Who is Jesus to you?

originally posted by: ltrz2025

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: ltrz2025

Another curiosity would be how roughly 5000 years ago, isolated by vast distances for the most part we all came to the same Rebus principal.

Indeed, that's one of history's biggest questions. I think there are 3 possibilities:

1) All humans shared similar psychological structures at one specific time, so we all came up with the same symbols and meanings all over the world. Sort of a mass psychosis at planetary level in the stone age.

2) A particular group of culturized people (small one, because they left no DNA traces) traveled the entire word bringing language, myth and culture. A group of sages. This is a key part of the myths of the Aryans, the Atlanteans and the Hyperboreans.

3) Aliens came to earth and went around "delivering" these tools among different populations around the world, but with differences between them depending on the native population.


Then, some people believe it was "God". But, the way I understand God is that this one is busy creating planets and galaxies in the universe, not worried about what one particular species (humans) in one particular planet (earth) is doing.

Space acid or Gamma rays, we could have passed through some commentary tail or some distant quasar rung our bell, if we were attributing it to natural sources that is.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: ltrz2025

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: ltrz2025

Another curiosity would be how roughly 5000 years ago, isolated by vast distances for the most part we all came to the same Rebus principal.

Indeed, that's one of history's biggest questions. I think there are 3 possibilities:

1) All humans shared similar psychological structures at one specific time, so we all came up with the same symbols and meanings all over the world. Sort of a mass psychosis at planetary level in the stone age.

2) A particular group of culturized people (small one, because they left no DNA traces) traveled the entire word bringing language, myth and culture. A group of sages. This is a key part of the myths of the Aryans, the Atlanteans and the Hyperboreans.

3) Aliens came to earth and went around "delivering" these tools among different populations around the world, but with differences between them depending on the native population.


Then, some people believe it was "God". But, the way I understand God is that this one is busy creating planets and galaxies in the universe, not worried about what one particular species (humans) in one particular planet (earth) is doing.

Space acid or Gamma rays, we could have passed through some commentary tail or some distant quasar rung our bell, if we were attributing it to natural sources that is.

Ok, and you think that this could have caused some type of massive mental hallucinations? A bit like point 1) in my post?

a reply to: ltrz2025

Your idea's about trinity make sense. It may have been the neo-pythagoreans that introduced Christianity to Rome. The star of Bethlehem was a symbol the neo-pythagoreans used to identify themselves to one another. In gospel of luke chapter one it appears a pythagorean left his signature (5X6X6X3X8 = 4,320). 432x432=186624 (as close one can get to speed of light from a square of an integer). A signature that tells other pythagorean readers that there is a story within the story (via numerology). That this bright spark seems to have deciphered.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: ltrz2025

Your idea's about trinity make sense. It may have been the neo-pythagoreans that introduced Christianity to Rome. The star of Bethlehem was a symbol the neo-pythagoreans used to identify themselves to one another. In gospel of luke chapter one it appears a pythagorean left his signature (5X6X6X3X8 = 4,320). 432x432=186624 (as close one can get to speed of light from a square of an integer). A signature that tells other pythagorean readers that there is a story within the story (via numerology). That this bright spark seems to have deciphered.

Right, the star is the pentacle, which was an ID symbol for the Pythagoreans. That symbol is the golden gnomon triangle, superposed 3 times. And yes, completely agree, the New Testament is full of esoteric Greek knowledge and codes, undeniable. In fact, the teachings of Jesus are a very atomized form of Platonism. Christianity is Platonism for the masses, Nietzsche said once. Then, if we go to the real source: both Pythagoras and Plato (as most of the wise thinkers of Greece) spent decades in Egypt in study trips. The famous Pythagorean theorem was found in Egypt, dated thousands of years before Pythagoras existed. The mystery schools!!

The "signature", as you call it, if it is like you say, it's Pythagorean magic. The Pythagoreans believed that the divine universe was made of organized mathematics, so they would include these codes and sequences as a way to "bless" whatever they were working on, and also as a signature.

Regarding the link, thanks for sharing. My position is that Jesus, M.Magdalene, the Essenes, the Apostles, etc. the entire myth of Jesus is a symbolic tale designed to teach some of these basic concepts, for easy transmission, so I don't consider them historical facts. But, it really doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters is the content and the concepts. However, as you say, there are many more things encoded in the bible for sure. Try to find the gematria sequence with 11:11, that one is interesting.

a reply to: Poofmander

Jesus is a desert wizard from a fantasy story who started a cannibal cult that said "you should do magic to make stuff into my blood and flesh, you and your progeny should consume it once a week to show you're down with my wizarding ways."

This is one tradition of the church that I do find distasteful as well. In some ways it has that feeling of saying grace when you kill your own meat. In other ways it does come across as some weird satanic thing. When humbling myself to take part in communion it does focus my thoughts and connection with Jesus.

I don't attend any specific church these days, but have done in the past.

Jesus is a non-corporeal entity, made a martyr and godhead by an evil enterprise which later evolved into the Catholic Church.

Who is Jesus to me? To answer I’d have to ask, who am I to Jesus? That’s the important part.

Like the rest of you, I’m a sinner. He knows that - it‘s what He came to ‘fix‘ if you will.

Because I believe in Him? He's the one who, in the end, when we’re all judged, will stand up for me and say that I am His.

That He’s paid the price for my sin and because of His sacrifice I will enter into eternity - spotless. Blameless. Above reproach. Whatever word you want - it means me and anyone else who believes in him will not be cast into hell, spending eternity in perpetual torment.

Unlike (many of you) who either say Jesus is a ‘figment of my imagination’ or my ‘invisible friend in the sky‘? I have an inner peace none of you will ever understand - unless you also believe/accept Jesus. I don’t need anything else. Nor any other proof that He is very real, still alive and yes, coming back soon.

But - for right now the majority of you are blind. You can’t - or wont - understand the things of the Spirit because these things have to be evaluated spiritually. (Roughly 1 Cor.2:14).

On the bright side? If you’re reading this? It’s not too late. You’ve still got time to make up your mind where you’ll spend eternity. You’ve got one of two choices. It’s all about the location.

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: BeNotAfraid

Well not really, conspiracies regarding whether Jesus was a man or a myth arose in the 18th century and today we call those conspiracists "Mythicists".

The curious thing about this theory is that the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus loved to stamp out heresy. They wrote massive treatises criticizing heretics and yet in all of their writings the heresy that Jesus never existed is never mentioned. In fact, no one in the entire history of Christianity (not even early pagan critics like Celsus or Lucian) seriously argued for a mythic Jesus until the 18th century.

I read a quote on that some time ago but having some difficulty finding it again. So let's have a look at what some other people have said for now...

Michael Grant, a historian and an expert on ancient classical civilization, noted: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”

Rudolf Bultmann, a professor of New Testament studies, stated: “The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community [of Christians].”

Who do you think is the greatest man who ever lived? How do you evaluate a man’s greatness? By his military genius? his superior mental abilities? his physical strength?

Interestingly, historian H. G. Wells described his test for measuring a man’s greatness. Over 80 years ago, he wrote: “The historian’s test of an individual’s greatness is ‘What did he leave to grow? Did he start men to thinking along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him?’ By this test,” Wells concluded, “Jesus stands first.” Even Napoléon Bonaparte noted: “Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence.”

Basing his conclusions solely on the historical evidence regarding Jesus’ existence as a man, Wells wrote: “It is interesting and significant that a historian, without any theological bias whatever, should find that he cannot portray the progress of humanity honestly without giving a foremost place to a penniless teacher from Nazareth. . . . A historian like myself, who does not even call himself a Christian, finds the picture centering irresistibly around the life and character of this most significant man.”

While Wells acknowledges that “we do not know as much about [Jesus] as we would like to know,” he nevertheless observes: “The four Gospels . . . agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality; they carry a conviction of reality. To assume that he never lived, that the accounts of his life are inventions, is more difficult and raises far more problems for the historian than to accept the essential elements of the Gospel stories as fact.”

The respected historian Will Durant reasoned in a similar way, explaining: “That a few simple men [who called themselves Christians] should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Could a mythical character​—a person who never really lived—​have affected human history so remarkably? The reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.” Think about it.

Albert Einstein, a German-born Jewish physicist, asserted: “I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” When asked if he viewed Jesus as a historical person, he responded: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

In his book “Many Infallible Proofs:” The Evidences of Christianity, Scholar Arthur Pierson says of Christ’s miracles: “No confirmation of the miracles of scripture is more remarkable than the silence of enemies.” Jewish leaders had more than ample motive for wanting to discredit Jesus, but his miracles were so well-known that opponents dared not deny them. All they could do was attribute such feats to demonic powers. (Matthew 12:22-24) Centuries after Jesus’ death, the writers of the Jewish Talmud continued to credit Jesus with miraculous powers. According to the book Jewish Expressions on Jesus, they dismissed him as being one who “followed the practices of magic.” Would such a comment have been made if it was even remotely possible to dismiss Jesus’ miracles as mere myth?

Further proof comes from fourth-century church historian Eusebius. In his book The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine, he quotes a certain Quadratus who sent a letter to the emperor in defense of Christianity. Quadratus wrote: “Our Saviour’s works were always there to see, for they were true​—the people who had been cured and those raised from the dead, who had not merely been seen at the moment when they were cured or raised, but were always there to see, not only when the Saviour was among us, but for a long time after His departure; in fact some of them survived right up to my own time.” Scholar William Barclay observed: “Quadratus is saying that until his own day men on whom miracles had been worked could actually be produced. If that was untrue nothing would have been easier than for the Roman government to brand it as a lie.”

Belief in the miracles of Jesus is reasonable, rational, and fully in harmony with the evidence. As is belief in “the historicity of Jesus and the main facts of his life.” (quoting from below, at the end)

Ah, by now I found the quote I was talking about at the start of this comment. It's used in this article series:

Jesus Christ​—God, Man, or Myth?
Jesus​—Who Is He?

SECULAR records that speak of Jesus are few. However, some do exist, and of them The Encyclopædia Britannica says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

Now ask yourself, If Jesus’ existence were a myth, is it likely that it would have taken until the 18th century for this to be discovered? Also consider the fact that over a billion people now claim to be Jesus’ followers. The influence that his teachings have had upon culture, education, and government​—upon the entire course of world history—​cannot be denied. Does it seem reasonable that all of this has been the result of something no more substantial than a myth?

If the founder of Islam, the Arabian prophet Muhammad, was a real person, what sound reason do we have to believe that Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, was not? He may have lived some 600 years before Muhammad, but note that the founder of Buddhism, Siddhārtha Gautama​—the Buddha, or “Enlightened One”—​lived even earlier, over 500 years before Jesus. Yet, if the Buddha was a real person, what sound reason do we have to believe that Jesus was not?

German historian and archaeologist Hans Einsle writes that Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, Roman writers Suetonius and Pliny, and especially Roman historian Tacitus “all confirm the historicity of Jesus and the main facts of his life.”

...

But of course, some people feel it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss any evidence by claiming it is contested, as if it even matters if some clearly biased Bible critic anywhere in the world contests it now, on inadequate grounds.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's really not to give you a hard time, but all you wrote is a logical fallacy. You are using what it is called an argumentum ad populum which is claiming a truth or affirming something just because the majority thinks so. Basically, these words are saying: "Jesus is too popular to have been fake".... that's not proof, that's an assumption, and a logical fallacy.

Then, no one is saying that it is impossible that Jesus existed. He might have for sure. But, you have to be honest (do not lie) and accept that there is no hard evidence of him. Anyway, for a believer, that shouldn't matter, because is a question of faith of a believer.

WIth all the Marvel movies from the last 20 years, characters like Ironman, Spiderman and Captain America became quite well known. They are actually quite well known in the world, even in China, India, and Japan. The fact that people knows of them, make them real? Nope.

And, I think you are failing to realize that Jesus is only known and followed in our western countries. There are around 1.3 billion Christians in the world. There are other 6.7 billion people in the world who don't have Jesus in their mind. So, he is not as "universal" as you think.

Regarding Eusebius, he is quite contested as well, and the oldest copies we have of his work date back only to 1.500 AD. Just like Josephus and Tacitus, and others, these books we have are separated between 1.000 and 1.500 years from the years that Jesus supposedly lived. Much could have tampered or faked into them, and many scholars and researches have shown indications of that. Just like with the Shroud of Turin, many other things have been proven fake already.

Eusebius is even contested by Christian historians from the middle ages themselves. So, once again, it's not conclusive hard evidence. Written documents are considered by bible scholars to try to visualize the construction of the religious narrative, but they are not taken as historical documents. There are many records of the Church burning books all the time throughout the last 2.000 years as a way to hide information.

Even the bible itself, for 1.000 years, was forbidden to be translated from Latin by the Church, which made it impossible for the Christians to read it, and in a few places, the Church even forbade private readings of the book at all... and well, we know about many scientists that the Church has burned for showing things that contradicted their beliefs... The Church has been a VERY powerful institution for at least 1 millenia, and in their way, they tried to censor (just like google today) what they didn't like.

All that said, Eusebius still is a fascinating character for sure, unlocking much of Eusebius's political agenda (it is claimed that he was a very close personal friend of Emperor Constantine) is a key aspect to understand the origin of the bible. There are a lot of "hints" that Eusebius gives regarding the origin of Jesus Christ, he even dares saying that Jesus was worshiped by the ancients....

originally posted by: kwakakev

I don't attend any specific church these days, but have done in the past.

There's some things you just can't unhear... I was conceived outside on church stairs which my mom used to attend.

Presbyterian obviously...

a reply to: whereislogic

What I find interesting is that the Bible was scribed based on the first written scrolls taken from oral tradition, because at that time there were no direct witnesses still alive at the time of the first writing of scripture, but there were oral traditions, storytelling et al.

Then the question becomes were those oral traditions accurate and true? And with new ways to use new technologies (special imaging, DNA, AI) on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other scrolls they are working on solving these puzzles.

According to John Foley, oral tradition has been an ancient human tradition found in "all corners of the world". Modern archaeology has been unveiling evidence of the human efforts to preserve and transmit arts and knowledge that depended completely or partially on an oral tradition, across various cultures:

The Judeo-Christian Bible reveals its oral traditional roots; medieval European manuscripts are penned by performing scribes; geometric vases from archaic Greece mirror Homer's oral style. (...) Indeed, if these final decades of the millennium have taught us anything, it must be that oral tradition never was the other we accused it of being; it never was the primitive, preliminary technology of communication we thought it to be. Rather, if the whole truth is told, oral tradition stands out as the single most dominant communicative technology of our species as both a historical fact and, in many areas still, a contemporary reality.

— John Foley, Signs of Orality[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

In employing the oral tradition, we are being true to the Bible and the way it came to be. Those biblical lessons were meant to be learned by ear. They were meant to be taught orally. Jesus is only portrayed as writing in one story in one Gospel, and even then we are not told what he wrote (John 7:53-8:11). Throughout the rest of the Gospel passages, he is portrayed as telling stories. So when we reclaim oral tradition, we are being true to our first and best teacher, Jesus.

www.ministrymatters.com...

education.nationalgeographic.org...

Researchers have long been puzzled as to the degree this collection of manuscripts, a veritable library from the Qumran caves, reflects the broad cultural milieu of Second Temple Judaism, or whether it should be regarded as the work of a radical sect (identified by most as the Essenes) discovered by chance.

"Imagine that Israel is destroyed to the ground, and only one library survives — the library of an isolated, 'extremist' sect: What could we deduce, if anything, from this library about greater Israel?" Prof. Rechavi says. "To distinguish between scrolls particular to this sect and other scrolls reflecting a more widespread distribution, we sequenced ancient DNA extracted from the animal skins on which some of the manuscripts were inscribed. But sequencing, decoding and comparing 2,000-year old genomes is very challenging, especially since the manuscripts are extremely fragmented and only minimal samples could be obtained."

Prof. Mizrahi further explains, "Since late antiquity, there has been almost complete uniformity of the biblical text. A Torah scroll in a synagogue in Kiev would be virtually identical to one in Sydney, down to the letter. By contrast, in Qumran we find in the very same cave different versions of the same book. But, in each case, one must ask: Is the textual 'pluriformity,' as we call it, yet another peculiar characteristic of the sectarian group whose writings were found in the Qumran caves? Or does it reflect a broader feature, shared by the rest of Jewish society of the period? The ancient DNA proves that two copies of Jeremiah, textually different from each other, were brought from outside the Judean Desert. This fact suggests that the concept of scriptural authority — emanating from the perception of biblical texts as a record of the Divine Word — was different in this period from that which dominated after the destruction of the Second Temple. In the formative age of classical Judaism and nascent Christianity, the polemic between Jewish sects and movements was focused on the 'correct' interpretation of the text, not its wording or exact linguistic form."

english.tau.ac.il...

Algorithms deduce that the Great Isaiah Scroll was written by two scribes, showing AI can help unravel the mystery of who penned the oldest known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible.

www.haaretz.com... cff98ae0000

So hopefully soon when older scrolls are decoded and 'correctly' translated can we make comparisons to scripture in the Bible.

However, comparing more recent historical non-religious figures from writings to a religious figure who started a new religion/culture/revolution and whose teaching and deeds were taught orally to generations up to the writing of the first gospel of the Bible, would seem to me to be proof in the belief that there was such a man.

originally posted by: ltrz2025
Then fact are facts, and these cannot be contested.

Prove God (or a Supreme Being or whatever name you chose) does not exist.

Prove that Jesus never existed with indisputable facts. The absence of evidence does not prove anything.

This topic is like a piece of bubblegum. It just keeps being chewed over and over again. You do things like use the word myth to agitate people and try to bait them into an argument. It's not a new topic but keep chewing that same old piece of gum.

In the end, people of faith are not hurt by having faith and in fact, live by a set of values that is beneficial to their lives and peaceful society.

Whois Jesus to me? He’s the illegitimate son of Mary who had been falsely portrayed in the Bible by people who never even effin’ knew him. Change my mind.

a reply to: ltrz2025

"But, you have to be honest (do not lie) and accept that there is no hard evidence of him."

There is theory from author Lena Einhorn that Jesus real identity has been obscured to empower the roman church. That a man called "the Egyptian" that spearheaded an uprising at Mount of olives resulting in 400 of his followers being killed was really Jesus. Read read 169 to 172.

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: ltrz2025
Then fact are facts, and these cannot be contested.

Prove God (or a Supreme Being or whatever name you chose) does not exist.

Prove that Jesus never existed with indisputable facts. The absence of evidence does not prove anything.

This topic is like a piece of bubblegum. It just keeps being chewed over and over again. You do things like use the word myth to agitate people and try to bait them into an argument. It's not a new topic but keep chewing that same old piece of gum.

In the end, people of faith are not hurt by having faith and in fact, live by a set of values that is beneficial to their lives and peaceful society.

I'm not sure if you are reading correctly what I wrote. To clarify:

- I cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Because, in fact, I know God exists. I'm no atheist, not even close.

- From post 1, I've said that it is impossible to know if Jesus existed or not. Never denied the possibility that he could have been a real person. In my opinion (NOT A FACT), he was a character constructed to tell a story and explain values. But that's just my opinion. I just said that there isn't enough hard evidence to prove that he existed. As there isn't enough hard evidence to confirm that he didn't exist.

- I don't really understand what you are trying to tell me that this is like a piece of bubblegum, could you specify? It's like you are tired that people keep making posts in this thread about this topic, so you don't want it discussed no more? Then, I'm not sure how using the word myth can agitate others. But I cannot do much about how other people take words so common like myth. I can understand that people can go into cognitive dissonance sometimes when they hear that someone questions something that they thought fact, that's normal. But well, they have all the right to ignore me and dismiss me like a mental patient (I really don't mind!). Plus, to be honest, except for the member called Peeples, with the rest of the people has been quite a nice exchange (including you). My only aim here is contrasting arguments to find if someone has arguments that are better than mine, so I can learn somethings.

- I've never said that people of faith are hurt by having faith and fact, so no idea what you are trying to tell me. I didn't discussed faith at any point, and I would never question anyone's faith at all. I've just been discussing facts, and then sharing some opinions with some people....

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: ltrz2025

"But, you have to be honest (do not lie) and accept that there is no hard evidence of him."

There is theory from author Lena Einhorn that Jesus real identity has been obscured to empower the roman church. That a man called "the Egyptian" that spearheaded an uprising at Mount of olives resulting in 400 of his followers being killed was really Jesus. Read read 169 to 172.

Oh, well, sure, there are so many theories about this! But who knows which could be right. In southern France, there are some small towns that ASSURE YOU that Jesus and Mary Magdalene went to live to Southern France after they escaped from Jerusalem, and that he wasn't crucify. They swear that Jesus had children and that their descendants are still around. This is where the story of the book/movie Da Vinci code came to happen.

But well, theories, speculations, there are so many. Some even say that Jesus was an Alien.

originally posted by: Astyanax
To summarise, then, in a few bullet points.

- Historical figure? (ie was he a real chap)
- God?
- Myth symbolising something or other
- Alien meddler in terrestrial affairs
- Con
- Other (write in space below)

Shall we take a poll?

I'm gonna have to agree with Sir Willam M. Ramsay about the Bible's description of Jesus and the accounts of his life. The 2nd one quoted below (but don't skip anything, cause the first person is quite interesting as well, and he also has something interesting to say):

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm gonna have to agree with Sir Willam M. Ramsay...

So you're for #1 then. Thank you for responding.

Ramsay was, of course, a famous Nw Testament scholar. Do you agree with him because you, too, are a scholar, and have found your scholarship in agreement with his? Or is it more a question of 'agreeing' with him because his scholarship accords with what you prefer to believe?

By the way, when one speaks or writes of 'Sir So-and-So' or 'Lord Such-and-Such', one never uses middle initials. Looks a bit illiterate when you do. 'Sir William Ramsay' suffices.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: whereislogic
Do you agree with him because you, too, are a scholar, and have found your scholarship in agreement with his? Or is it more a question of 'agreeing' with him because his scholarship accords with what you prefer to believe?

Neither really, my agreement is based on my own study of the evidence as well as an examination of Bible criticism and the accompanying quality and nature of argumentation, but that doesn't exactly make me a scholar in the professional sense.

Remember that the man was an archaeologist that "was brought up not to believe in the Bible" (quoting from the video).

a reply to: ltrz2025

Fair enough.

I did understand your take on Jesus I think?

From post 1, I've said that it is impossible to know if Jesus existed or not. Never denied the possibility that he could have been a real person. In my opinion (NOT A FACT), he was a character constructed to tell a story and explain values. But that's just my opinion. I just said that there isn't enough hard evidence to prove that he existed. As there isn't enough hard evidence to confirm that he didn't exist.

Either way an interesting read and discussion. Thanks.