posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:15 AM
Originally posted by watchtheashes
The thing that no one here is getting is that Jesus was a man that existed. Why so quick to believe eyewitnesses of UFOs, but not so quick to think
that maybe the ancient witnesses weren't lying?
Really? Are you telling me that a male, specific name "Jesus," and that there are witnesses that can confirm this? I think you are reaching, friend.
If, operative word, if there was such a man, his name was not "Jesus." Maybe Yeshua bin Joseph, something like that. There are no witnesses to this.
the earliest writings on "Jesus" was over 150 years after his "death."
And, it is quite easy to believe in something one can actually see, and I have actually seen one or two.
After all that would be against the whole premise. Therefore why write a book that says don't lie and then lie? Saying Jesus didn't exist is like
saying the writers who saw him are lying. Which of course would go against what they stood for. Why is there always a need to debunk Jesus of all of
them? These very words sum it all up:
Luke 21:17: "And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake."
He was right. Furthermore it was Jesus that spoke it therefore it must be true even to these days.
There it is again. Jesus spoke. You heard him, right? Just because the words in your book are in red letters doesn't mean Jesus actually said the
words, does it now? And Jesus is not hated! Even us Pagans do not "hate" your idea of a deity, that is your business. To me, the man was a very wise
man. He came down here to teach mankind how to live, and mankind perverted his teachings, and created a religious cult from it. If Jesus were here
today, who do you think he would have the most issue with, the Pagans, the Muslims, or the Christians?
I know everyone needs something bigger than they are to believe in, but please don't take it to the extreme.
"That Scripture Might Be Fulfilled"
The earliest works on the Christian godman were simple documents designed for liturgical use. The figure of Jesus had no discernible features, no true
biography – merely attributes befitting his messianic status, such as absolute assuredness and "authority" and the concomitant display of anger,
irritation and pity of one who expects to be obeyed.
Each worthy tenet of a higher morality, every pithy statement of priestly wisdom, was coupled to the majestic name to give sanction and assurance of
its heavenly origin.
"A cycle of lessons, or perhaps a manual for preachers, was drawn up for ecclesiastical usage, and it was upon this liturgical foundation that
the Gospels were based." – Grant (Jesus, p180)
The compendium that resulted – ambiguous, inconsistent, improbable and impossible – though never intended as a "history", none the less
masqueraded as such, underpinning the claims of the faith to a unique historical foundation.
But any attempt to reconstruct the timetable or itinerary of the "ministry" of the Christian saviour is doomed to failure because the gospels are
both inadequate and contradictory. One moment Jesus is in the Decapolis, receiving word of the death of John the Baptist, the next he is in Phoenicia
expelling demons. One moment Jesus is "transfiguring" on a mountain in Syria, the next he is pontificating in Samaria.
Historical Jesus FAQ
You guys just don't want to quit having sex before you're married and don't want to accept there is a reason the molecules that make up everything
on this planet don't just come apart.
[edit on 5/27/2009 by watchtheashes]