Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why the Bible is DEFINATELY the real deal
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
Pages: 1, 2
Luminary
Note* - I'll add more to this later tonight and this week since I must leave for a while right now but this should give you enough to chew on and maybe get some people(hopefully everyone though!) interested.


The reason why the Bible is indeed true and was NOT created by a group of people for fear and control is because the Bible depicts MANY types of advanced technology, technology very far beyond even our own today. What does this mean exactly? Well it means that greatly advanced ancient civilizations have indeed been to our planet and have indeed had great influence over our past. And if all can be believed, we are literally the actual creation of these ancient beings who are working in accordance with God as they say, since we should probably take them at their word.

These things would be absolutely impossible for an ancient people to simply make up. For those who really want to reach(and I mean REACH) and say that they were just writing science fiction for their day, how could they if they don't even have the slightest concept of what technology even is? Not only that but the fact that many ancient texts are highly accurate in describing some of the most advanced technology of this day(and beyond) makes it quite unreasonable that ALL of it is make believe made by a group of controlling elite.

A major problem people have with believing the Bible is that people tend to think that the Bible says the world is only like 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs never existed and that the world is flat and many other things that were simply misinterpreted since we are human after all. Many also have the problem of declaring that religion and the Bible have been the cause of much war, suffering and tragedy. This is not true however since the cause of all of these things has been man and man alone and all men fight over the same God, they just don't know it because their ignorance blinds them.

If this is indeed the truth, which I believe it is than it has great implications which could shed a whole new light on history. It can also allow everyone to see the living words of God in a whole new light and from a very new and unique perspective. It also evokes interest into knowing who exactly Jesus was and is since he is quite obviously by far the most known and single most important person in all of history of the entire planet(and little do most people know, even the entire galaxy that we live in).

Far too many people do not realize the importance of Jesus and by their own laziness of never even bothering to spend even the slightest amount of time learning about him have often turned a blind eye to him and sometimes a virulent mouth. The importance of Jesus is FAR FAR FAR greater than many people realize and there is no degree to which I can stress the importance of this person. The other reason why Jesus is so often ignored besides laziness is that people have lost a vital part of themselves that unless recovered, will render any person unable to know the real truth. The following is very important for those people interested in this to know and can probably be considered the best advice on how to be lead to the path of truth and eternal life and the type of mind state one should strive to attain.


QUOTE
Matthew 18 WEB

1 In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?"

2 Jesus called a little child to himself, and set him in the midst of them,

3 and said, "Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

4 Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

5 Whoever receives one such little child in my name receives me,

6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.

7 "Woe to the world because of occasions of stumbling! For it must be that the occasions come, but woe to that person through whom the occasion comes!

8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire.

9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire.

10 See that you don't despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

11 For the Son of Man came to save that which was lost.

12 "What do you think? If a man has one hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, doesn't he leave the ninety-nine, go to the mountains, and seek that which has gone astray?

13 If he finds it, most certainly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.

14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

15 "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother.

16 But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.

18 Most certainly I tell you, whatever things you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever things you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

19 Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

21 Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?"

22 Jesus said to him, "I don't tell you until seven times, but, until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants.

24 When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying,'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!'

27 The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

28 "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying,'Pay me what you owe!'

29 "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying,'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!'

30 He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due.

31 So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord called him in, and said to him,'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me.

33 Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?'

34 His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.

35 So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don't each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds."











QUOTE
"He who has ears,
let him hear"
Jesus Christ
Director of the EARS Project

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."(very important quote)
- Jesus Christ, as quoted in John 16:25

I've come to believe that the Bible contains a lot of information that was published long before it could be fully understood. The situation is much like giving a microwave oven to people who lived during the American Revolution. They might think it was somewhat useful even though they only understood part of its value. After all, they'd see that it was a neat durable box to put stuff in with a handle that clicks the door shut. And there's even a window in front so you can see what's in there without opening it.

But they wouldn't see the REAL value of a microwave oven until electricity was available, would they? I think there's a lot of information like that in the Bible. Modern day events such as UFO sightings and breakthroughs in technology help us "plug it in" and really see what it was designed to teach us. The book itself has been around for years, but reading it now, in the light of the current world situation, helps shed a new kind of understanding on its content.

In your journey through the following pages, I invite you to join me in taking a new look at the contents of the Bible. I'll present the evidence, you play the role of the jury. Most of all, I hope you enjoy the ride and at the very least collect some good food for thought.



http://www.thelightside.org/EARSite/ears_ufos.html

Issue #1 : http://www.thelightside.org/EARSite/ears_u...iblefiles1.html - Ezekiel's Wheel - What exactly is it that Ezekiel is describing? Is he describing a type of advanced space craft descending from the sky with actual beings on board? Could this technology have been so far advanced beyond the comprehension of this man, who lived during a time when even electricity was not known, that he had to explain it using primitive descriptions since there weren't even words to describe such things? The link is an introduction into the opening events to the scriptures of Ezekiel the Prophet.

For a more indepth look of this encounter you can read the entire writings of Ezekiel for free online here : http://bible.cc/ezekiel/1-1.htm

The following is a quote taken after the object he described landed on the ground and said he confronted the being(s).


QUOTE
Ezekiel 2 WEB

1 He said to me, Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you.

2 The Spirit entered into me when he spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard him who spoke to me.

3 He said to me, Son of man, I send you to the children of Israel, to nations that are rebellious, which have rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me even to this very day.

4 The children are impudent and stiff-hearted: I am sending you to them; and you shall tell them, Thus says the Lord Yahweh.

5 They, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house), yet shall know that there has been a prophet among them.




Issue #2 : http://www.thelightside.org/EARSite/ears_u...iblefiles2.html - Following A Cloud To Canaan by Jim Aho - What exactly was it that led Moses out of Egypt and through the desert? What exactly was "the burning bush"? What was the Ark of the Covenant that God allegedly talked to Moses through? Was it some type of technology, an electrical device which could also be used as a speaker for God(the messenger aka angel of God actually) to talk through?


QUOTE
When Moses led the Isrealites out of slavery in Egypt he certainly didn't do it alone. From the account recorded in the book of Exodus, it seems he had a lot of help from above, and this help appeared in a very unordinary way.

Now remember that when the history of that journey was recorded, the author didn't have modern words like "UFO" or even "airplane" to describe what was witnessed. Think about it, how would you describe a UFO if you couldn't use any modern words? I'd imagine you'd compare it to something that people would be familiar with. Even today people refer to "cigar shaped" or "saucer shaped" UFOs.

With this in mind, let's look at the first account of the strange object that appeared to lead the Isrealites shortly after they left Egypt:



"By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people."
-Exodus 13: 21-22 (NIV)

You can read the entire story of Exodus online for free here : http://bible.cc/exodus/1-1.htm

Issue #3 : http://www.thelightside.org/EARSite/ears_u...iblefiles3.html - UFOs in the Life of Christ by Jim Aho - What exactly led the three wise men to the place of Jesus' birth? It was said that a star in the sky guided them but what really was the star in the sky? Was it just a primitive intepretation of an aircraft of some sort? And where did Jesus go exactly when he went off to pray?


Issue #4 : http://www.thelightside.org/EARSite/ears_u...iblefiles4.html
- The New Jerusalem by Jim Aho


Issue #5 : http://www.zenzibar.com/news/article.asp?id=1768 - Ancient Nuclear War? by Manuel Sancho
MVxK
So... the idea of 'metaphor' or 'analogy' passes you by then does it?

Much of the original text of the New Testament was written in a dead language - are you reading from the original (written in Koine Greek, which died out in around 300AD) or the King James version (which was written over 1300 years later)?

I think its probably the King James version. Which was translated from a mix of Old English, Latin, Greek, Syriac and Coptic.

The most common mistake to make during translation is the meanings of phrases and events out of context.

"Out of sight, out of mind"

Imagine someone trying to translate this in 2000 years time, through several different languages?

After the first translation, they'd come up with "invisible lunatic". After the second and third, the phrase will be unrecognisable.

Now tell me again why the bible is to be taken literally? Sorry - you're not even taking it literally, you're adding your own, 21st century meaning on to the passages.

"A vision of a burning wheel (or whatever) - of course - its a space ship!"

Don't think so sunshine.

(oh and PS - internet resources DO NOT count as evidence - don't use them)
GrayTone
I hate religion! Religion causes wars, religion causes hatred, religion is causing todays problems. I believe in a higher power, "God" if you will, but I in now way believe in following a set of rules to be accepted by her. Especially not the edited and widely mis-translated bible

These are my beliefs, if you must flame me for them, then so be it
aquatus1
QUOTE(420_toker @ Oct 16 2006, 04:41 PM) [snapback]1392131[/snapback]

These are my beliefs, if you must flame me for them, then so be it


Youre beliefs are you own, but try and stick to the gneral subject. In this case, it's an attempt to equate bible imagery with modern technology.
GrayTone
Sorry about that blush.gif
zandore
QUOTE(Luminary @ Oct 16 2006, 11:17 AM) [snapback]1392006[/snapback]

QUOTE
Now remember that when the history of that journey was recorded, the author didn't have modern words like "UFO" or even "airplane" to describe what was witnessed. Think about it, how would you describe a UFO if you couldn't use any modern words? I'd imagine you'd compare it to something that people would be familiar with. Even today people refer to "cigar shaped" or "saucer shaped" UFOs.



"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
~ Arthur C. Clarke
ohio tsunami
QUOTE(MVxK @ Oct 16 2006, 12:07 PM) [snapback]1392079[/snapback]

So... the idea of 'metaphor' or 'analogy' passes you by then does it?

Much of the original text of the New Testament was written in a dead language - are you reading from the original (written in Koine Greek, which died out in around 300AD) or the King James version (which was written over 1300 years later)?

I think its probably the King James version. Which was translated from a mix of Old English, Latin, Greek, Syriac and Coptic.

The most common mistake to make during translation is the meanings of phrases and events out of context.

"Out of sight, out of mind"

Imagine someone trying to translate this in 2000 years time, through several different languages?

After the first translation, they'd come up with "invisible lunatic". After the second and third, the phrase will be unrecognisable.

Now tell me again why the bible is to be taken literally? Sorry - you're not even taking it literally, you're adding your own, 21st century meaning on to the passages.

"A vision of a burning wheel (or whatever) - of course - its a space ship!"

Don't think so sunshine.

(oh and PS - internet resources DO NOT count as evidence - don't use them)


I agree. You're taking a language or variations of which haven't been spoken in almost 2000 years and saying that this without a doubt is what it is saying. I don't doubt what the Bible was translated from, but how it was translated. Even the modern denominations of Christianity cannot agree on the Bible's passages. That's why Christianity is seperated by different interpitations of the same book, the Bible. If the meaning of the Bible were as easily understood as what people of faith say, then there would only be one religion of Christianity not many branches of it as we have today. Personally, I have no idea how to sit down and figure out the ancient language used in writing the books of the Bible, but I don't think anyone does without a tolorance for error in the equation.
Jjbreen
OK, I am actually surprised to see "EARS" even mentioned. sleepy.gif

This group is a bunch of wanna bees, trying to build their own little empire of fame and fortune and following.

One of their 'leaders' is a found to be alcoholic - yes this has been confirmed by even people that know this person first hand.

One of the biggies was - they could offer NO PROOF, none what so ever.

They "use" the Bible - but most of their 'information' comes from CHanneled ET - that will ONLY talk and I quote from the one 'leader' of this group:

"If you heart is ready to accept the truth (their truth) and you open your heart and mind, they might speak to you and show you the truth." - This is what I got from the person in a post asking if they had ANY proof - this was the "proof answer".

I almost half expected Jack N. "You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth" , line. wink2.gif

J - ph34r.gif

They even have characters on the "star ships" from Star Wars and Star Trek - how "cool" is that! rolleyes.gif
sonofkrypton
what a complete load ok sorry
this ol' book the bible has been put through so many translations i doubt there's anything original in it all it ever was was a way of controlling the populace it does not foretell the future, we humans are capable of such beauty, thought ie the first stone tools, the first bow, the first house, agriculture, art , the pyramids, law, government we don't need any help we are so creative but also so destructive ie wars, famine, murder, there seems to be a growing cancer spreading throughout the world nobody cares about our fellow man anymore the next generation are lost they'll decide our fates and i for one am scared, scared for my family and scared for me i am an atheist i don't believe in a ''GOD'' i don't believe in the ''bible'' my parents told me to respect and listen to your elders, be good to people get up and offer your chair to elders this is lost we don't need a bloody 2000 year old bible and we don't need a ''GOD'' he isn't going to help you in the end you will help you and if you can help others on the way do it but we need something but i'm sorry it isn't religion and it isn't god.

i just read that back and oooops it's a bit preachy
Clocker
Oh my god. I believe Jesus did exist even though I'm not your average christian, but that theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. Why would you even need a bible to believe? Trust me, it was written by men to support their organization called the Church, the new testament that is. So was the old one. Might have been divine inspiration, but written by men nevertheless. I'm no atheist but it doesn't take a bible or a church for divinity to exist.
zandore
Welcome Clocker to the UM Forum.

QUOTE(Clocker @ Oct 17 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]1393705[/snapback]

Oh my god. I believe Jesus did exist even though I'm not your average christian,.....

Did you know outside of the Bible there is very little contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?
Lizardian_guy
All right, I'm going to keep my reply simple here.

The bible as it is today isn't what it was when it was written. Parts were taken out and others rewritten by the church to fit their beliefs. There are even records of this happening.

Give it up, please.
shadowweaver
i agree religion kills.BUT. religion is fine u dont have to disagree with eachover about it try to just acept others beliefs and live by your own grin2.gif well ths my opiniun anyway
DieChecker
QUOTE(420_toker @ Oct 16 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]1392131[/snapback]

I hate religion! Religion causes wars, religion causes hatred, religion is causing todays problems. I believe in a higher power, "God" if you will, but I in now way believe in following a set of rules to be accepted by her. Especially not the edited and widely mis-translated bible

These are my beliefs, if you must flame me for them, then so be it

Why are people against War and Hate always Hating things?

It is true, there is very little non-bible evidence of Jesus ever existing. There is a lot of evidence of L. Ron Hubbard existing and John Smith too! If that is a point for faith, then maybe we should all change over to Scientology or become Mormon. I can't think of a single Scientologist that started a War! (Sarcasm!)

Personally, I don't believe the Jesus = Alien or God = Alien theories. I just try to live as best I can by the teachings laid down in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Even if some of them are a little contridictory.
evancj
What ever Luminary, sounds like your spewing propaganda. By the way religion is responsible for a large part of the wars on this planet. I could not find any compelling evidence in your argument.
The Predator
peace can olny come when all religion join as one because theres only one God. There thats what i believe. Religions are confusing or just , just, religions are things to hold people from the belief that god is really a alien and thats why he new of this technology because he already had it. Lots of signs piont of god being a alien. but i'm certian that theres only one master GOD
ShaunZero
QUOTE

A major problem people have with believing the Bible is that people tend to think that the Bible says the world is only like 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs never existed and that the world is flat and many other things that were simply misinterpreted since we are human after all. Many also have the problem of declaring that religion and the Bible have been the cause of much war, suffering and tragedy. This is not true however since the cause of all of these things has been man and man alone and all men fight over the same God, they just don't know it because their ignorance blinds them.


Perhaps you'd like to explain why this reasoning is wrong then? Explain the correct way to interprate it.


QUOTE

Many also have the problem of declaring that religion and the Bible have been the cause of much war, suffering and tragedy. This is not true however since the cause of all of these things has been man and man alone and all men fight over the same God, they just don't know it because their ignorance blinds them.


Here's something undeniable: It is responsible for the disrespect shown towards gay people, and people of other beliefs.

QUOTE

The other reason why Jesus is so often ignored besides laziness is that people have lost a vital part of themselves that unless recovered, will render any person unable to know the real truth


I was Christian for almost 18 years. And none of those reasons you listed come even close to describing why I don't believe anymore. It's lack of any kind of support for his existence.


QUOTE

The following is very important for those people interested in this to know and can probably be considered the best advice on how to be lead to the path of truth and eternal life and the type of mind state one should strive to attain.


No thank you. I don't consider your beliefs to be truth. I consider them to only be beliefs. Unverified beliefs who no one truly knows if it's truth. And according to what I can understand, the evidence is stacked AGAINST those beliefs.




Now what's this advanced technology stuff you're talking about? Maybe you can show us a few verses and whatnot?

EDIT: Noticed there's more to the OP. Those can be interprated in many ways. But I will admit it's a bit surprising at first glance. That does not validate the entire bible in anyway, and nor does it validate the existence of Jesus and other stories of the bible.


QUOTE

All right, I'm going to keep my reply simple here.

The bible as it is today isn't what it was when it was written. Parts were taken out and others rewritten by the church to fit their beliefs. There are even records of this happening.

Give it up, please.


Exactly. It's ludicrous to believe it is perfect as is in my opinion. Especially after all the evidence to support the idea that it was edited, changed and even had some books taken out. Either it's not perfect, or God sure as hell is trying as hard as he can to make the bible look wrong, just so he has someone to punish for not believing.
Clocker
Well said Zero of Deism. As for my comment about Jesus' existence...I know there's not a lot of contemporary evidence of his actual existence, but there is still evidence. Plus, I wouldn't think they'd establish a religion on a totally fictional character since 2000 years is not THAT long ago original.gif Nevertheless, I did not say I believe him to have been the son of God or whatnot. Accoringly there were many prophets and teachers in Israel at that time. Anyway, we don't know the truth so this is all speculation grin2.gif
zandore
QUOTE(Clocker @ Oct 19 2006, 03:58 AM) [snapback]1396207[/snapback]

Well said Zero of Deism. As for my comment about Jesus' existence...I know there's not a lot of contemporary evidence of his actual existence, but there is still evidence.

Do you really know just how LITTLE contemporary evidence there is for Jesus?
Paranoid Android
^^^

Jesus Christ
Non-Christian sources

Non-Christian sources are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of Jesus that is not already known from the Christian tradition. The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note. In his account of the persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero, which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor, in order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called Christians, who were already hated among the people. Tacitus writes in explanation: "The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppressed pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title "Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus). The passage only affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in Rome. An enquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about how he should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes from the same period. Christians are again described as adherents of a crude superstition, who sang
hymns to Christ "as to a god." Nothing is said of his earthly life, and the factual information in the letter undoubtedly stems from Christians. In the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, lore, and commentary, only a few statements of the rabbis (Jewish religious teachers) of the 1st and 2nd centuries come into consideration. Containing mostly polemics or Jewish apologetics, they reveal an acquaintance with the Christian tradition but include several divergent legendary motifs as well. The picture of Jesus offered in these writings may be summarized as follows: born the (according to some interpretations, illegitimate) son of a man called Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu) worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced and stirred up the people, gathered five disciples about him, and was hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover. The Toledot Yeshu ("Life of Jesus"), an embellished collection of such assertions, circulated among Jews during the Middle Ages in several versions.

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Irish
Personally for myself the evidence many of you ask for is evident in the shear number of Christians at that time period who believed so strongly in their Lord Jesus that they gave themselves over to the Romans to be tortured and fed to the lions so many that the Romans Empire finally felt “If you can’t beat them you might as well join them” and formed the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
This was not many years after the crucifixion and I am sure they did not stop to question the evidence that they had but laid down their lives for it. And that fact is well known in history.
All The Best Irish
Irish
These are some of the reasons there is not much evidence outside of the gospels for the man Jesus.

1. As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
2. Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
3. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4. Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
6. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
[url=: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html]Source[/url]
Jor-el
How interesting!

People hear the word "religion" or "Bible" and something like a nervous twitch seems to take them over.

It seems that people have alot of grievences against the Bible and its followers. Everything from hypocrite to poor deluded person goes.

Yet what some of you don't seem to realize is that you're confusing two independent things in your arguments. You are equating the person who professes to speak for God and has a hidden agenda to the message being transmitted by the bible.

Is the message invalid just because of these people who use that word for their own gain or purposes?

Yes many atrocities over the millenia have been committed by some very evil people who supposedly spoke for the church or for God but that does not invalidate the truth of the message. Please try to keep the two seperate.
Kaknelson
QUOTE(420_toker @ Oct 16 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]1392131[/snapback]

I hate religion! Religion causes wars, religion causes hatred, religion is causing todays problems. I believe in a higher power, "God" if you will, but I in now way believe in following a set of rules to be accepted by her. Especially not the edited and widely mis-translated bible

These are my beliefs, if you must flame me for them, then so be it



You shouldn't hate, that's what starts wars in the first place.

Man needs to come together as one, to live in perfect peace and unity.

Will this day come, the bible says so.
67thbook
QUOTE(Irish @ Oct 19 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]1396732[/snapback]

These are some of the reasons there is not much evidence outside of the gospels for the man Jesus.
The man whom we are to believe came to enlighten the world, did according to the gospels, swear those who witnessed him to secrecy.

The implications of this escape those who espouse him today.


67thbook
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Oct 19 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1396714[/snapback]
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
Let us review your own offering shall we?
QUOTE
The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note....


"The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppressed pernicious superstition"


Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title "Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus)....

An enquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about how he should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes from the same period. Christians are again described as adherents of a crude superstition,[/ who sang
hymns to Christ "as to a god." Nothing is said of his earthly life, and the factual information in the letter undoubtedly stems from Christians.


In the Talmud, ...The picture of Jesus offered in these writings may be summarized as follows: born the (according to some interpretations, illegitimate) son of a man called Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu) worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced and stirred up the people, gathered five disciples about him, and was hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover.
Why on earth do Christians offer this as proof of their god when it is nothing more than ridicule of the one that is claimed to be God?
Santos
QUOTE(420_toker @ Oct 16 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1392131[/snapback]

I hate religion! Religion causes wars, religion causes hatred, religion is causing todays problems. I believe in a higher power, "God" if you will, but I in now way believe in following a set of rules to be accepted by her.

I'm not going to flame you, but I must laugh at your statement.

Religion doesn't cause wars, people cause wars over religion. Money and oil cause war too, do you hate any of that stuff?

QUOTE(evancj @ Oct 18 2006, 04:41 PM) [snapback]1395651[/snapback]

What ever Luminary, sounds like your spewing propaganda. By the way religion is responsible for a large part of the wars on this planet. I could not find any compelling evidence in your argument.

Read above. Religion doesn't cause war, people cause war over religion.
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(67thbook @ Oct 21 2006, 01:28 PM) [snapback]1398627[/snapback]

Let us review your own offering shall we?Why on earth do Christians offer this as proof of their god when it is nothing more than ridicule of the one that is claimed to be God?
Hey 67thbook. If you don't like it, take the matter up with the non-Christian source that wrote the article. That boldened section was from the Encyclopaedia Britannica as well, I just highlighted it. It wasn't my own personal commentary.

I'm not offering it as proof of God, but of the proof of Jesus' existence. His divinity is something else to be considered entirely.
zandore
QUOTE(Irish @ Oct 19 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]1396732[/snapback]

These are some of the reasons there is not much evidence outside of the gospels for the man Jesus.

So much for a so called "God" EH?

PA does that quote have a link? hmm.gif
Paranoid Android
^I don't have a link, I copied and pasted it from a PDF document that I received about the historicity of Jesus. That's about the best I can do, I'm afraid. CHeck the Encyclopaedia Britannica for more info, I guess.
zandore
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Oct 21 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]1398979[/snapback]

^I don't have a link, I copied and pasted it from a PDF document that I received about the historicity of Jesus. That's about the best I can do, I'm afraid. CHeck the Encyclopaedia Britannica for more info, I guess.
rolleyes.gif
Thats just it.......I could not find it. sleepy.gif

EDIT: A PDF you say.....so you are citing unverifiable sources blink.gif
scipherel
Lets put it this way, there is no evidence that Jesus exist.
There is no proof that he didn't walk on earth.
But His name was alive and kicking.
I lost my debate on God.
Ok God, you got me there, i'll accept Jesus...
but you're still be my God.
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(zandore @ Oct 22 2006, 09:15 PM) [snapback]1399912[/snapback]

rolleyes.gif
Thats just it.......I could not find it. sleepy.gif

EDIT: A PDF you say.....so you are citing unverifiable sources blink.gif
Are you trying to discredit my source. If I owned a copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, I'd have just copied it, but I'm too poor to own an at-home encyclopaedia.

If you really wish, you can ignore the source and remain calm in your surety that Jesus could not possibly have existed, or you can take my word for it that it is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I'll try and send them an email some time shortly and confirm, either way.

Regards, PA
zandore
QUOTE(scipherel @ Oct 22 2006, 07:36 AM) [snapback]1399922[/snapback]

Lets put it this way, there is no evidence that Jesus exist.
There is no proof that he didn't walk on earth.

There IS VERY LITTLE contemporary evidence for Jesus to have existed

QUOTE(scipherel @ Oct 22 2006, 07:36 AM) [snapback]1399922[/snapback]

Ok God, you got me there, i'll accept Jesus...
but you're still be my God.

Pick your.....deity: ALL THE GODS & GODDESSES, DEMI GODS, SEMI GODS, DEITIES
zandore
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Oct 22 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]1399951[/snapback]

If you really wish, you can ignore the source and remain calm in your surety that Jesus could not possibly have existed, or you can take my word for it that it is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I'll try and send them an email some time shortly and confirm, either way.

user posted image Where have I ever said "Jesus could not possibly have existed"?

So if I say that the sun was not going to rise tomorrow and cited the source as Encyclopaedia Britannica.....
67thbook
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Oct 21 2006, 04:05 AM) [snapback]1398643[/snapback]

Hey 67thbook. If you don't like it, take the matter up with the non-Christian source that wrote the article. That boldened section was from the Encyclopaedia Britannica as well, I just highlighted it. It wasn't my own personal commentary.
Actually, there is nothing to take up with your source since it said: " Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title "Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus). The passage only affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in Rome."

My position then stands since I am at a total loss to understand whyapologists would refer to this as an example of proof of their Jesus Messiah.

QUOTE
I'm not offering it as proof of God, but of the proof of Jesus' existence. His divinity is something else to be considered entirely.
Therefore, where is the spoken proof of your Jesus? Please note the red text from your source.
Paranoid Android
Also taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 67th book thumbsup.gif

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

I'm not quoting anything to prove Jesus is the Messiah. I'm quoting these to show that as a fact Jesus existed. Whether he be who the Bible claims him to be is a different story altogether.
scipherel
QUOTE(zandore @ Oct 22 2006, 01:15 PM) [snapback]1399958[/snapback]

Woa ! that's too many for me to decide.
Anyway, i'll choose the one who created me. Don't care about other gods.
zandore
QUOTE(scipherel @ Oct 23 2006, 12:42 AM) [snapback]1400637[/snapback]

Woa ! that's too many for me to decide.
Anyway, i'll choose the one who created me. Don't care about other gods.

But many of the deities on the list have a creation myth.....
daveyboi
QUOTE(Luminary @ Oct 16 2006, 04:17 PM) [snapback]1392006[/snapback]

Many also have the problem of declaring that religion and the Bible have been the cause of much war, suffering and tragedy. This is not true however since the cause of all of these things has been man and man alone and all men fight over the same God

Duh - what are men fighting over? - You said it yourself! thumbsup.gif
daveyboi
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Oct 23 2006, 05:30 AM) [snapback]1400626[/snapback]

I'm not quoting anything to prove Jesus is the Messiah. I'm quoting these to show that as a fact Jesus existed. Whether he be who the Bible claims him to be is a different story altogether.

Sod the Encyclopaedia Britannica - If Jesus existed where is the proof? What historical documents written at the time of Jesus' life can you put forward for proof of his existence? There are plenty such documents and writings for example on the existence of Pontius Pilate or Julius Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, Hitler and Winston Churchill from their contemporaries - whether they admired them or detested them. Where are the references to Jesus? If such a great man existed I would expect a wealth of material even from those who did not believe in his divinity. Surely he would have had non-believing admirers. Surely someone that knew him must have written something about the life of Jesus.
KILLUMANATI
Besides The Bible, theres also the Holy Quran ....

so combine christians with Muslums and thats alot of people saying Jesus exsisted..although Muslums fail to beleive Jesus is God's son, they beleive he his god's Prophet..

What always gets looked over is the part of the Bible that mentions The scoffers and Un-Beleivers that would denounce Jesus Christ in the End Times....funny for the Bible to have such excelent fore sight...There is no way they could have seen that comeing when it was written.
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(daveyboi @ Oct 24 2006, 06:13 AM) [snapback]1401457[/snapback]

Sod the Encyclopaedia Britannica - If Jesus existed where is the proof?
For this, I would point you towards Irish's earlier post, who made quite a fantastic post onthe subject thumbsup.gif

QUOTE(Irish @ Oct 20 2006, 03:31 AM) [snapback]1396732[/snapback]

These are some of the reasons there is not much evidence outside of the gospels for the man Jesus.

1. As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
2. Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
3. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4. Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
6. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
[url=: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html]Source[/url]
And then relay the words of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

THis is not "apologetic dogma", but a decidedly non-Christian source that in the "Christian References" section, which I have posted elsewhere but not in this thread, writes of the questionable authorship of the gospels. Saying "sod the Encyclopaedia", isn't that a little like closing your eyes and hoping that your work does itself?
zandore
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Oct 24 2006, 10:29 AM) [snapback]1402400[/snapback]

For this, I would point you towards Irish's earlier post, who made quite a fantastic post onthe subject thumbsup.gif

And let me point you at a few posts of Mako's

QUOTE(mako @ Oct 23 2006, 03:50 PM) [snapback]1401431[/snapback]

Here I thought you were going to put forth something that was worthwhile…these tired old quotes are from generations later and in all cases show that there were people who identified themselves as “Christians”, which no more proves the existence of Jesus than does the existence of Mithrans prove that Mithra ever existed. If you want to drag out that old “Chrestus” quote from Suetonius…you might want to know that Chrestus was a common lower class Greek name, used quite extensively by the lowest classes and slaves, there are 80 existing examples of this name from that period…hardly proof of your demi-god, just proof that some rabble rouser had that name. The much touted “Testimonium Flavianium” is seen by all serious scholars as a 4th century insertion into Josephus’ work by Bishop Esuebius, the avowed “Liar for God”. There is no way a Pharisee (which Josephus was) could write such and remain a Jew.
I do not deny you the right to believe and I respect that you do, just don’t try passing off a flawed book as anything more than manmade mythology.
The 125 CE fragment is purported to be from John, however being only 3.5 inches by 2.5 inches, there is really no way to substantiate that this is true. It is also impossible to assign even a 2nd century date to it, there simply is not enough there to give any epigrapher conclusive evidence for the date. There are some that assign the 2nd century date, but more assign a third, fourth or later date to the fragment. Another factor that hurts this fagment is the lack of knowledge of it’s source. This was purported to have been found in a box of fragments from a tomb in Egypt that dated to the early 2nd century. However this box had been laying in storage for a good number of years and no inventory of the fragments had ever been made…this is not conducive to assigning an accurate date to the fragment or even the other fragments in the box. Another thought is that if the bible were the word of God, the older texts would not include the short version of Mark, but would have the long version that exists in current bibles….
Our friend Mythra would point out that his is the much older religion and most of the story of Jesus seems to be a direct seal from Mithra…born of a virgin, born in a cave, visited by shepards, visited by Wise Men (Magi’i), had to flee a “slaughter of the innocents” by a wicked king, 12 disciples, crucified, buried and arose after 3 days, walked with his disciples and ascended to Heaven where he sits on the right hand of Ahuru Mazda (equivalent of Jehovah, only 600 years older than Judaism)…Christianity sounds like a rip of Mithraism to me… yes.gif
QUOTE(mako @ Oct 23 2006, 01:00 PM) [snapback]1401196[/snapback]

Why am I not surprized by your answer? Faith without some small evidence of truth is futile and worthless. There is no contemporary evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth ever lived, there are no 1st century documents (other than Paul -who is suspect - and possibly Mark) that even mention any such miracle worker, yet they mention nearly every charlatan in the market places of the Roman world. The two main historians that were contemporary and colocated with his supposed life never mention him, even though one (Philo) "collected" Jewish sects (which Christianity would have been) and the other (Justus of Tiberia) lived in Galilee at the time Jesus was supposed to be working his miracles...strange he isn't mentioned, that is unless he didn't really do these things or didn't really exist....A religion that requires unsupported faith is naught more than rank mythology...you could be a pagan and say the same about having to have faith in Jupiter, Thor, Osiris or Krishna! In fact a member of this forum (Mythra) does say that about "My Lord Mithra"...and claims (probably rightly) that Jesus is nothing but a rip off of his much older Savior (300 years older) Mithra.... yes.gif
QUOTE(mako @ Oct 23 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]1401158[/snapback]

How can you trust a book that can't even agree which century (1st century BCE or 1st century CE) that their demi-god was born in? If these were supposed eye witness accounts or retelling of eye witness accounts, they would not make such mistakes. They would not make mistakes such as saying that John the Baptist baptised Jesus, when by Matthew's account, Jesus would have had to start his ministry and been dead before John started his. Or would have started his ministry after John was imprisoned (Luke's account). Who died before John (in either case, Matthew or Luke), although the gospels report that John died first...Eye witness accounts or even retelling of eye witness accounts would not make these mistakes.
Yeah, and those two documents are not the same as the present bible...Mark is the short version, not the altered long version of today...among other things...Face it, it is all just mythological fiction.... yes.gif


Want more?

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
(Josephus, Wars 6:3)


Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

But was there a crucified Jesus?

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history. ~ Kenneth Humphreys
Strange F8
QUOTE(daveyboi @ Oct 23 2006, 01:13 PM) [snapback]1401457[/snapback]

Sod the Encyclopaedia Britannica - If Jesus existed where is the proof? What historical documents written at the time of Jesus' life can you put forward for proof of his existence? There are plenty such documents and writings for example on the existence of Pontius Pilate or Julius Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, Hitler and Winston Churchill from their contemporaries - whether they admired them or detested them. Where are the references to Jesus? If such a great man existed I would expect a wealth of material even from those who did not believe in his divinity. Surely he would have had non-believing admirers. Surely someone that knew him must have written something about the life of Jesus.


There was a Jewish historian named Josephus who would be considered a hostile witness
in that he was not a believer in Jesus but recorded the following:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

The quote above came from an internet source, however I have a copy of the book of
Josephus' writings I'll try to dig it out and for more specific reference.
67thbook
QUOTE(Strange F8 @ Oct 24 2006, 09:49 PM) [snapback]1402934[/snapback]

There was a Jewish historian named Josephus who would be considered a hostile witness
in that he was not a believer in Jesus but recorded the following:The quote above came from an internet source, however I have a copy of the book of
Josephus' writings I'll try to dig it out and for more specific reference.
No need. Read Zandore's post, I think it quite clearly points to any Jesus of infamy at around the time of Pilate as being a seditionist amidst both the Jews and the Romans. Toss in for good measure Josephus' mention of the John of the desert tribe- John's alliance with one Jesus-Judas the traitor- the 70 that were sent out- the ostracized Galilleans - the burning of the villages- the Miriams and Marianmes within the nobility-The Joseph line to Herod and the high priest Hyranchus-the Petrus; Simon, James, Paulus and Clement shenanigans within the government-Josephus' request of the governor to spare the lives of three men languishing on the cross and you have quite a drama from which to build a myth.

Actually, the Gospels themselves lend credibility to his revolutionary lifestyle.

Imagine if in fact you were honouring a man who was nothing more than an armed anarchist, rebel and disgruntled member of one of the many sects of Judaism battling for control against a foreign giant and the governing Jewish parties. Or...

even a fictitious character based on Josephus' writings and that of the Essenes.
Strange F8
QUOTE(67thbook @ Oct 24 2006, 11:18 PM) [snapback]1403406[/snapback]

No need. Read Zandore's post, I think it quite clearly points to any Jesus of infamy at around the time of Pilate as being a seditionist amidst both the Jews and the Romans. Toss in for good measure Josephus' mention of the John of the desert tribe- John's alliance with one Jesus-Judas the traitor- the 70 that were sent out- the ostracized Galilleans - the burning of the villages- the Miriams and Marianmes within the nobility-The Joseph line to Herod and the high priest Hyranchus-the Petrus; Simon, James, Paulus and Clement shenanigans within the government-Josephus' request of the governor to spare the lives of three men languishing on the cross and you have quite a drama from which to build a myth.

Actually, the Gospels themselves lend credibility to his revolutionary lifestyle.

Imagine if in fact you were honouring a man who was nothing more than an armed anarchist, rebel and disgruntled member of one of the many sects of Judaism battling for control against a foreign giant and the governing Jewish parties. Or...

even a fictitious character based on Josephus' writings and that of the Essenes.


I happen to know alot of people whose lifes have dramatically changed for the better
because they believe in this ficticious character. Coversely I have seen people who have walked away from this said character and their lives suffered for it. Perhaps myth creates reality. Wouldn't it be strange if the gospel accounts were actually true?
Method
QUOTE(420_toker @ Oct 16 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]1392131[/snapback]

I hate religion! Religion causes wars, religion causes hatred, religion is causing todays problems. I believe in a higher power, "God" if you will, but I in now way believe in following a set of rules to be accepted by her. Especially not the edited and widely mis-translated bible

These are my beliefs, if you must flame me for them, then so be it


Religion doesnt cause wars, when was the last time you have seen Buddhists in a war, it's the people who run the religion is what causes war's and such. To say that religion itself, not as a whole causes wars is ridiculous.
ohio tsunami
QUOTE(KILLUMANATI @ Oct 24 2006, 06:46 AM) [snapback]1402206[/snapback]

What always gets looked over is the part of the Bible that mentions The scoffers and Un-Beleivers that would denounce Jesus Christ in the End Times....funny for the Bible to have such excelent fore sight...There is no way they could have seen that comeing when it was written.


I'm sure they did see it. These same scoffers and unbelievers denounced Jesus Christ during his own life. To take it further these same unbelievers publicly humiliated and crucified him according to scripture. No End Times, just history continuing.
zandore
QUOTE(Strange F8 @ Oct 25 2006, 12:13 PM) [snapback]1403819[/snapback]

Wouldn't it be strange if the gospel accounts were actually true?

Wouldn't it be strange if your God was the real one.....there are thousands to choose from.

ALL THE GODS & GODDESSES, DEMI GODS, SEMI GODS, DEITIES
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.