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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I suggest you all look up a man named Appolonius of Tyana. Most likely jesus was a composite of this man who as a healer.




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by capsitan
I suggest you all look up a man named Appolonius of Tyana. Most likely jesus was a composite of this man who as a healer.


that and the other mystery cult figures from the time
such as the cult of osiris
or dionysus



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Okay, the idea of "Jesus" formed over perhaps 100 or so years in a time where Media was very limited. Not much written, most of it word of mouth down the generations... my father told me, and his father told him etc.

In such a world, it's very easy for stories to mutate and be enhanced, deeds glorified to make a better story and so on.

King Arthur.
In Medieval times people generally thought that the Arthur legend was Real. They had read or been told the stories, and the stories appealed to them. This idea of an Ideal King in ruling a Bountiful Land. But the truth is that the stories were largely just stories, perhaps partially leveraging off some reality, but essentially fiction.

Just sayin'...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
good point - essentially correct but I'm pretty sure that the Arturian legends and the whole Grail thing didn't start until sometime into the Renaissance but the oral legends may have pre-existed the romance novels.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by emjoi
Okay, the idea of "Jesus" formed over perhaps 100 or so years in a time where Media was very limited. Not much written, most of it word of mouth down the generations... my father told me, and his father told him etc.

In such a world, it's very easy for stories to mutate and be enhanced, deeds glorified to make a better story and so on.


I'd recommend becoming better versed on the Hebrew oral tradition. This "where did I put my car keys?" line of thinking we use today because we have all these little reminders to help us along is not equitable to the "letter of the law" thinking Hebrews had then. C'mon, this is the Word of God. Do you really want to be the one responsible for mucking it up?

In addition, we do indeed have written accounts by witnesses:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:16-21


I'm glad to see this topic continuing after 3 years from when it started. It's actually the same question that's been going on for two thousand years. Yes there is an answer for certain, yes you can know for certain during this lifetime.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I have doubt that Jesus has even existed but there are possibility that HE did exist. Let's not be too preoccupied by the question of whether Jesus existed or not but rather focus on what good things that have come out from HIS teachings. HE might not have existed, but the ideology and teachings spread from the belief has in fact made us to be at least more loving towards one another, helping those who are in needs and forgiveness.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
questions for you, saint
do you have a single contemporary account of the life of your proposed messianic figure "jesus"?

do you have any way of explaining away the huge similarities between your "jesus" and the dionysus of mystery cults at the same time period?

and

do you have any way of explaining away the similarities to other mythic figures that "jesus" shares?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
questions for you, saint


I think this means me, though a reminder that I'm not the only saint surely.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
do you have a single contemporary account of the life of your proposed messianic figure "jesus"?


No, thank God. I have proof negative of Christ. That is to say I had proof positive of the Devil, and proof also that the opposite existed. Then God directed me to the Book, which tells me more about Jesus. Sounds like a roundabout way of doing it compared to saint Paul, but it was necessary. I wanted to hear from God first, being skeptical that He had a son. If I had met Jesus, then I'd probably have no faith at all, only proofs. Which is not a good thing, but is difficult to explain why.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
do you have any way of explaining away


I don't like "explaining away" as all that is, is speculation. That kind of disregard for fact would be foolish on my part.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the huge similarities between your "jesus" and the dionysus of mystery cults at the same time period?


The fact is, the Old Testament prophesized about the coming of Christ...which does explain why people asked "Are you the Messiah?" in numerous places at thte start of the New Testament. People were expecting a christ, they just didn't know who and when. Sometimes they got it wrong. A good example would be Simon the Sorcerer in Acts.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and

do you have any way of explaining away the similarities to other mythic figures that "jesus" shares?


Again, I don't "explain away" and you've answered your own question. Mythic figures were myths, Christ was a fact. I know, I know, you want ME to prove it to you, but that's not how God & Christ work. They want you to go to the source. I can only help establish that connection for those who want it.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Greetings Jon,

Perhaps you didn't realise this is not a pulpit, we are debating facts, not preaching faithful beliefs.

Let me show you what your post looks like from another angle :


"
I am sat here with a big smile on my face as I read this post. It's like listening to a load of children in a playgroud talking about quantum physics. they try to understand but they are so far from reality that it is funny listening to the answers they give.
Is Osiris real. Yes.
Does he heal and do wonderous things even today. yes.
Are the gifts of the spirit given today. yes.
You aught to stop trying to fault the workshop manual and go and buy a car and join in the fun. if you know what I mean.
Where does my faith come from, you may ask. well it wasn't by reading the bible all day and trying to work out whats real and whats not. I went to the author and and asked him to show me the truth.
So, Yes. I've told people things about themselves that no-one knew about.
I've prayed for the sick and they have been healed.
Iv'e had words of knowlage to help out in situations.
To a lot of Osirians these things go on all the time, we don't stand around shouting 'Yes' 'Yes', it worked. someone has been healed. we just thank god and move on.
You people seem to be on another planet when it comes to what goes on in this world. If you want the truth and not what someone thinks because of something writen down long ago. Get out to where these things happen.
You will meet a few looney tunes on the way but they are in every society anyway.
Oh" one little snag though. If you want Osiris to show himself to you you have to ask from the heart and not your head. can you imagine otherwise, everyone would want to jump on the bandwagon to try and make a profit.
I'm not even going to get on the subject of Set, possession and things that go bump in the night. If you want to know more, you know what to do.
Please don't reply asking for proof. If no-one else has ever convinced you i,m not even going to try. just look at this post as "wow" then move on and and have a good hard think of what the truth could be.
Have a nice day.
"

Are you convinced Osiris is real now?


Iasion



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Greetings all,

F.F.Bruce


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
-Here is a quote from a professor at Manchester University.
...
- F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at Manchester University.


F.F. Bruce is a faithful believer.
His views are no more reliable than your priests - i.e. not at all reliable, just faithful preaching.


Tacitus


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier-This quote is from a famous Roman Philosipher, who is relied heavily on by historians. Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52-54):


You post his birth date, but conspicuously fail to note he wrote about the year 112 - many decades after the alleged Jesus - why is that I wonder?

Also, it is clear Tacitus did NOT rely on historians - there were NO contemporary historians who mentioned Jesus at all.

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:

* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.

* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
oll.libertyfund.org...


Josephus


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
This is a letter from a famous Jewish war tactician to his friend. Josephus, a Jew who commanded a force during a Jewish revolt against Rome and who after defeat wrote a history of Israel twice mentions Jesus. Josephus had no reason to be a friend of Jesus, writes this...


You did not read earlier posts where Josephus was discussed. I suggest you do so.

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :

* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),

* The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,

* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the several early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.

* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.

* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.

* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


Lucian


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
This is from an enemy of the Christians who himself acknowledged the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.


Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :

* this was several generations later,

* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.

So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


Mara bar Serapion


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldierIn the bible, Jesus is accused of being "The King of the Jews":
A historical artifact in the British Museum has a letter written by Maraben Serapion who wrote about the Jews who executed "their wise king".



A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.

It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.

This is not evidence for Jesus, just more wishful thinking.





Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
The Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is quite well known:
"No serious historian would doubt the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. On occasions some have tried but only by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of Jesus. These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica


Rubbish.
Many historians and scholars over the years HAVE argued Jesus was purely a myth - MANY. This is a completely false claim - I posted a list of such scholars above - of course Blue Soldier never read it.

Furthemore - many early writers claimed Jesus never existed as a historical being, such as the Gnostics and the Docetics, even some early Christians did NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh - see the letters of John and others, were other Christians are attacked for not believing Jesus came in the flesh.

BlueSoldier posted all the usual canards - which have long since been proven false - I encourage readers to check the facts, not swallow faithful preaching.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Greetings all,


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I'm not quite sure about what you mean. By "CONTEMPORARY" sources, do you mean sources from the 21st century? Or do you mean ancient sources that have survived to "CONTEMPORARY" times? If you mean current sources for his existence, just take a look at the best selling book since forever.


Wow.
You REALLY don't know what contemporary evidence means?
Incredible.

It means evidence from the SAME TIME ("con-tempo-rary") as Jesus.

There is NO evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events from the time he lived - instead we have mixed up, varying legends from long afterwards, by people unknown.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
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).


Really?
Please show how this was PROVEN to be a hoax.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Greetings,


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


Jesus did not exist, and as has already been presented several times - both Josephus and Tacitus are NOT reliable (or contemporary) evidence at all.



Originally posted by spiritconnectionsFrom 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.


Wow.
And you actually think this makes your claims believable?


Iasion


[edit on 12-2-2007 by Iasion]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
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.


Really?
Where did that happen?
Certainly not in this thread.

You preached the usual faithful beliefs, but they were shown to be completely UN-reliable, late, or FORGED.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by d60944
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.


No they weren't.
That's just part of the LEGENDS.

All you have is later legends supporting earlier legends.



Originally posted by d60944Why 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.


No-one in Jerusalem heard any such preaching until a CENTURY or more after the alleged events - after two wars had destroyed the city and it's people and its buildings and its records.

Legends of a historical Jesus did not start until long afterwards - there was no-one to disagree.

Read the letter of "James" - does it say ANYTHING about a historical Jesus of Nazareth?

NO.
It was just another letter by some unknown person who never met any Jesus.



Originally posted by d60944The 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.


Rubbish.
Did anyone disprove Osiris?
Did anyone disprove Hercules?
No.
Therefore, according to your argument - they are REAL.

No-one even HEARD of any Jesus of Nazareth until long afterwards - after two wars had destroyed the people, the city, and the records.

Check the early letters of Christianity, such as James, Peter, John, Jude - NOTHING about any historical Jesus.



Originally posted by d60944It 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.


Rubbish.
The stories of Jesus started to circulate far away from Jerusaem, long long after the city and the people and the records were gone. People believed all sorts of nonsense back then. There was no-one to confirm the stories - it was long afterwards, far away, after Jeruslame was gone.



Originally posted by d60944Or do you think that the apostles and Paul are fictional too? And then what of the letters written by Paul?



Most of the apostles are clearly fiction.
The letters of Peter, John, James, Jude do NOT mention anything about a historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Paul did NOT mention anything about a historical Jesus or the Gospel figures or events or places as history. Instead he preaches a Risen Christ who was crucified in heaven.


Originally posted by d60944Or 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?


Clement does NOT mention anything about a historical Jesus of Nazareth, nor does he know the Gospel stories.

The earliest writings show NO KNOWLEDGE of a historical Jesus of Nazareth, only the LATER writings after the Gospels appeared in early-mid 2nd century, as clearly shown by this table :
qdj.50megs.com...



Originally posted by d60944In short, IF Jesus did not exist, I can no plausible model for how on earth history subsequently happened. Suggest some if you can.


Jesus DID exist - as a spiritual being.
People DID believe in Jesus, same as they believed in Dionysius or Osiris - so what?

No historical Jesus is required for the beliefs we see, and the history that follows.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings,


Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
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).


Really?
Please show how this was PROVEN to be a hoax.


Iasion




www.bede.org.uk...

However, this entire argument was rendered moot when I did a little research of my own. I found that the amulet is almost certainly a fake. Furthermore, Peter Gandy actually knew this but did bother make this fact known. The first half of this article outlines how we know that the amulet is probably a fraud. The second half explains how Freke and Gandy reacted to this and eventually the latter admitted he had known about it.

[...]


It evidently escaped [Guthrie’s] notice that the amulet with the image of the crucifix and the inscription ΟΡΦΕΟΣ ΒΑΚΚΙΚΟΣ in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin is almost certainly a fake. One must grant credibility to such outstanding connoisseurs of this material as Joh. Reil and Rob. Zahn, who asserted this [i.e. that the amulet is a fake] in Aγγελος 2, 1926, 62ff., and one must not be put off by the fact that this Italian counterfeiter, like so many--the amulet is from Italy and came from E. Gerhard's estate to the museum in Berlin--possessed some learning and knew of the connection of Orpheus to Bacchus

[...]


It seems, then, that the Orpheus amulet was betrayed by that greatest enemy of the forger – anachronism. The amulet was supposed to date from late antiquity and yet contains an image that looks medieval. We can assume that the forger had no late antique crucifixion images to hand and so used one from the Middle Ages instead. He probably never realised that the earlier images of crucifixion are completely different from the later ones.

While it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that the amulet is a fake, when you couple the anachronistic image with the dodgy Italian provenance, it becomes impossible to treat is as anything other than extremely suspicious.


Visit link for complete argument. Hope that helps.

Regards



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
i just recently discovered something interesting about norse mythology

to gain wisdom, the god Odin sacraficed one of his eyes
to gain MORE wisdom, the god Odin hung himself from a tree, the more precise definition is something akin to crucifixion on a branch (so just dangling legs)
he did this as a sacrafice to "himself"
him, a deity sacraficing to himself...
sounds familiar



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
jesus wouldn't be really that forgiving if he really expects us to sort out the absolute truth of the matter.

live well. trust your conscience. if you don't have one, then flip you. the TEACHINGS are the 'real jesus'. old or new testament, clay tablet from sumeria, zoroaster, 'amen'(look into the egyptian root of that word).... , the common threads of community building and maintenance are there. love thy neighbor(as nearly impossible as that is, the poopyheads), do unto others, turn the other cheek.

virgin birth(like a book has), 'son of god'(like an idea is)....

jam with it. the illuminati do.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings,


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


Jesus did not exist, and as has already been presented several times - both Josephus and Tacitus are NOT reliable (or contemporary) evidence at all.



Originally posted by spiritconnectionsFrom 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.


Wow.
And you actually think this makes your claims believable?


Iasion


[edit on 12-2-2007 by Iasion]

I feel either view could be true. How can anyone be so sure two millenia hence? Neither Josephus, nor Tacitus could have seen him cuz they weren't born yet. It is my finding that there is no contemporary record of Jesus, his entourage, disciples, or family still in existence. Maybe he was a fictional character. Certainly the Jewish people agree that they have no record of him from his time, and they are the children of the people who were there. On the basis of actual proof, he cannot be proven by a single piece of evidence today. But faith needs no proof, but in fact faith is nullified by proof. I am quite well-read on the topic, and have read many sides of the debate, none of which is conclusive. My humble opinion, which is for me alone to agree with, is he was real. He may not be, and the evidence of his life is totally non-existant. But, often, where there's smoke there's fire, and I see alot of smoke. If he lived, my take from reading biblical, Jewish, and historical books of many kinds, is that he was likely a Rabbi, married, of royal Jewish lineage, who the Romans removed because he was a threat. But I don't think he was God's son, the saviour, or the like. If he did perform miracles, that doesn't prove a thing. Criss Angel can walk on water, for example. The whole debate is virtually meaningless in the end. The teachings are what I find valuable. The rest is not important, whether he was Jewish, married, black, or a miracle worker... the message is the thing.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   


'amen'(look into the egyptian root of that word).... ,

From the Egyptologists Electronic Forum [EEF] article on "Ancient Egyptian Loan Words", by the EEF Moderator, Aayko Eyma:

"[C] TOTAL NONSENSE
1) To "prove" that Israel was an Egyptian colony'the jews say the name of an Egyptian god, Amen, at the end of their prayers' (17)

[17] This one also often comes up, namely the suggestion that the Biblical word amen was the Egyptian god's name Amen, borrowed by the Hebrews during their stay in Egypt. Needless to say that semantically, historically and etymologically, there is no connection between the two words at all.

The Hebrew word 'amen, used at the end of a prayer or at the beginning or end of a statement, has the meaning "so be it!", "let it be so!", "certainly!", "verily!", and derives from the Hebrew verb 'aman "to confirm", "to be firm", "to strenghten" (cp. the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, at URL).

Besides, the Egyptian god's name never sounded like Amen (that's again a modernism!), but was written imn, which in the New Kingdom was pronounced 3Ama:ne (as testified by the cuneiform texts that render the name with vowels) and which after ca 1000 BC developed into 3Amu:n(e) (hence the Coptic form Amoun and the Greek form Amoun). The Egyptians themselves connected the name with the verb imn, "to conceal", so the god's name would mean "the Hidden One" (cp. Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, ch. 9 = Manetho, Fr. 77)."

So, in short, there is NO connection between the named of the Egyptian deity, /imn/ and the term "amen" which is the ending of prayers in Judaeo-Christian practice.

www.hallofmaat.com...,439619,439621#msg-439621



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join