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

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

All I want from you is for you to prove you statement: "The Old Testament is a hard pill to swallow, because it shows humanity's fallen nature in contrast to God's perfect nature."

I don't think you can.

a reply to: Answer

Their word is just as reliable as the Bible and can't be presented as proof.

You are actually wrong. Historians consider the Bible the best source we have on the life of Jesus. The Gospels in particular. Of all the ancients sources from their time period they are much closer to the events they are describing and they have much more manuscript evidence supporting them. I have already mentioned you can pretty much recreate the whole NT from quotes from the Early church fathers. So no their word is not as reliable as the Bibles, but it is still very reliable as they lived within the time frame of people who would have known whether or not Jesus was a real person.

The problem is, outside of the Bible, all references to Jesus are just hearsay. Sure, several historians mention a person who seems to match the description but none of those historians actually met the man... they only recorded stories they heard about him.

Do you know who Josephus's Father was?

en.wikipedia.org...

"Matthias came from a wealthy family and through his father he descended from the priestly order of the Jehoiarib, which was the first of the twenty four-orders of Priests in the Temple in Jerusalem"

His Father lived from 6-70 AD and was as Josephus describes a distinguished Jew. You think his Father wouldn't have told Him if the person Jesus hadn't existed?

The second reference to Jesus from Josephus is when Josephus is talking about James, the brother of Jesus. No one questions the existence of James. So why question the existence of his brother?


If Jesus didn't exist as at the very least a person, what explains Paul's conversion to Christianity from hardcore Judaism? The most liberal dating of his conversion is +3 after the cross the skeptical dating is +6 after the cross. Are you really going to try and tell me a devote Jew completely upturned his religion for a man he could have easily figured out was not a real living person.

Paul met James, the brother of Jesus and Peter. Ya think they would have forgot to mention Jesus wasn't real? Ya think James who was a skeptic until after the resurrection wouldn't have been like hey paul that guy people call my brother....yea not a guy...dunno what wrong with these nuts..

a reply to: Answer

"I am the physical son of god and I am the Abrahamic god."

Really, so how did you come to that conclusion, when all Jesus said was,"before Abraham, I AM", which was a reference to "I AM that I AM"??? It seems to me that you put your words in Jesus' mouth. Also, Jesus did not teach that God is within all of us. He said that God was in union with those who believed in Him. God sent His Son to the world that we might believe in Him and have Eternal Life. Only those who are called by His Father will believe. That doesnt say anything about God being within all of us.

a reply to: Answer

Well I will agree some take it to literally, and some take it to have to much metaphor. The Bible is to be read objectively. What do I mean by that? You read it for what it is. If its poetry, such as Psalms, read it as poetry. If it apocalyptic literature like revelations expect some metaphor. If its historical narrative like the book of acts take it as historical narrative.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

We can go back and forth all night with you presenting your evidence for the existence of Jesus and me pulling information from the net that questions the validity of your evidence but in the end, neither of us is going to change our mind.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You mention what other cultures believed at the time.

Perhaps you are not aware that Judaism, the foundations of Christianity, was not entirely original. It was influenced by other cultures, specifically the Cannanite religion (which as you may suspect was also influenced by surrounding cultures). That knowledge makes the fact that God commanded the destruction of the Cannanites telling. The Israelites were probably attempting to erase as much of their influences as possible in order to establish themselves and their redefined religion. Is it any wonder that many of the stories in the Bible seem unoriginal? Noah's Ark/Epic of Gilgamesh is a great example of this.

It has nothing to do with divine inspiration from a one true God (who is ALWAYS just a reflection of the times), and everything to do with ancient cultures and power struggles clashing with each other in myriads of ways.

a reply to: Answer

99% of historians accept jesus a historical person. If someone cant even do that for you then I will leave you with this verse :


If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Answer

"I am the physical son of god and I am the Abrahamic god."

Really, so how did you come to that conclusion, when all Jesus said was,"before Abraham, I AM", which was a reference to "I AM that I AM"??? It seems to me that you put your words in Jesus' mouth. Also, Jesus did not teach that God is within all of us. He said that God was in union with those who believed in Him. God sent His Son to the world that we might believe in Him and have Eternal Life. Only those who are called by His Father will believe. That doesnt say anything about God being within all of us.

I'll say it one last time and I'm done responding to your posts until you come up with a decent rebuttal to the questions that have been asked of you:

You take the Bible literally and I do not.

The gist of my original post was "this is what I believe Jesus was trying to convey before people changed the story, embellished the facts, and added whatever fit their agenda."

You believe the changed story, the embellished facts, and the crap that was added to further those people's agenda. Further, you believe in the old testament god and you're somehow able to reconcile his behavior with your own moral code. The OP went completely over your head because you take the bible literally.

I'm not going to continue attempting to explain what I believe to be the true nature of Jesus' message to you. Several people in this thread have gotten the point. You won't... ever.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I can just as easily flip your argument and state that after the Flood, Noah and his family knew the true God, and over the generations, the nations began worshipping fallen angels. Therefore, it was the Caananites who turned from the truth, and the seed of Abraham who recieved it again.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Answer

99% of historians accept jesus a historical person. If someone cant even do that for you then I will leave you with this verse :


If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

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

The biggest problem with talking about evidence for historical existence of Jesus Christ is that there are two "historical" Jesus Christs forming the ends of a huge spectrum of hypothesis. Touched on by Remsberg in 1909[14] classified by Rudolf Bultmann in 1941 (and used by Richard Carrier in 2014)[15], and reiterated by Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in 2004[16], these two ends (italics from original text) are:
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.
Marshall warns "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."[17]
However, Jesus is at the core of Christian theology. His existence and death is a critical point for virtually all Christians, and his life being exactly as detailed in the Gospels is important to many Christians. As a result nearly all debates gravitate to the Triumphalist end of the spectrum; "Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)"[18]
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, augmenting the number of "Silent Writers" to 146.[19]) often used by armchair Christ Myth proponents, was arguing against the Triumphalist-Jesus of Bethlehem and not against the Reductive-Jesus of Nazareth. Remsberg in fact, stated there were was just enough evidence to show that the Triumphalist-Jesus of Bethlehem was a historical myth on the "a real event distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" side of that definition.[20] Remsburg was not saying Jesus the man didn't exist but rather the story of Jesus in the Gospels had no more historical reality than the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreadful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley. Source

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.

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

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I can just as easily flip your argument and state that after the Flood, Noah and his family knew the true God, and over the generations, the nations began worshipping fallen angels. Therefore, it was the Caananites who turned from the truth, and the seed of Abraham who recieved it again.

Whatever it takes to keep your illusion alive, right?

You'll climb a greased pole to salvage a lie when the truth is staring you right in the face.

a reply to: Answer

Which question are you refering to?

Im sorry, but you are wrong. You have simply stated your opinion without backing it up. Everything that we (christians) have offered to counter your claimes has gone over your head. You have no real basis to support the claim that the gospels were adultered, and you have not supported any of your conclusions about Jesus with any of His own words (which all come from the gospels that you say are adultered).

So, if you dont trust the gospels, then how can you expect your opinion about Jesus to be take seriously? Most of the people who cater to your opinion are just a bunch of 'cheer leaders', with no foundation. You have no real position, therefore you can keep moving your goal post as you see fit.

I could care less whether or not you continue this conversation with me. Its obvious to me that you cant hold your own in a debate.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

But I'm not making stuff up so there is nothing to flip.

Look it up if you don't believe me man! Just Google what the origins and influences of Judaism are. Yahweh may have originally been part of the Cannanite pantheon even.

Yahweh
Origins of Judaism

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Of course Yehwah was present in the Caananite pantheon. The Caananites came from the line of Ham, who was Noah's son, who worshipped Yehwah. The question is, where did the rest of the pantheon come from?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Answer

Which question are you refering to?

The ones you refuse to answer about your perfect old testament god.

Im sorry, but you are wrong. You have simply stated your opinion without backing it up. Everything that we (christians) have offered to counter your claimes has gone over your head. You have no real basis to support the claim that the gospels were adultered, and you have not supported any of your conclusions about Jesus with any of His own words (which all come from the gospels that you say are adultered).

So, if you dont trust the gospels, then how can you expect your opinion about Jesus to be take seriously? Most of the people who cater to your opinion are just a bunch of 'cheer leaders', with no foundation. You have no real position, therefore you can keep moving your goal post as you see fit.

Where, exactly, have I moved the goal posts?

How cute that you're using my "gone over your head" statement back on me. Disagreeing doesn't mean I don't understand.

Just because you can't look at the core of Jesus' message and interpret the metaphorical meaning that I've laid out, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. You can't see it because you take the Bible to be 100% literal. You've already decided how you want to interpret the message so why is my interpretation such a threat to you that you attempt to disprove it using the very same information that I already outlined in my OP as distortions of the message?

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44) Love others and don't hold grudges. Good advice.

"To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14) Accept that you're not perfect and be humble. Good advice.

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28) I honestly think that, if Jesus actually said these things, he was making a joke about the stupidity of sacrifices. People seem to think that Jesus was super serious and didn't have a sense of humor... I call BS on that. Instead, priests took the joke literally and make it part of their rituals. Jesus would probably laugh his ass off if he wasn't crying about the fact that someone used him to create yet another mechanism of control.

Everyone in the thread is wrong except for you, right? That's exactly the mentality that drives people away from Christianity.

I could care less whether or not you continue this conversation with me. Its obvious to me that you cant hold your own in a debate.

That's obvious to you, eh? Eventually I get physically tired and mentally drained from dealing with the same intellectual dishonesty over and over and over in these threads. I think there are several people who would disagree with your opinion of my debate skills.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest



Seriously though, I think we are at an impass. I don't give as much credibility to the texts of the Bible as you do. I feel that no matter what lengths I went through to convince you that it is not divinely inspired, I would be incapable of doing so. You are as steadfast in your position, as I am in mine.

a reply to: Answer

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.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You mention what other cultures believed at the time.

Perhaps you are not aware that Judaism, the foundations of Christianity, was not entirely original. It was influenced by other cultures, specifically the Cannanite religion (which as you may suspect was also influenced by surrounding cultures). That knowledge makes the fact that God commanded the destruction of the Cannanites telling. The Israelites were probably attempting to erase as much of their influences as possible in order to establish themselves and their redefined religion. Is it any wonder that many of the stories in the Bible seem unoriginal? Noah's Ark/Epic of Gilgamesh is a great example of this.

It has nothing to do with divine inspiration from a one true God (who is ALWAYS just a reflection of the times), and everything to do with ancient cultures and power struggles clashing with each other in myriads of ways.

The Cannanites were nephilim / watcher corrupted.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that…” — Genesis 6:4

The Bloodlines of the Nephilim

The Bible provides a specific geneology and bloodline of the Nephilim giants after the flood that can be traced back to Noah’s own sons. What seems to be consistent with the presence of the Nephilim gene was an affinity for evil, due to their fallen angelic parentage. And among Noah’s sons, Ham was by far the most wicked. From the first time Ham is introduced, he is described as “the father of Canaan.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You mention what other cultures believed at the time.

Perhaps you are not aware that Judaism, the foundations of Christianity, was not entirely original. It was influenced by other cultures, specifically the Cannanite religion (which as you may suspect was also influenced by surrounding cultures). That knowledge makes the fact that God commanded the destruction of the Cannanites telling. The Israelites were probably attempting to erase as much of their influences as possible in order to establish themselves and their redefined religion. Is it any wonder that many of the stories in the Bible seem unoriginal? Noah's Ark/Epic of Gilgamesh is a great example of this.

It has nothing to do with divine inspiration from a one true God (who is ALWAYS just a reflection of the times), and everything to do with ancient cultures and power struggles clashing with each other in myriads of ways.

The Cannanites were nephilim / watcher corrupted.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that…” — Genesis 6:4

The Bloodlines of the Nephilim

The Bible provides a specific geneology and bloodline of the Nephilim giants after the flood that can be traced back to Noah’s own sons. What seems to be consistent with the presence of the Nephilim gene was an affinity for evil, due to their fallen angelic parentage. And among Noah’s sons, Ham was by far the most wicked. From the first time Ham is introduced, he is described as “the father of Canaan.

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.

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. 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.