Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a western kind of thinking. Believers should never argue with deniers about history, archeology, etc.
There are about 700M Hindus in the world, maybe more. I am not aware of people claiming they would not believe until the remains of prince Arjuna are found. Or Buddhists denying Buddha until they identify the exact cave he meditated in. And most important- was he fat? That is unhealthy...
Holy books aren't about history, but spirituality and symbolism, which westerns have troubles accepting.
The Arjuna - Krishna discussions described in the Bhagavad Gita raise moral dilemmas which are the main point.
But a deity with an elephant head? Show me the money!
As a side point: archeologists claim they found Jesus home in Nazareth. (And He may still have some unpaid mortgage).
The difference between Buddha and Jesus is that Buddha was an ordinary man who meditated and found a state of enlightenment. I think the idea of Buddha not being a real person is actually somewhat entertained by academia, though I could be wrong. We don't even know within 100 years when he was born, so the hard evidence is even less than for Jesus. But the things he claimed were also a lot less miraculous, so Occam's Razor favors a historical Buddha but not a historical Christ.
The difference between Buddha and Jesus is that Buddha was an ordinary man who meditated and found a state of enlightenment. I think the idea of Buddha not being a real person is actually somewhat entertained by academia, though I could be wrong. We don't even know within 100 years when he was born, so the hard evidence is even less than for Jesus. But the things he claimed were also a lot less miraculous, so Occam's Razor favors a historical Buddha but not a historical Christ.
Historical Buddha isn't the main point. Academia is the most inappropriate place to deal with religion. It's about believing (which isn't the same as knowing). It shows you a decent way of living your life and provides you a moral compass. You either believe or you don't.
But the truth is that religious Christians and the Church started this inane argument, by:
1) Relating to the Bible as a factual book, with every word interpreted as fact, dictated directly by God.
2) Forcing people to adopt their religion with "facts" from the Bible: (God created the world, 5775 years ago, one morning in April, starting at 9:00 am).
3) Arguing and confronting people who hold on to other belief models and religions.
4) aggressively postalizing.
The results are that religion opponents and nonbelievers fight back by dragging the whole discussions to unintended places. Would Christianity benefit if we can point to the house were Christ lived his life? How?
There are about 700M Hindus in the world, maybe more. I am not aware of people claiming they would not believe until the remains of prince Arjuna are found. Or Buddhists denying Buddha until they identify the exact cave he meditated in. And most important- was he fat? That is unhealthy...
Holy books aren't about history, but spirituality and symbolism, which westerns have troubles accepting.
Very well said! There is a good reason why "Christians" and "Muslims" are fighting each other. Neither understands what belief and faith are, and so they war over disagreements in dogma.
I think the odds are very good that Jesus never lived. If he did, then he was a regular guy who really got his **** together and did something amazing. What is unmistakable is that either the reality or mythology of his story had a powerful impact on many people's lives.
I'd still like to see a contemporary historical document to 'prove' the existence of another historical figure. Anyone who reads this thread can see that the only thing here is arguments and theories about Occam's Razor. No one provided written documents of any Caesar, philosopher or religious leader which dated to the actual time. Even most of the events Herodotus and Thucydides wrote about were centuries after. I guess most ancient history is myth.
Last edited by TenorSax83; 06-19-2015 at 11:42 AM..
I do believe that a historical Jesus of Nazareth existed. As for the rest of it, eh. Mythology can easily arise around a living person, and I have a simple personal example. My husband and I volunteered with a youth organization over twenty years ago. Just recently, we ran into one of the young men in the organization at a social event in another part of the country. My husband and I stood there stunned while he excitedly relayed stories that he and the other youth members still share about our time together. Really, it was like he was talking about totally different people. We were tremendously flattered but could not for the life of us figure out how we had morphed into superheroes. It was weird to say the least. But what it really all boils down to is that we were simply present during a very significant part of his life, and we became what he and his friends projected onto us. It wasn't about us; it was about them. I think the same is possibly true for the historical Jesus. It's about us and what we need, not him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
