For those who think Jesus is a myth...

[KathyM]

when you are able to irrefutably prove your facts as truth, I'll amend my phraseology.

until then, as far as i am concerned, it's purely speculative opinion.

 

 

and no matter how much you protest it's true - you can't prove it, so it may be "YOUR" Truth, but it's not universal truth, and as such, objective.

 

As I said, truth is absolute. But I understand that for those who demand physical proof that Christ was the Son of God, and refuse to believe without physical proof presented in front of them, and don't want to accept the accounts of those that lived in that time, there is nothing I can say to convince you to believe in something you can't see with your own eyes. So be it.

 

 

That doesn't make them any truer.

And quite rightly, you quantify it by using the term 'believe' as opposed to 'know'.

which makes it a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

Truth is absolute. Whether or not my beliefs coincide with the truth does not make the truth any different than what it is.

 

 

i already know 4 indisputable truths, so i'm fine with those.

 

Whose to say your "truths" are in fact truth?

 

 

 

honey, if it ain't happened now - and bear in mind my upbringing - it sure as eggs won't happen any time soon.

don't hold your breath.

 

I'll hold out hope for you. God can change even the hardest of hearts. Even yours.

 

 

and I will recite my Metta chant for you at the Buddhist temple, this weekend, for you.

it's the least i can do!

 

I appreciate the sentiment, misguided though it may be.

[Feelin Frisky]

Miracles are a part of the story--you can't separate that out of Jesus' historical life on earth. Jesus was both God and man. Born of a human, but conceived through divine intervention, and acknowledged by God as being His Son. Jesus emulated the principles and values that God the Father teaches us--caring for others, being kind to others, showing compassion for others, forgiving others, and serving others. Those are values that God teaches us that we are to have, and they were taught and emulated by His Son as well. We are to worship Him, God the Father as our creator, and Christ as our redeemer, whose purpose was to reconnect us to a relationship with God that our sin had separated us from. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God, and are to be worshipped as such.

 

That's fine if you're a believer. My comment was meant to find value in the story of Jesus without needing to buy into any belief. IMO the story of Jesus is much more powerful if you leave out the cheezy miracles because they devalue the struggle and sacrifice of what this man is said to have endured. If he could perform miracles at will, then why not just miracle everything and change the world by command? The miracles work against the human story of courage--if one can miracle ones way out of trouble, it seems to be somewhat patronizing to submit to torture and death. What's to say that he didn't miracle the pain away and just put on a big show of suffering and death? When I discounted all the likely embellishments that have to do with intervention of super-nature, the story became one of pure courage for one's convictions and that speaks a message to follow the examples of Jesus--not worship, objectify, or subordinate one's self to him. The message is to "be like me" and not get down on your knees and pray to have your reality customized for you. Thus one can consider him or herself a Christian or follower of Christ in an entirely different context that the believer in super-nature. It's a good thing IMO.

[TaraMaiden]

I appreciate the sentiment, misguided though it may be.

No more misguided than yours.

 

And Truth - is NOT absolute, if there is no tangible evidence, proof or physical existent testimony to back it up.

your truth is entirely mentally perceived, but does not stand up to scrutiny, analysis or verification.

your truth is based of faith and belief.

As such, it is unstable and unreliable.

[OpenBook]

No more misguided than yours.

 

And Truth - is NOT absolute, if there is no tangible evidence, proof or physical existent testimony to back it up.

your truth is entirely mentally perceived, but does not stand up to scrutiny, analysis or verification.

your truth is based of faith and belief.

As such, it is unstable and unreliable.

 

To YOU, maybe... in your opinion.

[TaraMaiden]

No, actually, not at all.

 

It is an established, scientific fact that any truth based entirely on faith or belief is wholly unreliable and unstable because it holds no foundation whatsoever to substantiate that stance.

 

If you could indicate to me where I am incorrect - and show me where something based purely on faith and belief can be held to be completely sound - I'd be glad to review my comment.

[OpenBook]

No, actually, not at all.

 

It is an established, scientific fact that any truth based entirely on faith or belief is wholly unreliable and unstable because it holds no foundation whatsoever to substantiate that stance.

 

If you could indicate to me where I am incorrect - and show me where something based purely on faith and belief can be held to be completely sound - I'd be glad to review my comment.

 

No, I'm not going to dance with you on "proving" what the truth is. I just find it ironic that you're doing the very same thing you're accusing the OP of doing - claiming a monopoly on truth. Why do you assume faith-based truth holds no foundation because you don't see it being backed up with facts and logic? Does the existence of truth require the presentation of facts and logic? No. If we don't understand something, does that make it any less true? No. Can anybody claim a monopoly on truth? Not with any sort of credibility.

 

Bottom line, she believes one thing, and you believe another. So what? What exactly is the problem here? I think it's that you insist on being right, and others wrong, because you have the ability to argue. I don't buy that.

[xxoo]

Why do you assume faith-based truth holds no foundation because you don't see it being backed up with facts and logic?

 

This is pretty much the crux of this thread, asking non-believers to "prove" the Jesus story is untrue.

 

Facts and logic aren't required to have faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Without faith the story is unbelievable. There is no more "reason" than that for not believing. We lack the faith you have, just as you lack the faith that others have.

 

Bottom line, she believes one thing, and you believe another. So what? What exactly is the problem here?

 

Having different beliefs, and different faiths, is no problem at all from my perspective.

[TaraMaiden]

I just find it ironic that you're doing the very same thing you're accusing the OP of doing - claiming a monopoly on truth.

Oh far from it.

I'm pointing out that the Buddha gave us 4 Noble Truths.

they're called Noble because they're indisputable.

 

but two things here:

 

ONE: I happen to know that they are indisputable, because having studied, examined, scrutinised and observed them in action, for 20+ years, day in and day out, I know, for a fact that they cannot be argued against.

TWO:

I do not want anybody to take my assertion at face value.

in fact, if anybody did, I'd be extremely disappointed.

I don't want anyone, at all, ever, to take my word for it.

because this is something i had to discover for myself, and if anybody wants to, or is curious enough, or cares enough to challenge them, then they must do so for themselves.

And let me tell you this. In my 20 years of Buddhist practice, i haven't found anyone who can successfully shoot any holes in them.

Buddhist, non-Buddhist, Christian or whoever.

They have argued, they have tried to illustrate otherwise, they have tried to counter-claim.

But to date, nobody has successfully been able to disassemble these truths.

bear in mind people have been trying for nearly 3000 years to disprove them.

Without success.

 

thanks to quickjoe for helping you point out the remaining flaws you highlighted in your own argument...

[TaraMaiden]

You can read more comments in this thread, and specifically post #53.

 

 

That is....if there is interest in continuing this debate, intelligently.

 

Many thanks.

[zengirl]

The definition of truth:

 

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

4. the state or character of being true.

5. actuality or actual existence.

 

I'm sure Kathy was referring to #1, but the fact is if #1 cannot conform to #2 and #3, then it does not become "truth" in the way she spoke. You can try to find the truth --- that is unproven and unknown, and it is not changed by the trying to find it; it already exists somewhere --- but you can not claim it as a truth others must believe without "conformity with fact or reality" or making it a "verified and indisputable fact..."

 

Saying, "My way is true" without any proof is arrogant and offensive, particularly when others don't believe it.

 

Bottom line, she believes one thing, and you believe another. So what? What exactly is the problem here? I think it's that you insist on being right, and others wrong, because you have the ability to argue. I don't buy that.

 

It's absolutely fine for her to believe whatever she wants -- what I object to is the patronizing, arrogant way that some Christians (she gave us a good illustration) try to push their beliefs on others and belittle people who don't believe or believe otherwise. I'm perfectly fine with someone believing in Jesus and them thinking, feeling, and saying they believe in Jesus and follow him as their Lord and Savior as long as they accept I think he's mythical and have every right to think, feel, and say that and will never agree with them, nor will it ever be a "truth" until they can prove it.

 

Mathematicians do not have faith in algebra, scientists do not feel in their heart that magnetism is real, philosophers do not pray to receive knowledge of syllogistic logic.

 

Precisely.

 

Having different beliefs, and different faiths, is no problem at all from my perspective.

 

Agree, as long as all are respected and people understand that respecting is not agreeing.

[TaraMaiden]

found this site.

strikes me as being an excellent example of how people from different faiths can, do and should interact.

 

Statement of beliefs of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (OCRT)

 

And this is their brief outline of Buddhist core beliefs.

Accurate, succinct and to the point.

 

The religion of Buddhism

[Nohbody]

It's important to understand the difference between "truth" and "truthiness". Not everyone here seems to.

[TaraMaiden]

Oh please trust me - I do - although I sought reference, for confirmation....

Edited April 19, 2012 by TaraMaiden

[mercy]

...as long as they accept I think he's mythical and have every right to think, feel, and say that and will never agree with them, nor will it ever be a "truth" until they can prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

From what I understand there is a freedom in having no expectations of others when we are offering our acceptance.

 

But what do I know I'm one of those Jesus lovin' sufi girls.

[TaraMaiden]

From what I understand there is a freedom in having no expectations of others when we are offering our acceptance.

 

this is absolutely spot-on...

And there is a significant difference between 'tolerance' and 'acceptance'.

 

Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, and whatnot, differ from one's own;

 

Whereas

 

Acceptance is to give a fair, impartial and co-operative reception to a matter that you may not necessarily ascribe to, but respect as being something that someone else sees as believable and practicable.

 

Tolerance is fine, up to a point.

Acceptance is fine, and something you are able to live with.

 

Tolerance would cover living alongside other religions, providing they don't ask me to make animal sacrifices, stone a woman to deah, or cut a baby's foreskin off.

 

Acceptance is knowing that in the end, it really doesn't matter what will happen. What matters, is what happens now, and what we do about it - and that's ok.

[zengirl]

From what I understand there is a freedom in having no expectations of others when we are offering our acceptance.

 

But what do I know I'm one of those Jesus lovin' sufi girls.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Personally, I only accept tolerant people. I refuse to accept intolerance, no matter where it comes from -- religion or anywhere. If your religious convictions lead you to intolerance of others, particularly in legal, social, and professional ways, I will not accept that such convictions are valid. If your religious convictions and co-exist with tolerance of others, worship as you please.

 

Personally, I've experienced too much intolerance (and quite a bit of religious intolerance) to accept it. I expect others to be tolerant, or I will rail against them as I please. Intolerance needs to be shown for what it is and called ugly over and over again until people get that it's not okay.

 

Though I do 'accept' things as they are and understand they are doing what they do. That doesn't mean I find them acceptable.

[aj22one]

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Personally, I only accept tolerant people. I refuse to accept intolerance, no matter where it comes from -- religion or anywhere. If your religious convictions lead you to intolerance of others, particularly in legal, social, and professional ways, I will not accept that such convictions are valid. If your religious convictions and co-exist with tolerance of others, worship as you please.

 

Personally, I've experienced too much intolerance (and quite a bit of religious intolerance) to accept it. I expect others to be tolerant, or I will rail against them as I please. Intolerance needs to be shown for what it is and called ugly over and over again until people get that it's not okay.

 

Though I do 'accept' things as they are and understand they are doing what they do. That doesn't mean I find them acceptable.

 

There's tolerance and then there's tolerance. There's tolerance in the sense that "I accept your right to life, liberty and property even if I disagree with you" and then there's tolerance in the sense that "I will be friends with and colleagues with anyone and everyone no matter what they think or believe". The first I think is a universally preferable attitude, the second is up to each individual.

 

If some religious fundamentalist refuses to be friends with or be around gays, or people of another religion, or whatever then oh well. That's their problem, no sense is wasting valuable time and energy trying to convince them otherwise.

[zengirl]

There's tolerance and then there's tolerance. There's tolerance in the sense that "I accept your right to life, liberty and property even if I disagree with you" and then there's tolerance in the sense that "I will be friends with and colleagues with anyone and everyone no matter what they think or believe". The first I think is a universally preferable attitude, the second is up to each individual.

 

If some religious fundamentalist refuses to be friends with or be around gays, or people of another religion, or whatever then oh well. That's their problem, no sense is wasting valuable time and energy trying to convince them otherwise.

 

Oh, I don't care who people are friends with, but you cannot choose who you'll "be around" in society. I've experienced that, in the workplace, and it's called discrimination.

 

It's also intolerant to suggest a Christian can express their religious views, but that other people may not, etc. This happens in our school system all the time in America. I've seen it too often to just let it "go" anywhere. That's how it perpetuates. So, I claim the right to say the Jesus myth (which I was punished for as a child, in school -- my mother had to come in and tell that school to shove it, basically*) if others claim the right to bring up their version of Jesus -- that's all I'm saying.

 

ETA: The context of my statement was, "Billy Budd refers and relates well to the Jesus myth, and we can draw a number of comparisons. . . " (I went into them) Not anything rude, like, "Shut up about your Jesus! He's just a myth" etc. I was just setting the Bible at its proper literary place, from my perspective.

Edited April 19, 2012 by zengirl

[aj22one]

Oh, I don't care who people are friends with, but you cannot choose who you'll "be around" in society. I've experienced that, in the workplace, and it's called discrimination.

 

I personally would not discriminate in who I employed on the basis of ethnicity or religious/cultural beliefs, etc. But, I also think it's unavoidable that people will.

 

It's also intolerant to suggest a Christian can express their religious views, but that other people may not, etc. This happens in our school system all the time in America. I've seen it too often to just let it "go" anywhere. That's how it perpetuates. So, I claim the right to say the Jesus myth (which I was punished for as a child, in school -- my mother had to come in and tell that school to shove it, basically*) if others claim the right to bring up their version of Jesus -- that's all I'm saying.

 

Yeah I totally get ya here. One of the big reasons I'm against the idea of public education. Everyone is going to want their say in what's taught and how. Usually whoever shouts the loudest wins.

[Mr Frisky]

Hello,

 

For those who think Jesus is a myth, could you please provide references as to why you think so? Thanks

 

Also, what exactly about Jesus do you think is a myth?

 

His existence?

The miracles of healing?

The Messianic prophesies in the Tanakh that Christians associate with Jesus?

All of the above?

 

Could you please post links with solid references that support your claim?

 

Since we are for the most part all adults, the objective of any interfaith discussion or discussion concerning beliefs is best and most enjoyable when done without insults and with concrete references as to why one believes what one believes. Thanks.

 

Peace and God bless

 

I have an ideal. You Believe what you want to believe and I will believe in what I want to believe. I can't prove that god or Jesus doesn't exist and you can't prove he does so leave it at that and believe what you want without irritating everyone in your surroundings who may think differently.

[Fugu]

Hello,

 

For those who think Jesus is a myth, could you please provide references as to why you think so? Thanks

 

Also, what exactly about Jesus do you think is a myth?

 

His existence?

The miracles of healing?

The Messianic prophesies in the Tanakh that Christians associate with Jesus?

All of the above?

 

Could you please post links with solid references that support your claim?

 

Since we are for the most part all adults, the objective of any interfaith discussion or discussion concerning beliefs is best and most enjoyable when done without insults and with concrete references as to why one believes what one believes. Thanks.

 

Peace and God bless

 

I don't think the real issue is whether Jesus is a myth; the real issue is whether or not the version of God presented in the New Testament (and the Old for that matter) is accurate. The question is whether Jesus' followers were really following the word of God or whether they just happened to be a cult claiming to represent God. Anyone can claim to know God. Anyone can write a book in which they spread the word of the God they claim to know. As far as anyone knows, the Bible was written by humans, not God. It was written decades after Jesus supposedly died. Parts of the original Bible are missing. Other parts have been edited and lost in translation. This has been researched thoroughly by historians, who have studied the history of Jesus, a historical 'person', or at least a historical figure.

 

I think there's a lot of wisdom contained in the Bible. I look at it as a document written by humans who were genuinely interested in cultivating a philosophical movement. I think these people also wanted a source that could serve to regulate human behavior, something that would serve as an alternative to the law itself. A kind of law that overlay the laws that were enforced. They wanted inspiration. But the word of God is a stretch. Nobody really knows what God is. I believe I have some clues, but I can't even prove God's existence. I can't even define God. Nobody can. All Christians have is their faith in some idea, which is based on dogma that is incomplete and controversial. It's just not enough to convince me to join, and I resent the fact that my life is affected by someone else's perceptions of the way the world ought to be, all because some group of very mortal and long-since dead people claimed to hear the word of God 2,000 years ago, in a time and place far removed from where we are now.

[findingnemo]

Hello,

 

For those who think Jesus is a myth, could you please provide references as to why you think so? Thanks

 

Also, what exactly about Jesus do you think is a myth?

 

His existence?

The miracles of healing?

The Messianic prophesies in the Tanakh that Christians associate with Jesus?

All of the above?

 

Could you please post links with solid references that support your claim?

 

Since we are for the most part all adults, the objective of any interfaith discussion or discussion concerning beliefs is best and most enjoyable when done without insults and with concrete references as to why one believes what one believes. Thanks.

 

Peace and God bless

 

 

I've been reading this thread and find it all very interesting.

 

I don't believe Jesus is a myth. I believe he existed, he was born, grew up, did many outstading and outlandish things and was crucified.

 

When I read the Bible, I get answers to questions I have. I instinctively know that certain things are true. There are others I read and I know for sure they aren't.

 

I believe in God by pure faith. However, it is that same faith that doesn't allow me to believe the story about Jesus. That same inner being questions the truth about the events that occurred. Jesus performing miracles was unusual but not unheard of. Others before him did too, and so did others after him. So while it makes him special, it doesn't in my mind make him more special than the other prophets before him.

 

Because I love to read, I love to dig deeper and seek knowledge, I'm a bit more knowledgable of the political climate that existed in the time of Jesus. When one looks at the events occurring in parallel and tries to view it from the Roman perspective or even the Jewish one, Jesus was a rebel leader. The Pharisees believed he was trying to change religion, usurping their places as the ones who "know" the right way. The Romans listened to the Jews and saw a potential leader in the making. Someone who could bring the rich and poor together using their belief in the One God and who could eventually forment a formidable resistance to their rule.

 

In this kind of climate, it became increasingly dangerous to be associated with followers of Jesus. But the stories lived on in an oral form. How much of the story is real and how much is code for what happened? I don't know. I just know that as a teacher of humanity, Jesus was one of the best.

 

Too much of the story reads like a parable in itself. Was Jesus indeed confronted by the Devil and offered all the bread and riches in the world to cease his fast? Or is this a parable describing his inner turmoil in the midst of starvation and his great ability to keep going?

 

The way the story is told doesn't explain the timelines properly. Did Jesus discover a traitor amongs them just before he was betrayed, or did he know about it from the beginning? If he only discovered it before the last supper, then it would have been too late to counter Judas and Jesus' arrest makes sense. If instead as the Chruch likes us to believe he was aware of the said plan all along, then Jesus should have done everything possible to avoid arrest at that time. Why? His work wasn't done yet, IMO. And that's another story.

 

Lastly, for an omniscient, omnipotent God to come up with such a complicated plan for His Son no less to bring forth the light in the world makes absolutely no sense. Countless of prophets had done the same before. They'd brought messages, showed the people the way and died leaving a lot of people either ignorant or in doubt. If indeed this was God's attempt at creating a fundamental change, why would He send His Son to operate like all other prophets? Why not a more effective plan?

 

While my faith makes me certain that the lessons to be learned from the life of Jesus are valid, it is that same faith that makes me "understand" that all is not what it seems. That the church has molded Christianity into something that was never meant to exist. The many principles of the church have no basis whatsoever in the Bible I read. Most of our Christian holidays, symbols and rituals have absolutely no basis in the Bible. In fact, by virtue of elevating Jesus to the point of being the ONLY WAY, I fear we very easily miss the point of his existence.

 

So to me, the myth isn't that Jesus existed. The myth is the whole story about what he came to do, why he did what he did and what he left behind for us as human beings. We built the myth, He never did. We elevated him beyond everyone, He never did. We continue a religion based on Him, but he never started it.

[fallenheart]

to the OP:

 

Jesus is a myth.

 

No "sources" necessary. He's straight up fiction. Same as Zeus and Spider-Man and Huckleberry Hound.

 

It's staggering to think how so many people could cling to such an obvious fiction for so many years. I shudder to think of all the lives lost and ruined all because it benefited a small handful of people to keep this myth perpetuating.

 

It's a shame I won't see the end of it in my lifetime.

[BetheButterfly]

I have an ideal. You Believe what you want to believe and I will believe in what I want to believe. I can't prove that god or Jesus doesn't exist and you can't prove he does so leave it at that and believe what you want without irritating everyone in your surroundings who may think differently.

 

Do you take your own advice? Just curious

[BetheButterfly]

Yeah I totally get ya here. One of the big reasons I'm against the idea of public education. Everyone is going to want their say in what's taught and how. Usually whoever shouts the loudest wins.

 

Interesting!

 

That's one reason why I really like private schools! Most of the Christians I know are not in public schools, by the way. Most of the Christian parents work hard and strive to put their children in Christian schools, which are pretty expensive. To most Christians who can afford it though, private schools are worth it and the way to a quality education for their kids. That's what my parents did, and they did not think that the financial sacrifice was in vain. For Christian parents who work hard and can't afford it, many do desire for their children to be educated in a private school setting. It would be wonderful if the government would allow vouchers so that tax payers can send their tax dollars to whatever school they wanted their children to attend!

Edited May 9, 2012 by BetheButterfly