Jesus Is Never Coming Back !

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, I'm not challenging you, but sincerely asking you... Is there evidence that there was a movement against a sect we call Christians and that they were killed and all their literature and any documentation found would be distroyed? Would anyone blatantly found to be fostering his highly regarded reputation be killed too? Is there evidence that Saul/Paul was known for this?

I think there are secular documents about the persecution. I'm not sure if there's any that can prove that Saul was one of them.

[Ouroboros]

Having said this, I will say again -- my proposition is that I don't know if Jesus existed or did not exist, unlike the vast majority of those posting here. As someone with a lack of knowledge either way, I am curious to understand where it is that the absoluteness of those professing it comes from.

And I agree. I don't know if Jesus existed or not, but I do think the circumstantial evidence points more to a highly embellished or totally fictitious character. Since none of the teachings Jesus supposedly said even was unique or new, the stories could be just a conglomerate of "good teachings" put into a story. Put it this way, the evidence for a historical Jesus is circumstantial, and the evidence against is too. So yes, it's a matter of which side you decide to stand on, or take by faith. And there are other characters in history that we believe to have existed with less evidence, with the only exception that no one claims today the other characters to be of divine nature. So the proof that a historical Jesus - as the son of god and doing miracles - is up in the air for the Christian to prove, but if another person with another name and a normal human being, existed, it really doesn't matter.

[Lucas Foxx]

Put it this way, the evidence for a historical Jesus is circumstantial, and the evidence against is too. So yes, it's a matter of which side you decide to stand on, or take by faith.

 

I have personally made a decision to never stand on any side by faith. I see no reason to. Hopefully I have not caused offense of any kind with those who see it differently. My opinion is no more noble than anyone else's. I was simply curious why so many were making these statements of "faith" when it seems contradictory to everything they stand for. HanSolo, I think you and I agree. Thank you for your intercourse on the subject. I understand your point much better.

[Mythra]

If I have overlooked some marvelous discovery proving the non existence of Jesus, I would certainly appreciate being brought up to speed.

 

Nope. Don't have proof. Just very convincing evidence to the best reasonable explanation.

 

If you're wanting a homework assignment, try this.

 

Caution: pack a lunch.

[Lucas Foxx]

If you're wanting a homework assignment, try this.

 

Caution: pack a lunch.

 

Thanks for that link Mythra. I have never been to this website that I can remember -- looks like a pretty cool place to browse around. Thanks again.

[Mythra]

Thanks for that link Mythra. I have never been to this website that I can remember -- looks like a pretty cool place to browse around. Thanks again.

 

Sure thing. I just didn't want you to think that the myth position was nothing more than a groundless assertion whose sole aim was to allow it's adherents to avoid attending sunday school. :wink:

 

If you've never read The Jesus Puzzle, by Early Doherty - it's probably the leading modern Jesus myth book that presents a reasoned argument.

[Lucas Foxx]

Sure thing. I just didn't want you to think that the myth position was nothing more than a groundless assertion whose sole aim was to allow it's adherents to avoid attending sunday school.

 

Ahhh very good -- I see you are a comic, as attested by the statement above as well as your avatar. I have laughed myself batshit crazy over that avatar since coming on here yesterday! I do not believe anyone needs a spectacular reason for skipping Sunday School. Wasn't it about the most boring thing you were ever forced to do in your life -- with the exception of "Health" class in the 6th grade.

[R. S. Martin]

Lucas, I do not understand anyone on this thread to be saying they know for sure that Jesus did not exist. It seems to be the general assumption by members here that Jesus did not exist. This may be especially so since we have had several lengthy and indepth discussions on the topic this past half year or so. In my opinion, whether or not Jesus existed is important because if we can prove that Jesus did not exist, then we can assume that the story about the rich man in hell, i.e. evidence for hell, is bogus. It seems we can't prove it.

 

There are several threads on this site in General Theological Issues that address various aspects of the question. Here are the ones I know about, in no particular order:

 

Did Jesus Exist? If So, Who Was He?, A Poll on the "Who Was He, If Anyone?" Regarding Jesus

 

Question On Tacitus Quote

 

Did Jesus Exist?, What is the non-religious historical evidence?

[Lucas Foxx]

There are several threads on this site in General Theological Issues that address various aspects of the question. Here are the ones I know about, in no particular order:

 

Did Jesus Exist? If So, Who Was He?, A Poll on the "Who Was He, If Anyone?" Regarding Jesus

 

Question On Tacitus Quote

 

Did Jesus Exist?, What is the non-religious historical evidence?

 

Thank you for the information. It is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. You guys are great at answering questions. That's a nice change from the ordinary for sure.

[white_raven23]

The only proof christians have for the existence of Jesus is in certain books in the bible. Period. And as Open-Minded points out, you cannot look at the jesus stories and definitevely class them as myth or history. The only way you can class anything in the bible as historically accurate or valid is by sources outside it.

 

The problem with that statement is that it doesn't take into account the great pains scholars go through in literary analysis of ALL Ancient civilizations. I'm NOT bringing this up as Christian - I'm bringing this up as an avid student of Ancient History. Literary analysis is extremely important in the study of ALL ancient civilizations where there are written, extant findings. I just can't emphasis this enough - we would know or understand very little of ancient history if we didn't have a systamatic approach to literary analysis and the reconstruction of original oral traditions.

 

 

I think you'd like my library. I'm a big fan of ancient history myself.

[qadeshet]

How can Jesus come again when he was never here in the first place? However, since Jesus is simply a retelling of the ancient Myth of the dying and resurrecting Sun god, he is actually re-born every year at the winter solstice. Even Thomas Paine knew that Jesus is simply a personification of the Sun.

[Open_Minded]

The only proof christians have for the existence of Jesus is in certain books in the bible. Period. And as Open-Minded points out, you cannot look at the jesus stories and definitevely class them as myth or history. The only way you can class anything in the bible as historically accurate or valid is by sources outside it.

<snip>Literary analysis is extremely important in the study of ALL ancient civilizations where there are written, extant findings. I just can't emphasis this enough - we would know or understand very little of ancient history if we didn't have a systamatic approach to literary analysis and the reconstruction of original oral traditions.

I think you'd like my library. I'm a big fan of ancient history myself.

Whew ... I was hoping (and trusting) you'd understand.

[Lucas Foxx]

he was never here in the first place?

 

You seem certain of your statement. May I ask if you take that on pure faith?

 

Of course this is repetition of what we have being talking about, but since you have made the claim, I thought I would ask you personally.

[qadeshet]

he was never here in the first place?

 

You seem certain of your statement. May I ask if you take that on pure faith?

 

Of course this is repetition of what we have being talking about, but since you have made the claim, I thought I would ask you personally.

 

I have been researching this question for tha past 30 years. I am as certain as I can be that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed. I really don't care if there was a first century preacher that was executed and later became deified by his followers. There is just as much proof for the existence of Santa or the Easter Bunny as there is for Jesus. As soon as Christians prove the existence of Jesus, they can begin proving that he was a god. I wish them a lot of luck.

[Lucas Foxx]

I have been researching this question for tha past 30 years. I am as certain as I can be that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed. I really don't care if there was a first century preacher that was executed and later became deified by his followers. There is just as much proof for the existence of Santa or the Easter Bunny as there is for Jesus. As soon as Christians prove the existence of Jesus, they can begin proving that he was a god. I wish them a lot of luck.

 

Good point Gadeshet -- well stated. Thank you.

[Vigile]

I don't see any of this as problematic. It seems rather simple to me, and suspect it does to all those in exercising logic and reason. The phenomenon I do witness here are people make very bold claims within this thread for which they cannot offer supportive evidence, which would lead me to either disbelief what is being said, or to accept it on the word of those making the claim. The later option would require faith -- faith in the word of the claimant -- of which I am not in possession.

 

I missed the bold claim. Can you highlight it? Bold claims without evidence tend to get shot down pretty quickly on this board, whether or not they are made by someone we may agree with in general.

[Lucas Foxx]

I missed the bold claim. Can you highlight it?

 

Sure, below is a bold claim highlighted -- from the opening post of the thread.

 

He never came in the first place !

[KenneyVTX]

IMHO, just rebuild the temple. I'm sure Haliburton and its subsidaries would be glad to provide the labour. The problem with this, other than the mosque that's in its place, is what if nothing happens? I am convinced this would be the case. These fundies want the end of the world, so lets give it a shot. Now dealing the the backlash of building on the rock would be huge.

[Ramen666]

IMHO, just rebuild the temple. I'm sure Haliburton and its subsidaries would be glad to provide the labour. The problem with this, other than the mosque that's in its place, is what if nothing happens? I am convinced this would be the case. These fundies want the end of the world, so lets give it a shot. Now dealing the the backlash of building on the rock would be huge.

 

Do you realize what would happen if they destroyed that dome building with the rock? All hell would break loose I mean look at what some Islamic extremists do but without that rock, the whole middle east would cave in. If they were to rebuild the temple, there would be bombings daily. It just will not happen. The rock building will always be there that would be Crusades II if something like that and war would break out more than it ever has.

 

Good point, rebuild the temple and see what happens? I guess is the best way to prove Cheezus is not coming back.

[Lycorth]

Sure, below is a bold claim highlighted -- from the opening post of the thread.

 

He never came in the first place !

 

Seems pretty factual to me, since we have no evidence a real person by the name of Jebus of Nazareth ever existed.

 

Care to offer some?

[Lucas Foxx]

Seems pretty factual to me, since we have no evidence a real person by the name of Jebus of Nazareth ever existed.

 

Care to offer some?

 

Not at all -- I am not aware of proof for or against the historicity of Jesus, with the exception of the somewhat transparent proof found by way of deductive reasoning -- the basis of faith of which I am not in possession. My position on the issue is that I have no idea whether a man named Jesus existed as a teacher some 2000 years ago and acquired a few followers who, subsequent to his death, perpetuated a religion based on his life or not. Neither do I have substantiated proof of the life of Siddhartha Gautama, Ramesses, or Kublai Khan. Furthermore, I can't see how proving that any of them existed is of great importance, since it doesn't affect me either way.

 

I was only pointing out, to the one who asked, that some posters here, unlike myself, do seem to know -- whether it be by faith or fact. I feel a bit silly repeating what I have already written, but I understand that reading through three pages of posts can be taxing. Thanks for the question.

[Amanda]

If I have overlooked some marvelous discovery proving the non existence of Jesus, I would certainly appreciate being brought up to speed.

 

Nope. Don't have proof. Just very convincing evidence to the best reasonable explanation.

 

If you're wanting a homework assignment, try this.

 

Caution: pack a lunch.

Mythra, what seems to me to be a misconception at that site, is that most of us acknowledge there are instances where it is considered that "Jesus" was here in 'spirit/myth' and some think he was also here in flesh. IMO, they are confusing the two.

 

These verses used to denote the suspicion even back then that Jesus was a real man, by saying anyone who denies he came in the flesh is a deceiver and the antichrist, is missing these verses are not refrencing the actual presence of a real man. The words used to communicate 'came in' can have a double meaning. As explained to me, it is like saying Jesse James is wanted for robbery. That can be taken as a past event for something he did or for a future event for something we want him to do. This context is obvious to us, because we know Jesse James. However, the meaning of these verses is not to imply Jesus came in his own flesh and blood, but that his teachings come into our flesh, our carnal nature, and that changes us. To deny that is deceiving yourself or others, and against what these teachings represent.

 

Much of these biblical teachings do seem to reference a strictly mythological "Jesus" but supposedly after he had died. Saying things like he is the hidden man of the heart, he that is within you is greater than he in the world, etc. IMO, a lot of references of "Jesus" were actually referring to teachings attributed to him. What was interesting is that somewhere I've read that Barabbas' first name is Jesus also. The name Barabbus means 'God given son of man'. I use to think those were wonderful spiritual inferences that man was unaware, yet now I wonder if that is part of the intentions of the story as it was told to convery a deeper moral to the myth story at the time. One part of struggling man is divine, Jesus the anointed one, struggling with his own carnal nature, Jesus the God given son of man, and mankind wants to release the carnal side. Wow... could that just be coincidence... or was that the intentions of the author?

 

Having said that... I use to think that Jesus' trip to India was a primary resource of evidence he had lived. However my research revealed, because Christians did not want him associated with Buddhism, it seems they shed a lot of controversy on it. I also later found out that it was also common in those days to say that someone had come to a location even if it was just their teachings attributed specifically to them.

 

Perhaps there is a man these stories are built upon, and it seems so exaggerated that people will come to think he was totally fiction. This even happened to the city Troy and to the person Imhotep that we now know that both really existed.

[R. S. Martin]

Lucas, I see that under "any gods" you say:

 

First Cause = Infinite Mind = The All

 

I am curious what you mean by that. It sounds like deism or theism of some kind, maybe? Or maybe Buddhist or Hindu? Many philosophies contain the idea of "infinite mind" and/or "the all." "First Cause," of course, sounds very Aristotelian.

 

Looked at another way, "the all" could mean "god is all and all is god," which is a central concept of Paganism. Then again, ancient Gnosticism had something akin to "The All."

 

Which god/God do you serve? Eastern or Western? Ancient of modern? A man who claims not to know whether Jesus is coming back must at least believe in the existence of such a Person. The only religion named above that includes Jesus is Gnosticism. But the Gnostics know. Gnosis=know. Are you an agnostic Gnostic--an unknowing knower? That would be an oxymoron.

 

Somewhere you suggested I learn to understand you. I'm trying; if you oblige to provide some information, it would greatly help my attempts to better understand you.

[Lucas Foxx]

I am curious what you mean by that. It sounds like deism or theism of some kind, maybe? Or maybe Buddhist or Hindu?

 

Looked at another way, "the all" could mean "god is all and all is god," which is a central concept of Paganism. Then again, ancient Gnosticism had something akin to "The All."

 

Hermetic Philosophy -- and yes many religious sects have some distant base in said teachings.

 

Which god/God do you serve?

 

I don't serve or worship.

 

A man who claims not to know whether Jesus is coming back must at least believe in the existence of such a Person.

 

You are putting words in my mouth, which I have never spoken -- whether deliberate or accidental, it is unacceptable. If you take the time to read above you will see that I have said, on more than one occasion, that I have no idea whether Jesus existed or not and don't see the importance of concerning myself with finding out -- even if that were possible to do so.

 

The only religion named above that includes Jesus is Gnosticism. But the Gnostics know. Gnosis=know. Are you an agnostic Gnostic--an unknowing knower? That would be an oxymoron.

 

I would be an oxymoron indeed. If you know someone in this state of confusion, perhaps you can set them straight.

 

Somewhere you suggested I learn to understand you.

 

Whether you "learn to understand me" or do not is entirely dependant upon whether we exchange ideas long enough for that to happen. What I said was, "If we exchange idea long enough, you may begin to understand me".

 

if you oblige to provide some information, it would greatly help my attempts to better understand you.

 

I am sure that will happen in time. However, since I am not here to change the way you think, I am sure the information you request will not come in the form of an organized essah. I do hope to post a testimony of sorts concerning my escape from Christianity in the near future. After 19 years, that time in my life is still not very pleasant to recount. It could take some time to accomplish.

[R. S. Martin]

Do you see the problem?

 

I don't see any of this as problematic. It seems rather simple to me, and suspect it does to all those in exercising logic and reason.

 

Lucas, I had been going to try responding in some way to your last post here. I don't know why I thought you believed in Jesus' second coming but I'm sure you gave me good reason to get that impression. HOWEVER, I see here that you infer that white raven does not "excercise logic and reason." No newbie comes on here telling white raven she's stupid and get away with it. You seem like an all-around unpleasant person and you demonstrate a considerable lack of intelligence.