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.


Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:51 PM

The Romans were meticulous record keepers. They have records of each citizen and what they paid in taxes. We have found records of a citizen being charged with petty theft even but there is absolutely no record of a Jesus Christ being charged with anything let alone someone by his name being crucified. He didn't exist.

Jesus didn't matter to much to the Romans. To them He was just another trouble maker.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by texastig

He did exist out of religious doctrine. The Gospels are historical books.

Not really no.

They are accounts of Jesus written decades after his death.

The Gospels are a religious doctrine, not a history book. At least not to those of us who have extensively studied ALL religious doctrine from that era, before than era and beyond.

Why is that the most convinced people are the ones who know the least about it?

All of the other 'gods and saviors' writings came hundreds of years after.

Ah no, that's just false.

Apollonius of Tyana*

MOST all of these were stories that surfaced FAR BEFORE Jesus.

Jesus was written about 25 years after his resurrection by Paul which means no myths and fairy tales could be inserted.

That's ridiculous logic. Do you mean to say that because Jesus was written about 25 years after his 'resurrection' that they could not have lied about it? Or embellished it?

The logic behind that statement is dumbfounding.


edit on 1/2/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:57 PM

reply to post by Scope and a Beam

Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.


129 Facts of Jesus Christ
If you still don't think Jesus lived in person on earth then that issue can be tackled elsewhere since 95 to 99% of sceptical and non-sceptical scholars do not doubt Jesus walked the earth. If you are going to deny the life of Jesus then you will have to throw out everyone in history, because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity.

In "The Historical Jesus - Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ" (1996) by Gary R. Habermas, the leading scholar on the resurrection, we can summarize what the earliest sources have said (pages 225, 250-253). Tiberius Caesar who died four years after Jesus only has 9 sources of him whereas Jesus has 45 sources within 150 years of their deaths.

"We have examined 45 ancient sources for the life of Jesus, which includes 19 early creedal, four archaeological, 17 non-Christian, and five non-New Testament Christian sources. From this data we have enumerated 129 reported facts concerning the life, person, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus the disciples' earliest message."

The Person

"The deity of Jesus was widely reported in ancient writings that we investigated. Of our 45 sources, 30 record this teaching, which surprisingly includes seven of the 17 secular sources.

"It was pointed out in Chapter 4 that Jesus claimed to be deity, as indicated, for example, by such titles as "Son of God" and "Son of Man" [for a detailed study, see Miethe and Habermas, chapter 27]. The pre-New Testament creeds (the six Acts texts, along with Rom. 1.3-4, 1 Cor. 11.23ff., 15.3ff. and Phil. 2.6ff., in particular, provide especially strong evidence for the deity of Jesus.

"These creeds show that the church did not simply teach Jesus' deity a generation later...The best explanation for these creeds is that they properly represent Jesus' own teachings, especially since he made similar claims."


"Of all the events in Jesus' life, more ancient sources specifically mention his death than any other single occurrence. Of the 45 ancient sources, 28 relate to this fact, often with details. Twelve of those sources are non-Christian, which exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event.

"Not only is Jesus' death by crucifixion of major concern to these authors, but 14 of 28 sources give various details about the crucifixion, from medical observations to political information concerning the current rulers, to historical specifications of the times in which Jesus died, to religious details about the reason for his death...It is fair to assert that this is one of the best-attested facts in ancient history.

"After Jesus' death, he was buried. This fact is not only strongly affirmed by five different sources, but generally a normal consequence of dying. These sources include the early creeds in 1 Cor. 15.3ff. and Acts 13.29, as well as hostile sources such as Toledoth Jesu and the information implied in the Nazareth decree.

"Of our 45 sources, 18 specifically record the resurrection, while an additional eleven more provide relevant facts surrounding the occurrence.


"Of the seventeen [non-Christian sources], seven either imply or report this occurrence [of the resurrection of Jesus].

"Alternative theories that have been hypothesized by critics to explain the resurrection of Jesus on naturalistic grounds have failed to explain the data and are refuted by the facts.

"Even if we were to utilize only the four minimal historical facts that are accepted by virtually all scholars who deal with this issue, we still have significant basis on which to both refute the naturalistic theories and provide the major evidences for the resurrection."


Jesus fulfilled 62 prophecies from hundreds, even thousands of years prior. The odds of this happening are less than 1 in a trillion, scientifically speaking. He said He was God and proved it. He was sinless - the only man who was ever was sinless! He performed miracles none have been able to duplicate except the apostles. His teachings were deeper than any other. None can compare! He gave His life on the cross to die for you. And He was resurrected, seen by many eyewitnesses - including various writers of the books of the NT such as Matthew, Paul, Peter, John, James, and others. No less than 12 times was Jesus seen resurrected to various group sizes. Even one group had 500 people present. The brother of Jesus did not believe Jesus was God until he saw him resurrected after He died on the cross. Others (Mark and Luke) who were virtually firsthand accounts wrote books of the NT and testified to these teachings. There is one verse we suspect was Mark seeing Jesus before he died. Luke was close to the action also. They both went on missionary journeys with Barnabas and Paul. more...


Thanks for the amazing info!

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by Scope and a Beam

The Shroud of Turin is God's calling card!

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:14 PM
For those of you who say no proof and for those who say there is proof in the Bible will you all take a deep breath and READ what I have posted before this one and this one as well. lol

There is a theme in the His-Story of MAN. This theme has a central focus on the fall and creation of man. Around the globe we have this cosmic-man circulating through art and text and has since the inception of language and or art.

They tell the same story. Whether you read this story in the Bible or research the days of antiquity to modern times. New philosophers have emerged to tell the stories of old. How do these great thinkers understand the whole picture whilst many do not?

Years of research and commitment.

There are many names we can call Jesus, but the message is what is important, not the man himself.

His incarnations can be viewed as an evolving consciousness that is ongoing in modern man today.

For the lover or hater or non believer of Jesus, I suggest one start with Melchizedek and the rabbit hole will envelop you for days. Why is it important to research Melchizedek? He is the High Priest in which the order of Enoch and Jesus follow. Haven't read Enoch? Please do so because this is what the Bible is based off of as well.

Christianity in and of itself has roots that go waaaay back. Its been distorted, true, but the main theme, the main character of his-story accounts cannot be discounted and should be studied by the seeker BEFORE you say you know anything about Jesus and who he was and who he represents.

The religion ( any religion) is not the soul of the King Of Righteousness, far from it!!

The cult of Mithra should be studied. Zoroastrianism has to be studied too along with the Books of Enoch ( 300 BC).

Abraham from Ur.. what did the Sumerians think and or believe? Did they too speak of the one who is to come? Enki? Was he the Son of Man?

Researching Mesopotamian tablets can tell us some things too.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by MCL1150

The Shroud of Turin doesn't prove anything and there is just as much controversy surrounding it as there is with the existence of the person that it was allegedly draped over. It's more likely that it was just one of many religious "artifacts" used to inspire fake pilgrimages (read: tourist traps) back in the Middle Ages.
edit on 2-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by texastig

I still say there is not... but I accept the idea of an historic mythical Jesus

The gospels were written at a time when many who could have refuted them were still alive

That depends on many factors, what you accept as the gospels and the time frame those text where written. One thing I guarantee you, they were written after the facts they relate as true occurrences and at the time of their writing they had no major significance beyond a small group of people. So "many" is out of scope and I contest your time proximity.

Even non-Christian writers document the existence of Jesus and his teachings, even if they did not accept the miracles.

Again, the text themselves in their totality, were in part written by non-Christian writers only a small part could be directed linked to the Christian faith (even if the Torah makes some allusions to a Jesus like entity, but more about the context, this also why Judaism refuted the Christian sect, well like you say they had better sense of what was valid).

As for miracles, I for one do not believe in magic, but accept that the people that lived before and long after the writings in their majority accepted magic as something real. I also understand and respect faith, but faith is a form of self delusion and even if it can be positive it is dangerous to expect absolute matches with external reality, factual reality does not support absolutes.

Nobody ever claimed to write an eyewitness account of the life of Hercules. Every account of his life claimed that he lived hundreds of years before the writer. He is essentially a mythic rather than historic personage

I don't think there is a basis for a discussion here. We are talking about a figure that pre-dates Christianity by at least 1000 years, we should be glad just by the fact that they knew how to write in any case I would sooner match Samson with Hercules than Jesus. Imagine if they hadn't learned how to write in the 0 century, we wouldn't have Abrahamic religions at all...

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by MamaJ

Great post- Kudos! I had only read briefly on Melchizedek. I had read on Enoch. This story didn't begin with the "crucifixion". I had already known that but this just thickened the plot and raised my curiousity.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:05 PM

Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer.

Then how did Christian scribes redo the whole scroll? Everyone would know that.
From Glenn Miller at the
"Let me also just mention something about the Josephus issue. Every now an then I get an email about someone abjectly 'dismissing' the data from Josephus, without even interacting with the data and the positions of solid scholars. This is inappropriate. By far and away, the bulk of modern scholarship accepts that Josephus makes two independent references to Jesus--to argue otherwise requires the objector to dismantle the historical consensus, and this requires argumentation instead of simple assertion (and disallowance of Josephus as a witness!). One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus." He writes:

"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)

"Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus' miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus' appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus' messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about "the Messiah," whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term "Messiah" for Josephus' readers. In short, Agapius' version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers." (p.172)

"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings." (p.174f)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:24 PM

Maybe he did existed maybe he didn't, but he had nothing to do with the bible and christianity,

Jesus had nothing to do with the Bible? He sure spoke about Genesis alot, then Noah, then Jonah, etc...

cause christianity was created for political reasons of that time, and there was a certain agenda by the gospell writers. All they needed was a ''victim'' to sucrifice and they found him (or created him).

There was no political agenda. How could the Gospel writers have an agenda when they talked to the eyewitnesses?

As for the Message of his teachings, ethics and morals of the gospells they just had to copy greek literature which was massive at that time (imagine that today it is estimated that only 1% has survived) full of political and social ethics, values of life, virtuousness, radical philosophies, metaphoric mythologies, various poetry, theatrical scripts full of social messages,etc.
After all the new testament was first writen in ancient greek!
Anyway nice message, but nothing new at the time.

There is no Greek literature that the Gospel writers copied.

Furthermore if The Creator of the vast universe, (the most powerfull being ever existed, the creator of the insanely complex nature, and the genius architect of all matter and energy around us) would send His son to deliver a message to his creations (us) then I guess his son would make more impact to our history than just a badly written book of mythology writen decades after his death.

The Bible is not a badly written book. What we have today is what the early church had.
One thing that historical scholars look for is when something was written close to the source. Paul's letter to the Galatians was written 25 years after Jesus resurrection and in the historians world that is outstanding. Compare Alexander the great, he was written about 400 years after he died. The New Testament documents were written so early that myths and fairy tales could have crept because there were people still alive that were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.

Weren't they also His Children? why didn't he ''saved'' them too?

People must believe to be saved.

And if you are thinking that now after 2000 years thanks to the gospell writers everybody know about jesus,
then why so much delay and why his ''message of love'' had to be delivered with killings, tortures, wars, agony and misery by his followers (christians) and not by himself, with pretty stories and miracles like he did to the Jews?

I guess your talking about the Catholic church?

After all everything happens with God's will, right?

No, it's sinful people do sinful things which doesn't have anything to do with God.
If they would have loved their neighbor they wouldn't have been doing that.

P.s Those that witnessed the Christ and his miracles believed he was the son of God by ''facts''
but the rest of us have to relly on blind faith and that isn't fair at all!

You don't have to have blind faith. People believe that Nero, Alexander the Great, Caesar were real. There are historical standards that are used for someone being real.

God's injustice continues by selecting israel as his favorite race! Since we are all children of Adam and Eve why there are so many different races and why he had to choose one?

God could have chosen anyone. But He chose the Jews.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by texastig

He did exist out of religious doctrine. The Gospels are historical books.

tothetenthpowerNot really no.
They are accounts of Jesus written decades after his death.
The Gospels are a religious doctrine, not a history book. At least not to those of us who have extensively studied ALL religious doctrine from that era, before than era and beyond.

Documents would be a starting point for laughter; 70 years by Luke and Pauls accounts, not exactly 'on scene' reporting. Accounts OF would be right, "flights of fancy" working for a doctination culminating in RRC (Greek orthodox); too much meddling going on by the off planet non-physical matter Gods influenceing the Matter form HUMAN.

TexastigAll of the other 'gods and saviors' writings came hundreds of years after.

Ah no, that's just false.
Prometheus.Dionysos.Osiris!Horus,Mithra.Krishna.Apollonius of Tyana*Zarathustra.
MOST all of these were stories that surfaced FAR BEFORE Jesus.

YES AND THEY WERE TEMPLATES FOR The Jesus CONSTRUCTION brought forward to hoodwink a brand new generation in the region of Judea. Why not use something already time tested with other civilizations and insert it AGAIN NEW? as an ideaform in this cook pot cauldron? ITs always been an experiment as to how to jumpstart or end oppressive civilizations (a formulai).

texastigJesus was written about 25 years after his resurrection by Paul which means no myths and fairy tales could be inserted.

70 years, and you would be surprised how overlay inserts work upon the physical matter constuct by the NON-physical matter construct (those beings you percieve as 'gods') interfering with us. Not allowed anymore, no more prophets allowed here, they caused too much trouble as were planted to manipulate us into a lessoned entropy, in fact caused more problems to then have to fix. Mohammed is a great example the attempt of fixing the Jesus dabacle phenom in the middle east as it FAILED, so Jesus (the idea)toddled off to the west through europe etc; the oxident not the orient where he was supposed initially to gain a foothold and change rigorous chinese indoctrinations.

edit on 2-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:08 PM

It is very unlikely that Jesus actually existed because as the Op has said there is no real evidence outside Biblical documentation.

Then that means no persons of ancient antiquity lived because the same data used for them, i.e. Nero, Caesar and Alexander the great is used for Jesus.

And who wrote the Bible?

Believers. And how do we know that? Because the books of the New Testament were being passed around to all the churches.

Most of it was written by the Romans. And they were right into their Pagan belief systems and symbols. It was the Emperor Constantine in AD 314 who stole all the Pagan symbols and artifacts and declared them to be Christian. Like the cross with the circle in it. It's not a symbol of the crucifixion of Jesus. It's a Sun Symbol!

Far from true because the Early Church Fathers knew that the Bible wasn't written by the Romans.

He was a Solar Messiah. His origins are Pagan! He wasn't the Son of God. He was the 'Sun Of God'.

How do you get that when it's not in the Bible? Jews never worshiped the sun.

And look at all the stories in the Bible. They are myths and Legends from other cultures and belief's. The Story of Moses for example was originally Syrian.

The Bible came first and other's started copying it and putting their ideas on it.

Even though I'm not a big fan of Zeitgeist I can see a lot of truth in what Jesus actually was. The Sun. It all makes sense when you think of Jesus as being the Sun but it makes no sense when you think of him as being a man.

Zeitgeist get's his info from others who have already been debunked hundreds of years ago. There were no dying and rising gods before Jesus resurrection.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:08 PM

reply to post by MamaJ

Great post- Kudos! I had only read briefly on Melchizedek. I had read on Enoch. This story didn't begin with the "crucifixion". I had already known that but this just thickened the plot and raised my curiousity.

Well, Please, come into the rabbit hole with me because it's lonely here.

Like you say, the plot thickens the deeper you go and this story most definitely did not begin with the crucifixion. Not in the least.

This is the best story every created. In fact, it takes a genius of all genius's to pull it off. The trail is here.. there... everywhere. We just have to seek it.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:18 PM

All your examples have been handily debunked, time and time again.
Josephus citations have been regarded as forgeries by scholars. Why do Christians need lies to reinforce their beliefs?

That's not true because Steve Mason is the world's leading authority on Josephus and he says that Josephus wrote about Jesus. How do you put a new piece of parchment in an old long scroll and hide the look of it?

Tacitus and Suetonius were not referring to followers of Jesus the Nazarene. Chrestus cults were around long before the advent of Jesus and were pagan.

It looks plain to me.
"After the great fire at Rome . . . . Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

Tacitus recorded at least one reference to Christ and two to early Christianity, one in each of his major works. The most important one is that found in the Annals, written about 115 A.D. The following was recounted concerning the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.(3)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:27 PM

I think Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Eddie Murphy, CK Lewis and Paul Roos worthy of worship but it doesnt change the fact that all of them are men and its kinda pointless.

How can they be worthy of worship when they are sinners? Jesus was sinless, He was God walking on the earth.

God is God, Commandment 1 "thoult shall have no other gods before me"
If Jesus is god as your edited and re-edited, written after the fact book says why not just pray to god?
Fine focus on Jesus but why the need to include him in prayers?

Jesus was making Himself out to be God. The Pharisees figured it out and wanted to kill Him. Jesus forgave peoples sins and the scribes figured out that only God could do that.
John 1:1 states the Word was God. Jesus and God are one. Doesn't matter who you pray to.

To me praying to Jesus (Another god) and a cross (an icon) while still claiming to be good god fearing "christians" are perfect examples of religions robbing people of common sense and rational thought.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness? Is so, I highly suggest that you flee from that religion.
Jesus is not a another God. He is God. God came down into a man's body to bring mankind back to Himself.

It almost seems to me like Christianity was set up as a mockery of your gods laws
Demon 1 "hey I bet I can get people into a religion that claims to be about god while completely disregarding his 1st 2 laws"
Demon 2 "Nah it will never happen"
Demon 1 "wanna bet? Im gonna call it Christianity"

The laws were for the Jews, Christians don't follow Jewish laws.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:00 PM
For the record, there have always been deities in the minds of human beings. We have always described our relationship with them as well. As far back as 1000 BC (Western Zhou dynasty for instance) we see this. "Son of God", "Son of Heaven", and so on.....

At the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus... titles like this were thrown around left and right. These two entities are separate though. Don't mistake the forest for the trees. Son of the Divine- God Like- was obviously a way of control, worship and advancing positions of Kings and Emperors, but not to be mistaken for Jesus.

Domitian was being called "master" and "god", and outside the Roman Empire, the 2nd century Kushan King Kanishka, held the title, "son of God" as well.

From the earliest of times this title was thrown around carelessly but for the ones who truly carried out a divine nature, they have been noted for their fruit/works. Look for the fruit falling from the trees.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by texastig

Jesus and God are one

Now, this ^^^ is highly debatable. I find too many texts/history that points to Jesus being real and not only that but expected to come throughout the ages. His arrival was indeed a plan that was foretold. Saying that Jesus is God, is highly debatable. "I and the Father are one" or "come to the father through me" does not mean they are the same; God came in the flesh.

It's more like We ARE ALL ONE. But... only in a "sense" are we all one. In the mind of God are we expressing through him, but we have been made separate so we may realize we have a soul and come back. Our father's "spirit" is in us and that is why we are all one. Think of it like a fractal.

Let me ask.. If Jesus is God in the flesh, who does that make YOU/ US/ Humans?

The answer you choose is also debatable. I'm not even psychic. lol
edit on 2-1-2014 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by texastig

Why do Christian apologists lie about facts? Outside of the Bible, there is NO PROOF of the existence of Jesus Christ. There are no contemporary records of his life and teachings until well after his, supposed, death.

The supposed writings of Josephus on existence of Jesus have been proven to be bogus forgeries.

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.
Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.
Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.
Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.
Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.
Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.
Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.

"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."


Your Tacitus citations are worthless too! Again, Chrestus was an ancient PAGAN title, that was being used before, during and after the supposed life of Jesus. Early followers of Jesus were NOT called Christians, for a very good reason. Early followers of Jesus were called "Nazarene"!

5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Acts 24:5
King James Version

The title Chrestus becomes used in a new religion in Phrygia (with its Chrestians-to-Chrestians funerary inscriptions); the name/title Mithradates derives from Mithra, which becomes in the West the solar god Mithras; the sister of this Mithradates, wife of Socrates Chrestus, relates to the divine Ishtar, the Phrygian Cybele; the causes of these conflicts are financial and economic – control of trade routes between East and West, tax-farming, and corruption of the Roman Republic body politic.
Taken together and trying to see past the severe limitations imposed by a corrupt historical record, maybe – just maybe – we have here a piece of the jigsaw that comprises the lost history of Christian origins.

edit on 2-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by windword

Do you agree that Christos (Christ or any other language --spelling --you choose for it) is also another name for Logos?

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:53 PM

reply to post by windword

Do you agree that Christos (Christ or any other language --spelling --you choose for it) is also another name for Logos?

In a word: Yes

In more words: I believe that the Christ consciousness or collective unconscious (maybe not the same thing, but close), is the unified field that hold our reality together. I have no proofs of this, just my opinion. Which could be wrong.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in