Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
docyabut2

Was Jesus real?

204 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Freez1

One day you will find out when you exhale you’re final breath in this life. When that tiny spark of life leaves you’re body and you become no more. That is when we will all know the truth. The transition from this life to the next isn’t simple. We were given free will and with this people can believe in anything they wish. What counts is being right or wrong once you are there! If you are wrong you might need some air conditioning, sun screen and some flame retardant clothing. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

To quote a pal of mine who said, "when I die and find out, I promise to come back and tell you everything... "

Then another pal of mine replied, "no need, if you see Jesus, punch him in the face for me..."

Someone else then said, "what if you see Satan? "

I of course replied, "that will be the best thing that could happen, you just spit in his face and God will pluck you off to heaven... "

Easy peasy... 

 

~

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
19 minutes ago, Freez1 said:

One day you will find out when you exhale you’re final breath in this life. When that tiny spark of life leaves you’re body and you become no more. That is when we will all know the truth. The transition from this life to the next isn’t simple. We were given free will and with this people can believe in anything they wish. What counts is being right or wrong once you are there! If you are wrong you might need some air conditioning, sun screen and some flame retardant clothing. 

Your first three sentences are pure truth.  Everything after that is pure conjecture.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
On 9/15/2021 at 7:02 PM, eight bits said:

Apart from Jewish material, or indirect influence from other cultures via Jewish scripture, we had a thread not too long about Dennis MacDonald's debate with Richard Carrier. MacDonald's thing is that Homer appears to have been a direct influence on the gospels. My personal jaw dropper is John, whose opening miracle (the magical winemaking at Cana) re-enacts an annual rite of Dionysus-Bacchus. Jesus does in that story just what a priest of Dionysus would do in the pagan ritual.

There's no way the original audience would miss that. What is it doing there?

It's there to give all those Dionysus-Bacchus worshippers an excuse to come right on in.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

Pardon this off topic Q?    ..how does anyone explain ,at that time and place, the names Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Ringo?    Oops, not Ringo, that was a different group.   

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
6 hours ago, lightly said:

Pardon this off topic Q?    ..how does anyone explain ,at that time and place, the names Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Ringo?    Oops, not Ringo, that was a different group.   

All the names that we read in English bibles are transliterations or translation variances in original names from the original language.  So, we say Jesus, but people of his day prolly called him Yeshua Ben Yoseph.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

All the names that we read in English bibles are transliterations or translation variances in original names from the original language.  So, we say Jesus, but people of his day prolly called him Yeshua Ben Yoseph.  

Ah, thank you Guyver,  I should have known  ..I did suspect that was probably the case.  I see.  From the original to Greek?  And then the King's English ?

   Yup.. With a "latinized" version in between the Greek and the English.  As this link shows..now why didn't I just do this in the first place ?   :rolleyes:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_(given_name)#Etymology

 

  

 

Edited by lightly
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Reminds me of something me and my pals like to play with ... 

Abraham/Ibrahim, Joseph/Joe - Yusuf/Yosef , Simon - Sulaiman , David - Daud  and of course the many Mary/Maria...

Them old folks always had this confused look on the faces when they listened in to our conversations... 

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 9/20/2021 at 5:45 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

According to you they still do, what you fail to consider is that in the past not everyone believed in a god or that they were as intelligent as their modern counterparts. The conditions we live in doesn't change our capacity to be intelligent.

You obviously did not read  what was said.

Not only did i read it. I had already read it in my research 

To me its meaning was clear  

You have perceived a different understanding,   which i couldn't find in the article at all  

Perhaps there were actual ancient atheists Ie people who said that no gods exist  but tha t NOT what  that article actually said  Generally those ancient writers  were either agnostics OR  didn't believe in  certain types of god 

No.  I agree, people have "always" had similar mental capacity, BUT, without knowledge and science, a person can't use that abilty ie logic requires a correct input of accurate data to be effective. Without correct data, logic will lead you to a false understanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
4 hours ago, lightly said:

Ah, thank you Guyver,  I should have known  ..I did suspect that was probably the case.  I see.  From the original to Greek?  And then the King's English ?

   Yup.. With a "latinized" version in between the Greek and the English.  As this link shows..now why didn't I just do this in the first place ?   :rolleyes:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_(given_name)#Etymology

 

  

 

Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English.  And some early translators were German, so there are early German Versions as well.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Not only did i read it. I had already read it in my research 

To me its meaning was clear  

You have perceived a different understanding,   which i couldn't find in the article at all  

Perhaps there were actual ancient atheists Ie people who said that no gods exist  but tha t NOT what  that article actually said  Generally those ancient writers  were either agnostics OR  didn't believe in  certain types of god 

No.  I agree, people have "always" had similar mental capacity, BUT, without knowledge and science, a person can't use that abilty ie logic requires a correct input of accurate data to be effective. Without correct data, logic will lead you to a false understanding. 

Hi Walker 

am out of town this week and just using my phone so will keep it short but may come back to this later. Your last paragraph is laughable logic has existed all through the evolution of man that is how we progressed as a species. Science evolved through logical thinking long before it was defined and you are using a false premise in thinking our trappings of the day is what influences modern atheism and without those trappings that ancient men could not reason for themselves whether a god exists or not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

If I squish a spider in my workshop, it’s life ceases to be as mine will one day also.  Christians, from my experience don’t give a rip about that.  From my experience, Evangelical Christians are taught that this whole world is going to burn anyway, so what the hell?  Take it down.  Buddhists don’t think like that.  They understand that when they stop another life, they stop something just like what we are experiencing.

I have decided that I don’t allow creatures of any kind to dwell in my house or workshop, so, if I see them inside, I will take them out.  Yet I don’t pretend I’m not taking lives as Christians do.  A spider has senses, and you’d be surprised to learn how smart they can appear, FWIW.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I don’t think that many Christians practice that type of meta cognition, but Buddhists do.  Since my experience with Buddhism teaches me that truth is a priority to their philosophy, I like it.  But it’s not like that with Jesus.  You must believe in spite of reality, and that notion is praised by many believers.  I used to practice it myself, but now I don’t.

IMO, Buddhist practice and thought withstands scrutiny to a better degree than the Bible does.  FWIW.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

And of course, let’s not forget….if you want to believe in Jesus then you also get to believe in the Devil. You know, the Enemy, Lucifer, Satan….yep.  Same Bible that teaches you about Jesus, teaches you there’s a devil roaming around who wants to kill you.  Alrighty!  
 

No thank you, I’ll pass on Angry God, Loving Jesus, and killer Devil.  I don’t think Loving God would be angry, let the devil loose on people, or require blood sacrifice.  But, believe whatever helps.

Edited by Guyver
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker 

am out of town this week and just using my phone so will keep it short but may come back to this later. Your last paragraph is laughable logic has existed all through the evolution of man that is how we progressed as a species. Science evolved through logical thinking long before it was defined and you are using a false premise in thinking our trappings of the day is what influences modern atheism and without those trappings that ancient men could not reason for themselves whether a god exists or not.

Use logic to explain the existence and nature of man, using ONLY the data and knowldge of a person from  2000 years ago

Logic is a process which takes us from  a premise to a conclusion

BUT for it to produce correct conclusions it requires correct knowldge to begin with 

Logic OFTEN produces false conclusions, even when used correctly, because there is not sufficient knowledge/ data to  formulate or test a correct hypothesis premise

quote

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Science is logical thinking PLUS knowledge 

Logical thinking without facts is philosophy 

Logical thinking alone cant supply new knowledge or facts although  it can  support new ideas   hypotheses and premises   which can be tested, where possible, by experimentation/ observation etc. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

If I squish a spider in my workshop, it’s life ceases to be as mine will one day also.  Christians, from my experience don’t give a rip about that.  From my experience, Evangelical Christians are taught that this whole world is going to burn anyway, so what the hell?  Take it down.  Buddhists don’t think like that.  They understand that when they stop another life, they stop something just like what we are experiencing.

I have decided that I don’t allow creatures of any kind to dwell in my house or workshop, so, if I see them inside, I will take them out.  Yet I don’t pretend I’m not taking lives as Christians do.  A spider has senses, and you’d be surprised to learn how smart they can appear, FWIW.

Is "take them out" a euphemism for killing them  or what you actually do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Use logic to explain the existence and nature of man, using ONLY the data and knowldge of a person from  2000 years ago

Of course, you've studied Pliny's Natural History and so you undertsand how much knowledge was available 2000 years ago. In Pliny's culture, formal logic was already centuries old, and philosophy? We're still sorting out the thoughts of Plato, and of those around him.

It is wonderful how much progress has been made since then, but the current issue is whether there was already enough for a mature mind to grasp that material effects have material causes. The basic tools and considerable raw material were available. You think nobody put two and two together? Fine for you to hold that opinion; other views are possible and in this case, well founded in the available evidence.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

BUT for it to produce correct conclusions it requires correct knowldge to begin with 

Logic OFTEN produces false conclusions, even when used correctly, because there is not sufficient knowledge/ data to  formulate or test a correct hypothesis premise

Quite true, of course, but much reasoning about the real world is heurisitic. Good heuristics properly applied approximate the truth - which is to say produce statements that are false (pi equals 355/113 is false) but close enough to give useful results often enough.

BTW, although I don't know that the ancients used that specific approximation for pi, they did know and use an effective algorithm to generate it and other ratio-valued approximations like it. PLUS they understood that an approximation was only approximate and so literally a false value, but one whose falsehood they overlooked in order to capture the benefit of its application ... a sophisticated thought, IMO.

Actually, isn't that your argument for why otherwise secular people should have religious devotion? Even if the doctrimes are strictly false, there are all those benefits you summon up with Google for those who believe the doctrines anyway and apply the teachings in their lives.

At least in this, the classical ancients were as sophiticated in their thinking as you are. What, then, makes you so sure that they couldn't grasp something else which is simple, comports with observation time and time again, and which you grasp so easily?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Use logic to explain the existence and nature of man, using ONLY the data and knowldge of a person from  2000 years ago

Logic is a process which takes us from  a premise to a conclusion

BUT for it to produce correct conclusions it requires correct knowldge to begin with 

Logic OFTEN produces false conclusions, even when used correctly, because there is not sufficient knowledge/ data to  formulate or test a correct hypothesis premise

quote

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Science is logical thinking PLUS knowledge 

Logical thinking without facts is philosophy 

Logical thinking alone cant supply new knowledge or facts although  it can  support new ideas   hypotheses and premises   which can be tested, where possible, by experimentation/ observation etc. 

Hi Walker

We have evidence that ancient cultures had religion, we also have evidence that before civilization that archaic people practiced rituals with no direct evidence that those rituals had a religious significance. 
You propose that all individuals in a culture shared a same belief which is a tenuous position to support.

We have evidence that people disagreed about a great many things in recorded history both in writing and graveyards full of bodies. I am not arguing that all men believed the same things and you are. Logic or reasoned thinking is that if we have evidence that people disbelieve in some areas of social living then the same would apply to religious constructs. This forum is evidence that people disagree and you have not shown any time or culture that has been in whole agreement ever.

You have argued that people were content with being slaves and that it was a good thing even when it has been shown that there were slave revolts and that many families lost their independent livelihood of farming and providing for their families that was a detriment to that culture because it only benefited the rich.

As I said I am out of town using my phone so will not provide links at this time but will state that you do not have a strong argument based on what history shows us.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

You have argued that people were content with being slaves and that it was a good thing even when it has been shown that there were slave revolts and that many families lost their independent livelihood of farming and providing for their families that was a detriment to that culture because it only benefited the rich.

A third of the population of Rome were slaves and their labor kept the city functional for rich and poor. Slavery was an accepted social institution--as long as you were enslaving foreigners. It was socially evolutionary since the original policy was to just kill the b stards and listen to the lamentation of their woman, who were then taken captive, anyway and their children usually slain.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

Paul was a Christen killer, a writer about Jesus in Rome claims he saw Jesus in a vision . but he knew of Jesus `s trial , resurrection and  his survival why he turned to Jesus.

 

Paul the Apostle, commonly known as Saint Paul, was an eventual follower of Jesus (though not one of the Twelve Apostles) who professed the gospel of Christ to the first-century world. Paul is commonly regarded as one of the most influential figures of the Apostolic Age. He founded several churches in Asia Minor and Europe

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

Since the Apostle Paul was brought up.....

 

"It was only natural that the cult of renunciation and humiliation should have paid attention to sexual gratification. The continence cult originated as a ritual among soldiers prior to engaging in battle; in later days it became the practice of “saints.” This cult tolerated marriage only as an evil lesser than fornication. Many of the world’s great religions have been adversely influenced by this ancient cult, but none more markedly than Christianity. The Apostle Paul was a devotee of this cult, and his personal views are reflected in the teachings which he fastened onto Christian theology: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” “I would that all men were even as I myself.” “I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to abide even as I.” Paul well knew that such teachings were not a part of Jesus’ gospel, and his acknowledgment of this is illustrated by his statement, “I speak this by permission and not by commandment.” But this cult led Paul to look down upon women. And the pity of it all is that his personal opinions have long influenced the teachings of a great world religion. If the advice of the tentmaker-teacher were to be literally and universally obeyed, then would the human race come to a sudden and inglorious end. Furthermore, the involvement of a religion with the ancient continence cult leads directly to a war against marriage and the home, society’s veritable foundation and the basic institution of human progress. And it is not to be wondered at that all such beliefs fostered the formation of celibate priesthoods in the many religions of various peoples.

 

Link

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Is "take them out" a euphemism for killing them  or what you actually do? 

Take them out is a euphemism for killing them, but I actually kill them swiftly, efficiently, and without prejudice.  I’m not sure if that’s the same way Jesus plans to kill people?  It seems in Matthew and in Revelation he’s going to kill about half the population, and then throw those into the Lake of Fire to be tormented in flames forever, as he said his father was doing currently - in Luke chapter 12, I believe it is.
 

 Anyway….I hate to compare myself to Jesus, since that may be construed improperly, but if what the Bible says is true about the way Jesus and God or Jesus as God (whichever your persuasion) kills people, I’d have to say I’d be a more merciful killer.  I would kill them swiftly, like instant disintegration- and that would be their end.  I would not keep them alive forever to be tortured continuously.  In this, I consider my moral character superior to the God of the Bible, therefore, I can no longer believe in Jesus or the God of the Bible.  Because, there’s just no way I could better than God, since I’m not even the best person ever.

FWIW.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I would love to believe in God, as I do believe in something, but I don’t know what it is.  It’s not the Bible God, I know that but it took some doing.  For me to actually believe in Jesus, Mary, God, or any other “God” I’m going to need proof that satisfies my logical mind.  I’m not going to believe in something just because it makes me feel good.  I mean, I kinda do believe in happy hour because it makes me feel good, but that’s not what I mean.  I mean spiritually.  Yes, I do believe in happy hour and at this time I practice, prolly too much since I’ve extended my happy beyond one hour.  Anyway, the point is, I would like to believe in God but I’m not going to make it up.  If it wants me to love it, then it needs to show me that it exists, and not just by innuendo. FWIW.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

This so called apostle... 

Quote
Paul the Apostle ( c. 5 – c. 64/67 AD), commonly known as Saint Paul and also known by his Hebrew name Saul of Tarsus, was a Christian apostle (although not one of the Twelve Apostles) who spread the teachings of Jesus in the first-century world.

...

Broke God's commandments and made Jesus a hypocrite... 

Quote
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. The World English Bible ...

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
35 minutes ago, Guyver said:

show me

 

Ok....

 

"And you, Thomas, who said you would not believe unless you could see me and put your finger in the nail marks of my hands, have now beheld me and heard my words; and though you see no nail marks on my hands, since I am raised in the form that you also shall have when you depart from this world, what will you say to your brethren? You will acknowledge the truth, for already in your heart you had begun to believe even when you so stoutly asserted your unbelief. Your doubts, Thomas, always most stubbornly assert themselves just as they are about to crumble. Thomas, I bid you be not faithless but believing—and I know you will believe, even with a whole heart.”

191:5.5

When Thomas heard these words, he fell on his knees and exclaimed, “I believe! My Lord and my Master!” Then said Jesus to Thomas: “You have believed, Thomas, because you have really seen and heard me. Blessed are those in the ages to come who will believe even though they have not seen with the eye of flesh nor heard with the mortal ear.”

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.