Please give me so-called "proof" of Jesus or God.

Years ago in college I had one drunken night after finals when I fully grokked the wonderous sacrifice yeasts makes for us! Not only beer, wine, but bread also!lfen

I find the mythicist argument to be the most convincing. Doherty's Jesus Puzzle website provides a well documented case for there being no historical Jesus.Paul's Christ was a spiritual intermediary that was known in the spirit. Mark wrote his gospel as a midrash to explain this deity. When the Roman empire adopted Christianity as the official religion the church used it's new acquired power to enforce the beliefs that had been created during the intervening centuries. Christianity is a religion created by early Christians from Jewish, Greek, and pagan thought. The Roman church held power in Europe for a very long time and through force and indoctrination established a strong cultural pyschology. The religion certainly has appeal, but like almost all religions it is based on myths that are expression of deep human pyschological needs.Those needs are so strong that even in the case of people who are well educated, such as C. S. Lewis, the desire to believe the story that is unsupported in fact outweighs their rational knowledge. From my reading here I don't see that fundamentalist understand science, logic, history, linguistics etc enough to be susceptible to rational persuassion.Religion uses emotional rhetoric for it's appeal, and as we see in our advertising to this day, emotional rhetorical arguments are more powerful in impacting behaviour than fact based logic. Look how long it took to get people to change their minds about tabacco. And still people smoke! How much harder it will be to educate the believer about something as long standing as religion.lfen

sfs,Do you accept all the Pauline Epistles and the Acts as the writings of one man, Paul?Are you also saying that anyone who takes the position that the paucity and the debated genuineness of the few references to Jesus supports the idea that Jesus like many religious figures, Moses, Mithras, Osiris, etc. is a myth is a crackpot?Doherty, offers well supported if controversials arguments. I follow the discussion in the JesusMysteries group on Yahoo and the state of the record of early Christianity is so incomplete that many theories are generated to explain it. The early church offered the official version and by long authority that prevails but it doesn't seem based on logical or historical argument to me. Thomas Paine was one of the early critics to point out that Mark and those that drew on him had failed at proving their claim that Jesus was fulfillment of prophecy.The mythicist postition seems to be more recent than the historical Jesus theories, and I think there is a good chance that it will gain ground as more records come to light.lfen

I revisited Doherty's site. And a brief review confirms to me that though his position is controversial he is not a crackpot. I quote him:"Similarly, I would maintain that the ‘balance of probability’ as presented by the total picture of the Christian evidencea cultic movement that ignores, excludes and is complete without an historical Jesus, the absence of first century holy sites, relics, artifacts, Aramaic originals or sources lying behind its documents, etc., contemporary secular silence, silences extending even into major second century Christian apologists, the problems and peculiarities inherent in the Q tradition, and on and onshould lead the neutral observer to adopt that balance of probability. (Let’s call it an informed and specifically directed agnosticism.) I acknowledge that we are getting onto ground that is partly subjective here. But history, to a great degree, is a subjective discipline. We adopt the best-deduced views and interpretations we can about the past and apply them in hopefully useful ways in the present. I would settle for persuading a large number of people as to the likelihood that Christianity began without an historical Jesus. But I would strongly invite them to make that commitment."He is far more careful in his statements than many of the apologist who post on these lists. I find his web site important as it first showed me the alternative to the historical Jesus who was then turned into a legend by the accretion of wonder stories perhaps along the line of the developement of miracles about the Buddha. Whether the Buddha was a myth or not the original teachings were not miraculous or supernatural, yet later all kinds of miraculous happens were told about him. That was in keeping with the form of expression and belief in those times.And millions of people still find that mythic miraculous story telling compelling to this day, and I'm referring to fundamentalists of all the major religion as well as followers of smaller sects.Doherty did not originate the mythic argument but his careful scholarly popularizing of the positiion helps balance the approaches to early Christian literature. The believers take them literally, the historists look for a teacher whose teachings were elaborated into the doctrines of the church, the mythist point out that no actual person is neccessary as a founder.Mark can be read as a midrash on Paul's spiritual Christ. The silence of the early church on a founder figure is puzzling at least. The notion that Paul's silence is because he didn't know of a historical person but rather was writing of a spiritual person is not an unreasonable explanation and Doherty does not support it in a crackpot manner at all.Only if one takes the postition that anyone who disagrees with the church is a crackpot can Earl Doherty be so catagorized.lfen

I don't know how to quote in the light blue box, so I use the standard quoting."No one thinks Acts was written by Paul".Well, there are inerrantists and fundamentalist posting on this list who represent some number of people who do think that. I was asking to see if you were arguing from an inerrantist position that since the bible said it it's true."Most are simply ignorant. Yes, I'd classify the others as crackpots. Not in the foaming at the mouth sense, but in the sense that they have adopted a position for reasons other than the available evidence."Let's just disqualify ignorance and set those aside. Doherty however is not ignorant but is well studied on the texts in the original language. The issue then comes down to the available evidence, how good it is, and how it is interpreted.I'd like to understand the basis of your objections. Are you simply arguing that there is historical evidence of a teacher named Jesus who was crucified for his activity, or are you arguing further that this Christ was the Messiah, a supernatural entity?"In order to support a mythicist position, however, you have to adopt highly strained readings of what very early material is available, including the synoptic gospels, Paul and Hebrews. In addition, the early church left records not only of their official version, but of their controversies with other positions. The shift from a nonphysical to a historical Jesus, taking place within a single Christian community, would have produced tremendous theological controversy, and yet we find no trace of that contoversy""Highly strained" is your opinion. I'm not saying you are wrong to say that but I don't know why you feel that it more highly strained than a supernaturalist acceptance of the Gospels as literal history for example. It seems to me that gnosticism, Marcion, and many other heresies and struggles of interpretation point to controversy. Whether you consider it "tremendous" or not I don't understand how you can say
"no trace of that controversy". There are at least some traces. No?lfen

sfs,I'm picking up a few tricks here. I finally clicked on your name and have read a few of your many posts. I find this site a very interesting place but I'm also frustrated by the fragmentation of discussion. The Yahoo jesusmysteries group has an advantage of the discussions being in one long thread but to pull that off the focus is much narrower.You are far better informed in this subject than I am, and I find your argument to be rational, but I say the same about Earl Doherty. I'm not sure this is the forum to define the problem, but I appreciate reading rational criticism of the mythicist viewpoint as opposed to those who object based on their faith and literal reading of the bible.I'm wondering if you agree with any of the problems that the mythicists see in early christianity? For example do you find Paul's silence on the crucifiction having taken place in Jerusalem when he visits there puzzling? Do you see any of the evidence of mystery religions such as Mithras or other hellenistic ideas in early christianity? Or does it seem to you that Christianity is a straight forward outgrowth of Jewish religion of that time?lfen

sfs,I've found the much richer ongoing discussion in the thread titled:Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel AuthorsI'm going to switch over to that thread. This is the fragmentation that I find frustrating here. Redundancy is mostly a good thing but sometimes it gets irritating to shuffle around in threads so much.edit: corrected a typo of the word "fragmentation" by inserting the dropped "g"
lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 07-05-2004 12:49 AM

Hi Mike, But where is the evidence for the changed lives? That is all in the same book. And lives are changed to this very day by actions and beliefs that are far short of resurrection.lfen

Mike,Ah, I think I understand. This kind of belief does change lives. But this can be belief in quite a few religions, even philosophies, groups etc perhaps even a sugar pill as a placebo effect. Belief plays an important part in the functioning of the mind. The life change can come as a conversion experience of one sort or another. But it is sad if then that individual thinks that only those who agree with his beliefs are blessed or chosen by god and the rest are evil heathens or something.lfen

The historical evidence points to the Torah being written by the temple priest of Judah. It has material from Babylon and other influences. The priests were attempting to consolidate their hold on the people and "found" in the temple a "lost" book of laws, presumed now to be Deuteronomy. (Who Wrote the Bible, by Richard Friedman) The bible at any rate is obviously written by people, as was the Koran, Book of Mormon etc. Religious authorities work this way in various era's and parts of the world.I think many religious experiences are real "experiences" but given interpretations. If you feel a strong encompassing love you might explain it as "Jesus", or "Jehovah", or "Krishna", or whoever. The experience is real, but authorities use that to consolodate power over people, i.e. to collect money, votes, whatever.Almost all religions have similiar content regarding "supernatural" manifestations both of the good kind from prayer, and of demonic sorts. Christianity (and later Islam) inherited the Jewish priests religious intolerance. That intense desire to have total religious control by claiming all who don't accept your authority are "evil" or influenced by evil demons seems to have come from Zoroasterism in Babylon. Zarathustra seems to have been the first to make explicit religious intolerance as an aspect of the divine (A Wandering God by Morris Berman). By comparison the Greeks and Romans were remarkably tolerant, but we see what that got for their religion!However, the grecian philosophy eventually developed in the Renaissance into the forerunner of science. This tension between Greek rationality, tolerance, and humanism and the Judaic/Christian prerational religious intolerance and emotional control by claiming to represent the ultimate power of the universe and hence as representatives of that power the priest, or Pope, or whoever is to be "Obeyed" is a fertile tension in our culture and has even made this forum possible!Peace,
lfen

quote:

---

Here is one truth that I can know for sure: I think, therefore I am.

---

When you don't think, just as in deep sleep, or under anesthesia, then you aren't?lfen

quote:

---

fen: Stop being silly. I am just saying that if you are able to think and you are aware that you are thinking, then you MUST exist, otherwise you would not be able to think. This is a truth no one can deny without breaking the laws of logic and rationality.

---

General,
I'm not being silly. Antonio Damasio wrote a very informed book called DESCARTES' ERROR.The nature of existence of the self is very interesting to me. I think there may be a sense that your statement is true. That is that the thought "I exist" is the self. But what kind of existence is that?lfen

General,You're welcome to come to my thread:Person in revealed religion vs as understood by brain science
in The Faith and Belief forum.and we can discuss it there. It was sort of inspired by Damasio's book.lfen

General,I'll make a brief comment. There was an thread that was discussing the historical vs. mythical Jesus earlier. I was citing Earl Dougherty Jesus Puzzle site. The thread bogged down on "en sarka". The person who felt Paul's use of that term indicated he was referring to a historical person never got back to me, and I never contacted Earl to see what his opinon was.The Josepheus material may or may not coroborate a Jesus. It wasn't an uncommon name at the time and it was a time filled with teachers, prophets, miracle workers, faith healers, revoluntionaries. There are so very few and very brief references. I just don't know.My interest is whether it can or can not be established that Paul's Christ referred to an actual person, or to a mystical son of god whose activities took place in a spiritual realm.Even if a historical figure was present the Gospels reflect a midrash and legend building. I don't accept them as history for a number of reasons.lfen

General,I'm quoting from Earl Doherty's site: AgeOfReasonThis is what Doherty says about Hebrews 13:12 Here is a little more of the discussion and basis for the analysis: I'm in a time crunch. I will try to find the thread and the objection based on "en sarka" but it may not be until next week.Whether or not Doherty's interpretation is the correct one his studies of the period offer insights into the varied philosophical and religions ways of thinking that differ from today. And the mythicist position does offer an explanation of Paul's and other early writer's silence on the historical events found in the gospels.lfen