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 Never Existed. End of story.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud




This thread is really quite laughable. When are people going to stop trying to prove Dieity by cold hard facts? It hasn't been that way from the beginning and it never will be that way. Keep it up. I get a kick out of the confusion you create for yourselves.


Your beliefs may be irrational, if you meant to say that. It would be unwise to presume others are equally so.


Roger P - Thats a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, you accuse us of ignoring facts when you blatantly ignore the biggest fact of all religions.
That is THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for the existence of god(s) and /or Jesus. ...


I've restored the original post, and my response. Quite why you suppose that no-one but yourself could hold rational views I was unclear.

You'll forgive me if I am not very interested in the views you put in my mouth.

What I would suggest is that you ask just why we should live as you perhaps do? -- by conformity to some subset of the societal values of our little period of history. 50 years ago everyone was just as certain of other values; in 50 years time no-one will believe what most people take for granted.

Any life must be based on a set of values and ideas that have been rationally examined. I have yet to encounter any atheist poster who has done this. I don't mean that as a sneer, but rather as a comment on their posts. All of them consist of attacks on Christianity, consisting of jeers, stone-throwing, and repetition of the sort of cod-history one finds in atheist books and websites which tells us only that the authors knew no history and cared less. Occasionally they boast of 'de-conversions' -- that these people are converted to an irrational and unexamined conformity appears universally to be the case.

This will not do. Any of us can throw stones at beliefs we do not hold, or want to hold; it will rarely reflect well on us.

All the best,

Roger Pearse




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse
As for stereotyping, all you have to do now is start applying that principle.


I'm sorry Roger. I can't imagine how you got the impression that I concern myself with meeting your preconceptions of intelligence.


Insult noted.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Roger - So your saying that Faith is a rational value? Also I happen to live by my own values not what other people think I should do.


G



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Roger - So your saying that Faith is a rational value?


I think perhaps you have misunderstood what I wrote. I understood that you are suggesting that anyone not an atheist is irrational. This I query, naturally enough.



Also I happen to live by my own values not what other people think I should do.


Well, I don't know you. But I find that in practice almost everyone lives by some subset of the values of the society in which they live, unless they hold some definite other philosophy such as Christianity or stoicism. Test yourself on the shibboleth values of our day. Do you hate 'racism', 'homophobia'; do you trust the government; etc. I think you will find that these values are those of those who set the media agenda in 1990, rather than the values set in 1950, or 1900.

They tell us we are thinking for ourselves. But the evidence is that this too is just a cliche they insert into our value-idea set.

Every age has a set of (often mutually contradictory) values and ideas which make up the period values of that era, and which are so visible when we look back at the Victorians, the Edwardians, the inter-war period, the 50's, etc. And we are encouraged not to realise that the same is true of the times in which we live; or that these values too will pass.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by just me 2
So, why would whoever created today's modern calanders, base all of time upon a mythological figure?


...because he was a Catholic monk. The resetting of the calendar happened centuries after the purported events of Jesus, when Christianity was the dominant political force on earth.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihuludOh and what question would that be?


It was implied in the statement, "There is no proof that God exists." Proof is evidence of a particular answer to a question. In this case, the question is, "Does God exist?" and the particular answer for which no evidence can be found is, "Yes."



But then again you Christians are never wrong eh?


Since I am not a Christian, "we Christians" don't exist.



Well thats not strictly true is it, being in love or falling in love causes both physical changes and chemical changes in the body which could be measured.


How do we know this? We can observe the physical and chemical changes in the body, but we cannot observe the "being in love" state that they are supposed to correspond to. How, then, can we verify a correlation between them?



So I'm just to take it that Gods there and needs worshipping and thats that, no if's and's or but's??????????


Of course not. What YOU'RE thinking of when you say "God," ISN'T there, and doesn't need worshiping.

What I'm saying is, what YOU'RE thinking of when you say "God," isn't God.

As for what IS God, either you experience this Presence or you don't. If you don't, then for you, God isn't real, at least not yet. But there is nothing you can say about whether God is real for others.



If you need the comforting thought of God and such like then fine but I dont


Another example of thinking you know something when you know nothing. I don't "need" the comforting thought of God(dess), but She makes Her presence known and I cannot deny Her. And that -- not something you can dismiss with a casual wave and an avoidance of thought -- is why I believe.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Two Steps Forward]

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Jesus never existed.


Since the beginning of recorded history mankind has been looking for the part of the human anatomy that quantifies as the "Self" or "Observer"

We all have memories of being an observer.

Humanity has spent thousands of years looking in every orafice of the body, every system, every organ, every lobe of the brain, every cortex of the brain. We have mapped the brain and essentially know what parts of the brain are most active when doing or thinking about things.

The portion that constitutes the "Self/Observer" can not be found.

So, how can you continue to view your reality as real when the self that is determining it to be real is itself intangible?

You can't prove to me you exist, of course I wouldn't expect you to be able to explain to me that Christ existed, nor would I expect you are capable of believing Christ existed.

However I will offer this tidbit of information for instant in through one ear and out through the other brain dumping:

Everything we've learned about the human mind tells us that the "Law of Association" is predominant in the way we form thoughts. And everything we have learned about the human mind tells us that humanities fear of the unknown and the contemplation of death could not have served as a catalyst to the leap of a concept of one supreme observer.

On the other hand:
Atheists do not acknowledge any supreme being existing that is more powerful than they are. All monotheistic religions must have a supreme observer that acknowledges no other supreme observer that is superior to themselves. Therefore: All monotheistic religions worship a God who is an athiest. So the entire purpose of Christianity is to convert people who are athiests and of other faiths into Christians who believe Christ is God manifested in man, and Christians want to be like Christ (who is God), and God is an athiest. Therefore the end result of finding God in monothiestic faiths is to be like an athiest.

Luckily for me, my faith hasn't waivered. The fact I'm still here demonstrates this.



Love is the ultimate truth. And it is the only real thing that can and will turn this planet around to the paradise that once was.


Truth is the ultimate truth.

Truth needs to love the Truth in order to continue in existance.

Love is not the ultimate Truth, Truth is the ultimate Truth, and Truth needs Love.





When will the world wake up to the truth?


When all individuals conquer the fears that prevent them from witnessing and experiencing the world in which they live. The subconscious mind rules approximately 99.99999996 percent of the brain. Why? A defense mechanism that exists because of the selfishness that is the instinct of: "Self before Service (of anything/anyone)" aka "Self Preservation". And, since all sensory input is first presented to the subconscious mind, your subconscious mind can only release the information to you that does not overwhelm the conscious mind which is a slave to it's own fears.

Doubt it?

I can prove it:

What is the opposite of Love?


Hate you say?


But, how can you justify your hate without the fear you had that that which you hate had the potential to take someone/something you love away from you?

The only way you can hate is by your fear of loosing what you love. But, obviously if you did not know this it is because you were too cowardly to face your own fears, and you've conditioned and continued the lie (even to yourself) that your fear is not the cause of your hate, but that which you hate is the cause of your hate.

I only know this because of my love for Jesus. So, whether it is proven he never existed or not, I will still know he did.

As for people who say he never existed:

Why believe them? They still thought hate was the opposite of love. What did they really know? They still are not utilizing all their faculties due to the fact that their fear keeps the majority of their mind from actually belonging to them. They demonstrate they are inept to be anything more than a survivor. And all a survivor can hope for is what they personally need and want. Nothing more resides outside this scope. Everything they witness and experience is still:

1) What can this do for me (How does this benefit me and what I love?)
2) How could this be detrimental for me (how can this harm me and what I love?)

Few other choices remain in the minds of those who hate without recognizing their hate is the manifestation of their fears.



Here's another hint: The entire bible is based on astrology. Yes, it's that simple.


How is your belief stated as a fact a hint?

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
(Sorry for my bad English in advanced)

I usually like reading ATS but usually do not post any messages, but in this case I will make an exception.
I'll most say that this thread caught my attention. First because the nature of the statement, in my case I have been raised in a traditional Christian family, but with many freethinkers as myself, and with a freethinker mind I must say that this statement would be an undeniable possibility, even in the light of any kind of proofs some could give. I think that we people of the 21st century must think with an extreme analytic mind, and try to unwrap every single Dogma or Believe. We can not accept mirrors for gold. Over the years we have learned that history and even testimonies could be and have been false, so Jesus didn’t really existed?, could be a possibility.
Now I must say that this is where all collides and it all ends with a single word called faith, but faith as a personal point of view it’s out of boundaries of reason, one of the must important elements a human being has.
So do we must revalorize faith vs. reason? Which path should humanity should take?
Over the centuries Faith has been a tortuous road.

F.Orior



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by BaastetNoir
If Jesus never exhisted , why would Roman history,


They didn't.
LATER Roman writers mentioned Christians and their beliefs about Christ.



Originally posted by BaastetNoir
and even Muslim history mention him ??


Pardon?
Religious beliefs from 6 centuries later ?
And you think that is historical evidence?

The Qura'an also says that Jesus was not really crucified (it was really Simon AFAIR) - do you agree with that?


Originally posted by BaastetNoir
to say Jesus never exhisted is as sad, ignorant and proof of lack of knowlegde as saying the Ho.locaust never happened.
my advice:... LIBRARY !


But sadly,
neither you, nor any apologist, can come up with any EVIDENCE !

Just the same tired ol' preaching.


Iasion



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by BaastetNoirP.S. - are you saying Muslims lied in the Quran just to get people to convert ?? hmmmmmmmmmmmm...interesting


So,
you believe the Qura'an is true?

So,
you believe the moon split in two?
you believe Mohamed flew on a magic animal to Jersualem?
you believe that Jesus was not really crucified?

That's what the Qura'an says.

Iasion



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by just me 2
So, why would whoever created today's modern calanders, base all of time upon a mythological figure?


Pardon?
A CHRISTIAN MONK made up our dating system many CENTURIES later based on his faithful beliefs (and he got it wrong by a few years anyway.)

Consider the Romans - they dated their city based on a legend about Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she wolf. According to your argument, this means the she wolf story was real history.

Consider the Jews - they date their calendar from mythical events and figures in the Tanach.


One calendar, used by some cultures is hardly "all of time".

Jews, Muslims, Chinese (and others AFAIK) - they all have their own dating systems.

Our calendar proves nothing.


Iasion


[edit on 22-12-2005 by Iasion]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
As for people who say he never existed:

Why believe them? They still thought hate was the opposite of love. What did they really know? They still are not utilizing all their faculties due to the fact that their fear keeps the majority of their mind from actually belonging to them.


You can not determine whether or not there was a historical figure wrapped up in the Biblical Jesus by analyzing love, hate, fear, arguments from moral consequences, faith, how the brain works, etc. These may address someone's motivation for asking the questions, but they have no bearing on the historical facts.

Either there was historical Jesus or there wasn't, and it doesn't matter what any of us want the answer to be.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by numberfive
Over the years we have learned that history and even testimonies could be and have been false, so Jesus didn’t really existed?, could be a possibility.
F.Orior


It's a shame more people aren't willing to have a conversation that challenges their preconceptions without throwing temper tantrums, accusing their opponents of stupidity or deceit and resorting to other fallacies to try to "win". It's extremly difficult to have a serious informal discussion about hot topics on this board (BTS is not unique in that regard).



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by numberfive
Over the years we have learned that history and even testimonies could be and have been false, so Jesus didn’t really existed?, could be a possibility.
F.Orior


It's a shame more people aren't willing to have a conversation that challenges their preconceptions without throwing temper tantrums, accusing their opponents of stupidity or deceit and resorting to other fallacies to try to "win". It's extremly difficult to have a serious informal discussion about hot topics on this board (BTS is not unique in that regard).


I will like to know how my comments relate to what you are saying, I didn’t accuse anybody nor try to win anything I was just expressing my opinion. Else maybe I misunderstood you.
F.Orior



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Maybe the mention of false testimony was seen as an accusation of deceit, or calling someon a liar. I didn't take it that way, though, and really appreciate it when people will grant me the possibility of being right, when they themselves totally disagree. I never claim that I 'know', and when I find I am wrong, I am happy because I have learned something. The fact is, facts are extremely rare, and claimed facts are too common.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I've probably said this somewhere else, but . . .

There is no convincing direct evidence of a historical Jesus. However, there is the circumstantial evidence of the existence of Christianity. Specifically:

A community of Jewish Christians existed beginning at about the right time to have been Jesus' followers and their descendants.

Paul of Tarsus, by his own account initially a foe and persecutor of these Jewish Christians (we cannot independently verify this), changed his ways at some point and began preaching a variation of their teachings, de-Judaized (although he himself was Jewish) and intended for gentiles. It is this Pauline version of Christianity that eventually became the Imperial Church, which split into the Catholic and Orthodox Churches after the fall of Rome, and all Protestant denominations are spin-offs from the Catholic Church. So except for the surviving Nazarenes in the Middle East and some recreated Gnosticism, all Christianity is Pauline today. That means IMO that it's very likely quite divergent from what Jesus actually taught, but that's a different subject than the one of this thread.

We do not have direct evidence of Jesus' existence, but the simplest and most straightforward explanation of the above events is, "there was a man named Jesus who lived in the Middle East around the time of Augustus and/or Tiberius, whose followers founded a religion after he died, and who is alleged to have said and done A, B, and C."

Thus, the burden of proof is not on those who believe Jesus existed. It is on those who believe he didn't. At the very least, if you want to reject the "historical Jesus" hypothesis, you need to come up with another explanation for how Christianity came to exist. And bear in mind that any such explanation requires more assumptions than the historical Jesus hypothesis, and so should be rejected by Occam's razor, all else being equal -- therefore you need to show how it better explains the data.

Of course, saying that Jesus most likely existed is a far cry from saying that the stories about him in the Gospels are true. Go very far into that, and the burden of proof shifts.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Here's how I see it. The power of the mind is such a beautiful thing, but it can also be very fragile and vulnerable. The power of our imagination and the images we create can produce a web of enlightment or destruction. Stories are just like that. It can inspire, frighten, make us laugh, etc etc. Powerful and inspirational stories like Jesus can do the same. The difference is, we have a man who calls himself "King of Kings", "Son of Man", and of course "Son of God". Now that's all fine and dandy. We obviously cannot prove whether or not Jesus existed, and we most certainly cannot prove if he was the son of a one true "God".

So all we have left is just a book. That's it. A book. Full of stories with (I admit), a lot of good messages and great vivid characters and locations. How we want to interpret these messages is all up to us. I'm sure these messages has helped those who are in need of spiritual help, to those we have a void in their hearts. So yes, I think the Bible and the story of Jesus can be helpful. But to stand high to a pedestal and proclaim that there is only one path to "heaven", one true "God", one way. One way. This way, or else. This way, or you'll regret it. This way, or you'll burn forever in "hell". Is this your loving God?

So we are a christian nation? Founding fathers, christians? Hmm. Well, no. That doesn't work out for me. We are a nation, for sure. And okay, so our founding fathers believed in the bible. Or did they? Do we know for sure? Anyway, even if they were, who are we to slap this nation a big fat religious label? No. The problem is there are those who to take these messages and because they believe it with every fiber in them that this is the "truth", then well...all fall in line please, because anything else would guarantee you a seat next to "Satan". Satan. Devil. The arch enemy of God. Hmm. Well, this would certainly create a very persuasive and influencing story for us humans.

Good against evil. Are these stories and characters necessary for us to understand what good and evil is? And to overcome this evil, must the only way be through Jesus Christ? Do we not have this power within ourselves? To change the world? To change each other? Of course we do. We are powerful and extraordinary creatures. We are infinite. So when I say the power of the mind can affect so many, I mean that literally. I believe that Jesus Christ is an image. A powerful image, just like a Da Vinci painting. It can be so powerfully life changing because the mind works this way.

Picture this. You're down and something terrible just happened. You search for comfort. You go to a room, get down on your knees and pray. Who are you praying to? It doesn't really matter. The point is you are praying and prayer is a good thing because it gathers all those scattered negative emotions and thoughts and brings it into harmony. Into a state of mind that is comforting and relieving. A state of mind. That's what it is. If it's Jesus you're picturing in your mind, then you will believe Jesus is doing the job. If it's Satan, same thing. Only difference is that Satan = negative imagery and energy. It is an energy effect. Positive & Negative thinking. We're just putting a face to it. And his name is Jesus.

But I take this to another level, I'm sorry to say. Some probably feel the same too. The churches, the symbols, the writings, this could very well be one big distraction. From what? Well, the truth. For example, I am always saddened and deeply disturbed when I see a flock of thousands looking up to the pope as if he is God's mouthpiece. The truth is, he's no better than you or me. The psychology behind his theatrical appearances is very carefully staged to present himself as a man of god and spout bible verses left and right. Many will follow, of course. There's always someone willing to submit and obey. Believe in something, anything. Because they need it. They need it because without the idea of a god ruling their lives is just too dangerous. A taboo. Can't be done, there must be someone out there to guide us!


Well, maybe I'll start praying to Zeus. I mean, just look at him. He seems all powerful and all knowing. Nice looking guy, I'm sure he'll comfort me in times of trouble.



[edit on 23-12-2005 by eudaimonia]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings,


Originally posted by BaastetNoir
If Jesus never exhisted , why would Roman history,


They didn't.
LATER Roman writers mentioned Christians and their beliefs about Christ.


No doubt you will publish, in a peer-reviewed journal, your evidence that the texts present in all our critical, peer-reviewed, editions of these authors are in fact defective?

Pardon the sarcasm, but I don't think we should state as fact -- still less SHOUT as fact -- things which are not true.




Originally posted by BaastetNoir
and even Muslim history mention him ??


Pardon? Religious beliefs from 6 centuries later ? And you think that is historical evidence?


You need to explain just why evidence in the historical record can be ignored depending on the calendar. The downstream effect of historical events is evidence. Some of us think the existence of the USA might be evidence that people did migrate from Britain to North America, and would be, even if that evidence were centuries later.



The Qura'an also says that Jesus was not really crucified (it was really Simon AFAIR) - do you agree with that?


Change of topic noted.




Originally posted by BaastetNoir
to say Jesus never exhisted is as sad, ignorant and proof of lack of knowlegde as saying the Ho.locaust never happened.
my advice:... LIBRARY !


But sadly, neither you, nor any apologist, can come up with any EVIDENCE !


This from someone who can't even state his preferred system of beliefs and values, never mind offer EVIDENCE for it?
And don't we all know that you're merely preaching that we should conform to some subset of societal values -- and that you don't care what, so long as it isn't Christianity? But ...

You mean, of course, that no-one can produce any evidence that someone can't find a reason to ignore. Of course this is so. Whether this is evidence about Jesus, or about that person, I would not like to say!

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by numberfive
I will like to know how my comments relate to what you are saying, I didn’t accuse anybody nor try to win anything I was just expressing my opinion. Else maybe I misunderstood you.
F.Orior


Sorry, I meant it as a compliment in that you had admitted a willingness to challenge your preconception. I didn't make myself very clear.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

You can not determine whether or not there was a historical figure wrapped up in the Biblical Jesus by analyzing love, hate, fear, arguments from moral consequences, faith, how the brain works, etc.


No, but I can determine if I'm adressing the views of an individual who is a person who is trying to think with a broken mind. And, if they are not consciously aware of 99.999999% of their own thoughts, how much is their opinion really worth? They can't even control themselves, so why should we accredit their views and opinions as real, when they are only presenting 0.000000000003% of their own truth, because the rest of their truths reside behind their own fears in their subconscious. Having never accessed the other 99.999999999997%, i wouldn't necessarily expect you to understand the significance of it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join