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.

 

Did Jesus exist?

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
by contemporary i meant people that were contemporaries of "jesus"
people that weren't born in 52 CE
people that were writing first hand accounts




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi There,

To Provide a response to the initial poster's question 'did Jesus exist?', I provide the following link...(apologies if this has already been given).

nobeliefs.com...

No, it has not already been given because it is not regarded as a rational source to use in a debate. The person who made this website is irrational and uses many false claims to support himself, such as the amulet depicting Orpheus being crucified(proven to be a hoax). How can he claim that an artifact such as the Shroud of Turin is a "bad forgery" when he uses undeniably proven forgeries to back up his own claims?

Furthermore, he says that any document that is "hearsay"(by the way, he really likes the word hearsay because he uses it 32 times in just one article) is not reliable and therefore, invalid to use in this debate. Ordinarily, I would agree with him but he claims that a "hearsay" document is any document without proper citations, a bibilography, and many sources to back it up:

... the accounts from ancient historians. Most of them did not provide sources for their claims, as they rarely included bibliographic listings, or supporting claims.

Oh c'mon, these were ancient historians from the first century! How can you expect them to know what proper MLA format is and know how to use it too?! These were ancient scribes and historians, not 21st century scholars. Therefore, he dismisses most of the extra-biblical documents because they do not use proper MLA format.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Hi There,

Yes, I agree, he is rather repetitive with the 'hearsay', but it probably is worth repeating, the Bible is pure mythology, built on the 'hearsay' of myth, borrowing heavily from more ancient religious texts, which are themselves...mythological.
Jesus is simply a 'virtual' Saviour, the 17th to be introduced into a religious practice; but He cannot 'save' mankind, because it is too separated by how it interprets sacred texts, causing both divisivion and fraction amongst all races, and that is our contemporary problem. Even if it was proved that a man called Jesus existed, it would still not prove the Biblical account of Him...the Bible is...hearsay. Mohammed holds greater existential existence than Jesus, because we know Mohammed existed, but does this make the Quoran anything more than an interpretation of sacred texts extant prior to Mohammed? I think not!

[edit on 28/1/07 by elysiumfire]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Good thread - I regret not seeing it earlier.

Jesus did exist, and as has already been presented, both Jospehus and Tacitus record his existence.

From some information I have channeled via my extraterrestrial guide, he was an incarnation of Yeshua, the firstborn child of Father and Mother. He is an extraterrestrial being, and also incarnated as Buddha and Lao Tzu.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Hi There,


From some information I have channeled via my extraterrestrial guide, he was an incarnation of Yeshua, the firstborn child of Father and Mother. He is an extraterrestrial being, and also incarnated as Buddha and Lao Tzu.


Oh, I see...the irrefutable evidence we've all been waiting for! Scholars and historians will no doubt be knocking on your door eager to talk with you. No wonder we're in trouble as a species...religionists on one side, and 'new-age' comm links on the other. Stop the world...I wanna get off! The mind staggers and reels under the irrationality of it all. Sheesh!



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi There,


From some information I have channeled via my extraterrestrial guide, he was an incarnation of Yeshua, the firstborn child of Father and Mother. He is an extraterrestrial being, and also incarnated as Buddha and Lao Tzu.


Oh, I see...the irrefutable evidence we've all been waiting for! Scholars and historians will no doubt be knocking on your door eager to talk with you. No wonder we're in trouble as a species...religionists on one side, and 'new-age' comm links on the other. Stop the world...I wanna get off! The mind staggers and reels under the irrationality of it all. Sheesh!


I did not refer to it as irrefutable^^



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Hi There,


I did not refer to it as irrefutable^^


Ok Doc, I apologise for my sarcastic shaking of the head in disbelief...it was not justified. I just get so frustrated at times with this subject because people are being killed because of the divisive and fractious elements whom are manipulating their creeds to justify such actions. There's just no conscientious reasoning with them...it is black and white...you're either with them or against them. If one happens to be a disbeliever (or rather 'free-thinker), one is merely 'fodder' to their cause. Of course, this is a simplistic picturing of the issue, but it just about captures it in a nutshell.

Best wishes



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi There,


I did not refer to it as irrefutable^^


Ok Doc, I apologise for my sarcastic shaking of the head in disbelief...it was not justified. I just get so frustrated at times with this subject because people are being killed because of the divisive and fractious elements whom are manipulating their creeds to justify such actions. There's just no conscientious reasoning with them...it is black and white...you're either with them or against them. If one happens to be a disbeliever (or rather 'free-thinker), one is merely 'fodder' to their cause. Of course, this is a simplistic picturing of the issue, but it just about captures it in a nutshell.

Best wishes


No need for apologies. I agree that religion has been used in the vilest of ways throughout history, which is why I refuse to be part of an organized religion. It seems to me the best way to grow spiritually is to commune with the Self - the Spirit within. Best wishes to you as well.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Does it matter if the "life" and teachings inspire you to be a better human being? After all in the long run it is the teachings that we should focus on. Learning the art of living as a fully realized and spiritual soul ripe with compassion and mercy. That is the way that Jesus taught, not some dogma.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
... Even if it was proved that a man called Jesus existed, it would still not prove the Biblical account of Him...
[edit on 28/1/07 by elysiumfire]


We are here to prove the physical historicity of Jesus, not the heavenly claims that are associated with Him. I think that we have already thoroughly proven that a physical Jesus once existed. Now, it is up to you to believe what you want to believe about Him. I have my views and you have yours.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spiritconnections
Jesus did exist, and as has already been presented, both Jospehus and Tacitus record his existence.


second hand accounts don't really count much
both of those men weren't even born yet at the supposed time of the supposed crucifixion of "jesus"

and anyone who thinks this is just a thread attacking christianity would do well to know that islam holds "isa" as one of the three universal prophets, alongside moses and mohammed
but, the intention of this thread wasn't that either
it's called inquiry people

EDIT TO ADD


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I think that we have already thoroughly proven that a physical Jesus once existed.


you have yet to show us one source that wasn't born after the supposed crucifxion or an infant at the time
we need a source that witnessed the man

[edit on 1/29/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Trouble is that the early church is embedded within history. Where would you chose to draw a line after the fictional or composite Jesus, and the historical events that followed?

To explain:

Let us move back as far as the Christian churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth and Rome. These were founded by people who claimed to know the single, non-composite, non-fictional person Jesus. Did they invent him? If so, how did they manage to convince the other people? Why did people in Jerusalem believe that a single person called Jesus had existed, had been preaching and was crucified? When James preached the story at them, they would know whether it were true or false. They were alive at the same time, in the same place. They would know if it were not true. The Romans would have had easy times disproving the reality of this new religion if the man had not even existed: and it would have been in their interests to do so by at least the time of the destruction of the Temple.

It could not have been invented a generation after the events, as people brought up their children into the new faith. They knew that the faith existed before them. It would be known to people in, say, 100AD if there were no church before that date. Blindingly false.

Or do you think that the apostles and Paul are fictional too? And then what of the letters written by Paul? Or if that is too far back, the letters of Clement? Or when do you insert you scalpel into history and claim that all beforehand is myth?

In short, IF Jesus did not exist, I can no plausible model for how on earth history subsequently happened. Suggest some if you can.

That is not to address any of the metaphysical happenings imputed to him at all, but just to examine whether a person by that name, who did (more or less) those things, really existed at the right time and place.

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
d60944, you bring up a semi-plausible idea
however, you provide no backing for any of your statements

how do you know kids were brought up as christians in the first century CE?
where do you have accounts of people saying they knew the physical "jesus" while he was supposedly on earth?

those are two really big holes in your little theory



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   


Teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly... those who had in the first place come to Love him did not give up their affection for him (after his death).


Beautiful! What does it mean that God became a Man? What does it mean that Man is a part of God? Everyone please Contemplate this Rhetorical Mystery.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a real historical Jesus - I'm not sure

Most of the historical sources that have been cited refer to the fact (which I accept without a doubt) that there were people who believed that Jesus was the Messiah and they called him the Christ (a title, not a name) and formed religious sects around the teachings that they attributed to this person. But, if you read those hiistories carefully, I think you'll see that there's a very important difference between reporting that "some people believed" and "this is a fact".

How many hundreds (thousands?) of years did people believe that the earth was flat and the center of the universe? To state that it must be true because 99/9% of the world's population believed that for many centuries is not a proof that it was true - it's a proof that people can be wrong about the "facts" until they are given contrary evidence.

The scholarship continues. The religion continues. Someday they may converge or diverge with crystal clarity but, today is not that day.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
here's how i view "jesus" or "isa' or "yeshua"
whatever you feel like calling him

the character is a mythic figure
myths tell us a lot about ourselves and give us some lessons to live by
i'm not doubting that some of the attributed teachings are good
i'm just saying that they come from a myth
that doesn't tarnish them in any way



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
agreed.

Most folklore, legends, parables, and stories will convey a good moral principle.

What Christians believe to be actual historical accounts of what Jesus said and did are pregnant with excellent life lessons so it doesn't really matter whether they are really true. Just because I don't believe that they actually happened does not mean that I can't see the lessons and the inherent good in most of them.

I think I'd have to say I draw the line at all the "heaven/hell/salvation" stuff because those stories seemed to be mostly recruitment tools to get folks to join the religion and don't serve much purpose for non-Christians. That doesn't make them "bad" - just less useful to me.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by spiritconnections
Jesus did exist, and as has already been presented, both Jospehus and Tacitus record his existence.


second hand accounts don't really count much
both of those men weren't even born yet at the supposed time of the supposed crucifixion of "jesus"

and anyone who thinks this is just a thread attacking christianity would do well to know that islam holds "isa" as one of the three universal prophets, alongside moses and mohammed
but, the intention of this thread wasn't that either
it's called inquiry people

EDIT TO ADD


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I think that we have already thoroughly proven that a physical Jesus once existed.


you have yet to show us one source that wasn't born after the supposed crucifxion or an infant at the time
we need a source that witnessed the man

[edit on 1/29/07 by madnessinmysoul]


Sadly, that's just not the way things were done back then (usually). Jesus lived in a society that passed knowledge on orally, and we cannot really judge that society based on modern methods of recording. That would be historically dishonest. The records we have concerning Jesus' existence are quite solid, and most scholars will agree.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Hi There,


Let us move back as far as the Christian churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth and Rome. These were founded by people who claimed to know the single, non-composite, non-fictional person Jesus. Did they invent him? If so, how did they manage to convince the other people?


Actually, the question you should be asking to make anything of your inquiry accurate is: How did they convince the other people that Jesus (or a person of that name) was in fact the Messiah?

Christianity did not become the single ideological idea until 325AD at the end of the meeting of the Council in Nicea, prior to this, there were quite a few different Christian sects following their own type of Christian creed, and they were at each others throats. This was the reason why Constantine convened the meeting, fearing fraction and rebellion, he saw that he could stave off trouble if he could get the different sects to agree to binding their own creed to a composite ideology. Christianity became politicized, and all subsequent disagreement to the one ideology was severly crushed. Millions, down through the centuries, were persecuted, oppressed, enslaved, tortured and killed to safeguard this one ideology. Even today, Christianity still seeks to oppress the faiths or creeds diametric to it. These are not religious wars, but wars of the mind and conscience, and machinations and manipulations to enslave as many as possible to wholly irrational dogma and doctrine. Religion is merely the shadow of politics, and always has been.

Around the time that the alleged Jesus lived, very few gentiles actually saw him, it was mostly Jews and Romans, neither of which treated Him as the Messiah. The Sannhedrin loathed Him, eventually conspiring to have Him arrested, scourged and crucified. Whichever way you slice it...the leading Jews of that time had Him killed simply because He taught a ideology wholly different to that of Judaism.
Like today, many people of that time (believers and non-believers) accepted (mostly by word of mouth) many of the tenets Jesus allegedly taught...they accepted His message of love and samarital tutorship...which like today, is wholly diametric to Christianity's dogma and doctrine...you cannot embrace other faiths whilst at the same time seeking to eradicate them, or deny them equal practice (Christianity, of course, is not the only faith with this imbalance). Others never were convinced by others, they simply convinced themselves by accepting what they heard (as second-hand news) the stories that were circulating. It's the same today.

Best wishes



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Very Good post elysiumfire - only except Romans WERE "Gentiles". They were Pagan Gentiles - but most accepted the Teachings of Christ eventually.

You are quite correct however that "Christ" is just a title. My final Position on this issue is that I believe that Jesus was a Spiritually Enlightened HUMAN being that attained the Title of "Christ". Just as Siddhartha Gautama was a Spiritually Enlightened HUMAN being that attained the Title of "Buddha". Both left behind Teachings for the Faithful to follow.

Now the Issue of "Christ" being a part of GOD or the Issue of Pagan gods being Worshipped under the Mask of "Christ" - that is a different story & a whole other ball of wax.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Seraphim_Serpente]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join