Was Jesus a Magician?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Nohup
 


The fruit loops on the comet weren't first hand witnesses to a miracle - entirely different scenario.



Not really, I watched David Copperfield make an airplane disappear, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fall down and worship the guy. I saw him fly, but that doesn't make him special, it just means he can create illusions.

There is an old saying, believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see. I'd like to take this opportunity to amend it. Where religion is concerned, don't believe anything you hear, read, or see.

Trust your heart, for there is where God provides the lessons.




posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
In order for this discussion to fully concord we must accept that our modern definition of what a “magician” is was entirely different from what those two millennia ago would have defined.

Much of ancient medical and scientific knowledge was couched in spiritual terminology and closely guarded as secret. For example, a trepanning operation would have been accompanied by explanations that the opening of the skull was to let “evil spirits” out, or to “balance the humours” or some such. The practitioners may or may not have actually believed in the mystical overtones of their endeavors but that’s the way they presented them to the great unwashed. People back then just didn’t explain the operation in terms of hydrostatic pressure on cranial enclosures – they just said the bad spirits were being released.

Surely then, one must be able to entertain the possibility that, if Jesus were trained in various therapeutic arts, he would have presented them as spiritual healings. It would not be common as a man of his time, that who was learned in secret healing arts, to disclose to everyone the real source of his powers. In fact the opposite is true – he would have obscured the methods of his healings to the uninitiated and only revealed them to a select few. A practice of his which is frequently hinted at in the New Testament.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I think a way better question would be...

is/was Jesus Christ a Neuro-Linguistic Programmer. (NLP)

.... if you are unfamiliar I suggest perhaps looking it up a bit.. it goes part and parcel with Hypnotherapy.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by banyan
 


How did Jesus fulfill prophecies he or his followers had no control over?

How did he keep the Roman from breaking his bones after he was dead?

It was prophesied he would born in the line of David. (Isaiah 11:1-5)
How did he control who his parents (mother) were/was?

It was prophesied he would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:1 )
How did he have control over where he was born?

Can David Copperfield do that?


That's a good trick!



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by banyan
 


How did Jesus fulfill prophecies he or his followers had no control over?

How did he keep the Roman from breaking his bones after he was dead?

It was prophesied he would born in the line of David. (Isaiah 11:1-5)
How did he control who his parents (mother) were/was?

It was prophesied he would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:1 )
How did he have control over where he was born?

Can David Copperfield do that?


That's a good trick!



how do you know that jesus was born from the line of david? how do you know he was born in bethlehem? i am not worshiping david copperfield.

who wrote the new testament? many authors, alot of which being paul. matthew mark luke and john all deal with the same story of jesus. they feel the need to repeat four times that jesus was who he was. four different accounts from four different authors...the story must be true.

the new testament authors wrote jesus to fit the prophecies of the old testament exactly; it's not like they did not have access to the old teachings. if it is so cut and dry, like you think, why do the jewish people, the ones that the old testament was written for and about, do not even believe jesus was who he said he was?

but to get back to the subject at hand...like i said previously, i think jesus could have been magician, or he could have been a real miracle worker. i'm fine with either. to kill a man because he has a following and is bringing about new thinking and change is wrong. i'm sure jesus would have been an awesome guy to learn from, regardless of how you look at him.

*edited out part of previous post left in.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by banyan]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I agree Jesus was a great man. If he is a story made up then whoever made him up did a damn good job. What I find strange is that Jesus was written about in Buddhist teachings, and also in egypt. He was a traveler and if true, the son of god. I just hope there's a heaven.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by banyan

the new testament authors wrote jesus to fit the prophecies of the old testament exactly; it's not like they did not have access to the old teachings. if it is so cut and dry, like you think, why do the jewish people, the ones that the old testament was written for and about, do not even believe jesus was who he said he was?

[edit on 26-2-2008 by banyan]


Precisely. The simple statement of the Apostles that Jesus met all the various criteria is not PROOF that he actually did – it’s just a claim.

Jesus was not the first, or last, historical figure that had followers attest all kinds of attributes to him that may not have been true. If one accepts the claims about Jesus, must not one accept with credulity claims of divine descent from such historical figures as various Pharaohs, Caesars, Kings and prophets? Such claims were commonplace in the ancient world. If one accepts Jesus divine blood must not one take as equally valid the claims of Nero or Alexander of similar heritage? This is one area where apologists like to straddle both sides of the fence regarding Jesus: they claim he has historical validity and divine attributes but then refute the same claim from other figures from the past as unsubstantiated.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I dont understand. If i say i dont believe in god or jesus. Or i saw that jesus or god is gay. People get very piss off and they say that im gonna burn in hell stuff like that. Comeone im not naming with bad words about you or you family. So why they have to complain about that if i dont just believe in god. Is it wrong? If it is then let the god come and say that, because i wont trust books or people who worship god. In history relligions they have way to dirty background.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by banyan


who wrote the new testament? many authors, alot of which being paul. matthew mark luke and john all deal with the same story of jesus. they feel the need to repeat four times that jesus was who he was. four different accounts from four different authors...the story must be true.




I agree!



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by banyan


who wrote the new testament? many authors, alot of which being paul. matthew mark luke and john all deal with the same story of jesus. they feel the need to repeat four times that jesus was who he was. four different accounts from four different authors...the story must be true.




I agree!


that's the endless loop. i do not agree. actually, it's more like the story could be true. i am open to it being true, but there are too many variables that cannot be validated [like the bible, old and new, having been translated too many times from the original texts, the honesty or corruption of the multiple authors, or the prejudiced patriarchal views of said authors from their own culture]. and yes, that's what makes it faith. i've been there.

you know the apologetics, which is refreshing hearing from someone who can actually write contextual arguments to defend their religion. that's good. i'm glad you actually have reasons for believing what you do.

so to the OP, this is where your question will remain, on either side of the fence. people will believe what they want to believe, especially on miracles or tricks that cannot be proven in their validity that happened 2000 years ago.

but after saying that again and again, it's like beating a cute puppy over and over. shouldn't be done!



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Does anyone else here not have a skeptic bone in thier body? Does anyone else not want to 'Deny Ignorance'? I cant believe that people see wild claim and just let them pass by without ever addressing them.

I apologize for taking this post off topic, but I cant let these claims stand without debunking them. So, with no further ado...

BIGWHAMMY - sigh here you go again.....

Lets take a look at your claims that all these men died a martyrs death



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
These men all were tortured horribly and gave their lives for a magic trick.




Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethopia, killed by a sword wound.


Very little is known of the death of Matthew. Some traditions place him in Ethopia, others tell of him going to Persia. Again, scholars totally disagree with you, even the Church admits they have no proof of his method of death. Logic would dictate that if the Catholic Church could certify Matthew a martyr they undoubtly would have done so, instead they say there is no way to know.

catholic Online
christian research inst


Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.


"The date of Mark's death is uncertain. St. Jerome assigns it to the eighth year of Nero (62-63), but this is probably only an inference from the statement of Eusebius, that in that year Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the See of Alexandria. Certainly, if St. Mark was alive when II Timothy was written (2 Timothy 4:11), he cannot have died in 61-62. Nor does Eusebius say he did; the historian may merely mean that St. Mark then resigned his see, and left Alexandria to join Peter and Paul at Rome. As to the manner of his death, the "Acts" of Mark give the saint the glory of martyrdom, and say that he died while being dragged through the streets of Alexandria; so too the Paschal Chronicle.
new advent

The problem here as I see it - You cant have Mark alive at the time of the writing of Timothy2, and martyred in Alexandria prior to his return to Rome



Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.


"all that is known about him is contained in the ancient "Prefatio vel Argumentum Lucæ", dating back to Julius Africanus, who was born about A.D. 165. This states that he was unmarried, that he wrote the Gospel, in Achaia, and that he died at the age of seventy-four in Bithynia (probably a copyist's error for Bœotia), filled with the Holy Ghost. Epiphanius has it that he preached in Dalmatia (where there is a tradition to that effect), Gallia (Galatia?), Italy, and Macedonia. As an Evangelist, he must have suffered much for the Faith, but it is controverted whether he actually died a martyr's death. St. Jerome writes of him (De Vir. III., vii). "Sepultus est Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vigesimo Constantii anno, ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andreæ Apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia?]."
www.newadvent.org...



Peter,was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to Church tradition, because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die the same way that Jesus Christ had died.


The account of Peter's crucifixion comes from the Apocrypha. Specifically from the 'Acts of Peter', written some 90 years after the time of Nero and the persecutions, so it's hardly first hand. In case you havn't read it, let me tell you about a few other things it recounts in this book. The main theme is a showdown of miraculous powers, or a contest between Peter and the magician Simon Magus. Both Simon Magus and Peter are depicted as flying over Rome, in a scene much like the battling wizards in the Lord of the Rings movie. Peter makes a baby talk and prophecy. Peter makes a dog talk. The dog is said to hunt down the magician Simon Magus and prophecy to him. Peter makes a smoked fish alive to swim again. I counted I think 3 times that Jesus descended from Heaven to talk personally to Peter.

In other words, The Acts of Peter is not reliable history

Early Christian Writings
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm running out of room,

to be continued



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
continued


"Originally posted by Bigwhammy"


James the Just, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and brother of Jesus, was thrown down more than a hundred feet from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.



There are several people named "James" in the New Testament and early Christian history, and it is uncertain which, if any, should be identified with this apostle. He is often identified with the "James the Less" mentioned in Mark 15:40 as the son of Mary and Clopas, which is fairly uncontroversial. However, the Catholic church also identifies him with James, the brother of Jesus, which is not widely accepted by Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. If this identification is correct, the Jewish historian Josephus says that James was stoned by the Pharisees. This is seconded by Hippolytus. However, other sources say that James son of Alphaeus was martyred by crucifixion in Egypt. I'm not sure if I have the right James here or not. There are so many, but again it's all in conflicting reports.
source for egyptian death


James the Greater, a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the Church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman soldier who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.




Probably one of the best accounts of a Martyr. Sentenced to death by Herod. The debatable point here isnt that he was killed for his faith, but that he died willingly as the Biblical account does not tell us that. The story was embellished with that information in the 5th century by church historian Eusebius when he quoted an earlier, lost work by Clement of Alexandria which allegedly claims that James' calm demeanor at trial sufficiently impressed one of his accusers to convert him
CCEL.ORG




Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed about our Lord in present day Turkey. He was whipped to death for his preaching in Armenia.



According to the third-century bishop Hippolytus, he was crucified in Armenia. Another story claims he was beheaded in India on the orders of King Astreges, who belonged to a demon-worshipping cult. Some traditions add that he was flayed alive before, or instead of, suffering either of these two fates. The New Advent encyclopedia says the manner of his death is "uncertain", and adds that other than his name, "Nothing further is known of him".
Crucified in Armenia
Demonic Cult Beheding




Thomas was speared and died on one of his missionary trips to establish the Church in India.



Tradition holds that he was sent to India to preach, where he was killed by being stabbed with a spear. This claim is made by local Indian Christians and an apocryphal gospel called the Acts of Thomas, which Eusebius dismissed as spurious and heretical. The New Advent encyclopedia says that "Little is recorded" of Thomas' life, and that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" for the tradition of his death in India. It also notes that the Acts of Thomas presents Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus, which is not accepted by Christians today or in the past and seems to be a Christian/Gnostic-themed variation of a pagan salvation cult that followed twin gods
CCEL.ORG
New Advent

Again, taking part of the Apocryphal writings that have been called heretical and accepting the part where it makes Martyrs our of these men, but tossing the book and writing aside when it takes a stance that isnt accepted by what the current thinking is. You cant have it both ways.





Jude, another brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows after refusing to deny his faith in Christ.



More conflicting traditions. It is often said that he went with Simon to preach in Armenia, though New Advent says this legend is a late development not mentioned by contemporary historians of that region. The Catholic Patron Saints Index says he was clubbed to death; however, the apocryphal Acts of Thaddeus says he died naturally. Still another account says he was crucified (source). No reliable written sources seem to exist to corroborate any of this
New Advent
Patron Saints Index
Acts of Thaddius



Matthias, the Apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and beheaded.


According to the 14th-century historian Nicephorus, Matthias died by crucifixion in Colchis. Alternatively, the 17th-century historian Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont says that he was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem. According to the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia, "all... information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory". Many apocryphal sources confuse Matthias and Matthew.
vague

--------------------------------------

Before I run out of room, I'll close by saying there is very little evidence for this 'mass martyrdom' that you guys seem to be so quick to jump on the bandwagon for. Of the Christians who were murdered, no one seems to agree on how, when,why, or if they died willingly to support their religion (a MUST to be considered a martyr). Many traveled to other countries to evangelize and possibly were murdered for any number of reasons, none of which would have made them martyrs.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by pavlovsdog]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by pavlovsdog]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pavlovsdog
 


Thanks for all that research. You are very intelligent. I am afraid I have to take it with a grain of salt coming from the same source that used a bishops statement to argue that Jesus is compatible with the teachings of Aleister Crowley.
In this post

So it's hardly surprising that you hate to think someone might find out Jesus wasn't a magician.

It's not your Mothers fault you were born a sinner. You do need to be born again.

I am hitting ignore. My ego isn't tied up in fighting your twisted logic.

I will no longer see your posts.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavlovsdog
Does anyone else here not have a skeptic bone in thier body? Does anyone else not want to 'Deny Ignorance'? I cant believe that people see wild claim and just let them pass by without ever addressing them.


It's not that we're not skeptical. It's just that over the years it's become obvious that it's pointless to argue with strong believers because they have their own tight circle of logic that they don't want to budge away from, so arguing with them is a complete waste of time and effort.

Over the years, archeologists have tried very hard to validate the stories of the New Testament and failed at each step. That leaves the stories themselves, which are compelling but unproven. There is simply not enough corroborating evidence to back up what the stories purport.

But that is what faith is all about. And if people want to have faith and believe in the stories, then there's no use pointing out the problems. In a way, faith by definition embraces ignorance, since the faithful, if they're being honest, must naturally admit that it is the content of the stories not their provable veracity that they are attracted to. Proof denies belief.

Fortunately for me, I live in a time in history when I can openly express my doubt in the unverified stories without being tortured and burned as a heretic. I can also fortunately ignore those who choose to believe the stories, since they are boring without fail, entirely predictable, and can never add anything new to the conversation.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


It's my understanding that the deffinitian of majik is" the ablitity to change one's enviroment thru one's own will". So a magician would be someone who is capable of doing that.

Simply put by A. Crowley



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
[edit on 26-2-2008 by Young minded old soul]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Young minded old soul]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Thanks Nohup,

I guess everyone has passions and mine fall towards logic and truth. I never accept anything I read or that I'm tought at face value. I've always been driven to dig deeper, explore, ask the questions 'why, how, what, and most importantly who is the messenger and what reason do they have behind their message.'

It almost saddens me a bit that so many of our discussions are turning this way, not for any honest debate but rather just as a place to vent and spew beliefs that are not substantiated by facts or evidence. I'm not just talking about this one forum on ATS, but it seems prevalent more and more across all the boards here. I thought that was the purpose of BTS and Skunkworks.

While not a posting member here for very long, I've been a reader for years and years. Lots of changes rolling around here.

I didnt attack this poster, I attacked his argument, piece by piece, and knowing he is a Christian, I used only mainstream Christian sites to make my argument with.

His response, to go stick his head in the sand and ignore me. I'm here to broaden my mind, not to keep it shut. I guess my hope that some humans really do seek a broader awareness fo the world around them is short sighted.

Anyway, Hup Hup Cheerio. I'm off to check out the Debate Board here on ATS for signs of life.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

So it's hardly surprising that you hate to think someone might find out Jesus wasn't a magician.



Ahem, I never gave any indication of my opinion on this subject, never even breached it. However it seems someone assumes that I had, I suppose I should address it.

No, I dont think Jesus was a Magician. I dont think he somehow feigned death on the cross. I dont think he was able to put crowds under mass mind control or mass illusion. No chance of these things IMHO.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I think you are all missing the point. Your life is not about Jesus or what he did or didn't do. Your life is about what kind of person you are right now. Only you can decide that.

I know, I know, the topic is, was Jesus a magician?

My point is, it doesn't matter.

What matters now is what kind of person you are and how you want to live your life.

If you want to follow the teachings of Jesus, and it makes you happy to do so, then to hell with what anyone else thinks or says on the matter.

IT IS OK TO BE A CHRISTIAN!

Don't ever let anyone tell you different.

Just understand that some of us are not. I'm a Spiritual Anarchist. That's ok too.

Live your life in peace and simply know that God is. Your heart is the key to the path of peace, trust it.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sumperson
 


Sumperson, what evidence do you have to back up your supposition? A 'what if' thread is fine but there are ancient sources that accuse Jesus of sorcery and magic inside and outside of the Bible. This could have been a very well done thread and it still can be if you put forth something for us to debate.

I just finished with a 16 page thread about Islam and everyone kept asking for evidence. Myself and others provided heaps so now it is my turn to ask you for the burden of proof. Where is your evidence? Do you have any historical references from the time of Jesus to back this up?

I find it humorous that this article puts forth a 'what if' hypothesis but the Christians are trying to refute it. The burden of evidence is not on Big Whammy, me, or anyone else to refute a 'what if' question. Cite some sources or evidence and we will move on from there. They do exist.

This thread has already turned around to Christians having to 'prove' their case. I ask the one making the claim to provide evidence (I understand proof is impossible) that I assure you really does exist. Let's hope you can find them because I already know exactly what arguments I am going to use.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join