Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Have you not read my posts to you? IF in fact he has had many lives then yeah... he wrote some of the books in the Bible and he also is mentioned by other names in the books of the Bible as well as outside the Bible.

Seek and you will find.

Logarock

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Logarock

 

Wow! Says the guy who believes snakes and bushes talk and people can be dead for 3 days and rise from the dead. Who's living in la la land again?

I don't understand the hostility here. Are you really that insecure with your beliefs that you have to justify it with insults? Wake up mister dreamer.

Its ok dude really. I know you are not accustomed to taking it....only dishing it out. Just your average playground bully stuff.

WOW says they dorks that flunked chemistry talking about drug induced hallucinations as if they were experts....and s*it.

Your hostility screams insecurity. Instead of insults, put a case forward that logically supports your beliefs instead of calling people names. You're not acting very Christ-like right now. Pathetic really.

vethumanbeing
Logarock
MamaJ
reply to post by wildtimes

 

wildtimesThe fact is he never said he was God. Why would he call himself father? He wouldn't. He even speaks of before Abraham I am. This in my mind is because he was... wait for it..... Melchizedek. lol

LogarockIn fact he did say he was God.

He must have mis-spoke probably dehydrated therefor delusional. Where do you see this missive (you realize he is not responsible for biblical texts written 70 years after his 'reserrection' by others Luke and Paul specifically).

That's within 70 years. Most of the NT was written within 20 years.

reply to post by Logarock


Mark wasn't written until the mid-60's, that's over 30 years after Jesus died, not 20. That leaves a lot of room for embellishment.

reply to post by Logarock

Your game here is only good on the easily offended and intimidated....

Obviously it's working on you seeing as how you keep insulting me for no apparent reason. Can you really not handle someone having different views than you? You're acting like the anti-Christ right now. Grow up and learn how to be tolerant you crybaby.

reply to post by Logarock


Seriously? lol

MamaJ
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

[iMamaJ Yeah, he had many incarnations. I believe he was within the Essene community and he married. His incarnations are easy to figure out to... really not hard to see at all. When you read up on all his lives you see how he evolved throughout time. We do the same thing. WE EVOLVE.. it's natural.

My point was even if he were an Enki/Enlil personality in the past; why neglect the future. I see this as various ideaforms embodied in TIME based sticky matter is all.

MamaJFor starters, start with reading all you can about Adam, then Enoch, Melchizedek, Zen, Hermes, Joshua and Jeshua and tell me how he evolved and his relationship with others and God. It's easier to understand Job ( Melchizedek wrote Job).

I am familiar with the gnostic texts my personal favorite is the book of Thomas and Thomas the contender. I personally question the reason for frightenning the human with the book of "Job", as there is no positive there; where is my straight razor and the nearest bathtub bleedout drain. Do you understand the school of Bethany or its relationship to the "Jobs Daughters". I dont doubt Job was written by a Melchizedek I question its thought that we are children with no thoughts/minds of our own. It reads like a Grimms Fairy Tail. Nothing gains of negativity (force) there is no ladder (specific as a metaphor) to accend to. Satan knows this and will cause its own inevitable demise (the parasite kills the host system NOT).

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Logarock

 

Your game here is only good on the easily offended and intimidated....

Obviously it's working on you seeing as how you keep insulting me for no apparent reason. Can you really not handle someone having different views than you? You're acting like the anti-Christ right now. Grow up and learn how to be tolerant you crybaby.

What views? Who states anything in here like its a view or opinion? Maybe 10% of witch category you don't fit.

Nope, just the walking dead spewing out death speech.

reply to post by vethumanbeing



The Gnostics were simply a bunch of babbling mystics, manufactures of forgery and plagiarizers of the concoctive sort. They generally only appeal to the truth because of suppression mental religious conspiracy disorder types. Its really the only sort of proof to reality they have which is all the sort needs really.

MamaJ
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

MamaJHave you not read my posts to you? IF in fact he has had many lives then yeah... he wrote some of the books in the Bible and he also is mentioned by other names in the books of the Bible as well as outside the Bible.
Seek and you will find.

He did? which ones I would imagine maybe Psalms. Of course I read your posts. Now then who exactly are we speaking about here? Jesus was a onetime phenomenom INSERT; an ideaform construct of 9D capacity (meaning could change matter, had the capacity to give gnostic principles to the masses using magikal techniques). This was a one time being; never before and never after has existed.

Logarock
vethumanbeing
Logarock
MamaJ
reply to post by wildtimes

LogarockIn fact he did say he was God.

veteranhumanbeingHe must have mis-spoke probably dehydrated therefor delusional. Where do you see this missive (you realize he is not responsible for biblical texts written 70 years after his 'reserrection' by others Luke and Paul specifically).

LogarockThat's within 70 years. Most of the NT was written within 20 years.

No this is just not true (according to biblical accounts of when the books were written). What bible do you have that states such things assuming you are reading from such texts, unless one of them justifiably said Jesus was born in Augustus Tiberius times and Herod Antipas the great was just an infant in arms (40 BC).

Logarock
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

LogarockThe Gnostics were simply a bunch of babbling mystics, manufactures of forgery and plagiarizers of the concoctive sort. They generally only appeal to the truth because of suppression mental religious conspiracy disorder types. Its really the only sort of proof to reality they have which is all the sort needs really.

Not were; ARE STILL existing. They (I) dont appeal to anything or have to question as they are in posession of the truth of this world and how its set up; its manufacture and its manipulation of (by others) Jerry Springer comes to mind. Religious fervour is always a mainstay to the dedication of a human minds default/refresh key (as in its a MAJOR DISTRACTIVE FORCE). The fact poverty exists is a question one thinks about. I wouldnt call Gnostics babbling exactly only because the babbling is not heard, no one cares about the real truth of this paradigm that you live within. ITS ALL FAKERY (none of this is real) its a virtual world created for your ego to desemenate/misunderstand and FAIL in this *your* current lifes persuits.

Heads up

Going to be blunt, because it seems that this crazy stupid war that goes on in the religious forums has got out of hand.

Knock off the petty bickering and personal insults and discuss the topic.

Next person who goes out of line following this post who can't control themselves and breaks the T&C gets a 72 hour post ban.

The person after that gets a week.

The person after that may not be coming back.

I hope thats clear.

Enough is enough.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
“I am familiar with the gnostic texts my personal favorite is the book of Thomas and Thomas the contender.”

Hey, My fav too (Gospel of Thomas) and my second place fav, would go to the “Gospel of Truth”…

vethumanbeing
Got to qualify; only if Machiventa Melchizedek was originally of the Essene tradition had to be if Jesus was a reincarnation of (Gnostic).

If Jesus was a 'templated' fully formed 9 dimensional being that popped into existance (you wouldnt believe from where and why).

I was following your discussion with MamaJ regarding Melchizedek, and him potentially being a reincarnation of Jesus.

Just wondering what you make of the Gnostic text “Melchizedek”?, because in my reply to MamaJ, on my “Melchizedek Seal thread”, I stated that the text did appear, to hint towards this idea, that Melchizedek was somehow Jesus.

According to those ancient accounts of Melchizedek, he just kind of appears as a fully grown, 3 year old kid.

And in regards to this 9 dimensional being, aspect of Jesus, it’s curious how there are many accounts, in the Gnostic texts, of Jesus not being completely physical in body.

It’s almost as if he had the ability to go in and out, of his physical and spiritual body. The accounts are similar to Jesus resurrection stories in the NT, where Jesus has the apparent ability to walk through walls etc… except these Gnostic accounts, are stories, which talk about events in Jesus life, that preceded the resurrection story.

There’s also the “Gospel of Judas” accounts, where one minute Jesus is said to appear as a child etc…although maybe in this latter case, it’s not meant to be taken literally and is a coded metaphor, for something else.

- JC

vethumanbeing
MamaJ
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

 

MamaJHave you not read my posts to you? IF in fact he has had many lives then yeah... he wrote some of the books in the Bible and he also is mentioned by other names in the books of the Bible as well as outside the Bible.
Seek and you will find.

He did? which ones I would imagine maybe Psalms. Of course I read your posts. Now then who exactly are we speaking about here? Jesus was a onetime phenomenom INSERT; an ideaform construct of 9D capacity (meaning could change matter, had the capacity to give gnostic principles to the masses using magikal techniques). This was a one time being; never before and never after has existed.

edit on 11-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

To some extent i agree actually they were into some weird stuff strange enough to have to move out in to the middle of no where to avoid people.A lot of there stuff was mysticism practiced by temple priests early on.

reply to post by MamaJ


If you think that written records of Jesus is hard to find try to find written records of your ancestors . Paper records were not a secure way of keeping records unlike stone and copper plates . People burning courthouses to expunge court records and deeds with all of the records would make it impossible let alone decay and natural fires .
Trying to go back 2000 years and find anyone is impossible . Names recycle and history changes with the new author re -writing history a little at a time .

reply to post by SimonPeter

Paper records were not a secure way of keeping records unlike stone and copper plates

Which is exactly why something as influential as the bible, which was recorded on paper, can't be trusted.

Christian apologist Douglas Geivett’s claim that the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection meets “the highest standards of historical inquiry,” and is as certain as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.E. Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception.

Lets point out the problems with Geivett's claims. First of all, we have Caesar’s own account. In contrast, we have nothing written by Jesus, and we do not know who really wrote any of the Gospels. Second, many of Caesar’s enemies reported the crossing of the Rubicon. But we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the supposed event, fifty years after Christian beliefs had become widely known. Third, there are numerous inscriptions, coins, mentions of battles, conscriptions and judgments, which form an almost continuous chain of evidence for Caesar’s entire march. But there is no physical evidence of any kind in the case of Jesus.

Fourth, almost every historian of the period reports the Rubicon crossing, including the most prominent of the Roman age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio and Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have shown proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed with material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they consistently show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn’t enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

But not a single historian mentions the resurrection until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only Christian historians. Of the anonymous Gospel authors, only “Luke” even claims to be writing history, but neither Luke nor any of the others ever cite any other sources or show signs of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims. None have any other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy. Their actual identities are completely unknown, and all overtly declare their bias towards persuading new converts.

Finally, the Roman Civil War could not have proceeded as it did if Caesar had not physically crossed the Rubicon with his army into Italy and captured Rome. Yet the only thing necessary to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief, a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. So, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.While we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of them are lacking in the case of the resurrection.

In fact, when you compare all five points, you see that in four of the five proofs of an event’s historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it's not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence, a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. So, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes.

So even before we begin to examine Jesus’ resurrection, we are forced to recognize that the historical evidence for it, and all the other extraordinary events of Jesus’ career, is not only far from ironclad, but already suspect. So there is nothing unreasonable about taking a skeptical approach to the Gospels’ image of Jesus in the first place. And it’s important to note that we are not just talking about the divine man-god Jesus coming under fire, because it is not just the supernatural aspects of Jesus that have come under suspicion. Even the mundane and perfectly plausible-sounding aspects of Jesus’ life have proved to be problematic…