Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
I think Pthena's post is very interesting




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott

The existence of Jesus is the most proven historical event in human history.
edit on 5/8/2012 by Jim Scott because: Modification.


I don’t think that helps

because:
1/ if a powerful elite Roman family did start Christianity then they would certainly have had the resources to create material that would back up their fraud

2/Pious fraud has been part of Christianity since it began


A pious fraud can be counterfeiting a miracle or falsely attributing a sacred text to a biblical figure due to the belief that the "end justifies the means", in this case the end of increasing faith by whatever means available

en.wikipedia.org...

3/ do these additional documents show either

There was some bloke wondering around Palestine 2000 years ago using Buddhist teachings and knowhow (or whatever) who was called Jesus

or

Was the creator of the universe (or his son) wondering around Palestine 2000 years ago doing magic tricks who was called Jesus

remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – so if you are going to say it was the creator of the universe (or his son) then you are going to need some really extraordinary evidence for that one
edit on 8-5-2012 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I recommend this article, which exposes the mythology of Christianity www.exminister.org...

I have also been strongly impressed by the scholarship of Barbara Thiering, an Australian theologian, who links the Essenes (people of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Qumran community) to the real Jesus and the early Christian community. Much of it is offered/discussed at www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com...

These two strands of scholarship are not mutually exclusive. Bushby shows that Emperor Constantine 'manufactured' Christianity as we know it today out of a desire for a philosophy that would unify the Roman Empire, but Thiering's work shows that he built upon a core of truth about the work of the real Jesus.

It is a fact that whilst the Church teaches the myth very well to children, when the children become adults and question the myth many tend to replace belief with disbelief. Yet those who lead the Church know very well that what they teach is a myth. Dr John Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich, England, tried to initiate a movement towards the recognition of this fact (see 'Honest to God') and to lead the Church towards a recognition that it needed to teach a true story and, if you like, 'reinvent' Christianity to make it meaningful again but he was quickly slapped down.

I have never found Christianity believable. I'll just stick to One Supreme Creator God, thank you.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
I agree with you....like I said...studied Wicca....believe in the Goddess...and I believe the pagan religions had just as much truth as the "Christians" do (if not more...way more).....


You don't feel that this disqualifies you from having a purely objective dialogue?

This is the problem with the Christian bashers of ATS. You already have your presuppositions about the Bible, and instead of going to the source for information (the Bible itself, or other Christians), you consult each other and refrence websites who are equally ignorant, and spiteful of all things Christian. Most people watched zeitgeist and now feel they are an authority on religions (zeitgeist was completely refuted wonderfully by the way). If you really want answers, go to a site like carm.org or gotquestions.org. Ever wonder why Jane Roberts, Steven Greer, JC Knight and various other "alien" channelers exclusively bash Christianity. and Christ? One would think that the Koran and Muhammed, or any other religious figures would targeted as well.... but they are not. This doesn't spark anyone else's curiousity as to why these so called aliens have an ax to grind with Jesus only? I only added this last remark because the OPs posted site is saying the exact same stuff that these nutcase channelers are saying





posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 



You don't feel that this disqualifies you from having a purely objective dialogue?

No, I don't! Not in the slightest! How can it disqualify me if I say I've studied other things and that at this point I don't know what to believe?

I'm not a Christian-basher, either. I'm a myth-buster. I don't want to be led around by the nose being fed a bunch of lies. Do you? Do you want to live out your entire lifetime having believed in something that was never real?

Saying my previous studies in other religions "disqualifies" me is like saying that since I know Spanish and English I am disqualified from discussing immigration, or that because I have a Masters degree I'm not allowed to talk about high school curricula.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 

You forget that some of us were christians. For decades. Some of us know the bible better than most christians know it. Some of us have been on the inside track, and know the inner workings of the church. And we were not fly-by-night christians either. We were devout, and defenders of the faith. Well read, well studied, and walking the talk. I know how christianity works. I know how the church works. And I know the doctrines of fear and control that the church uses and teaches to keep its flock from straying.

I am one of the bigger heathen proponents of christianity here. Why? Because I believe you have the right to believe what you want. Just as I believe others have the right to believe cows are sacred, and trees are reincarnated spirits.

Show me a christian who can be truly objective in their search for the truth, and I'll show you someone who won't be a christian for long.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Of course, declaring you "are not defensive" is defensive. It was your comment "Is that disallowed on ATS?" is undeniably defensive. Why would you ask such a question simply because I am asking what is accomplished by "exposing" any fraudulence to Jesus' historicity? Indeed, instead of addressing the vast majority of my remarks regarding Jesus' mythology, you insisted to me that this was not what you want to discuss, and of course you do not have to, but it does come off as and attempt at controlling.

Sir,

it is clear that you misunderstood me. I have spent a lot of time in the religion forums here, and I expected to be chastised by some of the "regulars". Insofar as whenever someone brings up something OTHER THAN Christianity, they get a good verbal thrashing every time, I am not delusional to be on my guard.

I know about the Essenes, I have a lot of mileage in theological study behind me, and my effort is to contribute to society's growth and forward momentum. I wonder if you might take the time to read some of my posts from my profile to glean a more accurate idea of my issues with the topic of "religion".

Many of the people who have responded to this thread are not those I usually see, and that is refreshing; it means there are more people lurking in these two forums than just the ones who typically post.

Those who have responded who know my post history and have an idea of who I am as a member, and where I'm coming from in my ideology and search for the truth will see that I have done a lot of research into a lot of ideas.

The ones who don't know me (or who I don't know yet), and have posted further information and suggestions are much appreciated for assisting in the task of denying ignorance and "accomplishing" the spread of truth. It's not easy, nor is it always fun, but it's important.

If the Christian faithful remain unaware of the possible realities -- of the mystic sources from the East that influenced those areas called the "Holy Land", of the actual dearth of real evidence that supports their dogma, and of the on-the-ground evidence that refutes it -- and just follow along out of fear or ignorance or stubborn refusal to learn anything new, we are NOT, as a species, going to move forward and may very well self-destruct because of it.

Hope that answers your questions and remarks sufficiently.
~wild



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Please note: The remarks QUOTED BELOW, that follow my user name were NOT my remarks.

Thanks, Charlie, in advance for not putting others words in my name. I did not write that, any more than Jesus wrote the Bible himself. Oh the irony.

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by wildtimes

The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.


Evidence for the existence of Nazareth in and before 1st century AD: www.nazarethvillage.com...

Sorry, Charlie.

Which also may be an indicator that no other statements made would hold water, either.

The existence of Jesus is the most proven historical event in human history.
edit on 5/8/2012 by Jim Scott because: Modification.

Furthermore, you are mistaken that his actual existence is proven. There are gobs of mythical stories that predate his with the same elements.
Post Fail AND Premise Fail.
edit on 8-5-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by wildtimes
 

Heck, as kid, when I saw "2001, a Space Odyssey," I thought it was a true story!


That is surprising. First time i saw movies i knew they were fiction. But i do agree that people see movies and think they are reality or even based on reality and "2001, a Space Odyssey" is not based on anything realistic aside from the fact there are live humans walking around a set.

How widespread is believing movies are not based on fiction but do represent reality? In recent years i have come across this quite a few times on the internet and beginning to wonder if fictional movies have an effect on peoples views of history and in the mean time are entirely fiction.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


What pagan goddess was a virgin ... lots of people say it but there is no such thing.

Never mind the exotics.

Artemis (Diana to the Romans) was a virgin.

Her sister Athena (Pallas to the Romans) was a virgin.

And surprisingly, so was the third of Zeus's divine daughters:


Regardless of how many children she had or how many times she had made love, Aphrodite could bathe in the sea and become a virgin again. Source

Hestia the hearth-goddess, daughter of Cronos and Rhea, was also a virgin. And the triune goddess Hecate is a virgin in one of her aspects.

And that's just the Greeks. Here are a few more: Virgin Goddesses



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Just wanted to add to my previous post:

In movies the circumstances can be misinterpreted as real events but i have never known of a person believing the characters were real without some other sources. In other words, a character in a movie is not accepted at face value as being an actual person, past or present, without some other sources and yet the story line or events transpiring in the movie are easy to sell as real and this is especially true when they tug at the heart strings.
edit on 8-5-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thank you sir. I had completely forgotten about Aphrodite, and bathing in the sea.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ciscoagent
 


It is a fact that whilst the Church teaches the myth very well to children, when the children become adults and question the myth many tend to replace belief with disbelief. Yet those who lead the Church know very well that what they teach is a myth. Dr John Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich, England, tried to initiate a movement towards the recognition of this fact (see 'Honest to God') and to lead the Church towards a recognition that it needed to teach a true story and, if you like, 'reinvent' Christianity to make it meaningful again but he was quickly slapped down.

Thanks very much for those links!

Good on Dr Robinson; I'll look into his work as well.

It appears that there have been folks forever who are trying to get the truth disclosed...including Jesus himself (whether he was an individual person who was tired of the status quo, or simply an amalgamation of other avatars and/or people trying to effect change).



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Couldn't the same be said of Zeus or Apollo? They may have once been men who became Myth!

I believe in Jesus the same way I believe in Mohammad, Buddha and Saint Nicholas. Each have some good things to say and I take the good and leave the bad.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

Good thread you've started here. I must say the aggressively polemical tone of the chap's site does itself no favours. Still, his claims seem to be based on some pretty thorough scholarship and some of them are quite specific, so it should be possible to verify or disprove them from good academic sources. However, I believe Biblical scholarship is a combative discipline in which many mutually hostile schools of thought contend, so I take it all with a pinch of salt.

Speaking as an unbeliever and an apostate, I wonder whether it really matters whether Jesus really existed or not. The ideas connected with him are surely more important than any physical manifestation could possibly be – even though one of those ideas is that he was physically real. The teachings and living example attributed to Jesus and the idea that the world could be saved by love have influenced and helped shape human culture ever since. We may disagree about the nature and value of that influence, yet we cannot but acknowledge that it exists.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


What pagan goddess was a virgin ... lots of people say it but there is no such thing.

Never mind the exotics.

Artemis (Diana to the Romans) was a virgin.

Her sister Athena (Pallas to the Romans) was a virgin.

And surprisingly, so was the third of Zeus's divine daughters:


Regardless of how many children she had or how many times she had made love, Aphrodite could bathe in the sea and become a virgin again. Source

Hestia the hearth-goddess, daughter of Cronos and Rhea, was also a virgin. And the triune goddess Hecate is a virgin in one of her aspects.

And that's just the Greeks. Here are a few more: Virgin Goddesses


It is impossible to really know what those figure represent. Where they created entirely for entertainment purposes? Were the stories added to at a much later date where details were filled in to fill up a book etc.?

Virgin births do occur in nature:

en.wikipedia.org...

Then there is the question of how the first human was formed and came into being because it could not have been in the traditional way and has science explained this?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Wildtimes, getting back to your original topic. I think the problem with trying to discern fact from fiction when it comes to the new testament, and/or christianity as a whole, is the subjective nature of all belief systems. And the subjective nature of written texts and records regarding them. I think Mr. Humphrey's information is no better or worse than some other anti-christian sites or books I've read.

I have a belief that most myths have a kernel, or more, of factual history tied to them. And that many of them are allegories, to obscure certain "truths" from the "unlearned", or "unclean".

Fulcanelli comes to mind. Wasn't it Fulcanelli that said certain texts had a whole different meaning to the learned insider, than the unlearned outsider? In other words. Some ancient texts are esoteric, though they may not appear to be so on the surface.

This is where I feel like the bible sits. It has a whole different meaning to someone who understands what it is they are reading. For the rest of us, it's a search to come to that understanding.

Hope that made some sense.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


The first living organisms were "virgin births". My impression is they would have to have been or is there an error in my reasoning?

The only way they could not have been is if two mating pairs fell out of the sky.
edit on 8-5-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I will go one step further:

Evolution tells us virgin births DO occur. How do we get around this? My view is we cannot get around this. This is the elephant in the room here.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


It is impossible to really know what those figure represent.

What figures? Statues of goddesses? Easily identified by their 'attributes' – the clothes and ornaments they wear, the objects they carry. Hindu deities and Buddhist bodhisattvas are also identified the same way. Most gods and goddesses are.


Where they created entirely for entertainment purposes? Were the stories added to at a much later date where details were filled in to fill up a book etc.?

The Greek myths were already fully formed in the time of Homer, back in the Bronze Age, as we see from reading the Iliad and the Odyssey. There were many variations across time and place, of course, but the virginity of these goddesses is quite conventional. Every Roman schoolchild knew the details, and we have no shortage of historical records.


Virgin births do occur in nature.

Yes, so? Oh, I see – you're pointing out that Jesus could really have been born of a virgin. I don't think humans do parthenogenesis. By the way, do you know why it's called that? Because the quick-tempered virgin goddess and Olympian bluestocking Athena, who was sometimes called Parthenos (the Parthenon was her temple), was born fully formed (and fully armed) from the brow of Zeus. Parthenogenesis, you see – born like Athena.


Then there is the question of how the first human was formed and came into being because it could not have been in the traditional way and has science explained this?

So we're going to have an argument about evolution now? Oh no, we aren't. Nice try.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join