There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[PureX]

It isn't generic Daoism, but a specific millenarian movement within Daoism.

Millenarian/Chiliastic movements often emerge out of broader, less radical movements and all feature the same trope:

Evil is winning which requires a 'saviour' whose arrival (or frequently return) ushers in a utopian era.

The saviour may return from the dead, reappear from occlusion, be the living embodiment of a divine figure or even be a secular leader.

The saviour is frequently a real person, and such movements have and continue to exist all over the world, as they seem to reflect a common aspect of human psychology.

Millenarian saviours take on the characteristics of the cultures they emerge in so they may be Laotze, Jesus, the 12th Imam/Mahdi, Emperor Frederick the 2nd or Adolf Hitler.

The story of Jesus is a classical example of a millenarian saviour narrative, so much so that the name of the phenomenon derives from Christianity.

Making these stories excellent metaphors for presenting internal ideals that can heal and save humanity from the inside, out. Which is why it matters not at all whether the stories are fictional, partly fictional, or factual.

 

[joelr]

It isn't generic Daoism, but a specific millenarian movement within Daoism.

Millenarian/Chiliastic movements often emerge out of broader, less radical movements and all feature the same trope:

Evil is winning which requires a 'saviour' whose arrival (or frequently return) ushers in a utopian era.

The saviour may return from the dead, reappear from occlusion, be the living embodiment of a divine figure or even be a secular leader.

The saviour is frequently a real person, and such movements have and continue to exist all over the world, as they seem to reflect a common aspect of human psychology.

Millenarian saviours take on the characteristics of the cultures they emerge in so they may be Laotze, Jesus, the 12th Imam/Mahdi, Emperor Frederick the 2nd or Adolf Hitler.

The story of Jesus is a classical example of a millenarian saviour narrative, so much so that the name of the phenomenon derives from Christianity.

That just means they return in 1000 years. Messianic concepts (with 1000 years) may have spread to Asia from Persian thought as well -
"
Early contact between Buddhism and Zoroastrianism (from Iran and Bactria) may have influenced this belief with the addition of beliefs concerning Mithra, a deity associated with apocalyptic change, and the image of Saošyant, a divine savior who would appear on earth at the end of twelve cosmic cycles, purge the world of sin, and establish an immortal material paradise. Scholars are undecided as to the exact relation of these traditions to the development of Buddhist millenarianism and Maitreya worship."

But the Asian myth have none of the many features of Hellenistic religion or any other Persian addition. Mystery religion language is also found in Mark.
The NT is Hellenistic theology in many many ways. I covered some basics.


A millenarian savior just has to come back in 1000 years. Whereas Jesus is very similar to the deities of the Greeks, after they invaded and occupied Judea.

 

[Augustus]

That just means they return in 1000 years

Generally speaking, and despite the name, millenarianism doesn’t require that.

It has a more general usage as per my previous description.

See for example N Cohn - The pursuit of the millennium

millenarian savior just has to come back in 1000 years. Whereas Jesus is very similar to the deities of the Greeks, after they invaded and occupied Judea.

He fits perfectly into a category of millenarian saviour figures.

That one who emerged in a Judeao-Hellenic environment has the characteristics of Judeao-Hellenic divinity is exactly what we would expect if they were a human who was deified.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the authors of the gospels knew about the “surroundings” and they where trying making things up purpose, then the sources are good historical sources.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me here. It doesn't matter to me that the Gospel writers knew about their time and place enough to describe some confirmed aspects of it. I care whether or not a god with a message for man exists, and biblical scripture isn't convincing. Nor is Mormon or Baha'i scripture.

I don't try to guess how honest or knowledgeable about their world the Gospel writers were. They're like former RF participants, whose posts reporting their experiences of gods and miracles can be found in the site archives. I don't believe that they are correct, but that doesn't mean I consider them ignorant of their time and place, nor do I care if the places they say they live in or have visited actually exist, although I assume that these are real places. Still, Googling and finding them wouldn't make their supernaturalism more credible.

Nor does their degree of honesty interest me. I still don't accept their conclusions without better evidence however sincere they are.

If you have good reasons to reject the possibilities of miracles, then you can dismiss those events as events that were wrongly interpreted as miracles or just literary devises.

I don't reject the possibility of miracles. I reject the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles while alive, and then was resurrected from death after three days. I don't know that that is possible, but I have no experiment, observation, or algorithm that can demonstrate its impossibility.

Notice that we use the word possible in two ways, one to describe things it is known can happen like a life-extinguishing asteroidal impact of earth, and one describes impossible things not yet known to be impossible which certainly includes things that are actually impossible. Perhaps it's possible to travel back in time. Maybe not. We have to call it possible for now meaning not known to be impossible.

By this same reckoning, I also don't know that gods can exist. Why would they? Where would they come from? What forces would sustain and perpetuate them and where would they have come from? I do know that no god is the author or creator of its own consciousness. If a creative agent exists, it evolved from something unconscious, and is just another creation of nature (reality).

The question on whether if the miracles that Josephus report are actual or not is a question that goes beyond de scope of history as a method.

But not beyond empiricist philosophy, which doesn't only ask whether the miracles actually occurred, but rather, what evidence did they leave behind if they did occur that confirms that they did (or evidence that they didn't occur if they didn't). Right now, what we have is ancient, second-hand (or later) reports of miracles occurring, which do not convince the critical thinker. He needs a reason to believe before believing, and "not yet shown to be impossible" isn't a good enough reason for him to believe. It seems that the believer needs a reason to not believe, which is why so many say, "You can't prove gods don't exist" and seem confused or surprised by the answer, "Nor need I."

Science explores physical interactions, not existence.

Same thing. Our reality is the collection of objects and processes that [1] interact with one another [2] in space [3] over time. Anything that can do that is real, physical, exists, and is detectable through those interactions. Anything lacking any of those three qualities lacks them all, and is indistinguishable from nonexistent. If gods exist, they are causally connected to our reality meaning that they are part of it, and they are detectible empirically.

Once one accepts the idea of things existing that can't be detected even in principle, he is lost at sea - untethered from reality (empiricism). This is the very thinking you praise as enlightened, the lack of which in strict empiricists earns your rebuke ("myopic," "scientism," "materialism").

Science has nothing whatever to do with the existence of God/gods.

Empiricism is the only path to knowledge about reality. As just discussed, we can ignore discussion of anything said to be causally connected from our reality, since it is indistinguishable from and has all of the same characteristics of every other thing imagined that never existed outside of imagination - none. If you want to claim that a god exists, you'll need empiric confirmation. If you want to claim that that is impossible, then your claim is unfalsifiable, nonscientific, and "not even wrong." It's fantasy, and the ideas generated, however comforting for some, are not useful for making decisions.

theology is the branch of philosophy that's based on the proposition that God/gods exist and in a way that means something to humanity.

That's what makes theology useless to those who don't share that premise. No sound conclusion is possible absent valid reasoning applied to true premises. Maybe you've seen the arguments from one of our more prolific Baha'i, that often begin, "If God exists and wanted to communicate with us, then messengers is how he chose to do it." No argument. That's pure reason, not theology. But then the "if" disappears immediately thereafter and this message is elevated to evidence for this god as if the preceding argument weren't conditional. At that point, it becomes theology (ungrounded in empiricism), and thus useless as a source of knowledge about reality.

But you will continue to ignore these corrections and remain ignorant. Because that's what happens when one cannot control their ego, and their ego then controls them.

We see this ego stuff from you and a few other of the faithful quite a bit. But isn't it your ego that's bruised here? You want your thoughts accepted by people who reject them for lack of rigor, and you resent that, like the creationists resent being excluded from the scientific literature and the professional debate. That's YOUR ego, and why your responses are emotional and plaintive like that one. Look at how you present yourself - the frustrated knower and teacher whose students fail to learn from him because of character issues. How arrogant and egotistical is that? Your ideas are rejected because you can't support them, but your ego defends you from that by shifting the blame onto those rejecting those claims by projecting your own egotism onto others.

Making these stories excellent metaphors for presenting internal ideals that can heal and save humanity from the inside, out.

Here's another of these claims I see often, but never see defended - the great value of myth to humanity. So many praise it. Why? It does nothing for me, and when I ask others to be specific about how it has made their lives better, I get non-answers using lofty, nonspecific phrases such as eternal or spiritual truths.

 

[lukethethird]

Wrong across the board. Good job! Science explores physical interactions, not existence. Science has nothing whatever to do with the existence of God/gods. And theology is the branch of philosophy that's based on the proposition that God/gods exist and in a way that means something to humanity. But you will continue to ignore these corrections and remain ignorant. Because that's what happens when one cannot control their ego, and their ego then controls them.

What is the science behind the claim that x exists is a valid question and you don't have an answer for that. Theology is at best a medieval philosophy that is outdated but typical of people with medieval mindsets. Why not bring yourself up to date?

 

[Colt]

Sure, please present me with reasonable evidence. Which belief am I holding confirmation bias on and why? Belief in God? Yeah, there isn't evidence for any God. There is evidence it's a made up fiction.







right away with unevidenced claims? Really? Please give me reasonable evidence of a "God Fragment" that indwells in individuals and the methodology to determine it's real.






Wow, the entire field of psychology disagrees with you. As does evolutionary behavior.
so Musonius Rufus, who was as moral as Jesus, but believed in Zeus, does this show Zeus is real?

On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay (1999)

Richard Carrier Musonius » Internet Infidels

On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay (1999) Richard Carrier Since this man deserves far more publicity than he has ever gotten in the modern age, I have written this short essay. He exemplifies the sort of man who should have been venerated and made the founder of a world religion, but was not...

infidels.org

Now please present evidence that we have a spirit instead of just a mind.





No they claim to but it's something without a literal definition.


Uh, it's also because the text offers both sides on many issues. People go looking to justify a belief and find something. Meanwhile the opposite is often also justified and that is ignored.




Exactly, religion is an attempt at a moral system. Made up by people.




If someone tells you there is a God-consciousness in you then you will look for it. In reality we have many levels of consciousness and are drawing morals from many sources

This page is all over the place and they are trying really hard to say the thing that religion actually believes - that God gives people revelations and from that we learn rules and such. It sounds like they are afraid to say it because it sounds like something quite un-true. A plain reading of this is, people make up religions in an attempt to create a moral structure and other people interpret them a bit different depending on the person.

If you sincerely search for God who is spirit within then you will find the evidence that you demand others provide. Atheists hide behind demands for subjective proofs knowing full well that it can't be provided objectively.

 

[leroy]

Now you are using false equivalencies.

Added to the list of unsupported claims

 

[Subduction Zone]

Added to the list of unsupported claims

It was supported by your post. It is not my fault if you could not see it.

When you make false accusations, as you just did, you take away any burden of proof by your opponent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you sincerely search for God who is spirit within then you will find the evidence that you demand others provide. Atheists hide behind demands for subjective proofs knowing full well that it can't be provided objectively.

That is BS because countless people have done so and found nothing. You need actual evidence if you want to claim that your God is real.

 

[timothy1027]

For Christians science doesn't exist because science exposes Christianity for the fraud it is every step of the way.

Yes, also: blind faith is a SCAM!

 

[Colt]

That is BS because countless people have done so and found nothing. You need actual evidence if you want to claim that your God is real.

I don’t need evidence for the God that I already found.

Finding God requires ego deflation at depth and the birth of the spirit. One has to abandon the treasures of self love. You seem far from seeking God with a sincere heart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t need evidence for the God that I already found.

Finding God requires ego deflation at depth and the birth of the spirit. One has to abandon the treasures of self love. You seem far from seeking God with a sincere heart.

How do you know that you found him? You do realize that your version of God is quite different than that others that have found him. Do you know what you just described? You just described confirmation bias.

 

[Colt]

How do you know that you found him? You do realize that your version of God is quite different than that others that have found him. Do you know what you just described? You just described confirmation bias.

“ Religion must ever be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of your fellows who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all other men who are not thus sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing.”

“ 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


IMOP

 

[Subduction Zone]

“ Religion must ever be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of your fellows who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all other men who are not thus sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing.”

“ 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


IMOP

Weak sauce. Counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

 

[timothy1027]

Weak sauce. Counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

AKA: Cherry Picking, Propaganda, misinformation, bias, gaslighting, etc...

 

[Colt]

Weak sauce. Counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

That you don’t understand it or don’t want to understand isn’t my problem. Religion at its core is generic. It’s been a universal phenomenon around the world. Religionists in one religion may claim the only right God, Gods or no God, but that’s more an issue of theological arrogance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That you don’t understand it or don’t want to understand isn’t my problem. Religion at its core is generic. It’s been a universal phenomenon around the world. Religionists in one religion may claim the only right God, Gods or no God, but that’s more an issue of theological arrogance.

No, then you do not understand it because all you can do is to repeat old refuted nonsense and not give any valid explanation for your beliefs.

If you really knew then you could explain why you knew. Knowledge is demonstrable. All you could do was to try to shift the burden of proof and blame others when they still reasoned rationally. All you have is mere belief.

 

[timothy1027]

No, then you do not understand it because all you can do is to repeat old refuted nonsense and not give any valid explanation for your beliefs.

If you really knew then you could explain why you knew. Knowledge is demonstrable. All you could do was to try to shift the burden of proof and blame others when they still reasoned rationally. All you have is mere belief.

Modern science and Law has known for a long time that "the burden of proof" lies with the claimant NOT the challenger (those who question the claims made by a claimant). This is a VERY BASIC concept, like logic and reason.

 

[Colt]

No, then you do not understand it because all you can do is to repeat old refuted nonsense and not give any valid explanation for your beliefs.

If you really knew then you could explain why you knew. Knowledge is demonstrable. All you could do was to try to shift the burden of proof and blame others when they still reasoned rationally. All you have is mere belief.

You haven't refuted claims, rather you just restate your general ignorance of spiritual realities with belligerent denial. Religion exists universally. You may not understand it but it persists. You haven't disproven the spiritual foundation for religious devotion. “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.”

You have a motive for joining a religious forum and attempting to debunk faith. You may, need a hobby, like to argue, have an otherwise boring life, have a need to control others, nurse a personal grudge against religious peoples, or all of those things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't refuted claims, rather you just restate your general ignorance of spiritual realities with belligerent denial. Religion exists universally. You may not understand it but it persists. You haven't disproven the spiritual foundation for religious devotion. “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.”

You have a motive for joining a religious forum and attempting to debunk faith. You may, need a hobby, like to argue, have an otherwise boring life, have a need to control others, nurse a personal grudge against religious peoples, or all of those things.

Did I say that I was the one that refuted your claims? I have refuted some of them. But all of your poor arguments have been refuted here.

And you are quite wrong. I only oppose those that abuse faith here. Religion can have a place here. I oppose religion that causes people to harm others.