• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

Audie

Veteran Member
Actually, it should have ended when I said this...
I thought it was a known fact that much of the historical sources, from historians can't be trusted.
I don't know of Christians who depend on outside sources, when the strongest evidence is the internal evidence, which is often found to destroy secular sources.

You know why it didn't end?
Because you imagined you had something, so you made a go at it, by trying a flimsy argument - Of course you don't know any Christians who trust outside sources. That's because the outside sources say Jesus never existed.
Until the truth hit you in the face, stopping you cold in your tracks. :D
Even critics admit that.
They show that they are not biased. You, on the other hand...

Then you started grabbing all all sorts of things, even building strawman, in an attempt to ignore the reality. Lol
Finally, you ran away from the questions, breathing a sigh of relief that you and @joelr don't have to answer why in this case, the majority of scholars don't count... when at all other times, they do. :)
Is that what you think happened?

No wonder you're a creationist.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
That's a fact!. :D

But anyway. We hear it all the time from
Christians that they know for a fact that the God
they choose to believe in is real.
Right. So you'll never hear the Christian say, we don't know, probably, likely... like these atheists are forced to, if they don't want to look like fools. :D
To say they know, when the documents the use say otherwise, makes them look foolish, so they squeeze in the "likely" and "probably"... reluctantly. ;)

On the other hand...
(Romans 1:18-20) 18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

No maybes about it. :)
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Psalm 37
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.
10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.

Jesus did not write the Psalms, but Jesus did say:
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
That is true, the meek shall inherit the earth and the righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever, but what dos that mean?
It means that the people who are living on earth when the New Earth (Kingdom of God) is established on earth and the future generations of people who live on earth will be meek and righteous. They will 'inherit the earth' means they will live on earth.
It does not mean that people who have died will be raised from the dead and live on earth forever.
I do not know what you mean.
Heaven is not a stepping stone for anyone. Earth is the stepping stone for everyone and Heaven is the destination for those who make it to Heaven.
Exactly Heaven is Not a stepping stone for angels to go elsewhere.
Exactly Earth was Not meant to be a stepping stone for humans to go elsewhere.
Adam was never offered Heaven but only everlasting life on Earth forever.
The exception started with the people as found at Luke 22:28-30
People like that have that first or earlier resurrection to heavenly life . See Rev. 20:6; 5:9-10
They are the saints/holy ones as mentioned at Daniel 7:18
( angels never become one of the saints/holy ones )

Jesus demonstrated an earthly resurrection at John chapter 11 when he resurrected a 4-day dead person.
ALL of Jesus' resurrections were restoring people back to life on Earth
Please notice too who will be resurrected according to Luke at Acts 24:15
It does Not say ' saints/holyones ' but the righteous and unrighteous ( KJV just and unjust )

After the first resurrection then under Christ's 1,000 year reign over Earth then there will be physical resurrections.
Resurrections for people like those named in Hebrews chapter 11 (see Hebrews 11:13, 39 because they are Not resurrected yet )
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Right. So you'll never hear the Christian say, we don't know, probably, likely... like these atheists are forced to, if they don't want to look like fools. :D
To say they know, when the documents the use say otherwise, makes them look foolish, so they squeeze in the "likely" and "probably"... reluctantly. ;)

On the other hand...
(Romans 1:18-20) 18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

No maybes about it. :)
Some sort of misplaced sarcasm,
about how you pretend to know things you
cannot possibly know.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Always someone else else's fault that
you can't condense one paragraph
into less than a dozen.
And yet, do you post this to everyone's posts that are equally as long as mine, for instance the person with whom I was having this discussion? But for you the pattern is simple. In lieu of substance, you post insults. The easy path to getting attention for yourself, rather than forming substantive thoughts. Drive-by farting.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This principle of loving your enemies has to do with what you hold and harbor towards others within you own heart. How you hold your feelings towards them. It has to do with cultivating love and compassion in yourself, instead of harboring resentments, desiring retribution upon others, seeking vengeance, hoping for their demise, celebrating their misfortunes, all of which feed negative energies in your own body chemically, and psychologically, and ultimately spiritually, which is that balance of all these systems as a collective whole.

By not feeding that, by letting go of those, through attitudes of forgiveness, and compassion, even towards your worst enemies, you now take away all that power that they had over you by controlling your own emotions and thoughts and energies. You are now free of them, and not given over towards hate, which damages yourself.
I'll tell you what I've already told you - that doesn't speak to me all. You are addressing a problem I don't have. I don't hate anybody, and when I have in the past, it's ben brief - a few days to weeks at most - and following some egregious event. That's a feeling I wouldn't want to harbor, or even a lesser version of some dysphoric feeling, but it's not an issue. It evaporates away effortlessly.
So "love your enemy" while clearly counterintuitive, as you have shown that you think it makes no sense, that that means open the door to them, in reality, it is radically sage advice.
So you keep saying. I've told you that without concrete specifics, these words mean nothing to further your case. Nobody I know loves their enemies, and none are the worst off for their indifference to them.
Take what Ghandi said in light of this. "I refuse to let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet". By hating your enemies, you let them into your mind to do their deeds of damage. By letting go of your hatred, by "pray for them instead", by holding attitudes of love instead, you take away all their power over you. By hating them, you give them all your power, and they win.
Who are you posting to? My enemies have no power over me. They might if I felt obliged to love them.
"getting them out of your life" is not an inappropriate response. You should create boundaries and protect them to preserve your own well being. Absolutely. But hating them, is not doing that. That is in fact letting them inside your head! You're giving them free reign.
Once again, who are you posting to? Do you not understand what not harboring hatred means?

You want to know who hates perceived enemies? Atheophobic Christians (not you). The antipathy is palpable and manifests with language like attack, and statements about how immoral atheists are. Why don't you send this message to them? Don't ask them to love atheists. They don't and they can't, but they might be able to join the critical thinkers and stop hating those who disagree with them.
And that is exactly the teaching of the Buddha himself, as well as the teaching of Jesus.

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, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words".
Buddha sounds more like me than he does Jesus there. That is not an admonition to love this person or even to interact with them, which is already my policy.

Turning the other cheek is horrible advice, like loving enemies. Buddha's advice is better - walk away, or try to negotiate a peace if you can't, or at a minimum, put up your fists to defend your face. Turning the other cheek simply invites further violence.
I did answer your question quite clearly. How did this not answer you?

"it's sort of common sense to assume that someone that inspired a movement which became so diverse and widespread and evolving as rapidly as it did, was an extraordinary individual. Think of MLK and the civil rights movement, for example."
I've already rebutted that. What did Jesus do himself that was noteworthy? What was done by others and happened after Jesus died does not make what Jesus did while alive special, especially when we consider the motivations to create a new religion. We likely would never have heard of Jesus or Christianity had Paul not decided to make a religion based in that post-humous character and took to epistle writing and disseminating.

Look at the Baha'i, who make the similar claims for the greatness of Baha'u'llahs' words and life, which they claim are also exemplary to the point of channeling a transhuman presence. But they didn't have Constantine's troops or the crusaders or conquistadores to promote their religion, so it languishes in obscurity and relative global irrelevance like most other religions.
It's only 6 minutes
I'm not interested in the similarities. Just as with the creationists who like to show us a few places their creation myth intersects with the science, it's the differences between Jesus and Buddha that that are relevant here. Likewise, there will be overlap between humanist and Christian moral values - don't murder, don't steal, don't lie - that irrelevant. It's where they contradict one another that matters. Jesus simply offers too many of what I consider bad advice and poor moral values. Buddha has said nothing that I object to or find immoral. He never recommends plucking out eyes
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My negativity toward organized, politicized Christianity has nothing to do with any bad experience I had as a Christian, and I've had almost no experience with it since except to see it in the news and in venues like this one.
Yet seeing it on the news, seeing what it is doing to others, etc, is your experience of it, as well as my own. It's a negative experience. Just like seeing the MAGA liars and whatnot are creating a negative experience for me as well. I don't have to have been a part of that to have a negative experience from it.
I left Christianity about forty years ago indifferent to it. My negative opinions came much later.
Same here. Seeing the politicization of it soured my experience of it, and itself contributed to identifying myself as atheist later on.
Here I'm explaining that to another poster who also assumed that my antitheism was based in a bad personal experience that left me resentful.
I'm not assuming anything of the causes for you. Never have really thought about it. All I recognize is that antitheism is something that clouds reason. As someone who sees critical thinking to mean being fair in trying to understand even the perspectives of those I dislike, holding attitudes against something will directly interfere with that as an ideal. That's what I make a distinction between skepticism and cynicism.
"Somebody so emphatically rejecting [Christianity] can't be justified, so he must have been hurt by the religion. No, I was bored by it and walked away without any ill will for it. That came later, beginning with the marriage of Christianity to politics in the Clinton nineties, with Moral Majority, family values, war on Christmas, Falwell, Gingrich, etc., which led to a lot of pandering, demagoguery, and eventually, presidents George Bush and Donald Trump.
Same for me. When I left it, I didn't have a truly negative impression of it until later on in seeing what I saw happening at the time when I left it blossom into this awful Christian Nationalism that has swallowed that Baby of Christianity in the political poison of rightwing Nationalism, wolves in the clothing of sheep.

No doubt that the reason Christianity wasn't working for me spiritually was because this corruption of it was taken root back in the mid-1980's, but it wasn't till later when I could fully deconstruct what was wrong with it that I could see that insidious beast called Nationalism carrying the Christian cross and calling itself the righteous "more majority" and other conservatives garbage.

Don't think I don't understand or appreciate your disdain of it. I share the same negative view of it. However, I am able to see beyond that and dissect the good from the bad. For you, you just colorize all of it with the paintbrush of a Pat Robertson or the like.
Christianity has no direct effect on my life now except that the local parish church sets off bottle rockets to celebrate church holidays that terrify my dogs, which I resent on their behalf. It doesn't harm me as an unbeliever.
If we care about others in the world, it does affect all of us. It's poison to humanity. So therefore, it does have an effect on my life, just like global warming does. It doesn't have to be immediate and direct, for it to affect us. It's an environmental global pollution.
My antipathy for it is based in the harm it does others every day. It's a burden on taxpayers. Every time I see the terms abortion and LGBTQ in the news, it's more ugliness from the church. The church has allied itself with the Republican party and contributed to its success dismantling the Constitution. Trump couldn't have won without its support.
I completely agree. However, this is Christian Nationalism. It's not the teachings of Jesus at all. It's the opposite of that.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yet seeing it on the news, seeing what it is doing to others, etc, is your experience of it, as well as my own. It's a negative experience.
OK. I was answering the idea that ex-Christian leave the religion and harbor negative views of it because they were its direct victims. Actually, I was also a victim, but I blame myself, not the church. I married badly based in faith and paid for it dearly with a very angry ex who turned our daughters against me and men. They're mid-forties now, and I don't know them. I've described this to you (without mention of the children) previously here.
All I recognize is that antitheism is something that clouds reason.
I disagree. Organized, politicized Christianity is a net societal harm, and resisting it is not just reasonable, but laudable.
If we care about others in the world, it does affect all of us. It's poison to humanity.
Once again, I was referring to a direct negative effect of religion in my life. That's what we were discussing, right? I wonder now because you call it poison. What effect do you suppose Christianity has on me now that causes you to say "affect all of us"?
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I did recognize some of it. But, I am not put off by claims of miracles. I believe in miracles. And the fact that he was a crook, doesn't in any way prohibit that he had miraculous powers. To the contrary, the two could go hand-in-hand. Again this comes from critical thinking. If I take the leap and believe in miracles, how do I know that those miracles come from a benevolent source? Can miracles cause harm?The answers are: I don't know, and maybe. That's why I said I would not deny either the miracles or the crimes.

Maybe Mr. Hubbard DID do miracles, but those miracles encouraged establishing a harmful group that does harm. Again, maybe. I've heard stories about the Scientologists. Pretty credible reports of harm coming form the organization. I don't know for certain those reports are true. I definitely don't know if what *people* are doing is in line with what Mr. Hubbard taught. I simply don't know. So I reserve judgement.

And I stand by what I said. If it was 2000 years ago, and there's a large religious following, my answer is: "I wasn't there, I don't know what happened."
Interesting. Thanks for the reply.
 
All of them.

You think the story of Osiris resembles that of a normal human with a handful of magic bits attached? Dionysus? Inanna?

Can't say I agree with you there.

On the other hand Jesus, Muhammad, Pythagoras, Augustus, etc do resemble normal humans with magic bits attached to them.

Jesus was written about far sooner than the other mythical gods, and seems far closer to a normal human than they are.

This is the problem with trying to shoehorn things into made up categories, it is a highly subjective activity and often distorts more than it enlightens.

You missed the point here. It cannot be used as definitive evidence either way.

It can be used as evidence though, which is what I was doing,

But a good argument can be made that Paul is talking about non-apostolic Christians. Dr Carrier analyzes the Epistles in his book specifically to understand the "brothers" phrase and concludes the simplest hypothesis, with the least ad-hoc assumptions, is that he meant "Christians". Ch 11 The Epistles in OHJ.

And a better argument can be made that Paul and Josephus are referring to an actual brother

That is why Carrier gives the odds at 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism.

Which has as much rigour as me saying I put the chances as 90%+

"If what I believe is true and my subjectively assigned probabilities are correct, then…”

I don't understand what you mean. All of the evidence available is used? This is strangely common, people arguing against something they didn't actually research?

You were the one who said it wasn't evidence, you have now clarified that meant it wasn't "definitive" evidence which had already been noted multiple times anyway.

There is no multiple, independent sources.

Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus.

You could not. None of those had these attributes:

You are also missing the point.

Which of those could be explained as a normal human who had some magic bits attached to their life and were written about in near contemporary sources?

The reference class you use matters.

You seem to think that Carrier is simply identifying some objective category that Jesus obviously belongs to and that is the only category that we could legitimately use.

"Dying and rising gods" are not some natural kind, but a contested and subjective category that may or may not be a meaningful one to use.

"Purported humans who were written about in near contemporary sources but have some magical characteristics" is also a category that Jesus could belong to. It is also a less contested and subjective category.

If we choose the first category, we will get a very different probability to the second category.

And that is not to mention the entire question of how meaningful any numerical probability is for a unique event with incomplete data that relies entirely on highly subjective interpretations.


Right, cherry picked.

Where does the 3 to one come from? If you are going to act like you are the only person who can actually read Carrier's work, at least try to be accurate.

It is significantly based on using the reference class of "Rank-Raglan hero"

As explained, the applicability of this reference class is highly questionable.

Are you a PhD historian currently applying your degree to a historicity study?

Using a credentialist argument to support a fringe theory is pretty silly.

This is the shortest way to catch up.....

Just taking Carrier’s word for it does save you time no doubt.

Can you provide some evidence? So far everything you have mentioned was not what you believed it to be.

Everything I said is common scholarly opinion, you seem to think Richard Carrier disagreeing with it negates any competing views.

I can go much deeper on any of these points as well.

It's alright, I can read Carrier's books and blog posts myself.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'll tell you what I've already told you - that doesn't speak to me all. You are addressing a problem I don't have. I don't hate anybody, and when I have in the past, it's ben brief - a few days to weeks at most - and following some egregious event. That's a feeling I wouldn't want to harbor, or even a lesser version of some dysphoric feeling, but it's not an issue. It evaporates away effortlessly.

So you keep saying. I've told you that without concrete specifics, these words mean nothing to further your case. Nobody I know loves their enemies, and none are the worst off for their indifference to them.

Who are you posting to? My enemies have no power over me. They might if I felt obliged to love them.

Once again, who are you posting to? Do you not understand what not harboring hatred means?

You want to know who hates perceived enemies? Atheophobic Christians (not you). The antipathy is palpable and manifests with language like attack, and statements about how immoral atheists are. Why don't you send this message to them? Don't ask them to love atheists. They don't and they can't, but they might be able to join the critical thinkers and stop hating those who disagree with them.

Buddha sounds more like me than he does Jesus there. That is not an admonition to love this person or even to interact with them, which is already my policy.

Turning the other cheek is horrible advice, like loving enemies. Buddha's advice is better - walk away, or try to negotiate a peace if you can't, or at a minimum, put up your fists to defend your face. Turning the other cheek simply invites further violence.

I've already rebutted that. What did Jesus do himself that was noteworthy? What was done by others and happened after Jesus died does not make what Jesus did while alive special, especially when we consider the motivations to create a new religion. We likely would never have heard of Jesus or Christianity had Paul not decided to make a religion based in that post-humous character and took to epistle writing and disseminating.

Look at the Baha'i, who make the similar claims for the greatness of Baha'u'llahs' words and life, which they claim are also exemplary to the point of channeling a transhuman presence. But they didn't have Constantine's troops or the crusaders or conquistadores to promote their religion, so it languishes in obscurity and relative global irrelevance like most other religions.

I'm not interested in the similarities. Just as with the creationists who like to show us a few places their creation myth intersects with the science, it's the differences between Jesus and Buddha that that are relevant here. Likewise, there will be overlap between humanist and Christian moral values - don't murder, don't steal, don't lie - that irrelevant. It's where they contradict one another that matters. Jesus simply offers too many of what I consider bad advice and poor moral values. Buddha has said nothing that I object to or find immoral. He never recommends plucking out eyes
Super lousy financial advice too
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Exactly Heaven is Not a stepping stone for angels to go elsewhere.
Heaven is not a stepping stone for anyone to go anywhere, it is a destination for souls who love God.
Exactly Earth was Not meant to be a stepping stone for humans to go elsewhere.
Earth is a stepping stone for everyone who wants to go to Heaven.
Adam was never offered Heaven but only everlasting life on Earth forever.
That is not in the Bible.
Jesus demonstrated an earthly resurrection at John chapter 11 when he resurrected a 4-day dead person.
ALL of Jesus' resurrections were restoring people back to life on Earth
Those are just fictional stories that contain spiritual meanings.
Please notice too who will be resurrected according to Luke at Acts 24:15
It does Not say ' saints/holyones ' but the righteous and unrighteous ( KJV just and unjust )

After the first resurrection then under Christ's 1,000 year reign over Earth then there will be physical resurrections.
Resurrections for people like those named in Hebrews chapter 11 (see Hebrews 11:13, 39 because they are Not resurrected yet )
No physical bodies are going to be resurrected back to physical life. Dead means dead.

1 Corinthians 15 New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Psalm 37
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.
10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.


Jesus did not write the Psalms, but Jesus did say:
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

That is true, the meek shall inherit the earth and the righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever, but what dos that mean?
It means that the people who are living on earth when the New Earth (Kingdom of God) is established on earth and the future generations of people who live on earth will be meek and righteous. They will 'inherit the earth' means they will live on earth.

It does not mean that people who have died will be raised from the dead and live on earth forever.

I do not know what you mean.
Heaven is not a stepping stone for anyone. Earth is the stepping stone for everyone and Heaven is the destination for those who make it to Heaven.
So what did Bahalluah say about the reason anyone is on the earth, by the way?
 
Top