Prove Jesus Existed

MeatProduct

Dear All,

Without trying to deliberately offend anyone I would like if someone could prove historically that Jesus existed. I have read extensively on the subject in recent months as it is something I have become very interested in of late. What my research has revealed is that there is NO authentic historical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus Christ.

Josephus and Pliny the Younger are two of the few individuals referred to to prove the existence of Jesus Christ. However weak these testaments to his existence are they have been accepted as forgies even by Christian apologists.

Of the 40 contemporary historians of the time of Jesus not one of them mentions this amazing individual, this seems quite remarkable.

If one is to look at this situation objectively then one has to wonder why we do not worship the likes of Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Tammuz, Thor, Prometheus and many more all of whom bear remarkable similarities to Jesus Christ. There is the same amount of evidence for these myths if not more than that is used to prove the existence of Christ. For that matter many of the wonders surrounding Christ’s life happened to other mythical characters hundreds of years before the birth of Christ:

Horus:
Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th
His birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.

Buddha:
Buddha was born of the virgin Maya.
He was of royal descent.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes,".
He walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
He was called the "Saviour of the World" and the "Light of the World."

Mithra:
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
He was considered a great travelling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Saviour, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

Krishna:
Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")
His father was a carpenter.
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in the River Ganges.
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
"He lived poor and he loved the poor."
He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."
Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.


In my opinion the above proves that Jesus Christ is a myth. There seems to be a saviour "blueprint" throughout the ages.

With this post I honestly do not want to offend, my intention is to bring certain information to light and let people think for themselves with all the available information rather than being told one side of the story by their religious leaders.

As I child I was brought up as a protestant and I was in a protestant boys choir for almost five years. During this time I was never instructed to have a single thought about alternatives or to question my religion. Through all aspects of life this is an indicator that something is not what it seems, something remains hidden. Another major indicator of a problem is the killing of people for a religion. Once someone is killed in the name of a “God” then something is wrong.

I urge people to take this information with an open mind and not as an attack on their beliefs. I am not saying (here) that Christianity is the wrong path, I am saying that Jesus Christ is fictional which is contrary to what some religious leaders will have us believe. The teachings of Christ are generally wise but are not new. In fact it is a task in itself to find a truly original comment in the Bible. Much of the wisdom in the Bible has been borrowed from other ancient texts.

I invite criticism and other points of view, unlike Christianity.

Thank you for your time,

Nick

References:
The Bible
Jesus by A.N. Wilson
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ by Acharya S

mr_angry

Good post - a very intreguing read. Personally, I would say the 4 gospels lend some creedence to the idea that Jesus did exist. However, it could be argued that the writers of the Gospels had a vested interest in maintaining such a myth.

What strikes me as the greatest corroborating eveidence of the existence of Jesus is the growth of Christianity itself - out of Judea, across Mesopotania, Asia Minor, and then becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire a mere 400 years after the event. Despite the population of the time not being particularly well-educated, it seems to me that any educated person of the time would not find it particularly difficult to research and prove / disprove the existence of Jesus. Yet Christianity flourished.

One thing should always be borne in mind, however. The church is an organisation run by men, and men are fallable. I have no doubt that the story of Jesus, and many other aspects of religion were altered by the church leaders of the time in order to best suit their own ideals. Particularly in the dark ages when corruption within the Church was obviously rife, and the leaders seemed capable of doing anything to hold onto their power. How much of it is pure and untainted is hard to say.

I cannot definitively prove to you that Jesus existed. Nor do I believe that you can prove to me that he catagorically did not exist. We have only ancient anecdotal evidence to go by. But I guess that is what faith is - a belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven. I agree that blind faith is a bad thing, and terrible things have been done (by men) in the name of religion. Despite being a scientist, I still choose to believe. Why? I dunno. I guess I just want to believe that life on Earth is not just a coincidental arrangement of atoms in a meaningless universe.

MeatProduct

Hello Mr_Angry,

I read your posts regarding reform of the church and would agree with most of what you said. Many thanks for you kind comment about my post. The points you made and your response to my post impressed me and I feel with more Christians with your attitude around then we could have a very open and healthy forum for debate on Christianity. In fact I applaud your attitude, it is one that is hard come by unfortunately.

You discussed the gospels and it is believed that they were written between 170 - 180 C.E. So here we have documents that were written at least ~140 years after the fact. This actually fails the historical authenticity test. This time gap means that these documents could not have been written by eye-witnesses, clearly that presents a problem.

Even the Epistles attributed to "Paul", the earliest Christian documents, do not discuss the historical Jesus Christ. Rather they discuss a spiritual being and not an individual of flesh. There is also doubt surrounding the author of the Epistles and indeed that they may be forgeries.

You made a very good point about corruption in the Church and that is the source of all the problems the church faces now. It is common knowledge that the Vatican has and is with-holding ancient texts, why would they do that? What are in these documents? At the end of the day there is every reason to believe that there have been many forgeries in order to foster Christianity for whatever underlying motive (I have a few ideas on that). On the other hand all the documents may be accurate and it is only human interpretation and exaggeration that we have what we have.

I agree that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of Christ. My problem is that children are being told that Christ did exist without giving these children the proof to come to their own conclusions.

Total faith is a major problem. It is an immediate indication of suffocation of thought and individualism.

For me science and Christianity are mutually exclusive. We cannot prove the existence of God on the other hand scientists cannot prove Darwinist evolution.

>I guess I just want to believe that life on Earth is not just a coincidental arrangement of atoms in a meaningless universe.

I couldn't agree more, but I do not need Christianity for that.

Many thanks for your reply,

Nick

imp

He's apparently verified to have been on the census. Whether or not that makes him the Messiah is up to you.

}:>

K!LL!@N

Someone posted a one word reply of "Faith" a minute ago but appears to have deleted the post.
Not to worry.

I think there's a difference between faith and the blind faith that a lot of people have in religion.

Your posts seem quite informed, MeatProduct.
You've obviously been doing some research.

I don't pretend to know everything about religion.
But i do have my own thoughts on it, as everyone does i'm sure.

Unfortunately, i don't have much time right now cos i have to get off to bed.

But here are a couple of those thoughts.

Personally, i see religion in a couple of ways.

In one sense i see it as a way of controlling the masses.
Give people a set of rules ( commandments ) that they should live by, a moral code.
Everyone that conforms is "good".
Those that don't are "bad".
Live your life this way and when you die you'll float off to "heaven".
Live like this and the ground will open up and swallow you into "hell".

It's also a crutch for people.
The sick, the poor, the hungry, the old, the sad, i could go on.
It gives people something to believe in.
Maybe someone or something else can help them, if they can't help themselves.
How many people go through life without much religious belief until suddenly they or a member of their family is taken ill. Then suddenly, it's "Oh God this" or "Oh God that". People need something to believe in when circumstances are out of their control. Religion serves this purpose for a lot of people.

The Catholic church is one of the most powerful, influential and richest organisations in the world. It's gone beyond religion here. There are other agenda's going on behind the scenes. For an organisation that's supposed to help the poor, why do they have so much money? For years the church controlled whole countries. Dictating political policy around the world. Why do they need this kind of power? And why are they so reluctant to give it up?

"Holy War", is that not the greatest oxymoron ever?
Killing people in the name of someone who is supposed to be against killing.
Killing people just because they don't believe what you believe.
Never understood this.

I think it's terrible that children are spoon fed religion.
But then children are spoon fed a lot of stuff.
It's the nature of raising kids, i guess, you pass on what you know/believe in.

Ok, well i'm gonna cut this short.

Basically, i don't think Jesus existed.
At least, not in the way religion would like us to believe.
I too find it highly suspicious that such an extraordinary person would not be mentioned in historical accounts from the time.
As for the Gospels, well i mean who knows what the agenda behind them is.
They could have been written by anyone.
I guess, i'm just highly sceptical.

Anyway, good topic.
I'm off to bed.

Killian

MeatProduct

Originally posted by imp
He's apparently verified to have been on the census. Whether or not that makes him the Messiah is up to you.

The first census of this time was ordered by Caius Caesar Octavanus Augustus. At this time Mary was with child so therefore Jesus didn’t make it onto that census. So any mention of a Jesus Christ during that time was a coincidence, it's a name after all and people can share the same name.
Now there was reference made to another census by our proven liar Josephus. He suggests there was another census taken around 6 A.D. Now I don't need to tell anyone how ridiculous that sounds. It would seem that after many many years without a census we suddenly have two in the space of seven years. Next there is another long pause until the next census. A bit too convenient maybe?
I find it offensive that people should be made to believe this utter crap. This information is not freely given by our religions, why, because then they fall apart and people start to think for themselves rather then the local priest doing it for them.

Imp, if you could let me know your source for your comment I would very much like to follow it up.

Many thanks,
Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by K!LL!@N
Someone posted a one word reply of "Faith" a minute ago but appears to have deleted the post.
Not to worry.

I would say that person posted before they read the thread fully.

Your posts seem quite informed, MeatProduct.
You've obviously been doing some research.

Thank you very much, it's something I have become rather passionate about. It's a pity that a non-Christian like myself has done a hell of a lot more research than the average Christian. If I had a religion I would make certain I could read everything about it first before I submitted my life to it.

In one sense i see it as a way of controlling the masses.
Give people a set of rules ( commandments ) that they should live by, a moral code.
Everyone that conforms is "good".
Those that don't are "bad".
Live your life this way and when you die you'll float off to "heaven".
Live like this and the ground will open up and swallow you into "hell".

You are 100% correct here in my opinion. It is the classic case of the few controlling the many. People aren't willing to accept the simple logic that you outlined above. It is staring them in the face but they ignore it because that is the easy option.
The Christian God is a judgemental one. This indicates that he does not practice what is preached about in the bible about love. Love is all encompassing, no exceptions. Yet this god will happily cast sinners into hell. What kind of childish mentality is that? Does that seem enlightened? It reminds me somewhat of the gods that Homer depicted so well. Always bickering and often behaving like their subjects by trying to kill one another and acting childishly.

It's also a crutch for people.
The sick, the poor, the hungry, the old, the sad, i could go on.
It gives people something to believe in.
Maybe someone or something else can help them, if they can't help themselves.
How many people go through life without much religious belief until suddenly they or a member of their family is taken ill. Then suddenly, it's "Oh God this" or "Oh God that". People need something to believe in when circumstances are out of their control. Religion serves this purpose for a lot of people.

You are getting to the real truths here. I feel it comes down to a lack of imagination or a lack of free thought. It’s the attitude "well everyone else is doing it so it must be right". The blind following the blind.

The Catholic church is one of the most powerful, influential and richest organisations in the world. It's gone beyond religion here. There are other agenda's going on behind the scenes. For an organisation that's supposed to help the poor, why do they have so much money? For years the church controlled whole countries. Dictating political policy around the world. Why do they need this kind of power? And why are they so reluctant to give it up?

I'm not going into the agenda behind Christianity because it would be off topic but there is certainly no doubt in my mind that there is an agenda here. You have pointed out many glaring incompatibilities with the church. They champion the weak and poor, yet they do not. They feed the hungry, yet they do not. Once again our intelligence is being insulted by the church in these matters.

"Holy War", is that not the greatest oxymoron ever?
Killing people in the name of someone who is supposed to be against killing.
Killing people just because they don't believe what you believe.
Never understood this.

Yes, sickening isn't it?

I think it's terrible that children are spoon fed religion.

I completely support a massive reform of the education but I'll not get into that here as it is off-topic.

Basically, i don't think Jesus existed.
At least, not in the way religion would like us to believe.
I too find it highly suspicious that such an extraordinary person would not be mentioned in historical accounts from the time.

There are too many problems that must be ignored to allow for the existence of Jesus. No belief systems should be riddled with such inconsistencies.

Good post.

Nick

JustHalf

Thanks for copy-and-paste theology. It's generally good policy to link to an article instead of pasting it verbatim.

Like this:
http://www.tektonics.org/osy.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

Now, to be perfectly honest, I don't believe everything I read on the internet, so I'd need to do some study to back up their counter-claims. I'm a bit lazy, but continue to boast about your studies. If you could share the findings of this, and can back up your claims with reference to reliable sources, I'd appreciate it.

Emboss

MeatProduct you claim to have this passion/interest

why would anyone be so interested in something they thought/found to be nothing but hogwash ?

that's what you're pointing out right?

I'm not a very religious person so I don't know enough about any of them to have a debate on the subject but I find it very strange you put so much time and energy into something you belive to be a bunch of CRAP.

odd.

MeatProduct

That's a fair point. The reason I am passionate about this subject is because it impacts directly on my live. Many people in Ireland are Christians including a number of my friends. As a result I wanted to know exactly what these people believe in and its foundations.

Does that explain it?

Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by JustHalf
Thanks for copy-and-paste theology. It's generally good policy to link to an article instead of pasting it verbatim.

Like this:
http://www.tektonics.org/osy.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

Now, to be perfectly honest, I don't believe everything I read on the internet, so I'd need to do some study to back up their counter-claims. I'm a bit lazy, but continue to boast about your studies. If you could share the findings of this, and can back up your claims with reference to reliable sources, I'd appreciate it.

Dear JustHalf,

If you could let me know the points that you are concerned about and I will try and find as many sources as I can for you. I understand and appreciate your view that you would require more backup to the claims that I have made.
It is indeed very commendable that you are open to my views.

Best regards,

Nick

PS: I did note my sources at the end of my posting

Emboss

Originally posted by MeatProduct
That's a fair point. The reason I am passionate about this subject is because it impacts directly on my live. Many people in Ireland are Christians including a number of my friends. As a result I wanted to know exactly what these people believe in and its foundations.

Does that explain it?

Nick

Not really, My mother for example a very religious woman, My Brother, is into paganisim. How does this effect my life? it doesn't... why should it ? if you're friend starts a stamp collection, will you get this passionate about stamps and look into the psycology of stamp collectors.

Your reasoning makes no sense.

dangerman

I don't think its odd. I'm completely fascinated by this subject too but i don't believe in it.

Also, perhaps he's only decided its hogwash after studying it so thoroughly. Lots of people do this and come to numerous conclusions.

I would like to know if he's researching it for a purpose - ie. college/a book etc. or just for personal interest.

Emboss

Originally posted by dangerman
I don't think its odd. I'm completely fascinated by this subject too but i don't believe in it.

Also, perhaps he's only decided its hogwash after studying it so thoroughly. Lots of people do this and come to numerous conclusions.

I would like to know if he's researching it for a purpose - ie. college/a book etc. or just for personal interest.

What about tooth faires and santa

they fascinate you too?

they bring money and toys

surley alot more interesting

what about the easter bunny?

JustHalf

To be perfectly honest, I doubt the accuracy of any modern book with the word "Jesus" in the title when it comes to Egyptian mythology. It's my belief that there may be extreme bias in their reporting. I'd prefer to see some authentic Egyptology or history source for information on Egyptian mythology, not someone with an axe to grind against Christianity.

MeatProduct

Thank you Dangerman,

I don't find it unreasonable to research this subject. It has been the cause of much death and destruction in the world and this is another reason I wanted to know more about it.

People’s religious beliefs absolutely affect my life. Maybe that's not the same for you but for me it is an issue. People are different; some people want to learn more while others are happy to accept without question.

To answer your query Dangerman I did this research purely out of internet and not for any work or study. I am however becoming more interested in the Irish education system and hope to be contributing to upcoming debates on the matter. Religion is obviously a big factor in education so researching Christianity supports this.


Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Emboss
What about tooth faires and santa

they fascinate you too?

they bring money and toys

surley alot more interesting

what about the easter bunny?

They are all also mythical characters but they do not interest me as much as Jesus. Good point though.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by JustHalf
To be perfectly honest, I doubt the accuracy of any modern book with the word "Jesus" in the title when it comes to Egyptian mythology. It's my belief that there may be extreme bias in their reporting. I'd prefer to see some authentic Egyptology or history source for information on Egyptian mythology, not someone with an axe to grind against Christianity.

I would suggest you read that book before deciding if A.N. Wilson has an "axe to grind". I didn't find this book biased, indeed if I do find that a book is biased then I don't read it any further.

Could you explain further why Egyptology is bothersome to you. I am also interested in this area and any information you could give me here would be useful, in relation to Christianity of course.

Thank you,

nick

Emboss

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Thank you Dangerman,

I don't find it unreasonable to research this subject. It has been the cause of much death and destruction in the world and this is another reason I wanted to know more about it.

People’s religious beliefs absolutely affect my life. Maybe that's not the same for you but for me it is an issue. People are different; some people want to learn more while others are happy to accept without question.

To answer your query Dangerman I did this research purely out of internet and not for any work or study. I am however becoming more interested in the Irish education system and hope to be contributing to upcoming debates on the matter. Religion is obviously a big factor in education so researching Christianity supports this.


Nick

How does it effect you directly? people ARE different and if people are happy to accept without questioning that's entirley their own perogative.

I didn't know FAITH was based on PROOF

But all I can hear from your side is that it's hogwash....if this is the case why continue
your search? Are you trying to prove anything? do you think you're going to convert people to your way of thinking?

People shouldn't have to prove their faith to you or to anyone else.
live and let live

JustHalf

Originally posted by MeatProduct
I would suggest you read that book before deciding if A.N. Wilson has an "axe to grind". I didn't find this book biased, indeed if I do find that a book is biased then I don't read it any further.

Could you explain further why Egyptology is bothersome to you. I am also interested in this area and any information you could give me here would be useful, in relation to Christianity of course.

I didn't say that Egyptology was bothersome to me. What I was getting at was that if you want to verify any claims relating to the state and culture of Egypt before the birth of Christ, the best source probably isn't going to be a book which has Jesus Christ as the subject. It should be one which talks about Egypt.

It should be a historical source relating primarily to Egypt. Specifically, if you're making claims about Horus, you should back it up with Egyptian sources.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Emboss
How does it effect you directly? people ARE different and if people are happy to accept without questioning that's entirley their own perogative.

I didn't know FAITH was based on PROOF

But all I can hear from your side is that it's hogwash....if this is the case why continue
your search? Are you trying to prove anything? do you think you're going to convert people to your way of thinking?

People shouldn't have to prove their faith to you or to anyone else.
live and let live

Dear Emboss,

It is not my intention to "convert" people. It is my intention to give people information that they do not normally have access to so that they can make up their own minds.

Once someone has all the information and decides to be a Christian, great! Good for them. Why should I have a problem with someone doing that? I can see how you could me up wrongly though about the faith issue. For me faith is an issue, a very big issue because it means there is no evidence. I don't care if you believe in God just by faith alone, good luck to you. If you do so with all available information then that's wonderful.

I never said faith was based on proof.

Of course people don't have to prove their faith to me, I never said that. I am asking for proof of the existence of Jesus Christ.

I hope this has helped to clear things up a bit.

Nick

dangerman

What about tooth faires and santa...

of all the places to meet some spanner with nothin better to do than make fun.

The Christianity forum.

I'm never posting here again.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by JustHalf
I didn't say that Egyptology was bothersome to me. What I was getting at was that if you want to verify any claims relating to the state and culture of Egypt before the birth of Christ, the best source probably isn't going to be a book which has Jesus Christ as the subject. It should be one which talks about Egypt.

It should be a historical source relating primarily to Egypt. Specifically, if you're making claims about Horus, you should back it up with Egyptian sources.

Excellent point and I thank you for your comments. I shall now go in search of Egyptian documents that offer further support. It might be some time though as my local library is now closed. I will see what I can find on the web regarding this.

Best Regards,

Nick

edit: A book that addresses the Horus issue: The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, by Barbara Walker

While not ideal it will have to do until I can get my hands another book.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by dangerman
of all the places to meet some spanner with nothin better to do than make fun.

The Christianity forum.

I'm never posting here again.

This is very unfortunate. I do understand the comment about tooth fairies and the like but as we can see it is not conducive to debate.

Can we get DangerMan back somehow? Would an apology help?

Nick

Emboss

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Dear Emboss,

It is not my intention to "convert" people. It is my intention to give people information that they do not normally have access to so that they can make up their own minds.

Once someone has all the information and decides to be a Christian, great! Good for them. Why should I have a problem with someone doing that? I can see how you could me up wrongly though about the faith issue. For me faith is an issue, a very big issue because it means there is no evidence. I don't care if you believe in God just by faith alone, good luck to you. If you do so with all available information then that's wonderful.

I never said faith was based on proof.

Of course people don't have to prove their faith to me, I never said that. I am asking for proof of the existence of Jesus Christ.

I hope this has helped to clear things up a bit.

Nick

Who doesn't have access to a bookshop/public/college library

Surley if people are interested in their own religion they'll read up on it without your help? If faith is an issue for you that's something you will have to deal with yourself.
I don't think you have need to concern yourself with anyone elses faith or lack of

I don't care if you believe in God just by faith alone, good luck to you. If you do so with all available information then that's wonderful.

So you care if people belive without all information?

you must have alot of time on your hands to care so much...

You have more concern than most priests I know

ever think of becoming one?

Emboss

Originally posted by dangerman
of all the places to meet some spanner with nothin better to do than make fun.

The Christianity forum.

I'm never posting here again.

I'm not making fun of anyone.

try actually reading my posts.

bizmark

It doesn’t matter if Jesus or god excites
God/Jesus is an idea and an idea can never be destroyed

If you believe you believe
If you don’t (like me) you don’t

You really should just leave it at that…..as long as people aren’t fundamentalist wackos it wouldn’t affect you either way

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Emboss
Who doesn't have access to a bookshop/public/college library

Surley if people are interested in their own religion they'll read up on it without your help? If faith is an issue for you that's something you will have to deal with yourself.
I don't think you have need to concern yourself with anyone elses faith or lack of



So you care if people belive without all information?

you must have alot of time on your hands to care so much...

You have more concern than most priests I know

ever think of becoming one?

Good points. Yes people do have access to this information but they choose not to access it because they trust their religious leaders to give them the information. The fact is that this information is withheld.

I do deal with the faith issue.

I won't comment on your last few lines as they are quite immature.

Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by bizmark
It doesn’t matter if Jesus or god excites
God/Jesus is an idea and an idea can never be destroyed

If you believe you believe
If you don’t (like me) you don’t

You really should just leave it at that…..as long as people aren’t fundamentalist wackos it wouldn’t affect you either way

I think it is a rather critical point if Jesus did or did not exist. For the record this is not a discussion on the existence of a Christian god.

If Jesus didn't exist then a large number of people are being told lies. This is a problem.

The teachings of Jesus are very wise and people should indeed learn from this character, he has much to teach.

Nick

bizmark

Originally posted by MeatProduct

If Jesus didn't exist then a large number of people are being told lies. This is a problem.

Meh its kinda blanced out with your following comment

The teachings of Jesus are very wise and people should indeed learn from this character, he has much to teach.

Honestly does it matter if some guy called Jesus lived 2,004 years ago? or does the message matter more than the man?

(Yet again don’t bleave in religion)

Emboss

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Good points. Yes people do have access to this information but they choose not to access it because they trust their religious leaders to give them the information. The fact is that this information is withheld.

I do deal with the faith issue.

I won't comment on your last few lines as they are quite immature.

Nick

immature?

that's my honest opinion.

"but they choose not to access it"

that's the keypoint here...CHOICE

you have yours I have mine

let THEM have theirs

MeatProduct

Originally posted by bizmark
Meh its kinda blanced out with your following comment



Honestly does it matter if some guy called Jesus lived 2,004 years ago? or does the message matter more than the man?

(Yet again don’t bleave in religion)

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. The church may have lied about the existence of Christ buts that's ok because Chist is a good guy?

Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Emboss
immature?

that's my honest opinion.

"but they choose not to access it"

that's the keypoint here...CHOICE

you have yours I have mine

let THEM have theirs

No I think the key point on this issue is that they do not think they have to do research because they believe they are being told the truth by their religious leaders.

Point taken though. Choice is vital here, but an informed choice is even more vital.

Nick

Draupnir

I think this began as an excellent topic but has spiralled badly. Shouldnt we be discussing the points MeatProduct made rather then trying to find out why he has done this research or why he cares. Doesnt anyone have an opinion on the amazing similarities he has discovered.

I have often asked many people why we should consider our own religious beliefs are right having passed off Ancient greek or egyptian gods with scientific reasons or reasons of uneducation. This topic has increased this question in my mind.

I have to say Emboss that you have been very immature in this topic. you seem to be bothered by MeatProducts ideas, are you a very religious person?

As much as a priest or religious person has the right to teach and talk about their beliefs, someone like MeatProduct is entitled to express his

MeatProduct

Dear Draupnir,

Thank you for your praise on this topic. As you said we should be discussing the points made and I would very much enjoy that. I did get some useful comments from JustHalf which I will act on tomorrow by going into the library and doing further research on the Horus issue.

The fact is that there are some amazing similarities. A virgin birth is such a common event in ancient stories of gods and spiritual leaders. Indeed the classical image of the virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus can be seen in depictions of the virgin Isis holding her son Horus.

Much of the past religions revolved around sun worship and that is why 12 is such a recurring number among religions as it represents the signs of the zodiac and the saviour/sun travels trough them each year. So the sun with its 12 signs becomes the son with he 12 followers. In many ways Christianity evolved from paganism and sun worship.

You point about passing off other religious beliefs and choosing Christianity is a very valid one. The answer that I think is the most obvious is marketing. Christianity was well marketed.

I can very much understand how Emboss would feel about my comments. I won't comment further on that though.

Could we use the example of Draupnir and get back to the point of this thread. I would very much like to hear other points of view in an open and friendly way. Anger is not a good way to communicate ideas.

Many thanks,

Nick

Emboss

Originally posted by Draupnir
I think this began as an excellent topic but has spiralled badly. Shouldnt we be discussing the points MeatProduct made rather then trying to find out why he has done this research or why he cares. Doesnt anyone have an opinion on the amazing similarities he has discovered.

I have often asked many people why we should consider our own religious beliefs are right having passed off Ancient greek or egyptian gods with scientific reasons or reasons of uneducation. This topic has increased this question in my mind.

I have to say Emboss that you have been very immature in this topic. you seem to be bothered by MeatProducts ideas, are you a very religious person?

As much as a priest or religious person has the right to teach and talk about their beliefs, someone like MeatProduct is entitled to express his

No I'm not religious at all, if you read my posts you'd know I'm not

I'm not bothered by his findings at all as I happen to agree with some of them.

Hence the reason for me not being religious

But who am I to question someone elses?

I fail to see where I was immature, If it was the santa remark it's a valid point.
if it's the "ever think of becoming a priest" it was a valid question

Meatproduct is entitedl to express anything he likes.

I am entitled to question his motives.

:rolleyes:

Draupnir

You certainly are, I just felt you were attacking them more than questioning them. thats my interpretation. I get a vibe of attitude and anger from the way you have phrased your posts.

Originally posted by MeatProduct
The first census of this time was ordered by Caius Caesar Octavanus Augustus. At this time Mary was with child so therefore Jesus didn’t make it onto that census.

Dear Meatproduct.

So you have conceded that Mary was with child, is this out of faith or do you have any proof of this?

neuro-praxis

Taking a book written by AN Wilson and calling it research is a bit rich. The man hates CS Lewis, for goodness' sake.

That is almost as subjective as a Young Earth Creationist passing off Genesis as a scientific text. The guy has an agenda and you have swallowed it whole.

Jesus existed. While there have been plenty of books written about Jesus' non-existence, their validity is undermined by the sheer weight of evidence as accepted by most serious historians and academics in the area.

Let me put it to you this way, "historians" have published books pushing this idea in the same way that "philosophers" like David Icke have claimed that the world is run by 8 foot tall lizards dressed as humans.

Real historians (if I can be so judgemental of people's abilities) wouldn't call these other "historians" historians at all. And history bears that out.

As recorded by historians.

As far as the "quest for the historical Jesus" is concerned, I'm going to leave it with Albert Schweitzer, who at the age of twenty three, published a definitive text on the matter. He ended with these two paragraphs:

"For that reason it is a good thing that the true historical Jesus should overthrow the modern Jesus, should rise up against the modern spirit and send upon earth, not peace, but a sword. He was not teacher, not a casuist; He was an imperious ruler. It was because He was so in His inmost being that He could think of Himself as the Son of Man. That was only the temporally conditioned expression of the fact that He was an authoritative ruler. The names in which men expressed their recognition of Him as such, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, have become for us historical parables. We can find no designation which expresses what He is for us.

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is."

Oh yeah.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Taking a book written by AN Wilson and calling it research is a bit rich. The man hates CS Lewis, for goodness' sake.

That is almost as subjective as a Young Earth Creationist passing off Genesis as a scientific text. The guy has an agenda and you have swallowed it whole.

Jesus existed. While there have been plenty of books written about Jesus' non-existence, their validity is undermined by the sheer weight of evidence as accepted by most serious historians and academics in the area.

Let me put it to you this way, "historians" have published books pushing this idea in the same way that "philosophers" like David Icke have claimed that the world is run by 8 foot tall lizards dressed as humans.

Real historians (if I can be so judgemental of people's abilities) wouldn't call these other "historians" historians at all. And history bears that out.

As recorded by historians.

As far as the "quest for the historical Jesus" is concerned, I'm going to leave it with Albert Schweitzer, who at the age of twenty three, published a definitive text on the matter. He ended with these two paragraphs:

"For that reason it is a good thing that the true historical Jesus should overthrow the modern Jesus, should rise up against the modern spirit and send upon earth, not peace, but a sword. He was not teacher, not a casuist; He was an imperious ruler. It was because He was so in His inmost being that He could think of Himself as the Son of Man. That was only the temporally conditioned expression of the fact that He was an authoritative ruler. The names in which men expressed their recognition of Him as such, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, have become for us historical parables. We can find no designation which expresses what He is for us.

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is."

Oh yeah.

Great, good points. I am aware of Wilson's beliefs but I certainly didn't come across them in his book. I actually used his book very little in my above postings. Could you tell me the points that you have problems with and I will either try and address them or will do further research on them.

Nick

neuro-praxis

I thought I'd include a few details about Schweitzer.

He was a German, who much like MeatProduct, didn't buy into this fairy tale about a bloke called Jesus, so he thought he'd do a little research. He reviewed about 500 theologians from the nineteenth century and he compiled an analysis of their opinions to try and find a "real historical" Jesus, in 1906.

But, by the time he had finished the book, he was so convinced by his findings that he became a Christian.

After receiving his doctorate in theology and pretty much redefining theology, he got bored and did a doctorate in music. He became a master piano maker. That didn't keep him interested though, so he trained to become a doctor medicine, and called by Jesus, he took his over-educated ass to Africa where he was a pastor and he practised medicine with the poor until he died.

He has now has a street in Montpelier named after him. He rocks my little cotton socks.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Earthman
Dear Meatproduct.

So you have conceded that Mary was with child, is this out of faith or do you have any proof of this?

Dear Earthman,

Mary could have been with child. Which Mary is the problem. As I'm sure you would agree there were probably a great many Marys in that time. Joseph and Mary are not uncommon names.

Nick

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I thought I'd include a few details about Schweitzer.

He was a German, who much like MeatProduct, didn't buy into this fairy tale about a bloke called Jesus, so he thought he'd do a little research. He reviewed about 500 theologians from the nineteenth century and he compiled an analysis of their opinions to try and find a "real historical" Jesus, in 1906.

But, by the time he had finished the book, he was so convinced by his findings that he became a Christian.

After receiving his doctorate in theology and pretty much redefining theology, he got bored and did a doctorate in music. He became a master piano maker. That didn't keep him interested though, so he trained to become a doctor medicine, and called by Jesus, he took his over-educated ass to Africa where he was a pastor and he practised medicine with the poor until he died.

He has now has a street in Montpelier named after him. He rocks my little cotton socks.

Thank you for that. I would have to question his research on "theologians". I don't see how researching peoples' theories would give concrete evidence to the existence of Jesus Christ.

He is, without a doubt, a remarkable man. His example should be followed in the sense of his exploration for knowledge.

Nick

neuro-praxis

Dear Saint Nick

My main problem (apart from the tabloid stuff that you have cut and pasted in your initial post) is your suggestion (or rather the suggestion of many tabloid "theologiocal historians") that Jesus never existed. I basically disagree with this notion.

The evidence points to the contrary. For goodness' sake, even the four gospels are regarded as quite reliable historical documents, considering their literary style and the authors.

If we are to take you seriously, then it means requestioning the whole of history, as the existence of Jesus is better supported than a vast number of pre-renaissance
characters and events.

The post-modernists have begun deconstructing all of literature with their goddamn revisionary tactics...please may they keep their mitts off history!

MeatProduct, I'm looking at you. You big sausage.

With love,

neuro_beeraxis

neuro-praxis

Originally posted by MeatProduct
I don't see how researching peoples' theories would give concrete evidence to the existence of Jesus Christ.

Nick

What do you want, DNA?

We don't have concrete evidence of any historical figures bar what is written about them. Or that they wrote themselves. Or that we believe they wrote themselves.

Goodness man, would you argue within the context or don't argue at all.

You question his research of 500 theologians? And you've read, what three books on this issue? Or a few websites?

If I could give you his DNA, I would. Although I would be afraid what you'd do with it.

Oh and he was assumed into heaven so there's no DNA left anyway. Convenient for us blind Christians eh?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Dear Saint Nick

My main problem (apart from the tabloid stuff that you have cut and pasted in your initial post) is your suggestion (or rather the suggestion of many tabloid "theologiocal historians") that Jesus never existed. I basically disagree with this notion.

The evidence points to the contrary. For goodness' sake, even the four gospels are regarded as quite reliable historical documents, considering their literary style and the authors.

If we are to take you seriously, then it means requestioning the whole of history, as the existence of Jesus is better supported than a vast number of pre-renaissance
characters and events.

The post-modernists have begun deconstructing all of literature with their goddamn revisionary tactics...please may they keep their mitts off history!

MeatProduct, I'm looking at you. You big sausage.

With love,

neuro_beeraxis

LOL! "Big Sausage!" How did you know?

"even the four gospels are regarded as quite reliable historical documents"

Don't you see a problem with this? "Quite reliable".

I don't see how a questioning of all history is necessary here as Jesus Christ is mentioned in only a very small part of it.

Nick

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Dear Earthman,

Mary could have been with child. Which Mary is the problem. As I'm sure you would agree there were probably a great many Marys in that time. Joseph and Mary are not uncommon names.

Nick

Dear meatpacker,
You stated in your post that Jesus couldnt have been in the census for mary was with child at the time...
You must know which mary and which Jesus for to be able to post that or else you are posting uncoroberated statements as fact...
Which is what you seem to accuse the Christians of doing...

Now thats tripping up your whole analysis before it gets off the ground at all...

care to sort that out?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Earthman
Dear meatpacker,
You stated in your post that Jesus couldnt have been in the census for mary was with child at the time...
You must know which mary and which Jesus for to be able to post that or else you are posting uncoroberated statements as fact...
Which is what you seem to accuse the Christians of doing...

Now thats tripping up your whole analysis before it gets off the ground at all...

care to sort that out?

Not at all, I was simply viewing the Christian angle of that census. I have no idea which Mary that could have been but Josephus apparently does and I was viewing it from his angle.

Nick

neuro-praxis

The existence of Jesus is one of the best-supported sections of pre-renaissance history. If we re-question that (which is unnecessary as, previously mentioned, it is accepted as FACT that he existed by RELIABLE SOURCES) then we must re-question the section of history right after that (in the modernist chronoloigal sense of the words - not in a post-modernist understanding of temporality), as our understanding of that section is built upon the assumptions we take from Jesus' era.

So if we have requestioned these two sections, we must keep re-questioning on and on until we get to today, where everybody is simply a figment of our imagination and our lives are built on sand and fog.

We also have to define the sections. Any formula for that?

Why? Because you insist upon rejecting obvious truth in favour of the Daily Mirror.

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Not at all, I was simply viewing the Christian angle of that census. I have no idea which Mary that could have been but Josephus apparently does and I was viewing it from his angle.

Nick

Dear meatpacker
You were presenting as fact to support a point that you were before and after presenting as unproven...
That is an illogical position..
Care to sort that out?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
The existence of Jesus is one of the best-supported sections of pre-renaissance history. If we re-question that (which is unnecessary as, previously mentioned, it is accepted as FACT that he existed by RELIABLE SOURCES) then we must re-question the section of history right after that (in the modernist chronoloigal sense of the words - not in a post-modernist understanding of temporality), as our understanding of that section is built upon the assumptions we take from Jesus' era.

So if we have requestioned these two sections, we must keep re-questioning on and on until we get to today, where everybody is simply a figment of our imagination and our lives are built on sand and fog.

We also have to define the sections. Any formula for that?

Why? Because you insist upon rejecting obvious truth in favour of the Daily Mirror.

Dear Neuro-Praxis,

I can understand your point here but I don't think it applies. The fact of the matter is that apart from the bible there is very little historical support for the man.

Nick