Idle thoughts on the proof of an historical Jesus

[cyberpi]

If a foundation of Christianity (and some other religions) is that there is a soul that is supernatural or metaphysical, then should it be inconceivable to think that Jesus was too, and even is today without the flesh?

I am leary with anyone who speaks about 'most Christians' of any denomination. If there were only 1 million Christians of a denomination, does anyone really know more than .01% of them and what they think? I have every confidence that Jesus does, so that some could.

 

[Quahom1]

If a foundation of Christianity (and some other religions) is that there is a soul that is supernatural or metaphysical, then should it be inconceivable to think that Jesus was too, and even is today without the flesh?

I am leary with anyone who speaks about 'most Christians' of any denomination. If there were only 1 million Christians of a denomination, does anyone really know more than .01% of them and what they think? I have every confidence that Jesus does, so that some could.

as well you should be...and they should be leary of you...who apparently would like nothing better than to place doubt in the minds of others.

 

[cyberpi]

as well you should be...and they should be leary of you...who apparently would like nothing better than to place doubt in the minds of others.

Q, how are you able to see my motivations, or what is in the minds of others?

Am I equally able to see and speak for your motivations, what is in your mind, and for what you would like nothing better to do? Let me know if I ever try to, or if I ever have... because I know that I can't.

 

[wil]

I think it is all questioned. Whether Buddha existed is definitely questioned as I understand it. Mohamed, may or not be questioned as to his existence, but as to his motives and his life, morals...they've been attacked quite readily.

At to whether Moses, Abraham existed I know there are have been questions. As to whether the stories attributed to them are allegory, mythology or parables...the discussions are rampant. Whether we are talking Judaism, Christianity or Islam, as you travel from orthordoxy through the various sects and denominations of thought you'll get wide accounts.

I would contend that the majority don't think that Moses came down off the mountain with 5 books in hand any longer.

Jesus existence while widely held is potentially circumspect. As I understand it there is only one reference of his existence outside the bible and its veracity is so questionable that it can't count. So this leaves us with very few pages of stories, accounts that are in contradiction amongst the cannonized stories.

In today's world we'd say follow the money, and while we chant and dance and point fingers at the TVangelist and his wealth, or the Guru and his rollses...if we were to look at the multitrillion dollar empire that has been created in the name of Christ...the land holdings alone of prime downtown realestate owned by churches in just about every major city in the world...

Something is definitely amiss... I hesitate to think this is what Jesus thought would be going on 2000 years later....

 

[Quahom1]

Q, how are you able to see my motivations, or what is in the minds of others?

Am I equally able to see and speak for your motivations, what is in your mind, and for what you would like nothing better to do? Let me know if I ever try to, or if I ever have... because I know that I can't.

By reading your writings, a picture is painted, by you, for anyone to see. Same goes with the rest of us. Because of the partial anonimity we have in this kind of medium, we tend to be a bit less inhibited in saying what we think and believe or don't.

For my part, I speak my mind, and my motivations are quite transparent. My veiws are also well established I should think. If you are stating you are not known by your writings then, how can what is read be believed as authentic?

It is called inherent trust.

v/r

Joshua

 

[cyberpi]

By reading your writings, a picture is painted, by you, for anyone to see. Same goes with the rest of us. Because of the partial anonimity we have in this kind of medium, we tend to be a bit less inhibited in saying what we think and believe or don't.

For my part, I speak my mind, and my motivations are quite transparent. My veiws are also well established I should think. If you are stating you are not known by your writings then, how can what is read be believed as authentic?

It is called inherent trust.

v/r

Joshua

And so my point was... you've got one picture or painting, one reader from one writer, and a partial one at that. I submit again that if there were 1,000,000 alledged Christians in a single denomination, that you have seen less than 100 of the writers.. or painters. You have painted people by a denomination, but the people as individual souls have not painted themselves for you.

If my motivation were to place doubt, then it would be to place doubt that Jesus was NOT supernatural, to place doubt that people (souls) are NOT supernatural, and to place doubt that God and heaven is NOT here watching us today like fish in a pond... and that doubt would only be for those who believe NOT.

 

[Quahom1]

And so my point was... you've got one picture or painting, one reader from one writer, and a partial one at that. I submit again that if there were 1,000,000 alledged Christians in a single denomination, that you have seen less than 100 of the writers.. or painters. You have painted people by a denomination, but the people as individual souls have not painted themselves for you.

If my motivation were to place doubt, then it would be to place doubt that Jesus was NOT supernatural, to place doubt that people (souls) are NOT supernatural, and to place doubt that God and heaven is NOT here watching us today like fish in a pond... and that doubt would only be for those who believe NOT.

It's called voting with their feet. By proxy those that continue to go to the churches of their choice, give consent to the way things are within that church.

If they do not give consent, then you have the equivelent of the Episcopal church splitting into two today (very public).

I do not see an "exodus" of Christians leaving their churches to form new versions of the faith that follow your way of thinking, hence my orginal point stands "we" believe, or "we" outnumber you.

Until such time...then...

v/r

Joshua

 

[cyberpi]

It's called voting with their feet. By proxy those that continue to go to the churches of their choice, give consent to the way things are within that church.

If they do not give consent, then you have the equivelent of the Episcopal church splitting into two today (very public).

I do not see an "exodus" of Christians leaving their churches to form new versions of the faith that follow your way of thinking, hence my orginal point stands "we" believe, or "we" outnumber you.

Until such time...then...

v/r

Joshua

So by walking among sinners, Jesus was voting for sin? Where have I seen that belief before? Maybe someone should seek a vote in each forum here to see if that is what people believe.

What is it about my thinking that you've judged as a non-Christian way of thinking?

 

[Quahom1]

So by walking among sinners, Jesus was voting for sin? Where have I seen that belief before? Maybe someone should seek a vote in each forum here to see if that is what people believe.

What is it about my thinking that you've judged as a non-Christian way of thinking?

By walking among sinners, Jesus was voting for sinners, and showing them how to dump the baggage of sin.

As far as judging you based on your thinking, I do not know if you are a Christian or a non-Christian...

v/r

Joshua

 

[Seeker_of_truth]

Here and across similar forums often rages the debate regarding the historicity of Jesus, presented invariably as the Incarnate Son of God; a prophet; a messianic Jew; an apocalyptic messenger; a noble teacher; a lunatic; a trouble maker; a myth; an invention; a semi-historical personage, either an amalgam of or confusion of other, similarly suspect, characters.

Scripture as a 'reference source' likewise comes under continual examination, with the determinations that it is, in part or entirely, fabricated, and again, having been written sometime between 0-200 years after the event, it should be equally suspect.

+++

According to historians generally, there is more 'evidence' (circumstantial or otherwise) pointing to the existence of Jesus as Christianity regards Him, than there is for the existence of either Buddha or Mohammed.

The question arises, do the Buddhists contend with arguments that Buddha either never existed, or if he did his teachings is a complete fabrication? The earliest Buddhist scriptures date from at least 400 years after the death of their founder.

And likewise regarding Islam and the existence of Mohammed and the textual veracity of the Koran.

Then, of course, the Vedic texts could of course be the product of metaphysical insight, or mental disorder?

I wonder, can any Buddhists, Moslems or followers of Oriental traditions generally shed any light on this? Do all religions face this order of inquiry?

Or is it more to do with the general air of popular anti-establishmentism, skepticism and nihilism overtaking Western intellectualism?

Just a thought...

Thomas

I don't know about Buddha, but are you saying that (Historical evidence of Jesus)>(Historical evidence of Mohammad)?
If so than something is wrong.

 

[Seeker_of_truth]

By walking among sinners, Jesus was voting for sinners, and showing them how to dump the baggage of sin.

As far as judging you based on your thinking, I do not know if you are a Christian or a non-Christian...

v/r

Joshua

Does it matter? I'm sure the Bible says to not judge at all until the day of judgment. So Christian or non-Christian or Christian doesn't really matter in the context you use it in.