It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Searching for the original or origin of Jesus

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by onequestion
Clear your mind, if only for a second. While you have that single second of clarity, ask, Jesus, who are you? Then try formulating a picture of what he may have looked like in your minds eye. Mybe he is something other then what we think. Mybe he is the god of this period of evolution. Mybe we have a different god for each time cycle. Mybe when you evolve into another dimension you become a god of a different time period. Mybe Jesus evolves out of the past time period into being the god of the next.

Jesus is just a figment of people's IMAGINATION.


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by The Patriot
Sorry, but I'm not here to give any evidence of His existence.

Because there isn't any.

Originally posted by The Patriot
That is something everyone must find for themselves.

I did.
I carefully researched the ancient books, Christian and other - and found that there is NO evidence for Jesus at all - even where you would expect it.


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by DTigerW
For the ones that have posted they don't believe that Jesus even existed, can you tell me what evidence you have?

How bizarre!
Evidence for something NOT existing?

You have it backwards - if YOU claim Jesus existed, it's up to YOU to provide evidence.

Or, look at it another way -

What evidence do YOU have that Unicorns don't exist?
Or faeries?
Or Krishna?

How silly.


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by BellaMente
I for one 100% understand why people would not believe in Jesus because "the Bible says he existed" but there are hundreds of accounts and records of Jesus that have nothing to do with the Bible

But yet you cannot quote a SINGLE ONE ?

In fact - there are NO RECORDS of Jesus at all.
Nothing from Jesus time.

No-one ever met Jesus, no-one ever met anyone who met Jesus.

There is a vast disconnect between :
* the people IN the stories
* the people who wrote the stories.

(Apart from the 'exception' of the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter.)

All we have a few accounts from LATER times, of Christian BELIEF in Jesus.

That is NOT evidence for Jesus ar all.

Originally posted by BellaMente
- even as far away as India (St. Issa) where I personally believe Jesus went to study during his so called lost years.

So, a story not in the Gospel, not supported by evidence, not supported by most Christians, and completely different to all the other stories - is evidence for you ?


What about the FIVE different tombs of Jesus?
Is that FIVE times as good evidence as one tomb?

What a laugh.

That's why no-one has any idea who the real Jesus was, that's whay there are dozens of different versions of the "real Jesus" - because there WASN'T ONE - it's all stories, all different.

But nothing to do with history.


[edit on 10-4-2010 by Kapyong]

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I don't think all the various writers of the time, and writers that came later were all writing science fiction.

No-one said that.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
believe they were writing about a real person.

Because you're a BELIEVER.

What about Hercules?


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by DTigerW
I do not believe God would allow everything in the bible to have been distorted and manipulated to the point where you could not understand what he wanted.

Well, we see plenty of examples of the bible being changed and manipulated :

Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances

Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.
Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene as the climax.

G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.

In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -
* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
* the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
* another minor variant of a few verses

In other words -
there are at least FOUR different ways that G.Mark ends.

(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note - go check yours.)

Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time.

Thus, this is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so.

This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.)

The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence - go try it. Not one person has ever succeeded.

Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism

Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.

1 John 5:7
The Trinity

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "

This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century.
Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it".
Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get !

Matthew 6:13
The Lord's Prayer

Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom".

The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT.

this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
early Christians could not agree what the prayer said !

Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]

Early MSS do not have "son of God".

John 9:35
Son of Man/God

Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"

Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God

"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

This passage is missing from all the early MSS.

In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".

Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.
Clear and present proof of errancy.

Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood

All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.

Men DID change and manipulate the bible.


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by St Udio
the real or original Jesus had to have existed~...
All the Western/Modern calendars are dated at his birth...

Haha, you're killing me :-)
oh wait ...
You're serious.

Let's see -

the real or original Woden had to have existed~...
All the Western/Modern calendars have a day named after him.

the real or original Janus had to have existed~...
All the Western/Modern calendars have a month named after him.

How silly.

The modern dating system was made up CENTURIES after Jesus - it proves nothing.

What about the OTHER dating systems that are NOT based on Jesus?


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 10:35 PM

Originally posted by telfyr
reality is never a nice friend.
and never will be.
it is what it is.

I have been reading this thread and i have to say i really have been enjoying your post. and that avatar is sick it has a nice feel to it i like a lot.

my background, i was raised catholic, which my family still is but i am not, its interesting the route i took to self illumination as i first ventured into paranormal, then after that the occult and mysticism, then after that secret societies and government. i became a atheist for the most part but i currently remain agnostic ( in the sense that there could be a god like force/energy of the universe(s) but not of our origins here on earth. (but then again it doesn't sound too logical)

Anyways can anyone recommend books and videos and/or web sites to me on such topics such as origins of christ, satanism and its connection to christianity,(also its connections to egypt) origins of jewish people, connection of christianity to older religions/deities-messiahs, dark side of such religions and dark side of the church.. historical/political relations

i think i may be missing some topics but those come to mind from the gaps in my mind.,

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!

The great John Lear once said that Jesus was a product of the Large Grays, who were quite puzzled when he was killed. I tend to agree with John here. I think the character was sent here to correct mistakes made by the Annunaki, and, if the words in the NT are truth, then he did a pretty good job of teaching the people how to live, and to love one another. Too bad the people made a religion out of this, and don't just follow the ways of the man himself, the world would be a much better place indeed.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:03 PM
"So, a story not in the Gospel, not supported by evidence, not supported by most Christians, and completely different to all the other stories - is evidence for you ?


Because I don't take the Bible to be evidence for his existence. Whether it's in the Bible, or it's not in the Bible, it doesn't matter much to me. I take the account of him being in India to be evidence for my own personal reasons, especially because of the story below, which is *hilarious* to me:

According to Cayce, Jesus was sixteen years old when his education about the ways of the ancient teachers began. First, he traveled to Egypt where, as an infant, Jesus was taken after his birth by his parents to flee Herod as the Gospel of Matthew states. After spending time learning in Egypt, Jesus spent three years in India and finally a year in Persia.

The idea that Jesus had spent his "lost years" wandering Asia did not originate with Cayce. Its first proponent seems to have been the Russian war correspondent Nicholas Notovitch (1858 - 1916), who described his travels in British India in a book entitled "The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ" published in 1894. According to his book, Notovitch was told by the "chief lama" of a monastery that their library contained records of a visit by Jesus in ancient times. The chief lama finally relented to Notovitch's requests to examine the records. From two large bound volumes written in Tibetan, Notovitch translated them through his interpreter as "The Life of Saint Issa: Best of the Sons of Men." The text begins by summarizing the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, Israel's lapse into sin during the prophetic period, and the subsequent Roman occupation. But God has mercy on one poor couple (Mary and Joseph), whom he rewards by giving them a son, Issa (which is the Qu'anic name for Jesus). All is well until the boy turns thirteen and the parents arrange a marriage for him. Issa "... left the parental house in secret, departed from Jerusalem, and with the merchants set out towards Sind, with the object of perfecting himself in the divine word and of studying the laws of the great Buddhas. [IV. 12- 13] At fourteen, he encountered the "erring worshippers of Jaine" a reference to Jainism. Then he spent six years studying the Vedas and learned the art of exorcism and intercessory prayer. Issa rebuked Brahmin priests for upholding the caste system. Issa also would violate their customs by giving teachings to the lower castes. He is seen rejecting the authority of the Vedas and Puranas, denying the Trimurti and the incarnation of Brahma as Vishnu, Shiva, and other gods. It is written that Issa belittled idolatry and barely escaped India with his life. In Nepal, he grew proficient in Pali and spent six years studying Buddhist sutras. He condemned human and animal sacrifices, sun-worship, the dualism of good and evil, and the Zoroastrian priesthood. The Zoroastrian priests seized him and abandoned him to the wilderness to be devoured by wild beasts but he escapes anyway.

I love it! lol

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by SunIsSon


Actually, the New Testament has a few books in it that are records of Jesus life from first hand witnesses, though some critics argue it.

I'm not going to elaborate on how naive your comment is on people having to be insane to believe he existed, seeing as almost the whole world believes he lived and walked the earth a thousand years ago. I'll just leave it at being naive.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by Mykahel

That's 55% if you include the Jewish and Islamic faiths.
Oh and 2000 years. Be careful when calling people naive, it really can backfire.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:31 AM
The way I see it is if the Jesus of the bible really did exist and his message was so important for our salvation (all of mankind, past, present and future) why did he only spend 3 years spreading that message in only one small part of the world? Does God really expect us today to believe a 2000 year old story that has been translated hundreds of times in so many languages, and not expect his intelligent human creations to ask questions about that story?

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:10 AM
As usual on religious threads, Jesus is not proven. Jesus is not a scientific experiment, theory, or law. He is God, and it is not about proof, but about faith.

Many are confused by the concept of God and Jesus, saying He is a poor communicator or misleading if He can't make Himself plainly known to all.
That's now how it works. God is present with you whether you know it or not. It is up to you to find Him. He has already found you.

If you are interested in the accuracy of the translation of the Bible, I suggest you visit this site:

[edit on 4/11/2010 by Jim Scott]

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:59 AM
I believe that Jesus was the son of God.

But, regardless of what I or anyone else believes, we have the principles taught by Jesus.

The principles are - love your fellow man, which we don't.

Be humble - which our governments are not.

Forgive - which we don't.

Look after the suffering - which we don't.

If I was Jesus, I would be very disappointed.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:04 AM
As usual on religious threads some posters come trying to say things like, "God is this............. They try to make us all believe that they have God figured out. Well I ask all you posters who are this way, how do you know this? You are missing the point to a lot of these religious threads. Whether people are Atheists, Agnostics or just skeptics they are just asking questions and wanting some kind of proof beyond what the bible says. I think most of us know that religious people believe what they do because of faith but faith isn't enough for a lot of us. We require something more tangible beyond the occasional poster coming on and saying God is this (insert definition here).

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:47 AM
Theologically, I was taught He's Grecco-Roman.

Dionysus, Gaea, and Jupiter.

Reversed, IE, therapeutic Wine. Yes, some need the toxicity to wear out last night's Lady. Now, don't race around and look for a piece of trash, just yet.

Jesus, is more of an expression to me, like 'gee', which is also akin to 'Atlas', the Map bearer.

There are so many religions, and this/Your Jesus, certainly does a lot of constant Healing.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Mykahel
Actually, the New Testament has a few books in it that are records of Jesus life from first hand witnesses, though some critics argue it.

Modern NT scholars all agree -
NOT ONE single book of the NT was written by anyone who met Jesus.

Which is why you conspicuously FAILED to name one.

The majority of books in the NT were NOT written by the persons whose names they now bear.

Originally posted by Mykahel
I'm not going to elaborate on how naive your comment is on people having to be insane to believe he existed, seeing as almost the whole world believes he lived and walked the earth a thousand years ago. I'll just leave it at being naive.

It is NOTHING like 'almost the whole world' at all.
Do you just make it up as you go?

And it wasn't a thousand years ago either.


posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:23 AM
I found these essays very interesting:
Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion
The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory
Its a bit of a long read & occasionally repetitive, but the ideas make a lot of sense. If we understand cultures, its easier to understand the ideas that sprang from them & how those ideas morphed as cultures collide & intermingle.
I dont expect any christians to change their beliefs as a result of reading these essays, in fact I doubt many will read them completely at all, but if you do, I'd be interested to read your thoughts.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:09 AM
I'm an Atheist.

But please, please, please can someone move this thread to BTS?

Thankyou very much.


new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in