Misconceptions about Jesus Chist

reply to post by mr10k


My 2 cents for what it’s worth.

I believe that Jesus as we understand him from the bible did exist. I think he was a highly evolved soul who was much more in touch with the Divine Source/God than others at that time.

I do believe he was crucified on the cross for his teachings. Because his message of universal love and tolerance would have threatened the ruling classes fear based power structure at the time. And from what I understand, 2000 years or so ago, hanging “criminals” from a cross was a popular though barbaric form of execution.

I believe though, that while there are some accurate points in the bible --- much of the scripture is a mashed up mixture of popular mythology --- components which include: the virgin mother who gave birth to the divine son, a godman born on December 25th who taught on Earth and who was murdered, buried and resurrected, etc.

But that said, I do believe that Jesus existed and that he was a Great man who tried to lift people out of darkness.

One thing that kind of sold it for me --- was when I started reading people’s recounts of their past lives. I particularly enjoyed reading Dolores Cannon --- who wrote a couple of books that focused on her clients’ recollection of his/her past life with Jesus. If you're interested in Reincarnation You can read (for free) portions of her book at:
books.google.ca... t&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I downloaded the books for free through Demonoid. If you have an account: Just Search Dolores Cannon in the torrent search engine --- I recommend the 7 free e-books.



[edit on 25-8-2010 by OwenandNoelle]

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

THERE YOU GO AGGAIN!!

Clearly, I can see all you are trying to do is cover up, because you have no sources as to the non-existence of Jesus. NONE! On the other hand, I have many.

I have the Bible.

I have the fact that the the Catholic church is here. (Clearly if Jesus never existed there wouldn't be one?)

and many more.

1st post in this thread, I usually don't venture into these threads but I have not been able to stop reading each page and watching the logical fallacies pile up.

Appeal to Authority - "Some scholars believe it despite not having any actual historical evidence."
Negative Proof (burden of proof) - "You have to prove jesus didn't exist. LOL LOL LOL !!! 1 1 1"
Circular questioning. (aka Begging the Question) - "Jesus existed because the Church and bible are here."
Goalposts moved. - "We don't need historical evidence or first hand accounts"
Strawman - "You claim there is proof Jesus didn't exist so show me"

All I need now is Godwins Law to be introduced somehow and I will call it a day and have exhausted my popcorn supply.

Deny Ignorance.

I view virtually every published idea about Christ, whether it comes from the atheist or the pious, as a misconception. Christ was a personification of the “Word” or what some have erroneously called the Da Vinci Code. The code is very ancient and it is the great secret which when revealed will result in the “Apocalypse“ (uncovering). Christianity began as an interpretive sect that went too far in their interpretations and they brought about an apocalypse which was symbolized by Christ’s crucifixion. Censorship (driving out demons) was combined with false interpretations (like those provided by Philo who turned “water” to “wine“) to rebury the secret and resurrect Christ. We do not have to prove what Christ wasn’t; we simply have to crack the code and prove what he was. This is the secret which the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail touched upon, but failed to grasp partly because they did not know the meaning of “blood”. So keep in mind, that if you determine that “white” represents “good”, you must next determine what “good” represents.

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
Look... leave Jesus alone, he was a handsome chap with good hair...and wore cool clothes.

What did he ever say to you huh?

The only evidence Jesus was divine is his long flowing hair in an age with no conditioner.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Again, which scholars and what evidence do they have? I'm sick of this appeal to authority you keep trying to present.

Here's a few:
www.bede.org.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

Scholars' Verdict
www.y-jesus.com...
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, remarked of Jesus’ historicity, “Christianity knew its Saviour and Redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith. … Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself on the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts.”16

Few if any serious historians agree with Ellen Johnson’s and Bertrand Russell’s assertions that Jesus didn’t exist. The extensive documentation of Jesus’ life by contemporary writers, his profound historical impact, and the confirming tangible evidence of history have persuaded scholars that Jesus really did exist. Could a myth have done all that? All but a few extremely skeptical scholars say no.

Dr. Michael Grant of Cambridge has written, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.’ ”17

Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan declared, “Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries. … It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray.”18

Originally posted by hippomchippo
And we don't know that John wrote the book, it's still highly disputed, and it was written between 90 to 100 CE, so it's still in the air as to who wrote it.

How about 1John 1:1-3 ?

Originally posted by texastig
Here's a few:
www.bede.org.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

Scholars' Verdict
www.y-jesus.com...
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, remarked of Jesus’ historicity, “Christianity knew its Saviour and Redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith. … Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself on the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts.”16

Few if any serious historians agree with Ellen Johnson’s and Bertrand Russell’s assertions that Jesus didn’t exist. The extensive documentation of Jesus’ life by contemporary writers, his profound historical impact, and the confirming tangible evidence of history have persuaded scholars that Jesus really did exist. Could a myth have done all that? All but a few extremely skeptical scholars say no.

Dr. Michael Grant of Cambridge has written, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.’ ”17

Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan declared, “Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries. … It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray.”18

Yes!
This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for, thank you.
You've been the only one throughout this thread to actually provide any historical evidence of Jesus.
I'll be reading through these tonight.

hello

Originally posted by texastig
By Ben Maas:
"No one questions the accurate reconstruction of other ancient texts, such as Homer’s Iliad and Pliny Secundus’s Natural History. Natural History has a time gap between the original and the earliest manuscript of about 750 years and there exist only seven copies. The Iliad comes in second place among all ancient texts with 643 copies, with the time gap between the original and first manuscript being about 400 years. The book in first place is, you guessed it, the New Testament, standing alone with 24970 manuscripts with the earliest time gap being about 25 years and the time gap before the full copy of the NT was about 225 years.

we have MILLIONS of copies of the Book of Mormon - some from merely a few years after the original.

MANY more copies than the NT.

MUCH less a gap from the original than the NT.

so,
therefore the Book of Mormon must be MORE true then the NT - according to your argument that is !


but obviously, this is nonsense argument -
the NUMBER of copies has NOTHING to do with whether a book is true.
the GAP between the original and the copies has NOTHING to do with whether a book is true.

we could have the ORIGINAL copy - that would NOT make it true.
why do you seem to think it does ?
please explain.


TiglathP

hello,

Originally posted by mr10k
Since I, in relation to ALL of your previous posts, cannot prove that Jesus lived, Prove to me he didn't. Right now. On this thread. Here, in this time period. Do it.

prove to me that leprechauns don't exist
on this thread. Here, in this time period. Do it.
oh, you CAN'T !?
so therefore by YOUR argument, leprechauns exist.

prove to me that unicorns don't' exist
on this thread. Here, in this time period. Do it.
oh, you CAN'T !?
so therefore by YOUR argument, unicorns exist.

prove to me that Santa doesn't exist.
on this thread. Here, in this time period. Do it.
oh, you CAN'T !?
so therefore by YOUR argument, Santa exist.

your argument is clearly worthless when it leads to the conclusion that anything mythical or crazy or legendary exists


TiglathP

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
Scholars believe that Paul wrote at least seven of his epistles and that they are authentic.

so?
Paul came along years after Jesus was gone - he never met him. he just had a vision - so what?

Originally posted by texastig
We know that John wrote his book.

in fact the consensus of modern scholars is that John did NOT write this book.

funny how you IGNORE the consensus when it disagrees with you,
but trumpet it loudly when it DOES agree with you.

Originally posted by texastig
Both sides of the camp argue for and against 2nd Peter. But those that argue against are only assuming.

the arguments that 2 Peter is a forgery is conclusive.
the consensus of scholars is that it is a forgery.

but once again - you IGNORE the consensus when it disagrees with you, but trumpet it loudly when it DOES agree with you.


TiglathP

hello all,

Originally posted by texastig
www.garyhabermas.com...

www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...


TiglathP

hello

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

I have provided proof.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

therefore, proof is evidence. The PDFs are evidence. We have provided your evidence. So? "Genrally, alot of people believe he did exist, so you need to prove he didn't, you're an Atheist, right? well, this will be easy for you."

but you haven't produced ANY proof OR evidence!

just claims and preaching

we already know what you BELIEVE becaue you keep repeating it, but we are looking for you to provide some historical evience.

repeating your beliefs, and quoting others beliefs is not evidence.

do you have any historical evidence for Jesus?
not beliefs from long afterwards, but actual contemporary historical evidence?

so far we haven't seen any...


TiglathP

reply to post by TiglathPileser


Oh, hey, Kapyong! Decided to create a sock puppet account, eh?

Sorry, your tired arguments are pretty self-evidentory.

I wonder what this web page has to do with you?

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
Look... leave Jesus alone, he was a handsome chap with good hair...and wore cool clothes.

What did he ever say to you huh?

The only evidence Jesus was divine is his long flowing hair in an age with no conditioner.

Hey he was Jesus, he doesn't need conditioner, nice sandals too, and he clipped is toe nails.

Just to let everyone know, TiglathPileser is Kapyong. How do I know that? She's saying the same thing that Kapyong is saying.

Originally posted by texastig
Dr. Michael Grant of Cambridge has written, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.’ ”17

Sez U, Michael Grant.

With no evidence confirming the existence of Jesus it makes little sense to assume he existed until proven otherwise.

reply to post by texastig




I've never heard of either member on ATS but I actually think what TiglathPileser is saying is pretty spot on.


The point is you cannot prove a nonexistence and what this member has said is quite correct.
It may annoy you and make your argument look weak.... but the truth hurts I guess.

[edit on 26/8/10 by blupblup]

reply to post by mr10k


Wow, is it okay to post in this skeptic circle jerk??

2nd.

reply to post by TiglathPileser

so?
Paul came along years after Jesus was gone - he never met him. he just had a vision - so what?

so?

I'm fairly certain Simon Peter met Jesus once or twice. lol Here is what Simon Peter had to say about Paul and "all his epistles".

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

2 Peter 3:15-16

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by texastig

 

I've never heard of either member on ATS but I actually think what TiglathPileser is saying is pretty spot on.


The point is you cannot prove a nonexistence and what this member has said is quite correct.
It may annoy you and make your argument look weak.... but the truth hurts I guess.

[edit on 26/8/10 by blupblup]

I must respectfully disagree. Why do historians believe that Jesus existed?
Why do they believe that other people of the ancient exist? Because they have historical data. But when it comes to Jesus why do people scrutinize Him more? I think there's alot of bias against Jesus.
Paul stated that he met Jesus on more than once occasion and the majority of scholars approve of that.
What's interesting is that TiglathPileser aka Kapyong did not have anything to backup her claims with. The burden of proof rests on those that say that Jesus isn't real.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
With no evidence confirming the existence of Jesus it makes little sense to assume he existed until proven otherwise.

Then why don't you apply that to all of people of ancient history? Why is there a bias against Jesus for?

[edit on 8/26/2010 by texastig]