There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Colt]

That doesn't appear to make sense.
I mean, it sounds like you just said there is no evidence backing up your claims

Atheists know that if they meet a person, that person exists. Yes. I could take a photo of said person. I could get the phone number of said person. There are actual ways to verify stuff, you know. I have actually spoken to people that appeared to have "vanished" once I turned away. But I realize that there isn't any evidence that people actually vanish into thin air and so concluding that's what happened without further investigation would be folly on my part.

When I hear extraordinary claims from a random person claiming to know things that he admittedly can't demonstrate in any way to anybody else in any way, I'm skeptical, as I think everybody should be, lest we end up believing in a bunch of things that aren't true.

It’s straight forward, there is NO objective evidence for the subjective spiritual experience!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s straight forward, there is NO objective evidence for the subjective spiritual experience!

In other words, it is no different than something that somebody made up. Thank you for clarifying that for us.

 

[lukethethird]

It’s straight forward, there is NO objective evidence for the subjective spiritual experience!

So what you are saying is that it is all in your head.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God is within, God is a subjective reality which can't be proven in a subjective way. There is no way around this.

Fine, but you're calling your own mind, which is the source of that apprehension, God. That's what's within. Why call that a god?

You mind generates several things. You recognize that your thinking comes from within as do your memories and emotions, and your mind generates creatively (imagination) as well as judges the world subjectively, as when one deems something beautiful or funny. He understands that that that is the product of his mind and not external input. The experiences of beauty and profundity can generate a spiritual response, and this is often misinterpreted as something external being experienced, but as you note, you have to look within to find these things, because we are their source.

if, Jesus suddenly appeared to you at a coffee shop and the two of you talked for an hour, answering your many questions after which he vanished, you would be unable to provide proof of the encounter to others.

Is that a problem? You shouldn't believe such a claim just because it's spoken. You can call it a reasonable claim and likely to be true, but if compelling evidence is required, testimony alone isn't enough to justify belief.

I believe that Atheists already know this fact but on forums such as this they demand proofs knowing that no proof will be forthcoming.

You say that like it's a defect. Yes, most critical thinkers here likely believe that theists will never provide convincing evidence in support of their beliefs, and the unwillingness to believe without it, which is the defense against accumulating false beliefs, accounts for the power and success of critical thinking. Look at what the alternative offers - ideas that can't be used like alchemy, creationism, and astrology.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

It’s straight forward, there is NO objective evidence for the subjective spiritual experience!

Maybe a better way to say it would be, "there is no evidence of the subjective experience that would be accepted objectively."

An example that comes to mind would be like the leading physicists who have competing theorems of how the universe started and/or will end. They each have personal evidences that back up their claim, none agree the other has it quite right.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

ideas that can't be used like alchemy,

Is just an old term for the basis of what became chemistry. There are stubborn people who hold on to old relics too long.

ideas that can't be used like creationism,

Art?

ideas that can't be used like astrology.

The term referencing the basis of what evolved into astronomy. Stubborn folks, yada yada...

 

[SkepticThinker]

It’s straight forward, there is NO objective evidence for the subjective spiritual experience!

How is that different from something that is just completely made up? How can we tell the difference?

 

[leroy]

Then you admitted to not have a valid source. You aren't too good at this, are you?

No, you did not share the source of your quote. That was a source that would enable me to buy the book. I didn't see a check to cover my costs if I wanted that book.. Perhaps that was another oversight on your part.

LMAO! Nope, once again you do not understand the burden of proof. You claimed that quote was in the bool. But your provided no means for others to check your claim. Remember?


Now you may be a bit slower than normal for you today, but how did you get that supposed quote when you do not have that book yourself? You owned up to not owning that book. That is a statement that you did not get that quote, where did your quote come from? You and I both know that it was a lying source.

the link to the source is and has always been in post 1909 from this thread.

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

I can't comment on the probability that a god exists. If one does, it is hidden. That's true. God is hidden.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again the primary source is a book,

The Resurrection of Jesus: Gerd Ludemann, Gerd Luedemann, John Bowden: 9780800627928: Amazon.com: Books

The Resurrection of Jesus [Gerd Ludemann, Gerd Luedemann, John Bowden] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Resurrection of Jesus

www.amazon.com

What else do you want?............

Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement. “[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was…

beliefmap.org

that is the source where I found the quote. (since I dont have the book)

So what is next? Are you going to call the author of a that source a Liar without any justification??????


Ok you have the links………… then what?

Are you going to refute them? Are you going to expose the reasons for why you think that creed is wrongly dated?..

No, that is not your source. You did not get that from an Amazon ad. How did you quote that from there? Are you trying to clam that you could read that much of it for free? Seriously you appear to be bravely mistaken in our claim at best, but it actually looks as if you are lying outright.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the link to the source is and has always been in post 1909 from this thread.

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

I can't comment on the probability that a god exists. If one does, it is hidden. That's true. God is hidden.

www.religiousforums.com

I had to click back more than one link. Why did you not supply this link right away?

Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement. “[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was…

beliefmap.org

It is as I said an apparently lying source. They quote mined the author. Their "quote" has all of the hallmarks of a quote mine:

Here is the "quote" as presented in that source:

' “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” '

Look at all of those gaps. We have no idea what he was actually claiming. By your standards I can now refute the Bible by simply quoting verses out of context that say "there is no God".


I will make a deal. If you are willing to admit that the Bible itself refutes the existence of God then I will accept your quote.

 

[leroy]

What specifically do you mean by "talk of resurrection?" Specific quotes please.

that first generation christians where already proclaiming the resurection that is what I mean by "talk of resurrection" The implication is that the resurrection is not a legend that developed over the years.

 

[leroy]

Why do you believe you have "multiple independent sources" for a resurrection event?

Because we have Paul + the Gospels affirming that there was a resurrection………… the alternative is that just by chance, Paul and the authors of the gospels invented the exact same miracle and the exact same lie. (which is unlikely)

 

[leroy]

I had to click back more than one link. Why did you not supply this link right away?

Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement. “[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was…

beliefmap.org

It is as I said an apparently lying source. They quote mined the author. Their "quote" has all of the hallmarks of a quote mine:

Here is the "quote" as presented in that source:

' “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” '

Look at all of those gaps. We have no idea what he was actually claiming. By your standards I can now refute the Bible by simply quoting verses out of context that say "there is no God".


I will make a deal. If you are willing to admit that the Bible itself refutes the existence of God then I will accept your quote.

It is dishonest (and pathetic) that you are accusing the author of the source for being a liar without supporting that claim

Multiple other sources have the same source (or claim the same thing) this includes Wikipedia……………so unless you want to invoke a crazy conspiracy theory

 

[lukethethird]

that first generation christians where already proclaiming the resurection that is what I mean by "talk of resurrection" The implication is that the resurrection is not a legend that developed over the years.

We only have religious texts, there are no non religious texts that tell us that there were Christians in the first century. None of these NT writings were known of or heard of until well into the second century because no one referred to any of them until well into the second century.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because we have Paul + the Gospels affirming that there was a resurrection………… the alternative is that just by chance, Pail and the authors of the gospels invented the exact same miracle and the exact same lie. (which is unlikely)

Naturally I've seen comments that Paul was not exactly on target. He suffered for his belief after he had the encounter with Jesus and explained it. And was mocked for it as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

We only have religious texts, there are no non religious texts that tell us that there were Christians in the first century. None of these NT writings were known of or heard of until well into the second century because no one referred to any of them until well into the second century.

Second century is pretty close to the first century.

 

[lukethethird]

Second century is pretty close to the first century.

Close, but no cigar.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

19th century is pretty close to the 20th century.

In the majority of the former, the first world countries did not yet have planes, trains, automobiles or electricity.

Two different worlds.

 

[leroy]

We only have religious texts, there are no non religious texts that tell us that there were Christians in the first century. None of these NT writings were known of or heard of until well into the second century because no one referred to any of them until well into the second century.

I don't see what your point is

 

[YoursTrue]

19th century is pretty close to the 20th century.

In the majority of the former, the first world countries did not yet have planes, trains, automobiles or electricity.

OK.
From what I read, Josephus was born in Jerusalem, which was a Roman province from 6 to 132 CE. He was born into a priestly family around 37 C.E. I'll stop there for a moment until I hear your comment. I try to be very careful about what I accept and so that is why I said "from what I read..." There is an interesting point about this, so hopefully we can talk about it peacefully.