• Announcements

    • Cap'n Refsmmat

      SFN Upgraded   07/22/17

      SFN has been upgraded to IPB version 4. View the announcement for more details, or to report any problems you're experiencing.
Ten oz

Was Jesus a real person?

847 posts in this topic

 

1 - Possibly one of the best sources, if you can find a copy, is a book simply called "Atlantis" by Charles Berlitz. He systematically examines Plato's "Critias and Timaeus", the history of Atlantis denied by Artstotle the Imperialist slaver, and presents enough supporting evidence from around the globe to sink the Bismarck.

 

 

 

"For Jesus the best evidence would be something writen or built carpentry that could be linked to his hands directly or a body/burial site. Next best would be contemporary artifacts of art, literature, carpntry, etc produced by those who had interactions with Jesus. After that any contemporary reference regardless of degrees of separation would be better than nothing at all. In this case, evidence of Jesus, nothing contemporary exists. The New Testement is not contemporary to Jesus and contains no first hand accounts."

 

2 - Do such things exist for philosophers who do not preach "All you need is love." On the contrary, the onus is on those who deny Jesus, to explain the Jews, and the Vatican, or at least all the manifestations of Christianity all over planet Earth, and throughout whatever history has not offended the exploiters of human resources across the same domain. You could start another thread and call it "Where did the Jews come from, and how did that affect so much influence on mankind?", or "How did Christianity emerge to achieve the moral impact that created the Present out of Roman Debauchery", or even "Why Has Mankind Cast God Behind His Back?"

 

 

1 - Atlantis is said to have been a physical place. Finding that place, geological evidence of where such a place was, or artifacts from that place is the best evidence. That is it. Some historical figure provided a 2nd or 3rd hand account isn't best evidence of a physical place.

 

2 - The existence of a religion isn't proof of a religion's history of teachings. Scientology exists but that doesn't put the onus on me or any other non Scientology follower to disprove anything. Mormons exist and have tens of millions of followers all over the world. That doesn't mean the onus is on me to prove Joseph Smith didn't speak to a golden salamander and that Jesus didn't come to North America. Many realigions have made up origins. The existence of a religion doesn't prove a religions teachings.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"1 - Atlantis is said to have been a physical place. Finding that place, geological evidence of where such a place was, or artifacts from that place is the best evidence. That is it. Some historical figure provided a 2nd or 3rd hand account isn't best evidence of a physical place.

 

"2 - The existence of a religion isn't proof of a religion's history of teachings. Scientology exists but that doesn't put the onus on me or any other non Scientology follower to disprove anything. Mormons exist and have tens of millions of followers all over the world. That doesn't mean the onus is on me to prove Joseph Smith didn't speak to a golden salamander and that Jesus didn't come to North America. Many realigions have made up origins. The existence of a religion doesn't prove a religions teachings."

 

I can satisfy your requirement, but I doubt you really have an interest of settling the question of Atlantis in the affirmative. As for the Book of Mormon, and the claims made concerning Jose Smith, I have read the entire book. It bears no resemblance on many levels to the Bible, except for the practically verbatim plagiarism of the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew's account, and a few other direct one liners likewise. Most of it sounds like Billy Graham soap boxing on Lysergic Acid Diethylamide transcribed from tape. Mormon and Nephi are purported to have become perfected, while Jesus right and left hand (Moses and Elija) are the Bible's closest contenders for such honours. Then the division of the book is fairly random, while the Bible is organised as HISTORY, LITERARY, PROPHECY, GOSPELS and EPISTLES, culminating in the REVELATION of John the Beloved disciple. This last book reveals mysteries using as symbolism a great deal of preceding text, which is thus a prerequisite. Edgar Cayce produced 22 psychic discourses on its interpretation which requires a knowledge of the endocrine system of the human body and more to comprehend.

 

Is it clear yet that knowledge may have sources yet to be accepted by Aristotlian Science? If you are prepared to concede validity, I will present your requirement concerning Atlantis and more.

Edited by Pymander
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can satisfy your requirement, but I doubt you really have an interest of settling the question of Atlantis in the affirmative. As for the Book of Mormon, and the claims made concerning Jose Smith, I have read the entire book. It bears no resemblance on many levels to the Bible, except for the practically verbatim plagiarism of the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew's account, and a few other direct one liners likewise. Most of it sounds like Billy Graham soap boxing on Lysergic Acid Diethylamide transcribed from tape. Mormon and Nephi are purported to have become perfected, while Jesus right and left hand (Moses and Elija) are the Bible's closest contenders for such honours. Then the division of the book is fairly random, while the Bible is organised as HISTORY, LITERARY, PROPHECY, GOSPELS and EPISTLES, culminating in the REVELATION of John the Beloved disciple. This last book reveals mysteries using as symbolism a great deal of preceding text, which is thus a prerequisite. Edgar Cayce produced 22 psychic discourses on its interpretation which requires a knowledge of the endocrine system of the human body and more to comprehend.

 

Is it clear yet that knowledge may have sources yet to be accepted by Aristotlian Science? If you are prepared to concede validity, I will present your requirement concerning Atlantis and more.

There have been many islands and land bridges lost to time. The stories of Atlantis absolutely can be based on a real place. Just as there have been many preachers who have claimed to be sent by god. Jesus absolutely could have been a real person. However, what could have been isn't what is being discussed. This thread is asking for specific proof that Jesus was a flesh and blood human. I am not asking is Jesus was sent by god, was god in human form, if Christianity is correct, or etc.

 

You are correct that I don't care about Atlantis. That isn't what with thread is about. Start an Atlantis thread and I promise I'll post in it. My point about Atlintis relates to the way history is proved. What evidence is required to prove different place, people, or events existed. The bible is not contemporary to Jesus. None of the gospels were written by people who met a Human who was Jesus. The Gospels are second hand (at best) accounts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then proof to you and I are not the same thing. It must retreat into Boolean logic and mathematics, to be applied to software, number crunching and deductions from axioms or hypotheses of science. Real world entities are beyond such proof, as we only deal with abstractions and generalisations concerning composite entities, where other attributes must coexist. Everyone's world view, then is a personal collage of various colours, and ghostly shapes dependent on their conscious material life experience. Black and white do not exist.

Edited by Pymander
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then proof to you and I are not the same thing. It must retreat into Boolean logic and mathematics, to be applied to software, number crunching and deductions from axioms or hypotheses of science. Real world entities are beyond such proof, as we only deal with abstractions and generalisations concerning composite entities, where other attributes must coexist. Everyone's world view, then is a personal collage of various colours, and ghostly shapes dependent on their conscious material life experience. Black and white do not exist.

There is absolutely contemporary evidence available for many historical figures. To imply otherwise simply isn't true. Asking for contemporary writings or artifacts from the time Jesus is said to have lived is not a tall order. Such evidence exists for individuals who came long before Jesus. You have been referencing the work of Plato for example. Plato was something like 500yrs before the time Jesus is said to have lived. Plato wrote things, his contemporaries wrote about him in real time, art was made in real time of him, and etc, etc, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely contemporary evidence available for many historical figures. To imply otherwise simply isn't true. Asking for contemporary writings or artifacts from the time Jesus is said to have lived is not a tall order. Such evidence exists for individuals who came long before Jesus. You have been referencing the work of Plato for example. Plato was something like 500yrs before the time Jesus is said to have lived. Plato wrote things, his contemporaries wrote about him in real time, art was made in real time of him, and etc, etc, etc.

Yes, but at the time Jesus wasn't as famous as Plato.

 

Take for example a king that rose to power.

We have records of his life, but not his childhood.

 

Jesus wasn't famous until a long time after his death.

 

Also, I found this article.

Written by an Atheist, so now you can't call out biased.

http://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but at the time Jesus wasn't as famous as Plato.

 

Take for example a king that rose to power.

We have records of his life, but not his childhood.

 

Jesus wasn't famous until a long time after his death.

 

Also, I found this article.

Written by an Atheist, so now you can't call out biased.

http://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

I used Plato as an example because Pymander has referenced Plato. Obviously famous people are easier to verify. However there are many nonfamous people through history we have contemporary evidence for in the form of grave sites, things they wrote, and etc. We just don't spend time on school learning every name which has been unearthed archaeology. Museumsare full of artifacts which prove the existence of average everyday people from thousands of years back.

 

If I say there is not any contemporary evidence and then someone points out that Jesus wasn't famous at the time of his death that doesn't change the fact that we have no contemporary evidence. Explaining reasons wahy no contemporary evidence is available doesn't change the fact that none is available. Jesus had followers and a message. Had Jesus ever written anything, even a letter to a friend, it isn't inconceivable his followers would have kept it. Jesus was important enough to enough people it isn't unreasonable to imagine someone would want to have kept something of his or write his name on something. The Holy grail, for example, would be contemporary evidence if it existed. If the gospels bother to say where the grave Jesus was initial buried in that potentially could be evidence if found. You are right that Jesus wasn't famous as Plato but that doesn't mean we should just assume there would be nothing. After all he was important enough that word of his existence (if he existed) spread and stayed alive until decades later to be written about in the gospels. Form those decades we are to accept no one literate bothered to write anything? I don't mean to imply that there should be contemporary evidence. Rather I am saying it is well within possibility.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used Plato as an example because Pymander has referenced Plato. Obviously famous people are easier to verify. However there are many nonfamous people through history we have contemporary evidence for in the form of grave sites, things they wrote, and etc. We just don't spend time on school learning every name which has been unearthed archaeology. Museumsare full of artifacts which prove the existence of average everyday people from thousands of years back.

 

If I say there is not any contemporary evidence and then someone points out that Jesus wasn't famous at the time of his death that doesn't change the fact that we have no contemporary evidence. Explaining reasons wahy no contemporary evidence is available doesn't change the fact that none is available. Jesus had followers and a message. Had Jesus ever written anything, even a letter to a friend, it isn't inconceivable his followers would have kept it. Jesus was important enough to enough people it isn't unreasonable to imagine someone would want to have kept something of his or write his name on something. The Holy grail, for example, would be contemporary evidence if it existed. If the gospels bother to say where the grave Jesus was initial buried in that potentially could be evidence if found. You are right that Jesus wasn't famous as Plato but that doesn't mean we should just assume there would be nothing. After all he was important enough that word of his existence (if he existed) spread and stayed alive until decades later to be written about in the gospels. Form those decades we are to accept no one literate bothered to write anything? I don't mean to imply that there should be contemporary evidence. Rather I am saying it is well within possibility.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jesus-christ-tomb-discovery-jerusalem-israel-scientists-uncover-marble-rock-a7384206.html

?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what constitutes proof to me. Curious about the effects of political self interest and influence that divides national philosophies toward murder and mayhem, I decided to determine the most ancient belief system known...ancient Egyptian. A comprehensive study of E.A. Wallace-Budge works revealed no knowledge of the Great Pyramid or Sphinx, besides some maintenance, and a vague reference in Chapter LXIV of "The Book of the Dead". Zeroing this I found information about world wide unattributed artefacts. One such book, "The Pyramid Odyssey" by William Fix spoke of "The Sleeping Prophet" and Mark Leyner's "The Egyptian Heritage" based on the Edgar Cayce readings. That book was to me the first "evidence" of the actual existence of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Bible as the Word and Work of God, and the influence of the Christ soul from time immemorial as the embodiment of legendary Osiris and God of the Dead (incarnates evolving through the zodiacal influences of astrology and His Shepherd (the meaning of Pymander)). Like Woodrow Wilson I have come to believe that "No man (Cayce) is that good a liar" and that the Bible is true on the correctly elucidated levels of significance, through cross correlation. On the flipside, it is not the purpose of God to force mankind into the fold, being a power that would terrify those who yet cannot escape wickedness through soul-evolutionary infancy or wilful retardation. So, not only are artifacts of Jesus removed from the earth, but another such, Moses, is cited in Jude, and Elijah (Elias NT) ascended in a chariot of fire, to return as John the Baptist. Enoch, seventh from Adan, was not for God took him and returns as Melchizedek (Melchisedec NT, Hermes, the Christ) to simpliy accomplished the establishment of the Essenes by manifesting from the perfected state as recorded in Hebrews, before dropping the veil and beginning a series of lives, and establishing religions, during this, the fourth age marked by the Mystery of the Ages, the Sphinx. This material, far flung as it is, is too internally consistent to my mind to be fabrication.

Edited by Pymander
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what constitutes proof to me. ... One such book, "The Pyramid Odyssey" by William Fix spoke of "The Sleeping Prophet" and Mark Leyner's "The Egyptian Heritage" based on the Edgar Cayce readings. That book was to me the first "evidence" of the actual existence of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Bible as the Word and Work of God, ,,,

Do you realise that you are saying the writings, based on the word of someone who is a suspect fraud, are the best evidence you can come up with?

 

Do you see why we won't accept them as evidence?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"While it is archaeologically impossible to say that the tomb recently uncovered in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the burial site of an individual Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth, there is indirect evidence to suggest that the identification of the site by representatives of the Roman emperor Constantine some 300 years later may be a reasonable one.

 

The earliest accounts of Jesus' burial come from the Canonical Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, which are believed to have been composed decades after Christ's crucifixion around A.D. 30. While there are variations in the details, the accounts consistently describe how Christ was buried in a rock-cut tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy Jewish follower of Jesus.

Archaeologists have identified more than a thousand such rock-cut tombs in the area around Jerusalem, says archaeologist and National Geographic grantee Jodi Magness. Each one of these family tombs consisted of one or more burial chambers with long niches cut into the sides of the rock to accommodate individual bodies."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/jesus-christ-tomb-burial-church-holy-sepulchre/

 

Researchers haven't been provided full access to investigate the site. If the site is verified it would be terrific evidence. However, it currently isn't verified. The site hasn't even been dated. I am sure you are aware most of the Church was built some 300yrs after the time Jesus is said to have lived by Constantine. Additionally it isn't the only site thought to be the possible burial site. There is also "The Garden Tomb".

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

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Cuthber, you could be discrediting the work of a scientist who has possibly cracked physics unawares, but for the knowledge of antimatter, with the knowledge of its completion in short order after his death forced underground. One scientist recently said "You know science is in crisis when they start taking about decomposing dark matter." Hubble learned from Einstein that the universe was expanding. Do you not think Einstein would have concocted such an hypothesis if it were feasible. On the flip side, finance now controls everything down to the education and opinions of the herd by every means possible. For the exact same reasons, politicians are not the only ones telling lies and grasping for a piece of the action. Einstein was a conspiracy theorist. Thomas Jefferson was a conspiracy theorist. We are encouraged to bleat "conspiracy theorist" because it's insanity? Its plain common sense. Likewise and in all likelihood, Einstein cracked physics (God's thoughts), but for details of its manifestations, with one piece of the jigsaw gone, the antiproton and thus antimatter. Was physics completed thereafter in short order? Would the information be submerged in short order by every means imaginable for national security reasons? It would explain the systematic discounting of our greatest physicist. Truth, justice and liberty serves the herd, not the oppressor. So likewise...

 

Edgar Cayce dedicated his life to the use of his gift to heal. He became famous and a celebrated source of health information, all of which is recorded, together with follow up information. After 20 years, he was prompted to venture into past life causes of human misery. William Shakespeare and his entourage could not have concocted a more consistent volume of work if they had created one long story combining all the plays, and honed it for 20 years. Cayce closed his eyes, was given the information, and gave a reading which often surprised himself when he read it. Can those who walk a crooked path be friends of truth, justice and liberty. Can they even speak the truth. "There is a River", and its post requisite "Memoires of a Seer" offer many illustrations of Cayce's opposition in his own lifetime, from less than scrupulous authorities (doctors, judges, etc). You need to ask yourself who the real frauds are.

 

So returning to the story of Jesus, we have a life that fell quickly, with fame, into crossed purposes with authorities of his day. "I am the way, the truth and the life" does nor ring bells or gain any sympathy from many of those who would be authorities, but from the "herd" that has become the "prey", time may well raise a martyr with a message, like Che (Ernisto) Guevara, Mahatma Ghandi, and such. Those with much to hide do not wish be thrown into relief against righteousness, and already have a vested interest in destroying the righteous. How popular do you think Cayce was in his day, confronting those doctors who knew very well that he could see their thoughts, and recount their activities. Such a one was Jesus, and much more.

Edited by Pymander
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Ten Oz: interesting links. My take would be that the original would in all likelihood, be the Church of the Holy Sepulchre location. Cayce actually gave from a reading that mass acceptance of his work would require official acceptance. This would have been the case, I think, with Constantine's acceptance of the tide brought in by Jesus' crucifixion. In all truth, we can only attribute a probability to such things as correct, and present hypothetical bases as such, together with alternatives. The idea of Mainstream as absolute in any sense but the current official line is taking liberties. To use the term "crackpot" against the support of alternatives of reasonable likelihood is abusive and unreasonable, unless incontrovertible contradictions actually exist. This, of course, excludes the primal hypotheses themselves, as they are only inferred from evidence. In the words of Stephen Gould, "A wealth of evidence does not necessarily settle matters, when human ingenuity is interpreting the facts." , a conclusion reached after examining five theories explaining the Permian Extinction, all of which harbour anomalies. Change, however is historically resisted once a paradigm establishes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Paymander, "A wealth of evidence does not necessarily settle matters, when human ingenuity is interpreting the facts." that is a good qoute. One of the major hurdles to the historicity of Jesus is that to Christians as a matter of faith Jesus simply had to have existed. Without a physical Jesus Christianity's teachings can't be true. As stated previously though lots of religions exist with made up origins. Christians exist, that is a fact. Whether or not Jesus existed is a different question yet for a Christian impossible to separate. If I started a thread specifically asking about of the historicity of Moses or Noah I think it would have spurred less debate. Moses and Noah are important to Christianity but don't need to be lierally affirmed. Many more people are open to viewing the story of Moses and Noah as parables. Jesus however, in Christian belief, cannot be a parable. He must be literal. That makes this discussion hard because so many are unwilling to separate Jesus from the Bible.

 

The story of Jesus says he was born of a virgin birth, is both God's son and God in human form, perfect, lived a sinless life, was killed and then resurrected. Jesus perfomed miracles, had visions, was the realization of prophecy, with return again, and etc, etc,etc. NONE of that is what this thread is about yet obviously in a literal sense none could have happened unless Jesus was first a real person. So it is tough. The question I am asking about Jesus doesn't attempt to answer any religious questions yet to a Christian it absolutely does. Christianity exists, that is a modern fact, that isn't changed the historicity of Jesus.

 

So this discussion is stuck a loop. Non contemporary religious texts from Chrsitian writings keep being brought up as evidence that Jesus was real. However if we look back to the OP the question isn't about Chrsitian writings. Jesus is real because the gospels say so simply isn't good evidence. Constantines converting to Christianity and venerating the Church of the Holy Sepulchre some 300 years after Jesus is said to have lived and no archeologists have verified the site isn't good evidence. Atleast not of a real life man. Perhaps of a storied religios tradition but the 2 simply are not the same.

 

You keep bring up Edgar Cayce and I am trying to ignore it for the most part. As with Atlantis Cayce would require his own thread. I do not believe Cayce, Nostradamus, Jean Dixon, Miss Cleo, or etc could see, know, or predict anything. If I wrote down hundreds of predictions a day for 30yrs I think it is fair to assume thousands of them would come true provided those predictions were grounded in what I already know about history and human nature. Cayce is not proved and there for can't be used to prove Jesus, Atlantis, or anything else.

Edited by Ten oz
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotlian science then is only concerned with what is seen under the microscope and in the moment, and time alone will obliterate every fact from existence. It is not applicable outside the laboratory, as it would cripple the superstitious but functional human being, and turn him into a bureaucratic automaton like R2D2 with the potential of Robocop's glitchy predecessor, by accident or design. It would explain the stumbling of science in Astronomy (many "...an area of active research...") and Psychology (wisdom is justified by its children + people aren't getting any sweeter, but rather the contrary). The method has removed black cats and walking under ladders, except for tripping over cats and wearing paint or hammers, but completely misinterpreted alchemy, and completely removed even Albert Einstein's (and Spinosa's) God and Fred Hoyle's Superintellect as responsible for creation. Science has deemed Creation a complete accident, from possibly as little as six fundamental particles and a system of laws = behaviour, up to the remarkable molecule DNA inherent to all life on Earth. What is the probability of even the simplest known DNA (other than parasitic and devolved viruses) assembling itself even without necessary baggage to survive in any suitable environment? These are the thoughts of a person who has the gift of "three parts of the philosophy of the whole World" - One Thing - the first cause and irreducible reality, consciousness or spirit - in totality, God. Does science have any better explanation for consciousness? None I have seen make any sense at all. And I believe that the principles of science include "Two theories that cannot be distinguished by different experimental results are in fact equivalent." This applies to the objective universe, and its subjective manifestation by the senses as some special kind of psychic phenomenon = Hermetic Philosophy (Psalm 90 KJV). And this last explains normality (consistent causes and effects = current science) and miracles (God's hand in the fates of Mankind = superstition?). Stephen Gould, in "The Book of Life" (Palaeontology), which returned to print after my publicising it on Science Forums, was a devout atheist by all accounts, and overtones emerge throughout the treatise. He dodges the DNA problem saying that the probability of assembly is simply not known. I can interpret the same evidence otherwise. Even the theories! With God's hand, to create the Astrological influence of the passions of the flesh, the Permian extinction was caused by "the throwing off of the moon" (Cayce). Echo's of this,as perhaps myth incorporating alchemaic symbolism akin the The Revelation KJV, may be found in the second book of "The Divine Pymander". Likewise, the "One Thing", spirit, is from Hermes' "Philosophers [Touch] Stone", a profound piece of Hermetic or Alchemaic writing.

 

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/const2.asp

 

The above link spells out the departure of contemporary Christianity from consistency, Hermetic Philosopy, and possibly the Jewish belief system of the Old Testament. While Jesus stated plainly that no jot or tittle will depart from the "law and the Prophets" until all is fulfilled, embarrassment of a corrupting church hierarchy (begun already as recounted in John's Third Epistle, against his own authority) may have produced this knee-jerk. The Egyptian Christianity, steeped in mysticism, became, with Heiroglyphics, outlawed. I believe that this spawned the Masons and the Gypsies, both of which sport the Tarot in their philosophies. This may well be an Alchemaic encryption of the Chapters of the Revelation encoding, with the Fool = Chapter 1, and the World = Chapter 22, to prevent burning at the stake. Cayce says that the simplification of Christianity was for transmission to the masses, and for advantage due to the submerged knowledge. He also said that the Children of Belial (the Devil) tend to bind rather than loose the truth. Consistency is my only yardstick.

 

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

 

This ancient document is the original source of the "Philosopher's Stone", said to have been given to Abraham by Hermes (Melchizedek KJV) as a touch stone of all wisdom. To my mind it symbolically describes God, and states that this understanding is the basis of true philosophy. Again, Hermes is one of the incarnations of the Christ "whose goings forth are from time immemorial" from the prophecy of his birth in Bethlehem, used to inform Herod by the Pharisees, and leading to the slaughter of children there.

Edited by Pymander
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, then.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotlian science then is only concerned with what is seen under the microscope and in the moment, and time alone will obliterate every fact from existence. It is not applicable outside the laboratory, as it would cripple the superstitious but functional human being, and turn him into a bureaucratic automaton like R2D2 with the potential of Robocop's glitchy predecessor, by accident or design. It would explain the stumbling of science in Astronomy (many "...an area of active research...") and Psychology (wisdom is justified by its children + people aren't getting any sweeter, but rather the contrary). The method has removed black cats and walking under ladders, except for tripping over cats and wearing paint or hammers, but completely misinterpreted alchemy, and completely removed even Albert Einstein's (and Spinosa's) God and Fred Hoyle's Superintellect as responsible for creation. Science has deemed Creation a complete accident, from possibly as little as six fundamental particles and a system of laws = behaviour, up to the remarkable molecule DNA inherent to all life on Earth. What is the probability of even the simplest known DNA (other than parasitic and devolved viruses) assembling itself even without necessary baggage to survive in any suitable environment? These are the thoughts of a person who has the gift of "three parts of the philosophy of the whole World" - One Thing - the first cause and irreducible reality, consciousness or spirit - in totality, God. Does science have any better explanation for consciousness? None I have seen make any sense at all. And I believe that the principles of science include "Two theories that cannot be distinguished by different experimental results are in fact equivalent." This applies to the objective universe, and its subjective manifestation by the senses as some special kind of psychic phenomenon = Hermetic Philosophy (Psalm 90 KJV). And this last explains normality (consistent causes and effects = current science) and miracles (God's hand in the fates of Mankind = superstition?). Stephen Gould, in "The Book of Life" (Palaeontology), which returned to print after my publicising it on Science Forums, was a devout atheist by all accounts, and overtones emerge throughout the treatise. He dodges the DNA problem saying that the probability of assembly is simply not known. I can interpret the same evidence otherwise. Even the theories! With God's hand, to create the Astrological influence of the passions of the flesh, the Permian extinction was caused by "the throwing off of the moon" (Cayce). Echo's of this,as perhaps myth incorporating alchemaic symbolism akin the The Revelation KJV, may be found in the second book of "The Divine Pymander". Likewise, the "One Thing", spirit, is from Hermes' "Philosophers [Touch] Stone", a profound piece of Hermetic or Alchemaic writing.

 

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/const2.asp

 

The above link spells out the departure of contemporary Christianity from consistency, Hermetic Philosopy, and possibly the Jewish belief system of the Old Testament. While Jesus stated plainly that no jot or tittle will depart from the "law and the Prophets" until all is fulfilled, embarrassment of a corrupting church hierarchy (begun already as recounted in John's Third Epistle, against his own authority) may have produced this knee-jerk. The Egyptian Christianity, steeped in mysticism, became, with Heiroglyphics, outlawed. I believe that this spawned the Masons and the Gypsies, both of which sport the Tarot in their philosophies. This may well be an Alchemaic encryption of the Chapters of the Revelation encoding, with the Fool = Chapter 1, and the World = Chapter 22, to prevent burning at the stake. Cayce says that the simplification of Christianity was for transmission to the masses, and for advantage due to the submerged knowledge. He also said that the Children of Belial (the Devil) tend to bind rather than loose the truth. Consistency is my only yardstick.

 

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

 

This ancient document is the original source of the "Philosopher's Stone", said to have been given to Abraham by Hermes (Melchizedek KJV) as a touch stone of all wisdom. To my mind it symbolically describes God, and states that this understanding is the basis of true philosophy. Again, Hermes is one of the incarnations of the Christ "whose goings forth are from time immemorial" from the prophecy of his birth in Bethlehem, used to inform Herod by the Pharisees, and leading to the slaughter of children there.

I guess the computer you typed this post with must be positioned inside a laboratoy, otherwise it wouldn't work.

 

Now I'm off to continue my incoherent babbling and exploding due to my disfunctional lack of superstition.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotlian science then is only concerned with what is seen under the microscope and in the moment, and time alone will obliterate every fact from existence. It is not applicable outside the laboratory, as it would cripple the superstitious but functional human being, and turn him into a bureaucratic automaton like R2D2 with the potential of Robocop's glitchy predecessor, by accident or design. It would explain the stumbling of science in Astronomy (many "...an area of active research...") and Psychology (wisdom is justified by its children + people aren't getting any sweeter, but rather the contrary). The method has removed black cats and walking under ladders, except for tripping over cats and wearing paint or hammers, but completely misinterpreted alchemy, and completely removed even Albert Einstein's (and Spinosa's) God and Fred Hoyle's Superintellect as responsible for creation. Science has deemed Creation a complete accident, from possibly as little as six fundamental particles and a system of laws = behaviour, up to the remarkable molecule DNA inherent to all life on Earth. What is the probability of even the simplest known DNA (other than parasitic and devolved viruses) assembling itself even without necessary baggage to survive in any suitable environment? These are the thoughts of a person who has the gift of "three parts of the philosophy of the whole World" - One Thing - the first cause and irreducible reality, consciousness or spirit - in totality, God. Does science have any better explanation for consciousness? None I have seen make any sense at all. And I believe that the principles of science include "Two theories that cannot be distinguished by different experimental results are in fact equivalent." This applies to the objective universe, and its subjective manifestation by the senses as some special kind of psychic phenomenon = Hermetic Philosophy (Psalm 90 KJV). And this last explains normality (consistent causes and effects = current science) and miracles (God's hand in the fates of Mankind = superstition?). Stephen Gould, in "The Book of Life" (Palaeontology), which returned to print after my publicising it on Science Forums, was a devout atheist by all accounts, and overtones emerge throughout the treatise. He dodges the DNA problem saying that the probability of assembly is simply not known. I can interpret the same evidence otherwise. Even the theories! With God's hand, to create the Astrological influence of the passions of the flesh, the Permian extinction was caused by "the throwing off of the moon" (Cayce). Echo's of this,as perhaps myth incorporating alchemaic symbolism akin the The Revelation KJV, may be found in the second book of "The Divine Pymander". Likewise, the "One Thing", spirit, is from Hermes' "Philosophers [Touch] Stone", a profound piece of Hermetic or Alchemaic writing.

 

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/const2.asp

 

The above link spells out the departure of contemporary Christianity from consistency, Hermetic Philosopy, and possibly the Jewish belief system of the Old Testament. While Jesus stated plainly that no jot or tittle will depart from the "law and the Prophets" until all is fulfilled, embarrassment of a corrupting church hierarchy (begun already as recounted in John's Third Epistle, against his own authority) may have produced this knee-jerk. The Egyptian Christianity, steeped in mysticism, became, with Heiroglyphics, outlawed. I believe that this spawned the Masons and the Gypsies, both of which sport the Tarot in their philosophies. This may well be an Alchemaic encryption of the Chapters of the Revelation encoding, with the Fool = Chapter 1, and the World = Chapter 22, to prevent burning at the stake. Cayce says that the simplification of Christianity was for transmission to the masses, and for advantage due to the submerged knowledge. He also said that the Children of Belial (the Devil) tend to bind rather than loose the truth. Consistency is my only yardstick.

 

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

 

This ancient document is the original source of the "Philosopher's Stone", said to have been given to Abraham by Hermes (Melchizedek KJV) as a touch stone of all wisdom. To my mind it symbolically describes God, and states that this understanding is the basis of true philosophy. Again, Hermes is one of the incarnations of the Christ "whose goings forth are from time immemorial" from the prophecy of his birth in Bethlehem, used to inform Herod by the Pharisees, and leading to the slaughter of children there.

How does things contribute to this discussion? The topic whether or not Jesus was a real historical person.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their are many historical possibilities for Hesus. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ . The whole issue of actual and imagined existence could be worked out on another plane, which could expand on to another reality like ground hog day a millennia from now.

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

 

Some think and agree

Some agree and don't think

Some think and don't agree

Some couldn't give a shit what happened 2000 years ago.

etc

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Bender and Handy Andy, I needed a good belly laugh. What's really funny is that you must have already returned from Groundhog Day x n to have studied through all the sources of information I have offered, and come to the realisation that:

 

1. Information of that amount, some spanning from before recorded history, some coming from psychic sources, and some found in every hotel room since King James meticulously provided the Gospel, according to prophecy back to Moses, and even Abraham, to be preached as a blessing to all nations, forming a consistent collection of data, with less probability than a living bacterial cell being created by shaking up sterile cosmic dust in a test tube the size of planet earth, and in 4.6 thousand million years creating an animal that can hold a conversation...

 

2. Civilisation, since Jesus Christ, has absorbed one high moral platform after another from despotic tyrants, assembling his armies to realise his imperialistic designs for two thousand years, is the cause of today's global community emerging from Roman "Might is right" throughout the centuries before, to make selfless service an ideal to mankind to realise the present, according to Psalm 110 by King David, so that you and I can even have this conversation on computers across the globe...

 

proves that Jesus never existed, nor did that superstition ever benefit mankind in learning the value of truth, justice and freedom, nor place his own self destruction in his hands, as an alternative offered by lies, injustice and bondage. Eternal life, or reincarnation, includes Karma. Which ignorant swine or greedy dog wants to believe both? How true then is "Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn again, and rend you." Or...live in the present, have fun, swear there ain't no heaven, and pray there ain't no hell.

Edited by Pymander
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Bender and Handy Andy, I needed a good belly laugh. What's really funny is that you must have already returned from Groundhog Day x n to have studied through all the sources of information I have offered, and come to the realisation that:

 

1. Information of that amount, some spanning from before recorded history, some coming from psychic sources, and some found in every hotel room since King James meticulously provided the Gospel, according to prophecy back to Moses, and even Abraham, to be preached as a blessing to all nations, forming a consistent collection of data, with less probability than a living bacterial cell being created by shaking up sterile cosmic dust in a test tube the size of planet earth, and in 4.6 thousand million years creating an animal that can hold a conversation...

Have you considered the information found in nearly all children bedrooms since J.K. Rowling wrote it down a couple of years ago?

 

2. Civilisation, since Jesus Christ, has absorbed one high moral platform after another from despotic tyrants, assembling his armies to realise his imperialistic designs for two thousand years, is the cause of today's global community emerging from Roman "Might is right" throughout the centuries before, to make selfless service an ideal to mankind to realise the present, according to Psalm 110 by King David, so that you and I can even have this conversation on computers across the globe...

 

proves that Jesus never existed, nor did that superstition ever benefit mankind in learning the value of truth, justice and freedom, nor place his own self destruction in his hands, as an alternative offered by lies, injustice and bondage. Eternal life, or reincarnation, includes Karma. Which ignorant swine or greedy dog wants to believe both? How true then is "Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn again, and rend you." Or...live in the present, have fun, swear there ain't no heaven, and pray there ain't no hell.

I never said Jesus never existed. I just haven't seen any substantial evidence that he did. I also don't pray there is no hell; why waste my time?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the effects of a Super-intellect that prove existence by the results, which organises the galaxies, planets, life-forms, and intellects that emerge from chaos into multiplicities of sentient and sapient entities, evolving their own identities from outer darkness to unimaginable glories through their fates, which are the results of laws as real as any of your microscopic realisations of chemistry, physics, etc. but currently lampooned by fools with a little knowledge and no understanding under names like Astrology. However, the benefactors that supplied you with science are deemed sane only as far as their limited intelligence (meaning as in CIA) allows.

 

Likewise it is the effects of these laws, science + religion + occult - bullshit from oppressors, that sent One Entity to such glories, to educate the Children of the Law of One, to become a martyr, because He walked it like He talked it, "Fear not those who can kill the body, and thereafter can do nothing further to you. Fear Him rather who can cast BOTH BODY AND SOUL into hell", a death as prophesied in Psalm 22 by David in great detail, and quoted on the cross by him, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me...", a psalm which encapsulates His philosophy when he prayed "Abba Father, take this cup away from me, for all things are possible unto Thee. But Thy will, not mine be done." Have not the enemy learned very well to frame someone as a traitor, a criminal, or a lunatic, but to never! never!, never! create a martyr. Why is that, do you think?

 

Because people have not forgotten those who became martyrs, like Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, and their very words echo down the ages, just like Jesus' words do. Today we are more righteous because men from Einstein to Martin Luthor King risked disdain and death to teach Americans that they were racists, and today we all WANT to be that little bit more righteous, at lest with lip-service, or with sealed lips. But the same influences are being marshalled by whom, and for what? So that you loose some of the bands or righteousness with regard to unbridled gain by some + the devil take the hindmost for others?

 

But you still think that knowledge may only be obtained out of a test tube, some instruments, a graph and some equations? The knowledge of the psyche is beyond your methods, but the ancients knew about the tree of life, the relationship between the chakras and the planets, and personified the elements of PSYCHE-ology as Aphrodite (Venus), Aries (Mars), Zeus (Jupiter) and Hephaestus (Pluto - note: not even known yet), to adorn children's minds in practical ways to understand their world and their culture. To this you can only cast ridicule? Who's the fool here, and who's talking out of the wrong end of their alimentary canal?

 

To Ten Oz: To answer your question concerning evidence - Science takes evidence and generalises from it, in the form of effects. From these effects, an hypothesis is inferred as to the cause(s). To test the hypothesis, predictions are made, and either anomalies or confirmations will result, which respectively falsify or support the hypotheses, but can never verify the hypothesis as unequivocally true. In short it seeks to hypothesize causes for effects. We have in no uncertain terms a plethora of effects, for which a more than reasonable hypothesis is that Jesus existed. Short of witnessing the individual, more is impossible over sufficient time. Science is only struggling for explanations concerning Jesus, expansion tectonics, a steady state universe, fundamental particles, evolution, psychology and astrology, and is embarrassed that its methods and models are very limited. It would rather masquerade as shining sanity, and suffers an extreme case of multiple personalities as is, without further contortion to escape its present bounds.

 

Your historicity is setting limits using such "causes and effects" which, in reality, would not only decimate most of history, but even more of mainstream science. I think that the masked but real reason for this requirement is to implicitly disqualify any belief in miracles, and possibly stemming from the very invention of the word "historicity" historically. For this reason I have started a thread on "Did Jesus Raise Lasareth (sic) ..." but there are no takers willing to be so blatant without also being flippant. Ho hum. One more time on Cayce, if you can bear with me, he did say that to believe in such things, it would be necessary to witness a miracle, but the soul that did, and thus believed, would not be able to convince another. His uncle (from memory) could make broomsticks dance, but knew well that it was wrong to perform such tricks to force belief in the supernatural. Likewise, Jesus would give no sign to the Pharisees, except for his resurrection from death (in other words), which in the end they did accept, admonishing opposition to the rising Christianity, because they may well be opposing God Himself so doing (Act of the Apostles), and as such could not succeed. Thomas was told "More blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe." This may well mean that the soul unworthy of this knowledge simply can't. One's "faith" is an entire belief system, a way of life, and singularity of purpose from which one cannot be moved (Psalms 15 & 46 KJV).

Edited by Pymander
-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