The Historical Jesus Never Existed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Masada

New member
Outside of scripture where is there any record of his existsnce? I accepted it only after my line of reason was crossed when I was an agnostic at age 20 or so. I was given a reason to believe in the Bible, but historic proof of Jesus can not be found. I would guess that is why they call it faith.

No Keypurr, if there is any record of Jesus' existence outside the NT, it was taken from the NT. I guess you are right. You guys have no other way out but to appeal to faith. But don't worry too much because this happens all the time. For instance, the great Maimonides says in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed" that Job never existed. Since I can't believe by faith, I agree that the book is an allegory to describe the role of Israel on earth qua Emmanuel.
 

daqq

Well-known member
To keep from derailing another thread. No serious scholar or academic questions the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ. The video is wrong, there are about 10 other sources that mention the Lord Jesus Christ. Even the Quran speaks of His actual existence. Zeke, you are paying attention to men with no credibility. That is the elephant in the room. It is television mockumentary for $$$ and fame. Some of these guys might be as persuaded by this nonsense as you are - they are nothing new, and not at all novel. They die off or fade away because nobody pays attention to conspiracy theorists on 'how' something might/could/perhaps happen. It is un-academic conjecture.

The short of it: Don't listen to gossip and never believe it. Exodus 23:1 Proverbs 16:28 Proverbs 26:20 1 Timothy 5:13 Titus 3:1-3

*Sigh*, another call-out thread... :AMR:

:sheep:
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
No Keypurr, if there is any record of Jesus' existence outside the NT, it was taken from the NT. I guess you are right. You guys have no other way out but to appeal to faith. But don't worry too much because this happens all the time. For instance, the great Maimonides says in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed" that Job never existed. Since I can't believe by faith, I agree that the book is an allegory to describe the role of Israel on earth qua Emmanuel.
You've got problems Ben -
 

keypurr

Well-known member
No Keypurr, if there is any record of Jesus' existence outside the NT, it was taken from the NT. I guess you are right. You guys have no other way out but to appeal to faith. But don't worry too much because this happens all the time. For instance, the great Maimonides says in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed" that Job never existed. Since I can't believe by faith, I agree that the book is an allegory to describe the role of Israel on earth qua Emmanuel.

Even so Ben, my faith is founded in reason. Like yours, it was the book of Daniel that convinced me that scripture came from a higher being than man.


Sent from my iPad using TOL
 

daqq

Well-known member
Hush up or get banned for your dirty mouth :chuckle:

Hahaha, I never said what Lon lied about and continues to lie about in the other thread. What I said stands: it does not matter whether he is teaching Mormonism, or Catholicism, or Calvinism, or Trinitarianism, or the Oneness doctrine, or something else entirely unrelated: if he is going to make decrees without any evidence for what he states as fact then he is nothing more than a child throwing a temper tantrum and expecting an "A" grade in art class for acting like a monkey. My comments had nothing to do with equating the Trinity doctrine to what was said. Lon is a murderer according to the doctrine of Yeshua, (Matthew 15:19, 1 John 3:15), because he lied and bore false testimony in order to silence another whose conscience is clean in the matter. Murders proceed from the heart and come forth from the mouth: Lon therefore only proves that he is defiled, (Matthew 15:18-20). It is not my problem that Lon twisted what I said for his own gain and his side was taken; it does not change the truth of the matter, and Elohim knows the truth as well as all of our hearts. :)
 

Zeke

Well-known member
:thumb:

The incarnation of God in man is one aspect of what the Christ-story embodies. The truths revealed in the archetypal myth of the Son/Sun of God are universal to man, the light of the logos being the Christ within. The story corresponds with the cycles of nature,....birth, death, rebirth. These are the essential truths mirrored in story, symbols and metaphor. Hence Jesus says, "while you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light" :)

It is what the story and it's characters are communicating.....that counts.

Of coarse Lon has to deny and ridicule this man as some fringe element but I would love to see him debate Tom and some of the other scholars who have exposed the carnal fraud he embraces.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
The more excellent way has also escaped the club mentality of the Calvinist exclusive assertions that tweek their ego and pride like they are some chosen strain of humanity while the rest get to fry for eternity which is ultimate blaspheme of our Creator.
 
Last edited:

daqq

Well-known member
Of coarse Lon has to deny and ridicule this man as some fringe element but I would love to see him debate Tom and some of the other scholars who have exposed the carnal fraud he embraces.

There is actually an Atheist looking site called, "Jesus Never Existed", (so I suppose this is on-topic, eh?), which goes into the Acts and the epistles of Paul showing how so much of the historical perspective is utterly impossible according to known historical facts. I'm not an Atheist, of course, but I do check out what such have to say from time to time just to see what they are saying about the scriptures I hold dear. Lon and his kind would do well to actually look into such things because they are making a laughing stock of what he and most of modern mainstream Christianity believe to be historical accounts. As for myself, I've already dealt with these things in what I believe to be the truth, (as it appears you have too Zeke), and that is that even the entire book of Acts is a holy and SPIRITUAL minded text. But when taken as a purely historical account it makes a mockery of the SPIRITUAL because the facts simply are not even possible in the first century setting wherein they supposedly occurred. For instance all the place names of "new cities" in the journeys of Paul only seem to pop up when "the Jews" chase him out of a synagogue or town. What this means is that Paul is on journeys through the Land of Israel, (because they follow him to the next city in some accounts but in one situation this is 250 miles on foot if it is actually in Asia Minor!), and every time the gentile half of a synagogue or town "believes" then the city or synagogue gets split and the gentile believing half is given a new name, (I believe Iconium is the first place where this occurs and all the place names have special meaning by the given names just like in the Tanach). The whole thing takes place in the Land of Israel, which is really the only Land that counts in the eyes of our Father according to His Word, and this is why neither the carnal man Lon, nor carnal historical minded mainstream Christianity, nor even the historically accurate carnal minded Atheist understand any of it. I'm not saying I agree with the conclusions of the author of this site but the historical facts are indeed facts that need to be dealt with because when ignored people end up like Lon making themselves look like ignoramuses, (link: Galatians – Barbarians, Settlers or Jews?). :)
 

Zeke

Well-known member
There is actually an Atheist looking site called, "Jesus Never Existed", (so I suppose this is on-topic, eh?), which goes into the Acts and the epistles of Paul showing how so much of the historical perspective is utterly impossible according to known historical facts. I'm not an Atheist, of course, but I do check out what such have to say from time to time just to see what they are saying about the scriptures I hold dear. Lon and his kind would do well to actually look into such things because they are making a laughing stock of what he and most of modern mainstream Christianity believe to be historical accounts. As for myself, I've already dealt with these things in what I believe to be the truth, (as it appears you have too Zeke), and that is that even the entire book of Acts is a holy and SPIRITUAL minded text. But when taken as a purely historical account it makes a mockery of the SPIRITUAL because the facts simply are not even possible in the first century setting wherein they supposedly occurred. For instance all the place names of "new cities" in the journeys of Paul only seem to pop up when "the Jews" chase him out of a synagogue or town. What this means is that Paul is on journeys through the Land of Israel, (because they follow him to the next city in some accounts but in one situation this is 250 miles on foot if it is actually in Asia Minor!), and every time the gentile half of a synagogue or town "believes" then the city or synagogue gets split and the gentile believing half is given a new name, (I believe Iconium is the first place where this occurs and all the place names have special meaning by the given names just like in the Tanach). The whole thing takes place in the Land of Israel, which is really the only Land that counts in the eyes of our Father according to His Word, and this is why neither the carnal man Lon, nor carnal historical minded mainstream Christianity, nor even the historically accurate carnal minded Atheist understand any of it. I'm not saying I agree with the conclusions of the author of this site but the historical facts are indeed facts that need to be dealt with because when ignored people end up like Lon making themselves look like ignoramuses, (link: Galatians – Barbarians, Settlers or Jews?). :)

Yea there is good info out there even from the none theist and mystic/gnostic/ etc.., everyone has to weigh the info according to where they are at, John 18:36 is a forgotten teaching of the Spirit among the westernized christian who is legally still born and doesn't even know it, given a marque/legal name of and by this worlds govern mentalist which is why they summons the dead to their court yet they await the mark of the beast when they use that persona every day like dead men walking.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
Shadow Of The Third Century Revaluation of Christianity by Alvin Boyd Kuhn pretty much exposes the Lonites as ignorant veil wearers more loyal to their dogma than truth.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Yea there is good info out there even from the none theist and mystic/gnostic/ etc.., everyone has to weigh the info according to where they are at, John 18:36 is a forgotten teaching of the Spirit among the westernized christian who is legally still born and doesn't even know it, given a marque/legal name of and by this worlds govern mentalist which is why they summons the dead to their court yet they await the mark of the beast when they use that persona every day like dead men walking.

Lol, the Zombie Apocalypse!
Like Lon Chaney in The Mark of Cain or Lon Chaney Jr. in the Mummy, (walking dead)?
Totally Depraved . . . :)

Shadow Of The Third Century Revaluation of Christianity by Alvin Boyd Kuhn pretty much exposes the Lonites as ignorant veil wearers more loyal to their dogma than truth.

Lonites, eh? well at least those Lonites I mentioned above were only acting, (Totally Depraved). :crackup:
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
You should know that all those atheist apologists, particularly Dawkins and the late Hitchens, conceded that Jesus must have existed. They were proven wrong on the inquiry and then openly stated it to make up for heir mistake.

They were shown up- pretty much nailed the casket on any doubt that Jesus existed after those debates, and is foolish to waste away at still nonetheless trying to prove otherwise.

Atheists now simply argue that he was not divine, but rather disappeared for several years and came back with a Buddhist-like aptitude after coming across other tribes.
There really is no winning with those people- they will always try to dismiss God on anything they can simmer up :rolleyes:
 

PureX

Well-known member
As to whether Jesus was an actual historical person, a combination of 2 or 3 personalities, or a pure myth or some variation thereof, the story and what it teaches, conveys or reveals is what matters. My own liberal views include many different aspects of Jesus truth,....from historical to allegorical, and everything in between :) - dogma is unnecessary.

There are plenty of books written by scholars that question and challenge the historicity of Jesus. Nothing new. Since you've made the outstanding statement in the thread-title, it behooves one to honestly do his own homework and find out answers for himself, which is the path of all truth seekers. Intellectual honesty demands that all facts, evidences or lack thereof be examined in this quest-ion. Let the games begin :cool:
Sadly, most of organized Christianity has become so fully involved in the idolatry of it's own mythology and dogma that it can no longer tolerate reason. It is a religion that now worships itself. Adherents worship the Bible as if God wrote it. They read every word as if it is coming from the mouth of God, directly into their ears, and thereby their own subjective interpretation of it becomes sacrosanct, and they in turn imagine themselves to be the anointed spokespeople for God. The idolatry has becomes so insidious that the idolaters themselves have become semi-divine being, in their own minds; not to be held accountable for their sin or error.

Consequently, they cannot possibly entertain the idea that the story of Jesus and their interpretation of it is in any way, or to any degree, mythical. Most of them can't even accept it as symbolic.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Sadly, most of organized Christianity has become so fully involved in the idolatry of it's own mythology and dogma that it can no longer tolerate reason. It is a religion that now worships itself. Adherents worship the Bible as if God wrote it. They read every word as if it is coming from the mouth of God, directly into their ears, and thereby their own subjective interpretation of it becomes sacrosanct, and they in turn imagine themselves to be the anointed spokespeople for God. The idolatry has becomes so insidious that the idolaters themselves have become semi-divine being, in their own minds; not to be held accountable for their sin or error.

Consequently, they cannot possibly entertain the idea that the story of Jesus and their interpretation of it is in any way, or to any degree, mythical. Most of them can't even accept it as symbolic.

Well said. :)
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Sadly, most of organized Christianity has become so fully involved in the idolatry of it's own mythology and dogma that it can no longer tolerate reason. It is a religion that now worships itself. Adherents worship the Bible as if God wrote it. They read every word as if it is coming from the mouth of God, directly into their ears, and thereby their own subjective interpretation of it becomes sacrosanct, and they in turn imagine themselves to be the anointed spokespeople for God. The idolatry has becomes so insidious that the idolaters themselves have become semi-divine being, in their own minds; not to be held accountable for their sin or error.

Consequently, they cannot possibly entertain the idea that the story of Jesus and their interpretation of it is in any way, or to any degree, mythical. Most of them can't even accept it as symbolic.
Now, this rummy is exposed, as a child of the devil, as he spams the old reliable "Worship the book," "idolatry" satanic charge, as is exposed, also, as a subjectivist.


No, rummy, you would have no knowledge, NADA, about the true LORD God of the bible, and His Christ. w/o the book, by which He is revealed. None, you engager in sophistry. And you are clueless as to the meaning of "idolatry. That would be worshiping the rock, papyrus, pages, upon which the words were engraved, rummy. You call that "bible worship, "idolatry," which is a code name for a "subtil"(Genesis 3 KJV) "doctrine" of hating the word of God, replacing it with your subjectivism, and pseudo-"intellectualism"/"scholarship," to lord over others, your addiction, and asserting, "I don't study the book's own testimony about itself, so, being the biblical buffoon that I am, I will just throw up another cliche, that I read in a book, on another bible rejecting agnostic/mystic sight, and I will be just fine.....Professor Judas tells me so."


No, rummy, the Holy Bible also testifies of the praise, the reverence, the esteem,the respect, the awe we are commanded to have for the word of God:

"Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." Job 23:12 KJV

"In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me." Psalms 56:4 KJV

"In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word." Psalms 56:10 KJV

"Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word." Psalms 119:161KJV

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalms 138:2


"For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." Isaiah KJV 66:2

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord:....." Acts 13:48 KJV

"Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:..." 2 Thes. 3:1 KJV



Members of the boc esteem, praise, magnify, and glorify what the LORD God esteems, praises, magnifies, and glorifies, and at which he demands that we trembleth at, and which He magnifies, above over His name-His word. In contrast, you, cliche that as "bible worship, idolatry," rummy.


Contrasts.



" their own subjective interpretation "-you

The clown does not even know the difference between objective revelation, given by objective words, and interpretation/understanding/illumination.


We should accept your "subjective interpretation," eh, rummy? Is that how it works?


The truth cannot be known. Is that a true statement?


Sit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top