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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Secondly, crucifixion was not a standard Roman penalty for rebellion.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Paul was not interested in the man Jesus because he never met him.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
In short, we have no reason to believe that Jewish Christianity departed significantly from Jesus' 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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know how you can say it was not an extension of Essene tradition nor of followers of John the Baptist.
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
The real evidence that Jesus existed as a human being is, as I've repeatedly stated, found in the existence of the Jewish Christians.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by necromancer9
I feel sorry for anyone who doubts the existence of anyone else, for this person doubts their own existence.
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
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.