Did Jesus exist? Parts 1 and 2 (copied from my Wire Club blog) (Page 5)

orkanen: To my knowledge, there's a 'slight' difference between declaring truth after discovering it, and asserting truth from ones imagination.

CoIin: Exactly, Orkanen.

In her response to my post, Zanjan has done once again what she has done before innumerable times : simply presuppose what it is that we're trying to ascertain.

Zanjan, given that TheDoctor's express aim for this thread is serious investigation and not assertions of faith, you're only wasting everyone's time. Buy a book on correct reasoning. Please!

Zanjan: So, you deny archeological discoveries? I'd have thought better of you!

orkanen: Did they find your god buried somewhere, Zanjan? Why wasn't I notified?

moofy: You're totally right Zanjan:

I obviously know NOTHING about Judaism, being raised Orthodox and all...
Obviously all those years of Yeshiva did absolutely nothing....*eye roll*
I obviously know nothing of the Baha'i faith, even though my ex was a Baha'i

Keep dreaming sweetheart.

It is nothing short of arrogance that allows someone to feel believers of a faith don't know or study their own professed beliefs.

It's not even an argument, just baseless accusation:

Statement: "Hey, your beliefs don't align with what the books state"
Response: "You obviously know nothing of your own faith!"

That's not an answer: It's a deflection.

Keep asserting false accusations about others. I'd be more than happy to post my parents' Ketubah on here; although, since you can't read Hebrew, I doubt it would do you any good.

Much like the fact that you just make up whatever you want.

No pictures huh? Let's do what you accuse me so much of and Google it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Bahau%27llah&client=firefox-a&hs=Lcv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TLwZU7uxDaLcyQGpl4GIBA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=797

Those sure look like pictures to me!

You can call them teachings all you like but I'll stick with beliefs.

You say that Faith in g-d is ONE Universal faith: Well, no it's not and no it hasn't "always been." The very statement goes against quite a few beliefs and historically speaking G-d didn't arrive on the seen until much later in the course of human evolution.

It is a difficult concept to ingest because I don't FEEL there needs to be a 'religion' to convince people to actually work on making the world a better place.

Shocking concept. I know.

It's like driving your car to a bus stop instead of walking three blocks.
What is the point of driving to the bus stop?
Either drive to your location or walk and save the gas.

You're right! Spiritual truths have always been the same!
- Personal testaments with NO proof

Since you twisted my words (yet again), let me requote what I actually wrote: "NONE of these SELF-proclaimed Prophets - NONE achieved world peace"

The very testament that "Baha'i's have a blueprint for peace" emphasize my point. I didn't say it was a Prophet's job to bring in peace. You did.

Self-proclaimed prophets claim peace comes into the world when everyone believes them and believers force others to believe.

The Messianic prophecy itself?

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore."

It is the Messiah's job to ring in world peace: Were you not aware?

LiptonCambell: I know I'm late to respond to the OP, but here I go anyways;

>>>But another argument about the existence of Jesus Christ, and one that I think is just unavoidable, is the huge following Christianity has had throughout the two thousand years of its existence.

Egyptian beliefs were around 10,000 years old. Does that make them true?

The Greek belief of Zeus and Hades and such was over 2000 years old- does that make them true?

I think the real issue you should be addressing isn't why you accept Jesus- but why you reject Anubis, Ra, or Zeus. Alot of your reasons for supporting the existence of Jesus could easily apply to these religions...

shadowline: "I think the real issue you should be addressing isn't why you accept Jesus- but why you reject Anubis, Ra, or Zeus. Alot of your reasons for supporting the existence of Jesus could easily apply to these religions..."

Whether or not Jesus was a historical person is not a religious issue. Scholars who have no religion at all debate the subject on purely historical grounds. It can be pointed out that Christianity's remarkable staying power, and its remarkable appeal (biggest religion in the world since the 19th century, and still growing) probably has something to do with the fact that it is based on the teachings and personality of a real person, rather than on a myth (like that of Mithras, which was a rival to Christianity in the first century, but which is long dead now) but that doesn't in itself prove that Jesus existed.

Most scholars in relevant disciplines have no doubt that Jesus existed, whatever you make of him, and however much he was mythologized after his lifetime. The contention that he did not, which is noticeably absent from talk about Mohammed, or Buddha, or even Zarathustra, about whom we know virtually nothing, only arises because antagonists of the Christian religion see it as their best chance of deconstructing that religion. So far, that hasn't worked.

orkanen: shadowline wrote: It can be pointed out that Christianity's remarkable staying power, and its remarkable appeal (biggest religion in the world since the 19th century, and still growing)

I suggest you look at how Christianity was spread. In my country, by the tip of a sword. Also look at the psychology of Christianity, how it enslaves its followers by guilt of being human.

shadowline: I'm not arguing FOR Christianity, orkanen. Merely describing its characteristics. I doubt that "enslavement", if that's what you want to call it, would have had much appeal when Christianity was turning into a world religion. Imaginative appeal does that, not enslavement.

Where was it spread at the point of a sword, by the way? Are you in Saxony?

orkanen: I'm in Norway, a country, christened by the sword around 1.000 years ago, but now among the least religious countries in the world. I'm a former believer. My interests span towards the psychology of religion. I leave deeper historical studies to others.

shadowline: I'd call that a bit over-simplified. Christianity was not spread by force until centuries after its beginning, and in only some places (like Charlemagne conquering the Saxons). I'm not sure what is meant by "Roman" doctrines, but, Christian orthodoxy took centuries to develop and define itself, and it wasn't using force throughout most of that time. Constantine called a council to decide on the dual nature of Christ in the Fourth Century. He didn't point a sword at anyone. (At least, not for that reason. He pointed plenty of swords.)

When we look back at religious persecutions of the distant past today, we think we are looking at a modern phenomenon - intolerance. But when religion was believed literally, as probably no one believes in Christianity now, stopping perversions of it was a form of saving souls. To them it was the most charitable thing they could do. It was the integrity of Divine truth, and the destiny of every living soul, that the Church had in mind when it acted to stop heresies, not some monopoly on thought and power.

Not that that's not a reason to be thankful that the world is well beyond all that. At least, for the moment. There's another religion on the rise today, with a lot more proclivity to violence than Christianity ever had.

TheDoctor394: Constantine certainly did a lot of good for Christianity, although debates remain as to whether he actually became a Christian himself, or just picked up a lot of the practices. However, there's no doubt he became very much in favour of it, and Rome went through many changes as a result.
But I don't know that he showed great aggression in "converting" Rome.

Zanjan: Moofy: "I obviously know nothing of the Baha'i faith, even though my ex was a Baha'i"

That your ex belonged to a different religion says nothing about you. That you have an ex, does. I never discuss the Baha'i Faith with my husband. If he wants to know anything, he can look it up or ask me. Generally, he does neither so he's basically ignorant of our teachings, except for the marriage law, burial, pilgrimage, non-drinking, prayers and fasting etc - things that are obvious about my lifestyle so, can't be hidden.

We aren't converted - Baha'is are found.

FYI, I take people at face value; they, alone, get blame or credit.

As for your link to pictures, like I said, not one of them is of Baha'u'llah. I've been on Baha'i Pilgrimage and have seen the ONLY photo ever taken of Him - I knew it was authentic because I'd already seen Him twice in visions many years before I even heard of the Baha'i Faith. Those images you linked with His name attributed to them are fake, including the paintings.

Many of the photos in your link aren't even of Baha'is at all. If you don't believe me, your ex will be able to verify that IF you're still on speaking terms.

Zanjan: Shadow, the size of a religion has nothing to do with it's degree of truth - it's sustainability does. All religions on earth have some truth, and truth stands the test of time.

Usually, a brand new religion doesn't carry much appeal - most ignore it as they prefer the familiar. Only when the religion's followers do something shocking or gain influence, do heads turn.

People seem to miss the fact that early followers of a new religion were absolutely different in every way from its followers centuries later. Subsequently, a religion in its formative stage is always practiced differently than when its become established.

Whatever you can say of any religion in the past, you can say for all past religions. What you can't do, is say much of anything for a new religion because you don't know it yet.

I'm sure if Jesus had lived to be an old man, much more would have been written about Him; thus much more history to affirm His existence. I often ponder what might have happened if He hadn't been crucified - what would modern Christians emphasize?

orkanen: Zanjan wrote: the size of a religion has nothing to do with it's degree of truth - it's sustainability does.

I agree with you fully here, Zanjan. Non-belief so far has the upper hand by a couple of billion years, while religions appeared rather recently, and have since come and gone.

Zanjan: By a couple billion years?? Human's haven't been around that long. Belief is a property of the mind that can comprehend it. Since recorded history, atheism has never had the upper hand, according to what people have professed. Recorded stats say::

In 2000, 96% of the world population said they believed in God; in 2005 (the last official survey), that number dropped to 88% There's been newer polls but the question was coloured (ie, how many are religious, how many are Christian) so I discount them.

Belief is not the same as understanding - it's impossible to determine stats for that.

Tamanisha, psychedelic mushrooms didn't grow in the Middle East, since they prefer cooler regions in temperate zones, growing in damp forests. The Middle East is hot, dry desert. Trade routes before and during the time of Christ didn't accommodate an exchange.

orkanen: Zanjan wrote: Human's haven't been around that long.

You didn't specify. But considering the time period of thinking humanoids, capable of beliefs, what makes you believe there have not been atheists alongside theists all along?

Zanjan: I think it's likely that atheism is, historically, a more recent development due to increased comfort, opportunity, ease of travel, and the anonymity and detachment afforded by high density populations.

Humans have always had an urge to believe in something, particularly the supernatural. Stone Age ancients were very close to each other and nature, and highly dependent on these relationships - they couldn't have missed the connections of design, creature awareness, and signs of the times as their very survival required excellent observation skills and immediate response.

Thus, they couldn't have ignored disaster or serendipity either; they acknowledged and respected the powers beyond their control and sensed what powers they could apply. Being simple people, they didn't ask big questions and were satisfied by simple answers.

In times of ease, health and wealth, individuals become neglectful and complacent - how often history has described how their twisted concept of self-reliance was a mirage.

Yet, only in modern times has this circumstance spread to the masses, where the thinking is they don't need others to survive, merely a financial income. In most countries today, that's guaranteed by their government.

This wasn't the situation in the time of Christ; loyalties were critical - break them, and you'd be ostracized from the tribe or run out of town; chances of survival might be better if one fled the country.

orkanen: A nice sentiment, Zanjan.

No one is equal in thoughts, desires or even the need for god beliefs.

There's still nothing confirmed when comes to the Jesus myth.

Meet my new friend, duckduckgo.com

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Zanjan: I'm glad to see you made an effort to verify. However, your link supported what I'd suggested without needing to use a search engine.

I doubt Christians converted many avowed atheists in Jewish dominated Israel but I'm sure they won over some unbelievers elsewhere; otherwise, how could that religion have spread throughout the world? Monotheism was always around; it just took a very long time to catch on in the Eastern Hemisphere.

orkanen: You do make funny assertions, Zanjan.