There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[joelr]

Islam believes in and accepts the spiritual truths taught by Jesus. They may not believe in or understand his office, but they have a heck of a lot more respect for Jesus then the Atheists!

Both believe the Gospels are a Greek/Persian mythology.

So, we can add Islam and Christianity together as being loyal to God as they understand God!

No, the Angel Gabrielle told Muhammad Jesus was not the son of God, merely a human prophet and you are all going to suffer a painful doom.
Look at the first verse, Ezra (Jesus) being the son of Allah is perverse! Atheists don't say it's perverse, they say it's a made up legend. It is.

Surah 9: Repentance (Al-Tawbah)​

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

32 Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
34 O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom,
35On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what ye used to hoard.

36 Lo! the number of the months with Allah is twelve months by Allah's ordinance in the day that He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred: that is the right religion. So wrong not yourselves in them. And wage war on all of the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you. And know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

1. "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray." Muslims generally interpret "those whom Allah has favored," "those who earn Allah's anger," and "those who go astray" as Muslims, Jews, and Christians, respectively. 1:6
2. 85 Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
   86 Such are those who buy the life of the world at the price of the Hereafter. Their punishment will not be lightened, neither will they have support.
   87 And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?
   Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. [23]
   88 And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
   Allah has cursed them for their unbelief.
   They don't believe very much. [24]
   89 And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.
   The curse of Allah is on unbelievers.
   90 Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.
   Allah is angry with disbelievers.
   He has prepared for them a painful doom.
   91 And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers?
3. 
   
4. 
   
5. this goes on and on

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sound good ... please tell us about the false stuff in the gospels .

I already gave you one. You responded by telling us that you never studied the Bible.

 

[Colt]

Both believe the Gospels are a Greek/Persian mythology.

No, the Angel Gabrielle told Muhammad Jesus was not the son of God, merely a human prophet and you are all going to suffer a painful doom.
Look at the first verse, Ezra (Jesus) being the son of Allah is perverse! Atheists don't say it's perverse, they say it's a made up legend. It is.

Surah 9: Repentance (Al-Tawbah)​

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

32 Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
34 O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom,
35On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what ye used to hoard.

36 Lo! the number of the months with Allah is twelve months by Allah's ordinance in the day that He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred: that is the right religion. So wrong not yourselves in them. And wage war on all of the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you. And know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

1. "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray." Muslims generally interpret "those whom Allah has favored," "those who earn Allah's anger," and "those who go astray" as Muslims, Jews, and Christians, respectively. 1:6
2. 85 Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
   86 Such are those who buy the life of the world at the price of the Hereafter. Their punishment will not be lightened, neither will they have support.
   87 And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?
   Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. [23]
   88 And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
   Allah has cursed them for their unbelief.
   They don't believe very much. [24]
   89 And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.
   The curse of Allah is on unbelievers.
   90 Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.
   Allah is angry with disbelievers.
   He has prepared for them a painful doom.
   91 And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers?
3. 
   
4. 
   
5. this goes on and on

Many Muslims I talk with believe that Jesus lived, is a prophet and they respect him. Christianity and Islam may come more together in the battle against the forces of darkness.

 

[joelr]

I am pointing out that you seem only to be using Carrier as a basis for your posts where you assume he is being fair and balanced with the evidence, rather than polemical.

You seem to just be taking his word for it rather than caring about "the truth".

The idea that it is a cut and blow dried fabrication and all real scholars accept this, and the only people who disagree are apologists is simply false. Even if you personally believe it to be a forgery (as some but not most scholars do), it is dishonest to present this as accepted historical fact.

This is from one of the scholars Carrier himself cites in support of his position, published in 2016 so you can't say "but Carrier says anything before 2014 is wrong"...

I'm confused. Carrier lists 5 other scholars as well and you are saying I seem to be only using Carrier?

"In my talk I point out how recent publications by myself (Richard Carrier), Louis Feldman, G.J. Goldberg, Paul Hopper, Ken Olson, and Alice Whealey shed new light on what happened, altering what we should conclude about what Josephus originally wrote. No expert opinion on the authenticity of either passage is citeable, if it isn’t informed by their published research on it over the last ten years."

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

Then you post an excerpt from Alice Whealey in A Companion to Josephus. Which IS IN the blog article from Carrier as one of the papers?
And say I'm somehow not caring about the truth because of a paper you posted that I already gave reference to................

This is clearly a reference to the other famous passage of Antiquities to mention Jesus at 20. 200.11 But if Origen had read the testimonium as we have it, how could he ignore the claims made within it that Origen himself seems to deny to Josephus?12...

And in the Q&A under the blog post someone asked about this as well.

 

[joelr]

Many Muslims I talk with believe that Jesus lived, is a prophet and they respect him. Christianity and Islam may come more together in the battle against the forces of darkness.

Yes they are not going to say to your face you are going to hell, that is between you and Allah. They want peace and let outsiders go to their doom without conflict.
They take their scripture literal. They find it disrespectful to say Allah had a son. Forces of darkness? Yeah when demons attack maybe all religions will unite. Probably not though, the next wars will be more of the same.

113And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture. Even thus speak those who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differ.
The Jews say the Christians are wrong, and the Christians say the Jews are wrong. [28]
Yet both read the scriptures.
114 And who doth greater wrong than he who forbiddeth the approach to the sanctuaries of Allah lest His name should be mentioned therein, and striveth for their ruin. As for such, it was never meant that they should enter them except in fear. Theirs in the world is ignominy and theirs in the Hereafter is an awful doom.

17 They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.
51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
53 Then will the believers say (unto the people of the Scripture): are these they who swore by Allah their most binding oaths that they were surely with you? Their works have failed, and they have become the losers.

73They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

74 Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him ? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
35It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
36 And lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path.
It isn't fitting for Allah to take a son.
37 The sects among them differ: but woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of an awful Day.




They have a philosophy, not to evangelize or steer people down their path. Causes less trouble. They let outsiders do their thing and they stick to Islam and believe they will emerge for the better, whatever that is.

 

[joelr]

Those are great, valid, wonderful, true, honest, reasons not to believe. But none of that supports the idea that the gospels are derived from pagan myths. You're going from something completely reasonable to something completely unreasonable.

And that's what's confusing to me. Why is the exaggeration considered OK for you, but not OK for Christians? They trust the bible. You seem to trust Carrier and others. The bible exaggerates. Your sources exaggerates too. Christianity makes big exaggerated claims. Mythisicism makes big exaggerated claims.

The RR scale is one of several lists, hero class, Romulus, fictional religious stories, the NT is a Hellenistic document.
Mythicism is given 3 to 1 odds by Carrier and Lataster. It may be far less or completely wrong and historicity is correct. But Hellenism plays a big role either way.
Litwa's new book is all about this.



M. David Litwa

Stanley Stowers: “M. David Litwa’s Iesus Deus marks a major breakthrough in scholarship on early Christianity. The book manages to overcome the scholarly apologetic segregation of early Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ from Greek and Roman dominated Mediterranean culture and to demonstrate the fit of these beliefs in that Hellenistic context. A great deal of writing about the ‘purely Jewish’ Christ crumbles with this book.”



whttps://www.worldhistory.org/article/94/the-hellenistic-world-the-world-of-alexander-the-g/

Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.



LAtaster also agrees with Carrier:

Books | Raphael Lataster

Raphael Lataster's books, including Jesus Did Not Exist

www.raphaellataster.com

Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (2019)

Raphael Lataster holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney, and lectures there and at other institutions. His main academic research interests include Philosophy of Religion, Christian origins, and alternative god-concepts such as pantheism and pandeism.






“Christianity is not a Jewish religion, it’s a Hellenistic religion.”


“Jesus is of Jewish ethnicity but is telling the story of a Hellenistic deity”

Carl A. P. Ruck (born December 8, 1935, Bridgeport, Connecticut), is a professor in the Classical Studies department at Boston University. He received his B.A. at Yale University, his M.A. at the University of Michigan, and a Ph.D. at Harvard University.








- Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996)


- Four big trends in religion in the centuries leading up to Christianity


- Christianity conforms to all four


Four Trends


- Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements. Christianity is a Jewish mystery religion.


- Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.


- Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.


- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it





Hellenistic Ideas of Salvation, Author(s): Paul Wendland


Source: The American Journal of Theology , Jul., 1913, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1913), pp. 345-351


Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3154653



The consciousness of estranecment between man and God, and a longing to bridge this chasm, are fundamental to all religions of redemption. In the development of antiquity from the sixth century B.c. on, this type of thought, for which the way is already pared in the older elements of popular faith, confronts us a definite and vigorously increasing religious movement. Reformers, prophets, and puritans propagate a profounder piety, which often mystic in character. The ecstatic Dionysus religion becomes the most important factor in this development. In this religion t common people, the poor and the needy, directly attain a more profound and personal relation to the deity. The believer loses his individual consciousness in enthusiasm and receives the divinity into himself. In moments of orgiastic ecstasy he experiences the ultimate goal of his existence, abiding fellowship with the god, who, as redeemer and savior will free him through death from the finiteness, the suffering, and the exigencies of the earthly life. Orphism sets forth this religious experience in a mystic theology which exerts a strong influence upon Pindar and Empedocles, for example, and which suggested to Plato his magnificent treatise on the dest of the soul.


According to Posidonius the soul has a heavenly origin. It is an offshoot from the fiery breath of God held captive in the prison-house of the body through birth into the earthly world, but destined for return to its higher home. Only he who in life preserves the divine part from defilement will ascend after death above the lower spheres and rise to the divine source. Our reverence for the starry heaven above us and for the wonders of the cosmos proves the human soul's relation to the heavenly world, and this mystical consciousness of likeness with the divine begets an other-worldly ideal of life.


From the second century A.D. on we possess rich source materials regarding the mystery cults and the profusion of new religious developments which grow out of the syncretism of the time. These sources acquaint us with the prevailing religious tendencies of antiquity in its declining period. Purification and rebirth, mystical union of the believer with the deity and the hope of bliss in the future world, revelation and charismatic endowment which essentially constitute redemption-these are the motives dominating the rites, sacraments, faith, and teaching of this syncretism. As enjoined in the liturgy of the Phrygian mysteries.


The deity's resurrection from the dead gives to the initiates, who see their own destiny prefigured in his adventures, hope of a life after death…. the soul, conscious of its divine origin, strives for redemption from its foreign and unrelated companion, the body. It seeks deliverance from things sinful, material, and mortal. But the fundamental motive in these various representations is the same; it is longing for elevation above the earthly world and its ruling powers, i.e., for deification. The end of redemption is a life of eternal blessedness. The redeemer is the deity to whose service one devotes his whole life in order to obtain his help and favor.

But notions and expressions akin to Hellenistic mysticism are already present in, the Pauline doctrine of redemption. Sin is traced back to the flesh and to the natural man.


The relationship of Christianity to Hellenism appears closer in the Ephesian letter.

Irenaeus' realistic doctrine of redemption also has, in common with Greek mysticism, the fundamental notions of deification, abolition of death, imperishability, and gnosis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's true. There isn't anything you can do about it since the omnipotent God only does what He desires to do.

He/She/It knows where to find me, should he/she/it desire to find me. I've looked and found not much of anything.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My will be done" is witchcraft, and that even though the participants in the study may have had the best intentions, the researchers, the one's who developed and carried out the study, were testing "MY will be done" ( the will of the researcher ), and not "THY will be done", whch is prayer.

What is the point of praying? God’s will shall be done no matter what. He doesn’t need our permission or anything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

none of that supports the idea that the gospels are derived from pagan myths.

I wish I understood why this is an issue to so many believers. The gospel myths have much of the same form as older myths from surrounding peoples such as with virgin births of demigods who are resurrection after three days. What's the motivation for saying that one was not derived from ("inspired by") the other? That wouldn't invalidate it as the then latest iteration of a common archetype in mythology, and very few are arguing for these stories being purely historical accounts any more, so what's the issue? This same discussion arises here every Christmas and Easter regarding pagan rebirth and fertility symbols that have been assimilated into Christianity. There is always emotional debate over whether there is any pagan influence there. Here's one of many such threads. Note the impatience of the believers that the question is asked: Is Christmas Pagan?

How do you think you are going to find evidence for God is you are not searching for God?

The way I find all other evidence. It appears before the senses and is apprehended, then its implications comprehended. I found what you consider evidence for a god without making any effort to find it - the life, mission, and message of Baha'u'llah. I and others have been asking you for your best evidence ever since, but to no avail. You keep deflecting to proof whenever asked about supporting evidence.

I don't know how many dozens of times (I lost count) that I have said that there is no way that any alleged Messenger can be proven to be a 'Messenger of God' for obvious logical reasons

And I don't know why you've said it at all. Is somebody asking you for proof? Ignore them. Address those that want to know what evidence in those words and that life that you say implies the existence of a god. You never do. The discussion goes, "What's your best evidence for a god that causes you to believe?" "There is no proof of gods." "Yes, I know. You weren't asked for proof. You were asked for the evidence that you think points to the existence a deity as its cause or source." "There is no proof. I don't know how many dozens of times (I lost count) that I have said that there is no way that any alleged Messenger can be proven to be a 'Messenger of God' for obvious logical reason."

The spiritually lazy want their homework done for them!

You just said that, "we are supposed to be living by faith." What's did you mean by lazy if not that? How much homework is necessary to pick something to believe if there are no standards for belief and no test for the truth of one's belief?

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed

Many have been left penniless because of faith. The faithful at Heaven'd Gate, Jonestown and Waco weren't blessed. These people wouldn't be asking you to believe by faith if they had more to show you, so why believe them anyway?

Christianity and Islam may come more together in the battle against the forces of darkness.

Hopefully, you are aware that many consider Christianity and Islam forces for darkness.

Islam believes in and accepts the spiritual truths taught by Jesus. They may not believe in or understand his office, but they have a heck of a lot more respect for Jesus then the Atheists!

Jesus says that he is the only path to salvation: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

What the "exemplary Jesus" is, the Jesus of faith, the theological Jesus as distinct from the historical Jesus, is what is known as an archetype. Archetypes are that ideal example (or exemplary) model of figure of a thing. Jesus as the Christ is an archetype of the ideal human. The spiritual human, the Enlightened being (which is a Buddhist view as well as a Hindu view). So the Jesus of faith, is the archetype of one's own highest potential.

I still say that that life was not exemplary. Who couldn't have been turned into a mythic figure?

If you expect the theological Jesus to be the historical Jesus, you will never find it.

I don't know where you are heading with all of this. Why are you telling me this? Do you think it contradicts something I've said? My central thesis has been that the life of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels is that of an ordinary holy man once we remove the miracles and magic, and that somehow, it is just assumed without support or example that this life more than any other was a life to emulate. Many Christians define degree of piety with the degree of correlation to that life (being "Christlike" or a "true Christian"). And my answer is that life isn't close to one I would (or did) emulate, which is what exemplary means to me.

It seems you see them the same way as many Christians do, that if Jesus wasn't really born of a literal virgin, then it's all bull****.

I've already explained that I find no value in mythology beyond entertainment. It's not how I teach, and it's not how I learned since I outgrew childhood. Both biblical and classical mythology are useful on Jeopardy! And it came up a lot when I was studying telescopy and learning the constellations. A mission to Mercury was called Messenger, like Mercury himself. Artemis, the name of the program to return to the moon, was the sister of Apollo - the previous mission. Clash of the Titans has Perseus saving Andromeda, daughter of Cepheus and Cassiopeia, from Cetus, the sea monster. So, this is fun, but not otherwise valuable to me:

 

[Thrillobyte]

This is no different than misinterpretting evidence for historical-Jesus and pretending that it is evidence for gospel-Jesus.

How is it possible to MISinterpret evidence for Jesus? The contention of the majority of secular scholars is that there IS no evidence for Jesus outside the Bible. Scholars do not consider the gospels evidence of Jesus. They consider the gospels statements of faith, not historic evidence for anything other than Jerusalem was in existence, the Romans occupied Israel, etc.

 

[Windwalker]

No. I don't know much of what Buddha taught.

I assumed you did since you said,

"I eventually encountered the Eightfold Path and The Affirmations of Humanism for the first time, and recognized my worldview in them both.... Buddha resonates with my humanistic values. Jesus doesn't. The two are that different."​

​

The Eightfold Path is the Way to reach Enlightenment. "It is a Path leading to the realization of Ultimate Reality, to complete freedom, happiness, and peace through moral, spiritual, and intellectual perfection." The Noble Eightfold Path: Meaning and Practice - Tricycle

And in fact, the same essential principles are found in the teachings of Jesus as well. This "realization of Ultimate Reality", is the same thing in Christian language about 'reconciliation with the Divine, or "God". It is the state or condition of Liberation, "complete freedom, happiness, and peace".

And yes, these basic principles are found in humanism. Which is why I say that Christianity at it heart, not its later religious institutionalism, was and is humanistic. It's about elevating the human condition to the principle of love for one another - not just those of your own tribe. It elevates our humanity through liberation and 'right thought, right action, right words,' etc.

Preachy and judgmental, and detached from reality doesn't sound like Jesus to you? It sounds like Jesus to me.

No, not at all. He directly teaches how not to judge others, as you judge yourself. He directly teaches not condemn others. He directly teaches to look within, and see the log in your own eye, before attempting to take the speck out of the other's eye. This is not hidden in a few verses. It's all over the place.

So as I've said, the lens through which you are reading, or interpreting these things seems to have been distorted by assuming the hypocritical Christians you and I see using Christianity as a cultural weapon against those not like themselves, is seeing something that really isn't there.

I mean you can find contradictions of things in the Bible, of course, but if you are talking about the same author in the same book who has Jesus teaching not to judge others, as then teaching that we should judge others, I'd say the problem is on your end of the reading.

Be more like this, do more of that, and deflect your gaze from the world to a place we promise exists run by with a god that we promise exists who you need to please.

Ah, but these are saying nothing different than the 8-Fold path which you state resonates with you. It, as well as the teachings here of Jesus resonate with me as well. They are essentially saying the same things. Saying no to the 'world', is saying no to the systems of the world which ensnare us.

It's saying find your true Self, Awaken inside, and then engage with the world on those terms. "You are in the world but not of the world". That's what that means. It's to Awaken to have "Life and Life more abundantly". That's what Enlightenment means.

More on unconditional love question in next post later as time permits.

 

[F1fan]

Many Muslims I talk with believe that Jesus lived, is a prophet and they respect him.

Muslims reject the deified version of Jesus that is crucial to Christians, so there is no compromize with them. Muslims and Christians remain divided on what their religions reveal as "truth" despite the effort to find common ground.

Christianity and Islam may come more together in the battle against the forces of darkness.

Well after the Crusades didn't resolve anything, nor the conflict of Islamic extremists against the West. You would be referring to sects of Muslims and Christians who are more liberal, and less conservative, as conservatives tend to be less compromizing and more aggressive in expressing their beliefs, which could be said to be the darkness of the human experience.

 

[F1fan]

I assumed you did since you said,

"I eventually encountered the Eightfold Path and The Affirmations of Humanism for the first time, and recognized my worldview in them both.... Buddha resonates with my humanistic values. Jesus doesn't. The two are that different."​

​

The Eightfold Path is the Way to reach Enlightenment. "It is a Path leading to the realization of Ultimate Reality, to complete freedom, happiness, and peace through moral, spiritual, and intellectual perfection." The Noble Eightfold Path: Meaning and Practice - Tricycle

And in fact, the same essential principles are found in the teachings of Jesus as well. This "realization of Ultimate Reality", is the same thing in Christian language about 'reconciliation with the Divine, or "God". It is the state or condition of Liberation, "complete freedom, happiness, and peace".

There is a huge difference in what Christianity teaches as a "realization of Ultimate Reality". The claim here tends to be rather superficial and fantastic beliefs, no actual realization of reality. Do believers realize they are being sold a bill of goods?

What Buddhism teaches is a means to learn things about the self. It doesn't offer what the results are supposed to be, or what is supposed to be experienced.

And yes, these basic principles are found in humanism. Which is why I say that Christianity at it heart, not its later religious institutionalism, was and is humanistic. It's about elevating the human condition to the principle of love for one another - not just those of your own tribe. It elevates our humanity through liberation and 'right thought, right action, right words,' etc.

If you strip out all the supernatural bits it can be interpreted that way. But it takes a mind that is already pretty hip and doesn't need to learn anything from stories to "get it". What amazes me is how many believers are attracted to the dogma of Christianity and ignore the moral lessons. Talk about failure of leadership. That is what happens when money is involved in religion, corruption. My grandmother's church took whatever money they had and fed poor people twice a week. Contrast that with megachurches that collect millions for an uplifting message and the leader is able to go buy a second yacht. They have been conned.

No, not at all. He directly teaches how not to judge others, as you judge yourself. He directly teaches not condemn others. He directly teaches to look within, and see the log in your own eye, before attempting to take the speck out of the other's eye. This is not hidden in a few verses. It's all over the place.

Yet this doesn't stick with those who need to learn this the most. The naturally hip already know these lessons, so what use if Christianity except to collect money from people?

So as I've said, the lens through which you are reading, or interpreting these things seems to have been distorted by assuming the hypocritical Christians you and I see using Christianity as a cultural weapon against those not like themselves, is seeing something that really isn't there.

I think that is the point: why does Christianity fail to help those who need it the most? The naturally hip don't need the help.

It's saying find your true Self, Awaken inside, and then engage with the world on those terms. "You are in the world but not of the world". That's what that means. It's to Awaken to have "Life and Life more abundantly". That's what Enlightenment means.

That's one way to look at it. This might be a more Zen type approach where it is affirming to a self that is having problems managing negaive inflfuences. In my experience Buddhism is more about dealing the negative feelings and thoughts that inhibit a more authentic way of thinking, feeling, and living.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I'm sorry. I think you're being unfair. There's nothing wrong with the scale. My objection is to stretching the meaning of royalty to include Mary. Do you honestly think they intended the first item on the list to be blood relation to a royal family? That doesn't define royalty. And being on a hill 3 times. That's not an indicator of anything. And the kingdom of god in the gospels isn't the type of kingdom that Rank-Raglan intended. Yahweh isn't a king in the way that they intended either.

I gave way on Yahweh not being a royal father or king. Mary can be taken away if you wish even though she is of royal blood according to Luke. One doesn't have to live in splendor to be of royal blood. Look at Harry's kid, Archie--growing up as a normal non-royal child without all the pomp. But many scholars give Jesus anywhere from 15 to 20 points depending on how far the descriptions are stretched. It's controversial. But the ones that score a solid YES are so pivotal to the Jesus story that they completely overshadow the more mundane ones like Jesus father being a king, and him returning to kingdom, etc.

But are there? I came up with 5. You came up with 11. That's not enough to say the story as derived from anywhere. See, there's another exaggerated claim. No evidence? Yes! A myth? Maybe. Dervied from a plethora of pagan myths? There's not enough evidence for that. the first order of business is confirming that 2 authors could not have come up with the same elements of the story independently. And that's very difficult to do. There are archetypes for reasons.

The details that match are so stark that there can't be any denial the writers were influenced by earlier pagan myths

"Jesus born of Mary, a descendant of Kind David. She impregnated by a god. Her son is reputed to be the son of a god. An evil king attempts to kill the baby Jesus. Jesus is spirited away to a far land by Mary and his FOSTER parent, Joseph where he is reared for a short time until he returns to his "kingdom" Israel. We know nothing of Jesus life from the time he's brought back to Nazareth as a 5 year old until he starts his ministry at 30. He's referred to as "King of the Jews" by Pilate. He's crucified on the top of a hill. He's placed in a sepulcher, not buried in the ground.

The Luke story of Jesus in the temple at 12 is pure fiction, just like an angel appearing to comfort Jesus in the garden. Who knew this detail of the 12 year old Jesus more than 75 years after the fact? What record could Luke have possibly used to know that detail? What eyewitnesses were alive 75 years later who could have told Luke about this alleged incident? Come on, dymbh. Now it's my turn to ask, "Aren't you stretching things by alleging this incident cancels out point no 9?

But none of that supports the idea that the gospels are derived from pagan myths.

Of course it does.

1. no historical evidence for Jesus.
2. numerous details of Jesus' life reads just like other pagan gods. Jesus banished to strange land. Moses banished to strange land. Dionysus banished to strange land. Hera wanted to kill Hercules as an infant. Herod wanted to kill Jesus as an infant. Hercules banished to strange land.

I could go on and on with the similarities between Jesus and other gods but it's just too much work and there's not enough room here.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Jesus says that he is the only path to salvation: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

It's no accident that this comes in the very last gospel after the Jesus mythology had been nurtured and tweaked to read exactly the way church leaders want it to read. In Mark Jesus is a great prophet, in Matthew and Luke he is the son of God, in John he becomes full God. See the accretion of details making Jesus greater and greater? The churchmen, by having Jesus say John 14:6, were indirectly warning the pagans not to join any other religion other than Christianity because if they did they would suffer the full wrath of God and be sent to burn in hell. On the other hand if they believed in Jesus they would be rewarded with untold riches. It's the classic "carrot and stick" approach to baiting a person into joining an organization the person doesn't want to join.

 

[leroy]

And you " know" this sincere belief stuff

Paul really believed that absurd snake story.

Droll

Yes so what?

Are you refuting my point or are you granting my point?

It´s hard to respond to random and meaningless comments


or perhaps youhave no point,you are just having fun?

 

[lukethethird]

Ok, but why don’t you refute my actual argument, for why I grant these sources as historically valid?

Yeah, because angels really did historically come down from the heavens to play a role in the big story, and Jesus historically rose up bodilly into the clouds, just like Acts states, sure, historically valid, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes so what?

Are you refuting my point or are you granting my point?

It´s hard to respond to random and meaningless comments


or perhaps youhave no point,you are just having fun?

You only had a bad argument. You are trying to count the hits while ignoring the misses.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't, and consider that bad advice, too.

Why do you consider unconditional love to be bad advice? What is it that you consider unconditional love to look like, or act like, that it would be bad advice to encourage someone to have it towards others?

Do you also believe that when the Dalai Lama teaches that we should develop compassion within ourselves for all living beings that this is also bad advice? Do you see a difference between the two?

It's not unconditional for the Old Testament deity, either, although I find the standards imputed to it as described by its scriptures and adherents for who deserves to be dropped through the trap door inadequate and immoral.

Yes and no. Actually you see both the God of conditional love, and the God of unconditional love portrayed in the OT. The books of the OT are not a single voice and a single idea about God. Conservative Christians who want to see the Bible as one single revelation with a single theme are overlying their own mythology on top of mythologies.

The realty of the OT books is they are competing images of God, different voices of people with different worldviews being expressed in the image of God. You have the vegeneful, pay back with violence God of retributive justice, the God of conditional love, 'love me or else', and you have the God of distributive justice, where he makes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust, where he calls all invitationally towards love and forgiveness for sin.

Then of course later theologians try to mash these together, and you end up with the dual-personality God, which speaks out of both sides of his mouth, saying his love is free and open, and then burning you to the ground if you don't accept it. It's like a mad boyfriend who holds a gun to his girlfriend's head and asks her under duress if she loves him, and then showers her with gifts when she says she does.

I don't know why you keep coming back to trust. The reason I don't love enemies is not because I don't trust them. I've told you this. I don't like them. I don't want to see them. I don't want to hear their voices. I don't care what they want or think.

I keep coming back to it because you seem to be suggesting that it's bad advice to love those who are your enemies. The only thing I can come up with is because you think that loving them means opening your door to them and letting them take advantage of you. Why else would it be "bad advice"?

Now as far as one loving their enemies, this doesn't mean you have to engage with them. It really has to do with you harboring resentments is all. It means, don't hold resentments. And in reality, loving them might actually mean that if the opportunity presents itself, you might actually show compassion to them when they don't deserve it, like finding them on the side of the road injured.

That act, coming from a place of love for all others in your heart, including those who are your enemies, might actually lead to peace and reconciliation with them and benefit them in their lives. So there is that potential benefit from this 'bad advice' as well? Don't you think? To me, I hear Wisdom.

And you keep coming back to harboring hatred. How about speaking to me, who doesn't hate his enemies, either? Is there anything you want to tell me about why I should love enemies given that that doesn't mean hating them in my case?

If you saw them laying on the side of the road bleeding, would you walk by them because, "I don't like them. I don't want to see them. I don't want to hear their voices. I don't care what they want or think"? If not, then I think maybe you might understand "love your enemies" more than you care to admit?

This is beginning to sound like the discussions with some who can't conceive of a middle ground between believing god exist and the belief that they don't, one of agnosticism. There is also a place between loving and hating called indifference.

Actually, let's come back to my saying that the Love that is being spoken of is talking about Compassion, which it not something earned or deserved by others as a reward for them pleasing you. In Buddhism there is a concept known as the Far Enemy and the Near Enemy.

The far enemy in the case of wanting to live our lives by good principles, good humanist principles, that 8-fold path, would be the exact polar opposite of that desired quality or principle. It is obvious and clear to the be opposite. One given example of the far enemy of Compassion for instance, is indifference. It doesn't care what happens to others. It's numb to it. It sees the suffering of another and is unmoved by it. This is clearly the opposite of Compassion, or Love.

The near enemy on the other hand masquerades itself as the desired quality and allows the person to believe they are actually doing the right thing, when they are actually not and only deceiving themselves that they are. So the near enemy of Compassion would be pity. "Oh those poor people, well I have a tee time for golf in an hour, so I have to go. I do wish them well however."

So in this example, the far enemy is actually better because it is obvious there is room for improvement. Whereas the near enemy is trickier because the person thinks they are on track when they are not.

But to answer your question, no, this is not comparable to questions about God, theism, atheism, or a middle ground of agnostic. Indifference is not the middle ground. It's the far enemy of compassion, or love, even for one's enemies.

And since you have mentioned trust a few times now, there is also an agnostic place between trust and distrust - I don't have enough experience yet with the individual to have an informed opinion on the matter.

So to come to real heart of what I hope to get to in this discussion of what unconditional love is, contrasted with conditional love, this is a tricky thing to tease apart.

I've struggled to understand why there are those who see love as conditional, that we have to earn the love of another, or that to give or show or hold love in our hearts for others that they must deserve it. What is that? To me, love is love is love is love. It just is, and it is something we either avail ourselves of, or it is something we don't.

I grew up in a home of parents who unconditionally loved me. But that does not mean, as most everyone I've talked to who the idea of unconditional love is foreign to, assumes they let me get away with anything. That that unconditional love means never saying no, never being disappointed in my actions, never disciplining me, never correcting me. Time and again, this is what I have heard from those who think love is something you have to deserve from those like your parents, or by extension for them in their beliefs about God.

I've seen this as polar opposites. Conditional love vs. Unconditional love. But I don't think that's what it is now, nor do I see there as a "middle ground", which is what you seem to be suggesting here in this post? Rather I am seeing Love as one thing, experienced on a continuum. It is a spectrum of Love. Not different types of love, but different degrees of that same Love.

So at the Source end of Love, it is pure, infinite, unconditional Love, and everything flung out from it, or moving towards it, has more or less degrees of that same Love, like degrees of light on a spectrum towards "darkness" or the complete absence of light at the far end of that spectrum.

So yes, those who talk about conditional love understand what love feels like, certainly. It's not an absence of love. But it's not the fulness of love either. It's is somewhere along that spectrum between, the full absence of love, and the full realization of Love at its Source.

If I look at it as a spectrum, which I believe it is now, we grow and develop in our love in degrees. In early childhood, it is our mother. Then the circle widens to include family members. Then as we grow in age and maturity, it widens to the friends, then to our communities or our 'tribes', (love of your tribe is still love), then to your people, ethnocentric or nationalistic love of group. And if it continues to widen and grow, the whole world, to all humans, friends and foes.

And then it continues to widen and grow beyond even this, in includes in the circle of love all life on the planet, all living creatures, plants and animals. And then if it continues, to embrace and extend as part of your circle of love inclusion, the entire cosmos itself, all matter and all life everywhere. And then if it continues, it embraces all Life as Life to all that is, seen and unseen, this universe and beyond. Now we are at "Love for Love's sake", or the Divine itself, the Source.

So now, back to "love your enemies". What that is, what I see that is, is simply a call to a higher order of Love, moving towards that full Realization of Love itself, as the Source of all creation and it's call to unite all with itself. This is not simply just a rationalization. It is something I have in fact tasted, and have struggled to put into words. So unconditional love is Love itself. It just IS, and Loves for Love's sake, without condition, with being earned or deserved, in the ways the limits of of it within our lesser tribal expressions of love portray it.

I'm sure this will seem very strange, yet I feel quite good about the way I tried to frame this here.

 

[Windwalker]

I still say that that life was not exemplary. Who couldn't have been turned into a mythic figure?

Again, I've never used the word exemplary to describe the historical Jesus. I only said extraordinary. In other words, he had to have stood out amongst his peers in some way to inspire the mythologies about him. Think of George Washington on a white horse crossing the Delaware. Is that historical? No, it's the taking of an extraordinary individual historically, and mythologizing him into the exemplary patriot.

So when Christians are telling you Jesus lived an exemplary life, this is the Jesus of Faith, not the historical Jesus. But the dispassionate, secular view of the historical Jesus, has to conclude reasonably that he had to have been an extraordinary person, just like George Washington was extraordinary in his time as well. That's all that is meant here.

I still see you not being able to differentiate between the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus. That itself is the source of confusion.

I don't know where you are heading with all of this. Why are you telling me this? Do you think it contradicts something I've said? My central thesis has been that the life of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels is that of an ordinary holy man once we remove the miracles and magic, and that somehow, it is just assumed without support or example that this life more than any other was a life to emulate.

I touched upon this in another post, which may be missing now after the RF site crashed and they appear to have had to do a restore and lost some data. There is an intersection between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith, where faith and facts converge to create reality. First, my main argument is he was unlikely to be just "an ordinary holy man". I seriously doubt that. There were lots of "ordinary holy men" throughout history. But there had to have been something extra-ordinary about this one that resulted in what emerged from him.

I worry that in your mind, to acknowledge that, is to lend credence to the theological view of Jesus that this means that historically he was a supernatural being. It seems you want him specifically to be nothing but an ordinary, run of the mill holy man with nothing special or unique about him compared to others. I simply can't see that rationally.

To me is almost sounds like there is a motivation to minimize him like that, because to not minimize him might give credence to the supernatural Jesus? I don't know, but I just can't see any rational reason to think he was just a run of the mill average holy man, "ordinary" but not extraordinary.

Many Christians define degree of piety with the degree of correlation to that life (being "Christlike" or a "true Christian"). And my answer is that life isn't close to one I would (or did) emulate, which is what exemplary means to me.

I would disagree that Archetypes are not within the grasp of humanity. That's like saying since the sun itself can never be reached by the plant, the sun has no influence upon the earth and the growth of plants. Being "Christlike" is attainable, as is "Buddhahood". There are Enlightened individuals who do and have actually existed, and many on that path, or somewhere on that spectrum of a "Buddhahood", or "Christlike".

I've already explained that I find no value in mythology beyond entertainment.

I'll bet you are more influenced by it that you are even aware of. Take for instance the role of myths in everyday life: Mythologies (book) - Wikipedia

It's not how I teach, and it's not how I learned since I outgrew childhood. Both biblical and classical mythology are useful on Jeopardy!

It is how we think. Refer to that book I linked to above. You just think mythologies are the classics, like Homer and the like. But I'm talking more along the lines of symbolic thought as discussed in the field of Semiotics.

And it came up a lot when I was studying telescopy and learning the constellations. A mission to Mercury was called Messenger, like Mercury himself. Artemis, the name of the program to return to the moon, was the sister of Apollo - the previous mission. Clash of the Titans has Perseus saving Andromeda, daughter of Cepheus and Cassiopeia, from Cetus, the sea monster. So, this is fun, but not otherwise valuable to me:

Those are all examples of types of mythologies, not that mythology, is reduced to those.