For anyone that has any doubt as to the identity of Jesus Christ

reply to post by XplanetX

Do you consider us elitist because we believe that anyone not in Christ will not have eternal life? If so, why should this bother you since you do not believe in Jesus anyway?

What if you lived in a town in India where every day the town's people would tell you that you are going to hell for not having Krishna?

reply to post by XplanetX

From your own source:

Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.

www.centuryone.com...

There is NO evidence at all of a man named Jesus in any history whatsoever. In fact, I have heard of millions being offered by some for direct proof, but cannot cite a source for this. For my own self, after a quite exhaustive research project, I could find not a shred of evidence, save the NT, which many agree was written by a Roman family, who made it all up. Not only that, but the letter "J" is only some 500 years old, and the city of Nazareth did not exist at the time cited for the life of "Jesus."
So your proof is moot.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by XplanetX

 

From your own source:

Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.

www.centuryone.com...

There is NO evidence at all of a man named Jesus in any history whatsoever. In fact, I have heard of millions being offered by some for direct proof, but cannot cite a source for this. For my own self, after a quite exhaustive research project, I could find not a shred of evidence, save the NT, which many agree was written by a Roman family, who made it all up. Not only that, but the letter "J" is only some 500 years old, and the city of Nazareth did not exist at the time cited for the life of "Jesus."
So your proof is moot.

What are you talking about? There are more than 70 sources outside the bible that describe a man by the name of Jesus. Off the top of my head I can give you the name of a book that lists all of these sources with references. The book is called "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. This is but one of hundreds. Any sane scholar or historian will agree that a man by the name of Jesus definitely existed and he was crucified.

The writings that we call 'the new testament' were never part of the bible to begin with. There were 8 different authors of what we call 'The new testament'. These letters and writings were later compiled by many different people and formed into the biblical canon that we have today. The reason why these writings are considered scripture today is because they describe the fulfillment of the messiah in the Old Testament.

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Pointing me to an obvious Christian forum is no proof, friend. Show me some real proof. For one thing, there are the Roman records. The Ancient Romans kept meticulous records, right down the last grain of wheat. These records make no mention of Jesus, no one. And how about Philo of Alexandria, the famous Jewish Historian? Again, no mention of Jesus. You would think if such a man, so well schooled in the art of Magick, and Necrophilia, Philo would have certainly made mention of him. No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.... no artifacts, dwelling places, works of carpentry, or any self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the so called man Jesus from either a set of unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, or mythical writings.

Even if these so called sources of a real man named Jesus, these did not come from true interpolations, and they could never serve as reliable evidence for a real historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

And then, there is this:

FROM CHAPTER I (The True Authorship of the New Testament)

"The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso w/ long "E") family (a), who were Roman aristocrats.
The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional."
"The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters."

"In the middle of the first century of our present era, Rome's aristocracy felt itself confronted with a growing problem. The Jewish religion was continuing to grow in numbers, adding ever more proselytes. Jews numbered more than 8,000,000, and were 10% of the population of the empire and 20% of that portion living east of Rome. (b) Approximately half or more of the Jews lived outside Palestine, of which many were descended from proselytes, male and female." (c) "However, Judaism's ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would become the chief religion of the empire.

The Roman author, Annaeus Seneca, tutor and confidant of Emperor Nero, suggested in a letter to his friend Lucilius (a pseudonym of Lucius Piso) that lighting candles on Sabbaths be prohibited. (d) Seneca is later quoted by St. Augustine in his City of God (e) (although the quotation does not exist in Seneca's extant writings) as charging that: "the (Sabbath) customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conqueror.""

"The family headed by Seneca's friend, Lucius Piso, was confronted with an allied problem more personal to it. They were the Calpurnius Pisos, who were descended from statesmen and consuls, and from great poets and historians as well. Gaius and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, leaders of the family, had both married Arria the Younger (from her grandfather's name, Aristobulus). This made Gaius and Lucius Piso's wife the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great."

reuchlina.tripod.com...

Simply put, Jesus never existed, the story was wholly made up as a control factor, and a money making machine that still works to this day.
The greed of the Holy Roman Church, which all Christian sects came from originally, is almost without equal, and is responsible for several million deaths of "Heretics," and "Pagans," not to mention the burning of many texts, codecs, manuscripts, and artifacts that could surely be of good use in these times. Hope this doesn't upset you, or any Christian, I am only attempting to educate a large group of people that has been brainwashed for so many years some may never wake up to the lies of the Church. It is my sincere hope that at least some see the light here.

Originally posted by autowrench
Pointing me to an obvious Christian forum is no proof, friend. Show me some real proof. For one thing, there are the Roman records. The Ancient Romans kept meticulous records, right down the last grain of wheat. These records make no mention of Jesus, no one. And how about Philo of Alexandria, the famous Jewish Historian? Again, no mention of Jesus. You would think if such a man, so well schooled in the art of Magick, and Necrophilia, Philo would have certainly made mention of him. No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.... no artifacts, dwelling places, works of carpentry, or any self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the so called man Jesus from either a set of unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, or mythical writings.

Even if these so called sources of a real man named Jesus, these did not come from true interpolations, and they could never serve as reliable evidence for a real historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

And then, there is this:

FROM CHAPTER I (The True Authorship of the New Testament)

"The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso w/ long "E") family (a), who were Roman aristocrats.
The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional."
"The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters."

"In the middle of the first century of our present era, Rome's aristocracy felt itself confronted with a growing problem. The Jewish religion was continuing to grow in numbers, adding ever more proselytes. Jews numbered more than 8,000,000, and were 10% of the population of the empire and 20% of that portion living east of Rome. (b) Approximately half or more of the Jews lived outside Palestine, of which many were descended from proselytes, male and female." (c) "However, Judaism's ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would become the chief religion of the empire.

The Roman author, Annaeus Seneca, tutor and confidant of Emperor Nero, suggested in a letter to his friend Lucilius (a pseudonym of Lucius Piso) that lighting candles on Sabbaths be prohibited. (d) Seneca is later quoted by St. Augustine in his City of God (e) (although the quotation does not exist in Seneca's extant writings) as charging that: "the (Sabbath) customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conqueror.""

"The family headed by Seneca's friend, Lucius Piso, was confronted with an allied problem more personal to it. They were the Calpurnius Pisos, who were descended from statesmen and consuls, and from great poets and historians as well. Gaius and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, leaders of the family, had both married Arria the Younger (from her grandfather's name, Aristobulus). This made Gaius and Lucius Piso's wife the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great."

reuchlina.tripod.com...

Simply put, Jesus never existed, the story was wholly made up as a control factor, and a money making machine that still works to this day.
The greed of the Holy Roman Church, which all Christian sects came from originally, is almost without equal, and is responsible for several million deaths of "Heretics," and "Pagans," not to mention the burning of many texts, codecs, manuscripts, and artifacts that could surely be of good use in these times. Hope this doesn't upset you, or any Christian, I am only attempting to educate a large group of people that has been brainwashed for so many years some may never wake up to the lies of the Church. It is my sincere hope that at least some see the light here.

So by ignoring all of the sources that claim Jesus existed and pointing to people that ommit him means that he did not exist?

You sir, are simply making subjective selections of historical documents to suit your own ideology. I am prepared to look at all historical documents while you completely ignore those that DO mention Jesus.

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["You often refer to christian's as elitist's, why is that?"]

I'm not categorizing all christians as elitists; only those christians who actually present elitist ideology or attitudes.

Quote: ["The only difference between a believer and a non-believer is the holy spirit, which is a gift from God."]

An assumption on your part, not even shared by all of the christianities. Besides the 'holy spirit' isn't a christian copyrighted phenomenon, .....it exists outside christianity, can be experienced by non-theists also and it has no apparant connection to any 'god'.

Quote: ["It is not something to be attained by any human work."]

Even an ideology carried to the extremes of 'slaves of 'god' ', spiritual masochism, predetermination, predestination or whatever can be elitistic. The self-proclaimed authority is just placed at a higher rung.

Quote: ["If Christ was not raised from the dead then we are to be pitied above all others as we live a life of sacrifice and repentance for nothing."]

Indeed, but that is your choice and (possibly) your problem. Some people can relate to the character Jesus in quite another, not so cramped way.

Quote: ["We are considered 'scum of the earth':"]

SOME of you are; and with all good reasons. Possibly trying to turn this into martyrdom is 'lame'.

Quote: ["The world thinks we are foolish, we boast not of ourselves but of Christ:"]

Boasters (whatever the boasts consist of) ARE often silly, but the elitist christianities have passed beyond the point of just boasting.

Quote: ["If we boast of Christ and not of ourselves, how can we be considered elitist? Do you consider us elitist because we believe that anyone not in Christ will not have eternal life? If so, why should this bother you since you do not believe in Jesus anyway?"]

Some of this is already answered, as you tend to repeat yourself. Part of my answer can be considered 'academic', as an approach to truth/reality-seeking, and part of my answer lies in the area of social impact.

Why don't you respond directly to my factual posts, instead of this half-preachy evasive semantics? I relate to "doubts about identifying JC" and have expressed my strong opposition to the warrior-king-priest-'god' version you seemingly present. Should that character of yours turn out to be 'real' somehow, I would oppose him on 'real' grounds. Is he a hijacked character or even a complete fabrication made by Paulus, there is historical evidence in that direction, which I already have pointed out.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["You often refer to christian's as elitist's, why is that?"]

I'm not categorizing all christians as elitists; only those christians who actually present elitist ideology or attitudes.

Quote: ["The only difference between a believer and a non-believer is the holy spirit, which is a gift from God."]

An assumption on your part, not even shared by all of the christianities. Besides the 'holy spirit' isn't a christian copyrighted phenomenon, .....it exists outside christianity, can be experienced by non-theists also and it has no apparant connection to any 'god'.

Quote: ["It is not something to be attained by any human work."]

Even an ideology carried to the extremes of 'slaves of 'god' ', spiritual masochism, predetermination, predestination or whatever can be elitistic. The self-proclaimed authority is just placed at a higher rung.

Quote: ["If Christ was not raised from the dead then we are to be pitied above all others as we live a life of sacrifice and repentance for nothing."]

Indeed, but that is your choice and (possibly) your problem. Some people can relate to the character Jesus in quite another, not so cramped way.

Quote: ["We are considered 'scum of the earth':"]

SOME of you are; and with all good reasons. Possibly trying to turn this into martyrdom is 'lame'.

Quote: ["The world thinks we are foolish, we boast not of ourselves but of Christ:"]

Boasters (whatever the boasts consist of) ARE often silly, but the elitist christianities have passed beyond the point of just boasting.

Quote: ["If we boast of Christ and not of ourselves, how can we be considered elitist? Do you consider us elitist because we believe that anyone not in Christ will not have eternal life? If so, why should this bother you since you do not believe in Jesus anyway?"]

Some of this is already answered, as you tend to repeat yourself. Part of my answer can be considered 'academic', as an approach to truth/reality-seeking, and part of my answer lies in the area of social impact.

Why don't you respond directly to my factual posts, instead of this half-preachy evasive semantics? I relate to "doubts about identifying JC" and have expressed my strong opposition to the warrior-king-priest-'god' version you seemingly present. Should that character of yours turn out to be 'real' somehow, I would oppose him on 'real' grounds. Is he a hijacked character or even a complete fabrication made by Paulus, there is historical evidence in that direction, which I already have pointed out.

I don't often respond directly because it will invariably cause us to go in circles. But here goes...

Christianities? multiple? I assume that you mean different denominations?
Yes we do seem to be a schizophrenic lot, not all of them can be correct in their interpretation of the scriptures.
Does that make me elitist because I am non-denominational?

Why do you instantly equate 'scum of the earth' with 'martyrdom'?

You say that I repeat myself with the implication that you don't? I think this is a bit rich coming from you Bogomil.

You would not be the first to reject him on the grounds that you find his teachings unsuitable and you will not be the last.

I am prepared to look at all historical documents

Can you please be so kind as to point us all to these "Historical Documents" that you speak of? I know of no such documents in any collection or codex, or museum. Are you keeping these historical documents secret?

Tell you what, show us some Roman, or Egyptian records that mention Jesus. The Romans were in fact in power at the supposed time of Jesus, are not they the ones who allegedly executed him? And Jesus' parents took him to Egypt for a time as a child, are there no records there either?
Show us the proof. You say you have it.

Originally posted by autowrench

I am prepared to look at all historical documents

Can you please be so kind as to point us all to these "Historical Documents" that you speak of? I know of no such documents in any collection or codex, or museum. Are you keeping these historical documents secret?

Tell you what, show us some Roman, or Egyptian records that mention Jesus. The Romans were in fact in power at the supposed time of Jesus, are not they the ones who allegedly executed him? And Jesus' parents took him to Egypt for a time as a child, are there no records there either?
Show us the proof. You say you have it.

It really does not take much to find convincing evidence.

www.provethebible.net...

That is but one of hundreds of links to many different sources... If you like I will make a compilation for you over the next few days and post all of them for your perusal.

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["Christianities? multiple? I assume that you mean different denominations?
Yes we do seem to be a schizophrenic lot, not all of them can be correct in their interpretation of the scriptures. Does that make me elitist because I am non-denominational?"]

I'm ofcourse not referring to general inter-christian interpretation dissensions in an 'elitist' context, but to whatever actual ideological content presented and to the attitudes it's presented with.

Quote: ["Why do you instantly equate 'scum of the earth' with 'martyrdom'?"]

I didn't.

Quote: [" You say that I repeat myself with the implication that you don't? I think this is a bit rich coming from you Bogomil."]

As you may know, I'm not much of a 'missionary' except for egalitarian principles. I mainly respond to the claims of others, and as these claims are repetitive, my responses will be similarly repetitive. At each level of a debate (from a philosophical perspective to simplistic pragmatism) there is only a limited amount of responding options.

Quote: ["You would not be the first to reject him on the grounds that you find his teachings unsuitable and you will not be the last."]

I'm not rejecting Jesus on general principles. I'm rejecting YOUR interpretation methodology, I'm rejecting the ideological basis you seemingly operate from and I'm rejecting the 'silence' around the historically development of some branches of the christianities, which silence imo is manipulative social, epistemological and doctrinal engineering.

Your Jesus 'profile' (identity) is one amongst several options, and whether you preach it or try to support it rationally, you are bound to meet (sometimes intense) opposition.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by XplanetX

 

From your own source:

Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.

www.centuryone.com...

There is NO evidence at all of a man named Jesus in any history whatsoever. In fact, I have heard of millions being offered by some for direct proof, but cannot cite a source for this. For my own self, after a quite exhaustive research project, I could find not a shred of evidence, save the NT, which many agree was written by a Roman family, who made it all up. Not only that, but the letter "J" is only some 500 years old, and the city of Nazareth did not exist at the time cited for the life of "Jesus."
So your proof is moot.

Lies. Here is non-biblical proof from men who were Romans, or pagans from other religions.

www.gotquestions.org...

Next time do a little research you deceitful little devil. Your lies have found you out.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["Christianities? multiple? I assume that you mean different denominations?
Yes we do seem to be a schizophrenic lot, not all of them can be correct in their interpretation of the scriptures. Does that make me elitist because I am non-denominational?"]

I'm ofcourse not referring to general inter-christian interpretation dissensions in an 'elitist' context, but to whatever actual ideological content presented and to the attitudes it's presented with.

Quote: ["Why do you instantly equate 'scum of the earth' with 'martyrdom'?"]

I didn't.

Quote: [" You say that I repeat myself with the implication that you don't? I think this is a bit rich coming from you Bogomil."]

As you may know, I'm not much of a 'missionary' except for egalitarian principles. I mainly respond to the claims of others, and as these claims are repetitive, my responses will be similarly repetitive. At each level of a debate (from a philosophical perspective to simplistic pragmatism) there is only a limited amount of responding options.

Quote: ["You would not be the first to reject him on the grounds that you find his teachings unsuitable and you will not be the last."]

I'm not rejecting Jesus on general principles. I'm rejecting YOUR interpretation methodology, I'm rejecting the ideological basis you seemingly operate from and I'm rejecting the 'silence' around the historically development of some branches of the christianities, which silence imo is manipulative social, epistemological and doctrinal engineering.

Your Jesus 'profile' (identity) is one amongst several options, and whether you preach it or try to support it rationally, you are bound to meet (sometimes intense) opposition.

edit on 23-8-2011 by bogomil because: clarification

Thank you for the clarification.

reply to post by iamhobo


That's the Nag Hammadi library you're thinking of. The Dead Sea scrolls were a collection of Biblical texts and texts unique to a peculiar Jewish seperatist sect around the time of the second temple. Gnostic books are simply confusing garbage and were thrown away for a reason. If you honestly think that Gnosticism is a purer form of Christianity, then read Irenaeus' Against Heresies and read about their cosmology. It's so convoluted, insane, and GREEK (not Jewish) your head will explode.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by iamhobo

 

That's the Nag Hammadi library you're thinking of. The Dead Sea scrolls were a collection of Biblical texts and texts unique to a peculiar Jewish seperatist sect around the time of the second temple. Gnostic books are simply confusing garbage and were thrown away for a reason. If you honestly think that Gnosticism is a purer form of Christianity, then read Irenaeus' Against Heresies and read about their cosmology. It's so convoluted, insane, and GREEK (not Jewish) your head will explode.

If you're speaking of christian-gnosticism, I would agree with you. But gnosticism as an autonomous religion is another matter, where even a gnostic Jesus is a legitimate option (as different from the pauline Jesus character).

After having read this thread I am going to have to vote for the side that says that Jesus never even existed. Having used the evidence presented as my guide it is very clear to me that Jesus was never actually a real person but rather a mythical made up fictional character. Just like Zeus, and Horus, and Io and Ra and every other made up fictional religous character and diety.

Sorry but jesus is the weakest link, jesus you are FIRED!

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
After having read this thread I am going to have to vote for the side that says that Jesus never even existed. Having used the evidence presented as my guide it is very clear to me that Jesus was never actually a real person but rather a mythical made up fictional character. Just like Zeus, and Horus, and Io and Ra and every other made up fictional religous character and diety.

Sorry but jesus is the weakest link, jesus you are FIRED!

My heart goes out to you and I will pray for you.

reply to post by XplanetX


Thanks. My brain goes out to you and I will think for you.

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by XplanetX

 

Thanks. My brain goes out to you and I will think for you.

I can think for myself and pray for you at the same time, it's a miracle.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by XplanetX

 

Thanks. My brain goes out to you and I will think for you.

I can think for myself and pray for you at the same time, it's a miracle.

Have you considered, that IF your mythological manual is somehow right, and that the JC character as you interpretate him to be also is somewhat correct, then you are actually being quite invasive by praying on the behalf of people, who haven't asked for it (if it's all bosh, there's nothing to worry about, but at least you are believing it).

How would you react to offers of having voodoo rituals performed on you, as a way of settling dissension? Remembering that such sometimes appears to function.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by XplanetX

 

Thanks. My brain goes out to you and I will think for you.

I can think for myself and pray for you at the same time, it's a miracle.

Have you considered, that IF your mythological manual is somehow right, and that the JC character as you interpretate him to be also is somewhat correct, then you are actually being quite invasive by praying on the behalf of people, who haven't asked for it (if it's all bosh, there's nothing to worry about, but at least you are believing it).

How would you react to offers of having voodoo rituals performed on you, as a way of settling dissension? Remembering that such sometimes appears to function.

edit on 23-8-2011 by bogomil because: spelling

Do I sense a tinge of belief of JC in your post Bogomil?

If he does not exist, then there is no harm.

If he does exist, then I am praying to Jesus to save a lost soul. Once again, no harm done.