Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cake or Death

Why is Jesus so late?

1,164 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

third_eye

It's gonna take a hell of a long time to squeeze back out through the eye of the needle... 

~

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

So you ascribe to the confusion of Jesus with other entities. "the power of his Christ" is not necessarily Jesus.  It is a title like "the Merlin"  (King James version of Revelations chapter 12, verse 10.  Even so, the wording doesn't even seem to refer to a person, it refers to "our God".

I don't confuse anything.

Perhaps you do

Jesus was a real Jewish preacher from  the liberal Hillel rabbinical school who taught  and preached in his home area. he was baptised by john the baptist,  and had the authority to preach conferred on him by john 

He upset the orthodox zealot rabbinical authorities of the time with his liberal Judaism  and,  along with other liberal preachers, was executed by the Romans at their insistence. some were also executed /murdered by zealot forces, including one group burned alive in their synagogue.  

Within a few years of his death there are records of his followers in roman records.

Paul took up and adapted his message to make it more compatible with non jews.   By 50 years after  christ's death there were so many lewish and gentile Christians that the roman tax records show different rules applying  to each group (taxation in rome was dependent in part on your religion) 

The first gospel was written down within about 50 years from his death.

They are the historical facts,  and are quite separate  from the religious BELIEF which grew up around him, including miracles etc and which later formed catholic Christianity   In large part that arose from saul/paul's episode of enlightenment/contact with god, on the road to Damascus.This was the driving force behind his own beliefs  but he met Christ's brother and some of his disciples, so he at least was basing some of his teaching on Christ's life  

and yes The title given to him  was meant to recognise his divinity as the son of both woman and god on earth,  but  also the "word" or creative force of god in heaven, from the time of creation 

Again, a belief driven title. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

not until the atomic bombs blow us up :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
Just now, docyabut2 said:

not until a atomic bomb war blows us up

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

not until the atomic bombs blow us up :)

I suspect they will be nuclear, not atomic :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I suspect they will be nuclear, not atomic :) 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

A nuclear weapon (also called an atom bomb, nuke, atomic bomb, nuclear warhead, A-bomb, or nuclear bomb) is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission (fission bomb) or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions (thermonuclear bomb). Both bomb types release large quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.

https://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_chn=prt_bon&q=+atomic+bombs+&s_it=comsearch

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
43 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

A nuclear weapon (also called an atom bomb, nuke, atomic bomb, nuclear warhead, A-bomb, or nuclear bomb) is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission (fission bomb) or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions (thermonuclear bomb). Both bomb types release large quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.

https://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_chn=prt_bon&q=+atomic+bombs+&s_it=comsearch

If oyu had grown up in the fifties and sixties you would understand and appreciate the huge difference between atomic and nuclear weapons :)   Maybe i should have used other words, like hydrogen bomb

but as a kid the names were first atomic and then nuclear  separated by some years of development

  quote 

North Korea has announced that it has tested a hydrogen bomb for the first time. It has run nuclear tests in the past — but the international reaction has been much more panicked this time than before.

Both atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are kinds of nuclear bombs, meaning that the energy comes from nuclear reactions. But the way that they actually release that huge amount of energy is different — and leads to massive differences in the power that is unleashed when they are set off.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/north-korea-bomb-test-what-s-the-difference-between-a-hydrogen-and-an-atomic-bomb-and-why-is-it-so-a6798571.html

 

A hydrogen bomb has never been used in battle by any country, but experts say it has the power to wipe out entire cities and kill significantly more people than the already powerful atomic bomb, which the U.S. dropped in Japan during World War II, killing tens of thousands of people.

But a hydrogen bomb has the potential to be 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb, according to several nuclear experts. The U.S. witnessed the magnitude of a hydrogen bomb when it tested one within the country in 1954, the New York Times reported.

https://time.com/4954082/hydrogen-bomb-atomic-bomb/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
50 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

not until the atomic bombs blow us up :)

Very good observation!

The same power that fuels the sun will be unleashed by man in large quantities. We are the children of the sun. We are made of star stuff, children of the stars. "Zeus," the God of gods, will intervene at that time, and not before, sending his thunderbolt, which represents sound and lightning. And Jesus is the word of God and the light of the world. Matthew 24: For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man

Timaeus:

O Solon, Solon,
you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among
you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that
in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by
ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you
why. There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising
out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire
and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story,
which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaethon, the son of Helios,
having yoked the steeds in his father’s chariot, because he was not able to drive
them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was
himself destroyed by a thunderbolt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

The same power that fuels the sun will be unleashed by man in large quantities. We are the children of the sun. We are made of star stuff, children of the stars. "Zeus," the God of gods, will intervene at that time, and not before, sending his thunderbolt, which represents sound and lightning. And Jesus is the word of God and the light of the world. Matthew 24: For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man

How do you syncretize Dyeus Pater, the deified ancestor, thunder and sky god of the Indo-Europeans and a prophet of El-YHWH, a creator, bull and mountain god of the Canaanites. 

Zeus was never said to have created the Earth, El-YHWH was. Zeus was a player who slept around. El had one wife, Asherah. Then she vanished after the destruction of Jerusalem so I think she left him because of all the chauvinism going on with Christians. 

Here's a link for you. It looks like your in need of some help.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Starting_a_new_religion

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
5 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

not until the atomic bombs blow us up :)

What's the good in showing up after you're all dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
5 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

not until the atomic bombs blow us up :)

Maybe God shouldn't have made nuclear bombs possible ?

If he created the universe he also created the physical laws that makes them possible in the first place didn't he ?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

Aren't we splitting hairs?  Atomic, Nuclear, Hydrogen,  don't they all function by splitting some atom or other?

maybe not, I'm guessing really. I thought that to be the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
13 hours ago, third_eye said:

It's gonna take a hell of a long time to squeeze back out through the eye of the needle... 

~

Easier for a camel ?    ;

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
30 minutes ago, lightly said:

Easier for a camel ?    ;

One hump or two? 

~

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
32 minutes ago, lightly said:

Aren't we splitting hairs?  Atomic, Nuclear, Hydrogen,  don't they all function by splitting some atom or other?

maybe not, I'm guessing really. I thought that to be the case?

Atomic and nuclear bombs are both phrases that covers all types of nuclear weapons. Hydrogen bombs are properly called thermonucler  bombs, as they don't actually uses normal hydrogen, they uses deuterium and tritium. "Normal" nuclear weapons  works by nuclear fission, while hydrogen bombs uses both fission and fusion. 

Maybe Mr. Walker should get the facts right before lecturing others ?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
8 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Maybe God shouldn't have made nuclear bombs possible ?

If he created the universe he also created the physical laws that makes them possible in the first place didn't he ?

It's no fun being omniscient all the time. God drinks the water of forgetfulness occasionally, and on this occasion, he want's to guess who is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. America already did in Japan in 1945, and that is the sign of the foretold abomination of desolation. Which, coincidentally, is around the time Israel became a nation again, in 1948. And many Biblical scholars of Domesday consider 1948 as a period also marking the generation mentioned in Matthew, those also born around that date, as the generation that will be alive to witness the return of Jesus.

Matthew 24: So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
2 hours ago, third_eye said:

One hump or two? 

~

That depend on the needle, one eye or two?

needle.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

   "Normal" nuclear weapons  works by nuclear fission, while hydrogen bombs uses both fission and fusion. 

Ah !  Thanks a lot Not .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 10/5/2019 at 11:04 PM, Mr Walker said:

The oldest sect of Christianity was judaic Christianity, and they were around within a decade of christ's putative death.

Incorrect.  The oldest sect of Christianity is the Docetists, and they were around in 200BC.  They have a very convoluted history.  The Docetists derive from the Therapeuts who were a group of Platonizing doctors from Alexandria who taught and healed as a missionizing effort on behalf of the Ptolemies in Judea, in order to undermine the regional influence of the Seleucids.  The Therapeuts derive from the Cult of Serapis, who notably had Bishops and was known as "The Christ" as the deity had a jar on his head for anointing oil.  The Docetists regarded the revelation of Jesus as an allegory, often with astronomic and astrological significance, and refuted the notion that Jesus was ever "made flesh" as a blasphemy against the holy spirit which would never sully itself in that fashion.  Ultimately the Docetists became an outlawed heresy after the first council of Nicea, despite being the oldest sect of Christianity, and predating any "historical" Jesus. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Incorrect.  The oldest sect of Christianity is the Docetists, and they were around in 200BC.  They have a very convoluted history.  The Docetists derive from the Therapeuts who were a group of Platonizing doctors from Alexandria who taught and healed as a missionizing effort on behalf of the Ptolemies in Judea, in order to undermine the regional influence of the Seleucids.  The Therapeuts derive from the Cult of Serapis, who notably had Bishops and was known as "The Christ" as the deity had a jar on his head for anointing oil.  The Docetists regarded the revelation of Jesus as an allegory, often with astronomic and astrological significance, and refuted the notion that Jesus was ever "made flesh" as a blasphemy against the holy spirit which would never sully itself in that fashion.  Ultimately the Docetists became an outlawed heresy after the first council of Nicea, despite being the oldest sect of Christianity, and predating any "historical" Jesus. 

wrong

Plenty of historical records and roman tax records show that " judaic" Christianity was known about a decade after 30 AD and that, by the late first century, it was well known, had several variants and was recorded and taxed in different ways by the Romans.

  I will read up on it but nothing i have read or researched in 40 plus years of  study supports your claim .

The first gospel is dated to the first century AD, and thus precedes your  date.

I think i get what you are arguing ie tha Christianity is actually an evolution of Egyptian religions and did not require a   jesus (or presumably a saul /paul ) to emerge and evolve  

Well yes it is an evolution , because Judaism is an evolution of Egyptian and Babylonian religions and Christianity is an evolution from  judaism  However jesus and paul are accepted historically as real living people who preached and taught  a way of living or belief,  which  existed by the mid first century ( AD 50) at the  very latest 

Also, not sure why you would want /need to argue with  what is  accepted as established historical fact about the existence of a real Christ and his followers Certainly his divinity etc is open to question, but his existence really, truly, is not :)

  Ps you can't be a christian before the birth of Christ. :) 

I am very familiar with Gnosticism and its history and the two  main branches of today 

I especially like one of the branches but neither really is available to me as a belief,  because i know god as a physical and real being  Of course he might be the demi god seen by Gnostics, but i don't think so 

I already explained that pre-existing Jewish gnostics  adopted gnostic interpretations of Christ during his life and death.

However most Jews were not gnostic, and  thus most early  christian Jews were not gnostic.

I agree that Gnosticism ( and some other variants of Christianity, common but minor in the first 2 centuries) were declared heretical as the church was centralised and standardised .

Pauline Christianity was recognised by the Romans before 100 AD, as was Judaic Christianity, and both were described and taxed in roman tax records still existing today. Basically Pauline christian doctrine became orthodoxy at Nicea But it was  already mainstream after the first church council in the mid first century, thanks to the work of Paul 

I guess my main point of historical and personal difference is that Christianity did not exist before Christ  It is a construct  of the teachings of christ, with our present form  heavily leavened by Paul's influence.

That Christ was a real preacher of the Hillel  rabbinical school, and that  existing Jewish Gnostics of his time  interpreted his life and message a bit different to non Gnostic jews and gentiles of the same time   This variant, along with a few others,  was almost, but not completely lost, due to persecution by the catholic church. who centralised not only doctrine, but power and authority . 

   What i will give you is that Gnostic jews were among the first Christians, along with non Gnostic jews, who were in a big majority  However  no one could be a christian until the teachings of christ, by him.  What made you christian was following HIS word, however you interpreted it 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Atomic and nuclear bombs are both phrases that covers all types of nuclear weapons. Hydrogen bombs are properly called thermonucler  bombs, as they don't actually uses normal hydrogen, they uses deuterium and tritium. "Normal" nuclear weapons  works by nuclear fission, while hydrogen bombs uses both fission and fusion. 

Maybe Mr. Walker should get the facts right before lecturing others ?

yep my apologies I used the words of the fifties and sixties.

Atomic bombs were the first, followed later by hydrogen bombs which were called nuclear bombs to differentiate them for the lay man .

My point stands. There is a huge difference in power as well as principle I am not sure that atom bombs are even produced to day, perhaps as pocket  devices or tactical weapons  Nuclear/hydrogen/ fission weapons are so much more powerful and effective.

You are unlikely to be killed by what is commonly called an atomic bomb today  but  rather a hydrogen bomb which, in in my childhood and teenage years,  were called nuclear bombs.   Even in 2016 the press makes a clear distinction between an atomic bomb and a hydrogen bomb (originally called a nuclear bomb)

Both atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are kinds of nuclear bombs, meaning that the energy comes from nuclear reactions. But the way that they actually release that huge amount of energy is different — and leads to massive differences in the power that is unleashed when they are set off.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/north-korea-bomb-test-what-s-the-difference-between-a-hydrogen-and-an-atomic-bomb-and-why-is-it-so-a6798571.html

Even the atomic bomb historical web site makes a distinction 

The atomic bomb, and nuclear bombs, are powerful weapons that use nuclear reactions as their source of explosive energy.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/atomic-bomb-history

 

Atomic bombs are weapons that get their explosive energy from fission reactions. Thermonuclear weapons, or hydrogen bombs, rely on a combination of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is another type of reaction in which two lighter atoms combine to release energy.

 
 
Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, lightly said:

Aren't we splitting hairs?  Atomic, Nuclear, Hydrogen,  don't they all function by splitting some atom or other?

maybe not, I'm guessing really. I thought that to be the case?

It seems that, today, it is common to refer to both as nuclear weapons although, as above, the historical site differentiates between them.

   Historically atomic bombs and nuclear bombs were  seen as different  by the press and by people of the time (Maybe deliberately as a part of the arms race, with america advertising its superiority in developing nuclear weapons while russia only had the "old fashioned" atomic ones) :)  ie america could wipe out 10 square miles with one bomb while Russia could only destroy one square mile (Figures not actual but comparative, and ironic) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
7 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Incorrect.  The oldest sect of Christianity is the Docetists, and they were around in 200BC.  They have a very convoluted history.  The Docetists derive from the Therapeuts who were a group of Platonizing doctors from Alexandria who taught and healed as a missionizing effort on behalf of the Ptolemies in Judea, in order to undermine the regional influence of the Seleucids.  The Therapeuts derive from the Cult of Serapis, who notably had Bishops and was known as "The Christ" as the deity had a jar on his head for anointing oil.  The Docetists regarded the revelation of Jesus as an allegory, often with astronomic and astrological significance, and refuted the notion that Jesus was ever "made flesh" as a blasphemy against the holy spirit which would never sully itself in that fashion.  Ultimately the Docetists became an outlawed heresy after the first council of Nicea, despite being the oldest sect of Christianity, and predating any "historical" Jesus. 

I get what you are saying though, but most people think christianity is all about Jesus, which you are pointing out is not true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
15 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

That depend on the needle, one eye or two?

needle.jpg

You may know of needles but you have no idea about humps and camels... 

~

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I get what you are saying though, but most people think christianity is all about Jesus, which you are pointing out is not true.

Well, it is a very distinct possibility that there was no historical Jesus, in which case it does rather beg the question of what all the fuss is about.  I might however also be able to argue the other way, that an individual was perhaps able to hijack the Messianic/Therapeut/Zealot connection and seek to symbolically fulfill some of the prophecies and use the doctrine as a philosophical template for seeking to achieve power thru developing a masochistic messianic mass movement.  There is some reference to Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of old, across more than one religion allegedly, and the various Pantheistic oracles of the Mediterranean did allegedly predict his arrival, which is why they remained in decent regard for so long into the Christian era and were still referenced by the Churches.  All the same, I find it highly unusual that a religion can pre-exist it's alleged founder by 200 years, and still claim that its founder was a real person.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.