There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Alien826]

I suppose God could do that if God wanted to do that but how do you think that 'everyone' could compare notes in order to validate the fact that the messages came from one source?

Easy. I talk to my SO. She tells me she heard the same thing. We talk to our neighbors, they all agree. We look on the internet. Lots of people are posting the same thing. The media gets hold of it. It's now all over the news. Now just about everybody is talking about it. It's spreading like wildfire. It becomes obvious that everyone agrees about the what the message was, as nobody reports that they heard something different.

 

[Thrillobyte]

There is a major caveat here. It is that the early Christians were very different from the groups and sects that emerged from that time on. That was already foretold as well. People today may claim they are Christian, and may say they all blend in with the various sects, but that is hardly the truth. Otherwise, you wouldn't have so-called Christian killling another so-called Christian in political and national wars over the centuries. As well as religious leaders persecuting others. Therefore, not all claiming to be followers of Christ are really true followers. As Jesus said, the road is narrow and few would find it, while many would be on the broad road leading to -- destruction.
Matthew 7:13,14 - “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it."

If God loves his children so much then I'd think it's HIS responsibility to get all the sheep through the narrow gate. If God is not capable of accomplishing this then I'd say he's a pretty crappy God, wouldn't you think? Do I allow my 3 YO son to fix his own meals? Do I say to him, "Son narrow is the path that leads to the fridge where all the goodies are kept and few be the 3 YO's that find it. But wide is the path that leads to the outdoor pool where many 3 YO's go to their destruction." Wouldn't I be a pretty crappy father if that was my attitude toward my child?

 

[Alien826]

Say we assume for the sake of argument this is true. How do you explain how Christianity survived, persisted and even thrived to the present, and has now has a billion followers?

Religions tend to take on a life of their own.

Christianity has survived. So has Mormonism, despite its obvious flaws. Scientology still continues, despite the fact that its founder freely admitted that he started it to make money.

My feeling is that once religions reach a certain critical mass, they are taken over by people that see it as an opportunity to gain control over others and enrich themselves. Consider the Catholic church as a perfect example.

 

[Trailblazer]

Easy. I talk to my SO. She tells me she heard the same thing. We talk to our neighbors, they all agree. We look on the internet. Lots of people are posting the same thing. The media gets hold of it. It's now all over the news. Now just about everybody is talking about it. It's spreading like wildfire. It becomes obvious that everyone agrees about the what the message was, as nobody reports that they heard something different.

Mr. Optimistic.

 

[Windwalker]

Most Christians would enter that state of denialism Windwalker spoke about if they were confronted with the truth. The cannot admit to themselves that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was a myth because their carefully designed world revolving around Jesus, their church fellowship and their belief in being happy with Jesus in heaven would completely crumble. Their psyche would be so damaged it would destroy them.

How are you saying this? I know plenty of Christians who don't believe the stories in the Bible are all literally true, and that things like walking on water and such are symbolic in nature and not literal. I sense that you are speaking of fundamentalist, evangelical literalists, and not mainline Christians. "Bible believers" are a different breed from mainline Christians.

As I said before, the 'true believer' is one who actually has the weakest faith. They rely on their ideas about what God is, or their 'beliefs', as opposed to their faith of their hearts. Someone with faith is has a lot easier of a time with letting their beliefs change than someone without faith. Those people have nothing but their beliefs, and so they'd better be right, otherwise it's all wrong. I've often said of the most ardent 'true believer' that they are just one failed belief away from becoming an atheist. Their beliefs are stretched so tightly it just takes a little pinprick for it to snap and then they become an evangelist for anti-theism.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God loves his children so much then I'd think it's HIS responsibility to get all the sheep through the narrow gate. If God is not capable of accomplishing this then I'd say he's a pretty crappy God, wouldn't you think? Do I allow my 3 YO son to fix his own meals? Do I say to him, "Son narrow is the path that leads to the fridge where all the goodies are kept and few be the 3 YO's that find it. But wide is the path that leads to the outdoor pool where many 3 YO's go to their destruction." Wouldn't I be a pretty crappy father if that was my attitude toward my child?

First, to compare God to a human father is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human being.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

Secondly, it is not God's responsibility to see to it that grown adults get through the narrow gate. If they want to get through it there are requirements, there is no free pass.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.​

There are reasons why few people find it.
Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, isn't secular an ideology as well? Why is it 'secular'? I prefer the terms "spiritual but not religious", but that does not mean secular. Secular typical means, "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." When I say it transcends beliefs, that includes secularism, and atheism. All of those including religion are cognitive, mental beliefs. Secular is non-spiritual. What I am talking about, what that article was talking is more clearly spiritual in nature. But that is experiential, not belief-based.

That is what I mean. I've found non-spiritual ways of experiencing the benefits which I'd suspect are normally thought exclusive to spiritual pursuits.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is what I mean. I've found non-spiritual ways of experiencing the benefits which I'd suspect are normally thought exclusive to spiritual pursuits.

Yeah, but it is not hard natural science.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, but it is not hard natural science.

It is hard natural science which makes the process explainable.
The problem is only causality which is unique to my mind.
The problem for science is the diversity of minds.

So what you are looking for and what causes it is unique because the physical structure of your mind is unique.
The how is known, the "what" makes your reality subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is hard natural science which makes the process explainable.
The problem is only causality which is unique to my mind.
The problem for science is the diversity of minds.

So what you are looking for and what causes it is unique because the physical structure of your mind is unique.
The how is known, the "what" makes your reality subjective.

Yeah, but explaining how it works is not the same as how to do it.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, but explaining how it works is not the same as how to do it.

If/when they figure out how, it will be too late for you or I.

So God is the only hope.
As an atheist, a hope I am without.

My brain structure won't let me believe.

 

[Colt]

Yeah.

I see that as a rationalization. There's this ultra powerful being that made the whole universe and will one day judge us according to our actions on Earth. But there is no obvious evidence to validate the existence of this being or what the heck it wants from us, just a confused muddle of scriptural writings that often contradict each other. How can it be that we don't clearly experience this amazing being?

Answer: Well, um, yes I see the problem. Nevertheless I have to cling to the original premises. So, um, what's the answer? Of course! God doesn't want us to have evidence, as he values a lucky guess higher than intelligent reasoning. Yes, that'll do. Next question?

As free will beings we have to want to know God to be lead by him. We don’t have to be religious against our will. Plenty of people who were once loyal to God turned their backs on the Universal Father, usually because he didn’t play the role of a Santa Clause like deity!

If you truly want to know God then the evidence will be provided. If you were born of the spirit you would still be just as unable to prove your experience with others.

Suppose God stooped to our demands to prove himself without a doubt, like suddenly appeared in human form to have coffee with us. We chatted for a couple of hours then he left? Going forward you would still need to be lead in spirit and you would be just as unable to prove your experience with God to others.

 

[joelr]

I find that Josephus referenced the early Christian cult and not Christ himself who obviously was a fabrication or a greatly embellished figure.

I find it more plausible that Jesus was an unusual Roman invention posed by the research by Atwill as a measure to appease resistance movements at the time.

Referred to as Ceasars Messiah.

Historians really go hard on that book, it's full of errors and made up facts.

You might want to read this by a Jesus historian:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

 

[Yerda]

I have already said more than once that I do not dispute his existence. I can understand why some do. I merely pointed out the relatively poor evidence for his existence. As to why old "scholars" believe it is because they were already believers. At that time they did not allow input from nonbelievers which actually hurts the credibility of those beliefs.

Ah, ok. Fair enough. Just as a note, the "scholars of antiquity" wasn't a reference to scholars from antiquity but modern scholars who study ancient time periods.

 

[osgart]

I would not say that is the case.
As seen in the Gospels, the followers of Christ all went by evidence - evidence from what Jesus said, and did, and based on the scriptures they had, which told them what to look for (the Messiah).
Even Thomas did not believe until he saw evidence.
You know this.

No Christian ever believes without evidence.
Hence why Christians will always point to the timeless superior wisdom found in the Bible, its reliability where history, and prophecy are concerned; It's power to change lives for the better - something man fails to achieve, no matter how hard they try, and many other things, we can mention.
That's quite a lot of objective evidence.

In fact, many persons, because of seeing that evidence, have changed from arms and drug-dealers; violent protesters and militants; atheists and skeptics... you name it, to being lamblike Christians.
Even prison guards who engaged in torturing prisoners were moved by the evidence that people of all tribes, races and nations can be united as one international brotherhood in love, and beat their sword into plowshares, and spears into pruning shares.

Certainly, those who claim that evidence and reason are not what Christians hold to, are simply... either greatly mistaken, or are trying to paint Christians as irrational and gullible. Something far from the truth.
I hope, in this case, it's the former.

The literal events of the Bible did not happen. They are stories invented to teach a human perspective on a God, and his judgment, and condemnation. There's very little useful wisdom.
And I see no genuine love in it.

 

[SDavis]

No, Paul never met with Jesus. He claimed to have met with his "brother" James. Moreover, Paul's ministry was opposed by Peter, who wanted Christians, including gentiles, to adhere to traditional Jewish customs such as a kosher diet and circumcision. Paul felt that his followers did not need to adhere to those traditions. The advantage of Peter's viewpoint would have been that the Christians could have promoted themselves as an officially sanctioned branch of Judaism, rather than a banned cult, in the eyes of Roman law. However, Paul's version was more popular among non-Jews and Hellenized Jews, so that may be why it prevailed in the long run. It was better adapted to the lifestyles of non-Jews.

I guess some people actually feel that to meet Jesus you have to physically see him.
Jesus stopped Paul on his way to Damascus and commissioned him.
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 9:1-22 - New King James Version .

 

[SDavis]

Which Jesus, the ordinary man or the divine son of God? Scholars agree on the first. They do NOT acknowledge the latter.

Which Jesus? That's a good one .

Jesus was never an ordinary man.

Scholars do not agree on the 1st - they are in debate - have always been in debate - and will always be in debate.

Christological argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Man or God? Scholars Again Debate the Divinity of Jesus

At the center of the Christian faith stands a perplexing event--a human named Jesus of Nazareth becomes a living embodiment of God. How could this happen?

www.publishersweekly.com

The disagreements on who Jesus was and his divinity is one of a few reasons why we have so many different denominations in Christianity.

HISTORICAL JESUS AND THE SCHOLARS THAT HAVE STUDIED AND DEBATED THE TOPIC | Facts and Details

factsanddetails.com

 

[PearlSeeker]

Most Christians would enter that state of denialism Windwalker spoke about if they were confronted with the truth. The cannot admit to themselves that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was a myth because their carefully designed world revolving around Jesus, their church fellowship and their belief in being happy with Jesus in heaven would completely crumble. Their psyche would be so damaged it would destroy them.

I went through this and it was difficult but luckily it didn't destroy me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Surely we can break exceed 200 posts.)

 

[Thrillobyte]

Which Jesus? That's a good one .

Jesus was never an ordinary man.

Scholars do not agree on the 1st - they are in debate - have always been in debate - and will always be in debate.

Christological argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Man or God? Scholars Again Debate the Divinity of Jesus

At the center of the Christian faith stands a perplexing event--a human named Jesus of Nazareth becomes a living embodiment of God. How could this happen?

www.publishersweekly.com

The disagreements on who Jesus was and his divinity is one of a few reasons why we have so many different denominations in Christianity.

HISTORICAL JESUS AND THE SCHOLARS THAT HAVE STUDIED AND DEBATED THE TOPIC | Facts and Details

factsanddetails.com

Here's what scholars think: nearly all believe there had to be an ordinary man who was a wise sage or rabbi who was crucified by the Romans for who knows what--could have been sedition against Rome ala Reza Aslan or maybe trying to convert the Roman soldiers to Jewish ,or how do we explain the presence of Christianity. There isn't a single historical entry for this man but we just assume his existence out of common sense.

There isn't a single secular scholar outside the Christian camp who even remotely believes this ordinary man was actually the divine son of God sent to earth by Yahweh to be born of a virgin who died for our sins and caused a great earthquake, a supernatural darkness over the entire earth for 3 hours, and caused zombie saints to rise from their graves and march on Jerusalem at his death. That's fairytale stuff.

That's the truth and the reality.