Jesus never existed.

[Lucidthots]

Jesus was a myth as was Abraham.

However, the life of an actual person likely brought about the inspiration for these stories.

When the Bible refers to the seed of Abraham, many have taken that to mean a literal racial bloodline.

This is a false understanding; upon which the racism of the Jewish religion is derived.

The story of Abraham is a mythological story.

To be the "seed" of Abraham, all one must be is a follower of "GOD."

Noah = Utnapishtim

Moses = Akhenaton

Solomon = Gudea

These Biblical characters are all mythological people in imaginary stories often taken from earlier Mesopotamian literature as in the case of King Gudea and Utnapishtims flood of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and others which may or may not be based on actual historical experiences.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

This coming from a man that idolizes a guy that put millions of Jews to death. Makes a lot sense...sure...

George, we are not debating the "holocaust" on this thread.It is an entirely unrelated issue.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

QUOTE=leejosepho First, what do the words “justification for reliable evidence” describe? Since that expression does not make any sense to me, maybe it is with something like this that we can clarify Mr. Walker’s above statement just a bit:
“... the evidence the Christians present us cannot [reliably] serve as ... evidence for [an] historical Jesus.”

Agreed. Both the Jewish and Christian bibles are mostly hearsay – few, if any, first-hand accounts – and with much of their contents being extremely difficult (or even impossible?) to historically substantiate, confirm or corroborate.

The "evidence" in support for the belief in the historical jesus would not stand up to the testing of evidence required by a court of law. Everything that is written about jesus is hearsay.There are no eye witness accounts written at the time.
The justification for the existence of xtianity is built upon the life,the words and actions of a man who no one can prove existed.Ye the church requires us all to believe and be "saved".

However, the overall evidence of Christianity – its centuries of existence, at the very least – certainly can indicate a quiet and sane investigation as to whether an historical “Jesus” – a Scriptural Messiah – ever was, is or will be ... and personally, it is through the debunking of sectarian religion, especially Christianity, that I have become quite convinced: Yes.

The longevity of xtianity is no evidence for its validity or veracity or that the man ever existed.


So? Would the fact that no contemporary writing might ever mention me prove that I had never existed? The above only proves that not a single contemporary writing mentions “Jesus” – it does not prove “no ‘Jesus’”.

But the onus is placed surely upon the church to prove beyond all doubt that the man existed? It is not our responsibility to prove the contrary.
Otherwise you are asking me to believe in a fairy tale.


Again: That does not prove “no ‘Jesus’”. But beyond that, is it truly possible that all mythical, allegorical or even fraudulent writings are the products of mere imaginations?

A religion built upon fraud,lies and duplicity is not a good foundation for a religion.



Whoa! Even mere hearsay can at least imply or point toward good reason for some conscientious and unbiased investigation, can it not? The fact that a court of law will not convict on mere hearsay does not stop the investigator or detective from beginning right there (with mere hearsay), if necessary, now does it?

True but it also ENDS there as well.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

The life of Christ is a myth.

The story of the myth of Christ is a metaphor for your own life, you as an eternal soul.

Christ was born of a virgin.

You too were "born of a virgin."

Christ has GOD as a father.

You too have "GOD as a father."

For you, like Christ, originate out of pure, immutable, eternal GOD.

God was "personified" by the Hebrews, just as GOD was personified by the Greeks in their Pantheon.

And this serves as a good metaphor which is best understood if not taken to mean a "literal being;" rather, the eternal life force which animates the universe, and may be understood as an eternal origin with infinite individualities.

It defies mathematics.

It is best not to try to understand it (GOD) in terms of mathematics otherwise you may end up developing innumerable metaphors and symbols in order to try to explain it.

It (GOD) is beyond explanation in mathematical terms.

It is however, your true origin.


Mathew 5: 48

Be ye (you) therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect.


Mathew 23: 9

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father which is in heaven.


John 3: 6

That which is born of the flesh is flesh.
That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.


Egyptian Doctrine of Eternal Life (Vth Dynasty)

Soul to Heaven, body to earth.

You may be interested in reading "Aryan Sun Myths.The Origin of Religion" by Charles Morris. It explains how xtianity was built upon the plagiarism from Indo-European mythologies.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...6?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

 

[leejosepho]

The justification for the existence of xtianity is built upon the life, the words and actions of a man who no one can prove existed. Yet the church requires us all to believe and be "saved".

Yes, understood. Christianity is both a great delusion and deception ... but not simply because no one can prove its alleged messiah ever existed. Rather, its point of conflict is here:

"... whosoever shall call on YHWH shall be delivered" (Joel 2:32).
"[He is] YHWH and there is no saviour but [Him]" (Isaiah 43:11; Hosea 13:4).

The longevity of xtianity is no evidence for its validity or veracity or that the man ever existed.

Understood, and I did not mean to imply that it is. Rather, I am simply saying that gives me reason to at least investigate the source of its momentum.

... the onus is placed surely upon the church to prove beyond all doubt that the man existed?

Only in a debate or battle between religions or personal beliefs, neither of which interest me.

A religion ... is not a good foundation for a religion.

Agreed, and it is that kind of thing that drives me, personally, to look past the man behind the curtain and beyond all mere religion to see "the original", whatever that might actually ever prove to be.

The fact that a court of law will not convict on mere hearsay does not stop the investigator or detective from beginning right there (with mere hearsay), if necessary, now does it?

True but it also ENDS there as well.

An actual trial might end there, but for the investigator, no, that is just the beginning.

 

[leejosepho]

The life of Christ is a myth.
The story of the myth of Christ is a metaphor for your own life, you as an eternal soul ...
For you, like Christ, originate out of pure, immutable, eternal GOD.

Who would be the origin or author of “the story of the myth that is a metaphor”?

God was "personified" by the Hebrews ...

Or, did YHWH actually personify Himself through the Hebrews?

... a good metaphor which is best understood if not taken to mean a "literal being;" rather, the eternal life force which animates the universe, and may be understood as an eternal origin with infinite individualities.

How would/does that “eternal life force which animates the universe” communicate with its infinite manifestations as individualities?

To be the "seed" of Abraham, all one must be is a follower of "GOD."

Yes, but on His terms: “And Elohim said to Abraham, ‘As for you, guard My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations’” (Genesis 17:9).

Moses = Akhenaton

Many interesting thoughts there ...

... mythological people in imaginary stories ... which may or may not be based on actual historical experiences.

Now seeking the men behind/of the myths ...

 

[Lucidthots]

Who would be the origin or author of “the story of the myth that is a metaphor”?

Actually many similarities exist between the life and teachings of Buddha and the story of Christ.

However, Buddha lived 500 bc.

Buddha, like Christ began his ministry at the approx age of 30.

Buddha like Christ rejected the material world and traveled around from village to village with his disciples giving his sermons and ministering to the people.

Buddha lioke Christ taught peace and forgiveness.

Buddha like Christ have Spiritual Liberation from the Material world as their primary religious objective.

Buddha like Christ told his follwers that he would return to them again to usher in a new age and deliver all of mankind to the "Kingdom of God/Nirvana."

 

[tecoyah]

Yeah but....every follower of Buddah I have ever met was really cool....whats up with that?

 

[leejosepho]

... many similarities exist between the life and teachings of Buddha and the story of Christ.

So then, who would be the origin or author of the Buddha-story of the myth that is a metaphor?

 

[Lucidthots]

So then, who would be the origin or author of the Buddha-story of the myth that is a metaphor?

Buddha was a real person.

His name was Siddharta Gautama--Buddha.

He was born of the Sakya (Warrior Class)

He was also known as Sakyamuni (Sage of the Sakyas)

 

[George_Washington]

I don't know about you guys but I think Buddha was somewhat of a nutjob. I think he was quite possible mentally ill. I mean think about it. He claims to have starved himself and reached Enlightment. Ooooook. I would imagine if a person starves him or herself after a while, they might start to hallucinate and go through a lot of "bizzare" emotions. I admire some things that Buddha said and the general philosophy of buddhism. But the actual reaching Nirvana stuff sounds way too out there for me.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I don't know about you guys but I think Buddha was somewhat of a nutjob. I think he was quite possible mentally ill. I mean think about it. He claims to have starved himself and reached Enlightment. Ooooook. I would imagine if a person starves him or herself after a while, they might start to hallucinate and go through a lot of "bizzare" emotions. I admire some things that Buddha said and the general philosophy of buddhism. But the actual reaching Nirvana stuff sounds way too out there for me.

And Jesus wasn't? He ran around in the desert in sandals and a cloak claiming to descend in the kingdom of heaven. *coo-koo* Jesus was bizarre too.

 

[nkgupta80]

I don't know about you guys but I think Buddha was somewhat of a nutjob. I think he was quite possible mentally ill. I mean think about it. He claims to have starved himself and reached Enlightment. Ooooook. I would imagine if a person starves him or herself after a while, they might start to hallucinate and go through a lot of "bizzare" emotions. I admire some things that Buddha said and the general philosophy of buddhism. But the actual reaching Nirvana stuff sounds way too out there for me.

wrong. The old hindu sages used to practice ascetism to acheive some kkind of spiritual truth. When Siddhartha (before he became buddha) renounced his hedonistic way of life, he first followed the ways of these sages. He found ascetism not enlightening.

Eventually he just meditated (not starved himself), meditated. Legend goes he did it for 40 days, and acheived enlightenment. Basically he said a hedonistic life OR STARVATION/ASCETISM wont get you anywhere. You gotta follow a middle path, a path where you don't indulge in desires. Thats what buddha says you must do to reach enlightenment.

 

[leejosepho]

Buddha was a real person.

Ah, I did not realize you do not believe Y'Shua was/is. But either way, the question is the same ...

Who originated or authored Buddha?

Buddha ... began his ministry at the approx age of 30.

Why, and who decided that he (or anyone at all) should minister at all?

Buddha ... rejected the material world and traveled around from village to village with his disciples giving his sermons and ministering to the people.

Sermons about what and/or whom, and ministering in what way(s), and in service to whom?

Buddha ... taught peace and forgiveness.

As founded upon or determined by or in keeping with what or whom?

Buddha ... told his followers that he would return to them again to usher in a new age and deliver all of mankind to the "Kingdom of God/Nirvana."

Who and/or what might actually be making that possible?

 

[walrus]

George, we are not debating the "holocaust" on this thread.It is an entirely unrelated issue.

How interesting that you have suddenly become the guardian of thread topics when it was my (and others) complaints about your irrelevant and off-topic "contributions" to the "Jesus was black" thread that motivated you to start this one.

One more thing, I know you feel very sophisticated by saying "xrist", but you should know that it is as grammatically correct as "ATM machine". They are both redundant and incorrect. What you are saying with "Xrist" is in effect "Christ-ist". The mere fact that Xmas is a correct use should indicate that Xrist is not.

I would be curious to know why it is so important to you to tell Christians that their deity did not exist. You seem to go out of your way to bring this subject up, so I can only assume you have some deep need to offend Christians. The really funny thing is, I bet you get terribly offended when a Christian attempts to convert you.

Oh yeah, the topic at hand....why are we worrying about this? Either you accept the moral and spiritual message of Christ, in which case proving His physical existence is unimportant; or you do not accept it, in which case His physical existence is even less important. I do not accept the teachings of Buddha (nothing against them, I'm just not Buddhist). It is of absolutely no import to me whether the Buddha actually existed or not. I feel no drive to attempt to injure the faith of others. I am comfortable enough in my own beliefs to leave well enough alone the beliefs of others.

 

[Lucidthots]

Ah, I did not realize you do not believe Y'Shua was/is. But either way, the question is the same ...

1) Who originated or authored Buddha?

2)Why, and who decided that he (or anyone at all) should minister at all?

3)Sermons about what and/or whom, and ministering in what way(s), and in service to whom?

4)As founded upon or determined by or in keeping with what or whom?

5)Who and/or what might actually be making that possible?

Your questions are rhetorical and insincere.

But for some reason I feel compelled to answer in the hope that you will snap out of..........nevermind.

1) Buddha was a real person, who taught religion. No one "authored" him. His teachings were passed down by oral tradition and eventually written down by his followers, how accurately is not fully known.

2) He decided it when he saw the suffering of humanity.

3) Buddha taught people about their own spiritual identity and how to live a straight life free of compulsion and obsession for material things, rather a development of ones own spiritual potentialities.

4) The truth of ones true spiritual identity does not require an external authority.This concept of the external authority is a lie invented by Jews to keep their followers ignorant and at war.

5) Buddha did it! Buddha made his religion possible.

He created it out of the knowledge of THE ETERNAL SELF.

And all of Asia converted to Buddhism.

(And so did Europe, but they called it Christianity)

 

[Lucidthots]

Eventually he just meditated (not starved himself),

Basically he said a hedonistic life OR STARVATION/ASCETISM wont get you anywhere.

You gotta follow a middle path, a path where you don't indulge in desires. Thats what buddha says you must do to reach enlightenment.

BINGO!

Someone else knows some Buddhism...thank you!

 

[leejosepho]

Your questions are rhetorical and insincere.

No, they are not, for I have no agenda here and I am sincerely looking to see what might "be there" or whatever once "religion" and its trappings are not being used as a viewer.

Buddha was a real person, who taught religion. No one "authored" him.

Whatever Buddha taught, its "substance" simply had to preceed him unless he was the "creator" or "universal sovereign" behind whatever "result" one might get from following or practicing his teaching. So then, who or what was the essence behind whatever it was Buddha taught others to discover?

Note: If transferred to the physical realm, that question might be something like asking who or what first made possible the gravity Newton taught about.

He decided it when he saw the suffering of humanity.

Who or what first established (or at least made necessary or possible) Buddha's compassion?

Buddha taught people about their own spiritual identity ...

Who or what first established the "spiritual identity" Buddha taught others about?

The truth of ones true spiritual identity does not require an external authority.

Says who, Buddha?

Buddha made his religion possible.

He created it out of the knowledge of THE ETERNAL SELF.

Who or what first made an "eternal self" even possible, and who or what now assures its future?

On a belated note ...

I had perceived a peculiarity when making my previous post yesterday, but forgot to ask you about it. When making your own post just before that, did you consider the impression this repeated (5 times) phrasing might leave:

Buddha, like Christ ...

?

Now before you might get all worked up over my asking that, please know I am not a "Jesus" freak. Rather, I simply wonder if you might have a die-hard Christian past like my own.

Shalom.

 

[Lucidthots]

1) So then, who or what was the essence behind whatever it was Buddha taught others to discover?

Note: If transferred to the physical realm, that question might be something like asking who or what first made possible the gravity Newton taught about.

2) Who or what first established (or at least made necessary or possible) Buddha's compassion?

3) Who or what first established the "spiritual identity" Buddha taught others about?

4) Says who, Buddha?

5) Who or what first made an "eternal self" even possible, and who or what now assures its future?

On a belated note ...

6) I had perceived a peculiarity when making my previous post yesterday, but forgot to ask you about it. When making your own post just before that, did you consider the impression this repeated (5 times) phrasing might leave:

7) Now before you might get all worked up over my asking that, please know I am not a "Jesus" freak. Rather, I simply wonder if you might have a die-hard Christian past like my own.

Shalom.

1) The essense of what Buddha taught others to discover is their own eternal self/spiritual identity, and moreover, Buddha sought to establish a way for others to achieve Self Knowledge and the attainment of the bliss of Nirvana, an actual spiritual state of existence which Buddha himself had achieved.

The attainment would result in the liberation from the endless cycle of death and rebirth.

Buddha declared at the end of his life that he would return again and bring all of humanity with him into Nirvana. (Maitreya Legend)

2) Let me be perfectly clear on this and without even a hint of ambiguity: BUDDHA did it! Buddha had compassion for humanity. No one "gave him" his compassion.

Buddha's compassion came directly from him, with no other source.

3) The eternal self/spiritual identity cannot be understood in terms of mathematics, such as "who created it."

Only material things have a "creator" with a Begining, Duration, End.

No one "created" the ETERNAL SELF, it is not subject to the laws of mathematics and has no begining and no end.

4) Says who?

Buddha already existed in a higher state of spiritual knowledge and liberation, free of the compulsions of the material world.

He was searching for a way to help others achieve it.

Even before he began his quest.

Which is why he began his ministry at the age of 30.

He developed Buddhism, not so much for his own Self, rather for humanity which was suffering.

He sought a practical methodology, which we could use, to bring us all with him, into Nirvana.

5) The ETERNAL SELF has no "creator."

It has no begining and no end.

Beginings and endings are manifestations of the material world.

The ETERNAL SELF is not of the material world.

ETERNAL SELF does not require anyone to "ensure its duration."

ETERNAL SELF cannot die.

Only created things can die.

ETERNAL SELF creates things, it was never created.

6) I did this intentionally to show the similarities between Buddha and Christ.

I hope that everyone got the impression that there are similarities.

7) I like Jesus.

I used to hate Christianity until I read the Gospels and realised that Jesus and I were telling people the same thing, which is "I AM ETERNAL LIFE."

John 18: 36

'My Kingdom is not of this World."


John 10: 30

"I and my father are one."


John 10: 33

And the Jews answered him saying,

"For a good work, we stone thee not; but for blasphemey; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself GOD."

Shalom!

 

[leejosepho]

Let me be perfectly clear on this and without even a hint of ambiguity: BUDDHA did it! Buddha had compassion for humanity. No one "gave him" his compassion.

Thank you for your responses, Lucid, but, and simply referencing the above as an example here, I am trying to look completely past Buddha and/or anyone else:

When Buddha became compassionate (or even if he was born that way), who or what had first made compassion even possible? What "order" was already in place making compassion both possible and preferable (to apathy or whatever)?

Even if Buddha was the very first to ever discover and display compassion, he could not have actually authored it.

 

[Lucidthots]

Thank you for your responses, Lucid, but, and simply referencing the above as an example here, I am trying to look completely past Buddha and/or anyone else:

When Buddha became compassionate (or even if he was born that way), who or what had first made compassion even possible? What "order" was already in place making compassion both possible and preferable (to apathy or whatever)?

Even if Buddha was the very first to ever discover and display compassion, he could not have actually authored it.

I am not saying that he was the "first" person to feel compassion for humanity.

I get what you are implying.

You are implying that there was a "creator."

Your concept of what GOD is just happens to be the exact opposite of mine.

Luke 17: 20- 21

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the Kingdom of God should come, he aswered them and said,

"The Kingdom of God cometh not with carefull observation (of the Law)."
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or Lo there!"

"For behold, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU."

 

[leejosepho]

I get what you are implying.

You are implying that there was a "creator."

Even though I do happen to believe that, no, I am not implying anything. Rather, I am free- and open-mindedly *asking* (or seeking) to know the origin, source or author of all.

In the past, people had challenged me to "think outside the box", so to speak, and now I am doing just that, and without spending much time at all looking inside anybody else's box ... or something like that. However, and while also trying to understand why they stopped wherever they did, I do always appreciate hearing others' conclusions and how they arrived at them.

 

[Lucidthots]

Even though I do happen to believe that, no, I am not implying anything. Rather, I am free- and open-mindedly *asking* (or seeking) to know the origin, source or author of all.

In the past, people had challenged me to "think outside the box", so to speak, and now I am doing just that, and without spending much time at all looking inside anybody else's box ... or something like that. However, and while also trying to understand why they stopped wherever they did, I do always appreciate hearing others' conclusions and how they arrived at them.

I understand.

 

[leejosepho]

I understand.

Cool! So then, and whether speaking specifically for yourself or in general expression related to your perceptions or understandings of others:

Why do some people find it so necessary to insist there is/was no "Jesus" (or even "God")?

Personally, it was some time back that I "realized" - my humble claim, eh, when actually my mother had long ago told me - there would ultimately be no point whatsoever (beyond coming out of birth-inherent ignorance, of course) in attempting to argue either with or about whomever or whatever is (or at least might be) behind all ... and once I had finished "adjusting" to that particular thought, I decided to intensely participate in my own fate in whatever way I might be either enabled or allowed ... or something like that.

Point: Today it is perfectly okay with me if I end up being completely wrong about nearly everything other than the simple, life-taught fact that I am *not* for myself or for anyone else the whomever or whatever that either is or at seems to be behind all.

 

[Lucidthots]

Cool! So then, and whether speaking specifically for yourself or in general expression related to your perceptions or understandings of others:

Why do some people find it so necessary to insist there is/was no "Jesus" (or even "God")?

Personally, it was some time back that I "realized" - my humble claim, eh, when actually my mother had long ago told me - there would ultimately be no point whatsoever (beyond coming out of birth-inherent ignorance, of course) in attempting to argue either with or about whomever or whatever is (or at least might be) behind all ... and once I had finished "adjusting" to that particular thought, I decided to intensely participate in my own fate in whatever way I might be either enabled or allowed ... or something like that.

Point: Today it is perfectly okay with me if I end up being completely wrong about nearly everything other than the simple, life-taught fact that I am *not* for myself or for anyone else the whomever or whatever that either is or at seems to be behind all.

I was one of the original Christians.

We wrote the story to get back at the Jews, who we hated.