• 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

Thrillobyte

Active Member
Actually you see both the God of conditional love, and the God of unconditional love portrayed in the OT
Which points out the schizophrenic nature of Yahweh as men invented his characteristics to mirror their own natures. There's a reason why nearly all of God's attributes are identical to man's. You say he's a God of unconditional love. Well, man is capable of demonstrating unconditional love as well as conditional love i.e. obey what I tell you to do or face the consequences. Same with God's mysogyny, his murderous hatred of people not like the Jews. Did it ever occur to Christians that the Jews, who wrote the Old Testament, wrote it in such a way as to make it appear God favored them and not other races; that they had God's blessings and not the tribes around them. In other words, the Old Testament is pure propaganda written by the Jews to make it appear they are the master race, the one who is going to inherit the earth with God's blessing. It must have been a shock to them when they were conquered by the Romans.

Check other culture's religious writings and you'll probably find similar declarations of superiority. The God of the OT is just a reflection of all that is beautiful and ugly about the Jews--their customs, their practices, their beliefs, etc. and how the Jews imprinted their god with their own weaknesses and fallibilities. As such the OT is not fit for anything except to be used as a doorstop or tossed into the nearest trashcan.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do you consider unconditional love to be bad advice?
Love is active. It involves providing the protection and support others need, which consumes time and other scarce resources. I do not love enemies. The Trump phenomenon and the pandemic emphasized that for me. And I don't see a counterargument from you, just the repeated admonition about not harboring anger made to a person who has told you that isn't relevant to him repeatedly.
It really has to do with you harboring resentments is all.
Again?
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"?
I've explained before, and just did again. It's not about being taken advantage of in the future. It's about being unwilling to spend more time or other resources on those I disapprove of and have no positive feelings for. It's about spending time with people I never want to see again and with whom spending time is a dysphoric experience.
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?
It depends exactly what is meant by that. I have compassion for the beasts, all of them, even those I'm reluctant to approach or find repulsive, but not all people. This has become more pronounced since the advent of the Trump era.
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.
Where is the unconditionally loving god in that book? Do you mean the one that drowned nearly all terrestrial life because man didn't please it? Do you mean the one who punishes people for eternity with no chance of parole for disobeying it or even not believing in it?

I don't look to that book for instruction on love, justice, mercy, or any other moral direction.
Now as far as one loving their enemies, this doesn't mean you have to engage with them.
Great. Then we're in agreement. What is it you wanted me to do for these people if not to engage with them? Send them money or reading material anonymously?
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"?
There are people who only make the world better by exiting it. I wouldn't respect somebody doing CPR on Trump.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which points out the schizophrenic nature of Yahweh as men invented his characteristics to mirror their own natures. There's a reason why nearly all of God's attributes are identical to man's.
It is more complex than this, but yes you certainly do see projections of the human ego in the face or the image of God. Anthropomorphisms can extend beyond simply metaphoric language, such as the 'hand of God, or the 'eye of the Lord,' to actual human egoic attributes, such as jealousy, anger, rage, etc. Some authors meant it figuratively, some meant it literally. And then afterwards, you have some who may interpret it metaphorically, or some who may interpret that literally.

What you have really are different sets of eyes seeing the Divine through different lenses. Some see something beyond themselves to aspire towards, growing beyond the ego into selflessness. Others see the ideal Ego, the superhuman who can conquer and rule over others, the "chosen ones". In their case it's a about power and hierarchical domination.

In one case, God is about reaching for the sun to break free from the world to experience Liberation or Freedom. In the other it's about bringing the sun down to earth to dominate it and control it in their own image: "In the beginning, man created God in his own image".

Did it ever occur to Christians that the Jews, who wrote the Old Testament, wrote it in such a way as to make it appear God favored them and not other races; that they had God's blessings and not the tribes around them.
I'm quite sure it did occur to them. That's why you have the Apostle Paul evolving that image of God to be inclusive, as opposed to exclusive as it had been: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," Gal. 3:28. You see even misogyny is rejected in Paul's Christ.

In reality, the view of God in the Bible is evolving, along with the level of consciousness of human beings who are seeing beyond love defined as those of your own tribe, to include those of other religions, those of other cultures and beliefs, regardless of gender, etc. Now, in practice do Christians actually embody these principles? No, a lot of it is still ethnocentric otherism. But the teachings do set the bar to the higher order principle of inclusiveness, regardless of how well Christians actually live up to these.
In other words, the Old Testament is pure propaganda written by the Jews to make it appear they are the master race, the one who is going to inherit the earth with God's blessing. It must have been a shock to them when they were conquered by the Romans.
But it's actually not all one thing. There are as many diverse and competing voices within it, as you find in any religion or religious discussions. Same as what you see today, even here on RF. Think of the Bible like the RF site, in a way. :)
Check other culture's religious writings and you'll probably find similar declarations of superiority.
Sure, because humans are humans and are all at different developmental stages. The more mature stages are more inclusive. The less mature stages are more exclusive, where love only extends to those who look and act just like you.

That in my opinion is what the teachings of Jesus were about getting people to look beyond, and see the other as an extension of yourself, not just the stranger, but even those you call your enemies. That's higher order love, appealing to earlier stage love to grow beyond its own comfort zones.
The God of the OT is just a reflection of all that is beautiful and ugly about the Jews--their customs, their practices, their beliefs, etc. and how the Jews imprinted their god with their own weaknesses and fallibilities. As such the OT is not fit for anything except to be used as a doorstop or tossed into the nearest trashcan.
The same can been said of religion in general today. It can show what is both beautiful and ugly about us as humans. But the OT as I said, is not a univocal singular text. It includes all of these voices, both beautiful and cruel.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Get a dictionary. I have no superstitions.

What is the true meaning of superstition?

Britannica Dictionary definition of SUPERSTITION. : a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck : a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck.

Superstition Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

You are superstitious about gods and all the magical thinking that that entails, you couldn't be more superstitious if you tried.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You only had a bad argument. You are trying to count the hits while ignoring the misses.
I cant find all the coments that you made yesterday. perhaps there was a problem with the server or the host

From memory and based on what I remember from your posts

Judea was a roman subordinate state in 4BCE so a census in that territory would have not been impossible as you claimed……. So we have 2 authors Luke and Josephus reporting a different date anyone could be wrong,



About John the Baptist I never said that the baptism of is a verifiable fact, (that particular event is not verifiable)

But the existence of John the Baptist and the way he died was reported in the gospels and later verified by Josephus.

There are other 30 or so historical persons reported in the Gospels (and acts) whose existence can be verified.

+ docens of places (locations, towns, cities etc.) that can be verified to have really existed

+ the names where consistent (common names in that place and time where also common in the gospels)

+the political and economic structure described in the gospels is also accurately described

And many other historical details that are reported in the gospels can be verified to be true.

So even if we grant that there are some mistakes (like the date of the census) it is still a fact that the majority of verifiable historical facts reported in the gospels are true.

The implication is that the authors of the gospels, if not witnesses, where well informed people with access to good reliable sources ……. The implication is that one should grant all the claims made in this documents, unless there are good reasons to doubt them

You do the same thing with tacitus, josephus Plutarch and many other ancient sources, you grant each historical claim made by any of these authors as true, unless good reasons to reject that particular are given.

So why can´t the gospels have the same status?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You are superstitious about gods and all the magical thinking that that entails, you couldn't be more superstitious if you tried.
I don't have a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck.
I don't have a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck.
Thus I am not superstitious. All religions are not superstitious and mine isn't.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I don't have a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck.
I don't have a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck.
Thus I am not superstitious. All religions are not superstitious and mine isn't.
You have faith in the magical divine connection you grant your leader with. Religion is a euphemism for superstition and you demonstrate that in all your posts, it's your MO.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Religion is a euphemism for superstition
Baha'u'llah defined what religion is. That is what religion is before it becomes corrupted by man, as has happened to the older religions.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Baha'u'llah defined what religion is. That is what religion is before it becomes corrupted by man, as has happened to the older religions.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81
Save the rantings of your homophobic leader for your Baha'i threads.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Hey, What happened ro my posts. Hey @joelr, are you missing any posts. I can't find my last responses to you, and I know you responded, but I am not seeing them. Are you having the same problem?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Hey, What happened ro my posts. Hey @joelr, are you missing any posts. I can't find my last responses to you, and I know you responded, but I am not seeing them. Are you having the same problem?
FYI, RF is moving to another server so that's why lots of posts are missing, mine too. I would suggest not writing anything too long unless you save it somewhere else. ;)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I cant find all the coments that you made yesterday. perhaps there was a problem with the server or the host

From memory and based on what I remember from your posts

Judea was a roman subordinate state in 4BCE so a census in that territory would have not been impossible as you claimed……. So we have 2 authors Luke and Josephus reporting a different date anyone could be wrong,
No, not "anyone". That is an assumption that you need to justify. The date of the Census of Quirinius is known by not just the say so of Josephus. That all of Judea was a client kingdom of Rome was one well known fact. When Quirinius started his census there was a revolt by Judas of Galilee. A census was illegal by Jewish laws. That dates back to King David.


You are already up to three significant facts that Josephus and others would have had to be wrong about. Third the demand that one go to one's ancestral home to be counted is so idiotic that it is amazing that any apologist would believe the myth. I could go on, but what would be the point. One cannot be honest and support Luke's dating at this point.



About John the Baptist I never said that the baptism of is a verifiable fact, (that particular event is not verifiable)

Okay, so not testable.
But the existence of John the Baptist and the way he died was reported in the gospels and later verified by Josephus.
Okay, I will grant the existence of that one.
There are other 30 or so historical persons reported in the Gospels (and acts) whose existence can be verified.

+ docens of places (locations, towns, cities etc.) that can be verified to have really existed

+ the names where consistent (common names in that place and time where also common in the gospels)

+the political and economic structure described in the gospels is also accurately described

And many other historical details that are reported in the gospels can be verified to be true.

So even if we grant that there are some mistakes (like the date of the census) it is still a fact that the majority of verifiable historical facts reported in the gospels are true.

The implication is that the authors of the gospels, if not witnesses, where well informed people with access to good reliable sources ……. The implication is that one should grant all the claims made in this documents, unless there are good reasons to doubt them

You do the same thing with tacitus, josephus Plutarch and many other ancient sources, you grant each historical claim made by any of these authors as true, unless good reasons to reject that particular are given.

So why can´t the gospels have the same status?
Because all of those, including the existence of John the Baptist are not significant. They are just Spiderman arguments. For example if the Spiderman comics got a historical fact terribly wrong we would know that something was terribly wrong with the story. For example if it claimed that Donald Trump, a real person, was mayor of New York we would know that it was terribly wrong. You are trying to equate minor things being right to major things being wrong. That is not how one judges whether a work is reliable or not.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Hey, What happened ro my posts. Hey @joelr, are you missing any posts. I can't find my last responses to you, and I know you responded, but I am not seeing them. Are you having the same problem?
I don't see your last post to me and my reply from Thursday which you may have also replied to that post and that is also missing.

I think some other responses to my posts may be missing as well because I only had a few responses but was expecting more.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
There are other 30 or so historical persons reported in the Gospels (and acts) whose existence can be verified.

+ docens of places (locations, towns, cities etc.) that can be verified to have really existed

+ the names where consistent (common names in that place and time where also common in the gospels)

+the political and economic structure described in the gospels is also accurately described

And many other historical details that are reported in the gospels can be verified to be true.

So even if we grant that there are some mistakes (like the date of the census) it is still a fact that the majority of verifiable historical facts reported in the gospels are true.

The implication is that the authors of the gospels, if not witnesses, where well informed people with access to good reliable sources ……. The implication is that one should grant all the claims made in this documents, unless there are good reasons to doubt them

You do the same thing with tacitus, josephus Plutarch and many other ancient sources, you grant each historical claim made by any of these authors as true, unless good reasons to reject that particular are given.

So why can´t the gospels have the same status?
The Greek myths and Hindu scriptures contain real places and people. The entire history of Kings in in one of the Hindu books. That doesn't make Krishna a real demigod.
Mormonism contains real places and people as well. That doesn't mean we take serious the claims of the angel Moroni giving revelations. We even can verify the author who was visited by Moroni.

What we also know about the Gospels is Mark is most likely the source. Mark is writing a story that uses many types of fictive literary devices. Jesus scores 19 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale, Mark uses the Epistles, Kings, Moses narratives to create stories about Jesus. HE also uses Hellenistic savior demigod mythology in a Jewish context (syncretism) and transfigures the known Romulus narrative into a parallel story.
He writes a huge metaphor for Yom Kippur/Passover in the Barrabas/Jesus story, each character is one of the sacrificed goats, one being let free and one being sacrificed for the sins of Israel.
There are 20 close parallels with the Romulus/Jesus narrative. Hellenism blended with local religions was a trend happening at this time.

Just like you would NOT take any other mystery religion (local religions similar to Judaism mixed with Hellenism) as historical truth, regardless of how many actual places and real people were in the scripture, the Gospels are not history. They are religious fiction.

If you want the Gospels to have the same status as Josephus (that is absurd) then all mystery religions would share the same privilege as well as the Quran, Mormon upgrades to Christianity and many other religious myths.

The Synoptic Problem research has excellent evidence that Mark is the source for the others and the VAST internal and external evidence surrounding the Gospels show the names were added late 2nd century and they were anonymous and not eye-witnesses. Unlike actual historians who give sources and explanations, the only Gospel who plays at even being a historian is Luke and he does not do a good job at all.
We can get into specifics but this is not historical just for that reason alone. These do not read as history from a historian.

By the time historians are reporting on Christianity they are just reporting people follow some Gospel. Tacitus said it was a superstition.
There were also 50% Gnostic Gospels, 36 others in total. They were not separated until close to the 3rd century. The original canon (Marcionite) is forever lost. So if your Gospels are history, so are all 40, Gnosticism and any other sect during the 2nd century. They chose a set of beliefs not because they proved it correct but for political and faith reasons.
So your suggestion doesn't make sense on several levels.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
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.

Again. If the precision needs to be lowered, and these similarities need to be exaggerated, why include them in the argument? If the argument requires these exaggerations. That means it's weak claim.



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.
Posts got deleted. One response on Hellenism remains, the other is in the celestial realm.
I counted 19 on the RR scale.
I don't remember the rest except for a list of subjects that are each expanded upon with examples and so on, that are some of the criteria used to determine prior probability on mythicism. RR being just one.


Carrier
Prior probability considerations, 3 groups:



RR comes from the chapter on the background of Christianity. There are several elements considered broken into in 3 parts, each with a long detailed discussion with sources, examples and so on.


Background of Christianity


1)Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse


2)When Christianity began Jews had been long expecting a messiah.


3)In the 1st century Palestine was experiencing a rash of messianism


5)Before Christianity some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed


6)The suffering and dying servant of Isaiah 52/Daniel 9 may already have been seen by some Jews as the same person. Connections with a man in Zac 3 and 6 named "Jesus Rising" who is confronted by Satan in God's abode in heaven and there crowned king, holds office of high priest, will build up God's house. The name is Branch/Rising, not literally "Jesus".


7)Pre-Christian book of Daniel, a key messianic text, laid out much of what would happen


8) Messianic sects of Jews were often practicing searching the scriptures for secret messages or pesherism


9) Pesherism back then was using different texts and variants than we have today


10)Early messianic cults who came to believe a certain Jesus was an eschatological Christ and was already a preexistent being


11)The earliest form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion. Four trends given last post


12)Like all mystery religions Christianity had secret documents that initiates were sworn to never reveal


13)Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myth and allegory, which symbolized a more secret doctrine


14)Christianity began as a charismatic cult where visions, dreams, voices were divine communications


15) Earliest Christians knew some facts from revelation and Paul claimed this was a more reliable source Rom 16.25-26


16) The fundamental features of the gospel story can be read out of Jewish scripture. The Gospel may have been discovered and learned from scripture


17)Paul did not know a living Jesus


18)Earliest Christians proselytized Gentiles but required them to convert to Judaism.Paul was the first to discard this. Paul is never able to cite the authority of a living Jesus


19)PAul and others attest there were many rival sects


20)We have no record of what happened between 64 and 95 CE



Then another chapter of context background information


1)Incarnate sons/daughters of a god who died and rose to become living gods granting salvation to their followers were a common peculiar feature. of Pagan religion when Christianity arose


2)Cynicism, Stoicism and Platonism influenced Christian teachings.


3)Christianity is a syncretism of pagan and Jewish salvation ideology. Influences from Pharisees, R. Hillel, Essenes, Baptists


4)Popular cosmology held the sub-heavens, the firmament, was a region of corruption, change, decay while the heavens were pure, changeless.


Paul uses this Platonic view.


5)Because of this division religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between worlds.


6) In this cosmology there were 2 Adams, one perfect celestial version of which the earthly version is just a copy. The first Christians appear to have connected their Jesus to that original celestial Adam. (Revelation of Moses, Philo- On the Creation of the World)


7)The "son of man" was another being forseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe.


8)A parallel tradition of a perfect celestial priest named Melchizedek.


9)voluntary human sacrifice was seen by pagans and Jews as the most powerful salvation and atonement magic available.



Literary context


1) Fabricating stories was the norm


2)euhemerization - taking a cosmic God and placing him at a specific point in history, trending


3)hero narratives, 20 ways Jesus matches these


4)Ascension to Godhood tale common in pagan religions


5)Romulus narrative and Jesus share 20 parallels


6)RR hero type. 14 in Mark, 20 in Matthew. I count 19.
 
Top