The Origin of Jesus Christ

There was no "Jesus Christ". Esu Immanuel was his real name, and the false cult of Christianity was started by Saul/Paul the Pharisee who came up with the erroneous title of "Jesus".

 

the over dramatic talking into a tin can you do for these videos make them hilarious....try and be more professional with your mic and voice if these are to be taken seriously, just my opinion, but when the video starts with "tttttiiiimmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeee paaaasssseeeesssss" in a whisper voice, i can't take this serious at all

presentation is everything, just like first impressions and these make a terrible one for a knowledge/intellectual standpoint

 

I too believed Paul was a false apostle when I was into the whole 'Jesus' thing...was one of my major contentions back in the day...one of the major aspects of my reasoning involved Paul doing away with Torah, which I did not believe was an option nor that 'Jesus' did...I believe there is evidence within the New Testament as well, where Paul is pretty clearly called a false apostle if you just connect the dots...would be interesting to look into what that evidence was again, though it wouldn't have the same meaning for me now.

Though I would say/would have said his real name was Yeshua...

 

Or perhaps he was called Saint Issa.

 

Isa is what Jesus is called in the qur'an, right?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31cOKXxn1NU
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Vj-EgwRJQ

 

It's a conundrum for Christians looking to prove that Jesus existed. If they prove it then consequently they are creating evidence and if there is evidence for you to believe then that completely crushes the big F word in the Bible. Faith. You can either openly say, "I believe as a blind leap of faith." or you can say, "I have evidence for the Bible's validity but this evidence is also taking away faith and therefore contradicting the Bible as it says it takes faith to believe... Now I'm confused." 

 

It is simple by looking at this anology.If you were a used car salesman,and that everyone that came on your lot had faith that every car on said lot was running perfect?You would garner lots of coin...Right?
 
Lots of clergy live a life on others coin.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KQaBxRt_bM
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMVAUcFj3Aw
 
 
 
http://trish-m.hubpages.com/hub/Jesus-Christ-or-Julius-Caesar-Who-is-More-Likely-to-Have-Been-a-Real-Person

 

There is evidence outside of the bible of this man's existence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Chronology
He spread a message of love and peace and was beaten and killed for it. He spoke the truth and the aristocrats had him killed because his message was waking up the people. 
 
Most historians accept the figure of Christ in history. I certainly believe he existed and I believe in his message of forgiveness, love and peace.
 
I bring his resurrection into question. after his death, he was becoming more famous. For some reason, people would try to look and steal his body for who knows what. How do you hide his body? I think they created a resurrection story so people would stop looking for it. Once people believed that they would stop looking for it. Either this was the best kept secret and we still do not know of his whereabouts are someone stumbled across them in the past 200 years. 
 
But denying his place in history is like denying Julius Caesar's existence. 

 

You obviously need to reread my post. I didn't say whether Christ existed or not. I was not contributing to that argument. I was presenting the conundrum that all Christians face whenever arguing about the existence of Christ. You are going on a big rant about his existence whenever I never questioned it in my post. You can ignore it all you like but the conundrum is true. The Bible says you must have faith in the Lord and if you have evidence of his existence then it does not take faith to believe. Now if there is no evidence then it takes faith to believe and believing in something for no reason and absolutely no evidence is like me trying to sale you a car but only telling you about it. Not showing you it or presenting any proof that it is even an operating vehicle. 
Muhammad and the Buddha are both proven to exist so does that mean their teachings were true? Obviously not. 
If you look further you'll find Jesus's story in the Bible is actually told multiple times before he was even born. You can find prophets like Mazthra, Krishna, and Horus who existed far before Christ yet Christ's story is very much the same as theres. Look even further and you find Christ's real name is not Jesus Christ but really YahuShua Hamashiach. 
There is obviously a lot of historic evidence around all spiritual figures but it does not prove their teachings. If that was so then lets all submit to the power of Zues immediately. 

 

i thought jesus was born to a virgin mother.  i guess i am reading the wrong book

 

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It is also belief that is not based on proof.
 
You believe some parts, and take others on faith. I've taken psychology, sociology, and economics. Granted they were all intro classes, but those three classes gave me a different perspective on how humans interact. Sociology though me how groups act, psychology taught me how each player acts, and economy taught me where they are structured. I'm also taking philosophy and its really tying them more together. 
 
I'm not one to take the bible too literally. I can't stand creationists, it's like they don't have the power to think for themselves. From a sociological, psychological, and economic standpoint, the bible makes sense to me. I read what the authors tried to teach people and I see how those three subjects back it up. The bible is a masterpiece and I want to read other holy books to see insight from those cultures as well. Its a guide to eudomonia (greek- happiness).
 
As for God. You can have faith, and you can seek his existence. Once we find god, it wont be a matter of faith anymore. I see no wrong in trying to find him, and I don't think it goes against the bibles' teachings. 
 
 
There were, what we call, prophets before Jesus with similar stories. We know Christianity the most because he lived in a very crucial period in Roman history. Rome is the foundation of all Western Civilization so it isn't surprising we've picked up on Christianity more so than others. Many people have died for spreading the truth, it causes disruption in society which creates risks for the elite. That is why they kill those people. Jesus is also probably more famous because he was beaten mercilessly, then crucified. Most people would denounce their beliefs before getting the shit beaten out of them. But he weathered that then got crucified which is a second level of torture. Because he went through all that, people picked up on his messages because he defended them to his death. It spread through Rome until it became the official religion. 

 

All of your posts are convoluted and most of what you say is completely irrelevant. I'm really not interested in your personal faith or classes you've taken. We weren't talking about that nor Roman history. I commented presenting the conundrum Christians face when finding evidence and out of all of your aimless tangents you managed to focus on what I said in one little line. Your only true rebuttal to the only thing that I presented was "Once we find god, it won't be a matter of faith anyone. I see no wrong in trying to find him, and I don't think it goes against the bibles teachings." 
Yes, you can seek his existence all you want. But you must accept that if you did find evidence then it would no longer be faith since faith is belief without evidence. If you have evidence then it no longer takes faith to believe and that would contradict anyone reason god would have to constantly emphasizing that you must have faith in order to believe. He wants his followers to believe with no evidence to prove their devotion to him. 
If you post back to me please address what I say. Don't address other arguments that are completely irrelevant and talk about your personal life because I honestly don't give a fuck. I don't give a fuck you know about Jesus's part in Roman history. I don't give a fuck you studied sociology. If you want to talk about your beliefs then find someone who cares about hearing why you believe. You're posting back to me and I'm only posting here to say my piece about the conundrums Christians face when talking about evidence for Christ. If you're not addressing that then don't address me at all. 

 

Your thoughts are so jumbled and convoluted. I mentioned prophets and you answered with a paragraph about how Christianity became a large religion... Go take a debate class. You sound like an idiot. 

 

I get what your saying, I'm just thinking its irrelevant. Faith doesn't strictly mean without evidence. 

 

Mathew 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

 

What about Horus didn't he have 12 deciples and born from a virgin crucified , aren't there Hindu figures that share the exact stories of Jesus ?

So to say that yes he or jt probably existed some time ago and people used his story as a way to create a new religion

Or could it be that he came throughout history multiple times?

 

I get what you mean bro they say faith can move mountains

and i think logic can lead is away and confuse us sometimes more than help

What about Horus who had the same life as Jesus died the same way, and many other figures, could it just mean that they were passed down stories from the original "Jesus" or whatever his original name was?

Interesting for sure