My take on the true story of Jesus... if he existed.

a reply to: infolurker

Its interesting that you mention that. Which one of Ham's descendants do you think re-introduced the Nephilim bloodline?

a reply to: infolurker

I know all about the Nephilim, actually. It's something I researched for years. It wasn't just the Nephilim either. It was also the Rephaim, Anakim, Emim, Zuzim, Zamzumim, Horim, Zophim, Caphtorim, Gammadim, Seirim, and Shedim I wondered about as well. These would have been tribes of Nephilim. At least according to the source that had initially brought my attention and interest to the subject.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Its a matter of faith, not evidence. I have enough evidence to prove that all biblical prophecies have been fulfilled up to the 70th Week, but you wouldnt understand it even if I had a way to present it to you.

Why wouldn't I be able to understand it? Maybe I just wouldn't believe it. I recall long ago when I first joined ATS you linked me something about the meters, which I bookmarked. Admittedly though, I forgot about it. I no longer have the bookmarks I had from that time.

Perhaps rather than chasing our tails in a debate, you should ask God for the truth. Your not going to convince me of anything, I've already done my homework on whether or not I believe.

I used to be a Christian.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out a way of proving how long we have left before its "pencils down". I already have an idea of how long, but I'm convinced the proof is metered in Matt 24.

If no man can know the day or hour why do you believe you can pinpoint it?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I've known about the meter for years, but its just now that its making sense to me. The pattern is obviously there, its just a matter of applying it to history. And Im posting from a cell phone, so my ability to present you with data is very limited.

Jesus said no man knows the day or hour of His return to earth. He said this because He promised to cut the Tribulation short for the sake of the elect....but, given the numerical figures in Daniel and Revelation, we know that the Tribulation must last 7 Solar years. So, by that we can conclude that Jesus can shorten the Tribulation by up to 24 hours. So, I believe that we can know the year and even the week of His return, which means we can know the day and year of the Rapture too. Personally, I think its soon...like 9/16/2016 soon and 9/1?/2023. From the initial looks of things, the metering of Matt 24 might prove me right, but I have to finish counting the syllables through Matt 25 to know for sure. Its a very time consuming task, then you have to look through history to line up the dates.

My thread "The 12/21/2012 Redherring", is about my theory surrounding 2016 and 2023.

Ahhh yahweh, A 6 letter word in english. Quaint. Its compact, and is unique.

Similarly Anutyr is also a 6 letter word. it is quaint as well. It's compact, and is Unique. I believe i am the only Anutyr on the planet, as it is purely a name i made up.

It's never taken, It is Original. Just like Yahweh is an Original name. However the name of Yahweh has been tainted, to many people know about it. People use it here and there, But Anutyr is a brand new word. Never used in the history of man other then well by me.

I could dig this yahweh fellow tho, Short powerful names are amazing. And the duel-symbolism. Awesome.
Yes my name can mean multipul things, Anu(Sky)Tyr(God) As many names were compacted together in duel symbolism, when a name is combined with Tyr at the end it usually means (Something) God. For instance. Weildtyr would mean Forest-god ect.

But since i am left handed i chose the name Tyr to symbolism the path of my handedness. Anu for the association with Anubis, rather than simply Anu of summaria but both names are linked together. However these are just english names.
I have used the name Yahweh, but as i have said it is not unique and is over played now like a song everyone has herd. I can only use a unique name to speak of myself.

I am somewhat discussing something many will not understand and that is fine. I guess i am simply saying all this to appreciate the old name of Yahweh, which is a shame it had to be demolished and blasphemed by so many.
I seriously doubt this Yahweh figure will return with the name Yahweh. Similarly, this Jesus fellow will not return with the name Jesus.

So finding a Jesus today who is a *Messiah* simply will not happen for the same reasons why a Yahweh will not return.
The name of the originals who spawned the myths of these characters will not return as the name is expected. Therefore Jesus will never return, neither will Yahweh. Aye, they may reconize the names but would they associate by those names? Maybe to a few. But to a collective, new names will be given, thus the name of Jesus is dead and so is Yahweh, unless chosen again by these individuals. Tho the name still holds it's power. As the book suggests, A new name may be given to us by the Lord, and a new name for the Lord given by himself. As i stated, i don't expect the Lord to return with only one name, but multipul. Yahweh being his secret name, tho not so secret as it is known by all. To prevent this the name was changed to Lord, however in modern times its a bit to late for that.

Take this quote for consideration.

Ecclesiastes 7:1
A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth.

Proverbs 22:1

1A good name is to be more desired than great wealth,
Favor is better than silver and gold.

Psalm 52:9
For what you have done I will always praise you in the presence of your faithful people. And I will hope in your name, for your name is good.


James 2:7
Aren't they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear?


Psalm 135:3
Praise Yahweh, for Yahweh is good; sing praise to His name, for it is delightful.

Isaiah 62:2
The nations will see your righteousness. World leaders will be blinded by your glory. And you will be given a new name by the LORD's own mouth

Revelation 3:11
11'I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name. 13'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'

Proverbs 3:4
…3Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart. 4So you will find favor and good repute In the sight of God and man. 5Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.…

Zephaniah 3:20
On that day I will gather you together and bring you home again. I will give you a good name, a name of distinction, among all the nations of the earth, as I restore your fortunes before their very eyes. I, the LORD, have spoken!"

But what do i know lol. I think my name is cool, And i think Yahwehs name is cool too. YEAH WAY? No way man YEAH WAY !!

No way man, YESway, noway, Yahweh! AHhhh i see wut you did there. Yahweh man, noway man. lol
It's kinda punny for a play on words.

But yeah do only good and good will come to you, do evil and you will only recive a curse.

a reply to: Answer

I suppose that the rest of this thread since my last response just illustrates why i can't get along with following Christianity as "a one true way".

The linking of the often vile OT to Jesus, prophesy (ug), the exclusivity of Jesus as the vehicle, the notion of a chosen people or land, one authorised holy book - it's all just a unpleasant and unnecessarily restrictive construct to me.

There are equally, and imo many more beautiful and elegant writings on the nature of existence, the soul/self and so on from a variety of other cultures.

But what is essentially a local cultural god who hates the tribes over the next hill? He's a bit of an arsehole and it seems that Jesus doesn't talk bout him when he's going on about forgiveness and compassion (which i can really get along with).

a reply to: Answer

Hello again. In considering all the posts here relative to whether Jesus existed or not, I think the argument relative to Jesus' demonstration as a spiritual master and his esoteric teachings indicate that he did in fact exist.

Here is my earlier post on Jesus as Spiritual Master and his Esoteric Teachings

I didn't see a response by you to this earlier post, but if you actually consider what Jesus taught relative to the God-Light, Spirit transmission, the spiritual laws of love, unity, non-dualism, being born again, etc., you may well understand that no ordinary Joe or set of Joes came up with all of this esoterica on their own.

Back then people could not just go read the latest teachings from the East on non-dualism, communion with God, etc. - like we can today. Jesus' Teachings absolutely parallel certain of the great traditions of the East, particularly the guru-disciple traditions.

His working with disciples, transmitting his Blessing, and drawing them into the Light above the world (the "Kingdom of God") was not something any of the disciple(s) just came up with. Their accounts of Jesus' Blessing in their lives in terms of being born again of the Light, could not be faked, especially given their parallels to what is understood about the esoteric aspects of the body-mind, etc.

There is also no way some ordinary group of people back then came up with the demands inherent in the two great commandments. Those two commandments are a total demand for living a life in communion with God.

Again, if many more Christians would take to heart Jesus' actual esoteric and exoteric messages, and his requirements in this life - rather than just choosing the "easy-believer's way" of affirming a belief in Jesus and their salvation when they died is guaranteed(!) - their whole orientation to Christianity could change. It could become a real daily practice in life, of loving God and neighbor, of real divine communion - not just affirming one's beliefs in Jesus and eventual salvation, as though that actually changes one at a real heart-depth.

Jesus would be appalled at how Paul revised his way in his name. Paul wasn't even with Jesus! Paul obviously made this huge revision for the sake of building up the Christian religious institution, because his revision was much less demanding than Jesus' actual way, so that worked for the masses. Unfortunately, the true teachings of Jesus were all but forgotten.

That Jesus was a spiritual master who actually existed can be assumed from his demonstration with his disciples, their calling him Master, his teachings, especially the two great commandments, and the testimonies of the disciples of his esoteric work with them, being born again in the Light, etc.

originally posted by: bb23108
a reply to: Answer

Hello again. In considering all the posts here relative to whether Jesus existed or not, I think the argument relative to Jesus' demonstration as a spiritual master and his esoteric teachings indicate that he did in fact exist.

Here is my earlier post on Jesus as Spiritual Master and his Esoteric Teachings

I didn't see a response by you to this earlier post, but if you actually consider what Jesus taught relative to the God-Light, Spirit transmission, the spiritual laws of love, unity, non-dualism, being born again, etc., you may well understand that no ordinary Joe or set of Joes came up with all of this esoterica on their own.

Back then people could not just go read the latest teachings from the East on non-dualism, communion with God, etc. - like we can today. Jesus' Teachings absolutely parallel certain of the great traditions of the East, particularly the guru-disciple traditions.

His working with disciples, transmitting his Blessing, and drawing them into the Light above the world (the "Kingdom of God") was not something any of the disciple(s) just came up with. Their accounts of Jesus' Blessing in their lives in terms of being born again of the Light, could not be faked, especially given their parallels to what is understood about the esoteric aspects of the body-mind, etc.

There is also no way some ordinary group of people back then came up with the demands inherent in the two great commandments. Those two commandments are a total demand for living a life in communion with God.

Again, if many more Christians would take to heart Jesus' actual esoteric and exoteric messages, and his requirements in this life - rather than just choosing the "easy-believer's way" of affirming a belief in Jesus and their salvation when they died is guaranteed(!) - their whole orientation to Christianity could change. It could become a real daily practice in life, of loving God and neighbor, of real divine communion - not just affirming one's beliefs in Jesus and eventual salvation, as though that actually changes one at a real heart-depth.

Jesus would be appalled at how Paul revised his way in his name. Paul wasn't even with Jesus! Paul obviously made this huge revision for the sake of building up the Christian religious institution, because his revision was much less demanding than Jesus' actual way, so that worked for the masses. Unfortunately, the true teachings of Jesus were all but forgotten.

That Jesus was a spiritual master who actually existed can be assumed from his demonstration with his disciples, their calling him Master, his teachings, especially the two great commandments, and the testimonies of the disciples of his esoteric work with them, being born again in the Light, etc.

This is exactly why I lean toward Jesus having existed but not the exact way that he's described in the Bible i.e. the physical son of the old testament god born to a virgin.

The people who twisted his story into a symbol for an organized religion would not have had the spiritual wherewithal to conjure up Jesus' core message.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest


Perhaps rather than chasing our tails in a debate, you should ask God for the truth.

Interestingly, that's exactly what I did when I was younger and I was led away from established Christian beliefs and religion in general.

Since then, I've learned to do my own spiritual investigation and that is why I relate differently to the (supposed) teachings of Jesus than Bible-literalists.

There are answers to be had by asking the right questions but I'm fairly certain they aren't coming from a murderous, jealous, attention-whoring man in the clouds.

a reply to: Bone75

Why is destroying Christianity so important to you folks? For a bunch non-believers, ya'll sure spend a lot of time obsessing over it.

For my part, I am viscerally opposed to the shame, self-loathing, and fear that "Christianity" puts into children's hearts and souls. (Original Sin, fear of hell, born a loser, hopelessly flawed and unworthy of even crumbs from under the God-table.). That never goes away. Ever. To hear that as a child results in PTSD.

As for what Jesus is reported to have said, I am in complete agreement with his sentiments to house, feed, clothe the poor, and disdain religion/government profit machines. That we are all children of God, equal with himself. This is fundamentally in juxtaposition to the Military/Industrial complex that is ruling the world today, and which the 'Christians' loudly applaud. Diametric opposition:
What Jesus is alleged to have said
vs
What modern "Christians" do

originally posted by: Answer
The people who twisted his story into a symbol for an organized religion would not have had the spiritual wherewithal to conjure up Jesus' core message.

Exactly my point!

It is rather obvious from the depth of Jesus' teachings and his participation with his followers, that certainly some great spiritual master was at work to draw people into a daily life of unity with God.

a reply to: Answer

Except when you look into that claim further, it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Its definitely as clear cut as I made it out to be. Modern day historians that write books on that are simply trying to make money off the ignorant.

Before you try to bash my source, the same information can be found from many sources.

I don't attack sources as any argument against the source of information rather than the information itself is fallacious.

For example, Remsburg's list of 42 historians during or shortly after the supposed times of Jesus who should have, but did not record anything about Jesus, apostles, or any supposed acts that we find only in the Bible, (which was improved upon in 2012 with the book No Meek Messiah,

Remsburg list 42 historians who should have recorded something about Jesus? Thats not even a verifiable argument. What does Remsburg use as reference to determine whether someone should or should not have mentioned Jesus? Something many people fail to realize is that we have of 25000 manuscripts of the NT text. To have that many shows the documents were extremely widespread. Other historians may have felt the gospels had that section of history covered. Remsburg is also like someone quoting Darwin for evolution. While he was in the proper field, he is quite out of date. Richard Carrier is after money imo. My claim was that 99% of historians(I suppose I should add the word modern) accept Jesus as a real person. The source you have presented with has 2 theories both of which agree on the fact that Jesus was a real person in the 1st century. I'd say about 95% of historians, regardless of beliefs, accept that Jesus lived and was crucified under the command of Pontius Pilate, and buried in the tomb of Joseph Arimathea .

Whether an influential man named Jesus or some other variation of the name lived around the time period is not the point. The point is whether or not the gospels are giving an accurate depiction which is exactly what I mean by "if he did exist." All other Jesuses living at that time are irrelevant.

Now you have decided to redefine the sentence "if he did exist," because I think you have realized its just silly to say there wasn't an influential man named Jesus who lived in 1st century Palestine. You didn't mention this when I first questioned you on the subject why? Because the point of our discussions was not whether the gospels gave an accurate description, but rather if the Jesus mentioned in Scriptures was a real person. Neither of the theories you presented disagree with me on this point:

Reductive theory (Remsburg's Jesus of Nazareth): "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who'



Triumphalist theory (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem): "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true" rather than being works of imagination like those of King Arthur.

Both seem to agree with me. So if your willing to concede he was a real person in history we can move on.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Certainly there was real person named Jesus who lived in the 1st century. Hundreds of them!

But there certainly never existed a man who was called Jesus the "Christ" and fit the description, etal, of the biblical narrative.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb


Now you have decided to redefine the sentence "if he did exist," because I think you have realized its just silly to say there wasn't an influential man named Jesus who lived in 1st century Palestine.

Because you took my "if he did exist" statement and ran with it, posting a bunch of crap I've seen before and beating a dead horse into the ground like you do in most other threads. You find a point that you want to nitpick and you won't let it go.

I think it's clear to everyone that by "if he did exist" I meant the Biblical version of Jesus. Again, every other Jesus, no matter how influential, is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the Bible. By "if he did exist", I was referring to a spiritual leader as depicted and embellished by the Bible which is still unproven.

I knew you'd find something in my lazily quoted source to pick apart but I'm done putting forth any real effort to respond to you. Eat my shorts.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I already answered that question. God gave His Law to show that we are "mark missers" (that is what sin means) and cannot live by that law. Jesus came to live that Law for us to prove Himself a worthy atoning sacrifice for our sins. If you love Jesus, then you'll obey Him and believe that He came to pay for your sins, so that the barrier between you and the Father could be removed. Once you have that love for God within you, then you can love your enemy, then you can forgive your brother. But if you dont obey Jesus' command to believe in Him, then it is because you do not really love Him.

Agree 100%. Most do not understand why the law was given in the old covenant. The law was given that we might know sin. Without knowing sin we are not accountable to that sin. Was reading about the Egyptian resurrection and in this three volume account was a section of different afterlife beliefs. Here is just one.

The Wanyamwesi Burial.—When the last Sultan, Mkasiwah, died, they dug a large pit, in which they placed the chief in a large bark box, in a sitting posture, with one hand at his face and one of the fingers of the other pointing upward ; beside him were placed two living men and two living women, and then the whole was covered over. They look upon the graves of their chiefs as sacred, and carry food and pray there.^

The Fjort Burial.—The dead body is dried over a smoky fire, and is then wrapped up in endless lengths of cloth accordinof to the wealth of the deceased ; and after some months it is buried. When a king dies the body is smoked and watched, and the process may take years. First it is shaved and washed with water or palm wine. It is then placed upon rush mats for a day, then- swathed in long pieces of cloth, and laid upon a framework bed, underneath which a hole is dug to receive the water, etc., which runs out of the body. A fire is lighted at the head and foot of the bed, so that the smoke may keep off the flies. The body is next covered with acaju leaves, then wrapped up in more cloth, then placed in a coffin, which is put in a shimbec or hut. There the body may lie for years. Formerly slaves and wives were buried with a chief or king

Now here is my point. How did these people know these rituals? I wonder how many people know that the ancient Hebrews as well as others were just as perverse. The drinking of blood was a very common practice in the days of Moses and it was for that very reason that the Hebrews were forbidden to offer their own sacrifice. The sacrificial blood was burned by the priests and it took several generations to breed this practice from these people. The Hebrews of the OT were barbaric to say the least. The law made them realize what sin was. The law was the teacher that taught the comfort and sanity of grace through Christ Jesus. Without the law being shown then sin was kept hidden.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That is a reason why i quit as a church´s girls club supervisor.. and lost my faith to institutional church.
What lead me into that decision was one weekend camp in fall. Camp center was in isolated area and no streetlights. Our head manager got this wicked idea at 8pm ( kids were from 6 to 10 years old ) that he takes a candle and we all follow him in a forest path. We refused but he didn´t listen us... etc
So we walked and don´t know how many hands i had on my coat, next night was restless kids having nightmares.
So i quit as did many other. Man in charge was still a man of charge few years more before he was kicked out.

a reply to: Seede

Oh? So you know sin? Care to enlighten us what exactly all the sins are?

Is it just not following the ten commandments? What about slavery; is that a sin? What about rape; is that sin? Homosexuality? Divorce? What about the seven deadly sins? They aren't in the bible, so are they really sins?

Frankly, the bible is very confusing when it comes to what is and isn't a sin. We get the ten commandments, but then later a whole slew of other transgressions that may or may not be relevant depending on the morality of the society you live in.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yes, unfortunately the Bible's definition of sin as "missing the mark" tends to be too general for most people, so all sorts of laws are necessary. This definition can also be confusing to many.

However, if we actually live in communion with the Divine Reality moment to moment, then we are not missing the mark. Missing the mark is when we fall out of communion with God in any given moment.

One can notice when you are in communion with God, the heart's inherent morality is more and more obvious. When we are not in communion with the Divine, then we may very well start acting out of sync with the conscious Light-Energy (Reality) that we all are modifications of. In that case, our own selfish patterns of endlessly seeking result in more and more sinning, or missing the mark.

Sync up with Reality (God) = not missing the mark.

Jesus' two great commandments require communion with the Divine to actually fulfill them. That communion = not missing the mark = loving God with the whole being, etc., and one's neighbor as oneself.

Again, the esoteric aspect of Jesus' message must be taken into account to understand its import.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh? So you know sin? Care to enlighten us what exactly all the sins are?

Sin is any action of mind or body against the perfect will of the Creator. Not a contest of your or my intellect. Not to be argued with a contrary mindset such as you seem to enjoy. If the scriptures of Christ Jesus' Apostles cannot teach you then little more can be said by me.

a reply to: bb23108

Jesus is clearly stating that He and the Father are One and prays that "all of them" may also see that they are One. This is non-dualism.

I disagree. The Church is often referenced as the Bride of Christ. Cross reference John 17:21 with Mark 10:

6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now its quite obvious when two people are married they don't literally become one being, but rather are joined in spiritual unity. The same idea is true for the relationship between a person and Christ. Once one accepts him, the Holy Spirit indwells within that person and they become one with Christ and the Father. You definitions seem to lead towards believing that you can become God.