To Non-Christians: What are your thoughts on Jesus and Early Christianity?

[Nietzsche]

Very well said and I believe the Age of Abrahamic religions is coming to its end and the New Age is replacing it with deeper and more satisfying teachings

You can find these words in every era, unchanged except for the language used by the individual. As much as I would like to see the end of the Abrahamic trio(despite my intense loathing of the New Age movement), I sincerely doubt you're the vanguard of some new 'thing'. Christianity isn't going anywhere, sadly. Nor is Islam or Judaism. Not in our lifetimes.

 

[Nietzsche]

No, there is none. If you go through those, they are claims about Jesus from people who never saw Jesus. In many cases, they don't even mention Jesus at all, only early Christians causing trouble. If any of that is evidence for Jesus, than the Harry Potter books are evidence for Voldemort.

There are at least two verifiable, direct references to the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth by non-Christian sources, one of them an Anatolian and the other, of course, being Tacitus.

 

[Cephus]

There are at least two verifiable, direct references to the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth by non-Christian sources, one of them an Anatolian and the other, of course, being Tacitus.

Neither of which are direct eyewitness accounts, they are relating stories that they heard and are at best hearsay.

 

[George-ananda]

You can find these words in every era, unchanged except for the language used by the individual. As much as I would like to see the end of the Abrahamic trio(despite my intense loathing of the New Age movement), I sincerely doubt you're the vanguard of some new 'thing'. Christianity isn't going anywhere, sadly. Nor is Islam or Judaism. Not in our lifetimes.

You are overstating what I said and meant. Ages are thousands of years and then end of one age overlaps the beginning of another age. In our lifetime we will just see the trend in the western world away from Christianity and towards more 'New Age' thinking. Think of the Abrahamic era like a fan. If you pull the plug the fan still spins for quite a while but a slowing down is slowly seen.

 

[George-ananda]

How do you think he proclaimed this? I presume you aren't claiming he told you directly, are you? What's the chain of communication from him to you?

Probably through oral traditions that started with Peter and others down to various written things (much lost to time) debated on by early Christians. Much of that writing exists to this day and reaches my ears.

As to how I form my opinion as to what is most likely to have occurred: I start with the works of Historical Jesus scholars: From Wikipedia

Historical Jesus
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')". It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.

This method tells us the best we can know historically and there is much agreement on some things and some differences. In my own personal opinion I consider also more modern figures who I consider spiritually enlightened.

 

[George-ananda]

Neither of which are direct eyewitness accounts, they are relating stories that they heard and are at best hearsay.

You seem to be moving the goal posts from non-Biblical mentioning to direct eyewitness written accounts.

Those were days of oral traditions. Books, education and literacy were not very developed among the average folk in the first century.

 

[Cephus]

You seem to be moving the goal posts from non-Biblical mentioning to direct eyewitness written accounts.

Those were days of oral traditions. Books, education and literacy were not very developed among the average folk in the first century.

I didn't say mentioning, I said evidence. The definition of evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Claims made in a book without any objective support are not evidence. Whether or not people were literate has no bearing on evidence. We don't relax the standards because they are difficult to achieve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Probably through oral traditions that started with Peter and others down to various written things (much lost to time) debated on by early Christians. Much of that writing exists to this day and reaches my ears.

As to how I form my opinion as to what is most likely to have occurred: I start with the works of Historical Jesus scholars: From Wikipedia

Historical Jesus
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')". It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.

This method tells us the best we can know historically and there is much agreement on some things and some differences. In my own personal opinion I consider also more modern figures who I consider spiritually enlightened.

Okay - you don't want to give a straight answer. I won't force the matter any more.

 

[George-ananda]

I didn't say mentioning, I said evidence. The definition of evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Claims made in a book without any objective support are not evidence. Whether or not people were literate has no bearing on evidence. We don't relax the standards because they are difficult to achieve.

Errr....what objective support would be expected to exist for 2,000 years beyond written words and possibly dry bones that would satisfy you?

 

[JoStories]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
• 

Neither Tacitus nor Josephus are excepted as truly credible accounts of the man known as Jesus. Both were written long after the time frame and both are at best second or third hand hearsay accounts. And trust me, the Jewish community would take great issue with saying Christ was in the Talmud or Tanahk. He is not the prophesied messiah. He fits none of the criteria.

 

[JoStories]

These things did not occur in the times of newspapers and CNN live coverage so I would not expect much corresponding documentation. Jesus' first followers were fishermen in a time were literacy and education were very limited. My best source is modern historical analysis that considers everything and tells us what is most likely. The consensus seems to be that the resurrection story was there from the earliest extant evidence.


That he had direct experiences with Jesus after His death.

Modern historical analysis does not concur that the man Jesus existed. There is a large group that thinks that he was purely allegorical and had no basis in history at all. If the man Jesus did exist, the story was made up and built by people with an obvious agenda, that being to discredit Paganism and replace it with another faith that fit what the leaders of the time wanted.

 

[JoStories]

Agreed none of those are solid, and there isn't the evidence you'd expect from someone said to have led that many people...Was just pointing out you can't say none, as there is some.

That's true but neither can you say that those sources were not fabricated to forward the Church that they wanted built. There is far too much speculation and not even hard evidence to say with any degree of credulity that Jesus actually was a man who lived and had these followers.

 

[JoStories]

Errr....what objective support would be expected to exist for 2,000 years beyond written words and possibly dry bones that would satisfy you?

If this man was truly the son of God, one would expect that God, if God is real, would be able to provide solid evidence of the son of Itself. Instead, we have conjecture and supposition and not much more. There is as much truthful evidence of Jesus as there is of Mithras, and any and all other deities that I could name. This is not to say that there is beauty in what is attributed to the man Jesus however, other higher souls have passed on as much through other vehicles, such as the Vedas and so on. You seem, and this is just my view, to be arguing in favor of Jesus and when you capitalize his name, it makes me think you are more Christian than not. IMO only.

 

[JoStories]

There are at least two verifiable, direct references to the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth by non-Christian sources, one of them an Anatolian and the other, of course, being Tacitus.

I disagree. Yes, one can infer that they mention the man known as Jesus but neither was written in the time frame to be accepted as absolute verifiable proof and both are merely second hand, sometimes third hand, hearsay anecdotal stories. Both were written well beyond the time frame to be accepted as more than that.

 

[viole]

You seem to be moving the goal posts from non-Biblical mentioning to direct eyewitness written accounts.

Those were days of oral traditions. Books, education and literacy were not very developed among the average folk in the first century.

A bit like King Arthur, isn't it?
Oral tradition that does not rationally justify beliefs in the extraordinary powers of Excalibur. Even if King Arthur existed.

Or does it justify it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Modern historical analysis does not concur that the man Jesus existed. There is a large group that thinks that he was purely allegorical and had no basis in history at all. If the man Jesus did exist, the story was made up and built by people with an obvious agenda, that being to discredit Paganism and replace it with another faith that fit what the leaders of the time wanted.

Let me quote from the article on 'Historical Jesus' on Wikipedia:

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.

 

[George-ananda]

If this man was truly the son of God, one would expect that God, if God is real, would be able to provide solid evidence of the son of Itself. Instead, we have conjecture and supposition and not much more. There is as much truthful evidence of Jesus as there is of Mithras, and any and all other deities that I could name. This is not to say that there is beauty in what is attributed to the man Jesus however, other higher souls have passed on as much through other vehicles, such as the Vedas and so on. You seem, and this is just my view, to be arguing in favor of Jesus and when you capitalize his name, it makes me think you are more Christian than not. IMO only.

I think God wants us each to find God in our hearts and not be given irrefutable physical evidence. This is the Self-Realization/Brahman-Realization taught in eastern/Indian traditions. Jesus is there to correct people's thinking and put them on the right path.

 

[George-ananda]

A bit like King Arthur, isn't it?
Oral tradition that does not rationally justify beliefs in the extraordinary powers of Excalibur. Even if King Arthur existed.

Or does it justify it?

Oral traditions must be rationally analyzed considering everything just like written traditions.

 

[viole]

Oral traditions must be rationally analyzed considering everything just like written traditions.

Yes.

Do you think that a belief in the supernatural powers of Excalibur is rationally justified, under the assumption that King Arthur was a real historical person?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

Errr....what objective support would be expected to exist for 2,000 years beyond written words and possibly dry bones that would satisfy you?

Whether or not it exists is irrelevant. If it doesn't exist, and clearly it doesn't, then people shouldn't believe these things are true and that's the point I was trying to make. Without good reason to think this is real, why would a rational person believe?