Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

What makes you think that a Binary Solar system is out of the question? And why do you gobble up what the Mainstream Media tells you and not consider what it with-holds from you? Are you really going to be that cliche about your Taurus "it's all bullshit because it's out-there" mentality? This is my first question to you.

 

Clearly it's NOT a Sun Dog. A third explanation is that we are in a Binary Star System, and that we can only see it in certain eras of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star

 

Why would they hide something in regards to this? Because perhaps it is linked to another alien Solar System with Alien life, according to Scorpio's Razor.

And since you're looking for evidence from Scientists...http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1011321/pg1?disclaimer=1

Overall, it's still hidden and ignored. Nobody, like you, actually believes that we live in a Binary Star System, despite the blatant evidence. It's too "Pseudo-Science", especially for you and your "Sophisticated Buddhist Atheist Reality" worldview.

You totally live out the Taurus dictator archetype as well. You give the vibe that if you could just Scientifically prove that Jesus wasn't real, then 6 billion "idiots" would be your bitch. Because you're "Sophisticated". So you use these forums to try to reign in your Taurus Dictatorship, and reel people in like a Missionary. Almost every Dictator in modern history was also a Taurus.

 

The UFO was less than 100 feet above our heads...pretty clear view. And it cloaked twice and appeared down the road so that we drove under it. My friend that was with me was just as big of a skeptic as you until that day.

 

I will consider existed and really existed as significantly different - reality being a concern of meaningfulness . An object or
quality of existence that has no meaning will not really exist . Yes ! to a question of reality I have a reply .

A bond with anything has reality . A bond with the sky is what sort of meaning ? It could be the magnificence of an ancient
old tree . Could be something honorable , perhaps altogether honorable and above and beyond . Respect . Hug a tree or
may it really be 'what a friend you have in Jesus' . Sometimes a person's heart-song will be ' I am the friend you have in
Jesus . Need a ride , Bum ? ' .

My last ride was from a preacher . Mostly we spoke of music along may way home to the farm . When he offered me his
words of salvation as I stood upon my little dusty road ... yes , and I had a reply . In hearing it clearly he said the words
back to me with peace ... ' Nothing is broken ' .
.
.
.

 

You continue to talk about absolute truth. I don't think there is now, has ever been, or will ever be such a thing, although nothing is certain, not even that. "Important" is defined as: "of much or great significance or consequence." (dictionary.com) That's, of course a relative concept, but if Christianity does all the harm atheists claim it does, I'd say that alone would make it important. I doubt that Christians are "pretending" to know the truth. Many--most of the ones I've met--sincerely believe it, although they could be wrong. You can ignore i t, but it won't go away. Some might think your own beliefs are "a whole lot of stupid', but as you say, "it's all relative".

For those of us who do think Christianity is worth serious study (it certainly seems to be selling books, both pro and con), I think it's a step forward ,for analytical purposes, to identify the three Jesuses we talked about earlier: the historical Jesus (the main subject of this thread), the Jesus of Doctrine (the miracle working godman), and Jesus the Sage (the teacher and doer of good deeds). Of course,all of these may be the same guy--or not. I believe the first one was real, for reasons I've already set forth ad nauseium; the second one is questionable--a product of church doctrine; and the third one may at least be a useful myth that contains self-evident truths about meaning and morality, regardless of the factuality or historicity of the person to whom they're attributed. It's the third one I'm most interested in, and the one I have in mind when I say I'm a Christian.

 

Well I do believe there are things that are either absolutely true or absolutely false. Are you trying to excuse the historical Jesus from requiring proof of his existence? "Sure," you say, "Nothing's totally true, so why should Jesus have to be totally true in order to be real?!" Well hallelujah!

I guess we have different ideas on what gives something importance. Christianity to me is just some jackass running around making itself "important" by getting in everyone's faces. Yeah, I guess if being a relentless bastard makes you important, then Christianity is important.

When you act like you know something without evidence to support your claims, you are pretending to know, no matter how strongly you believe it.

I doubt anyone would think my beliefs are stupid.

And I believe he was not real for the reasons I have stated.

 

Yes, why would I want to believe in anything I had to worship or fear. That's not love.

 

Coming across a lot of Atheism vs. Religion discussions lately, and even reading an article about how Atheism is on the rise in the U.S., which is all only cementing the predictions of many Astrologers on what topics would be brought up with our entering the transit of Saturn in Sagittarius.

Here is a prediction of it...not to mention that before Saturn in Sagittarius arrived I too predicted that Religious, moral issues, and the Truth or Meaning to existence would become a major topic. Sagittarius rules these issues, and i can find the post I made about it if requested. http://www.patrickwatsonastrologer.com/2015/09/18/top-6-things-to-expect-from-saturn-in-sagittarius/

 

More on the importance of Christianity:

I think few would argue that Christianity hasn't played an important role in shaping our world. I am only arguing that it doesn't hold such an innate importance that its importance won't wane and, eventually, disappear altogether. That's why I think, if anyone is concerned about it continuing to play a role in shaping our world, we have to dismiss all notions of whether or not Jesus actually existed and focus upon the story as a book of wise (or otherwise) proverbs. Maybe this is scary for some people, because maybe they don't really think the proverbs of Jesus carry enough clout to remain relevant as a stand-alone book.

In other words, despite how much people of faith wish this were not the case, Christ himself was not important enough that Christianity will continue to carry the weight it does throughout the ages based on faith. The only thing that can really save Christianity now is solid precepts, and without anyone practicing a disciplined form of Christianity, this is going to be an uphill battle all the way.

Also, as a Sagittarius, I welcome this transit of Saturn into Sagittarius.

 

If there is absolute truth, I doubt that humans know it, or can tell whether or not they know it. I don't think the historical Jesus is obliged to prove anything. He died some 2,000 years ago, and it's up to us, if we want to, to decide whether or not He existed, as I have.

 

There are, unfortunately, a lot of so-called Christians like that. But to say all or most of them are is an exaggeration. Yes, we do seem to have different ideas over what makes something important. I think ISIS is important because it could kill us if we don't watch out. Talk about being relentless bastard's!

Agreed!

 

And yet you're willing to characterize the beliefs of one-third of the world's population as "a whole lot of stupid". How smart is that?

 

Wishful thinking. You believe in astrology? To me, that's like saying I think belief in Santa is absurd, but as for the Easter Bunny...?

 

you're better than argument ad populum i should think, though your 7 justifications were equally weak.

 

Telling someone they shouldn't believe in astrology or implying it just because it doesn't resonate for you is no different than telling someone they shouldn't believe in Jesus just because you don't, or shouldn't eat a certain type of food just because you don't see why it tastes good.

 

Face it, Writer. You wouldn't believe in Jesus if He appeared and kicked you in the balls!

 

No weaker than the "justifications" given for just about any other figure from first century antiquity outside of royalty. The historian of the ancient world has a choice: reject all evidence that doesn't meet the highest scientific standards (i.e., believe nothing) or go on the basis of the best available substantial evidence. That's why most professional secular historians are convinced that it's more likely than not that Jesus did exist. The case for Jesus meets the standard criteria for evidence-based research in ancient history: age of sources, contextual credibility, multiple attestation, dissimilarity, etc. As long as the claim is not that the evidence "proves" that Jesus was real (i.e., is sufficient to convince any reasonable person that He existed), I find the intensity of opposition puzzling. If you're saying that there is simply no way a reasonable person could believe that Jesus was an historical figure, you must be saying that scholars of the caliber of Bart Ehrman (2012), R.L.Houlden (2003), R.E. Van Voors (2000), M.A. Powell (1998), J.D.Crossan (1992) and R.W. Funk, R.W. Hoover the Jesus Seminar (1993) are unreasonable. Maybe so. It's possible, but only if we're willing to take the same attitude toward students of ancient history in general.

On the other hand, I'm more skeptical of the supernatural claims about Jesus, because they require belief in miraculous happenings, and I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not extraordinary that an apocolytpic Galilean preacher in first century Palestine was thought to be the Messiah, attracted a following, challenged the Temple, and got himself crucified by the Romans. It wasn't the first time, nor the last, such things happened. The supernatural claims, however, require much stronger evidence.

 

I think it's exhibiting healthy skepticism to not trust the claims of a guy that just kicked you in the balls.

 

You don't think there are things you can be absolutely sure of?

Whether or not I think Jesus is obliged to prove anything depends on who he, historically, was. If he was a sort of Buddhist philosopher like Chinacat thinks, I don't think he was obliged to prove he existed, as personal glory was probably the antithesis of his message. If he was a miracle worker who you have to believe in in order to be saved from hell, then I think it was totally unfair of him not to give better evidence that he actually existed. It's all about personal responsibility, and I think such a Jesus shirks his personal responsibility.

In the end, it's the people who want you to believe in him upon which rests the burden of proof. But like I say, we have no clue if one word written about him is fundamentally true, so I don't see his existence or lack thereof as being of crucial importance.

That's not the kind of importance I'm talking about. I'm talking about there being something universal about their belief system that will give it longevity. Do you think ISIS is important in such a way? Do you think Christianity is important in such a way? I have my doubts concerning both. ISIS and Christianity are important like killer bees are important. They're dangerous, but ultimately they don't give you much to think about.

I was just joking when I said I doubted anyone would think my beliefs were stupid. But I do think believing in the existence of a guy for no reason without any proof is something less than honorable. I think people who do that are trying to give personal philosophies weight they fear they otherwise would not possess. In my opinion, just take his teachings and run with them. Say, "Nevermind whether he existed or not, what it says here is very true."

I never claimed that I make 100% sense 100% of the time.