There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Sgt. Pepper]

Poor John Lennon, seems he looked forward to the world being as one. Not sure he understood what heaven or hell was anyway -- but he got a few things straight in theory and vast review. Hey, have a good one.

Why would you reference John, who was shot 4 times at close range in the back and bled to death in front of his wife? Was it to get back at me for sharing a story about my friend? If so, it's a petty cheap shot. It is times like this that I do imagine a world without religion, or Christianity, to be more exact.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would you reference John Lennon, who was shot four times at close range in the back and bled to death in front of his wife? Was it to get back at me for sharing a story about my friend. If so, it is a petty cheap shot. It is times like this that I do imagine a world without religion, or Christianity to be more exact.

These are John Lennon's blood-stained glasses.

John Lennon seemed to like the idea of a peaceful world. He imagined it. Maybe he will see it someday, maybe you will see it as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Sgt. Pepper He also did not seem to understand what heaven and hell was. Maybe he'll learn. I hope so.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

John Lennon seemed to like the idea of a peaceful world. He imagined it. Maybe he will see it someday, maybe you will see it as well.

If that's what you truly meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. There have been people on this forum who have used either John or one of the other Beatles to take a pathetic cheap shot at me because they were offended by something I said to them or something I said to someone else.

@Sgt. Pepper He also did not seem to understand what heaven and hell was. Maybe he'll learn. I hope so.

I hope that John is at peace.

 

[YoursTrue]

If that's what you truly meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. There have been people on this forum who have used either John or one of the other Beatles to take a pathetic cheap shot at me because they were upset by something I said to them or something I said to someone else.



I hope that John is at peace.

Thank you. Yes, I believe John Lennon meant in that song something he learned but did not quite understand. Yes, I hope he will be resurrected, return to life. And see that peaceful world he wrote about.

 

[YoursTrue]

If that's what you truly meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. There have been people on this forum who have used either John or one of the other Beatles to take a pathetic cheap shot at me because they were offended by something I said to them or something I said to someone else.



I hope that John is at peace.

No one suffers at death. No one. Not the worst person ever alive suffers. When he's dead. The promise is a resurrection. I leave you at that for now. And really, have a good night! (If I understood everything, I'd be God I guess. But guess what? )

 

[Thrillobyte]

Ex-christian bible critic, eh? Yeah, that's pretty typical. Most bible critics that preach the anti-gospel are ex-christians. You're not wrong in what you're saying, of course. The facts are the facts. But your conclusion is exaggerated. But that makes sense, because Christianity IS in a lot ways an exaggerated religion. So, when a Christian leaves the faith, the backlash can be equally exaggerated.

It's true that historians of the era didn't write about Jesus' miracles, but, would they have written about Jesus' miracles? Is that their genre? Are you looking for cake recipes in a merck manual? And let's pretend that they would have written about them. Just because they didn't, doesn't mean the story is completely false, nor that the miracles didn't happen. It just means that the scope was exaggerated in the gospels. Even the apostles could have existed and performed miracles, but their sphere of influence could have been exaggerated. If the events were actually much smaller, involved less people, had less impact, then the historians wouldn't have written about them. And that's assuming they would have written about them at all.

So, you are taking the lack of evidence, and assuming that the historians MUST have written about it, and since they didn't then the story MUST be completely false. Or at least that's what it seems like you're saying. When, it's actually not known. Something probably happened, no one's sure what that was. But the jump to, "it's all false and fiction" is a leap not much different than the leap of faith you were familiar with when you were a Christian. Old habits die hard.

It's true that historians of the era didn't write about Jesus' miracles, but, would they have written about Jesus' miracles?

Of course they would. Picture Philo of Alexandria in Jerusalem during Jesus trial and his walk to Golgotha. According to the gospels Jesus was so famous over all Israel and Judea and even beyond into neighboring countries, he was like Donald Trump. He was a rock star. Someone that famous would have had the attention of every historian in Jerusalem at the time. Now picture this. Philo doesn't go to the crucifixion. He's heard of Jesus but hasn't paid much attention to him because doomsday prophets are not his thing. He stays home to write his chronicles. Suddenly in the middle of the day light disappears and it's like night. He goes to the window and notices the sun has disappeared, no moon either. Suddenly there's a 9. earthquake. It would have leveled Jerusalem in real life but come on, in the gospels it's not real life, it's make-believe. In make-believe 9.earthquakes happen and no buildings gets leveled. You know how they build in the Middle East in real life. In a 6. everything comes down.

Never mind, though. Philo is wondering what in the hell is going on. While he sits at his desk candle lit scribbling away about the darkness and earthquake, suddenly two zombies are standing in his room. He jumps and screams, "Who in the hell are you guys and why do you look like you just crawled out of a grave?" They reply, "Because we did. I am King David and this friend of mine is Elijah. We've come to tell you that the son of God, Jesus the Christ has just died to save you from your sins. That's the reason for all the drama."

Come on, Dymbh. You think Philo is not going to write an entire volume on this after doing extensive research??? You think every historian in the area is not going to write about all this if they are worth their salt? take a look at the list of roughly 200 historians who were alive at the time in post #44. And not a single one writes about any of this??????????

 

[dybmh]

Why not? [ Why can't prayer be tested? ]

Contrary to the belief of some, and contrary to how it is written in some places, prayer is an appeal for God's will to be done. It is not a recipe, or magic, or boiling water on the stove.

If I pray for something and it happens because I did something, or I said something, then God becomes a light switch, that I can flip on and off. That makes me the god, and God would not permit that.

Trying to "test" prayer, makes prayer into witchcraft. The participants of the study didn't really take that into account, but, they should have.

 

[Thrillobyte]

The belief in hellfire, or the idea that God would allow conscious torture of anyone is not only reprehensible but untrue. The subject came up and I responded to it.

You sure about that, True? Read Luke

"In his torment in hell, the rich man looked up and saw Abraham a long way off with Lazarus resting on his lap. So he cried out: 'Father Abraham, take pity on meand send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony here in these flames!' " See Luke 16,19-31

 

[dybmh]

Of course they would. Picture Philo of Alexandria in Jerusalem during Jesus trial and his walk to Golgotha. According to the gospels Jesus was so famous over all Israel and Judea and even beyond into neighboring countries, he was like Donald Trump. He was a rock star. Someone that famous would have had the attention of every historian in Jerusalem at the time. Now picture this. Philo doesn't go to the crucifixion. He's heard of Jesus but hasn't paid much attention to him because doomsday prophets are not his thing. He stays home to write his chronicles. Suddenly in the middle of the day light disappears and it's like night. He goes to the window and notices the sun has disappeared, no moon either. Suddenly there's a 9. earthquake. It would have leveled Jerusalem in real life but come on, in the gospels it's not real life, it's make-believe. In make-believe 9.earthquakes happen and no buildings gets leveled. You know how they build in the Middle East in real life. In a 6. everything comes down.

Never mind, though. Philo is wondering what in the hell is going on. While he sits at his desk candle lit scribbling away about the darkness and earthquake, suddenly two zombies are standing in his room. He jumps and screams, "Who in the hell are you guys and why do you look like you just crawled out of a grave?" They reply, "Because we did. I am King David and this friend of mine is Elijah. We've come to tell you that the son of God, Jesus the Christ has just died to save you from your sins. That's the reason for all the drama."

Come on, Dymbh. You think Philo is not going to write an entire volume on this after doing extensive research??? You think every historian in the area is not going to write about all this if they are worth their salt? take a look at the list of roughly 200 historians who were alive at the time in post #44. And not a single one writes about any of this??????????

Did you read what I said?

I said:

​

"It just means that the scope was exaggerated in the gospels. Even the apostles could have existed and performed miracles, but their sphere of influence could have been exaggerated. If the events were actually much smaller, involved less people, had less impact, then the historians wouldn't have written about them. And that's assuming they would have written about them at all."​

You're saying:

​

"According to the gospels Jesus was so famous over all Israel and Judea and even beyond into neighboring countries, he was like Donald Trump. He was a rock star. "​

Right! So the lack of writting by the historians indicates, he wasn't a rock star, he wasn't that famous! It doesn't mean the entire story is a lie, or that the miracles didn't happen. It just means that the scope was exaggerated. THAT, I think, is a fair moderate conclusion to make.

And now that I've read through the entire thread, I see you've shared some of your life experiences as a Christian. And I'm sorry that Christianity didn't work for you. It makes me sad to hear what some people do with Christianity. But people are people, people do what people do. That doesn't make the story completely false either. It just means that believing in Jesus is not the panacea some people make it out to be. It can be transformative. But it can also be harmful if people take it too far, just like anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course they would. Picture Philo of Alexandria in Jerusalem during Jesus trial and his walk to Golgotha. According to the gospels Jesus was so famous over all Israel and Judea and even beyond into neighboring countries, he was like Donald Trump. He was a rock star. Someone that famous would have had the attention of every historian in Jerusalem at the time. Now picture this. Philo doesn't go to the crucifixion. He's heard of Jesus but hasn't paid much attention to him because doomsday prophets are not his thing. He stays home to write his chronicles. Suddenly in the middle of the day light disappears and it's like night. He goes to the window and notices the sun has disappeared, no moon either. Suddenly there's a 9. earthquake. It would have leveled Jerusalem in real life but come on, in the gospels it's not real life, it's make-believe. In make-believe 9.earthquakes happen and no buildings gets leveled. You know how they build in the Middle East in real life. In a 6. everything comes down.

Never mind, though. Philo is wondering what in the hell is going on. While he sits at his desk candle lit scribbling away about the darkness and earthquake, suddenly two zombies are standing in his room. He jumps and screams, "Who in the hell are you guys and why do you look like you just crawled out of a grave?" They reply, "Because we did. I am King David and this friend of mine is Elijah. We've come to tell you that the son of God, Jesus the Christ has just died to save you from your sins. That's the reason for all the drama."

Come on, Dymbh. You think Philo is not going to write an entire volume on this after doing extensive research??? You think every historian in the area is not going to write about all this if they are worth their salt? take a look at the list of roughly 200 historians who were alive at the time in post #44. And not a single one writes about any of this??????????

I looked at post #44. The message of Jesus was spoken of beyond Israel only after he died. , Not everyone writes about Donald Trump. According to scripture, many wanted to shut the mouths of those proclaiming Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

You sure about that, True? Read Luke

"In his torment in hell, the rich man looked up and saw Abraham a long way off with Lazarus resting on his lap. So he cried out: 'Father Abraham, take pity on meand send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony here in these flames!' " See Luke 16,19-31

Yes, I'm sure about that. Many would like to distort that illustration, but it was a parable. I'm guaranteeing you of that. Jesus was speaking of his opposers then and how it would turn out after his death the reverse of events. I know people will argue this, but just like God did not put His stamp of approval on those sacrificing their children, He would never EVER have or allow torture of ANYONE forever in the future. Ever. No one suffers when they're dead because -- they're dead. Any statement to the contrary must be examined carefully with good sense.

 

[dybmh]

Now picture this. Philo doesn't go to the crucifixion. He's heard of Jesus but hasn't paid much attention to him because doomsday prophets are not his thing. He stays home to write his chronicles. Suddenly in the middle of the day light disappears and it's like night. He goes to the window and notices the sun has disappeared, no moon either. Suddenly there's a 9. earthquake. It would have leveled Jerusalem in real life but come on, in the gospels it's not real life, it's make-believe. In make-believe 9.earthquakes happen and no buildings gets leveled. You know how they build in the Middle East in real life. In a 6. everything comes down.

Never mind, though. Philo is wondering what in the hell is going on. While he sits at his desk candle lit scribbling away about the darkness and earthquake, suddenly two zombies are standing in his room. He jumps and screams, "Who in the hell are you guys and why do you look like you just crawled out of a grave?" They reply, "Because we did. I am King David and this friend of mine is Elijah. We've come to tell you that the son of God, Jesus the Christ has just died to save you from your sins. That's the reason for all the drama."

Ok, I'm not someone who has the gospel story memorized, but you have 3 major hard to believe events listed here. So, toss those out or reduce their scope. What's wrong with that?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Contrary to the belief of some, and contrary to how it is written in some places, prayer is an appeal for God's will to be done. It is not a recipe, or magic, or boiling water on the stove.

If I pray for something and it happens because I did something, or I said something, then God becomes a light switch, that I can flip on and off. That makes me the god, and God would not permit that.

Trying to "test" prayer, makes prayer into witchcraft. The participants of the study didn't really take that into account, but, they should have.

Really? The line in all four gospels is "If you ask the Father for ANYTHING in my name he will grant it..." I don't see anything in there about asking for God's will to be done. I only deal with the words in the promise. I don't get into all this malarkey about, "Well, what Jesus REALLY meant was..." because there are as many opinions out there about what Jesus really meant as there are Christians. That's a LOT of opinions.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Ok, I'm not someone who has the gospel story memorized, but you have 3 major hard to believe events listed here. So, toss those out or reduce their scope. What's wrong with that?

You're changing the whole trajectory of the story, that's what wrong with that. Why would the gospel writers have even included all that supernatural stuff if not to make an impression on dumb as a post pagans that Jesus was the real deal, not just another garden variety god?

 

[dybmh]

Really? The line in all four gospels is "If you ask the Father for ANYTHING in my name he will grant it..." I don't see anything in there about asking for God's will to be done. I only deal with the words in the promise. I don't get into all this malarkey about, "Well, what Jesus REALLY meant was..." because there are as many opinions out there about what Jesus really meant as there are Christians. That's a LOT of opinions.

You asked why prayer cannot be tested. What was tested was closer to witchcraft. Yes, it does talk about God's will be done. That's the Lord's P-R-A-Y-E-R.

9 So then, this is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

 

[dybmh]

You're changing the whole trajectory of the story, that's what wrong with that. Why would the gospel writers have even included all that supernatural stuff if not to make an impression on dumb as a post pagans that Jesus was the real deal, not just another garden variety god?

Well, first of all, the audience were Jews. So those things about darkness, and earthquakes, and the dead rising, are all end-time prophecies in the OT. It's not about differentiating Jesus from the pagan gods, it's about confirming him as the Jewish moshiach.

I'm not changing the trajectory of the story, I'm reducing it.

So, this is how I understand it, and, you're welcome to disagree. If the gospel writers were God fearing people, they would be fearful of misquoting Jesus and of writing a story that did not accurately represent his actions. So, what they did was collect the stories of Jesus or the Jesuses, plural, ( there could have been several ), and then collate them into the gospels. As more stories came in, the differetn gospels were written, each one adding to the previous story, or adding a different perspective. But the gospel writers would not want to fabricate something. They wouldn't want to get zapped by lightning. I'm kidding, but you get the idea.

I think Bart Ehrman speaks about this a little bit, but from a different perspective. He says something like, "If the gospel writers were fabricating a messiah, they would have made him differently. More perfect, more successful." I agree. There's things in the gospels which are natually objectionable to Jewish people, but these elements were included in spite of that. Eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood, are anti-thetical to Jews. It's an obvious deal breaker for Jewish people, but this was included because, the authors didn't want to leave out something accurate about their Lord and saviour. If they wanted to fabricate a perfect Jewish messiah, they would have left this out.

So, the authors wouldn't lie about Jesus' words or actions if they were God fearing. They would include every word and deed as accurately as they could. But! Exaggerating those supernatural events after his death? There's wiggle room there. There's also wiggle room when it comes to how many people were fed by the loaves and fishes. You see, there's loopholes that a person can employ when it comes to bending the truth about setting and scope and events after Jesus' death. But a God fearing author would not do that when it comes to what Jesus said, and what Jesus did.

That's what I think.

 

[Trailblazer]

You've missed the point. First, I receive the message myself. Then I compare notes with everyone I know and find they received the same message. Then I look on the Internet to find that millions of others have too. Are you sure you wouldn't find that persuasive?

No, I would not find it persuasive since I generally don't compare notes with others to determine what is true, but rather I think for myself.
but hey, if it works for you ......

 

[Trailblazer]

The point of the article was that NO prayers get answered that scientists could discern. They tested about 1800 patients. Divided into three groups. Two groups were prayed for. One was not. Members of one of the two groups prayed for were told they were being prayed for. The second was told they might be prayed for. There was no discernible difference in results. Some members of the group told they were being prayed for actually did worse than the others, scientists think because they felt pressure to have to prove to the scientists that they were healed. Here is a thumbnial of the study:

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - paasp network

The question whether prayer can heal illness has for years been the subject of speculation.To once and for all obtain an...

paasp.net

*Informative*

 

[Colt]

Are you a licensed therapist? Do you have the professional experience to tell others how they should or should not feel? If not, you have no right to tell me how I should or should not feel. If you are, you still have no right to tell me how I should or should not feel. You are nothing more than a stranger on the internet to me, and I couldn't care less what you think, and I certainly won't listen to you telling me how I should or shouldn't feel. I'd like to reiterate that you are barking up the wrong tree with your preaching and proselytizing. However, since you appear determined to impose your personal beliefs on me, I suppose I should point out that RF is an online forum and not a church. Nevertheless, the Christian DIR may suit you better since you seem to have such a passion for preaching. But if you want to preach about your Christian beliefs and try to convert unbelievers like myself, then I recommend finding a pulpit in a church or a street corner from which you can proclaim your Christian beliefs to your heart's content. And finally, I suggest that you focus more of your attention on that plank in your own eye instead of trying to point out the speck of dust in mine. With that said, this is my final response to you.

I've been in recovery for a long time, taking responsibility for my reactions is not pleasant to the human ego! You said you want to be angry then stay angry! That is your choice! I'm not buying into your proselytizing for the special victims unit that commiserates with each other blaming God for not being a Santa Clause!