Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Beth wrote: "At the early time there were many men claiming to be the prophesied messiah so it was a take your pick!! how it ended up to be Jesus ??? The only thing was there were prophecies that specified what..."

I’m with you on this , Beth👍🏻

Anni wrote: "Beth wrote: "At the early time there were many men claiming to be the prophesied messiah so it was a take your pick!! how it ended up to be Jesus ??? The only thing was there were prophecies that s..."

Thanks Anni, too many people take the Bible as untampered with and completely true, not rewritten many times by different people to suit them. Amuses me as the so called New Testament wasn't written until years after the death of Jesus in some cases over 100 yrs??(and that was just the first time). How can anyone in their right mind look at the the history of the Bible and all it's rewrites as truth??? (sorry for rant again lol)

Hope you and little dog are keeping well Anni.

I’m with you too, Beth…from a chronology perspective the faith as we know it really has little to do with Jesus. Had it not been for Paul’s evangelizing of his interpretation of “Christianity” along with the teachings of Justin Martyr, Bishop Iraneaus would not have created the “universal Catholic Christian faith which could then be adopted by force with Constantine. Constantine is the reason The Church of Rome became so powerful! From there, inquisitions, murder, corruption, multiple schisms within both heterodoxy as well as within Protestantism, as well as multiple translation from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to Latin to Italian to germs to English, etc would have had a profound impact on what we believe is Christianity today. It’s my supposition that either Jesus didn’t exist at all or he was, like you said, just another spiritualist of his day that was saddled with godman status 100 years later to con followers of mystery religions and messianic Jews into following one universal “Catholic” faith. It was a power grab, one way or another. Ask 3 different Christian demonizations today what it means to be Christian and you will get 3 different answers-if we can’t agree in modern times with all technology and scholarship at our fingertips, what do we think was happening back then by candle light?

Oh and lest we not forget the wars fought in Christs name in an effort to spread the religion to the masses under penalty of death, famine, damnation and genocide.

*denominations

Thanks B with you too :) me thinks a few of us are singing from the same hymn sheet!

B. wrote: "I’m with you too, Beth…from a chronology perspective the faith as we know it really has little to do with Jesus. Had it not been for Paul’s evangelizing of his interpretation of “Christianity” alon..."

You might be interested in reading Nietzsche and his criticism of Paul. The correct translation of the title 'The Antichrist' would be 'The Anti-christian.' Nietzsche felt that the only Christian to ever live died on the cross.

Thanks Carmen, I will check that out! It’s interesting-I grew up Catholic and married a Catholic woman and I honor her beliefs, but I just have lost sight or anything remotely making sense to me anymore within the church. Much like Robert Anton Wilson, I would say that I am agnostic, but seeking Gnosticism haha! I have found much truth in Buddhism, but even that has been tainted by mankind. I practice Zen, but under no roshi…I’m interested in the similarities of Religions more than differences as I am sure there is some eternal truth to be found for those who seek, as mentioned in the apocryphal gospel of Thomas. I hope I never come off as combative here, but only passionate about my journey. Love the discussion!!

B. wrote: "Thanks Carmen, I will check that out! It’s interesting-I grew up Catholic and married a Catholic woman and I honor her beliefs, but I just have lost sight or anything remotely making sense to me an..."

As a cradle Catholic, I always remember hearing that life is a pilgrimage or a journey. I do not see you as combative, but as someone on a quest to find answers to honest questions.

I think if we are all honest, we will admit we are all agnostic. Faith is a mystery, something we will never completely know. With that said, we can learn a lot from reading Paul's letters. But you bring up some interesting questions about his contribution to the early church.

Nietzsche grew up Protestant, so his perspective is not Catholic. Perhaps that is why I find his writing interesting. I have always seen Protestantism as more political than religious. And presently politics are more interesting than religion.

Not a cradle Catholic here but Hubs is, while he isn't a practising Catholic and rejects it due to the many obvious reasons but it has left it's mark upon him.
I was lucky and not brought up in any denomination of faith so have been able to follow my own spiritual journey free from conditioning.
To me it doesn't matter what faith we are as all are heading at different speeds and ways to the same place, rather like the spokes of a cycle wheel all leading to the middle hub? JMO.

Hi B.:

(1) In your message 38, you wrote, “they [Catholics] believe the death and resurrection of Jesus to be real.” I believe it too, even though, most probably, I can’t call myself a Catholic any longer (and I don’t feel “guilty” about abandoning my faith). In my message 23, I show there is significant evidence for it: it’s not all nonsense.
Paul was a Pharisee (i.e., a priest of strong religious belief) and in one of his undisputedly authentic letters he swears, before God, that he is telling the truth: “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” (Galatians 1:20, KJV) In another of his authentic letters, First Corinthians, he writes that he personally saw Jesus risen again: “Last of all he [Jesus] was seen [risen again (v. 4)] of [by] me also.” (First Corinthians 15:8, KJV)
Personally, I do believe most (not all) of what these seven undisputed Pauline letters (written by a former skeptic of Christianity) say about Jesus, some of what Mark (the first gospel written), and a little of what the two later synoptic evangelists, ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke,’ say about him. From ‘John’s’ gospel, Acts, and all the other letters of the New Testament, I’m very careful what to believe.

(2) You also wrote, “The church itself borrowed heavily from Gnosticism, pagan mystery religions, and possibly even eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.” I tend to agree, to some extent, with this as well as with Beth’s statement in message 44, “most of the major feasts etc. are based on pagan dates and deities, as are most churches built on pagan sites.” For the first three centuries, the Christian church had to survive in the Roman Empire, which was a pagan state. Wisely, I think, the church didn’t try to eradicate all its followers’ beliefs; it is only when it became all powerful that it became ruthless—again as Beth comments in message 46, “you only have to read what the Inquisition did to the Cathars in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries just because they didn’t conform.” The Crusades, the Inquisition, and Colonialization are an embarrassment to Christianity. You see, they believed in the eternity and fire of Hell; so, in their mind, any atrocity was ‘nothing’ compared to hell’s suffering for eternity: unbelievers' or heretics' conversion to orthodox Christianity was most important, even if coerced, because they also believed that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Surprisingly, even Augustine of Hippo agreed with them! (De Correctione Donatistarum “On the Correction of the Donatists” §14) But the concept of Hell is only a misrepresentation of ‘Mark’s’ original words by the later evangelist, ‘Matthew.’ If you’re interested, you may want to read my article on “Hell”: https://faith-or-reason.com/2021/01/1....

(3) Finally you wrote, “I disagree with him [Ehrman] regarding a historical Jesus.” You reiterated this statement several times in message 39: “Was he [Jesus] chicken or egg? … Was there a historical man that the church applied its own beliefs to? … There is no independent evidence of his existence. … It’s my supposition that Jesus was made up by Paul.” Equivalently, in message 40, you wrote, “he’s [Jesus is] a complete fabrication by Paul and the Catholic Church. … He was a Godman like bacchus or mithras.”
Since you think Paul is lying through his teeth while invoking God as his witness (Galatians 1:20), I shall resort strictly to non-Christian sources.
(a) Tacitus was a Roman historian and senator who, around 116 CE, wrote,
“But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration [of Rome] was the result of an order . Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition [his resurrection], thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city [Rome], as of hatred against mankind.” (“Annals of P. Cornelius Tacitus” Bk 15 Ch 44: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus...)
(b) Josephus was a first-century-CE Jewish-Roman historian who wrote “Antiquities of the Jews” around 93 CE. You commented in message 38 “Even Bart Ehrman suggests that Josephus account of Jesus is a fabrication.” Not quite! Undoubtedly, Josephus’s ‘Testimonial of Jesus’ (as it is known) has been ‘massaged’ by Christian copyists; however, from its style and vocabulary scholars have reconstructed the original text as follows:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us [Jews], condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” (“Antiquities of the Jews” Bk 18, Ch 3, §3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephu...)
(c) Josephus also wrote the following on James the Brother of Jesus:
“This younger Ananus, who … took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews … when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (“Antiquities of the Jews” Bk 20, Ch 9, §1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_...)

So, forget about claims of miracle-working and resurrection from the dead; still, I must insist that Jesus EXISTED: he’s not Mithras, Bacchus or Osiris. Besides, I can’t see why Christians would conjure up a character that was executed by the state when they wanted to proclaim him throughout the Roman Empire. The chicken did come before the egg. I am surprised that with your extensive knowledge on the subject you still think that Jesus never existed. As I argued in message 35, personally, I must agree with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman,
“There was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher of first-century Palestine who was crucified by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.” (“Did Jesus Exist?” p. 263)
I don’t think Ehrman was apologetic for his abandoning his faith when he wrote this: he was just being historical about it. As to Jesus’s being mythologized in every which way by his followers (particularly his alleged divinity), I haven’t the slightest doubt.
To conclude, I guess we must agree to disagree on Jesus’s EXISTENCE and let our readers make up their own mind.

Sorry for the delay.
Best regards,
Carmel.

Beth wrote: "Not a cradle Catholic here but Hubs is, while he isn't a practising Catholic and rejects it due to the many obvious reasons but it has left it's mark upon him.
I was lucky and not brought up in any..."

I'm a cradle Catholic, Beth, who married a secular Muslim. Our Catholic daughter married a Jewish man. Needless to say, this led to my work with inter-faith dialogue.

Carmel wrote: "Hi B.:

(1) In your message 38, you wrote, “they [Catholics] believe the death and resurrection of Jesus to be real.” I believe it too, even though, most probably, I can’t call myself a Catholic an..."

I'm a little confused, Carmel. So just to sumerize:
You do believe that Jesus lived and died 2,000 years ago.
But you don't believe he rose from the dead.

Hi Carmen:
Personally, I do believe Jesus was resurrected by God, but most non-Christians (and many Christians) don't.
Can you please quote exactly where I confused you, perhaps I could clarify.
Carmel.

Carmel wrote: "Hi Carmen:
Personally, I do believe Jesus was resurrected by God, but most non-Christians (and many Christians) don't.
Can you please quote exactly where I confused you, perhaps I could clarify.
Ca..."

Thank you, Carmel,
I suppose I am confused by all the information. Put into perspective of present day events, there are people who personally believe President Biden lost the election. But of course the facts show that Biden won.

With that said, people who know the truth, accept it and go on. But people who believe lies usually bring out lots of "evidence" to support the lie.

So that is where it becomes confusing. Do you accept the resurrection as a fact? Or is the Resurrection just a fantasy some people believe and others don't?

Carmel, you are somewhat making my point for me. The “Christians” wouldn’t make up a man that was tried as a criminal and died on a cross…his death was necessary as it fit into pre-existing pagan mysteries such as bacchus, Mithras and Osiris of a god man dying for his followers and then resurrecting. It’s undeniable. It’s my belief and the belief of many others that it was Paul who created Jesus and packaged in a way that would comport with the Greeks and Roman’s pre-existing belief systems much like St Patrick used the clover to explain the trinity. The Jews of the day however didn’t respond well to the idea that the savior was not a muscular, warrior type sent to free them, so it didn’t stick. I personally don’t care what Paul said under testament of his god-the man could have been crazy himself! Lots of folks swear to their gods and still do terrible things…I mean why did no one believe David Koresh about his divinity? He swore before God that he was the second coming and yet he was not presumably. I don’t expect to change your mind and I respect you viewpoints, however the similarities between Jesus are undeniable with other godmen of myth. Josephus never wrote about Jesus-that was a fabrication by later Christian apologists. The council of Nicea decided our “faith for us”. The inquisition stamped out carrying and differentiated Christian belief systems…why? Seems like a great way to cover up truth and install your own systems. Take that attitude and further muddle it with 2000 years of violence, corruption, politics, and lack of cultural and linguistic context and you have modern day Christianity which has us believe what we believe because the Bible says so which is problematic on its face.

Wow!
Thank you B , You have summed up perfectly my own opinions - and much better than I could express them 👍🏻 🙏

B. wrote: "Carmel, you are somewhat making my point for me. The “Christians” wouldn’t make up a man that was tried as a criminal and died on a cross…his death was necessary as it fit into pre-existing pagan m..."

Hi B,
I have truly been trying to follow this discussion.
Are you basically saying Jesus did not exist. But Paul is the one who started Christianity with his writings?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...

Here’s an article I recently found on the topic, but yes that is essentially what I am saying. I had a great history prof in college that was a fundamentalist Christian and he told the class prior to starting that there is faith and their is history…he personally called Jesus his savior, but agreed that historically the evidence was dubious at best. This man was a real life Indians Jones-archaeologist, published author, and historian. His biggest gripe was the lack of writings at the time of Jesus outside of Josephus and Tacitus(much like this article actually states) and those mentions have been debunked as fraudulent Christian apologist attempts to retro-fit Jesus in the context of the Bible which was also written by communities of people(again of dubious origins and not by one individual i.e Mathew, mark, Luke, john). I believe instead that Jesus is more akin to either buddha(a grand teacher whose actual historicity is moot as the point of the messaging is more important), a godman like Bacchus/Osiris, or an amalgamation of many men of his day like Apollonius and Simon Magus.. His teachings only really exist within the Bible and that’s problematic for me. 2000 year from now we may believe President Obama was himself a god king because of the swooning, the rhetoric, etc. People looked to him and other presidents as actual saviors….the internet is ablaze with gushing stories of his and other politicians magnificence(and i'm not picking on Obama, just using him as an illustration). If a group of people 100 years from now write an epic about his life and it’s translated from English into some other language, then another, then another and then amended over 2000 years, will we have the truth or just a shade of it?

Did Hermes trismegistus really exist? I’d would likely say no, but there is an entire philosophy built(Hermeticism) built from his supposed teachings.

Did Romulus and Remus really exist? Rome had to be founded by someone, why not the archetypal badass Romulus who was suckled by a she wolf and became strong!

The truth about Jesus is none of us really know…it’s mostly based on faith, not historical record. For that matter, much of what we know in history is only a shade of the truth…the media runs with stories constantly now, both left and right, that are either outright fabrications or wildly missing context…what’s important though is the feelings it stirs in you. That’s why they do it. If we really believe that men didn’t meddle in the affairs of the world great religions-Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, then we are truly naive. Mankind has always had an evil, opportunistic, power hungry streak. I have been though my own dark night of the soul as it were about my faith…I came out th le other side a non believer or at least agnostic. I think there is a god but an unknowable god maybe closer to Gnostic interpretation. I practice Buddhism in my heart and “soul” but I question it too. It’s the only close thing I have found to the truth…moreover not any Buddhism but Zen.

reply | edit | delete | flag

Hi Carmen:
In your message 65, you asked me, “Do you accept the resurrection as a fact? Or is the Resurrection just a fantasy some people believe and others don't?”
There are eight cases of supposed ‘resuscitations’ narrated in the Bible: Second Kings 4:18–37; 13:20–21; Matthew 9:18–26; Luke 7:11–18; John 4:46–53; 11:11–46; Acts 9:36–43; 20:9–12. Whether one believes them or not is a toss-up; I won’t go into that discussion. However, assuming they really happened, all these people must have died again. So we must distinguish between ‘resuscitation’ and ‘resurrection.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, seem to believe that the “resurrection” will be identical to Lazarus’s experience (John 11:11–46); but it’s definitely not. In their book “Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?,” they write,
“Lazarus was one who was RESURRECTED. … If a human died, the Creator could later bring him back to life, as he did with Jesus and as Jesus did with Lazarus.” (https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/I..., pp. 181, 183, emphasis mine)
With Jesus, it was quite different. He was resurrected with an immortal body: never to die again. In his book “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee,” New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman clarifies,
“The body Jesus had when he was raised [resurrected] was not simply his resuscitated corpse brought back to life. It was an astoundingly immortal body, a ‘spiritual’ body. A body, yes. A material body, yes. A body intimately connected to the body that died and was buried, yes. But a transformed body that could not experience pain, misery, or death.” (p. 177)
In fact, he did not live with his disciples any longer; he only appeared to them from time to time: in my opinion, his existence could only be sustained continuously in a ‘four-dimensional spacetime.’ One where he could move around back and forth in time as we can move around in space. So, for example, if he desired to enter a totally closed room (see John 20:19,26), he could go back in time, find a time when the door was open, enter the room, and come back to the present time—instantly.
Alternatively, in his book “The Physics of Christianity,” mathematical physicist and cosmologist Frank Tipler proposes, that Jesus’s body turned completely into neutrinos and antineutrinos (see annexed note) after his resurrection. (pp. 496, 649 of 714) Supposedly, he could reverse the process and materialize whenever he wanted to be visible and tangible again, or vanish (see Luke 24:31) at will..
[Note: ‘Neutrinos’ and ‘antineutrinos’ are very small (a millionth of the size of an electron) neutral (uncharged) particles; they hardly interact with any kind of matter—they can pass through the whole globe (Earth) without colliding anywhere: they are therefore invisible and can pass through matter very easily.]
There’s no doubt that the body remains in the grave when one dies; so, obviously, there is no immediate resurrection at death: the only possibility is that we are resurrected at the ‘Last Day’ or ‘Last Judgement.’ Do I believe that we shall be resurrected bodily? I do, but the body is unimportant to me (i.e., only if I can’t use it sexually—as we are told); it’s my consciousness (who I am) that’s most important to me.
Do spirits have neutrino bodies? I must confess I don’t have the answer to this question yet. But, to be able to suffer (including mental anguish) in ‘hell,’ or to be happy in ‘heaven,’ say, in my opinion, a ‘spirit’ needs some kind of ‘spiritual body’ (or, at least, a ‘spiritual brain’). You, see the ‘soul’ is only the software (the program); the body is the hardware (the computer). The software on a disk is a virtual thing (a bunch of ‘1’s and ‘0’s); it doesn’t do anything on its own: I needs some kind of hardware (a machine) in order to be able to express itself.
Now some people might think this is all hogwash, and I don’t blame them because we still don’t know much about the afterlife. However, recently we have ample evidence for the existence of an ‘afterlife’ from Near-Death Experiences (NDEs)—Beth categorically confirms the existence of an afterlife in her message 44. Evidence from NDE’s tells us that we remain recognizable after death. You may want to refer to the ‘NDERF’ website (https://www.nderf.org/) especially the two introductory articles by a medical doctor: https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/..., and a cardiologist: https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/....
Finally, you may want to read my articles on “The Soul” (https://faith-or-reason.com/2021/06/3...) and “Consciousness (Self-Awareness)” https://faith-or-reason.com/2022/06/1...) if you’re interested in more details.
Regards,
Carmel.

Hi B.
I was about to reply to you, but first I want to read the article you attached in your message 69.
Please bear with me.
Regards,
Carmel.

No worries! Sorry for the typos y’all! I’m using my phone and it gets wonky sometimes.

B. wrote: "Did Hermes trismegistus really exist? I’d would likely say no, but there is an entire philosophy built(Hermeticism) built from his supposed teachings."

Hi B,
Christian Scripture is mostly about faith, but a lot of it has been confirmed through archeology, etc. to be historical.
Church history is also well documented. The Vatican and other places are filled with documents and artifacts that confirm history.

Carmel wrote: "Hi Carmen:
In your message 65, you asked me, “Do you accept the resurrection as a fact? Or is the Resurrection just a fantasy some people believe and others don't?"

Thank you for your response. You gave me a lot to digest, but it doesn't address what is causing my confusion.

I hope you don't mind me trying again by quoting what I wrote bit by bit:

1) 'Thank you, Carmel,
I suppose I am confused by all the information.'
So please, let's try to not go into a lot of information because it only adds to the confusion.

2) 'Put into perspective of present day events, there are people who personally believe President Biden lost the election. But of course the facts show that Biden won.'
This is vitally very important. Just as Biden's win is well documented in present times, the death and resurrection of Christ was well documented 2,000 a years ago.

3) 'With that said, people who know the truth, accept it and go on. But people who believe lies usually bring out lots of "evidence" to support the lie.'
So when people present lots of information, I automatically wonder who they are trying to convince.

4 'So that is where it becomes confusing. Do you accept the resurrection as a fact? Or is the Resurrection just a fantasy some people believe and others don't?'
Returning to present day events, for some reason, Trump supporters continue perpetuating the lie. Back 2,000 years ago, anti-Christians continued pushing the lie about the resurrection. And sadly, they continue pushing the lies about Jesus in present times.

So again to clarify so I am no longer confused. Who is your audience?
1) people who accept Scripture as truth? In this case, they do not need any more information.
2) or people who believe the lies about Jesus? Well sadly, as Trump supporters refuse to see the truth about Trump's loss, anti-Christians refuse to see the truth about Christianity.

And there I state my confusion. Who else is there? 1)There are people who accept the truth about Jesus: that he was born, died, was buried and resurrected from the dead. 2) And there are people who think Jesus is a fantasy, not real.
I honestly don't know who else there is.

Hi Carmen:
Sorry for misunderstanding your message 65.
In your message 74 you wrote, “The death and resurrection of Christ was well documented 2,000 years ago.”

Jesus’s existence and resurrection is only well-documented in the New Testament by his followers. Since they are biased in his favor, for all we know, they might have embellished their experiences or even lied about them. It follows that, to find the TRUTH about Jesus, we need to look for documentation outside the New Testament. And this is where the load of information comes in. Despite what you might think, the more unbiased, or better hostile, information we can find, the better it is.

Now, I suppose there are three kinds of people in relation to the Bible.
(1) Those who believe in the Bible’s infallibility: that the Bible is God’s Word, and that every verse is inspired by God.
(2) Those who don’t believe anything the Bible says: they consider it a bunch of nonsense—an outdated book written by primitive people.
(3) Those who consider the Bible a good book but written by human beings (i.e., not inspired by God): in which there is some truth and they try to salvage that truth using their reason, science, and history.
I am of the third kind.

I used to believe in the Bible’s infallibility, but on researching things I found out that it fails all four litmus tests: thus excluding its divine authorship.
(i) It has many textual contradictions: so one of the versions must be false.
(ii) Its so-called ‘prophesies’ practically never transpired, and if they did occasionally, there is usually evidence of manipulation by later sub-authors.
(iii) Scientifically, it is, at best, only 50% correct.
(iv) It is also littered with historical inaccuracies and fabrications.

Consequently, unlike what you seem to believe, the Bible cannot really be relied on blindly. Those who do not follow the Bible blindly (but follow it critically) are not lying. They are not smoke-screening the truth by overwhelming Bible believers with irrelevant information, as you seem to think. They are honestly trying to follow the truth wherever it leads them: to find whatever shred of truth is in the Bible—truth that might have been obscured by centuries of additions and manipulations. So, people who criticize or question the Bible do not necessarily “believe lies” either. My audience is whoever is looking for the WHOLE truth.

I hope I did better this time.
Regards,
Carmel.

Hi B.:

(1) You made a good point in your message 66 when you wrote, “Lots of folks swear to their gods and still do terrible things.” However, I don’t see it in the case of Paul. First he persecuted Christianity, and then he made a 180° turnaround ‘inventing’ the protagonist of the religion he tried to obliterate: giving fuel to the fire, so to speak. What was his motive? Finally he ends up dying for a LIE. I’m sorry, I can’t buy that. We can’t just disregard Paul’s testimony simply because he might be biased: everyone is biased to one degree or another.

(2) Then you wrote, “Josephus never wrote about Jesus—that was a fabrication by later Christian apologists.” Again, I can’t agree with you there. From the style and the vocabulary, scholars can tell whether a text has been tempered with. Moreover, Josephus makes only a passing comment regarding Jesus when he relates James’s (Jesus’s brother) death: he’s not trying to make any theological point about Jesus. Furthermore, although scholars agree that Jesus’s ‘Testimonial’ was certainly tempered with, scholars also agree that Jesus’s existence and his crucifixion are his original writings. I am not a scholar, so I can’t argue much about it, but that’s what New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says (Did Jesus Exist pp. 59–61).

(3) In your message 69, you wrote, “Josephus and Tacitus … have been debunked as fraudulent Christian apologist attempts.” Tacitus is a HOSTILE witness, yet he doesn’t deny Jesus’s existence. He is talking about the burning of the city of Rome, and again he mentions Jesus in passing: he’s not trying to make a theological point about him, and his attitude towards Christians is NASTY. Why didn’t Christian apologists have done something about it? He calls Jesus’s resurrection a “superstition”; would that be a Christian apologist’s choice of words?
I agree with you and your attached article in message 69 that there is not much evidence for Jesus’s existence, but you’re trying to shoot down the little there is, and I think that’s unfair: take it for what it is.

(4) I was glad that you added the article in your message 69 because we only had your opinion, even though you seem to be well-versed on the subject. Certainly, its author is well-qualified, but he is one of the few scholars who question Jesus’s historical existence.
I thought the article made a good point stating, “both these authors [Josephus and Tacitus] were born after Jesus died.” But then, should we disregard a historian’s writing about the previous century? The author’s PhD thesis (Jesus’s historicity) is about what happened two millennia ago: I’m afraid his argument doesn’t hold much water. Naturally, I need to read his whole book (“Questioning the Historicity of Jesus”) to judge properly.

(5) Of course, I agree with Lataster (the article’s author) that “The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources—which they also fail to identify."

(6) However, I disagree with him when he says, “[Paul’s] only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11–12).”
In the SAME chapter of Galatians, just 6 verses down, Paul states, “After three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas [Peter (KJV)—Jesus’s original apostles’ leader] and remained with him fifteen days.” (Galatians 1:18, NAB)
One can see how exceedingly biased these people are to miss (or leave out) a statement just 6 verses away!
Moreover, in First Corinthians, Paul declares, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the Twelve [Apostles].” (First Corinthians 15:3–5, NAB)
Notice the clause “what I also received” and the iterated phrase “in accordance with the scriptures.” The New American Bible comments on this passage, “The language by which Paul expresses the essence of the ‘gospel’ (v.1) is not his own but is drawn from older creedal formulas.” (NAB, First Corinthians 15:3–7n)
It is rather strange that Paul (a Pharisee who must have known Scriptures very well) would say that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” because nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that the Messiah/Christ should suffer. See the section “Jesus is the ‘Christ’” in my article “Bible Prophecies (Textual),” https://faith-or-reason.com/2022/09/2..., for further details if you are interested.
In fact, in his book “Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.” New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states,
“The single greatest obstacle Christians had when trying to convert Jews was precisely their claim that Jesus had been executed. … They had to deal with it and devise a special, previously unheard of theology to account for it. And so what they invented was … the idea of a suffering messiah. That invention has become so much a part of the standard lingo that Christians today assume it was all part of the original plan of God as mapped out in the Old Testament. But in fact the idea of a suffering messiah cannot be found there.”
This was a CHRISTIAN invention, not Paul’s. Why Paul went along with this doctrine is a mystery to me.

(7) I found it interesting that although you are a Buddhist, you still question Gautama’s historical existence; sometimes I get the feeling that only Jesus’s existence is questioned. It’s refreshing to find people like you: you sound like a man searching for the truth.

(8) Finally I’m only insisting that Jesus existed historically and that he was crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate: our existing records are consistent on this point.
That he was a teacher and a healer is also well attested in the Gospels, not to mention Josephus, who states, “He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure.” (bk. 18, chap. 3, § 3)
In my opinion, trying to argue that Jesus never existed is an exercise in futility.

Regards,
Carmel.

Carmel wrote: "Hi Carmen:
Sorry for misunderstanding your message 65.
In your message 74 you wrote, “The death and resurrection of Christ was well documented 2,000 years ago."

Let me begin, Carmel, by thanking you for your thoughtful responses. I really appreciate them wholeheartedly.

So let's just go again bit by bit:

Carmel: 'Jesus’s existence and resurrection is only well-documented in the New Testament by his followers. Since they are biased in his favor, for all we know, they might have embellished their experiences or even lied about them. It follows that, to find the TRUTH about Jesus, we need to look for documentation outside the New Testament. And this is where the load of information comes in. Despite what you might think, the more unbiased, or better hostile, information we can find, the better it is.'

Carmen: This is where we differ. But I can now better understand your perspective. Where I would more trust the followers of Christ, you rather listen to a "hostile" point of view.

Carmel: 'Now, I suppose there are three kinds of people in relation to the Bible.
(1) Those who believe in the Bible’s infallibility: that the Bible is God’s Word, and that every verse is inspired by God.
(2) Those who don’t believe anything the Bible says: they consider it a bunch of nonsense—an outdated book written by primitive people.
(3) Those who consider the Bible a good book but written by human beings (i.e., not inspired by God): in which there is some truth and they try to salvage that truth using their reason, science, and history.
I am of the third kind.'

Carmen: As a cradle Roman Catholic, I don't put that much weight on the Bible. Yes, Scripture is the basis, the foundation for the structure of the church. But the church is not God. Therefore:
1) the Bible cannot be "infallible," because only God is perfect.
2) the Bible is Scripture and literature that gives us a very close insight to ancient cultures who were not "primitive."
3) the Bible is a library of 70 plus books that expresses human relationships with their Creator. Relationships are based on love, not reason, history or science.

Carmel: 'I used to believe in the Bible’s infallibility, but on researching things I found out that it fails all four litmus tests: thus excluding its divine authorship.
(i) It has many textual contradictions: so one of the versions must be false.
(ii) Its so-called ‘prophesies’ practically never transpired, and if they did occasionally, there is usually evidence of manipulation by later sub-authors.
(iii) Scientifically, it is, at best, only 50% correct.
(iv) It is also littered with historical inaccuracies and fabrications.'

Carmen: I have always looked at the Bible as a love letter. And for me, any expression of love is Divine.

Carmel: 'Consequently, unlike what you seem to believe, the Bible cannot really be relied on blindly. Those who do not follow the Bible blindly (but follow it critically) are not lying. They are not smoke-screening the truth by overwhelming Bible believers with irrelevant information, as you seem to think. They are honestly trying to follow the truth wherever it leads them: to find whatever shred of truth is in the Bible—truth that might have been obscured by centuries of additions and manipulations. So, people who criticize or question the Bible do not necessarily “believe lies” either. My audience is whoever is looking for the WHOLE truth.'

Carmen: And here we do agree.
Love is indeed BLIND!

Carmel: 'I hope I did better this time.'
Carmen: Yes! Indeed! Thank you!!!!!

Carmel:

I always appreciate the discussion. Great points all around.
An interesting book on the topic is The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke.

Best,
Nick (“B”)

Just returned from o/s where I had no access to the internet. Some very interesting and dare I say passionate words have been expressed! For me everything changed when I no longer accepted that my prayers (including pagan wishes upon a star) to my Catholic God were of no use - except for maintaining the delusion that somehow our God will intervene on our behalf to make things better (or at least comprehensible and meaningful).

So yes, Carmel, I do not believe in miracles or divine intervention; all we have is ourselves and each other. Obviously, our religious texts express otherwise. Three of my books begin with the following devastating quote:

" Myths are ostensibly ‘true’, that is, they present themselves as giving an accurate narrative of ‘what really happened’. A culture rarely recognises its own mythology as mythology. Judged from within a culture, myths are true accounts of the way things really are."
Professor Elizabeth Vandiver, Classical Mythology

Carmen wrote: "Beth wrote: "Not a cradle Catholic here but Hubs is, while he isn't a practising Catholic and rejects it due to the many obvious reasons but it has left it's mark upon him.
I was lucky and not brou..."

Hi Carmen, lol you certainly have a mixture of faiths in your family, must be difficult to understand them all. It's so nice that you're so accepting. If I had to stick a label on myself it would be more Taoist/Buddhist I don't fit easily into any! Good luck in your search, not an easy one.

Tony wrote: "Just returned from o/s where I had no access to the internet. Some very interesting and dare I say passionate words have been expressed! For me everything changed when I no longer accepted that my ..."

As I understand it, Tony, myths in the present-day context are best understood through the Jungian perspective of the collective unconscious. For example, the archetype of the mother should not be seen as a goddess to worship. But rather myths of the mother are there to help us explore how motherhood affects the psyche.

Beth wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Beth wrote: "Not a cradle Catholic here but Hubs is, while he isn't a practising Catholic and rejects it due to the many obvious reasons but it has left it's mark upon him.
I was luc..."

Thank you, Beth,
I don't think I had a choice but to accept the interfaith relationships within our family! lol
You know the old prayer: Lord, Grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change ...
So I accept ... and ... well ... to be honest, we all just fell in love! After 50 years of marriage, my husband and I are still trying to figure out why we would form the family we did. And we can only answer, "We fell in love!" Now, that is REALLY funny! LOL

Carmen wrote: "Beth wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Beth wrote: "Not a cradle Catholic here but Hubs is, while he isn't a practising Catholic and rejects it due to the many obvious reasons but it has left it's mark upon h..."

LOL....Brilliant Love really does conquer all.

Beth wrote: "LOL....Brilliant Love really does conquer all. "

Yes indeed, Beth!!!!
And love is a lot more fun than other forms of conquering!

Hi Tony, regarding your message 79:

I’m so glad you’re back, I missed you. Please forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by “o/s”?

In your post, you wrote, “For me everything changed when I no longer accepted that my prayers … to my Catholic God were of any use.” I must agree with you that he hardly ever hears our prayers, but I believe he made us resilient and ingenious so we can solve our own problems and mature through the experience: thus becoming a better version of our self. So we start thinking like you, “all we have is ourselves and each other.” However, there were a few rare occasions in my life when I think he came through? Was it him, or was it just a welcome coincidence? I can’t tell for sure. I believe it was him because I did things I didn’t think I was capable of doing on my own.
In the ‘parable of the unjust judge’ (Luke 18:1–8), the Gospels also tell us that we should keep praying if we want something badly enough, and God will HAVE TO listen to our prayers eventually. I agree with you: from my experience, I found this to be untrue. I think that when God wants to listen to our prayers, he listens in short order: the way ‘friends’ are supposed to treat each other. I’ve realized that “no” is also an answer, and learnt to live with it.

The Gospels say that with faith one can move mountains (Matthew 17:20) or trees (Luke 17:6). However, I’ve never heard of anybody capable of achieving such a feat, including Jesus himself. When I tried, in my younger days, to move a small empty glass on a smooth table by an inch without touching it, I couldn’t. So, I don’t blame you when you say, “I do not believe in miracles or divine intervention.” Yet, there is evidence to the contrary. True, they are few and far between (otherwise we wouldn’t be able to trust scientific experiments if God keeps poking his ‘finger’ into them) but there is enough evidence that they did happen.

I think God desires something different from us humans than he does from angels. The angels just adore his magnificence at the simple ‘sight’ of him. Were we to see his glory, we too would just fall down in adoration. However, he doesn’t desire a rock-star admiration from us—he has that from his angels. He desires a ‘vulnerable’ relationship from us. So, he remains hidden from us, purposely adopting a HANDS-OFF policy, like an incognito king, because he desires (not wants) a PERSONAL relationship with us (to love him or to hate him) but only if we want to: he doesn’t force it upon us, we can simply disregard him. We can have a personal relationship with a hundred people, say; being God and infinite, he can have a personal relationship with billions. In my opinion, this is the ‘meaning of life’: why we are ‘dumped’ here on this tiny planet in a vast universe. Apparently unlike the angels, he also allows us to participate in his ‘continuing creation’ through our begetting children: a great honor that we can also forego and another reason why we are here.

Regards,
Carmel.

Carmen wrote: "Beth wrote: "LOL....Brilliant Love really does conquer all. "

Yes indeed, Beth!!!!
And love is a lot more fun than other forms of conquering!"

Too right Carmen.....!!

Beth wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Beth wrote: "LOL....Brilliant Love really does conquer all. "

Yes indeed, Beth!!!!
And love is a lot more fun than other forms of conquering!"

Too right Carmen.....!!"

Beth, perhaps we should start a discussion group on the topic of 'Love conquers all!' (Heart)