The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

Originally posted by Grandma
My heart is so heavy now. There seems to be so many people are opening their posts with no offenise And then they start in on their soap box. I am not going to name names but if the shoe fits......as they say.

Well, it seems you did take offense, even though I said not to.
Maybe that's why I said it?
If your heart is heavy, as you say, then maybe you should try inhaling helium, but as I said, I meant no offense.

Originally posted by Grandma
The issue here is that Jesus did exist.

Is that the issue?
I thought the issue was that the evidence we have is hearsay.

Originally posted by Grandma
He is the true Son of the Living God. And it was through his sacrifice of being the perfect blood offering to his Father that we now have a way to reach heaven its self.

Haven't you ever wondered why?
If God is indeed omnipotent, then why would he have to sacrifice his son?
I'm sorry, but the whole story makes no sense.
Again, no offense, it's just a debate.

reply to post by AlexG141989


All evidence for the life of Tutankhamen is hearsay, all evidence for the life of Nebachaneer is hearsay, all evidence for your life the day you die will be hearsay.

MAKE A POINT FOR PETE'S SAKE..

reply to post by theindependentjournal

All evidence for the life of Tutankhamen is hearsay

Except for the fact that, oh I don't know, WE HAVE HIS BODY and all the stuff he was entombed with.

[edit on 21/11/2008 by Good Wolf]

Jesus does exists and yes he talks to me and I pray to him. I ask Jesus
to forgive all of us, and then after my prayer is done I give Jesus all the praise, glory and honor.
It's almost as if I were sleeping for a long time and then woke up and heard Jesus talking to me.
God and Jesus are listening!

reply to post by crazyjames65


Yes, thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

not Hearsay if you beleive in Jesus and here his voice.

reply to post by crazyjames65


It is when you claim that with no corroborable evidence.

[edit on 21/11/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by TruthParadox

This is what I mean by saying you don't know your own Bible. And from what you're writting, you seem to be saying that you only follow the New Testament? Though Jesus Himself spoke of the Old Testament and for us to obey the commandments, so I guess you pick and choose what you read as most Christians do. If you believe the Old Testament commandments are from God, then you absolutely are commanded to kill me for believing in Zeus or any other god for that matter.

OT = How things used to be. NT = How things should be now. Jesus updated the program. OT said eye for an eye, Jesus said Love your enemies, forgive, turn the other cheek, non-violent protest w/ Love.

So let's see ...Hmmmm ...should I go w/ how it used to be, or go w/ what Jesus says is the new and improved format??? Hmmmm.

Considering the fact that "eye for an eye" leads to perpetual and never-ending war, genocide, killing ala Jews vs. Muslims .....I'll think I'll pass.

Some things in the OT (like 10 commandments) and many other commands, still hold true after Jesus came and taught "the way." Other things from the OT Jesus said are outdated and things have "changed." So I dont agree w/ those outdated "things" from the OT. Very simple......

So far some one entering "the way" of Jesus, it goes like this. You read about Jesus to see what "the way" is all about. Go back to the OT to see how things used to be and where the updates are, and then eventually get Spiritual Enlightenment, of which Jesus even said by this Enlightenment you will know more things, things that arent even written about in the Bible.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, you shall abide in him." I John 2:27

I could never kill you for worshipping Zues. I'd talk to you about it to philosophically/intellectually try to prove to you that perhaps its false. But if that failed, I'm commanded to Love you with all my heart as I love myself and to treat you as I wish to be treated. And if you dont want to hear about the Jesus path, to simply walk away and pray that God looks over you and leads you to his Love.

Christianity seems to be in the eye of the beholder...

In sense you could say that, but specifically in this respect; A Christian just starting on the path will think a certain way whereas someone who is further along, intermediate, and more tuned into God will know more. These 2, at times, will debate. The you have someone on the path who is Enlightened Spiritually, and this is the highest form of the beholder because someone in this state is now learning from direct experience just How Jesus himself beheld. This direct experience is called "putting on the Mind of Christ." You see everything in Selfless divine Love and compassion, amongst other things.

So out of these 3, the beginner, the intermediate, and the Mind of Christ beholder, who do you think is seeing things in the best possible light, being that the 1st two are reading about this reality and the last is experiencing this reality of the Mind of Christ????

So then you're one of the very few Christians who does not believe the Bible is perfect or without flaws. Most Christians wouldn't dare even consider this.

I believe the whole book ....but when one of the characters in the OT was saying that God specifically chooses the jews over everybody else, obviously God chose the Jews for Jesus to be born through this race. But are they anymore special than anyone else??? Of course not. So I "believe" that was the authors perspective of the situation, even though perhaps he wanst getting it from the highest perspective, i.e. the Mind of Christ, since Jesus hadn't shown up yet.

Many parts of the OT are nationalistic. but Jesus taught equality and that the only separation will between those who are spiritually enlightened and those who aren't, but God loves both equally. And that those who aren't will never understand those that are unless they also become Enlightened.

Some parts of the OT, the author(s) say that if the Jews win a war, God was on "their side". But if they lost one or the temple got destroyed, then they were crying out over what they must have done wrong to piss off God. Again a perspective minus the Mind of Christ.

Jesus came and updated the program, so I dont agree with any of the "outdated formats." Their unnecessary for the Main frame that is Spiritual Enlightenment through Jesus to operate fully functional.

I just mis-explained myself in the previous post, and most Christians will agree with what I just wrote, at least the ones that have the mind of Christ that is. All the other beginners and intermediates dont know what that is yet.

So what you have most of the time, is that Religion was built around Jesus and stupid and evil things done in his name, by those lacking the "Mind of Christ" or the direct experience of Spiritual Enlightenment. They dont know any better because they've built their whole system on separation, and if you dont like it your the enemy.

But those that have the Mind of Christ operate on selfless Love to all.

Now some of those from the "religious Jesus" box, break out of the box and put on the Mind of Christ and would feel deeply saddened for their previous actions and would from then on Act out of Love.

Unfortunately, very few from the "religious box" ever break out of it. And thats why when someone says "Christianity" most people give a sour face reaction to it.

The Way of Jesus, is all about becoming like Jesus. It takes a very loooooong time for this to take place, and when it does we mostly see it in Older people on this path, since they've had a lifetime of learning how to control themselves and let the Divine Love and Holy Spirit operate through them as a vessel and become Christ like.

But when your starting out this "way," you are nothing like him, and all those atrocities done in his name, were by those that were nothing like him.

Make sense????

Wasn't it, untill a couple of hundreds of years after 'his' death that he was chosen holy by a group of people who voted for this?
And wasn't it also that this same group (or another group, sorry, can't recall) selected stories to bundle in, what we now know as, the bible?

To complement this; the old script can be interpreted in different ways,
a small example is the splitting of the sea. The old hebrew word for red sea, could be read in different ways by modern linguistics. They say it can also be read as a field filled with wheat or corn. (and what happens when you walk through such field, you make a path right through it, splitting the 'sea of crops')

I don't believe a bit about his existence; also because the 'great events' are mostly naturally explainable, no miracles or wonders, just the nature of our mother earth. I don't have the links handy right now, but most of these events are already being discussed as fictional or misinterpreted or natural occuring events.

Also, why is it that the pope forbid to expose the full modern translations of the dead-sea-scrolls..? I never digged into this one, so I could be totally wrong on this. But I am really curious what these modern translations are, not bits 'n pieces, I want to read the whole document with its different interpretations on them.

I do, however, respect christians when they say it is a way of living which works for this big community; but they can't convince me in any way that jesus or god are actual (past) beings. And most of the times christians strike with the bible as if it is hard solid evidence, but even the date of his birth is questionable and could have been offset by about 200 years.
When this offset becomes fact (if), there will doubt again on the accuracy of the bible.

Just a question which crossed my mind right now, where are these great events the last 1000 years, which should be better documented (also through gained knowledge and wisdom) than 2000 years ago.

So, where is He, He who would descend from the sky,
or should humanity just wait for infinity and believe it will happen
sometime? Call me when it happens though, wouldn't want to miss such spectacle! I'll be in my atheistic shell now and shut up.

ps:
Sorry if I stepped on one's toes,
most people on earth are free to believe whatever he or she wants.
Just don't try to convince other people. If they want, they will find it theirselves.

Originally posted by dominicus
OT = How things used to be. NT = How things should be now. Jesus updated the program. OT said eye for an eye, Jesus said Love your enemies, forgive, turn the other cheek, non-violent protest w/ Love.

Yes, and God never changes (as stated in the Bible) but just this once decided to do a 180...
It's two different religions shoved together.
God's attitude in the OT is completely different than the NT. It doesn't fit.
There are too many flaws, plot holes, contradictions, etc.
Of course I'm not going to change your mind, and have no desire to do so, but that's where I'm coming from.

Is there an experiment that we can perform that can unequivocally disprove the existence of this person ? I don't think so ,not without personally going backwards in time as an observer.
Until we can do this then the existence or otherwise of this person cannot be scientifically falsified.
The person in question did not personally as far as is known commit anything down in writing rather he chose to speak in parables and the people he kept closest to him were common folk not the leading historians and scholars of the day therefore it is not inconceivable that he was not known by the " experts of that time".
I am not a Bible literalist but many components of the story sound reality based to me , in particular the scenario of someone ahead of his time who had very different ideas being at first championed and then turned upon by his own supporters , Then deeply mourned when he is gone. We still see this occuring today.
I believe this person did exist and that his words of kindness and love and acceptance towards people who were struggling are even more valid today in this greed driven and frightened world then they were then.

Who cares if Jesus really existed?


I don't believe in Talking Lions but I find wisdom in Aesops Fables.


Why can't the same be said of Jesus? His message is just as good whether he lived as an individual or if he were made up and things were attributed to him.

The original poster seems to be saying that because no one was there at the time of Jesus and with him what they write is heresy


I find that many people that make statements like this seem to already have a set agenda to prove so to say

I like how you Topic says how startled you were to discover these truths, lol, I'm sure you were


Have you ever read the Bible before? Not very many people really question the fact that Jesus existed they only question what that means for them



1. A good portion of the New Testament was written by his own Disciples that walked and talked with him and were around him personally...Matthew, John, Peter ect.

2. Even Muslims believe Jesus existed and was a prophet..."Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt." -- Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35

3. Interesting how you do not question whether or not Muhammad existed or not

4. Also Jews don't question the existance of Jesus just whether or not he was the Messiah or not, something that had be fortold been for told in Jewish prophecy for quite a long time in fact they are still looking for this Messiah to come to this day.


Sometimes you just have to be honest with yourself and also try doing some real research ,to just try prove what you want the outcome to be


Of course the question of whether or not he was just a man, a prophet or the son of God would be a whole different topic


Because in the end it really doesn't matter if he existed only if he was who he claimed to be


The thing I like about truth is Truth does not really care what we choose to believe because What Is, already Is, no matter our personal beliefs happen to be at the time.

reply to post by Soulfear

The original poster seems to be saying that because no one was there at the time of Jesus and with him what they write is heresy

It is hearsay, by definition. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is very limited and that's a thing worth talking about.

reply to post by OldThinker


Hey OldThinker:

Very good post. Thank you


Peace in Christ,
Grandma

reply to post by Good Wolf


Good Wolf:

Hello, I believe that OldThinker's post already covered all of that.




Peace,
Grandma

reply to post by Grandma


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by crazyjames65


crazyjames65:

Hello! Don't let them get to you james. You alone KNOW what is in your heart and spirit save the Father himself.





In Christ's name,
Grandma

reply to post by crazyjames65


crazyjames65:

Remember, Jesus said only those who have eyes will see and only those with ears will hear. You must have spiritual eyes and spiritual ears. In order to do that we must crucify our ego (self) and humble ourselves to our Father. Only those who have spiritual eyes will see and only those who have spiritual ears will hear.

Don't let them get to you but do keep praying for them!



In Christ's Holy Name,
Grandma

OldThinker is providing a lot of classical straw man arguments, and a few that are at least plausible. Just because the Gospels say Jesus stood before Pilate, does it mean the alternative is a phantom did? No. Roman histories record no such thing, and so we have only the Gospels that say such an enquiry took place at all. A slaughter of all children two and under does not appear in the only histories of Judea from the First Century to survive, those of Josephus; but instead, Herod slaughters all the Maccabean children and adults who weren't his offspring. Josephus' supposed testimony of Jesus makes Jesus out to be the one the prophets prophesied, when elsewhere, he marks Vespasian as the messiah (go figure). Tacititus, Seutoneus and other Roman historians mention Jesus or a Chrestos only starting about 100 years after the fact. The only thing that gives me pause is how a lot of early Church founders supposedly knew Jesus. Even so, Eisenman has demonstrated in James the Brother of Jesus that a strange name game is going on, so that people who at one turn are disciples or apostles, in other scriptures or Church Fathers are cousins or even brothers of Jesus; and yet such details go unmentioned when they ought to be given.

A better explanation of Christianity has recently surfaced. Atwill's Caesar's Messiah proposes a dramatic insight as to what really happened. Christianity was suspiciously friendly to the Romans. Paul said that God had placed the government over people, even though some pretty corrupt Caesars were yet to follow. If a soldier asks a Christian to carry his pack, since people in occupied territories were compelled to carry it one mile, Christians are instructed to carry it two. The Jewish revolts began with Judas the Galilean who refused to pay Roman taxes, but Jesus said to "give unto Caesar what was Caesar’s".

The first pope, Clement I, was Flavius Clemens, a member of Flavius Vespasian's family, the general and later Caesar who started the attack against Judea. Josephus was Flavius Josephus, who was adopted into the same family. The first Christian catacombs in Rome were paid for by a female member of the Flavian family, and the inscription survives to this day. Mark, one of the first Gospels, was reportedly written by a freed slave in Rome. The biography of Saul/Paul is suspiciously similar to Josephus' Saulos, a Roman soldier. Eusebius said Paul used to call Luke his gospel.

More to the point, Atwill has found a curious sequence of parallels between Josephus and the gospels which betrays that the Gospels appear to be darkly satirical caricatures of the events of the Jewish War – placed 40 years earlier. Jesus prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem, and then within a generation, the Son of Man would come in the sky surrounded by his angels. Josephus describes soldiers and chariots flying around in the sky when Jerusalem was conquered, and the Triumval Arch of the conquest of Jerusalem has Titus flying around on an eagle. Titus had his father deified, so he then became the son of a god. Romans, like Alexandar the Great, had a habit of co-opting the religions of conquered nations to make them easy to rule. That they would do so with Judea is only natural, but when has any of the clergy speculated that Christianity fits that description exquisitely well? Decades later, they renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina, outlawed Judaism, and only allowed Christianity. Atwill believes Josephus was writing so as to make his histories fulfillments of Jesus' prophesies. There are some weird statements in Josephus that makes this sound plausible to me.

If Atwill is correct, at least in the peculiarly pro-Roman stance of Christianity, and that much of the NT is created later to prophesy events in the Jewish war, then it is evidently only so much war propaganda. That is not to say that we should revert to animals and kill or be killed, either; no matter how much the Satanists in charge believe it.