There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[joelr]

Again,

Build your case, show that any of the myths that you keep quoting has the same level of detail and accuracy than the gospels.



If that where true, that I would accept the qoran as a valid historical source………….. I have no idea, if this is true or not.

For example if the Quran mentions a location whose existence could not be verified………I would give it the benefit of the doubt, because it had other 100 locations correct

/////But will you accept Muhammad as the true word, updated word of God if shown evidence of historicity or just fall back on "something happened"

(assuming that all the stuff you said about the koran is true)

I would sy that Muhammad had an expeirnce that he interpreted as "real" ............ unless someone has a good reason to doubt it......

well the peer review material says otherwise. (that the gosples are Greko Roman Biographies)

Oh no, it does not. Historical scholarship, not apologists. They do not analyze teh Gospels from a from a literary or historical-critical perspective and those who do find it to be a fictive biography influenced by Hellenism and Persian myth.

A few books and excerpts from journal papers:


Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God ; David Litwa

On the Historicity of Jesus: Carrier​

Questioning the Historicity of Jesus R. Lataster​

The Case Against the Case for Christ: Robert Price
Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996) P. Pakken - shows trends in Hellenistic religion, Christianity has all 4



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 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.

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.


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. According to Rom. 8:19-22 perishable, degenerate creation looks for deliverance from transitoriness and for the revelation of the sons of God. As the apostle fervently longed for freedom from the body of death (Rom. 7:24), so also redemption is for him deliverance from aiv e'VeCrd, (Gal. 1:4). This leaning toward a "physical" and cosmic extension of redemption is an approach to Hellenistic conceptions. Paul's representa- tion of the believer as living and suffering in Christ, as crucified, buried, and raised with him, recalls the similar way in which the Hellenistic mystery-religions relate the believer to the dead and risen god (Attis, Osiris, Adonis). Thus Paul actually appears to be indebted to Hellenistic mysticism for certain suggestions. As Plato used Orphism, so Paul appropriated forms of expression for his faith from the mysticism of the world to which he preached the gospel.

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.


The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:
A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist

Jennifer Uzzell
February 2009

Early apologists admited similarities and blamed them on Satan.

Baptism has been widely compared with initiation into the Mystery cults. In many of the Mysteries purification through ritual bathing was required as a prerequisite for initiation.


Dying/rising demigods
In Pagan Hellenistic and Near Eastern thought, the motif of a “Dying and Rising God” existed for millennia before Christ and there had been stories of divine beings questing into the underworld and returning transformed in some way.

Eucharist.
-Perhaps the clearest point of contact between the Mysteries and Christian Eucharist, and one of which the Church Fathers were painfully conscious, lay in a sacramental meal of bread or cakes and wine mixed with water in which initiates to the cult of Mithras participated.

So What About Hannibal, Then? • Richard Carrier Blogs

This kind of argument has been tried again and again and again. I’ve discussed every one. (See Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus?) It’s always of this form: P1. We should not doubt [x] existed. P2. The evidence for Jesus is better than for [x]. P3. The same standards of evidence...

www.richardcarrier.info

All mainstream scholars agree Jesus as demigod is a mythical savior deity. They all agree the Gospels are myths about him. They simply conclude that those myths contain some kernels of fact, and that Jesus was originally not a flying, magic-wielding supergod. But they agree the super-Jesus, the only Jesus about whom we have any accounts at all, didn’t exist. They think some mundane Jesus did, who was dressed up with those legends and beliefs later. But that still admits he belongs to a reference class that the Hannibals of the world do not: that of mythically-attested savior gods who speak to their followers in dreams and visions. So we actually need more evidence for Jesus than we have for Hannibal, to be sure Jesus isn’t just like all other mythical savior gods, who also had amazing stories about them set on earth history, and who also appeared to people in dreams and visions—yet never plausibly existed.

 

[joelr]

We are spiritual beings having a human “faith” experience on an evolutionary world. God is so obvious it’s blinding! This quest for truth is by design.

God is so "obvious" that there are billions of Christians, hundreds of sects who disagree on fundamental doctrines, almost all of them disagree with you, billions who believe Allah is the true God and so on.
Showing it's all a bunch of confirmation bias.

How many scientists argue over energy conservation or the elements? How many math people argue 10+10?

We are spiritual beings when there is evidence for a spirit. Right now it looks like hat concept is as antiquated as bleeding people for health treasons.

Unconscious forces driving reality we can already see at work. A cosmic being who hides but is conscious......not real. If real he would be an atheist, completely alone in a nightmare reality where just it exists????????? Just because...? Not likely.

 

[Colt]

God is so "obvious" that there are billions of Christians, hundreds of sects who disagree on fundamental doctrines, almost all of them disagree with you, billions who believe Allah is the true God and so on.
Showing it's all a bunch of confirmation bias.

How many scientists argue over energy conservation or the elements? How many math people argue 10+10?

We are spiritual beings when there is evidence for a spirit. Right now it looks like hat concept is as antiquated as bleeding people for health treasons.

Unconscious forces driving reality we can already see at work. A cosmic being who hides but is conscious......not real. If real he would be an atheist, completely alone in a nightmare reality where just it exists????????? Just because...? Not likely.

God isn't religion, religions are about God, about the quest for God. Your doubts may be just as much of a confirmation bias when pointing out the variation of conclusions about God.

IMOP this is addressed:

Philosophy of Religion​

103:1.1 (1129.8) The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique—no two mortals being alike—it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.

103:1.2 (1130.1) When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

103:1.3 (1130.2) While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric—circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

103:1.4 (1130.3) Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

103:1.5 (1130.4) That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

103:1.6 (1130.5) The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal—the Adjuster is prepersonal—but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." UB 1955

 

[PureX]

When I say, "think of a red car" and millions of people think of millions of different kinds of red cars. Some past, some present, some actual, some mythical, some pure red, some 'reddish', ... and so on and so on. The variations will be endless. And yet even with all that variation, red cars do still exist, and we all understand this. And even the red cars that no longer exist did once exist. And more will almost certainly come to exist in the future.

And no one doubts this, even though everyone thinks of something different when asked to think about and describe "a red car".

Yet for some odd reason, atheists like to keep asserting and believing that when someone asks a hundred people to describe "God", and they all think of something somewhat different, that this must inevitably mean that gods don't really exist, or have never existed, or will never exist. And they stand on this absurd line of thought no matter who points out that it's nonsensical, or how often, or how well. They just keep on repeating this absurd line of thinking as if it were a sound argument against the existence of any gods.

Why is that, I wonder? Why do people who fancy themselves as being so logical and skeptical continue to fall into this very illogical and clearly biased line of thought? Any ideas?

 

[Windwalker]

When I say, "think of a red car" and millions of people think of millions of different kinds of red cars. Some past, some present, some actual, some mythical, some pure red, some 'reddish', ... and so on and so on. The variations will be endless. And yet even with all that variation, red cars do still exist, and we all understand this. And even the red cars that no longer exist did once exist. And more will almost certainly come to exist in the future.

And no one doubts this, even though everyone thinks of something different when asked to think about and describe "a red car".

Yet for some odd reason, atheists like to keep asserting and believing that when someone asks a hundred people to describe "God", and they all think of something somewhat different, that this must inevitably mean that gods don't really exist, or have never existed, or will never exist.

I think this is because an atheist has had some type of experience with a red car at some point they can relate to, and therefore allow others to be speaking about something real to them. But if they had no experience with any type of cars at any point, they might be inclined to think that everyone else who speaks of cars as if they were real were out of their minds.

This of course is not what reason tells them. Rather it's a rationalization as to why others speak of things as real when they've never experienced anything like it themselves.

Why is that, I wonder? Why do people who fancy themselves as being so logical and skeptical continue to fall into this very illogical and clearly biased line of thought? Any ideas?

If we can make the other seem crazy in our minds, then we can feel more confident that we're not. Now granted it, a great many who speak of believing in God have no experience either. They are simply adopting a common belief as part of finding themselves in group identities.

But the exact same thing may be true of those who adopt the so-called "skeptic" belief of no-God. Both take their lack of experience and simply find what is a better belief for them, what suits them better, where the fit in better. It's just another conclusion of belief arrived at in the absence of experience.

 

[Thrillobyte]

This is confusing. You're saying people who love themselves are terrified of life coming to and end and their ceasing to exist as the person they were in this life? That's doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they truly love themselves, they are contented and grateful for what time they have and don't worry about the unknown.

You're looking at it from the point of view of an atheist. Atheists realize there is no God that runs the universe, and by extension there isn't a heaven waiting for them. So they don't worry about dying--that's correct. They value the time they have with friends and family here in the present on earth because they know in a few short decades it will all end.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to theists who profess belief in God and Jesus. This would apply to many other religions too, particularly the Abrahamic ones. When theists talk about God how often do they bring up being happy in heaven with their loved ones and good friends and all of them living happily in heaven worshiping and loving Jesus? Constantly. Frankly, there's no other reason for them to be theists, is there? It's a psychological crutch to blot out the fear of dying. So Christians profess they aren't afraid of dying because they've convinced themselves there's another life waiting for them after their mortal body dies. It's the grand "just bury your head in the sand so you don't have to face the bitter truth that all life ends forever at death." Now to get into the particulars of how each Christian copes with this horrible reality is beyond the scope of this thread. Each does it in their own way but it all revolves around theists convincing themselves that their spirits aren't going to die, only the human shell their spirit is in encased in will die.

Almost as soon as I lost belief in Jesus and God my consciousness started adjusting to the realization that life ends when we die including the consciousness. Nothing survives. We have no evidence of anything beyond this life therefore we should pursue what we have here and enjoy it to its fullest knowing it will all be gone some day.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You say this as though you have actual knowledge it's an illusion. How did you determine this?

By the prevailing lack of evidence for anything on the spiritual level. Now do I mean I know definitively there's nothing out there? No, I don't obviously because the afterlife cannot be proven to exist or not exist. But can I line up evidence for no afterlife alongside evidence for an afterlife? Sure.

The evidence for no afterlife lies in science never having been able to demonstrate anything exists beyond this life. Now theists have to show evidence that an afterlife exists. So where's the evidence for an afterlife? Well, I just said none exists. So if you were in the center and listening to both sides, which would you as a rational thinking adult go with?

Now if a theist wants to believe in Jesus and an afterlife by faith based on a 3,000 year old document so full of holes it leaks like a sieve then by my guest; throw away the only life you're going to get believing in something on faith without any evidence or it. Christians don't realize the "believe by faith without evidence" was nothing but a con used by churchmen who had to convince pagans to accept their religion without any proof Jesus ever lived. So they turned a handicap into a virtue: "We don't have a evidence Jesus was real. But that's okay because if you believe in Jesus without any evidence that pleases God. He wants you to believe in Jesus without any evidence."

It's a crazy formula that wouldn't work in the real world for anything else. "Give me $500,000 cash for my house. No, I don't have a deed and no, you cannot tour the house but I want you to believe by faith without evidence that I own this house and that I have the right to sell it to you."

Who would fall for this ruse? No one, not even a Christian. But Christians fall for the exact same ruse when it comes to believing in Jesus. Go figure.

 

[Thrillobyte]

It's more of an empty promise than an illusion. People have been giving money to the church for eons to hear about a life after death. It's the perfect scam because nothing is given but a promise, and no one can come back from the dead to say it's not true.

Every crooked televangelist knows this fact and plays on it for their financial benefit to the impoverishment of the dupes who fall for it. The gullibility of simple-minded folks reared without a higher education is off the meter. Sadly, it's a fact of life--the street-smart sharks preying on the dopes. It's been going on for 5000 years.

 

[lukethethird]

I think this is because an atheist has had some type of experience with a red car at some point they can relate to, and therefore allow others to be speaking about something real to them. But if they had no experience with any type of cars at any point, they might be inclined to think that everyone else who speaks of cars as if they were real were out of their minds.

This of course is not what reason tells them. Rather it's a rationalization as to why others speak of things as real when they've never experienced anything like it themselves.

If we can make the other seem crazy in our minds, then we can feel more confident that we're not. Now granted it, a great many who speak of believing in God have no experience either. They are simply adopting a common belief as part of finding themselves in group identities.

But the exact same thing may be true of those who adopt the so-called "skeptic" belief of no-God. Both take their lack of experience and simply find what is a better belief for them, what suits them better, where the fit in better. It's just another conclusion of belief arrived at in the absence of experience.

Rubbish, believers are gullible when it comes to their anomalous experiences, as if the heavenly Gods take time out to mess with their pathetic little lives.

 

[Windwalker]

You're looking at it from the point of view of an atheist. Atheists realize there is no God that runs the universe, and by extension there isn't a heaven waiting for them. So they don't worry about dying--that's correct. They value the time they have with friends and family here in the present on earth because they know in a few short decades it will all end.

This isn't necessarily automatically true. There are many views of life one can come to when you discard a religious belief in God. Nihilism can be one option as well. Hedonism another. Wanton power seeking another. Humanitarianism another. And so forth. What you are describing is one of many options someone can choose to see life like as an atheist.

Even many theists assume the attitude you describe as well, making the most out of what time they have in this life, and not worrying about the afterlife. I'd call that a happier and healthier form of their faith, than those who see the world darkly with resentment and can't wait for it to be over.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to theists who profess belief in God and Jesus. This would apply to many other religions too, particularly the Abrahamic ones.

How much do you know about other religions outside your experience with Christianity in the West, particularly American style evangelical Protestantism? Eastern religions tend to think of life in very different ways.

When theists talk about God how often do they bring up being happy in heaven with their loved ones and good friends and all of them living happily in heaven worshiping and loving Jesus? Constantly.

Who you are describing sounds more like American evangelicals. Are you sure all Christians act and talk like that, "constantly"? To me, they are the only ones I know who are constantly talking about praising Jesus in heaven forever and ever.

Frankly, there's no other reason for them to be theists, is there?

Yes, there are other reasons why someone chooses to see that God exists beyond what you described. Beliefs in a transcendent absolute reality can definitely not be a product of just some mere compensatory wishful thinking.

It's a psychological crutch to blot out the fear of dying.

In some cases. But do you think that everyone who believes in God looks like those you describe, and believe for only that reason? What about those who don't fear death, and yet still believe? Not all of those who believe God exists, imagine that who they are in this life gets to keep on going as themselves in the next life.

Take for instance all of Hinduism and Buddhism that believe in reincarnation. Do you think they believe that they will remember who they are after they die, like those you speak about in the flavor of Christianity you draw your understanding of theism from?

So Christians profess they aren't afraid of dying because they've convinced themselves there's another life waiting for them after their mortal body dies.

I personally do not believe that they actually aren't afraid when it comes down to it. They can tell themselves they aren't afraid, but when it comes down to it, are they really willing to let go? I say the same thing about atheists too, who claim they aren't afraid to die because they are convinced there's nothing after this life.

I think they are both just trying to convince themselves by telling themselves what to believe about death, whereas facing death has a way of taking all your beliefs about things and making them nothing when you are faced with the reality of it. If what you are relying on is your ideas about it, that only takes you so far. Say what you want all your life, but when you're going to die, it'll be its own thing on its own terms as we all come face to face with the end of who we have known as "me" our whole lives. Doesn't matter if you're religious or not.

Almost as soon as I lost belief in Jesus and God my consciousness started adjusting to the realization that life ends when we die including the consciousness. Nothing survives. We have no evidence of anything beyond this life therefore we should pursue what we have here and enjoy it to its fullest knowing it will all be gone some day.

I see some value in the necessary step you have taken for yourself. But there's more to the story yet to come.

 

[Windwalker]

By the prevailing lack of evidence for anything on the spiritual level.

You may need to define by what you mean about the "spiritual level". In conversations like this, all too often someone is imagining the spiritual in terms of supernatural beings, like spirits, and ghosts, and gods, and unicorns, and elves, and golden cities with angels sitting on clouds playing harps in the great beyond, or something in that vein.

If this your understanding of the "spiritual level", it certainly is not mine.

Now do I mean I know definitively there's nothing out there?

By your word choice of "out there", that indicates you see spirituality as something external to yourself, a sort of magical realm outside of nature and the world you know. Whereas in my use of spiritual, it means an aspect of yourself which both perceives and experiences your own being in connection with a greater whole, that transcends the world of ideas we have about things.

No, I don't obviously because the afterlife cannot be proven to exist or not exist. But can I line up evidence for no afterlife alongside evidence for an afterlife? Sure.

The evidence for no afterlife lies in science never having been able to demonstrate anything exists beyond this life.

Has science ever even tried? If so, is that actually doing what science can even look at? It's like saying science has found no evidence for God, while science itself declares that questions about God are beyond the scope of anything that science looks at. So I can't see it as a valid claim to state that science has never been able to demonstrate things like the afterlife, when they haven't even tried because it's out of scope for things that science looks at.

That's more than a misleading statement to suggest science has even weighed in on the question, when they haven't.

Now theists have to show evidence that an afterlife exists. So where's the evidence for an afterlife?

Why do they have to show evidence? It's not a question of science demonstrating objective facts, but a matter of faith. If there could be evidence for such a thing, then it's not a matter of faith at all. It would just be accepting facts.

That said however, a person may have a powerful subjective experience of something that transcends normal experiences, and that may lead them to believe there is something more to this life than just eating, pooping, having sex, and dying; something more than just mortal life in other words.

To them, that is beyond faith and is actual evidence. But it's not the sort of evidence that can be shown to others, as it is something that has to be experienced and not shown. It's still evidence however, and not just a blind faith.

Well, I just said none exists. So if you were in the center and listening to both sides, which would you as a rational thinking adult go with?

I would speak with someone who has personal experience, and listen to how they describe it. Otherwise, it's just arguing ideas based on nothing but pure speculations, for both the theist and the atheist alike.

From a scientific perspective however, one can interview multiple people who report having these sorts of experiences, and from there they can objectively map out the similar data and look at patterns. That then is more than just one person's experience. It's evaluating common experiences and creating a map or a model of similar features. That's evidence as well, and objective in that manner, and that has actually been done in a lot of these sorts of "spiritual" areas, that is not "New Age".

Christians don't realize the "believe by faith without evidence" was nothing but a con used by churchmen who had to convince pagans to accept their religion without any proof Jesus ever lived.

I disagree with this. It certainly can be exploited that way. But there is a truth to the nature of what it means to have faith as a human being. And by definition, "faith" is what we do when we don't have evidence. If you have evidence, that replaces faith. You no longer need faith when you have actual lived experience. At that point it's a realized reality.

So they turned a handicap into a virtue: "We don't have a evidence Jesus was real. But that's okay because if you believe in Jesus without any evidence that pleases God. He wants you to believe in Jesus without any evidence."

So you understand, a lot of your complaints I myself get behind. A lot of believers are shutting off their reasoning minds in order to hang on to ideas that should be challenged, on not just the basis of rational thought, but for the basis of actual legitimate spiritual faith. It's bad reason and bad religion both.

Who would fall for this ruse? No one, not even a Christian. But Christians fall for the exact same ruse when it comes to believing in Jesus. Go figure.

Believe it or not, not all Christians are fundamentalists.

 

[Windwalker]

Rubbish, believers are gullible when it comes to their anomalous experiences, as if the heavenly Gods take time out to mess with their pathetic little lives.

Your posts make me sad. I always hope for so much better. But alas, just sputum.

 

[Augustus]

how to spot trends in religions, at that time China, India, Iran did not have these religious concepts, the Mediterranean region did have saviors and similar mythology.

posted a link of a chinese myth with common elements. I think I posted another one with a trinity, maybe in this thread, maybe another one. Anyway.

Millenarian traditions featuring “dying and rising gods” existed beyond the Med.

Thus described as a high god whose power controls the key forces and patterns of life in the universe, Laozi is not a cosmic force that moves automatically and without a personal will (like the Dao or Heaven of old) but a willful and independent deity whose power lies at the root of all and whose conscious decision gave rise to creation. In other words, in the new millenarian vision of the early Daoist movements, the world is not merely an eternally ongoing process of cyclical rhythms but is something actively designed and created by a central personal deity…

Though the Han house was thus established, its last generations moved at crosspurposes to the will of the Dao. Its citizens pursued profit, and the strong fought bitterly with the weak. The Dao mourned the fate of the people, for were it once to depart, its return would be difficult. Thus did the Dao cause Heaven to bestow its pneuma, called the "newly emerged Lord Lao," to rule the people, saying, "What are demons that the people should fear them and not place faith in the Dao?" Then Lord Lao made his bestowal on Zhang Daoling, making him Celestial Master. He was most venerable and most spiritual and so was made the master of the people.

Unfortunately, since the evil ways of humanity have been too strong, there is no way to stop the coming catastrophes. Since the evil of humanity could not be rooted out, you must first pass through war, illness, flood, drought, and even death. Your life spans have been depleted, and so it is appropriate that you must come up against these things.34 However, those who follow the teachings of Laozi will live to see the formation of a new order—the era of Great Peace. Indeed, they will become "seed people" for this new era: You will see Great Peace. You will pass through the catastrophes unscathed and become the seed people of the later age…


And this, presumably, is why Laozi has appeared: humans are indeed failing to act properly and the cosmos is becoming dangerously unrefined. The Way has thus incarnated itself again as Laozi and provided us with these admonishments. If they are followed, humans will again start completing spirits to refine the cosmos and thereby once again bring order to the world. Such a reading, of course, fits in well with the millenarian claims we find elsewhere in materials from the Celestial Masters: the world is in decay, and Laozi thus descends to call on humans to work to initiate the Great Peace. The way they would do so, at least according to the Xiang'er commentary, is to complete spirits on behalf of the cosmos.
Forming Spirits for the Way: The Cosmology of the Xiang'er Commentary to the Laozi -M Puett

 

[leroy]

I would, but it is a worthless "point". You were trying to argue that the Gospels were reliable. That does not help your case at all. Can you admit that?

Yes and the fact that the authors of the gospels where *trying* to be honest and accurate , helps.....

And this makes your spiderman comparison wrong.

Quirinius that there were multiple sources on him. And especially that Josephus's coverage of him would have only been in regards to his time in Judea. Josephus focused mainly on Roman/Jewish history.

Yes perhaps you have 100 sources for quirinius, but you only have 1 soource (josephus) that places de census at 6 AC.

So we have a draw
....One source that says 4BC( luke.)
.... an other source that says 6AC (josephus)

Why are you Soooooo sure that josephus was correct and not luke ?

LOL! Maybes are not worth a hill of beans

You are the one who is afirming with certanity that joseph had no reason to travel to bethlehem.

So a single "maybe" that is plausible is enough to refute your claim

There are many reasons for why someone had to travel due to a census..... it is your burden to show that joseph had non of those reasons, you are making the claim, the burden proof is yours..... my job is to present a plausible "maybe" which I did.

. Now you are trying to make Joseph into something that he was not in the Bible. He was not a wealthy absentee landlord.

There are many indications in the gospels, that show that joseph was not poor, but rather a Middle class citizen.... so it is not unlikely that he would have atleast a small property.

But was he? How would you confirm those? You do not get to assume that he was right just because he was not shown to be wrong. For example where outside of the Bible is it recorded that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Now he may have been a historical figure. But that does not confirm that he baptized Jesus. I know of one significant claim and he was wrong in that.

Ok we can verify historically that:
1 John was a guy who made rituales that he called baptisms.

2 his farher was a man named zacariah.

3 he was I prision

4 he was killed at the order of Herodes Antipas

so we know that the authors of the gospels had those details abouth john the baptist correct....... Which shows that they where well informed

So when the authors say that:
1 john baptized a guy named Jesus
2 or that his mother was named Isabel
.... or other claims that cant be verified

We should give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the authors where correct unless proven otherwise.

In other words given that the verifiable facts tend to be correct the autjors get the benefit of the doubt with facts that cant be proven (nor disproven)

 

[Thrillobyte]

This isn't necessarily automatically true. There are many views of life one can come to when you discard a religious belief in God. Nihilism can be one option as well. Hedonism another. Wanton power seeking another. Humanitarianism another. And so forth. What you are describing is one of many options someone can choose to see life like as an atheist.

Even many theists assume the attitude you describe as well, making the most out of what time they have in this life, and not worrying about the afterlife. I'd call that a happier and healthier form of their faith, than those who see the world darkly with resentment and can't wait for it to be over.


How much do you know about other religions outside your experience with Christianity in the West, particularly American style evangelical Protestantism? Eastern religions tend to think of life in very different ways.

Who you are describing sounds more like American evangelicals. Are you sure all Christians act and talk like that, "constantly"? To me, they are the only ones I know who are constantly talking about praising Jesus in heaven forever and ever.


Yes, there are other reasons why someone chooses to see that God exists beyond what you described. Beliefs in a transcendent absolute reality can definitely not be a product of just some mere compensatory wishful thinking.

In some cases. But do you think that everyone who believes in God looks like those you describe, and believe for only that reason? What about those who don't fear death, and yet still believe? Not all of those who believe God exists, imagine that who they are in this life gets to keep on going as themselves in the next life.

Take for instance all of Hinduism and Buddhism that believe in reincarnation. Do you think they believe that they will remember who they are after they die, like those you speak about in the flavor of Christianity you draw your understanding of theism from?

I personally do not believe that they actually aren't afraid when it comes down to it. They can tell themselves they aren't afraid, but when it comes down to it, are they really willing to let go? I say the same thing about atheists too, who claim they aren't afraid to die because they are convinced there's nothing after this life.

I think they are both just trying to convince themselves by telling themselves what to believe about death, whereas facing death has a way of taking all your beliefs about things and making them nothing when you are faced with the reality of it. If what you are relying on is your ideas about it, that only takes you so far. Say what you want all your life, but when you're going to die, it'll be its own thing on its own terms as we all come face to face with the end of who we have known as "me" our whole lives. Doesn't matter if you're religious or not.


I see some value in the necessary step you have taken for yourself. But there's more to the story yet to come.

Yeah, I tried to stress in the post you are responding to that I wasn't trying to make this a black and white issue--that's its more gray with lots of nuances depending on the Christians themselves, sort of like the thought that there are as many denominations of Christianity as there are Christians, if you catch my drift. So lots of Christians are terrified of dying just like there are lots of atheists that are terrified of dying. Basically, what do atheists have to assuage their fear of dying? Nothing really. What do Christians have to assuage theirs? The belief that life will go on. That's a great comfort for Christians trying to conquer their fears. Atheists on the other hand can't be fooled intellectually by such nonsense. Consequently they have to rely on their own devices to find a way to accept the reality that once life ends nothing of the person survives.

The religion is not going to matter as much as the individual's mental and psychological makeup. Lots of Buddhists are terrified of dying and lots aren't. Same with Islamists and Hindus, but many in any religion use their personal beliefs to manage their fears depending on how strong or how weak they are mentally and psychologically. Religionists have an edge in that they can keep repeating to themselves, "I'm not afraid to die. I'm not afraid to die. My spirit will go to heaven. My spirit will go to heaven" until they brainwash themselves into believing it. Atheists have no such luxury. Best they can do is, "I'm going to die and that's the end of me. Accept it and get on with the only life I'm going to get." That may help atheists to accept reality, but again it's the mental and psychological makeup of the atheist that truly determines if they are going to die shaking like a leaf or with calm and acceptance.

If there are other reasons to accept the afterlife and heaven, then I don't know what they could be. Please tell me why it'd be so important to a Christian to believe in the afterlife outside of being terrified of dying? Comfort of believing (s)he and all his family will be reunited again, maybe. But this just goes to being terrified of losing loved ones rather than being terrified of dying. Bottom line: belief in an afterlife can usually be tied to some form of terror of losing something, otherwise why bother?

 

[Thrillobyte]

You may need to define by what you mean about the "spiritual level".

Maybe "supernatural level" is a better term.

Has science ever even tried?

Yes of course they have. Hundreds of NDE studies for one.

Why do they have to show evidence?

Of course, because they are the ones making the claim. The onus is always on the person making a claim. If a Christian says Jesus was real it's up to the Christian to prove he was. It's not the job of the atheist to prove something he doesn't believe in, but it may be the job of an atheist to prove the Christian wrong by showing there's no evidence a Jesus ever lived in order to keep the Christian from propagandizing people into joining Christianity if the atheist feels that's an immoral thing for the Christian to do.

I would speak with someone who has personal experience

I think I said that supernatural experiences don't happen, only the person's perception that they do. Example, a Christian prays and his cancer is cured. Was it the prayer, or was it just one of those rare spontaneous remissions that happens to everyone regardless of their religious bent? A Christian will give a testimony, "I prayed for my cancer to healed and it was. Hallelujah! Praise God." But ask that Christian, "What about the other 500,000 Christians who prayed and died anyway?" The Christian's response will be, I can guarantee, "Well, they weren't really Christians" or "Well, they had unconfessed sin in their lives" or "Well, they were praying for selfish reasons" or "Well, it wasn't God's will for them to be cured". You know as well as I do that Christians have a laundry list of lamebrained excuses for why they were cured and not the others. Don't waste your breath pointing to them that members of every other religion have nearly identical rates of spontaneous remission as Christianity. They won't hear you.

 

[lukethethird]

Your posts make me sad. I always hope for so much better. But alas, just sputum.

Sputum is your ideas about science and your notions of divine connections.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and the fact that the authors of the gospels where *trying* to be honest and accurate , helps.....

And this makes your spiderman comparison wrong.

No, that is an unjustified assumption of yours. And even worse, even if they were trying to be honest, and if one reads Matthew and understands it one can see that was not the case, it does not help you. You keep forgetting how quickly myths form and how long after the death of Jesus the Gospels were written.

Yes perhaps you have 100 sources for quirinius, but you only have 1 soource (josephus) that places de census at 6 AC.

So we have a draw
....One source that says 4BC( luke.)
.... an other source that says 6AC (josephus)

Why are you Soooooo sure that josephus was correct and not luke ?

Nope, and until you do your homework we are done with that argument. You lost.

You are the one who is afirming with certanity that joseph had no reason to travel to bethlehem.

So a single "maybe" that is plausible is enough to refute your claim

There are many reasons for why someone had to travel due to a census..... it is your burden to show that joseph had non of those reasons, you are making the claim, the burden proof is yours..... my job is to present a plausible "maybe" which I did.

Dude! Can you reason rationally?

There are many indications in the gospels, that show that joseph was not poor, but rather a Middle class citizen.... so it is not unlikely that he would have atleast a small property.

No. And now you are just grasping at straws. Prove that there were working class absentee landlords back then. Excuses and wild maybes are no refutations. You are still dodging your burden of proof.

Ok we can verify historically that:
1 John was a guy who made rituales that he called baptisms.

Prove it. The Bible does not count as a source.

2 his farher was a man named zacariah.

Prove it. The Bible does not count as a source.

3 he was I prision

Prove it

4 he was killed at the order of Herodes Antipas

so we know that the authors of the gospels had those details abouth john the baptist correct....... Which shows that they where well informed

You might be able to prove this one. But you will have to shoot yourself in the foot in the process.

So when the authors say that:
1 john baptized a guy named Jesus
2 or that his mother was named Isabel
.... or other claims that cant be verified

We should give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the authors where correct unless proven otherwise.

No, that is not how it works. There is no "giving the benefit of the doubt". That is your mistake. Please note, the one case that I brought up about the census of Quirinius has multiple sources and strong evidence for it. You need the same. Otherwise all you have are unjustified claims.

In other words given that the verifiable facts tend to be correct the autjors get the benefit of the doubt with facts that cant be proven (nor disproven)

No, they do not. Not when they make gross errors. You have to find a lot of evidence to make up for the known errors and you seem to have almost none. You are being inconsistent. The "benefit of the doubt" is an earned status and the Bible does not have it.

 

[Windwalker]

Sputum is your ideas about science and your notions of divine connections.

Not at all. I highly respect science. But I certainly don't respect your contentless drive-by spittings of your infected flem in lieu of anything of substance. You don't have anything intelligent to say, you don't like what was said, so you just blather about "rubbish", without adding anything intelligent to challenge.

It's the equivalent of "Nahah, you're just a stupid-head. So there, poopy pants!" It lets me know you don't have anything intelligent to counter it with. Else why would you choose such a childish response? You might take a cue from Thrillobyte, he actually addresses my points intelligently. Don't feel you're up to that though?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yet for some odd reason, atheists like to keep asserting and believing that when someone asks a hundred people to describe "God", and they all think of something somewhat different, that this must inevitably mean that gods don't really exist, or have never existed, or will never exist. And they stand on this absurd line of thought no matter who points out that it's nonsensical, or how often, or how well. They just keep on repeating this absurd line of thinking as if it were a sound argument against the existence of any gods.

Another straw man from you. Nobody else is making this point as you suggest let alone well and often. Most believers know that atheists aren't atheists because no two believers can describe the same god. That's how they can know that believers are describing their own minds and not something external. Few atheists say that gods don't exist. Most are agnostic on the matter. Nor do atheists need an argument against the existence of gods. They reject the claims about gods for the same reason they reject all other insufficiently supported claims. They're empiricists (scientism to you). They need a reason to believe, not a reason not to.

You have been told all of this before, you rarely acknowledge seeing it much less rebut it, and you have never supported your claims about these alleged behaviors with examples from the threads, but you keep making them anyway.

Whether they were telling the actual truth or not is a different issue, my point is that they were not lying, they were not making things up, but rather they reported what they thought was true.

Whether or not the Gospel writers were correct about the virgin birth, resurrection, and other miracles is the only issue - not whether they were generally knowledgeable people or honest. If they weren't correct about those things, nothing said or done by Jesus matters just because Jesus said or did it. The words become the words of yet another man that stand or fall by their merit, like those of Buddha and Aristotle - not their source.

The reason for I I trust them is because most of the verifiable claims are true

That's a reason to believe that they knew about their surroundings - their time and place - not that their stories are historical.

In over 4,423 years of religious scriptures (since 2,400 BCE), nobody has ever provided any evidence that Gods exists.

Then there's no reason to think they do.

God has chosen to remain anonymous & mysterious over the millennia.

Maybe, but there's no reason to believe that, either.

Basically anyone sincerely searching for God or Gods will find Gods spiritual presence.

Translation: if you expect to see a god, you will.

The habits of God can be seen in nature.

The habits of nature are seen when observing nature, not those of imagined gods.