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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
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."


The Jesus of the Bible is not an ordinary man. If you wish to claim that an oridinary man named Jesus lived in that time period as an itinerant preacher, you have to explain how all the mysticism and fantastic aspects of the Bible Jesus came to be grafted to him.

The fantastic aspects of Jesus - healing the sick, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. - come close on the heals of when he is said to have lived. While it's possible for a figure to be made larger than life within only a few decades of his death, there are other clues and pieces that indicate Jesus is an amalgamation, and thus quite likely a fictional character. For one, John the Baptist had a significant following that continued long after he was killed. Yet, he was not deified like Jesus, nor were pre-existing miracle stories attributed to him like Jesus. Why would the followers of Jesus do that to him, while the followers of John did not do the same thing to John?

Pre-existing phrases such as the "son of god" were attributed to Jesus (Augustus Caesar had called himself that in 42BC and even minted coins with the phrase on it), as were pre-existing Essene teachings. There is clear astrotheology grafted into the Jesus stories in the 1st two chapters of Matthew, as well as clues of Pythagorean teachings grafted into John 21.

Josephus mentions Jesus in passing, but highlights John the Baptist as an important historical figure. Josephus attributed the defeat of Herod's army as divine retribution against the execution of John. An interesting point is that Josephus does not record how John was executed, but he did record why. John was executed because Herod believed he was plotting a revolt. The punishment for treason would have been crucifixion, not decapitation.

I suggest an even simpler explanation than the one you provided (admittedly this is speculation), Jesus (which literally means 'god saves') was a teaching aid used by John the Baptist - the central figure in his stories. After the crucifixion of John the Baptist, these stories continued to be retold and the Jesus character was seen by John's followers as the mystical resurrection of John. John's followers broke off into different sects which took the stories into different directions.

This hypothesis explains how it is possible that only ~20 years after the purported death of Jesus the churches had already diverted significantly in their teachings about him. It also explains Paul's lack of interest in the man Jesus. It reconciles passages about the kingdom of god being within and the christ within, and passages about Christ's sacrifice being made at the beginning of time. It is not incompatible with what Josephus wrote about Jesus, as Josephus was recording Jesus 2nd hand and would have received his information about Jesus from Christians themselves. Josephus has very little to say about Jesus, which is compatible with a myth that had not yet historicized Jesus.




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

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.


No sorrys needed, it's just that it wasn't very clear for me, thanks for the explanation. I totally agree, it seems that when someone speaks about religion or football (sic), the conversation gets heated. And that has been the igniter for many wars. I wonder if this will happen if we all worship the same God. Without an intermediary.


Originally posted by eudaimonia
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.


I think that eudaimonia hit the nail here, it's no secret that religion = power power = control. Quoting a great thinker of XVIII century:
Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.
J. J. Rousseau

F.Orior



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandhamThe Jesus of the Bible is not an ordinary man. If you wish to claim that an oridinary man named Jesus lived in that time period as an itinerant preacher, you have to explain how all the mysticism and fantastic aspects of the Bible Jesus came to be grafted to him.

The fantastic aspects of Jesus - healing the sick, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. - come close on the heals of when he is said to have lived.


Actually, no. Keep in mind that Christianity had no canonical Gospels until 323 CE, and no Gospels, canonical or otherwise, in common circulation until at least a century after Jesus' death. There was an oral tradition about Jesus, but it included nothing about virgin birth or walking on water, both of which are pretty standard Greek mystical boilerplate. The oral tradition did include the Resurrection, at least in Paul's version of it.

Jesus was certainly regarded as a holy man, and that included attributing to him some miraculous insights and powers, but the really fantastical stuff in the Gospels (aside from the Resurrection itself) was probably added later.



While it's possible for a figure to be made larger than life within only a few decades of his death, there are other clues and pieces that indicate Jesus is an amalgamation, and thus quite likely a fictional character. For one, John the Baptist had a significant following that continued long after he was killed. Yet, he was not deified like Jesus, nor were pre-existing miracle stories attributed to him like Jesus. Why would the followers of Jesus do that to him, while the followers of John did not do the same thing to John?


As noted above, don't confuse the oral tradition about Jesus with the stuff you find in the Gospels. There is no reason to believe that the followers of Jesus (the Jewish Christian community) deified him. But there is every reason to believe that this community existed, because in fact it STILL exists. Nor was it the same community as the followers of the Baptist or the Essenes. And it is not very credible that such a community could emerge out of an amalgamation or a fictional character rather than a real leader.

If you want to argue that the Jesus of the Gospels is an amalgamation, we're on the same page. But one of the elements of that amalgamation is almost certainly the real Jesus.



An interesting point is that Josephus does not record how John was executed, but he did record why. John was executed because Herod believed he was plotting a revolt. The punishment for treason would have been crucifixion, not decapitation.


Not so. In the first place, the Romans were the only ones who routinely crucified anybody, and Herod, as a client king, would have enforced his own law in his own way in his own kingdom. Secondly, crucifixion was not a standard Roman penalty for rebellion. It was actually and originally the way to execute totally unsatisfactory slaves. Roman citizens were executed, if at all (it was rare) by being thrown off the Tarpeian Rock. Non-Roman but non-servile condemned were routinely flogged and beheaded. When Crassus had the captured Spartacani crucified, he was hammering home (no pun intended) the official line that they were rebellious slaves, even though most of them weren't. When Caesar in his youth crucified the pirates who had earlier kidnapped him for ransom, he was not only torturing and killing them, but also applying a huge insult.

Crucifixion might occasionally have been used to execute common criminals (like the two thieves that are alleged to have been crucified with Jesus) in Judea at the time of Tiberius, but it was certainly not a routine punishment for rebels, and thus there is no reason to believe, as you seem to, that John the Baptist was crucified rather than beheaded.



This hypothesis explains how it is possible that only ~20 years after the purported death of Jesus the churches had already diverted significantly in their teachings about him. It also explains Paul's lack of interest in the man Jesus.


It is not necessary in order to explain these things, however. Paul was not interested in the man Jesus because he never met him. (Unless you count the road to Damascus business.) Actually his is an interesting story.

Paul was a Pharisee, and the Pharisees and the Jewish Christians did not get along very well. Paul by his own account participated in, or even led, persecutions of the Jewish Christians. By his own account, Paul had a religious experience that led to his conversion. But he did not join the Jewish Christians after that conversion, but rather struck out on his own, claimed a divinely-given authority and inspiration, and crafted a very different version of Christianity for the gentiles. What this looks like to me, is a man with a huge ego, who could not bring himself to be a follower of others, and so created his own Christianity rather than joining ranks with the existing ones.

In short, we have no reason to believe that Jewish Christianity departed significantly from Jesus' teachings, and the fact that gentile (Pauline) Christianity did, is not hard at all to explain and requires no radical assumptions on the order of Jesus never having really existed.



It reconciles passages about the kingdom of god being within and the christ within, and passages about Christ's sacrifice being made at the beginning of time.


The kingdom of God being within is quite a solid tradition in Aramaic religious thought and language. This requires no explanation, as it is what we should expect. The only passage I know of about Christ's sacrifice being fromi the beginning of time is from the Gospel of John, right at the beginning. Please see above regarding the Gospels.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by numberfive I think that eudaimonia hit the nail here, it's no secret that religion = power power = control. Quoting a great thinker of XVIII century:
Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.


You make a very good point. Christians DO make too little of their own existances, and yes, we're prone to getting "run over" by tyrants. However, I wonder about the following:

Why is China (and at one time, Russia) officially Athiest?

If the divinity of Christ is fundamental in Christianity, why do the Kings and Queens of Europe claim his bloodline. Doesn't such a claim disqualify Jesus as a candidate for Divinity, and as such, actually damage a King's right to rule? If not, how come?

[edit on 23-12-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Actually, no. Keep in mind that Christianity had no canonical Gospels until 323 CE, and no Gospels, canonical or otherwise, in common circulation until at least a century after Jesus' death.


We have gospel fragments from the mid-second century. Although not definitive, it is generally accepted that Mark was first penned no later than 80 CE. There is little contention as to when Paul wrote (50-60 CE), and his Christ is mostly mystical. If not for his mention of death on a cross, there would be nothing to tie Paul's Jesus down in terms of being a fleshy human. Paul teaches many of the same things later attributed to Jesus, but never attributes those sayings to Jesus. This doesn't make any sense if Jesus was an actual human.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
There was an oral tradition about Jesus, but it included nothing about virgin birth or walking on water, both of which are pretty standard Greek mystical boilerplate.


The earliest writings we have about Jesus are Paul's. By then, Jesus was already mostly mystical. Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher or holy man, nor does he ever quote from Jesus. Again, this makes no sense if Jesus lived just ~20 years earlier. Is it reasonable that Paul, an apostle of Jesus, would never use the words of Jesus to drive a point home?


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Jesus was certainly regarded as a holy man, and that included attributing to him some miraculous insights and powers, but the really fantastical stuff in the Gospels (aside from the Resurrection itself) was probably added later.


The problem is, the records that start to show him as a holy man show up much later than the mythical versions of Jesus.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
As noted above, don't confuse the oral tradition about Jesus with the stuff you find in the Gospels.


How can you know what the oral tradition regarding Jesus was? I agree that there probably were such traditions, but Paul's writings are mostly letters of persuasion to other churches. By the time he wrote, the oral traditions had thus already diverged.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
There is no reason to believe that the followers of Jesus (the Jewish Christian community) deified him. But there is every reason to believe that this community existed, because in fact it STILL exists. Nor was it the same community as the followers of the Baptist or the Essenes.


I don't know how you can say it was not an extension of Essene tradition nor of followers of John the Baptist. The Gospel claim is that John handed his ministry over to Jesus, which would mean his followers became followers of Jesus (though there is archaeological evidence of followers of John continuing on for centuries).

Josephus records that there were three main flavors of Judaism; Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Gospel of Luke has John the Baptist referring to the Pharisees and Sadducees as vipers. John was very likely an Essene, or a close offshoot.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
And it is not very credible that such a community could emerge out of an amalgamation or a fictional character rather than a real leader.


The original leader was John the Baptist, even the Gospels admit this. Upon his death his sect split up into similar competing churches. Note that Mark 6:14–16 records Herod as referring to Jesus as the resurrected John. While it's unlikely Herod actually said that, it does tell us that the writer of Mark was familiar with such a claim.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Secondly, crucifixion was not a standard Roman penalty for rebellion.


I'd be interested in your source. I'm certainly no expert on Roman crucifixion, but the wiki supports the position that crucifixion was typical for rebels - even Roman citizens. According to Josephus, Herod considered John a rebel.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Paul was not interested in the man Jesus because he never met him.


This is an extremely specious argument. No-one here has met Jesus either, yet there is tremendous interest in Jesus as a man. It makes no sense that a leader of the early Christian movement would not have immersed himself in the teachings of the founder, regardless of whether or not he had met him, and would never take opportunity to quote from that founder when it supported his arguments. Instead, Paul refers to passages from the Old Testament where quotes from Jesus would have made a much stronger argument.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
In short, we have no reason to believe that Jewish Christianity departed significantly from Jesus' teachings,


Paul's writings are primarily letters of persuasion to the other churches regarding "proper" teachings. Like or or not, Paul irrefutably documents a split in the early church based on teachings.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
and the fact that gentile (Pauline) Christianity did, is not hard at all to explain and requires no radical assumptions on the order of Jesus never having really existed.


While Jesus-as-myth is certainly the minority position, it really isn't radical if you approach the subject without the preconception that Jesus was a fleshy human. After all, the theory formed due to the inability to reconcile all these issues that make no sense.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The only passage I know of about Christ's sacrifice being fromi the beginning of time is from the Gospel of John, right at the beginning. Please see above regarding the Gospels.


Paul alludes to it as well in 2 Timothy 1:9.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Spamandham:

I said there were no Gospels in general circulation prior to about a century after the crucifixion. I understand that Mark was supposedly written a bit earlier, but, especially in those days before the printing press, it took a while for a book to circulate.

You are, in my opinion, basing too much on Paul's ministry. Granted that this was the foundation of Christianity as it exists today, it is still not a very good indicator of what the teachings of Jesus actually were. I repeat, Paul was never a member of the Jewish Christian community. If we may believe his own accounts, he began as a persecutor of them, and then after his conversion went off and created his own version of Christianity. He spent, he said, 15 days with Peter in Jerusalem (actually, though, it was James, Jesus' brother, and not Peter, who was the head of the Jewish Christians after the crucifixion). That's not enough time for real familiarity, it seems to me. It stands to reason that his relations with them were a bit strained, even after said conversion. Nor is to be expected that he would have personal knowledge of a man he never knew in life. The mere fact that Paul preached exclusively, or nearly so, to Gentiles represents a departure from the way the Jewish Christians, who were the original followers of Jesus, operated, and indeed from the way Jesus himself is said to have taught.

The real evidence that Jesus existed as a human being is, as I've repeatedly stated, found in the existence of the Jewish Christians. I don't think you've yet understood what I mean by this term. If you did, you wouldn't present arguments like:



How can you know what the oral tradition regarding Jesus was? I agree that there probably were such traditions, but Paul's writings are mostly letters of persuasion to other churches. By the time he wrote, the oral traditions had thus already diverged.


Or:



Paul's writings are primarily letters of persuasion to the other churches regarding "proper" teachings. Like or or not, Paul irrefutably documents a split in the early church based on teachings.


Paul's writings were NOT directed to the Jewish Christians. They were directed to Pauline Christians, people who came to their faith, directly or indirectly, through his own ministry. It's important to understand that "the early church" was not a monolith, nor was it all Pauline.

When I say that the Jewish Christians did not, as far as we can tell, depart significantly from Jesus' teachings, you should not take from that the idea that Pauline Christians did not, or did not diverge from one another. In fact, since Jesus (or his brother) founded a Jewish sect, ALL Pauline Christians diverged from those teachings. But that has no bearing on what I was saying.

The Jewish Christians were a Jewish sect. They thought of themselves as Jews. They did not actually call themselves Christians. They followed Jewish law and custom, and were regarded by other Jews as Jewish. After the crucifixion, they were headed by James, Jesus' brother. He led them for about 20 years, until he was murdered by being thrown from the Temple roof in Jerusalem. After that, they were led by a cousin of Jesus (keeping it all in the family as it were). All of this family leadership argues for the existence of an actual Jesus to whom these men were related.

A Google search for "Nazarenes" reveals some interesting material. I found this Jewish writer on the subject especially intriguing.



I don't know how you can say it was not an extension of Essene tradition nor of followers of John the Baptist.


I don't know how I could say that, either. And as a matter of fact, I didn't say that. The relatedness of the Essenes, John the Baptist, and the Nazarenes is obvious on examination. However, that does not mean that Jesus never existed.



Josephus records that there were three main flavors of Judaism; Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Gospel of Luke has John the Baptist referring to the Pharisees and Sadducees as vipers. John was very likely an Essene, or a close offshoot.


I think that's probably true. I also think the same thing could be said of Jesus. However, we should also recognize that the Essenes were a reclusive, tight-knit, pretty much monastic community, so while the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus were arguably "a close offshoot," it's doubtful that either man was actually a member of the Essenes, and certainly most of their followers weren't.

But the point here is that what you are calling the Jesus of the early church, is actually the Jesus of Paul's epistles. But Pauline Christians were only one sect of Jesus' followers, and not the original one, even though ultimately it was the most important one in history. The real evidence for Jesus' having lived lies in the other sect, the one in Judea.

About crucifixion, I found a number of other errors in that Wikkipedia article. Example: the statement that crucifixion was intended to mutilate the body, making it unsuited for burial. But the custom throughout most of the Meditteranean world was cremation, not burial. An intact body was by no means required for cremation. Also, the article seems to imply that nailing the victim to the cross was the normal practice. It was not; usually the victim was tied, not nailed.

I can't recall specifically where my knowledge on this comes from. All I can say is, I've studied an awful lot of Roman history, and when the Romans were faced with a rebellion, the usual practice was to sell the prisoners into slavery, not crucify them or execute them in any other way, and when they were executed, it was more commonly by flogging and beheading. I already mentioned Crassus' crucifixion of 6,000 captured Spartacani, but that was a very notable exception. The Italians fighting against Rome in the Bellum Socii were not crucified. The Spaniards fighting agianst Rome under Quintus Sertorius were not crucified. The Gauls fighting against Caesar were not crucified. This is not to say that it was a rare penalty. It was used against slaves (their owners could do this on their own authority if they wanted), and also against criminals. But it was not standard punishment for rebels, to the point where you can reject historical records and say that someone called a rebel must have been crucified rather than beheaded, purely on that logic.

Anyway, it wasn't the Romans who killed John the Baptist, it was Herod. He would have used whatever punishment he normally did when dealing with rebels and traitors. If the record says John was beheaded, why doubt it? That was not what you'd call an uncommon penalty in the ancient world!



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The real evidence that Jesus existed as a human being is, as I've repeatedly stated, found in the existence of the Jewish Christians.


How does the existence of Jewish Christians imply a historical Jesus? You alluded to an oral tradition a couple of times. What was it, and what is your basis?


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
After the crucifixion, they were headed by James, Jesus' brother. He led them for about 20 years, until he was murdered by being thrown from the Temple roof in Jerusalem. After that, they were led by a cousin of Jesus (keeping it all in the family as it were). All of this family leadership argues for the existence of an actual Jesus to whom these men were related.


I agree this is the strongest evidence of a historical Jesus. Unfortunately, apologists have long claimed that 'brother' does not imply blood relationship, but merely spiritual allignment. This argument has long been used regarding James specifically. I'm not sure how sound it is.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I don't know how you can say it was not an extension of Essene tradition nor of followers of John the Baptist.


I don't know how I could say that, either. And as a matter of fact, I didn't say that.


I guess I don't know what was meant by this then:


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Nor was it the same community as the followers of the Baptist or the Essenes.



Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The relatedness of the Essenes, John the Baptist, and the Nazarenes is obvious on examination.


I think we agree on that then.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But the point here is that what you are calling the Jesus of the early church, is actually the Jesus of Paul's epistles. But Pauline Christians were only one sect of Jesus' followers, and not the original one, even though ultimately it was the most important one in history. The real evidence for Jesus' having lived lies in the other sect, the one in Judea.


I would say that if we presume Paul was simply trying to ride the Jesus wave, that would explain why Paul seemed to know little about him and it would explain how differing sects could have arisen in such a short time.

It doesn't explain why Paul was familiar with the teachings of Jesus yet never bothered to attribute them to Jesus, nor does it explain why Josephus portrayed John the Baptist as so much more important than Jesus, or how Jesus was so quickly mythologized. This is historically unique.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
About crucifixion, I found a number of other errors in that Wikkipedia article. Example: the statement that crucifixion was intended to mutilate the body, making it unsuited for burial. But the custom throughout most of the Meditteranean world was cremation, not burial. An intact body was by no means required for cremation. Also, the article seems to imply that nailing the victim to the cross was the normal practice. It was not; usually the victim was tied, not nailed.


Again, I am no expert on Roman execution. I provided a source and have done due dilligence to try to confirm/deny what you are saying - and came up dry. If you can't provide a reference, I think we should just drop that point, as it is peripheral anyway.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
If the record says John was beheaded, why doubt it? That was not what you'd call an uncommon penalty in the ancient world!


I doubt it because the source that claims this is obviously biased regarding John the Baptist. That source claims John gave up his ministry to Jesus, yet we know from archaeology that followers of John continued for centuries later. I smell redaction and an attempt to hide details about John for religio-political reasons.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by spamandham]

[edit on 23-12-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The real evidence that Jesus existed as a human being is, as I've repeatedly stated, found in the existence of the Jewish Christians.


How does the existence of Jewish Christians imply a historical Jesus?


I must say I regard the ability to post such a statement more or less conclusive proof of the falsity of the 'mythical Jesus' story. After all, any theory that takes one that far from reality has got to be tosh.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Josephus has been called the author of the 4 gospels, and his own Jesus reference, though I doubt that is the case. My bet is his story has just been twisted and editted so many times that the clues to the real story are few and short. He was a Rabbi, of royal blood, a healer and teacher, who the powers that be of the day feared. He disappeared at 33, and also between 13 and 30. The debate about his life will go on virtually forever, and is not likely to ever be conclusively settled. JFK's death is only 40 years past, and if we can't find out what happened then, good luck on a guy that lived 2000 years ago.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The real evidence that Jesus existed as a human being is, as I've repeatedly stated, found in the existence of the Jewish Christians.


How does the existence of Jewish Christians imply a historical Jesus?


I must say I regard the ability to post such a statement more or less conclusive proof of the falsity of the 'mythical Jesus' story. After all, any theory that takes one that far from reality has got to be tosh.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


So what's the difference between a Jewish Christian....and a Messianic Jew? Do Jewish Christians acknowledge Christ as a Messiah, do they simply follow him as a rather enlightened rabbi?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I feel sorry for anyone who doubts the existence of anyone else, for this person doubts their own existence.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

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?


Hmm, I would say that neuroscience is starting to push the boundaries of consciousness. We know regions of the brain that are involved in taking first- and second-person perspectives (i.e. mirror neurons, Theory of mind), introspective feelings, empathy, moral decisions, emotion - all advanced elements of consciousness - however, to even think we have a region of the brain specific to 'self' is too simplistic, think of consciousness as a gestalt of processes (although the prefrontal cortex features extensively - this is the most evolutionary advanced region of the brain; references can be given if required).


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.


I'm not too sure how studies of human consciousness would conclude this. Can you elaborate? There is evidence of regions of the brain active during religious-like experiences. Associationism has developed into more advance connectionist theories (e.g. parallel distributed processing)





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.


sounds very Freud-like - the notion that 99.999etc of the brain is a slave to instinct ignores comparative evolution and neuroscientific evidence. The subconscious uses evolutionary ancient structures that enable survival, i.e. it is adaptive (so it is selfish in this sense, but not always - conspecifics defend their kin in this way, i.e. altruistic behaviour - although if we accept Dawkins' idea, behviour is almost always selfish at the level of the gene). This is the reason sub-cortical processes are faster than higher-cortical processes but they are crude (and some may say, rude
). However, in higher mammals the neocortex is the largest region of the brain, this region can dampen the sub-cortical regions that signal threat (for example, in anxiety disorders there is overactivity of sub-cortical structures that 'hijack' the neocortex, the same can be said of anger). Thus the neo-cortex is only a 'slave' under such psychopathology and highly emotional circumstances.

You are certainly correct that information hits sub-cortical structures before the higher cortices, but under normal circumstances relevant information is passed to the higher cortices whether the sub-cortical structures like it or not, otherwise it would not be adaptive (i.e. there are different pathways for each). The problem is the brain is a lazy mechanism - we can only process so much information - so attention (which is predomintely consciously controlled) focuses awareness on goal-relevant environmental stimuli. We do miss much in the environment, change-blindness studies indicate this.



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.


I think change-blindness and attention to threatening stimuli studies show your ideas on the mind better - but each to their own, but I won't reference jesus in my thesis



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.


I don't know, I can hate cheese, but I don't fear it... I can't see how not believing in jesus means that a person's mental abilities will be hindered by fear. It's a bit like saying in the presence of cheese I would not think straight...

anyway, hi people
I just had to register to answer this post



[edit on 13-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 13-1-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by necromancer9
I feel sorry for anyone who doubts the existence of anyone else, for this person doubts their own existence.


Good thing none of us doubt the existence of Santa.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by spamandham]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by skep
Kenshiro:
If your proof of jesus is that he was mentioned in the Kuran...well you ain't got much. The Kuran, best I can figure, was written much like the bible, by committee, over several decades by people who didn't know each other or any of the principal characters.
The best information we have is that there is no evidence that jesus was anything more than the construct of a tax collector called Saul, name later changed for proprietary reasons by people who didn't know him.
There is as much evidence for the existance of jesus as there is for the exiatance of the exodus...absolutely NONE!
skep


I guess the bible deals with making one one of His. But still with that ones own mind and own thoughts, own morals, one but not the same.

When two books mention one person, two 'different' books, but in fact the same and not the same. Written in another part of the world? But mentioning one and the same, and mentioning another Who cameth in His name. Who spoke His Words, who spoketh out of Him. Who has seen that which is. Good and Bad.

No living man might have seen Jesus as when he was in the body at those times, but then again, who will prove he did not exist, He cameth to show us what we could be, what we have putten aside for so long, otherwise He wouldn't have cometh. Lots interested, but the others envious and angry for being in contact with Him, and seeing him as a threat. There are other like Him. He was not the only one, still now, there art like him. Feared for what they are. Feared for their existence in Him, for His existence in them. Feared of being judged. Therefore not only by their appearance, for their charisma, but also for their words, for their laughter. For their movement. For their thoughts. But when not seen as a friend, seen as a leader, leading righteousness, leader of an army Gods.

Believing He did not exist, even when he had a name called Jesus, might prove you wrong. Might be proving yourself ignorant to that which you are, or disinterested in that which you are, for that is what he told, you fear, you ignore, you envy. It's not riding an elephant. Hit them on the heads. A last judgement will fall. Thy wilth be lost, or thy wilth be found.

How can one say Jesus did not exist, or a man like him, it's denying your true self, being ignorant to what you are, to what you might become, to what you really are disinterested in. But one cannot be interested in that which is not known. The unknown is known as that which is unknown. Feel it's truth. A sword can not slay that which is. Undefeatable. For it is The Sword. The sword that cuts You. Which makes you bleed, which heals you.

Never forget your eternal existence, the eternal in yourself, know that thy allready art dead, for it is the faith in that which is, in that which is ever existing. It goes further than your soul. But it is not more than that. It is all souls combined. For all souls reveal its truth in their own ways. All souls express themselves different in their body. Through their body. He expresses Himself in thousand ways, thousands of ways. Through thousands of things, when you've opened your eyes, and faith will come, Love will overcome, wisdom will follow.. oneness will be reached, furthermore it wilth make thou act righteous.

The one they named Jesus, was Himself he embodied, for he was true, to Himself, to his Father?. HJe was truth. He was what we failed to see. Or feared to have seen, astonishment fell upon us, as He cameth alive. His Word, His son. Himself embodied.

Denial is ignorance. Disinterest in thy self.

If you don't believe in His Name, the one he named JEsus. You don't believe in Him. For He was every man, but not the same.

AA



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
'Denial is ignorance. Disinterest in thy self. If you don't believe in His Name, the one he named JEsus. You don't believe in Him.'
alienaddicted
If the Qu'ran can be cited as evidence that the Nazorean Jewish Rabbi Yehoshua Bar Joseph lived, then, since it was written 6 centuries later, you could also include all the written references before that time as being evidence too.
The only relatively historically credible evidence would have to be ones that are contemporary to his life. Actual eyewitness accounts are the only ones that have any chance of being considered as proof. Even then, they could be false. In the category of non-biblical contemporary references to his life we have a grand total of one. That's pretty slim pickens. I feel in my heart that the story of his life, though the details are likely to have been quite different than the present version, is in its most basic form, true. I admit there is not enough evidence to prove it, but I am going with my heart on this one.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
If you refuse to believe, as in one named JEsus, born 2006 years ago, and what happened in his life, I could agree.

But as to refuse to believe in what he said, in that which he taught, in his understanding, is to be disinterested in what you could know, in what you know. That's why he cameth, to show your true nature, to show that which he was, you art too.

nothing further on this.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I will make this post and then I feel my views will have all been presented, and so unless I recall something I have missed I will bow out too. I do not wish to repeat myself. It appeared that the comments about refusing his message and teachings may have been directed my way. I embrace them, and have ever since the time at eight years old I got a warm feeling inside when I thought about Jesus, and thought to myself, I agree with him. In the time since, I have read three different versions of the Bible, the Qu'ran, and many other related texts. This is odd behaviour for anyone who is disinterested. If I have come to different conclusions as to what to believe than others, so be it. I can only follow my own path. I'll stick with that, and if that turns out to be a mistake, I can live with that. I have this hunch that if he is like he has been described, he might just forgive me. If not, that is between me and him, and no one else.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
his message and teachings are pretty good, but some other guy by the name of sidhartra said more or less the same things several hundred years earlier.

also, it probably wasn't 2006 years ago, more like 2017 years ago, if anything.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
his message and teachings are pretty good, but some other guy by the name of sidhartra said more or less the same things several hundred years earlier.


Some of his teachings are fine, others are not. It's hard to argue against his teachings that the rules of the Jewish law were obsolete, but his teachings on sexuality and subservience are destructive.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
that's why i said pretty good, i do have some problems with his preaching of thought crime, the whole "it's a sin to even think of sin" message. that isn't fun.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join