancy. There.

 

[nPeace]

Paul "

• Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."

Well Paul is nowhere in hell, so I would say nowhere in hell.
Just in case he has a Bible written by an atheist.

1 Corinthians 15:6 Interlinear: afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep;

biblehub.com

1 Corinthians 15:6 - The Resurrection of Christ

After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

biblehub.com

 

[lukethethird]

You don't think for yourself. You follow every wind that tickles your fancy. There.

Anybody can repeat that The Bible is all true, believing on faith doesn't require a functioning brain.

 

[Thrillobyte]

The problem is in purely academic terms is that adequately substantiate has no objective standard. It is always subjective for all different standards including yours and mine. We have hit cognitive relativism in effect.

In the most pure sense, you are right. The lack of evidence for Jesus doesn't mean 100% that Jesus is a myth anymore than the scanty "evidence" consisting of opinion, assumption, guessing, and frankly wishful thinking proves Jesus was real.

If I show you a deed to my house and try to sell it to you, the deed isn't 100% evidence I own the house. I mean I could have forged the deed; I could have copied it; I could have stolen it from the rightful owner. If i have this problem WITH a deed then what kind of trouble am I going to have WITHOUT a deed. In the case of Jesus and there being no evidence for his existence, churchmen are asking people to invest their entire life dedicated to following Jesus and doing exactly what the churchmen say Jesus wants them to do--purely on their good word in faith that they would never lie to people. And you show me a churchman who has never lied about Jesus.

 

[nPeace]

Anybody can repeat that The Bible is all true, believing on faith doesn't require a functioning brain.

Saying something like that doesn't demonstrate an informed or intelligent mind.
What... are you listening to those friends of yours? See how easily you sway with the wind.
You don't have a clue, do you?

 

[lukethethird]

Saying something like that doesn't demonstrate an informed or intelligent mind.
What... are you listening to those friends of yours? See how easily you sway with the wind.
You don't have a clue, do you?

I don't parrot commonly shared religious beliefs if that is what you mean.

 

[nPeace]

I don't parrot commonly shared religious beliefs if that is what you mean.

No. You parrot people who know nothing. Might as well be brainless.

 

[lukethethird]

No. You parrot people who know nothing. Might as well be brainless.

Perhaps you would be impressed if I recited Bible verses like a parrot.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Paul "

• Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."

"Unlike our modern, “Ladies and Gentlemen” opening, when a Jew spoke to a crowd of predominantly Jewish men, he might say “Brethren”. (See Acts 3:17, 22; 7:2; 22:1; 23:1, 5, 6; 28:17 in the NASB when the term "brethren" is used for a Jewish, non-Christian gathering.)May 22, 2020"

Why Are Believers Called Brethren in the Bible?

hy is the word Brethren or Brothers used in the New Testament to describe those who believe in Jesus? Does "Brethren" include women too?

www.katrinadhamel.com

Brethren has nothing to do with disciples, Coulter. Jesus didn't have 500 disciples.

 

[Jimmy]

No, merely taught. Is mathematics prescribed? How about physics? You make words meaningless by diluting them.

Math was prescribed by the schools I went to. Hahaha

 

[Thrillobyte]

1. Tacitus might well have been able to adequately substantiate the information so it’s not hearsay. Agreed?

OMG!

"Maybe Tacitus substantiated his information and then again maybe he couldn't, we just don't know. Nevertheless it's rock solid proof Jesus was real!"

Augustus, no offense. You're probably a kid who doesn't know up from down about evidentiary rules--and commonsense, frankly. There's no point dragging this out.

 

[nPeace]

"Unlike our modern, “Ladies and Gentlemen” opening, when a Jew spoke to a crowd of predominantly Jewish men, he might say “Brethren”. (See Acts 3:17, 22; 7:2; 22:1; 23:1, 5, 6; 28:17 in the NASB when the term "brethren" is used for a Jewish, non-Christian gathering.)May 22, 2020"

Why Are Believers Called Brethren in the Bible?

hy is the word Brethren or Brothers used in the New Testament to describe those who believe in Jesus? Does "Brethren" include women too?

www.katrinadhamel.com

Brethren has nothing to do with disciples, Coulter. Jesus didn't have 500 disciples.

1) Context says there were followers of Christ.

(1 Corinthians 15:5-9) 5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 But last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God.​

2) There is no scriptural basis for claiming Jesus didn't have more than 500 followers.

(Matthew 28:16, 17) 16 However, the 11 disciples went to Galʹi·lee to the mountain where Jesus had arranged for them to meet. 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted.​

​

(Acts 1:3) . . .He was seen by them throughout 40 days. . .​

​

(Acts 2:41) [In a single] day about 3,000 people were added. . . [to 120 (Acts 1:15)].​

​

Is that hard to fathom? There is no reason it should.​

​

(Acts 4:3, 4) 3 So they seized them and took them into custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 However, many of those who had listened to the speech believed, and the number of the men became about 5,000.​

​

Threats of beatings and death, do not stop what God makes grow.​

​

However, in one day, that number can be reduced to 1,000... because, not all really belong.​

(John 6:66) . . .many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. . .​

 

[F1fan]

There are of course differences, just as there are differences between four types of yogas in Hinduism; Bhakti yoga, or the path of devotion and love; Karma yoga, or the path of selfless service; Jnana yoga or the path self-knowledge; and Raja yoga, or the path of meditation clearing obstacles of the mind. At the same time, they are taking you to the same destination through different paths.

But there are also direct comparisons to teachings as I pointed out. For one thing, they do both teach a path to personal transformation to realize Enlightenment, and the things of those paths are very similar.

Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you". "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself"

Jesus: "If anyone strike you on the cheek, turn to him the other also"
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand... you should abandon all desires and utter no evil words".

Jesus: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who abuse you. For anyone who takes away you coat, do not withhold even your shirt."
Buddha: "Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by being good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

There are other direct comparisons to the types of teaching and the similarities of the path to Awakening, or Enlightenment, or Salvation (all the same thing in how I see it), that are referenced here: New book looks at parallel sayings of Jesus, Buddha.

Now regarding my views of how these exist in such striking similarities is expressed in that article. I do not see it as cultural borrowing, but rather the same Realization from the same Source:

A more likely explanation, Borg said, is that the similarity in their sayings mirrors the similarities in their experiences. The Buddha, after a six-year religious quest, had an enlightenment experience under the Bo tree; Jesus' quest led him to the wilderness and his spiritual mentor, John the Baptist. Both began renewal movements within their respective, inherited religious traditions - Hinduism and Judaism. And both were given an exalted, even divine status by the communities which grew up around them.​

​

"The similarities of their wisdom teaching may flow out of the similarity of their religious experience," Borg said.​

There are of course differences too, as you point out. And that to me underscores the legitimacy of each teacher. You would expect differences as they were in different times, different cultures, and different people. But the fact the Way taught, the Dharma is very similar speaks of the inherent, eternal or timeless Truth. These also parallel in Taoism and Hinduism as well, along with their own unique differences due to their historical and cultural contexts.

There's some suggestions that Jesus had traveled and returned to the Middle East after having learned about Buddhism, and this explains the similarities. I'm not sure there's any basis to this but I suppose it is possible. I think what Jesus taught wasn't beyond what a sensitive and thoughtful person could figure out for themselves. It's hard to know any of the history with any certainty. Much of what Jesus says about God and what has become Christian dogma seems to me more symbolic than literal. Both Jesus and Buddha were more interested in the practical way of living that what Christianity has become.

Indeed this is true. But Christianity is not Jesus, nor does it do well in actually understanding or following what he taught. Take Republican Jesus for instance, who hates the poor, shuns the immigrant, etc. Is that the Jesus of the gospels either? Christianity is not the Christ, by any stretch.

Oh yeah, Christianity in most of its forms is little more than deceptive business practice. There are exceptions. I was not attracted to religion when I was growing up and refused to go to church once I had the ability. My grandmother "asked" me to go help her at her church's food kitchen one day. They fed people twice a week, which is all they could afford. It was most the older church women doing this service to the local poor. They fed a lot of families, and had maybe 200 folks eat there. I was shocked there were people that couldn't afford to eat. And the women of her church did this as a humanitarian service to their neighbors. they never mentioned religion. To my mind that is what Christianity should be, and there are many like this. There are many who want to force Christianity on anyone they feed, which to my mind is contrary to what Jesus taught. There are many Christians who ignore the poor and leave them to their fate.

I call Christianity a buffet because anyone can go and find anything they like, even if it is toxic and unhealthy.

That depends on their individual paths. Someone recently asked me what it was that makes some people interested in growing spirituality or opening to that in their lives, versus those who really don't think much about it (and I'll include there the throngs who actually go to church every Sunday and call themselves Christians). My answer to her was simple: trauma.

Meaning, something has to shake people loose to realize that all these other cultural and social substitutes, which includes religion itself, are not giving them that deeper spiritual connection to themselves, the world, and others. Otherwise, it's easier and safer to just be 'comfortable' with what just keeps them from avoiding the terror of deep self-introspection.

So will the Christian ever learn how to do that? It all depends. But that also holds just as true for the Buddhist, or the Hindu, or the Jew, or anyone else in any religion who doesn't actually enter into those the deeper places where we all have to meet and confront the Devil and pass through to Liberation.

I don't think everyone can be an ideal human, just like not everyone can be an elite athlete. As a kid i was naturally skeptical and an observer, so I saw a lot of problems in religion that did not resonate with me. It wasn't until I was over 30 that I had an experience on a long training ride on my bike. I essentially had a sweat lodge type experience and had some reveations. I started looking into theology and philosohy for truth, and while I found books by many smart people I usually saw flaws in what they thought, mostly being certain assumvtions. They weren't foolowing a more objective approach like science, so what they offered wasn't really truth. I was seeking truth, not belief, not someone elses meaning. I kept thinking that all these people had views that wen't back to their psychology, and that is what I looked into next. Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning really summed up a lot, that truth isn't complicated, and finding one's own value, meaning, and truth is ideal. From what I see many who are dogmatic are not very content folks, and I think they know it doesn't work for them, but don't know what else to do.

Yes, I agree. Claiming religion can be what Buddhists call the "near enemy" as opposed to the far enemy. The far enemy is the obvious exact opposite of the thing desired, such as compassion vs. indifference or callousness. But the near enemy masquerades itself as the desired quality and allows you to deceive yourself that you're doing well, when you are actually not at all.

Being religious can be used to tell yourself you're a good person, while on the inside, your still full of rot and having done anything at all to clean house. "Whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones" is how Jesus put it, and is a perfect example of religiosity being the near enemy of Enlightenment or Salvation.

I think there are a lot of hurt people in the world, and they have been sold a bill of goods in many ways that haven't panned out. The American Dream doesn't really measure up for us, divorces because partners don't understand themselves or the other, jobs that are unsatisying, the expectation to be happy, etc. Our religions don't fill in the gaps of discontent. Life takes work and many expect an easy road.

Yes, I sense in you some possible hangover from your Christian days? BTW, I said of myself recently to someone to describe my views as a "Dharmically informed Chrsitian", just playing with that language. But again, I still don't care to identify with any religion, Buddhism or Christianity, but Christianity is where I had the bulk of my religious training. I see myself as more trans-religion at this point.

I was never Christian even though I had to go to church as a kid. I never understood why the hell we had to go to church on Sunday mornings, which totally ruined the easy Sunday morning vibe of chilling out. My twin sister was always seeking a church and new religious identity, and I think it caused her problems later in life because she was a bit of a lost soul even though she had a religious identity. I think she was more focused on her religious identity than who she was as a creative person. In a way she seemed to have this ongoing dissatisfaction, like is this all there is, but wouldn't admit it.

Indeed yes. My favorite quote comes from the 14th century Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. "I pray God make me free of God so that I may know God in God's unconditioned being". This is known as the apophatic approach where we let go of all our conceptions of what God or Truth or reality is, and just let it simply arise of its own unfiltered by our minds trying to fit everything into the containers of our mental constructs. That opens us to see Reality as it is.

As I studied Buddhism and Krishnamurti I realized that the more you have a greed for truth the farther you get from it. There is a subtle and detached approach to find that balance.

You and I do tend to see much the same in a lot of ways.

Indeed.

 

[nPeace]

Perhaps you would be impressed if I recited Bible verses like a parrot.

That would only manifest hypocrisy.
Come on. We know you are an atheist - the die-hard aggressive kind... you know, the ones that use every tactic in the book to try to belittle the strong believers in an attempt to loosen them from their course.

My response to you goes against the norm, doesn't it... because you think the Christian is weak, because he applies Christian values, to be peaceably with all men, and respond with kindness - not in kind.
So, you were taken by surprise. It's not the response you normally get when you apply that tactic. Am I right?

I'd be impressed if you educated yourself, and not speak as empty-headed people do... as if the only thing they know, is what's inside a closed cigar box.

Can I offer some help?

1. Some of the most educated people in the world, are religious. They have invented stuff you can't even begin to dream of doing.
2. Faith is not blind belief. It is not devoid of reason. If you heard different, perhaps take those persons with you when you start your educational journey.
3. Religious people can help you. They are not idiots.

Hope that gives you a little start.
Hope you can finish, and wish you well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Math was prescribed by the schools I went to. Hahaha

Hardly "prescribed". You merely had to have a certain level of knowledge to graduate. Diplomas are worthless if the students do not know anything.

 

[F1fan]

No...... the gospel story exists. That's what we were talking about. YOU want to change the subject, because you clearly made a claim about mythical similariaites and you heard rumors about experts, and YOU believed them without applying any critical thinking at all.

It's disappointing to see your increasing snark and disresepect. I had high regards for you as one of the more thoughtful theists. You are smart enough to have known that i was referring to the content of the Gospels that aren't known to be true.

Again. The topic is the gospel story.

Which lacks evidence as being true, namely the supernatural elelments that no thinker can take seriously.

Yes, if the Child says, "How does Santa visit all those houses in one night?" The answer does not need to prove that santa exists.

But it implies Santa does, and the fooled child goes to bed.

If a so-called critical thinker asks, "How can God be omnibenevolent if suffering exists?" then the answer does not need to prove that God exists.

If critical thinkers are something you suspect don't exist, then how do you qualify your own thinking? Are you as flawed as the so-called "critical thinkers", and your posts as easy to dismiss?

You show more contempt for questions critical thinkers ask, and these are typically in response to what believers claim, so fair game. You seem to be feeling less comfortable with these questions.

The question has assumed that God exists. If the so-called critical thinker changes the subject mid-answer to "Well, how do I know that God exists anyway?" That is shifting the goal post.

Bad thinking here. Critical thinkers may ask questions of theists assuming their assumptions about a God. Challenging this assumption is fair game if the answer also assumes a God exists. You are smart enough to known this.

Kind of like you're doing here.

You claimed there are mythical similarities, have not produced any. You say you heard from experts, but have not produced any names from memory. The actual truth is you probably heard that experts say ( a rumor ), you have ZERO details, but you have FAITH that it's true. No critical thinking was activated at all. None.

This is all a rather casual discussion, and many things I say is common knowledge. You seem to be griping about anything these days.

 

[F1fan]

I'd be impressed if you educated yourself, and not speak as empty-headed people do... as if the only thing they know, is what's inside a closed cigar box.

Can I offer some help?

1. Some of the most educated people in the world, are religious. They have invented stuff you can't even begin to dream of doing.

What is your response to educated people being Hindu or Muslims or Jewish? Do you applaud them for being religious even if not Christian?

1. Faith is not blind belief. It is not devoid of reason.

Yes it is.

1. Religious people can help you. They are not idiots.

Many religious people are helpful, but some are idiots.

 

[Jimmy]

Hardly "prescribed". You merely had to have a certain level of knowledge to graduate. Diplomas are worthless if the students do not know anything.

Ok