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.

 

what is jesus a mere figure head of an ancient hebrew royal family or the human son of god??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
cmo

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
is religion real, is there a god , is it all a scam to give the poor hope for something better ,after all no matter how rich or poor you are the only thing you have to do to get to heaven is repent and delcare jesus as your savior,right.certain charecters throught history were obviosly great and charitable people( jesus,jon the babtist,mohamed,budha),but were they any thing more,primarily jesus whom every year there seems to be new evidence of his being a great leader even the patriarch of a hebrew royal family,with the mary being the matriarch and mabey even the leader of the family by witch the liniage would pass from mary to mary.there is to much not known ,how many books of the bible are being purposely repressed,what is the truth????????????




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I would suggest that you read the teachings of Jesus in the gospels and make up your own mind. As far as certain books being repressed I wouldn't doubt it, but some pretty good stuff got through in my opinion. Of course, there are some really interesting books that are not in the Bible, but are available to read such as the Book of Enoch. I would be interested to hear more of your views on this topic.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The evidence most closely tied to Jesus are the gospels and Paul's writings. They claim to be eyewitnesses to Jesus saying that He was
the Son of God. A christian apologist-Josh McDowell has a line of reasoning
called "Lord, Liar or Lunatic". Either Christ knew that he was not the Son of God, but claimed it anyway then He was a liar and you can't call a liar a great teacher. If Jesus thought that He was the Son of God but in reality was not, then He was a wacko and you can't call a wacko a great teacher.
That leaves the only other option-He was who he said he was. The Son of God-much, much more than a "great teacher".

It can be argued that the gospels are a bunch of hooey anyway. If you choose to believe that then who cares who Jesus was.
Josh McDowell has a very concise, short booklet called "More than a Carpenter" that is worth reading. His larger tomes are a two book series
called "Evidence that demands a verdict". They are pretty deep.

Christ himself rebuked the rich guy who came to Him and called Him "good teacher". He is either the Son of God or He is nothing.

I've read quite a bit of the "new evidence" and it doesn't impress me beyond the evidence I believe that Jesus was the Christ; Son of the Living God. Rennes Chateau notwithstanding.

Greetings to all.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JungleMike
The evidence most closely tied to Jesus are the gospels and Paul's writings. They claim to be eyewitnesses to Jesus saying that He was
the Son of God.


Try again. Neither Paul nor the gospel writers claimed to have personally known Jesus. The closest you get is the postscript of John, which even Christian scholars admit is not a claim of eyewitness.

The Bible is not the most compelling evidence for a human Jesus either. The early sects who viewed him as an ordinary but wise and holy man form the best evidence.


Originally posted by JungleMike
A christian apologist-Josh McDowell has a line of reasoning
called "Lord, Liar or Lunatic". Either Christ knew that he was not the Son of God, but claimed it anyway then He was a liar and you can't call a liar a great teacher. If Jesus thought that He was the Son of God but in reality was not, then He was a wacko and you can't call a wacko a great teacher.


4) Jesus never existed at all
5) Jesus never claimed to be lord, and the Bible writers added that
6) Jesus was a mystic and you are mistaking the teachings as literal.
7) "Son of god" did not mean only son of god to Jesus ("is it not written 'we are all gods'")
8) Jesus had some unusual experiences that led him to delusions of grandeur, but he was perfectly sane.

9) - 100) are left as an exercise

At least Mr. McDowell added an extra option giving us a false trichotemy instead of the usual false dichotemy. I suppose he should get credit for that much.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmo
with the mary being the matriarch and mabey even the leader of the family by witch the liniage would pass from mary to mary.


*Sigh* The Jews were patriarchial, as were the pagan Romans, Greeks, etc. Women were never the head of household, unless there were no adult males in the family.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

4) Jesus never existed at all



Will Durant was probably the most respected historian of the 20th century, as well as an atheist. The Story of Civilization, Vol. III, Caesar and Christ, 1944 (New York: Simon and Schuster), Ch. XXVI, pp. 554-555:

"The oldest known mention of Christ in pagan literature is in a letter of the younger Pliny (ca. II0),(5) asking the advice of Trajan on the treatment of Christians. Five years later Tacitus 6 * described Nero's persecution of the Chrestiani in Rome, and pictured them as already (A.D. 64) numbering adherents throughout the Empire; the paragraph is so Tacitean in style, force, and prejudice that of all Biblical critics only Drews questions its authenticity.7 Suetonius (ca. I25) mentions the same persecution,8 and reports Claudius' banishment (ca. 52) of 'Jews who, stirred up by Christ [impulsore Chresto], were causing public disturbances,'9 the passage accords well with the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions a decree of Claudius that 'the Jews should leave Rome.'10 These references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ; but unless we assume the latter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation; moreover, we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree. About the middle of this first century a pagan named Thallus, in a fragment preserved by Julius Africanus,11 argued that the abnormal darkness alleged to have accompanied the death of Christ was a purely natural phenomenon and coincidence; the argument took the existence of Christ for granted. The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity."

Ibid., ibid., ibid., ibid., p. 557:

"...Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies--e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates--would fade into legend.*"

* Says a great Jewish scholar, perhaps too strongly: "If we had ancient sources like those in the Gospels for the history of Alexander or Caesar, we should not cast any doubt upon them whatsoever."-Klausner, J., From Jesus to Paul, 260.

Ibid., ibid., ibid., ibid., ibid.:

"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels."



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
"The oldest known mention of Christ in pagan literature is in a letter of the younger Pliny (ca. II0),(5) asking the advice of Trajan on the treatment of Christians.


Pliny the Younger, ~63 CE to 113 CE. Jesus of Nazareth purportedly ~6BCE/0CE to 30 CE. Next...


Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
These references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ;


Exactly.


Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
but unless we assume the latter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation;


It is only your assumption that these stories did not preceed the first century. Many of the teachings attributed to Jesus preceeded the first century by many hundreds of years.

There is no reason such a tradition could not have existed much longer than you think. But, if Jesus is a fictional character, he could have been invented in much less than a single generation. A charismatic leader could come up with such a character in a single insight, and then develop him over several months/years.


Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
moreover, we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree. About the middle of this first century a pagan named Thallus, in a fragment preserved by Julius Africanus,


Please say your kidding. You really shouldn't just cut and paste without checking the biographies of those you are using to support your argument. Nothing you have presented offers a shred of evidence in favor of a fleshy human Jesus of Nazareth, you are merely offering evidence that supports the existence of Christians - a point that is not contested.


Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels."


Even if such an argument were true, the personallity of Jesus was not invented in one generation. These teachings, and comunities that embraced them existed for hundreds of years prior among the Essenes.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
"The oldest known mention of Christ in pagan literature is in a letter of the younger Pliny (ca. II0),(5) asking the advice of Trajan on the treatment of Christians.


Pliny the Younger, ~63 CE to 113 CE. Jesus of Nazareth purportedly ~6BCE/0CE to 30 CE. Next...


Right, like Durant said if you do apply those standards to other historical figures hundreds become mere legends, Socrates, etc.



Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
but unless we assume the latter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation;


It is only your assumption that these stories did not preceed the first century. Many of the teachings attributed to Jesus preceeded the first century by many hundreds of years.



It is not just "my assumption," if you disagree fine, but you disagree with the best historians in the world, including atheist ones like Durant who I quoted.


Originally posted by spamandham
Many of the teachings attributed to Jesus preceeded the first century by many hundreds of years.


Yeshua was often restoring older Halakha and railed against the newer traditions like qorban that set aside the Torah.



Originally posted by spamandham
But, if Jesus is a fictional character, he could have been invented in much less than a single generation. A charismatic leader could come up with such a character in a single insight, and then develop him over several months/years.


Why can't Mohammed a fictional character by that standard?



216.239.57.104...:7an1oXaLZ8cJ:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBB/is_4_42/ai_n8695812+www.findarticles.com/p/articles/+mi_m0O BB/is_4_42/ai_n8695812&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8

Islamic fiction: the Myth of Mohammed

American Atheist Magazine,  Autumn, 2004  by James B. Pullen, Jr.

[...]

The reader who is unbiased shall recognize that with all that we shall show, that as there was no real Jesus Christ to found the power-seeking new religion of Christianity, that a real Mohammed was also quite unnecessary for the new cultus of Islam.

[...]

...concerning alleged events in the life--let us say 'legend'--of Mohammed, I would like to point out a couple of interesting facts from Durant's Story of Civilization concerning Mohammed...


It is interesting that this guy uses Durant as a source, although I would think that irrational since he also says, "That Jesus Christ had no real existence, all scholars with any study and rationality know," and Durant believed in the historicity of Christ. Maybe, since it is common knowledge that Durant was an atheist, he just assumes without a thorough knowledge of his work. It usually takes a huge axe to grind ("power-seeking new religion of Christianity") to say that Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or Confucius, were not historical personages




Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
moreover, we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree. About the middle of this first century a pagan named Thallus, in a fragment preserved by Julius Africanus,


Please say your kidding. You really shouldn't just cut and paste without checking the biographies of those you are using to support your argument.


No, you have to be kidding, I gave you an example of some of the best scholarship in the world, not like the amateur wannabe historians you see on the web so convinced they've proven Jesus never existed.



[edit on 2-2-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
Right, like Durant said if you do apply those standards to other historical figures hundreds become mere legends, Socrates, etc.


I'm ok with that. But I would clarify one thing, Socrates, whether fictional or not, was not given superman powers by Plato.

There should probably be a reason for questioning the existence of historical figures. In the case of Jesus, most of what we know of him is intertwined with magic, except for the gnostic writings. These, and groups like the Ebionites, are the strongest evidence in favor of a historical Jesus, as they viewed him as a man rather than a godman. Unfortunately, we don't know when that perception came about. Did it preceed the mystical Jesus, or was it adpated from it? If it preceeded it, then there would no longer be a reason for questioning the existence of a historical human Jesus from which the Christ myth evolved. If it was adapted from it, then we simply have a case of syncretism of myths.

But there's more to it than that. If you read the New Testament chronologically you can see details being added to the life of Jesus as the decades passed - clear development of a myth. In Paul's writings, which are verifiably among the earliest known writings about Jesus , there are no details whatsoever of an earthly human Jesus. If you take the position that Paul was a mystic - and there are numerous reasons to believe that - then you end up with Christ as purely spiritual, never incarnated in flesh.


Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
It is not just "my assumption," if you disagree fine, but you disagree with the best historians in the world, including atheist ones like Durant who I quoted.


There are historians in the Mythical Jesus camp as well. What does this prove? It proves there is contention among historians over the historicity of Jesus. Do you know why? Because historians lack any reliable methodology for determining what is historical and what is not! Even worse, you will often see conclusions drawn about history that we would not even draw about modern events based on similar modern evidence, simply because "we don't know" is not deemed acceptable.

That leaves us poor laymen in the quandry of having to look at the evidence ourselves and make judgements.


Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
Yeshua was often restoring older Halakha and railed against the newer traditions like qorban that set aside the Torah.


Whether this is true or not has no bearing on the historicity of Jesus/Yeshua/ Yahoshua/Yeysu/Joshua.


Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis
Why can't Mohammed a fictional character by that standard?


He could be. I have no problem with that. You are simply highlighting the problem historians face. Historical conclusions are based as much on personal bias as they are on evidence.


Originally posted by spamandham
No, you have to be kidding, I gave you an example of some of the best scholarship in the world, not like the amateur wannabe historians you see on the web so convinced they've proven Jesus never existed.


Anyone who would present what Eusebius said that Julius Africanus said about what Thallus said about an eclpise, as if that proved a historical Jesus, or even helped support the case in any way, really needs to think about whether their standards of evidence are this piss poor in all regards.

If you want to stake your entire position on the reputation of Durant, that's up to you.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join