There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[nPeace]

Because you only believe what you have been told to believe by your religious leaders. Religious beliefs require no thought whatsoever, justs parrots in an echo chamber.

That's a very slanderous statement to make.
How would you like someone to say you only believe what those friends you want to keep company, fills your head with?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Apparently not, Jesus taught a handful of leaders and teachers to carry the message to the 4 corners of the earth. On evolutionary world things take time.

Jesus appeared to 500 people before he ascended according to Paul. Jesus clearly didn't have a problem with appearing to people outside his apostles circle. In that case, Jesus could have appeared to to the Roman Senate and converted the entire Roman empire in a single day as word got around. Why didn't he?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Well that confirms my earlier statements, doesn't it?
When the majority of scholars accept something you don't like, they are blind - covering their eyes from seeing what's plain as day to other scholars, such as... what's his name... Richard Carrie.
When the majority of scholars accept something you like, they are gods - full of all wisdom and knowledge, in all inerrancy - infallible. While the others can go fly a kite.

That's it then. Nothing more to say than what's already been said.

The text is hearsay. Tacitus is not telling us where or who he heard it from. True or False?

 

[Windwalker]

There are many differences here. Buddha never claimed to be a supernatual being with supernatural teachings. His teachings are pragmatic and self-focused.

There are of course differences, just as there are differences between four types of yogas in Hinduism; Bhakti yoga, or the path of devotion and love; Karma yoga, or the path of selfless service; Jnana yoga or the path self-knowledge; and Raja yoga, or the path of meditation clearing obstacles of the mind. At the same time, they are taking you to the same destination through different paths.

But there are also direct comparisons to teachings as I pointed out. For one thing, they do both teach a path to personal transformation to realize Enlightenment, and the things of those paths are very similar.

Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you". "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself"

Jesus: "If anyone strike you on the cheek, turn to him the other also"
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand... you should abandon all desires and utter no evil words".

Jesus: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who abuse you. For anyone who takes away you coat, do not withhold even your shirt."
Buddha: "Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by being good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

There are other direct comparisons to the types of teaching and the similarities of the path to Awakening, or Enlightenment, or Salvation (all the same thing in how I see it), that are referenced here: New book looks at parallel sayings of Jesus, Buddha.

Now regarding my views of how these exist in such striking similarities is expressed in that article. I do not see it as cultural borrowing, but rather the same Realization from the same Source:

A more likely explanation, Borg said, is that the similarity in their sayings mirrors the similarities in their experiences. The Buddha, after a six-year religious quest, had an enlightenment experience under the Bo tree; Jesus' quest led him to the wilderness and his spiritual mentor, John the Baptist. Both began renewal movements within their respective, inherited religious traditions - Hinduism and Judaism. And both were given an exalted, even divine status by the communities which grew up around them.​

​

"The similarities of their wisdom teaching may flow out of the similarity of their religious experience," Borg said.​

There are of course differences too, as you point out. And that to me underscores the legitimacy of each teacher. You would expect differences as they were in different times, different cultures, and different people. But the fact the Way taught, the Dharma is very similar speaks of the inherent, eternal or timeless Truth. These also parallel in Taoism and Hinduism as well, along with their own unique differences due to their historical and cultural contexts.

Christinsity doesn't always focus on what jesus taught and focus more on the benefits that involve the church, namely giving them money, and the believer is assured of salvation.

Indeed this is true. But Christianity is not Jesus, nor does it do well in actually understanding or following what he taught. Take Republican Jesus for instance, who hates the poor, shuns the immigrant, etc. Is that the Jesus of the gospels either? Christianity is not the Christ, by any stretch.

Will the Christian learn how to introspect and be aware of right action as a virtue?

That depends on their individual paths. Someone recently asked me what it was that makes some people interested in growing spirituality or opening to that in their lives, versus those who really don't think much about it (and I'll include there the throngs who actually go to church every Sunday and call themselves Christians). My answer to her was simple: trauma.

Meaning, something has to shake people loose to realize that all these other cultural and social substitutes, which includes religion itself, are not giving them that deeper spiritual connection to themselves, the world, and others. Otherwise, it's easier and safer to just be 'comfortable' with what just keeps them from avoiding the terror of deep self-introspection.

So will the Christian ever learn how to do that? It all depends. But that also holds just as true for the Buddhist, or the Hindu, or the Jew, or anyone else in any religion who doesn't actually enter into those the deeper places where we all have to meet and confront the Devil and pass through to Liberation.

We are all aware of how Christians fall way short of basic human decency, yet they claim being saved from hell.

Yes, I agree. Claiming religion can be what Buddhists call the "near enemy" as opposed to the far enemy. The far enemy is the obvious exact opposite of the thing desired, such as compassion vs. indifference or callousness. But the near enemy masquerades itself as the desired quality and allows you to deceive yourself that you're doing well, when you are actually not at all.

Being religious can be used to tell yourself you're a good person, while on the inside, your still full of rot and having done anything at all to clean house. "Whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones" is how Jesus put it, and is a perfect example of religiosity being the near enemy of Enlightenment or Salvation.

There are many things I agree with what Jesus taught, and am more Christ-like than many fervent Christians. What is their response? I'm damned for not believing in an absurd story.

Welcome to the club, brother.

Some of the Dharmic paths do seem to promote a more positive attitude, or attitude adjustments. I think that can come to those who reflect on their own thoughts and actions. I've not really found much use for them. I'm probably more cynical than I should be but I am managing.

Yes, I sense in you some possible hangover from your Christian days? BTW, I said of myself recently to someone to describe my views as a "Dharmically informed Chrsitian", just playing with that language. But again, I still don't care to identify with any religion, Buddhism or Christianity, but Christianity is where I had the bulk of my religious training. I see myself as more trans-religion at this point.

I went through my "dark night of the soul" many years ago, and now I see my life as enjoying less drama, more stability, and more clear understanding of how things are. The ego wants meaning, and dogma is attractive to it. To my mind many believers approach their spiritual experiences as taking on loads of beliefs and practices/rituals, and does this really bring out an awareness and clarity for them? Or does it burden the believer with layers of concepts that define an ego like a cloak that suffocates the soul?

I'm agreeing with all of this.

In my experience I see spiritual evolution more fulfilling if the mind strips away the layers of dogma, and lets the soul breathe and experience, and experience free of loads of assumptions that tries to drag the mind with it.

Indeed yes. My favorite quote comes from the 14th century Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. "I pray God make me free of God so that I may know God in God's unconditioned being". This is known as the apophatic approach where we let go of all our conceptions of what God or Truth or reality is, and just let it simply arise of its own unfiltered by our minds trying to fit everything into the containers of our mental constructs. That opens us to see Reality as it is.

I think many belkievers see the struggle and burden of maintaining belief for the sake of ego as the spiritual path, but it's really just hard labor that offers little to the life as a content person.

You and I do tend to see much the same in a lot of ways.

 

[nPeace]

The text is hearsay. Tacitus is not telling us where or who he heard it from. True or False?

I don't see how that question is relevant to the OP.
What does that have to do with what Tacitus wrote?
Are you suggesting we can decide whatever we want to assume is the source of his knowledge, and that makes it fine?

 

[Augustus]

The text is hearsay. Tacitus is not telling us where or who he heard it from. True or False?

False.

We don't know where the information is from, so why assume it is hearsay?

Senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus would have had access to Roman archives, and ancient historians didn't follow modern citation conventions so it's silly to dismiss anything that doesn't reference sources.

As such, by the standards of the day, it's pretty good evidence for a human Jesus, not proof, but decent evidence.

 

[Colt]

Jesus appeared to 500 people before he ascended according to Paul. Jesus clearly didn't have a problem with appearing to people outside his apostles circle. In that case, Jesus could have appeared to to the Roman Senate and converted the entire Roman empire in a single day as word got around. Why didn't he?

Jesus appeared to believers, but even some who witnessed his miracles fell away. But lets suppose Jesus appeared before the senate, gave a sermon and then vanished? Believers would still need to seek his teachings in spirit on order to be lead by the spirit. After the resurrection people didn't believe the reports, the apostles didn't initially believe the reports.

 

[nPeace]

Jesus appeared to 500 people before he ascended according to Paul. Jesus clearly didn't have a problem with appearing to people outside his apostles circle. In that case, Jesus could have appeared to to the Roman Senate and converted the entire Roman empire in a single day as word got around. Why didn't he?

Those were 500 disciples @Thrillobyte.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Is logic missing from the 4 billion chrisians who believe that Jesus physically rose from the grave? Hahaha

So what? Millions of Muslims around the world adhere to Islam and believe in the words of their prophet Muhammad. Does this mean that Islam is as credible a religion to Christians as Christianity is? Just because a large number of people believe in a religion doesn't make it true. In fact, this type of argument is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Speaking of Christianity, millions of Christians are Mormons, and a lot of other Christians don't consider them to be true Christians. There are millions of Catholics whom many Protestants don't believe are true Christians either, and vice versa.

The point I'm trying to make is that Christianity is heavily divided because Christians typically believe and adhere to very different biblical interpretations and church doctrines, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Some Christians believe that a person's eternal salvation is conditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Some Christians believe that a person's eternal salvation is unconditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Yet other devout Christians believe that baptism or speaking in tongues is required for eternal salvation in Jesus Christ, and they will also quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Furthermore, questions about how to properly baptize believers (fully immersed in water or sprinkled with water), whether it is biblical for women to be pastors, and about the alleged end times (pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation, and the rapture of Christians) would elicit the same derision among Christians. Not to mention all the Christian churches staking their claim as the "true church" in Christianity and implying that Christians in other churches are obviously wrong in their preferred theology and biblical interpretation.

The fact is, Christians hardly ever agree with each other over biblical interpretation or church doctrine and dogma, let alone on salvation and eternal life, proper baptism (fully immersed in water vs. sprinkled with water), speaking in tongues, the end times, female pastors, and the persistent dispute over which Christians are "true Christians" and which ones aren't (for example, Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and what are their beliefs?). The list goes on.

If you ask a diverse group of Christians the same theological question, you'll get different answers, and they will all use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are quite different. My point is that we have all these Christians who believe that they are correct in their theology and other Christians are wrong in theirs. It's obvious to me that Christians can't all be correct when their beliefs are contrary to each other. Therefore, I think it's ridiculous for any Christian to claim that their biblical interpretation and theology are correct while insisting that other Christians are wrong, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that Christianity is the only true religion in the world. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, that Christians apparently expect non-Christians to accept the Bible as divinely inspired and the final authority on moral and theological matters, yet they continuously argue about what the Bible teaches.

 

[Colt]

So what? Millions of Muslims around the world adhere to Islam and believe in the words of their prophet Muhammad. Does this mean that Islam is as credible a religion to Christians as Christianity is? Just because a large number of people believe in a religion doesn't make it true. In fact, this type of argument is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Speaking of Christianity, millions of Christians are Mormons, and a lot of other Christians don't consider them to be true Christians. There are millions of Catholics whom many Protestants don't believe are true Christians either, and vice versa.

The point I'm trying to make is that Christianity is heavily divided because Christians typically believe and adhere to very different biblical interpretations and church doctrines, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Some Christians believe that a person's eternal salvation is conditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Some Christians believe that a person's eternal salvation is unconditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Yet other devout Christians believe that baptism or speaking in tongues is required for eternal salvation in Jesus Christ, and they will also quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Furthermore, questions about how to properly baptize believers (fully immersed in water or sprinkled with water), whether it is biblical for women to be pastors, and about the alleged end times (pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation, and the rapture of Christians) would elicit the same derision among Christians. Not to mention all the Christian churches staking their claim as the "true church" in Christianity and implying that Christians in other churches are obviously wrong in their preferred theology and biblical interpretation.

The fact is, Christians hardly ever agree with each other over biblical interpretation or church doctrine and dogma, let alone on salvation and eternal life, proper baptism (fully immersed in water vs. sprinkled with water), speaking in tongues, the end times, female pastors, and the persistent dispute over which Christians are "true Christians" and which ones aren't (for example, Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and what are their beliefs?). The list goes on.

If you ask a diverse group of Christians the same theological question, you'll get different answers, and they will all use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are quite different. My point is that we have all these Christians who believe that they are correct in their theology and other Christians are wrong in theirs. It's obvious to me that Christians can't all be correct when their beliefs are contrary to each other. Therefore, I think it's ridiculous for any Christian to claim that their biblical interpretation and theology are correct while insisting that other Christians are wrong, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that Christianity is the only true religion in the world. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, that Christians apparently expect non-Christians to accept the Bible as divinely inspired and the final authority on moral and theological matters, yet they continuously argue about what the Bible teaches.

Muslims who search for Allah with a whole heart find the father of Jesus and that works just fine.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Jesus appeared to 500 people before he ascended according to Paul. Jesus clearly didn't have a problem with appearing to people outside his apostles circle. In that case, Jesus could have appeared to to the Roman Senate and converted the entire Roman empire in a single day as word got around. Why didn't he?

Your statement sort of reminds me of Donald Trump standing before his faithful followers and telling them that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, and they believed him without question, despite all of the proven evidence otherwise (such as the 60+ failed lawsuits to overturn the election, which includes a SCOTUS case), and then his followers went back home and began to spread this lie of a stolen election to other Trump followers who weren't present and to anyone else who would listen. And now, to this very day, there are thousands of faithful Trump supporters who still genuinely believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Not to mention the fact that thousands of these easily influenced people believed in this lie so much that they violently stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempted coup to overturn the presidential election results in Trump's favor. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of people in this world who will typically believe anything if they can be persuaded in their own minds that what they are told is the absolute truth, even though their sincere beliefs have been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong and misleading.

 

[Jimmy]

So what? Millions of Muslims around the world adhere to Islam and believe in the words of their prophet Muhammad. Does this mean that Islam is as credible a religion to Christians as Christianity is? Just because a large number of people believe in a religion doesn't make it true. In fact, this type of argument is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Speaking of Christianity, millions of Christians are Mormons, and a lot of other Christians don't consider them to be true Christians. There are millions of Catholics whom many Protestants don't believe are true Christians either, and vice versa.

The point I'm trying to make is that Christianity is heavily divided because Christians typically believe and adhere to very different biblical interpretations and church doctrines, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Some Christians believe that a person's eternal salvation is conditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Some Christians believe that a person's eternal salvation is unconditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Yet other devout Christians believe that baptism or speaking in tongues is required for eternal salvation in Jesus Christ, and they will also quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief while ignoring the other scriptures that contradict it. Furthermore, questions about how to properly baptize believers (fully immersed in water or sprinkled with water), whether it is biblical for women to be pastors, and about the alleged end times (pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation, and the rapture of Christians) would elicit the same derision among Christians. Not to mention all the Christian churches staking their claim as the "true church" in Christianity and implying that Christians in other churches are obviously wrong in their preferred theology and biblical interpretation.

The fact is, Christians hardly ever agree with each other over biblical interpretation or church doctrine and dogma, let alone on salvation and eternal life, proper baptism (fully immersed in water vs. sprinkled with water), speaking in tongues, the end times, female pastors, and the persistent dispute over which Christians are "true Christians" and which ones aren't (for example, Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and what are their beliefs?). The list goes on.

If you ask a diverse group of Christians the same theological question, you'll get different answers, and they will all use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are quite different. My point is that we have all these Christians who believe that they are correct in their theology and other Christians are wrong in theirs. It's obvious to me that Christians can't all be correct when their beliefs are contrary to each other. Therefore, I think it's ridiculous for any Christian to claim that their biblical interpretation and theology are correct while insisting that other Christians are wrong, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that Christianity is the only true religion in the world. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, that Christians apparently expect non-Christians to accept the Bible as divinely inspired and the final authority on moral and theological matters, yet they continuously argue about what the Bible teaches.

Most believe in the physical resurrection so your rant is irrelevant

 

[F1fan]

Not Christians. "Christians", yes.

Let me guess, you are a Christian, but not a "Christian".

Can you explain the difference for us? And how do "Christians" not realize they aren't Christian?

In the end, you will see what you don't currently want to.

So you are clarvoyant and can see my future? That sounds rather creepy, and almost as if you believe yourself God-like. Any chance you could be mistaken?

 

[RestlessSoul]

At the time, I thought there was something there. Now I think the most likely explanation was that it was all dreamed up in my mind. I've had these strange "brain farts" at other times. The human mind is a mysterious thing. The problem with treating these experiences as real is that they do "slip away", but before they do thay can lead you to places you don't want to be.

I'll give another example. I couldn't sleep for night after night because I had a problem at work that I couldn't solve, and the pressure to do so was getting stronger and stronger. Then, in the early hours of one morning, I woke with the solution in my mind. I slipped into a dreamless sleep. When I awoke in the morning I examined this solution and realized that it was totally incorrect. My brain had fooled itself into believing I had the answer so it could get the sleep it desperately needed.

Sounds like your unconscious mind knew what your conscious mind didn’t; that the answer to every problem arises in it’s own time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why? It is an excellent question, ...

Sure ... right up there with the ever popular: If evolution is true why are there still monkeys?

 

[Thrillobyte]

False.

We don't know where the information is from, so why assume it is hearsay?

Senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus would have had access to Roman archives, and ancient historians didn't follow modern citation conventions so it's silly to dismiss anything that doesn't reference sources.

As such, by the standards of the day, it's pretty good evidence for a human Jesus, not proof, but decent evidence.

If you don't know what hearsay is, then there's no point discussing it with you. But just for your education:

hear·say
"information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"

 

[Thrillobyte]

Those were 500 disciples @Thrillobyte.

Where in hell did you get that?

 

[dybmh]

Right, you're talking about things not known to exist.

No...... the gospel story exists. That's what we were talking about. YOU want to change the subject, because you clearly made a claim about mythical similariaites and you heard rumors about experts, and YOU believed them without applying any critical thinking at all.

Yet those are known to exist, too, unlike any supernatural beings.

Again. The topic is the gospel story.

So asking a child about Santa Claus means the adult assumes Santa exists? No. Critical thinkers can ask any question to a believer and not assume what the believer does.

Yes, if the Child says, "How does Santa visit all those houses in one night?" The answer does not need to prove that santa exists.

If a so-called critical thinker asks, "How can God be omnibenevolent if suffering exists?" then the answer does not need to prove that God exists.

The question has assumed that God exists. If the so-called critical thinker changes the subject mid-answer to "Well, how do I know that God exists anyway?" That is shifting the goal post.

Kind of like you're doing here.

You claimed there are mythical similarities, have not produced any. You say you heard from experts, but have not produced any names from memory. The actual truth is you probably heard that experts say ( a rumor ), you have ZERO details, but you have FAITH that it's true. No critical thinking was activated at all. None.

 

[dybmh]

How would one do that? The problem is much more likely to be with the rioters.

How? By going into a mosque and burning a koran. Or, by lecturing a group of school-children about atheism during math class.

Yes, there's a problem with the rioters, but there's also a problem inciting a riot.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Most believe in the physical resurrection so your rant is irrelevant

What about the Christians who don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Once again, just because a large number of people believe in something doesn't make it true. And I think I made my point clear in my other post: Christians believe all sorts of different things about the Bible. So, which ones are right?

Christians hold many views on Jesus’ resurrection

Resurrection did not happen, say quarter of Christians