Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2014, 10:22 PM
Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
I'm sure it's happened to many of this group before, but I'm gonna start a conversation anyway...

I was talking with my wife about my atheism (I know, troubled times lie ahead. I've found atheism as she has renewed interest in church. Honestly, I think it's the community she craves.) and while we weren't enjoying it we were having honest and open communication. Good so far. When somehow we stumbled together in to evidence in a historical Jesus figure... I hit a brick wall. I couldn't even ask a question, or lay out an argument for or against. I couldn't explain what drove me to my conclusion, nor why it was important to me.

I'm not really shocked, or angered just frustrated. I was ready to explain my thoughts and pow conversation over. I can understand this and honestly feel it's a sign of progress more than something to feel bad about. I think she's questioning her motivations for wanting to go back to any church after a long absence (4 years at least) and I'm fine with that.

My reason for reaching out here is more to let some of this out, than to go poking for solutions to an unanswerable problem. I can't really just ask "How do you force people to listen to reason and cite evidence in all discussions about faith, religion, god(s) and emotional thinking?" but man I really want to.

For a book central to so many peoples "hearts and minds" it's surprising how little they know it's contents and hide it's origins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 10:29 PM
RE: Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
So do you really think there was a regular guy named Jesus that lived at that time? Or do you think there was a famous or somehow special guy named Jesus that lived at that time?

There are others here much more knowledgable on this topic, but I've heard that for the century following his timeframe there IS NOT EVEN ONE piece of written history about him. Not anywhere, by anyone.

He doesn't arrive on paper till 100 years after he supposedly lived.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bows and Arrows's post
21-09-2014, 10:42 PM
RE: Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
Even if Jesus does have some grain of truth, some small sliver of basis in factual reality; just about everything any layman thinks they know about the Jesus of the Bible is a myth.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
(21-09-2014 10:22 PM)Riff.Freelance Wrote:  For a book central to so many peoples "hearts and minds" it's surprising how little they know it's contents and hide it's origins.

The fact that Christianity is the largest religion in the world shows that it's essential that so many people don't know the contents and origins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 10:01 AM
RE: Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
(21-09-2014 10:29 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  He doesn't arrive on paper till 100 years after he supposedly lived.
He arrives on paper 35 years after he died if you believe the right scholars. The earliest date, as far as I've found, for the Gospel of Mark is 68 C.E. If the crucifixion was in 33 C.E. then you get 35 years.

Some scholars place the Gospels in the mid 2nd century so the interval between the crucifixion and Mark could well be over 100 years, but I don't think anyone has definite proof either way.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
I'd always heard that Mark was written around 70 CE. Who is saying that Mark was written in the second century, and what are their reasons?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
The question of Jesus' existence isn't that important, the reason why it arouses suspicion is that there are zero historical references to him within his lifetime.
This bears all the hallmarks of mythmaking, but a myth can be many things, such as:

1. Total fabrication
2. Someone like him existed, but Jesus was based off of him.
3. Several people like him existed and Jesus is an amalgam of several people.
4. Jesus existed, but he was just a Rabbi that was executed for inciting rebellion against the Roman Empire, none of the miracles associated with him actually happened, but a cult formed around him and made the myth from the man.

Personally, I like 4 the most, but 3 is a close second.

A couple of key points about Jesus:

1. There is no proof of resurrection, the first gospel of Mark didn't even tell of his resurrection, just that the tomb was empty. All of the later gospels embellished and expanded on the resurrection mythos. If you read them in order, the 4 gospels seem to be playing a game of one-upsmanship, each re-telling makes ever bigger claims.

2. Jesus teachings are completely unoriginal, his best stuff, The Golden Rule is a complete rip-off of many other religions that predate Christianity by hundreds of years.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
23-09-2014, 03:59 AM
RE: Evidence, honesty, and preconditioning
My guess is that Jesus Christ never existed, and it should be blatantly obvious to all that the Christ of the Bible is a complete fabrication and rip-off of numerous 'risen Gods'. Nothing amongst the Gospels adds up.

Even if the stories are based off of a once living man of that time period, I highly doubt his name was Jesus or that he was claiming himself as the son of God. If he was, than he was likely just another religious nut job in a long line of more to follow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: