Did Jesus' disciples need proof of Jesus' word?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I need to have something clarified by the theists on here...

From my perspective, there was no divinity regarding Jesus whatsoever. This means that Jesus (if he existed) was NOT the son of god, had no ability to perform legitimate miracles but still, with all this in mind, there is still room for somebody like Jesus to exist.

So a human jesus existed... so what? Why do people honestly think this guy is some kind of god? Have the theists on this board been seduced by story telling and myths? Because lets face it, the miracles, the feeding the thousands with a loaf of bread... I mean come on! You have lots of moderates who say that kind of stuff is allegorical or whatever... but yet they will still make the leap of worshipping him as some sort of god rather than a human figure.

If you don´t believe in the divinity of Jesus, what do you want us to say?

No person that believes in Christ is going to change because of what you say, and you want someone to tell you that Jesus did all those thigs, so you can pull a lot of arguments and links that "prove" that it didn´t happen.

What for? I don´t understand why you want the theists opinion, if you "got it all figured out".

Christ/Buddha is a possibility within you, if you do not seek it, you won´t find it.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Jesus says that no man comes to the Father but by Him, nothing about Buddha in there.

And He says that He is the way, the truth, and the life, not a way, a truth, and a life, do you see the difference?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Jesus says that no man comes to the Father but by Him, nothing about Buddha in there.

And He says that He is the way, the truth, and the life, not a way, a truth, and a life, do you see the difference?

Buddha = Christ.

It is a seed in all of us, but not all seeds become trees.

Jesus was reffering to the Christ/Buddha inside us, not to the Jesus inside us, that doesn´t make any sense, Jesus died 2000 years ago.

Jesus doesn´t mention Gautama, but this doesn´t change the fact that they reached a similar level of enlightment, and their teachings were the same. Although currently, Gautama´s teachings are a little less changed than those of Jesus.

In other words, Jesus became Buddha in his time, and Buddha became Christ in is time.
Jesus and Gautama are dead, long ago. But yes, Chris/Buddha is the way, the truth, and the life.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

That is against all the themes and tenets of the Old and New Testaments, but to each his own.

[KennyJC]

If you don´t believe in the divinity of Jesus, what do you want us to say?

No person that believes in Christ is going to change because of what you say, and you want someone to tell you that Jesus did all those thigs, so you can pull a lot of arguments and links that "prove" that it didn´t happen.

What for? I don´t understand why you want the theists opinion, if you "got it all figured out".

Christ/Buddha is a possibility within you, if you do not seek it, you won´t find it.

See you haven't answered me. Do you worship Jesus as the son of god, or do you think he was just human?

[Diogenes' Dog]

That is against all the themes and tenets of the Old and New Testaments, but to each his own.

No, only certain limited interpretations of OT and NT. Jesus' mission (for which he was eventually martyred) was to radically reinterpret the OT and from it's bones forge a new religion based on love, not legalism. New wine, new wineskins etc. I don't believe he was founding just another exclusive 'club' based on religion - that would be too small minded.

When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life" he is surely speaking as the universal 'Christ' within us. This is not such a different concept to our 'Buddah Nature', or 'Atman' or 'Higher Self' within. We are quibbling about linguistic differences, not conceptual ones!

[Diogenes' Dog]

See you haven't answered me. Do you worship Jesus as the son of god, or do you think he was just human?

I won't answer for Wisdom Seeker - but for myself they are not an either/or!
Jesus was necessarily fully human who realise his divine nature! We are all sons and daughters of God. (However, we are into deep theology here).

It might help to consider the same question about the Buddah. He was human (Gautama) who as a result of long meditation under a fig tree realised enlightenment as to the true nature of existence. Following his teachings, many in the Orient have also found 'enlightenment'.

I believe Jesus similarly realised enlightenment. He went on and did something unique in overcoming death by crucifixion in the resurrection that provided a way for us in the Occident to discover the true nature of our existence (i.e. through love).

Ultimately, I believe that enlightenment involves a realisation of our unity with all things. Love heals our misperception of ourself as a seperate island cut off from the rest of existence. I therefore worship that unifying force within me, which teaches and transforms and which is the same divine nature that Jesus realised within himself, and manifested fully. It is within us all if we awaken it. I hope that helps!

[Pandaemoni]

The real reason to accept there existence on the historical record is twofold: (i) no ancient source (even those hostile to them) ever suggested there was a controversy about ther existence historically and one imagines there would have been and (ii) these creatures had a rapid and far ranging effect on the region as there belief grew. It is hard to imagine that there would be such a rapid spread of information in history regarding these creatures if there were even a hint they were fictional figures. (Though it is not entirely impossible.)

It's an amusing post geezer, but I think it misses the mark a little bit.

First, you'll need to educate me in the rapid and profound effect that satyrs and cockatrices had on society. In fact, I do not think belief in them spread all that rapidly as compared to Christianity, nor (and here is the important part) was there any reason to believe that particular constituencies were hostile to satyrs and cockatrices at the time those myths were created.

With Christ, on the other hand, there were ample opponents who, presumably, would have been very happy to seize on his non-existence as grounds for justifying their dislike of Christians. Even in 1st century Judea, Christians were oppressed. Early attempts to discredit Jesus were made (of which we have written evidence from around the second century A.D.), but the disparagements launched were in the nature of "He was the son of a whore" or that he was conceived when Mary cheated on Joseph with a Roman soldier named Panthe (see here.

Surely, "He never even existed" would have been pretty solid grounds for attacking Christians if there were any indication that he, in fact, never really existed. In that society, it seems (imo) fairly likely that rumors/tales of his non-existence would have persisted amongst the opponents of Christians from the time of his purported crucifixion onwards, as more and more people were converted to the Christian religion and Jewish animosity to the movement grew.

Now, perhaps that story was used against Christianity in its early days and was merely lost in subsequent centuries of conflict. In that case, though, assuming there was a credible charge that Jesus never really existed at all, it seems likely to me that Christianity would have had great difficulty gaining a foothold in Judea in the years immediately after the crucifixion. It clearly did not; membership in the nascent church grew astronomically early on.

As I said above, this evidence is merely suggestive and far from conclusive (and I concede that conclusive evidence does not exist), but it's hardly on par with your "proof" of the existence of satyrs. That "proof" is similar in form only, not substance, when you look at it closely.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

See you haven't answered me. Do you worship Jesus as the son of god, or do you think he was just human?

Who the hell said I worship Jesus???
I worship no one, but my inner-self.

Sometimes, Jesus reffered to himseld as the "Son of Man"; in other contexts, is the "Son of God".

"And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up" (John 3, 14)

There resides the very core of our nature, a man is both "Saint" and "Animal". But we create a puzzle in our brain that creates a division between those two. The Ego is the barrier that stands between the two.
A child is born without that barrier, but a child is not aware of this, so it is more like an animal than man. The brain is still not fully developed. It is said that a mature chimp has the mental faculties of a 6 year old, but our brains continue growing.
Animals are not aware, like a child, of their dual nature, so they only exist, but there is no struggle, animals don´t go crazy or commit suicide. They are complete.

Society imposed knowledge is what we call our ego, it tell us what is wrong or right in the eyes of society. The ego is strong, it is simbolized as satan in the Old and New Testaments.

If you don´t judge others, you will learn to not judge yourself. Because that is the main thing, the ego makes us judge ourselves. So this is the continuos struggle.

When one stop judging, a unification of the animal and the saint happens, we become like children. And that is the true Son of God. Until we reach this state of unification, we are the Son of Man.

So to answer your question, Jesus was the Son of Man, but he became a child, he achieved the state of Son of God.

The thing is, we are all able to do this. The main and only obstacle is our ego.

[geeser]

It's an amusing post geezer, but I think it misses the mark a little bit.

First, you'll need to educate me in the rapid and profound effect that satyrs and cockatrices had on society.

in the known world of the time, these creature did have a profound effect on the lifes of people, the satyrs attacked and took the sheep and goats, and danced whilst destroying farmsteads, cockatrices, mainly people, hatched there eggs to get the fiery serpents, so I would say they had a very profound influence indeed, ( from hebrew writings, the greeks and romans have much more information on these creatures).

In fact, I do not think belief in them spread all that rapidly as compared to Christianity,

I think your totally wrong, the stories of jesus have been around for just over two thousand years the stories of these creature have been around for at least another four or five thousand years, probably the reason they dont have as much effect today, is people have become used to them.

nor (and here is the important part) was there any reason to believe that particular constituencies were hostile to satyrs and cockatrices at the time those myths were created.

considering what they did I am pretty certain the were loathed and despised.

With Christ, on the other hand, there were ample opponents who, presumably, would have been very happy to seize on his non-existence as grounds for justifying their dislike of Christians.

come on your assuming the stories about this jesus person are true.

Even in 1st century Judea, Christians were oppressed. Early attempts to discredit Jesus were made (of which we have written evidence from around the second century A.D.), but the disparagements launched were in the nature of "He was the son of a whore" or that he was conceived when Mary cheated on Joseph with a Roman soldier named Panthe (see here.

theres no evidence for any of this either, have you got any source we can verify.

Surely, "He never even existed" would have been pretty solid grounds for attacking Christians if there were any indication that he, in fact, never really existed. In that society, it seems (imo) fairly likely that rumors/tales of his non-existence would have persisted amongst the opponents of Christians from the time of his purported crucifixion onwards, as more and more people were converted to the Christian religion and Jewish animosity to the movement grew.

this just an appeal to authority, I can not with absolute certainty say that god does not exist, because I cannot prove it, but I can be 99.9%sure it doesnt regarding the lack of evidence, those early aledged oppressers could not with any certainty say that a jesus never existed, for the very same reason they would say the roman gods did not exists, they could not be sure.

Now, perhaps that story was used against Christianity in its early days and was merely lost in subsequent centuries of conflict. In that case, though, assuming there was a credible charge that Jesus never really existed at all, it seems likely to me that Christianity would have had great difficulty gaining a foothold in Judea in the years immediately after the crucifixion. It clearly did not; membership in the nascent church grew astronomically early on.

and you know this how.

As I said above, this evidence is merely suggestive and far from conclusive (and I concede that conclusive evidence does not exist), but it's hardly on par with your "proof" of the existence of satyrs. That "proof" is similar in form only, not substance, when you look at it closely.

why is it any different satyrs have been around a lot lot longer.


lets for the fun of it, have a little storytime, lets say when I were little, I had an imaginary friend called Tom, we would play our little games each day, and each night I would tell my sisters and brothers about my day with Tom, and how nice and kind Tom is and how sweet he is to animals etc etc, and they in turn would tell their friends about Tom, because my stories about Tom were always interesting, even some of the friends would pass on the stories of Tom, so now eons after I've died and turned to dust my stories are still being read and still being beleived, because over those eons people either they forgot to mention Tom was my imaginary friend or my family had neglected even to mention Tom wasn't real in the first place.
and Tom because I had portraited him, as such a charimatic loving person, had became a cult, they had even wrote a book containing all his exploits, somebody decides to write the stories down, he had became known as Tom de Messie, he had become a god.
I had of course been totally forgotten about, but my imaginary friend Tom, became real!

Evidence unless it can be verified is not evidence, just hearsay.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

So geeser, you just turn your back on wise words simply because there is no evidence of the person who said it?

Like Lao-Tzu, laozi simply means "Old Master".
And the Essenes, their teacher was called "The true Master".
Or The Kybalion, it was written by "The Three Initiates".
Or the 5 men in the Old Testament who called themselves "Asaph", wich means "God has gathered":

- The father of Joah (2 Kings 18:18, 37)
- Son of Berachiah the Gershonite (2 Chronicles 20:14)
- A Levite descendant of Kohath (1 Chr. 26:1)
- The keeper of the king's forest under the Persian king Artaxerxes I Longimanus (Nehemiah 2:8)
- Psalms 73-83 attributed to him.

There have been numerous anonymous masters that did not seek popularity in history, so they kept their identity secret. There is no evidence of this off course, so you just choose to not read this wise writtings?

[geeser]

So geeser, you just turn your back on wise words simply because there is no evidence of the person who said it?
There have been numerous anonymous masters that did not seek popularity in history, so they kept their identity secret. There is no evidence of this off course, so you just choose to not read this wise writings?

where in any post did I say I wasn't open to the writings of the wise, I didn't.
when you attribute the wisdom to the character, in the book and not it's author, it's not detrimental to the wisdom therein, it's detrimental to the author. unfortunately we dont know who the authors are in the bibles case, I wasn't arguing that the words are not wise, I was arguing that the character never existed, without evidence there is no way of knowing if this jesus person was the author of his own words, being a real person is what the whole of christendom is founded on, the words wont lose there potency, regardless.
anyway theres a lot more wisdom in easops fables.

[kerux]

as there's no real evidence for a jesus, it goes without saying that the same must apply to the disciples, so given that anything you can imagine would be appropriate, after all there all fictional.

It goes without saying? Well, it goes with not only saying but sayings until now.

Guess what. Jesus is a name with a denotation etymologically. And disciples of Jesus the Christ (from its very etyma), if that's what you are arguing into, were and are disciplined peoples. So, if you don't accept the real (objective) evidence, then you're evading, geeser. Only Jesus the Christ said not "Don't worship me" unlike the legendary Buddha, Confucius etc, who forbade their followers of worshipping them.

[geeser]

It goes without saying? Well, it goes with not only saying but sayings until now.
Guess what. Jesus is a name with a denotation etymologically.

yes the word jesus has a history, people have been using it for two thousand year, but that does not make the recipient of the name anymore real than winnie the pooh.

And disciples of Jesus the Christ (from its very etyma), if that's what you are arguing into, were and are disciplined peoples.

if they existed, they may have been, there title and there names are just words, they have no more validity then winnie the pooh.

So, if you don't accept the real (objective) evidence,

what objective evidence, care to elaborate.

then you're evading, geeser.

evading what! care to elaborate.

Only Jesus the Christ said not "Don't worship me"

wrong, only the author/storyteller said that, the words were just attributed to a character in that book.

unlike the legendary Buddha, Confucius etc, who forbade their followers of worshipping them.

that they might have done, with one big difference they existed, they are not mere character's in a book.

[Oli]

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker
There have been numerous anonymous masters that did not seek popularity in history, so they kept their identity secret. There is no evidence of this off course

[KennyJC]

I won't answer for Wisdom Seeker - but for myself they are not an either/or!
Jesus was necessarily fully human who realise his divine nature! We are all sons and daughters of God. (However, we are into deep theology here).

It might help to consider the same question about the Buddah. He was human (Gautama) who as a result of long meditation under a fig tree realised enlightenment as to the true nature of existence. Following his teachings, many in the Orient have also found 'enlightenment'.

I believe Jesus similarly realised enlightenment. He went on and did something unique in overcoming death by crucifixion in the resurrection that provided a way for us in the Occident to discover the true nature of our existence (i.e. through love).

Ultimately, I believe that enlightenment involves a realisation of our unity with all things. Love heals our misperception of ourself as a seperate island cut off from the rest of existence. I therefore worship that unifying force within me, which teaches and transforms and which is the same divine nature that Jesus realised within himself, and manifested fully. It is within us all if we awaken it. I hope that helps!

The trouble is, that same 'divine' 'englightenment' is probably the same thing that many atheists feel. Just because a person feels this doesn't mean it will move them to religion... for many it moves them to science and skepticism. Dawkins covered this at the very beginning of his book when he describes how he and his childhood priest experienced the exact same emotion, and it moved the priest to religion, and dawkins to science.

The problem with religious folk is that they claim to be experiencing things that they consider makes them special in some way compared to the atheist... Hence the prevailing notion that atheists are living with something important missing from their lives.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I´m sorry for my redundancy and lack of ability to explain in English.
I was reffering that there is no evidence of those masters, because they are anonymous.
If you continue pointing my gramatical errors, you´ll get tired, I´m Spanish.

That´s it, you did get it before didn´t you?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

where in any post did I say I wasn't open to the writings of the wise, I didn't.
when you attribute the wisdom to the character, in the book and not it's author, it's not detrimental to the wisdom therein, it's detrimental to the author. unfortunately we dont know who the authors are in the bibles case, I wasn't arguing that the words are not wise, I was arguing that the character never existed, without evidence there is no way of knowing if this jesus person was the author of his own words, being a real person is what the whole of christendom is founded on, the words wont lose there potency, regardless.
anyway theres a lot more wisdom in easops fables.

Then its ok, but why try to prove the unexistence of someone that makes no difference to you? And I don´t think the same about easops fables, those are just easier to understand.

[Oli]

I was reffering that there is no evidence of those masters, because they are anonymous.

That's the point. If they were anonymous and there's no evidence how do you know they existed?

If you continue pointing my gramatical errors, you´ll get tired, I´m Spanish.

I point out everyone's when I get chance. I'm a pedant.
And your English all round is far, far better than some native English speakers on here. Congratulations, really.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

That's the point. If they were anonymous and there's no evidence how do you know they existed?.

Well, I don´t know, as you said, there is no proof, I cannot possibly be certain. But those anonymous men had some of the wisest word I´ve ever heard. The "Tao Te Ching" is incredible, I recommend it to everyone, the Psalms attributed to Asaph are very intriguing and full of mystery.
So why should I discredit their words for their anonymity?
The person that say things make no difference to me, if I find the words are helpfull, then I read them.

I point out everyone's when I get chance. I'm a pedant.
And your English all round is far, far better than some native English speakers on here. Congratulations, really.

Lol, is funny you say that, thank dude! Althought I confess, sometimes I use Google for spelling.