I Don't Think Jesus Literally Existed

[Dave]

Sorry, the burden of proof is on those claiming gods, or "spirituality" exists.

I don't think anyone's denying that "spirituality" exists, so much as the "spirtual realm" that many refer to in this regard.

True, people do believe in "spirituality." I find it to be more of a god-lite than anything else.

 

To me, "spiritual" is really just and a description for those concerned with deeper matters than day to day living. In that regards, I'd say everyone here is spiritual, simply by the fact that they took the time to come here.

I don't use the world 'spiritual'. It has way too much religious baggage for me and for many people, including many here, it's more than just deeper meanings and such, it goes way beyond that to some kind of "truth" that is the reason/cause for the being of all - a god-lite.

 

That being said, any claim to the existence of "god" or a "spiritual realm" most definitely would have the burden of proof laid upon it.

That's one of the tricks they play. They claim a god, or "spiritual" thing, exists but anyone questioning that has to provide proofs while they do not.

[NotBlinded]

Prove it exists....

Sorry, the burden of proof is on those claiming gods, or "spirituality" exists.

Yes, it's true, but doesn't it depend on context though?

 

If someone just keeps a belief to themselves and maybe share it with others, without expecting them to convert or even the others to even believe the same or even recognize the belief to be true, is it then necessary to demand proofs for what they might believe? I think I can demand of proof when someone is trying to tell me that I have to believe the same, or that they force me to admit they must be right in some way, then I would need to have some sort of evidence that would pursuade me to change my mind. I'm sure if we looked at all your opinions and all my opinions we would have many similarities and many differences, and yet between you and me we have never demanded to get a full account of all the logical reasoning and proofs to these differences.

 

(FYI, personally I don't think there are any gods or spirits either, but OTOH it also depends on what someone really mean when they use those words... I do have daemons running on my Linux box, so they exists. )

 

Hans, speaking of context...here is what I said before Dave mangled it:

 

Prove it exists or prove that people think it exists? Go research some Egytian mysticism and go from there. There is proof that people think it does exist.

 

You don't have to believe it is real in order to understand that this is what many people thought then and now.

 

I didn't see anywhere where EB claims that you have to believe it. S/he is just stating that this is what is in there.

 

Nobody here is demanding that he prove it doesn't exist.

[Dave]

Sorry, the burden of proof is on those claiming gods, or "spirituality" exists.

Yes, it's true, but doesn't it depend on context though?

I am in the group of people that does. If by context you mean claims, the person making the positive claim is the one that carries the burden of proof. Those that disagree with that claim carry no burden. Other camps claim that no matter who makes any kind of claim they carry the burden. In my view that would force everyone to provide proofs against any silly thing anyone can make up.

 

If someone just keeps a belief to themselves and maybe share it with others, without expecting them to convert or even the others to even believe the same or even recognize the belief to be true, is it then necessary to demand proofs for what they might believe?

No, many people just believe, and don't get into deep discussions about it. That's fine, but you won't find many of them here.

 

I think I can demand of proof when someone is trying to tell me that I have to believe the same, or that they force me to admit they must be right in some way, then I would need to have some sort of evidence that would persuade me to change my mind. I'm sure if we looked at all your opinions and all my opinions we would have many similarities and many differences, and yet between you and me we have never demanded to get a full account of all the logical reasoning and proofs to these differences.

Yes, we agree on many things, and usually we can disagree and leave it at that. Some here cannot do that and they demand proofs and want to get into heated arguments if someone has the audacity to disagree and say so.

 

(FYI, personally I don't think there are any gods or spirits either, but OTOH it also depends on what someone really mean when they use those words... I do have daemons running on my Linux box, so they exists. )

I don't believe in witches.... but then there is my ex mother in law. Do you know how many mother in law jokes there are? NONE! They're all true.

[Ouroboros]

I know all that. But you didn't answer my questions. The "Paul" that wrote some of the NT is not the Paul/Saul that was one of the 12 apostles. He was given the name Paul probably to give that illusion. They don't know his real name or where he came from. If I remember correctly, most biblical scholars just call him "Q".

I think you got a bit backwards.

 

Paul/Saul was never really a disciple or apostle. He was a self-proclaimed apostle. So there were never any original Paul/Saul. Whoever Paul/Saul that wrote some of the letters maybe had a different name, but he was an apostle by his own opinion and maybe forced that opinion on the other "disciples". So there is no difference between Paul writing the letters and Paul the Apostle. If there was a Paul the author, it would be the same as Paul the self-proclaimed Apostle. Simply because the only thing we supposedly know about Paul the Apostle is through the letters from Paul the Author. Either they're the same or both are invented.

 

Secondly, Q is not Paul's letters, but the possible core/base/first gospel that Mark, Matt and Luke stole chunks of the story from. [Q=Quelle (german)=Source.] It doesn't exist per se, it's only a hypothetical source.

 

Talking about burden of proof, can you prove "Q" existed?

[Dave]

Nobody here is demanding that he prove it doesn't exist.

Your words; "Prove it exists...."

[Ouroboros]

I know what you meant NBBTB. And I don't think you have the burden of proof to prove that someone else at some time believed something, that you necessarily don't agree with. So this discussing is really going sideways right now.

[NotBlinded]

..."spirituality" exists.

Your words too.

[NotBlinded]

I know what you meant NBBTB. And I don't think you have the burden of proof to prove that someone else at some time believed something, that you necessarily don't agree with. So this discussing is really going sideways right now.

Yes, I agree. I guess I shouldn't play with Dave so much.

 

Maybe we should start a mess-with-Dave thread?

[NotBlinded]

Yes, we agree on many things, and usually we can disagree and leave it at that. Some here cannot do that and they demand proofs and want to get into heated arguments if someone has the audacity to disagree and say so.

Who demanded proofs other than you? Did I miss something somewhere?

 

You're too much Dave...

[Dave]

I think you got a bit backwards.

Entirely possible.... and not uncommon.

 

Paul/Saul was never really a disciple or apostle. He was a self-proclaimed apostle. So there were never any original Paul/Saul. Whoever Paul/Saul that wrote some of the letters maybe had a different name, but he was an apostle by his own opinion and maybe forced that opinion on the other "disciples". So there is no difference between Paul writing the letters and Paul the Apostle. If there was a Paul the author, it would be the same as Paul the self-proclaimed Apostle. Simply because the only thing we supposedly know about Paul the Apostle is through the letters from Paul the Author. Either they're the same or both are invented.

I see where I got mixed up.... I was thinking of Simon who's name was changed to Cephas or something like that.

 

My brain ain't workin' too good lately. I've been clearing brush on the ranch and I'm so dead tired my fingers are barely working. It's going to be a bad fire season and I have to get ready for it.

 

Secondly, Q is not Paul's letters, but the possible core/base/first gospel that Mark, Matt and Luke stole chunks of the story from. [Q=Quelle (german)=Source.] It doesn't exist per se, it's only a hypothetical source.

 

Talking about burden of proof, can you prove "Q" existed?

You're right, I got mixed up again. But who was "Q"? For all I know he's just a character on ST-TNG.

[Dave]

Did I miss something somewhere?

Obviously.

[Ouroboros]

I am in the group of people that does. If by context you mean claims, the person making the positive claim is the one that carries the burden of proof. Those that disagree with that claim carry no burden. Other camps claim that no matter who makes any kind of claim they carry the burden. In my view that would force everyone to provide proofs against any silly thing anyone can make up.

I think the claim was that Jesus did NOT exists, so I'm not sure why anyone suddenly need to prove that God or Angels or Spirits exists... How did it get this sidetracked?

 

(FYI, personally I don't think there are any gods or spirits either, but OTOH it also depends on what someone really mean when they use those words... I do have daemons running on my Linux box, so they exists. )

I don't believe in witches.... but then there is my ex mother in law. Do you know how many mother in law jokes there are? NONE! They're all true.

[Ouroboros]

I think you got a bit backwards.

Entirely possible.... and not uncommon.

Maybe it really was wackbards?

 

I see where I got mixed up.... I was thinking of Simon who's name was changed to Cephas or something like that.

Ah, that's right. Same thing for the Revelations, most likely not written by John the Disciples (if the disciples even existed).

 

Secondly, Q is not Paul's letters, but the possible core/base/first gospel that Mark, Matt and Luke stole chunks of the story from. [Q=Quelle (german)=Source.] It doesn't exist per se, it's only a hypothetical source.

 

Talking about burden of proof, can you prove "Q" existed?

You're right, I got mixed up again. But who was "Q"? For all I know he's just a character on ST-TNG.

I was thinking of that Q too, and I really liked that character. Even though I remember that he didn't make sense in a logical way at some times. He claimed to be logical, but acted more like a evil demiurge and bent his own rules.

[NotBlinded]

Did I miss something somewhere?

Obviously.

[mwc]

Thank you. At last, someone is actually answering my post properly rather than just attacking me for supporting Paul's views at all, or for paying any attention to what's in the Bible at all. I honestly don't know why it's so wrong that I should decide to look into something and study it for the sake of wanting to understand something that is puzzling to me. I'm not saying that anyone else should pay any attention to what's in the Bible at all. Why should I be attacked for simply laying out my own version of what I think happened?

I say go for it. Learn all you can. Maybe we'll agree with you and maybe we won't. Who are we that you need our approval? But don't let any of this stop you from learning and putting out your theories (even if they change over time...actually I should say especially if they change over time...since that means you're likely integrating new information into your ideas).

 

*clears throat* anyway - thanks for actually engaging with what I wrote mwc. You raise some interesting points - and there are some things there that I might need to look further into. Thanks.

I'm glad it was helpful. If you haven't stopped by www.earlychristianwritings.com and www.earlyjewishwritings.com yet be sure to head over to these two extremely good resources.

 

Well, Luke and Mark are both supposed to have been aquaintances of Paul. Paul certainly mentions a Luke. Paul also mentions John in relation to Peter. It is possible that this is the John who appeared in the Gospels (even though the gospels are fictional) and who wrote one of them.

Right. This is typical apologetics at work. The fact is that Papias, via Iranias (I could be wrong on this...check Papias at the website I gave above) is how the names of the gospels are given. He also provides a third death of Judas that differs from the two in the bible (and a number of other tidbits in a very short read). Then pop over to the section of G.Luke and you'll see the scholars simply cannot connect Luke to G.Luke in a reasonable way so it's "tradition" more than anything that accomplishes this just as it does most of the things surrounding the gospels and Paul.

 

I have a theory about G.John that I'll put in another topic since it seems to apply here. I've seen it one other place since it crossed my mind so it's not "unique" by any means but it might be interesting to someone (I'll get this done ASAP).

 

Only if you take what they say literally. Their 'literal Jesus' had some pretty strange and crazy things written about him. Ok, maybe most of my knowledge of what the Gnostics wrote comes from 'the Jesus Mysteries' book. But I do agree that the strange things written about Jesus in some of those gnostic gospels make a lot more sense when taken as symbolic. The mystical interpretations presented by those gnostic gospels seem to encourage such an interpretation.

 

But the Literalists interpreted those gnostic gospels literally, which is why they got so offended that blasphemous nonsense was being written about their saviour. Funny really, seeing as their saviour was a mythic invention all along anyway.

So the question to ask at this point is "How much access to the gnostic texts did the 'orthodox' xians of the day have?" We have a lot of access to all the texts but how much would a non-initiate have? If you weren't IN the sect would you KNOW what they knew? Would you even know they were in the religion? If so, what and how much would they reveal to you as an outsider?

 

So these questions make sense? We can read through their texts today with impunity but, not even counting illiteracy and just the lack of access in general, could you simply grab a copy of any sects holy text and read it through? If you could would they then be willing to explain it to you or would you have to join up for that privilege? If you could get ahold of the text but not the deeper meaning (whatever that deeper meaning was...whether it was a "spiritual" or "mystical" message or some other coded message) then much like today the reader would be free to create their own interpretation and perhaps even "sell" it to others (create a church of their own based on their new interpretation). I'm not saying this is what happened but I'm saying these might be questions to ask.

 

Well, the Catholic Church at least does honour the Virgin Mary. Mary's portrayal at times echoes the cult of Isis (there are remarkable similarities between depicitions of the Madonna and Child, and Isis with the baby Horus).

They did usurp the imagery of the pagan cults that were around them, that's true, but they lost the "heart and soul" of the cults at the same time. Mary is nothing like Isis when it comes down to it. Jesus is nothing like Horus. The technical similarities that people point out are important but people don't worship technicalities. The technicalities just make usurping and supplanting one thing with the other much easier.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Agreed! I just can't understand why so many non believers spend so much time on the bible. I can't see wasting countless hours debating the minutia of every sentence in the bible. I'm not a member of that religion so I don't care what's in the bible.

Hmmm... I wonder why some spend so much time debating about why someone should debate something or not...?

 

I'm also one of the few around here, and around the Atheists I've met, that has gone one step further and tossed this "spiritual" stuff that some like to talk about. To me there is no "spiritual truth" of any kind. It's just something made up like any other part of any other religion.

Religion is a form of coping mechanism, and some can't let go of the coat that protects them from the harsh reality. I don't think you're one of the few that have tossed out "spirituality", heck I don't believe in spirits either. But I do believe there is a universe somehow of somekind, and that I'm in it somehow, someway. And that's pretty much where my "know for sure" ends. I don't even know if you exists, or exists the same way as I exists... I assume so, and "believe" so, but that's as far as I know. (Dave, do you exist? Can you prove it? )

[Dave]

I think the claim was that Jesus did NOT exists, so I'm not sure why anyone suddenly need to prove that God or Angels or Spirits exists... How did it get this sidetracked?

I don't know.... it happens.... usually when someone doesn't like what someone says and they start attacking the person instead of the topic. When they start doing that I give up trying to discuss anything with them. You don't do that though.

[Evolution_beyond]

 

Thank you. At last, someone is actually answering my post properly rather than just attacking me for supporting Paul's views at all, or for paying any attention to what's in the Bible at all. I honestly don't know why it's so wrong that I should decide to look into something and study it for the sake of wanting to understand something that is puzzling to me. I'm not saying that anyone else should pay any attention to what's in the Bible at all. Why should I be attacked for simply laying out my own version of what I think happened?

 

*clears throat* anyway - thanks for actually engaging with what I wrote mwc. You raise some interesting points - and there are some things there that I might need to look further into. Thanks.

 

What...am I invisible? I didn't attack you, but you didn't respond to my post.

 

 

 

That's okay...

 

 

 

 

 

I'll just go sit in the rejection chair....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, sorry

 

Your post was very reasonable too. Must've forgot all about it after some of the other replies. *eats humble pie*

[Dave]

I was thinking of that Q too, and I really liked that character. Even though I remember that he didn't make sense in a logical way at some times. He claimed to be logical, but acted more like a evil demiurge and bent his own rules.

Great character and John Delancy was perfect for the role. Q was kind of like the OT god then?

[Ouroboros]

Great character and John Delancy was perfect for the role. Q was kind of like the OT god then?

I do wonder if that was the intention of Q. Q does come out a bit like this very judgmental deity. And like a trixter too, playing games and getting bored and upset, etc. So yeah, I do wonder if that was the idea.

[Dave]

Hmmm... I wonder why some spend so much time debating about why someone should debate something or not...?

I just find it interesting that so many people that don't believe in that book spend so much time on it. If you don't believe in it then why waste so much time arguing about what's in it? Sure, knowledge of what is in there is useful when arguing with christians, but among Atheists why bother?

 

Religion is a form of coping mechanism, and some can't let go of the coat that protects them from the harsh reality. I don't think you're one of the few that have tossed out "spirituality", heck I don't believe in spirits either. But I do believe there is a universe somehow of somekind, and that I'm in it somehow, someway. And that's pretty much where my "know for sure" ends. I don't even know if you exists, or exists the same way as I exists... I assume so, and "believe" so, but that's as far as I know. (Dave, do you exist? Can you prove it? )

I don't go in for nihilistic type arguments. That you, or I, exist is not the question here. We are not being credited with creating the Universe. We are not something that people center their entire lives upon. We are not some "spiritual" entity that keeps the balance of everything, AKA karma. Because we are none of those things, the proofs that we exist are not as great as would be for those beings/spirits/whatevers that religious/spiritual people claim exists. Extraordinary claims demand

extraordinary proof.

[Dave]

Great character and John Delancy was perfect for the role. Q was kind of like the OT god then?

I do wonder if that was the intention of Q. Q does come out a bit like this very judgmental deity. And like a trickster too, playing games and getting bored and upset, etc. So yeah, I do wonder if that was the idea.

Oh... I forgot about the trickster that is found in so many myths. That was probably their intent but Q did come off like the OT god.

[Evolution_beyond]

They did usurp the imagery of the pagan cults that were around them, that's true, but they lost the "heart and soul" of the cults at the same time. Mary is nothing like Isis when it comes down to it. Jesus is nothing like Horus. The technical similarities that people point out are important but people don't worship technicalities. The technicalities just make usurping and supplanting one thing with the other much easier.

 

mwc

 

Absolutely. Let's bring back the Egyptian gods, they were cool! I would certainly rather worship Anubis, Horus and Osiris than follow the depressing Abrahamic faiths.

 

Shiva - Osiris - Shiva - Osiris.

 

I find it so hard to decide between Egyptian and Indian though

[Evolution_beyond]

You are as dogmatic and fanatical in your belief that there is no god, as fundamentalist christians are in selling their god.

Which is no different than your dogmatic and fanatical belief in this "spiritual" garbage. You need to prove these gods and this "spiritual" crap exists BEFORE you start making wild claims about it.

 

"Seek and ye shall find." Well..... you're finding exactly what you're seeking. Maybe if you open your mind a bit, you just might find something else..... like reality.

 

 

I am not closed minded and have often wrestled with the 'what if I'm wrong' question with regards to a unifying force and possibility of life after death. I have really faced that doubt and gone over and over my reasoning with regards to it just to check I'm not wrong.

 

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not demanding that anyone accept the existence of God or the idea I had about what Paul might have been on about. I don't really give a shit what people believe. I was interested in sharing my ideas about what the New Testament writings really were all about for those that are interested in the subject. If you want to disagree with my theory then fine - but that is a theory about what Paul and the apostles might have believed and been saying. I never asked anyone to debate about whether there is a God or not.

 

Also, for someone who doesn't understand why people discuss the Bible if they don't believe in it anymore - why are you discussing God and spirituality if you don't believe in it anymore? Why pick at this issue if it doesn't really matter to you anymore???

[Dave]

I am not closed minded

I'm sure you actually believe that.