[questionmark]

Riaan, on 23 October 2009 - 08:28 PM, said:

I checked - the oldest copy appears to date from the 15th century, according to the Preface. There are similar texts called The Golden Legend - not sure how they all tie up. Nevertheless, why would anyone have written this?

Why would Dan Brown write The da Vinci Code?

[Riaan]

jaylemurph, on 22 October 2009 - 11:23 PM, said:

Then perhaps your time would be better devoted to debunking /modern/ history, which is not a thing you've treated anyone here to. So far your posts seem to be announcing "I'm not familiar with this aspect of history SO IT MUST BE WRONG", which is a little jejeune, at least in my opinion. But then I think knowledge is an inherently better thing than solipsistic (militant) ignorance: I accept this is a minority view on this forum.

--Jaylemurph

Why would this be 'militant'? Is there no sense in my logic?

What would the accepted modern theory about Jesus Christ be?

[HerNibs]

Riaan, on 23 October 2009 - 11:31 AM, said:

Why would this be 'militant'? Is there no sense in my logic?

What would the accepted modern theory about Jesus Christ be?

That he was made up from myths and histories of rabbi's?

Nibs

[Riaan]

HerNibs, on 23 October 2009 - 06:33 PM, said:

That he was made up from myths and histories of rabbi's?

Nibs

If one can match the New Testament characters to characters independently recorded by others (e.g. Simon bar Gioras = Simon Peter), would that not constitute proof that they were real?

[Qoais]

They - not Him. What if they were a group of guys channeling a spirit guide?

The son of the king of Medon (actually, Satan disguised as this prince) attempted to warn Thewodas, the governor of Iconium, against Paul and Philip [Contendings, pp. 513-4]:

“For they are sorcerers, and they have subverted my rule, and have wrought deeds of shame among my women, and scattered abroad my officers and soldiers, and overthrown my house, and plundered my city, and stolen my possessions, and blotted out my hope, and done away my goods, and destroyed my pasture, and they have made accusations against each other, and they have carried off my handmaidens.”

actually, Satan disguised as this prince Doesn't this answer your question?

Didn't it say in the Bible also that Satan would also try to show he could do the same "tricks" as Jesus? He was obviously doing them on a mass production type system so as to convince everyone at once. What happened to those people who had given up everything only to find they didn't understand what the teachings actually meant, and were left not only poor financially but spiritually bereft as well?

Regarding why anyone would make up the story, it sounds it me like they were trying to convince people of something. It worked, because they gave up all their worldly goods. And who better to blame it on that the apostles who supposedly lived on "donations".

This post has been edited by Qoais: 23 October 2009 - 06:01 PM

[HerNibs]

Riaan, on 23 October 2009 - 11:45 AM, said:

If one can match the New Testament characters to characters independently recorded by others (e.g. Simon bar Gioras = Simon Peter), would that not constitute proof that they were real?

I don't know. I guess it would depend on the independent sources.

I mean, I can find thousands of books with various stories of Little Red Riding Hood. All the basic same story. All with the same moral. All with almost identical characters. With many different authors. (Rewriting the same tale.)

None of it makes the wolf real but it does make a good moral story.

Nibs

[HerNibs]

I am looking for more than coincidental stories that can be open to VAST interpretation.

Maybe a document from the Roman court system.

10/4/0001

Trial of Jesus of Nazareth
Accused of blasephemy (claiming to be god)
Messing up temple
etc.

Something more reliable than stories.

Nibs

[Riaan]

HerNibs, on 23 October 2009 - 06:59 PM, said:

I am looking for more than coincidental stories that can be open to VAST interpretation.

Maybe a document from the Roman court system.

10/4/0001

Trial of Jesus of Nazareth
Accused of blasephemy (claiming to be god)
Messing up temple
etc.

Something more reliable than stories.

Nibs

Yes, wouldn't we all like to see those records. I'm sure they existed and perhaps still do somewhere in a Vatican vault. I suspect, however, that there were good reasons why these records were never revealed to the public. Something in the line of the 'violent acts of the Apostles'.

[questionmark]

Riaan, on 23 October 2009 - 10:45 PM, said:

Yes, wouldn't we all like to see those records. I'm sure they existed and perhaps still do somewhere in a Vatican vault. I suspect, however, that there were good reasons why these records were never revealed to the public. Something in the line of the 'violent acts of the Apostles'.

It is probably way simpler, Caiphas (well his predecessor, 'cause to the contrary of what the New Testament seez Caiphas was not appointed until about 36 A.D.) was pretty pissed at this JC causing a ruckus in J'lem on passover. He called the local centurion to complain and that guy took care of the problem.

Later the story was embellished with Pilate and Herod and Barnabas and whathaveyou to spread the blame around.

[questionmark]

double post

This post has been edited by questionmark: 23 October 2009 - 07:55 PM

[Riaan]

questionmark, on 23 October 2009 - 08:54 PM, said:

Caiphas was not appointed until about 36 A.D.

Was Caiaphas not in office from 18-37 CE?

[questionmark]

Riaan, on 23 October 2009 - 11:33 PM, said:

Was Caiaphas not in office from 18-37 CE?

My bad, got the procurators wrong, he was appointed by Valerius Gratus, not by Vitellius...you are right.

[Riaan]

HerNibs, on 23 October 2009 - 06:56 PM, said:

I don't know. I guess it would depend on the independent sources.

I mean, I can find thousands of books with various stories of Little Red Riding Hood. All the basic same story. All with the same moral. All with almost identical characters. With many different authors. (Rewriting the same tale.)

None of it makes the wolf real but it does make a good moral story.

Nibs

Speaking of the wolf, I thought I'd add something about John the Beloved and John of Gischala as well.

Similarities between John of Gischala and John the Beloved:

1) John of Gischala was an adversary of Simon bar Giora, while John the Beloved and Simon Peter both were disciples of Christ.

2) Both Johns were sentenced to life imprisonment.

3) The father of JB was a man called Zebedee, meaning The Wolf or Wolf Leader, from the Hebrew words Ze'eb, pronounced zeh-abe', meaning wolf, and diy, pronounced dee, meaning that/the. The title 'Wolf' already suggests violence.

4) Christ named John and James Boanerges, which may be interpreted as Halloo-er of the Penis Lord, from the Greek word boao (to halloo = to excite a pack of hunting dogs – or wolves? – before the kill) and the Sumerian words Ner (Lord) and Ges (Penis). The name Gischala likewise appears to be of Sumerian origin, Gis (penis) ka (mouth) la (youthful, young), with an obvious inference.

5) John the Beloved and John of Gischala both displayed what appears to be homosexual behaviour [War IV, 9 (10)].

6) Josephus describes John of Gischala as a young man who began with petty theft but eventually formed a band of hundreds of men (robbers) and became "the most brutal, blood thirsty and cruelest of all the savages who ravaged Palestine."

In a story related by Eusebius, John, who had just been released from prison after the death of Domitian, came across a youth who was ‘of fine stature and graceful countenance’. He entrusted the care of this youth to a bishop, who neglected to do so. The youth ganged up with men ‘familiar with every kind of wickedness’. The youth eventually formed them into a band of robbers and he became their captain, surpassing them all in violence, blood, and cruelty. John later confronted the youth, who was overcome with shame. John ‘interceded with Christ’ for him, the man then lamented bitterly to John, who embraced him and ‘found pardon for him in his prayers at the hands of Christ’.

The description of a young man formed a gang of robbers and became the cruellest of all in Palestine are probably more than coincidence. John the Beloved's version can be interpreted in four ways: a) Pure fiction b ) Such an unknown young man existed c) that young man was John of Gischala and he was confronted by John the Beloved d) John reflected on his past as a violent young man called John of Gischala, and 'absolved' himself in the name of Christ. The bishop to whom the youth was entrusted to would then have been Jesus Christ, who later teamed up with Mary Magdalene.

Do you agree that the two gentlemen may have been the same person?

[SometimesMaybe]

Converting women and Virgins was SMART. If this is true at all, the conversion of women is always the wisest way to start any spreading of religion. Warriors did this after taking over countries for the same reason.

Women raise the children. Children learn from the Mother.

Virgins marry.

Add these together and you have beautiful virgins bringing their religion into a marriage, and Mothers teaching their religion to their kids. It's simple logic. As my History professor always said, "The best way to take over a country is through it's women".

[questionmark]

SometimesMaybe, on 02 November 2009 - 04:16 PM, said:

Converting women and Virgins was SMART. If this is true at all, the conversion of women is always the wisest way to start any spreading of religion. Warriors did this after taking over countries for the same reason.

Women raise the children. Children learn from the Mother.

Virgins marry.

Add these together and you have beautiful virgins bringing their religion into a marriage, and Mothers teaching their religion to their kids. It's simple logic. As my History professor always said, "The best way to take over a country is through it's women".

ehm...yes... in fact the success of early Christianity is owed to women.