A Very Simple JESUS question.

The spirit of Jesus is bigger than any man. That is all I am going to say. carry on.

Being that it is too clear mankind doesn't understand spiritual things. This statement holds no meaning coming out of the finger tips of a man.

That's all you're going to say, because you don't know what your talking about. It's easy.

I'm not "attacking" you here. Just trying to cause some "thinking" that is often frounded upon in christian churches.

Stop calling the Savior a derivative of ZEUS. Its disgusting. Get it through your head, there were NO J's or U's when Christ walked this Earth.

Yashayah = Savior

As for your Q op, the Idumean Romans wouldnt have murdered him if he was just a regular laymen. Christ was a threat.

another pointless human perspective. What's his name now? What's in a name?

and actually you're very wrong. There was a J and U when christ walked the earth. What you're working at is there is no J in the hebrew language. Or so it is said.

I'm going to have to disgree with you there. It is actually recorded fact that the Romans were Crusifixion happy back in those days. Jesus was not the first nor last would be revelatiory spiritual teacher to be hung upon the cross.

if Jesus was ever real, his father is a bit of a cunt for allowing lowly Man murder him.

He 'died for our sins'. I just dont get that at all. Better to have struck Pontious Pilot down right?

its all just an allegory to chart the solar year. stories stand the tests of time much better than facts, figures and mathematics.

Dude believe what you want. You think the Creator or his son are crying because some gentile doesnt believe in them? I highly doubt it.

Peace.

Ah, you're one of those. I find it funny that people who don't want to believe in something spend their time trolling it.

It isn't "doesn't believe". The issue at hand is unable to process within the context of their own understandings from a perspective of man.

What if?

Are you like 5?

Is that your idea of a logically contrabuition?

This is a question about epistemology. We can "what if" about every single historical event as long as we have no criteria by which we judge any of it.

So the real question is, Does enough historical data support the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the NT?

And after nearly two thousand years of intense scrutiny, the likes of which have not been applied to any other ancient document, the NT still stands as the best-attested ancient document in the world. People seem to think that the Bible can't stand as a historical record just because it's the Bible, but I defy anyone to name a historian who wasn't biased in some way, hence the saying, "History is written by the victors". So nobody can dismiss the Bible as history; in fact, esp. in the case of the physician Luke, it is considered very well done for the era.

Given what the NT says about him, and including extra-biblical sources that mention him or his earliest followers, it is as established as any other historical fact that what the Bible says about Jesus is in all likelihood accurate.

I believe Jesus was a real title given to the spirit of prophecy from heaven. The son of God.At some point he was to come in the flesh to earth as a messiah.

Whether paul was confused when he heard jesus tell him from Heaven or not , when he said " that is who you say I am referring "Christ" ". Jesus could have been referring to the Church that was built by the man title of "Christ".

This also makes sense when he speaks about many coming in his name saying they are " Christ"

The church deems it cool to refer to Any Beast of the Book as Anti Christ or religion.

Now with my ideas if i read revelations i see the church's as the evil beast of Anti messiah " The false religions and prophets" They wanted it so bad they built something because they couldnt wait for jesus , or they didn't believe in the first place. I could blame it like that , but yet i know they needed something , because they was all going to die before the time. They might have wanted to carry on their beliefs somehow. but every religion had fault in Gods eyes. Even the jewish one.

Last Edited by <x> on 09/09/2012 08:40 AM

You do a lot of assuming. And you do a lot of baiting with false statements. For a man to prove that Christ walked this earth he must cite from nearly 100 secular and religious authors of that day. For a man to prove that Christ was in fact a diety and possessed life changing power...he must point to the culutural, behavioral and spiritual changes wrought in a generation as well as the supernatural events Christ performed. For a man to prove Christ ws raised from the dead he must point to over 500 eye witnesses that testified to His ressurection. However...for a man to deny Christ and mock others who believe in Him...he must do nothing but deny the calling in his heart by the One and Only true God, the Savior, Messiah. Because, in reality, as every true Christian can tell you...that calling is the most powerful testament to the existence of Christ. Selah

You may think you know everything you need to know about the historical figure "Jesus Christ", but every cherished belief you have about him is false. Jesus Christ is a fake and a fraud. For a start, his name wasn't Jesus Christ but Yehoshua ben Yosef ("Joshua son of Joseph"). And, just as his name is a fiction designed to disguise the truth, so is everything else about him.


1) The central promise of Christianity - the resurrection of the dead - is utterly wrong. As we shall show, the Christian Gospels demonstrate conclusively that Jesus Christ was reincarnated, not resurrected.
2) Jesus Christ was the central figure in one of the most audacious plots in history.
3) He was head of an Elite Family that wished to rule the world. The Family exists to this day, and their conspiracy is unchanged.
4) Jesus Christ was the leader of an army that sought to overthrow Roman rule in Judea. He was executed as a violent revolutionary attempting to set himself up as a king.
5) Judas, the infamous traitor, was the brother of Jesus Christ.

The greatest lie and fraud in history has endured too long.

It's a simple fact that most Christians know next to nothing about Christianity. How many people are aware of the many heresies that were stamped out by the early Church? Had any of these heresies triumphed, the world would be a very different, and much saner place.

the monstrous St Augustine and his doctrines of grace, Original Sin, Predestination and the Total Depravity of the human race. This "saint" was happy to send to hell unbaptised babies that died in infancy. His great enemy was the humane and rational Celtic monk Pelagius. The great tragedy of Christianity is that it listened to Augustine rather than Pelagius, and it did so for the oldest of reasons - because Augustine offered the officials of the Church much more personal power.

Are the 12 Steps of Alcoholics' Anonymous tantamount to cult indoctrination? Were Freud and Augustine both obsessed with their parents? What is "Hieros Gamos"? Should it be a regular feature of the modern world?

Were many people in the ancient world known as the "Son of God"? Are the Christian concepts of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of God in man the most logically incoherent doctrines ever devised?

Who was the heretic Nestorious and why was he so significant? Why is reincarnation much more logical than resurrection? Why is it that so few Christians understand the concept of resurrection?

Should the story of the Garden of Eden be completely reinterpreted for the contemporary world? What is the difference between consciousness and bicameralism? Are jewish people, Christians and Muslims actually bicameral i.e. belonging to an earlier and more stupid stage of human evolution?

Were the jewish people advocates of temple prostitution, even within the confines of Solomon's holy temple to Yahweh?

Can the tales of Abraham, Jephtha and the Garden of Eden prove conclusively that the jewish people, Christians and Muslims worship the Devil?

Did the sacred Jewish Covenant with Yahweh result in all jewish people going to hell according to the Christian doctrine of Original Sin? Is everyone mentioned in the Old Testament even now in hell?

Anyone well-versed in the study of Judaism, Christianity and Islam cannot fail to conclude that the God of these religions must be considered to be identical with Satan i.e. Abrahamists are under the power of the Devil, hence why they have committed so many evil acts throughout history.


The absurdities of Christianity can be understood only by examining the many heresies that sprang up in the early centuries of the Church, challenging every aspect of orthodox Christian thinking. These heresies have boxed in Christianity so much that all that's left is a statement of what Christianity ISN'T rather than what it is. Any Christian theologian who attempts to meaningfully explain the Trinity and Incarnation instantly succumbs to one heresy or another. It's only possible to be a Trinitarian Christian by stating the formula "three persons in one God" over and over again, without daring to specify what, exactly, "person" means. The mantra is devoid of meaning and any attempt to assign meaning slips into heresy. Similarly, Christians mouth the hollow formula of the Incarnation: "two natures, human and divine, in one person" without having any idea of what "nature" means. Is nature consciousness, personality, will, intelligence? Does Christ have a human soul, a divine soul or both? Is he a God-man mutant, a hybrid? In what way can he be said to have any genuine connection with humanity at all? How does the Incarnation fit with the Trinity?

Is the human nature of Jesus Christ now part of the Trinity? If not, where did it go? Was Jesus Christ simply a super-angel? If he was "begotten" of God then he can't BE God since there must have been a time before he was begat when he didn't exist. A non-existent God is an impossibility therefore the Son of God can't be God. This is the basis of the famous Arian heresy, which came perilously close to becoming Christian orthodoxy.

Who is Jesus Christ's father? Shouldn't it be God the Son since God the Son and Jesus Christ (the Son of God) are supposedly one and the same being? Yet the "infallible" scriptures clearly identify the Holy Spirit, not God the Son, as Jesus' father. He has the WRONG father. Christianity should, logically, be all about the HOLY SPIRIT since he provides Jesus' divine element. Christianity couldn't even rationally work out who Jesus' father must be for it to make sense.

Theologically, Christianity is comical. The myriad errors are simply ignored. No Christian cares about the truth content of what they believe. Christians have no relationship whatever with the truth.

Ponder the science of divine conception. How does the process work scientifically? Could you write 1,000 words on the subject? If you can't, of what value is your Christian faith?

Other topics included in this book are 1) the three-stage degeneration of the rich 2) do truth genes exist? 3) the mysteries of Jewish toilet paper 4) do Muslims believe in a flat earth and semi-circular planetary orbits (and planets that are "hiding", waiting to be activated by the Will of Allah, when they are out of sight?) 5) do Muslims believe in seven flat earths in a stack beneath seven heavens? 6) is the Church of England on the verge of extinction? 7) the trials, tribulations and treachery of "The Movement".

I'm one of 'me' actually and hey, you're the one asking the questions lol.

Discussing a fiction is fun...but pointless.

'He died for our sins' is one of the most misunderstood conceptions in Christian history. It's been used by the church PTB to guilt trip hundreds of generations of believers and keep people in line.

'For' is used in the same sense as 'because of'. It's the archaic usage. (see 'por' in Spanish).

Literally, the man and/or God Jesus died because of our sins.

Christians are past that point of doubt. We have seen more than enough evidence to authentify the message of the gospels.

People who are in doubt didn't look into those things to analyse. If they did, they would understand.

Fine, I will take the bait.

How do you know I do not understand spiritual things? Because I claim the name of christ? This is more telling of your own predispositions than any percieved "ability" or lack thereof that you have towards me.

I could give you 2 pages on what I know about Christ and what he has done for me/ showed me about spiritual side of life. My "spiritual growth" began WAY before I truly accepted the Christ figure as seen in the bible so before you go grouping me maybe you should think about this because I, like you, was trying to cause others to think.

Appart from my belief in christ, I bet me and you would have similar beliefs on the world. But since you have made up your mind already this is pointless. I too am not "attacking" you just don't be so quick to jude mate. For starters I have not been to church in over a year because of the lack of thought that runs rapant among the pharisees of this age.

Last Edited by Stanfiem on 09/09/2012 09:37 AM

You are very perceptive.....

I prefer the pronunciation "Yahushua" btw.
Now I offer you this. Find a Gideon Bible, should be easy enough. Now look and see if it has all of Yahushua's quotes
in red. If it doesn't , find one that does.
If you Isolate and read all of the red parts of a red letter version of the bible you will see a different savior that is generally being pawned by the establishment.

But surely a loving God and the gentleman in question's father should have intervened to prevent this?

Why does our miscreant behaviour supercede the son of the most powerful thing in existence?

I suspect that Jesus was far from the meek and mild wimp that's portrayed by the church with all their romantic pictures of some white matinee idol and tales of Mr Nice Guy.

Think about it....

- it takes an enormous amount of determination and macho to travel around speaking to crowds of people about new ideas

- read the new testament and really look at what Jesus said and did...skip the Mr Nice Guy stuff, look at his wish to give all child abusers concrete necklaces and drown them. Or what about when he tells his mom to get lost? Or tells his followers to turn their backs on ignorant assholes who clam the door in their faces?

- He could have run away from the Roman soldiers and the Elders and hidden in a cave to escape the crucifixion (mid easterners do it to this day! It's not diffcult!) Instead, he toughed it out - calmly used himself as the world's first known suicide-by-law enforcement to show how corrupt his society and religion was.

My favourite picture of Jesus is his storming into the Temple and smashing all the money lenders up. That took mucho cojones.

Remember those few instances where a gospel writer says Jesus said something in Aramaic and then gives the meaning in Greek? Unless you want to believe Jesus only spoke Aramaic on those instances, it should be obvious that practically none of Jesus' actual words are recorded; the vast majority is Greek translation. So a true and accurate red-letter Bible would only have a tiny number of red words.

The gospel writers were Hebrew thinkers recording Aramaic speech in Greek. Consider all the potential there for misunderstanding on our part, so far in the future and speaking a completely different language. This is not to say that what is recorded in the Greek text is inaccurate, but that people more than a few centuries after the originals are bound to misinterpret things.

That said, the burden of proof is on you to show that the Jesus of the gospels is not the Jesus "generally being pawned by the establishment", whatever that means. Need to define your terms before throwing them around.

I don't know...but I can imagine the counter argument is something along the lines of, 'Yes, but Jesus WAS God - he chose to give himself to show the corruption of his society and religion - plus he knew he would survive...'

Of course, he could just have been a psychotic suicidal nutter - but the evidence of the new testament shows him to be a calm, rational, extremely intelligent man.

Similarly, I don't have my own answer for why our bad behaviour trumps Jesus's or God's power. But the argument is that we're all flawed by petty, mundane desires and have free will whether to indulge ourselves or whether to use self-control and refrain from indulging ourselves....

YOU TOLD THEM! NICE

Okay so drop the names and consider the he is called "that dude"

He is obviously then:

- "that dude" whos life is the pivot for today, as people are moved by him

- "that dude" who stood up to the shecklemongers and lawyers of his day, whose stupidity was about to bring the Roman axe down onto their dumb heads.

- "that dude" who didn't pry into people's lives, didn't discuss penis-cutting or female priests like Paul and others who surfed on "that dude"'s mojo.

- "that dude" who was said to be a King who returned and threw the moneychangers out of the worship-house, thereby allowing people to save their sacrifice-monies and use them to feed the kids instead.

- "that dude" who respresents such a great rebel to the Shecklites, that they wrote the talmud to defy him, and also to record him within it (with different names), even as they promote Jesus' Army aka Jesuits aka Loyola's materialistic jerks who use the name Jesus to do evil.

- "that dude" who's return in yhuman form is also mentioned all over the Ishmaelite's book as well (aka Ishmaelism/Mohammedsim), and who is expected to become their leader, thereby uniting tribes of Ishmael and Isaac after 3000 years of division between the sons of Abraham, thereby ending the fued of the Pharaonic houses of the 18th Dynasty, the last dynasty of Egypt.

Maybe it's our species inherent (and ever-increasing) concept of anthro-superiority? I just can't believe that The Wormfarm had the power to kill the Son of God. Infinite creativity, wondrous celestial mechanics, biological superdesigns in every single thing you can find on the planet yet you permit the murder of your own just to VAGUELY prove a point that didnt stick?

lol

What do you mean "if" he was real? As you suggest, he is real but NOTHING like the fundies claim.


“Jesus was the son of a certain Julius whose surname was Pantera.” St Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (315-403)

[link to robinhl.com]

Origen supports the Jewish records and confirms that the paramour (lillicit partner of a married person) of the mother of Jesus was a Roman soldier called Panthera, a name he repeats in verse 1:69. Some time during the 17th century, those sentences were erased from the oldest Vatican manuscripts and other codices under Church control. This is an extraordinary declaration, simply recorded in ancient records as accepted Church history. The ben Panthera legend was so widespread that two early stalwarts of the Christian Church inserted the name in the genealogies of Jesus and Mary as a matter of fact.

Enlarging on that statement, this passage from the Talmud:
Rabbi Shiemon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written that Such-an-one [Jesus] is the bastard son of an adulteress.15

"Such-an-one" was one of the well-known substitutes for Jesus in the Talmud.

The story of Mary’s pregnancy by a Roman soldier also appears in the sacred book of the Moslems, the Koran. It states that "a full-grown man" forced his attentions on Mary, and in her fear of the disgrace that would follow she left the area and bore Jesus in secret. This story was supported in the Gospel of Luke, with the description of the departure of Joseph and Mary from their home prior to the birth. Rape was a common event in Palestine during the Roman occupation, and soldiers were notorious for their treatment of young women. It would be unthinkable for Mary to admit such an event had occurred, for under the Law of Moses a betrothed virgin who had sex with any man during the period of her betrothal was to be stoned to death by the men of the city (Deut. 22:21). Simply put, Mary faced the death penalty unless she could prove her innocence.16

[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]