The Extra Biblical Evidence for the existence of Jesus

a reply to: windword

And, we know that early followers of Paul were called "Nazarene" and followers of "The Way"

ahem...

what?... lol

Where does this thought process come from?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So far your op has only proven that romans knew that christians believed in a person named christus/chrestus. But i think we already knew that. Believing that there was an actual person named jesus who started a death cult is not the difficult part. Believing that he is the son of god who conducted miracles and healed people with magic, talking donkeys, talking snakes, ressurecting...... These things are impossible. You should know this but for some reason your childlike mind won't catch up with the rest of the world.

Please stop making the same threads over and over.

From my point off view.

The funny thing is that I am going to defend some ideas of a religion that I think is on the whole missing the mark just like Judaism and Islam based in us vs them dogma (duality).

If we are taking energetic manifestation and synchronicity to the max potential that can be manifested from my point of view you will get the placebo healing effect on steroids and telepathic connection to everything around you including animals manifested by entanglement. The subjective mind can misinterpret much why you should always be aware of the objective to subjective information degradation when dealing with empaths/psychics.

So yes the talking snake was not talking in words but there could have been information exchange on some level thru entanglement and the person might not have the awareness to understand objective to subjective information degradation so it had to take the subjective view of what happened as the only measuring point. Even if you do not have the specific measuring of the quantum state and all entanglement in that moment space time to get an objective true view of what happened there can still be something objective that was translated thru subjective view.

Just because the subjective view say it is a snake do not mean that the true objective view is a snake.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Chrestus has a completely different meaning than Christus. 1st century Christians, as we understand them today, weren't the first Christians, not by a long shot. As a matter of fact people were being called Christians well before the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, if he even existed.

"Christ" is/was a pre-Jesus pagan concept, not a man and certainly NOT the same as the prophecied Jewish Messiah. "Christ" was a title granted those who had passed through the Eleusinian Mysteries and were considered priests and leaders of the neophytes.

Besides, heed your own biblical warning:
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not..

However, even if a person named Jesus of Nazareth did exist, that doesn't mean the virgin birth, miracles, his supposed sacrificial death and resurrection were anything more than myth.

The word "Christ" is a Greek transliteration of "Messiah" which is Hebrew and means annointed.

It existed for at least 1,500 years before Jesus, in Jewish belief.

Please give some source for your assertion that it was of pagan origin.

a reply to: chr0naut

"anointed one" has been a theme throughout all religions bro...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

"anointed one" has been a theme throughout all religions bro...

The ancient Greek word "khriein" meaning to rub or annoint was in use previously but referring to an individual as "Khristos" was a Greek Hebraism.

a reply to: chr0naut

again.. the "theme" was present...

always...

but yay for labels

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

again.. the "theme" was present...

always...

but yay for labels

I have seen statements that Mitras and Osiris were called "Christs" but neither are Greek and I know of no actual ancient document that actually refers to them as such (I must confess that such a document may exist, it's just I have never come across it).

a reply to: chr0naut

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,

and ye in me, and I in you.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It should be noted that even if these sources proved Jesus' existence (and I'm doubtful they do) it doesn't prove that he was the son of god and an ancient super hero.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It should be noted that even if these sources proved Jesus' existence (and I'm doubtful they do) it doesn't prove that he was the son of god and an ancient super hero.

I am going to take a big wild swing and say that you don't believe
That's absolutely fine, that's your right

What I don't get is why you want to stop others from believing, why the negative Nellie about these things

I am going out on a limb here, I do believe Jesus walked this earth, died, rose again, was fully human and is now seated next to the Father, because He is a super hero, bigger and better than all marvels and dc put together

Now for some reason that agitates you, angers you, causes issues in your countenance, that's a real shame
Makes you come off as a bitter fundamentalist, you should consider that

Did you see my joke about the atheists sign
Instead of saying God hates fags like Christian fundamentalists do you could have one that said
and cos you don't believe in God, substitute the word nothing
So
"nothing
hates
Christians"

Funny isn't it?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,

and ye in me, and I in you.

That's a very scary statement
We are in God on that day and Him in us, that seems to suggest we will be Gods with the Father
Sorta

I find that hard to understand

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am going to take a big wild swing and say that you don't believe
That's absolutely fine, that's your right

What I don't get is why you want to stop others from believing, why the negative Nellie about these things

Free country. Freedom of speech. Plus I like denying ignorance. It also amuses me how religious people interpret questioning their faith as an attack against them.

I get these tedious responses from people like you every so often. "WAAAHHH why do you keep picking on my faith?" Because I can.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: windword

And, we know that early followers of Paul were called "Nazarene" and followers of "The Way"

ahem...

what?... lol

Where does this thought process come from?

Really? You need proof of this? I thought this was a well known fact.

Acts 24:5
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:

Sect of “The Way”, “The Nazarenes” & “Christians” : Names given to the Early Church

The Way The name which was widely used for the believers, and is most unknown to Christians today would be the title “The Way”. Probably originating from Christ Himself, who called Himself “The Way”(Joh 14:6), this name was used widely in the Book of Acts. The below verses prove that they were known more widely as “the Way”, than the “Christians”, especially as Paul introduces himself as a follower of “the Way” to the Governor, and not as a “Christian”(Acts 24:14), even though they were known as “Christians” by Acts 11:26.
Act 9:2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Act 19:9 But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus.

Act 19:23 About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way.

Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,

Act 24:22 But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case.”

a reply to: chr0naut

Please research Serapis.

Christ was a priestly title for an ordinary human person. Check your Septuagint. It was a Greek word/concept that already existed in their language, their philosophy and their theosophy, that was usurped in messianic translation.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Now if we take all these with the Gospels and Paul's writings who spoke with the apostles we can assume we know a good bit.

No. Like schuyler said, just because some ancient 'historians' wrote about it doesn't make it "true."
Personally, I think an extraordinary man did live in the area at the time. The deity and virgin birth and magic is all nonsense.

Ever heard of fan fiction? That's all Paul and the Gospels amount to. The Gospels don't even tell the same story as one another. We don't "know" anything that isn't second-hand or ninety-seventh-hand information.

He was a guru. He didn't die on the cross - he went to India (where he'd been while he was "missing"). They welcomed him back, and there he is buried. Please look into this, it fills in all the holes and will help you realize how misled you have been, and how you are misleading others because of it.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Though I am sure there are plenty of these threads already I wanted to make one for fun, so enjoy and because I believe it is sad to see the people fall prey to the whole Jesus is a myth thing............

]

The problem isn’t how some people believe the Jesus of Christianity is a myth it is “why” they do.Christianity is preaching you must “believe” in this historical person Jesus that we venerate as God or be punished for not doing so in the eternal fires of Hell yet they do not have a plausible reason for their belief.What that act of attrition does is make their Jesus an implausible person.To add fuel to their flame they make stupendous claims as to what this person Jesus did and point to the book the bible to support their beliefs yet those beliefs cannot be supported reasonably.

If a person like Christianity’s Jesus(Yahoshua) existed then it would be reasonable they did do need any evidence to prove their existence.Anyone attempting to prove their existence is sowing seeds in the sand and believing in a great harvest and will be very disappointed and wrong.

If a person such as Yahoshua existed it would not matter one bit they could be proved to be who they said because their existence is inscrutable.You may as well try to convince a blade of grass the sun exists.All the fruitless vain speculation about a historical Jesus of Christianity does is make the defender untenable and mocks the truth.

Yahoshua never attempted to prove the existence of the creator God the father by historical evidence or a religious methodology he always acted.He seemed to have no cares if anyone believed what he did either.He performed his acts of benevolence because he was benevolent.He never attempted to make anyone(including his disciples) to believe in him or the creator God.He knew that only if the creator God the father drew a person would they KNOW.

There is no religious methodology of apologetics that will ever prove a creator God or even Yahoshua existed.if they exist it is 100% there effort that confirms their existence.All else is the vanity and hubris of man trying to prove their false religion.

a reply to: Rex282

Christianity is preaching you must “believe” in this historical person Jesus that we venerate as God or be punished for not doing so in the eternal fires of Hell yet they do not have a plausible reason for their belief.

Exactly! Thank you.

I don't have a problem with the concept of a celestial being, the LOGOS, that serves as a mediator, a prism through which we can see an image of and commune with, the divine. I don't even have a problem with the metaphor of the death and resurrection, as it explains that we are all spiritual individuals who sacrificed our place in God's bosom for a temporary physical existence.

What I DO have a problem with is the Church telling me that I can only experience this divinity through worshiping a human being, who may or may not have lived some 2000 years ago, as the one and only embodiment of that celestial being, The LOGOS, and anyone who doesn't believe that this human being is/was the and only embodiment of the LOGOS is anti-LOGOS, anti humanity and anti God.

I apologize for my writing errors here are a few corrections:

If a person like Christianity’s Jesus(Yahoshua) existed then it would be reasonable they do NOT need any evidence to prove their existence.

If they exist it is 100% of their effort that confirms their existence.