There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Thrillobyte]

Why would the human Jesus’ father have been able to leave a library of congress sized pile of evidence?

He was presumably a lower class Jew or perhaps even a Roman legionary and they tend not to have magical powers.

Uhhh....because he's omnipotent? Or isn't he? Do you believe Jesus father was not God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Going through life in fear of error sounds like a pathway to nowhere, to me.

Who said anything about "going through life in fear" and what's that got to do with trusting in stuff you don't understand?

I simply can't trust in something I don't understand. It doesn't make any sense to me to do that. And it sounds potentially dangerous.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If I don't understand something, I don't understand it. That's precisely why to not trust it. Trusting what you don't understand is flat out dangerous.

But I never have an intuition that that which I don't understand is right.

As for embracing life, on average, I find it trivially easy. When things get rough, it isn't things I don't understand that help me.

Does a seagull have to understand the wind, or does he feel his way into it?

 

[Augustus]

Uhhh....because he's omnipotent? Or isn't he? Do you believe Jesus father was not God?

Do you actually read the posts you respond to or just assume what they say?

Of course I don’t think he was the son of god and have already said so more than once.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would disagree they were ordinary. If you consider the time and context in which they were spoken, they were actually considered radical. Maybe they now seem 'commonplace', but honestly how many actually understand them outside of the cliches that they become through overuse and cheap platitudes?

This is the claim, the generalization, which I contend is not supported with sufficient evidence to believe. If you are correct, you should be able to produce multiple examples of these extraordinary words and how they modified lives for the better. This is the part that's always missing, which comes up frequently in the Baha'i threads. We're told that his life, his mission, his character, and his message confirm his claims for channeling divinity, but then ask for a few examples of any of those, and it's crickets.

It's the same with the spiritual wanderers and their journey to spiritual truth. Ask about a few of these truths, and the answer is the same, often including some type of scoffing about others not seeing as far due to having standards for belief, but still empty.

This is the same. "Jesus's life was extraordinary." "What part?" "All of it, all together." Produce something of substance if you have it, or recognize that you are not going to be believed without it.

Also, same thing for Buddha. Yet do you call his life and words "ordinary"?

I agree with most of Buddha's words and few of Jesus' words.

"I am the one who brings people back to life, and I am life itself. Those who believe in me will live even if they die. Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe that?" - Jesus

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

Yes, well, your readings of these things reflect your deep cynicism, and a bad hermeneutic. I'm quite certain you could distort the teachings of Buddha the exact same ways. You could do the same with the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, or even the with Sound of Music, were you so motivated to. I of course don't take such readings seriously.

But I don't have that attitude toward any of the others. My cynicism regarding Christianity and monotheism in general is based in direct experience as well as a lifetime of examining Christian and Christianity.

Because humble Jewish men and women left their religion to follow Jesus even though it meant persecution and the worst kinds of death all that the story would be available for future generations of believers.

That's an endorsement? That's a warning. Others have told you what the adherents of Koresh, Jones, and Applewhite "endured" for their faith.

trusting what one doesn’t understand, but which one intuitively feels to be right, is actually a reasonable definition of faith.

Disagree. Faith is the path to unjustified belief, becomes dangerous if acted upon. It's fine to believe that angels guard you as you drive about, but if it causes you to drive drunk or without a seatbelt, well, bad ideas both as was the path taken to arrive at them.

And a life without faith, how does one have the courage to embrace life?

Really? I hold zero unjustified beliefs to my knowledge, and if you revealed one to me that I still held even after examining all that I believe and why upon my return to empiricism and apestivism - the rejection of faith as a path to truth - I would reject it thereafter.

We see this same thing with moral issues - the faithful stumped by how one could have moral direction without a god belief.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Does a seagull have to understand the wind, or does he feel his way into it?

When one has experience with something, one begins to understand one's experience. When one has lots of experience with a thing, one begins to understand that thing.

Given that every time I flip a light switch the light comes on, I understand that the light will come on when I flip the switch.

When it doesn't, given that every time it doesn't, it was a dead lightbulb, or a breaker, or the power is out, I understand that one of those is a likely cause.

A seagull understands the wind. It understands the effects and uses them.

 

[F1fan]

That's a strawman, and trying to repeatedly shift the conversation onto that topic, after repeated reminders, deserves disrespect. I granti respect by default, and then revoke it when warranted

It’s not a straw man in any sense.

Not true. A materialist is a limited thinker.

How are materialists limited thinkers? Do you mean to say avoiding religious assumptions is a limitation?

The child asking the question doesn't necessarily believe in Santa.

In the context of my questioning it is. You are being evasive by pointing to irrelevant options. This is a common trick by theists who try to avoid hard questions.

Not at all. I answer the questions. My contempt is when the question is not a real question, it's a challenge. And then when the challenge is met, and overcome, the challenge is changed. Bait-and-switch. No one likes a bait-and-switch.

I notice some believers want certain assumptions accepted by all in a discussion and this is unacceptable when the point is determining what we humans can conclude is truth versus unwarranted belief.

 

[RestlessSoul]

When one has experience with something, one begins to understand one's experience. When one has lots of experience with a thing, one begins to understand that thing.

Given that every time I flip a light switch the light comes on, I understand that the light will come on when I flip the switch.

When it doesn't, given that every time it doesn't, it was a dead lightbulb, or a breaker, or the power is out, I understand that one of those is a likely cause.

A seagull understands the wind. It understands the effects and uses them.

It doesn’t understand the wind intellectually though, does it? And the understanding, such as it is, comes after the trust.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It doesn’t understand the wind intellectually though, does it? And the understanding, such as it is, comes after the trust.

No, it comes after experience.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Do you actually read the posts you respond to or just assume what they say?

Of course I don’t think he was the son of god and have already said so more than once.

Well, I apologize. There 1000+ posts in here and around 3 dozen people posting. I can't remember everyone. I just know you're constantly contradicting me. So if I believe Jesus wasn't real and you believe Jesus wasn't a god then what are we fighting about?

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, it comes after experience.

But no experience can be gained, without the willingness to take action first. And since taking action involves taking risks, then a modicum of faith is required to even begin.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But no experience can be gained, without the willingness to take action first. And since taking action involves taking risks, then a modicum of faith is required to even begin.

Things never happen to you that you didn't choose?

Sure, you can choose to do something on little information, but if there is a choice to understand, it is preferable.

Fundamentally, things like spirits and souls and gods are different. I can draw a direct correlation between the light switch and the light. I can't and won't give credit to an invisible intangible being for a warm fuzzy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Things never happen to you that you didn't choose?

Sure, you can choose to do something on little information, but if there is a choice to understand, it is preferable.

Fundamentally, things like spirits and souls and gods are different. I can draw a direct correlation between the light switch and the light. I can't and won't give credit to an invisible intangible being for a warm fuzzy.

Yeah, just remember that evidence is in effect a belief system, because proof doesn't work and thus we got methodological natural, because there is no evidence or proof that the world is natural.

 

[lukethethird]

Yeah, just remember that evidence is in effect a belief system, because proof doesn't work and thus we got methodological natural, because there is no evidence or proof that the world is natural.

..and words have no meaning.

 

[Colt]

Nine hundred people committed suicide and killed their children because they really believed in the crap Jim Jones was selling them.
People dedicate themselves to lies all the time.

And Jesus said "Beware of false prophets, they come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.

Lots of people don't believe things that are true.

 

[Colt]

This is the claim, the generalization, which I contend is not supported with sufficient evidence to believe. If you are correct, you should be able to produce multiple examples of these extraordinary words and how they modified lives for the better. This is the part that's always missing, which comes up frequently in the Baha'i threads. We're told that his life, his mission, his character, and his message confirm his claims for channeling divinity, but then ask for a few examples of any of those, and it's crickets.

It's the same with the spiritual wanderers and their journey to spiritual truth. Ask about a few of these truths, and the answer is the same, often including some type of scoffing about others not seeing as far due to having standards for belief, but still empty.

This is the same. "Jesus's life was extraordinary." "What part?" "All of it, all together." Produce something of substance if you have it, or recognize that you are not going to be believed without it.

I agree with most of Buddha's words and few of Jesus' words.

"I am the one who brings people back to life, and I am life itself. Those who believe in me will live even if they die. Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe that?" - Jesus

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha


But I don't have that attitude toward any of the others. My cynicism regarding Christianity and monotheism in general is based in direct experience as well as a lifetime of examining Christian and Christianity.

That's an endorsement? That's a warning. Others have told you what the adherents of Koresh, Jones, and Applewhite "endured" for their faith.

Disagree. Faith is the path to unjustified belief, becomes dangerous if acted upon. It's fine to believe that angels guard you as you drive about, but if it causes you to drive drunk or without a seatbelt, well, bad ideas both as was the path taken to arrive at them.

Really? I hold zero unjustified beliefs to my knowledge, and if you revealed one to me that I still held even after examining all that I believe and why upon my return to empiricism and apestivism - the rejection of faith as a path to truth - I would reject it thereafter.

We see this same thing with moral issues - the faithful stumped by how one could have moral direction without a god belief.

Atheists are false prophets like Jones, Koresh and Applewhite!

 

[lukethethird]

Atheists are false prophets like Jones, Koresh and Applewhite!

That's right, and they're all out to get you.

 

[Colt]

That's right, and they're all out to get you.

I dispatch them one by one! Their leader was delusional!

 

[dybmh]

It’s not a straw man in any sense.

I have repeated made my claim, it has nothing to do with the gospels being true. But you keep trying to steer the conversation in that direction so you can knock it down. That's a straw man.

How are materialists limited thinkers? Do you mean to say avoiding religious assumptions is a limitation?

Ummmm, because they do not accept anything non-material.

In the context of my questioning it is. You are being evasive by pointing to irrelevant options. This is a common trick by theists who try to avoid hard questions.

No..... the point is, if a question includes a premise, then the answer does not need to prove the premise is true. Try to imagine what that would be like in every day conversations. That would be ridiculous.

I notice some believers want certain assumptions accepted by all in a discussion and this is unacceptable when the point is determining what we humans can conclude is truth versus unwarranted belief.

Well, maybe your observations are wrong, and those questions presumed.

 

[lukethethird]

I dispatch them one by one! Their leader was delusional!

Atheists don't have a leader, that's the beauty of thinking for one's self. It's the religious that are members of a herd and in need of a shepherd.