Just here on Easter to remind you that Jesus was a real historical figure
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (57)
sorted by:
If the evidence was there then the "modern scholars" wouldn't need to "agree", and the issue wouldn't be "generally settled". duh.
This guy doesn't know how history works. Do you think you can go back and empirically verify if anything in the past occurred? I'll let you in a little secret - everything you know about the past that you didn't witness yourself, is based on conjecture and interpretation of circumstantial evidence and testimony.
So, what I stated was correct. Thanks for the support!
Not everything is proven the same way. No amount of evidence about the past will bring you to absolute truth in the mathematical (deduction) or even empirical (induction) sense. What you stated isn't correct because it suggests evidence isn't interpreted through a theoretical framework (paradigm) and could prove or disprove claims about the past on its own. There's no evidence outside of a theory (in philosophy of science this is known as theory ladennes).
There is no evidence of a historical Jesus. But, that doesn't mean he didn't exist. Maybe there were many Jesuses at different times in the history of mankind, when we needed someone to wake us up. Maybe instead of calling them Jesus we could just simply call them Awaken.
Lol his existence is not in dispute. His divinity is. That's such an ignorant statement, but what can you expect from low level hand shakes. You basically have to choose between believing in written history and his existence or not believing anything from written history and his existence.
What questions do you have that dispute His divinity?
You can believe anything you want to believe. I'm fine with that. But, I don't have to choose anything that you suggest.
By divinity you mean the Holy Trinity, that is... God is nothing and everything? isn't why emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325? to affirm the full divinity of Jesus, declaring him to be of the same homoousios as God, rather than a created being. To me Trinity means God is both real and not real. God is a symbol and reality itself. It is the weirdest idea I've ever come across in my life. btw, you can laugh all you wish, I don't care.
Some opposites are between something and nothing, like real and unreal. God is real and God is not unreal, God is all being and is not nothing.
Some opposites are between two poles that ultimately resolve, even if paradoxically. God is Father and God is Son, God is Reality and God is Symbol. In Greek, fathers and sons have the same "living" and "substance", referring to their estate; that's what bios and ousia mean.
If by "trinity" you want to mean that God is nothing or is unreal, that won't work. "Trinity" literally just means threeness but has come lately to mean triunity, three-in-oneness; it doesn't mean nothing or unreality.
Not only did jesus exist, but there is more historical evidence that He rose from the dead than there is that George Washington EVEN EXISTED!!!!
And His Risen-ness was experienced by many people!
It's my opinion that your reliance on the Gospels as historical sources is flawed. Having said that, it is possible a real man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the first century, even if the religious details surrounding his life are legendary. It is also possible this person really understood the meaning of "Christ". Christ embodies the universal consciousness that transcends individual identity serving as the essence of spiritual enlightenment.
🥴🥴🥴🥴
Lol, "let me tell you the Gospel, the OT prophecies and the subsequent apostolic Church that kept the teachings and spread Christianity all over the Earth as prophesized are made up by my gnostic new age take I red by some random guy, writing about it 20c later while high on shrooms about "Christ consciousness" is totally real."
I look at it as the source of spiritual awakening for humanity. And if we choose to call this source Jesus, so be it. It's just a name, as long as we don't make it a idol. And then worship this idol.
There were Messiahs all over the place in those times. It's not like Jesus was walking around being the ONLY guy claiming to be the Messiah. It was a known hustle back then. Even today, in the US, at any given time, there are multiple people claiming to be the Messiah, a prophet, whatever. Nothing new.
And probably there are many today. But, It's not what I'm talking about.
Again, I'm pretty sure you are correct, but you are talking about something completely different.
Messiah is the Hebrew term mashiach, meaning "the anointed one," referring to a savior or liberator chosen by God to restore a group of people. This is something that the Jews have made up. And Christians adopted. In Christianity Jesus of Nazareth is believed to be the Messiah who fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. But, IMO this is just a made up story. God, and I happen to believe there is one, I call him pure consciousness, has never chosen anyone, an individual human being, and never will. This God has chosen to create Humanity, and for that purpose he chose all 8 billion of us. We're all his sons and daughters, whoever says otherwise is only trying to divide us. The divine spark is the portion of the true, transcendent God (pure consciousness) that resides within each human being, trapped within the material world we are born in.
All you have to do is recognize the portion of God that resides within each one of us (within yourself), the inner divine spark, and connect. Once you do that then you become a Christ, or a Messiah, which is nothing more than a title. Jesus is just a name, just like yours may be Michael or John, but it's not who he or you are. You are a divine spark (a small portion of the infinite consciousness) temporarily housed in a material body. I hope you now understand what I meant by "many Jesuses".
So universalism? Sympathy for the devil? Where do you put this forum's favorite despots and tyrants when they die, are they Jesuses?
I appreciate your saying it's your opinion because I have relative respect for universalists who don't insist on everyone else agreeing with them. (Kinda defeats the argument of universalism to believe that some argument is necessary to get others to agree with you if you believe they will already.)
Have you read the top pinned post and reply at c/Atheism?
Add: The mods here will be very interested in the most recent several handshake accounts (at least four). Welcome back.