It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus and Jesus and Jesus and Jesus....i did this cause I love you not to convince you...

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I was presented with a list of many Jesus's by windword. I knew of some of other Jesus's, but he presented me with some new ones. I take new information seriously, so I have spent my time looking into what I can about the Jesus's on my list. The conclusion I have come to is that these people were named Jesus. None of them however could have possibly been Jesus the Christ, the brother of James, who was crucified under the command of Pontius Pilate.

Now many people on this site always ask for contemporary sources and I think most of those people confuse contemporary source with primary source. The two are defined as:




Contemporary sources are those which have information close to the source, either timewise or location (paperwork generated from the research itself). Primary sources are those that are directly related or involved with an event, and it is highly desirable that you find and use them.


Source

Lets start with the sources we have for Jesus Christ:

NT documents

Josephus:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,[ if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ], and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. "

This passage is debated about widely and your free to make up your own mind. From my research the sections in brackets should be considered Christian interpolations. The majority of scholars hold that the part about the crucifixion and Pontius Pilate are accurate. Go look into who Josephus' father was and you'll see why this would obviously be something Josephus had at least heard of growing up.

"...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...
"

This passage to my knowledge is not refuted but by maybe a tiny tiny fraction of historians. If you have issues with "who was called Christ" omit that phrase and you can still deduce that this is the Jesus of Paul's letters who is called Christ. So I mean either way its an obvious reference to Christ

Tacitus

" 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 during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, 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.
"
Again a reference to Jesus the Christ as no other Jesus was the one that created the class called Christians by the populace of that time. Again Christians were obviously around reference Paul's letters.

Suetonius

"
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
"

Give this one some fair research and it becomes quite obvious who this is.


Pliny

That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill:

Pay very close attention to the phrasing. singing to Christ as a God means that Pliny recognized that Christ has a presence somewhere in reality. If Christ had been imaginary the phrasing would be to Christ their God or something of that nature.

So can these other Jesus's fit these sources???

Here's the list


Those that don't fit the time period of the reign of Tiberius Caesar and command of Pontius Pilate are in the list below and are omitted for that reason:

Jesus ben Sirach

Jesus ben Pandira

Jesus ben Ananias

Jesus ben Saphat.

Jesus ben Gamala.

Jesus ben Thebuth

Jesus ben Stada

Jesus ben Phiabi

Jesus ben Sec

Jesus ben Damneus

Jesus ben Gamaliel

This time period was my first test on the list...and every one of them failed...maybe people will wake up now and realize that the man was real....

Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ was a real person that walked the earth I challenge you to explain the conversion of Paul without sounding like a nut..




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   


Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ was a real person that walked the earth I challenge you to explain the conversion of Paul without sounding like a nut..


I'll give it a go...

A man named Jesus was walking around the countryside teaching against the laws of the OT such as "hate thy neighbor" and "an eye for an eye" and calling the Pharisees liars.

The Pharisees witnessed this and saw that this man was a threat to their power structure because he was gaining many followers. The Pharisees talked to the Romans and convinced them to catch this man and kill him because of the threat he posed to their institution.

After they capture and kill Jesus, the Jewish leaders (employed by Rome) continue to round up followers of this teacher almost to their extinction. This is where Paul comes into play, he was one of the top ranking Pharisees in Rome's employ, he was very eloquent when he spoke (much lie today's preachers) and very well versed in the laws of the OT.

They tell him to fake a conversion in the name of the man they killed in order to usurp his message of love and forgiveness and revert it back to the OT concept of sacrificing things for sin. They turn Jesus into a sacrifice for sins through the letters Paul (who made up his conversion) wrote.

Paul's conversion is very shaky, all the accounts of it in the bible disagree on the details of what exactly happened. What makes it worse is that all the accounts were written by the same exact author. If this author were inspired by God he would not have contradicted himself on the same event on three separate occasions.

Does that sound nutty? I think it's quite reasonable personally.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

As far as Tacitus goes.



Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Eusebius of Caesarea, Catholic Church HistorianBased on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author....

Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian, (c. 56-120 CE)


And


Ultraviolet photo of a critical word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy).



The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.

link

The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated


There are some serious concerns that the piece from Tacitus is a forgery by both Christian scholars and secular ones at the very least we know without a doubt it has been altered.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I found your suggestion to look into Josephus father to be very interesting indeed. I never thought to look there. Very well done post. Thank You. Of course you will never convince the unconvinceable. But, so be it.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
i personally can,t say this person didn,t exist but is he the son of god?

well when i don,t believe any god exists then that will be no,worlds changing and we,ve moved on from god creating the world to nothing but a big bang.

love to hang about for another thousand years and see what they come up with next.

sure it,ll change again but if it makes people feel better that after they check out they are going to some heaven with some god then goodluck to them.

to me crazy but thats human nature fur u.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




None of them however could have possibly been Jesus the Christ


Right, because the biblical Jesus "Christ" is a composite figure that shares the characteristics attributed to other real and mythical individuals.



Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ was a real person that walked the earth I challenge you to explain the conversion of Paul without sounding like a nut..


Can't be done...................LOL


edit on 13-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

As I mentioned in the OP there is a tiny tiny fraction of scholars that might attempt to refute this. I personally don't find any of the arguments on their side convincing, but you are free to make up your own mind friend . This is simply my opinion on why Jesus Christ is the only one that fits those sources.

I mean if this is just something that is just completely stopping you from accepting that Jesus Christ lived and died under the command of Pontius Pilate I will try my best to show you why these arguments are not convincing but if your aware of the opposite position i'd rather just agree to disagree as all either of us can do is refer to experts. I can appeal to majority , but that is logically fallacious and doesn't mean my position is true it just means the majority of experts think it is true.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: akaal

Thanks man glad you got at least one thing out of it.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: sparky31

The point of this thread was to hopefully get people to at least meet on common ground here. If I can't even to get you to accept that the man existed there is no way I would ever expect you to believe He was God.

Just a tip. Rather than expecting a person to be able to say one thing that just makes you radically change you beliefs expect people to give you cumulative arguments for the existence of God and Jesus being that God. For example there are many arguments used by Christians that really only get a person to the concept of a higher consciousness that created everything that we see, and that is why you will also see Muslims , Deist, andJew and pretty much any other creator-god religion use these arguments. If a Christian is being honest and just trying to share information with you then they should point this out. I'll give you three of the big ones : Moral argument, Cosmological argument, and Free-will argument. These three arguments are not good arguments for one specific religion, but they are good arguments for the existence of a higher consciousness. Once a person realizes that some higher form of consciousness must exist then a case can be built for which one. So these arguments are just a building block for a bigger argument.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




A man named Jesus was walking around the countryside teaching against the laws of the OT such as "hate thy neighbor" and "an eye for an eye" and calling the Pharisees liars. The Pharisees witnessed this and saw that this man was a threat to their power structure because he was gaining many followers. The Pharisees talked to the Romans and convinced them to catch this man and kill him because of the threat he posed to their institution.


Maybe you didn't read the question, but it said if you don't believe Jesus was a real person...your story involves the existence of Jesus?




They tell him to fake a conversion in the name of the man they killed in order to usurp his message of love and forgiveness and revert it back to the OT concept of sacrificing things for sin.


Are you kidding? Devote Jews purposely create a false idol, while simultaneously believing their God would send them to the depths of Sheol for such a thing? NUTTY!!!




Paul's conversion is very shaky, all the accounts of it in the bible disagree on the details of what exactly happened. What makes it worse is that all the accounts were written by the same exact author. If this author were inspired by God he would not have contradicted himself on the same event on three separate occasions.


A lot of claims...no references....




Does that sound nutty? I think it's quite reasonable personally.


You think making stuff up off the top of your head and calling it history is reasonable? Lets be honest...all you have produced is a bunch of stuff you made up to fit your preconceived notion that Paul was some pawn for the Roman Gov't. Where are your facts?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Can't be done...................LOL


Your right it can't be done, but it'll be fun to watch the history noobs try.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
why must some higher form of consciousness exist? cause someone says so?

i don,t believe anything exists once you check out for good,i,m quite happy with that.

to you theres something beyond.
goodluck with that and if i,m wrong then i,ll find out but to me once your lights go out then your out for good

think people have to believe cause they are scared to think that 1 life is it.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It really isn't a tiny fraction of scholars that find the Tacitus quote as a forgery the very fact that it didn't surface until the 15th century and wasn't quoted even once by scholars who searched for these things to affirm the faith such as Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively who made no mention of the quote.

Then the inaccuracies contained within it about Pilate and how no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ" are more than enough to cast serious doubt on its validity. Whoever wrote it must have lacked source material for that era to give it credibility.

You can believe whatever you want as many people do, but the full story should be presented on the matter. I personally see the Tacitus quote as a forgery based on the evidence and circumstance around it. That is a position many historians hold as well even those bound to the faith which proves it isn't a one-sided issue.

For those that take the quote on faith alone that is fine, but faith is not an active aspect of my life.

Even if it could be proven that it wasn't a hoax the only thing it would actually prove is that "Chrestianos" existed and he was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians who were originally recorded as "Chrestianos" in the annals before someone changed it.

No matter. My posts are only to provide information for those who wish to examine all aspects.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
i,m sorry but jesus story is like any story in any town,it starts at the top and by time it gets to bottom the story has got way out of control.

take that over continents and think how far out of control the story got.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I'm on your side of the debate here.a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'd help you out if I could. But, I just don't have the debating skills, and i'm not afraid to admit it. lol. Have a nice day.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
It is even stated in the Gospel of Matthew that the deluded leaders of the time tried to quell the word:

While they were going, indeed, some of the soldiers went into the city and described to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests were assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave much money to the soldiers, saying, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were sleeping.’ If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you secure.” So they took the money and did as they were instructed. And this saying has been commonly reported among the Jews to this day.

Matthew 28: 11-15



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ was a real person that walked the earth I challenge you to explain the conversion of Paul without sounding like a nut..


I will use Paul's words to do so:

“From now on we will regard no one from a human point of view,even though we formerly regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” (2 Corinthians 5:16)

Paul's conversion came from discovering the true Christ that dwells within ALL of us* and not the allegory commonly mistaken as an actual historical figure. The former will allow for practical application of the parables since all of scripture is taking place within the skull of man instead of historical, cosmological, or factual accounts. Believe it or not - you can make a heck of a lot $$$ if one is willing to read the Bible with new eyes...

Basically, Paul, discovered the same thing the Templar Knights and the William Blake's of the world did. However, Blake was not as greedy as the Templar with the information and spent his life trying to convey to the masses the true meaning of it all through his work. Paul tried to do the same, but again, the truth has become lost even using Paul as the source. Irony at its finest.

“The Vision of Christ That Thou Dost See”: William Blake on the Many Faces of Jesus

William Blake’s “The Everlasting Gospel”:

The Vision of Christ that thou dost see

Is my Vision’s Greatest Enemy.

Thine has a great hook nose like thine;

Mine has a snub nose like to mine.

Thine is the friend of All Mankind;

Mine speaks in parables to the Blind.

Thine loves the same world that mine hates;

Thy Heaven doors are my Hell Gates.

Socrates taught what Melitus

Loathd as a Nation’s bitterest Curse;

And Caiphas was in his own Mind

A benefactor to Mankind.

Both read the Bible day & night,

But thou readst black where I read white.


"But thou readst black where I read white."







edit on 13-4-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

all you have produced is a bunch of stuff you made up to fit your preconceived notion that Paul was some pawn for the Roman Gov't. Where are your facts?



He said in Rome 13 that the powers that be are all of God and that to resist will lead to damnation. Paul also said in Galatians 2:16 that we are justified by believing that Jesus's body was a human sacrifice for sins and not through doing good works. To Paul, according to his own letters, taking action to follow The Roman Empire is more important than following God.

Paul teaches about another Jesus that contradicts the teachings Jesus gave in the Gospels.

According to Jesus of The Gospels in Matthew 7:21, you go to heaven for being good (doing God's will). In Luke 6:46 The Jesus of The Gospel says why even call him "Lord" if you don't follow his teachings? According to The Jesus of The Gospels, Love is the law of God (Matthew 7:12).

The Jesus of Paul is another Jesus which teaches actions are filthy rags, so actions don't matter and we are saved by grace not works.
edit on 14-4-2015 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: sparky31




why must some higher form of consciousness exist? cause someone says so?


I gave you three arguments that point to the generic idea of a higher consciousness. There are many more.




goodluck with that and if i,m wrong then i,ll find out but to me once your lights go out then your out for good


There have been some interesting studies done in the east that very few westerners know about. There is good reason to believe that consciousness doesn't require a body to function.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Wait another proof of Jesus' existence thread? Aren't the existing threads on this topic that all present the same evidence as this one (including the one started last week) more than enough? I don't see any new evidence being presented here, so we will just end up with the same arguments as the other threads. Christians giving too much credence to shaky evidence and non-believers not accepting the shaky evidence as good enough.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join