Another Jesus Thread.... Sorry.

I was born into a cristian family and have been baptised, had my first comunion ect. But latley, after watching zeitgist about a year ago and frequently visiting this site it makes me seriously dobut the existince of jesus, i still believe in a "god" but not jesus...
The main reason for this thread is to try and find out what you guys believe in and why. are the claims in zeitgist exaderated or are they mostly true... And if you believe in jesus please explaing your reasoning for this. But as of right now im leaning towards the fact that he never existed, maby someone will get me off the fence and know for sure what to believe...

Thanks all,

Tyler.

reply to post by tylerc25211


I believe Jesus Himself was asked this question a couple of times.

Matthew 16:13-17 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesare'a Phil'ippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Eli'jah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

You could go right to the source and ask for truth and understanding. Most have not because they ask not.

I would definitely not let Internet posters determine any of my core beliefs in life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having doubts and questions - whether about religion or anything else. Follow up on them and do research and come to your own conclusions.

reply to post by tylerc25211

are the claims in zeitgist exaderated or are they mostly true... And if you believe in jesus please explaing your reasoning for this.

The claims of Zeitgeist are exaggerated. Anyone who has ever studied church history can see this. I suggest that you go and pick up a decent book about Church history and read through it.

I agree with the other posters that you shouldn't let an internet poster sway your beliefs. A lot of what you will read here on ATS and the internet is full of half truths and/or heresay. A lot of people will also believe something that someone says simply because they have a lot of letters after their name or because it goes against the grain.

I believe that Jesus existed because there are sources outside of the Bible that point to him. One example is the Babylonian Talmud.

I read once before that the majority of historians accept and believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is only those on the fringe, or with an agenda, that doubt this. The question arises in who this person was.

I just thought that, if Jesus is the Messiah, which I happened to believe, wouldn't it be Satan's goal to make people doubt that he ever exisisted?

[edit on 6/11/2009 by octotom]

this video may help you (4 parts)

Thank you all for your posts, i do take everything i hear with a grain of salt which is why i wanted to get some differing oppinions, i will definetly look into this more (cant now as im at work). but im sure it wont be something that i will find tonight lol it may take days or weeks to do some proper research, i dont want anything too extreem on either side which would probobly be the Bible for pro jesus and the zeitgist movie for against him, both of these hings have underlying agendas to get you to believe 1 way or the other, im looking for unbaised non-biblical accounts and refrences for jesus.

Remember this. The truth and understanding of the prophets is universal and never changes. However, men can not give each other understanding directly. Thus, all we can do on this world is express those understandings gained.

This can be explained in math because you understand math. We can not directly give each other the understanding of math. I can't walk up to you and then you magically understand math. I have to express the understanding of math to you. 1+1=2. If you have understanding, then you know what I am talking about. If you don't have understanding, then it becomes meaningless to you. You could memorize 1+1=2 as "truth", but without the understanding it's useless to you.

The times, cultures, places and such change over time, but the truth and understanding does not. That means that when truth is expressed, you will see the similiarities between the cultures. Because just like math, the understanding itself is universal.

A rose by any other name still smells the same. A tree is a tree no matter what it is called. etc.

Would you throw out math books because they have different ways of expressing the same understandings?

What you prove is that you have been focusing on the idols(Jesus) rather than the understanding. And it's good that you are rejecting the idol. But realize that it is the understanding expressed that was important and the purpose, not the worship of idols. Look at the understanding Jesus gives, and then you will see things that make sense and are as useful in life as math.

Quick example:

Matthew 7

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

This gives understanding on how to not be a hypocrite. It is saying - put yourself in the other persons shoes. Look at things not only from your perspective, but also from the perspective of the other side. By doing this, you will be able to see the beam in your own eye, so that you can remove it.

Applying it usefully in life:

Take the Iraq war. People only ever focused on their side, they never looked at things from the perspective of those people. If they had looked at it from the other side, then they would have seen their own actions and why it was bad. Afterall, how would they have felt if some country came over here and bombed the crap outta us and so forth because of the actions of GWB? If they had done that, then they could have seen their own bad actions and fixed them.

Continuing on in the same chapter:

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Beware of people who claim to be things and do not accept people based on what they claim to be. They are wolves in sheeps clothing. IE: They want to bad things, but they will appear to be like you in order to decieve you. So, look at their fruits and actions to tell if someone is good or bad.

I made a thread on this topic, so I'll just link it up.

Sheeps clothing = symbolism and idols.

Again, useful understanding that is helpful in understanding the world. There is much more as well. That is what was important, not the messenger. Those who worship Jesus but don't use the understanding is like giving a cat a bowl of milk and the cat licks and worships the bowl instead of drinking the milk. Stupid cat.

reply to post by tylerc25211

after watching zeitgist about a year ago and frequently visiting this site it makes me seriously dobut the existince of jesus,

Years ago I was taking classes from the Rabbi at the local temple. He was not just an ordinary rabbi, and he had a doctor's degree in the study of how Judaism and Christianity separated, so he had a very good understanding of Jesus.
This was before Zeitgeist the video came out so I was not able to ask him about that. He did say that he thought Jesus was not a single person. He thought it was a composite of probably three actual people. Now, him taking a radical view like that would have indicated that he would have been open to consider the points the video makes. He was very much aware of all the so-called facts they present to back up their premise. If he thought there was anything to it he would have said so.
No, according to him, it was all based on Judaic principles and had only Jewish roots and these people, even if they may not have been one person, were good Jewish men.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by jmdewey60]

well my friend i believe there is no one truth. everything just "is"...in relation to everything else! i hope this makes sense.

WAIT!!! background check. i was born unreligious to israeli parents, never shown religion. all my friends here in texas are christians. and the only idea of religion was christianity and a god that only manifests through religion. i tried christianity at like...14 and 18 or so. but being able to read it from such an objective and open minded view, it seemed like a joke what i was reading (especially because i took into accoutn the fact that this was supposed to be the "book that existence was created for").

so jumping to the last few years (im 23) i have started doing research and found that we found in studies that there are 2 basic human emotions. one is love, the other is whatever you see as the opposite. usually fear or hate. i believe fear. you really see where religion comes in once you understand a bit about how our minds work. the ego says im right, yourte wrong. oh really? the only truth/dogma is mathematics buddy. everything else can be debated. reason being, our creator is a mathematician. (just study a sea-shell). religion, or any mass belief imposed upon oneself willingly or unwillignly comes from our tribal mentality first of all. like attracts like. we associate with like minded individuals. so what do you think we did when we never traveled farther than 10 miles away from our tribe? we formed new tribes with like minded individuals. ok this book says this this and that but i dont agree. i believe it means that that and this. so im gonna walk over here and spread a new word. "hmm you new fresh faces look ignorant. never seen the likes of knowledge or technology. i think i can force my belief upon you. but how? ::here comes the word:: FEAR!!! well...could we really burn forever? well...just in case. in such a beautiful world HOW DARE YOU TELL ME MY SON IS BORN A SINNER!!! un-f'ing real. look your 1 year old daughter in the eyes and tell her ignorant incompetent curious fragile little face that belief of yours.

now that brings us to another point. fear and love are the two emotions behind all we do. so does segregation into a tribe seem like love to you? does being a "jealous" god seem like love to you? doesnt equality seem like love to you? ans maybe the idea that we are not our bodies? we are souls given these bodies? look at me as i see you. someone that cares for something and someone and someone who is cared about and cared for. you arent good or bad. you are...in relation to me or my judgements of you. well then in that case, there is no good or bad. thats imposed. if we were all put here on this earth. do you think a true creator would make a certain group of individuals superior to others in that they are born into the "correct" religion which i will never see the likes of because i am a 16 year old boy in gaza strip who has never heard jesus' name but am on my way to blow myself up? maybe we are all here to look past the skin color and the border lines. its as ignorant as seeing a jew with a yrmulkah on his head and spitting on him. HEY man you dont hate the jew! you hate the belief so leave the kid alone!!

fear breeds paranoia, hate, jealousy. love breeds compassion, sympathy/empathy, understanding, tolerance, ACCEPTANCE!!!

dont look at a belief or something someone says or does and say "this is right or wrong" because you will go your whole life being miserable and have no center. it is all relative to you. believe in what FEELS right to you. dont use logic. dont look for proof in this or that. the jews have LOADS of proof that theyre the right religion. no creator will put you in a place where youre burning forever just because you show some doubt in some guy youve never met, and who all you know about is through a book written 400 years after his death. (but has quotes????) all this feels wrong. no logic, no mind. listen to your feelings.

oh one last point to make. god is not in some high up place. you are in this energies consciousness. it is like the ether. to say god is in a high up place is to say god takes up space. well thank einstein for proving time is an illusion. we are bound by time, space, and matter. well times an illusion, and if our findings in quantum physics are true, then matter (and inevitably space) is an illusion too. 99.999999% of an atom is hollow. and even that solid part is 99.99999% hollow. we are all entangled by this god-force and he has given us a great ammount of free will. more than an animal. and an animal more than plants. and plants more than rocks. so YOU are in the greatest sense....godly. this is free will. and this is my belief.

hey man if you want to talk more or have any questions about the quantum physics stuff n what not, or even to contradict my beliefs, feel free to u2u me. oh and let me know what you think of this. i apologize for the ADD HA!!!

Originally posted by tylerc25211
I was born into a cristian family and have been baptised, had my first comunion ect. But latley, after watching zeitgist about a year ago and frequently visiting this site it makes me seriously dobut the existince of jesus, i still believe in a "god" but not jesus...
The main reason for this thread is to try and find out what you guys believe in and why. are the claims in zeitgist exaderated or are they mostly true... And if you believe in jesus please explaing your reasoning for this. But as of right now im leaning towards the fact that he never existed, maby someone will get me off the fence and know for sure what to believe...
Thanks all,
Tyler.

Tyler, the devil is always trying to get people to not believe in Jesus. Here's a concrete fact:
There are over 16 "non-christian" ancient sources for Jesus Christ. They speak of Him walking the earth, doing miracles, being crucified and resurrecting.
www.garyhabermas.com...

The devil is real. See this true and scientific book called, "The devil and Karen Kingston":
hbcdelivers.s439.sureserver.com...

There's more historical and archaeological evidence for the Bible.

Also, there's prophetic evidence for the Bible.

Thanks,
TT

[edit on 6/13/2009 by texastig]

[edit on 6/13/2009 by texastig]

reply to post by tylerc25211


ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.

There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus.

All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay.


A historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.



Although the gospels of the New Testament are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them.

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.



The stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves.

The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person.


Many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought.

To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

Read more here: nobeliefs.com...

reply to post by Daniem


Ever seen the movie the matrix? Arguing over if Jesus is real or not, is about like watching the matrix movie and then arguing over if Neo and the machines are literally real or not. It doesn't matter which side of that argument you are on, you missed the point and the real truth and understanding of the movie.

And the same is true of Jesus. So what if he isn't real? What does that change? Does that make the understandings he expressed wrong? Why is it that people such as yourself can never address the actual understandings involved, but only the literal and actions of those who believe the literal?

Man pours cat a bowl of milk. Cat worships the bowl that brought the milk, rather than drinking the milk, which was the bowls purpose. Another cat comes along, says you stupid nut, it's just a bowl, slaps the bowl aside and doesn't drink the milk either. Both end up blind and without the milk.

Go ahead, prove Jesus isn't real. Doesn't make a difference to me. In the end, I wasn't there anyway, so it's just a story to me. But the understanding it brings, well that I would just love to see someone try and tackle for a change. I won't be holding my breathe though. Although it is getting rather tiring being stuck between people who only see things literally.



[edit on 13-6-2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by DaniemALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Who says so?
That is incorrect. Paul the Apostle seen Him and even skeptical scholars believe in Paul the Apostle and even some of his epistles. Paul seen and talked to Peter and Peter was with Jesus. Paul has a first hand account of Christ. So your claim of hearsay accounts are not true.

Originally posted by DaniemNo one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.

There are over 16 non-Christian ancient sources for the historical Jesus. You are really stretching it when you say there's no artifacts, dwelling, carpentry or self-written manuscripts. The house that my grandparents lived in is gone does that mean that there’s no physical evidence? There is nothing wrong with writings from other people.

Originally posted by DaniemThere occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus.

There’s a difference between a contemporary writing and a contemporary writer. A contemporary writer might write about an event long after the event. For example, people who write autobiographies generally write them towards the end of life. They write about people they knew 50 years earlier, like their grandparents. But that’s hardly “devastating to historians.” Most autobiographers don’t write about their childhood at the time they were children. Rather, they generally write about their childhood when they’re in their sixties or seventies or eighties. Is that “devastating to historians”? What about historians who write autobiographies?

Originally posted by DaniemAll documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Dr. Gary Habermas writes: "With regard to the historical Jesus, any material between 30 and 50 AD would be exemplary, a time period highly preferred by scholars like those in the Jesus Seminar. Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the 30s AD. Other examples are supplied by the brief creedal statements that many scholars find embedded within the Book of Acts, which Gerald O’Collins dates to the 30s AD. From the so-called “Q” material in the first and third Gospels, another instance is the statement of high Christology found in Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22. Further, Paul’s earliest epistles date from the 50s AD."

Originally posted by DaniemWe know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay.

The devil is real. The Discovery Channel has a TV series called, "A Haunting". And those hauntings are documented. If they weren't then the Discovery Channel would be the laughing stock of TV.

Originally posted by DaniemA historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, cannot serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

1John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Luke 1:1-2
1.Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Originally posted by DaniemAlthough the gospels of the New Testament are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them.

The early church fathers said the writers of the gospel wrote them. Gospel of Matthew - The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources (Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea) specifically attribute the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. Gospel of Mark - Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine all attribute Mark's Gospel to Mark. There's little reason to believe the early church would falsely attribute this Gospel to Mark, who was a second-tier church figure at best. Gospel of Luke - Evidence associating Luke with his Gospel (as well as the book of Acts) includes the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) as well as the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, and famed early church historian Eusebius. Gospel of John - The evidence is thinner for John than the others, but Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius) both attribute the fourth Gospel to John.

Originally posted by DaniemNot only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

We do know who wrote them from my previous reply. See my third reply.
As for meeting the earthly Jesus, Matthew and John were His disciples.

Originally posted by DaniemThe stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves.

My replies have proven that wrong.

Originally posted by DaniemThe Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person.

See my sixth reply.

Originally posted by DaniemMany of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought.

Jesus told His disciples lots of things.

Originally posted by DaniemTo whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

After His resurrection He talked to the disciples. There is nothing fictional. Names are named and places are named. We have first account testimonies from Paul the Apostle who was a Roman citizen and a Jew. Paul even met Jesus and he met Peter who was with Jesus. There is no hearsay. They are not falsified stories because of non-Christian sources and Paul the Apostle.

reply to post by badmedia


The OP said:

it makes me seriously dobut the existince of jesus

So it seems totaly rational for me to address the issue of him having lived or not! We arent talking about what he taught.

reply to post by texastig

Paul the Apostle seen Him.. *..your claim of hearsay accounts are not true.

Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself.

However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There are over 16 non-Christian ancient sources for the historical Jesus... *..There is nothing wrong with writings from other people..

All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, the information and dates show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

What about historians who write autobiographies?

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.


If the SON OF YAHWEH realy was here, and did all of what is claimed he did, you'd definitly expect there to be SOME contemporary writing about it. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another"


And he seems suspiciously similar to other mythical creatures.

TV series called, "A Haunting". And those hauntings are documented

The show made reenactments. Now isnt it weird that with todays monitored society we never get viable evidence for ghosts on cam?

John 1:1

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the Gospel John after 90 C.E. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to John. (Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John)

Scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Even if they had written them, they would far have exeeded the average lifespan of humans then (around 30 years), which made John over 110 years old. (it was 35-45 years in 1840)

Matthew and John were His disciples.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the unknown author(s) of this gospel wrote it in Greek near the end of the first century.

Note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus.

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by badmedia

 

The OP said:

it makes me seriously dobut the existince of jesus

So it seems totaly rational for me to address the issue of him having lived or not! We arent talking about what he taught.

Of course you aren't talking about what he taught. In fact, you will do everything you can to avoid talking about that. Why? Because you can't prove it wrong or even say a bad word about it without exposing yourself.

reply to post by badmedia

you will do everything you can to avoid talking about that. Why? Because you can't prove it wrong or even say a bad word about it without exposing yourself.

Just what are you implying here? Why WOULD i say bad stuff about lessons from jesus in the bible? Some are nice and good, others... im not so sure about:

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.