You accused priests of corruption and malfeasance. If you think that isn't negative, then you're a fool. M-W at least slags everyone simultaneously.
In short: take it to a new thread.
If Christians and Muslims stopped eating meat ...
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
You accused priests of corruption and malfeasance. If you think that isn't negative, then you're a fool. M-W at least slags everyone simultaneously.
In short: take it to a new thread.
You are assuming others motives and actions/thoughts and you simply cannot do this. You have no evidence of what others do except for the very minimal observation of their lives.
That said, you're right. A belief also seems to provide some healthy perspectives that keep a person focused at times. This is one beneficial aspect.
Not really. A lot of belief inhibits self improvement. Saying "No Matter what" was your mistake, there.
Just disagree on some stuff that contradicts your belief?
Herein lies the trouble.
.
sorry, that was not all christanity, it was an era, a small era in your history, like in any other civilisation, when relegion use to controll people,
no offence, exept that, i didnt attack any of the relegion beleifs.
oh, i'm not the only one who said things,
so am sorry again, if i i offended you, i'm so sorry. didnt mean to
oh, and now you know how to feal when some one mock of your relegion, culture, or anything about you, or you live.
You did more that this in soem other topic when it was about islam, anyway, forget, pleas, i'm sorry, if i offended you.eace:
sorry, that was not all christanity, it was an era, a small era in your history, like in any other civilisation, when relegion use to controll people,
no offence, exept that, i didnt attack any of the relegion beleifs.
oh, i'm not the only one who said things,
so am sorry again, if i i offended you, i'm so sorry. didnt mean to
oh, and now you know how to feal when some one mock of your relegion, culture, or anything about you, or you live.
You did more that this in soem other topic when it was about islam, anyway, forget, pleas, i'm sorry, if i offended you.
eace:not exactly, i beleive in god, yes, but, i don't remove him also from the daily life, but i have a mind, and, i don't blame anyone else, not even god, for what happen to me. removing him fom the daily life, is like, not beliving in god.
having a scientific mind, doesnt mean to not beleive in god, i didn't see anything stupid in it.
Well, if you are not blaming him, what is he doing?
If you are not claiming he did something, what is he doing?
By "Removing" him from the picture, I meant that you are lifting anything that would make one wonder what he actually DOES off of him.
So, your belief in him remains- he just has no real role nor does any real thing.
.
i just don't want to talk about things here, cause advantually you'll start attacking my replyes, and starting proganda,
sorry, i have many reasons cause of my reacent topic, those kinds of discussion, are not for scifroum
but i cant answer short answers
i don't blame god for happen to me, if it even was bad, but, i say, like, it's just a test in life,
for good things, i thank god
when i see something wonderfull in nature or from god creation, i say, subahana allah, it means like, god is great or something,
so, i beleive in god,
i just don't want to talk about things here, cause advantually you'll start attacking my replyes, and starting proganda,
sorry, i have many reasons cause of my reacent topic, those kinds of discussion, are not for scifroum
but i cant answer short answers
i don't blame god for happen to me, if it even was bad, but, i say, like, it's just a test in life,
for good things, i thank god
when i see something wonderfull in nature or from god creation, i say, subahana allah, it means like, god is great or something,
so, i beleive in god,
You do not know me well enough to make such accusations.
It would seem to me that claiming to believe in a Giant Spaghetti Monster and promoting its existence would qualify as "Propaganda" far more readily than claiming to NOT believe in the GSM would.
The main difference is evolution. I came from God/Jesus Christ, not a monkey. I love science. I love experimentation and finding cures for illnesses. I love most everything science entails. But not experimenting on animals. We should use prisoners.
evolution doesn't say that you came from a monkey it says that you and a monkey come from the same distant ancestor.
.
lol, i didnt promote for anything,
i didnt accuse you, i said, alot here, not most not least, will start attacking my replyies, so again, i prefer to stay out of this,
lol, i didnt promote for anything,
i didnt accuse you, i said, alot here, not most not least, will start attacking my replyies, so again, i prefer to stay out of this,
Why prisoners? Do you think Prisoners deserve no mercy?
How many INNOCENT prisoners were incorrectly convicted of a crime they had not commited?
And Evolution does not say we came from a Monkey. You don't even understand evolution, how can you disregard and disagree with it so readily?
Unless... Your belief is the one unsupported thing that matters to you more than evidence?
lol, i didnt promote for anything,
i didnt accuse you, i said, alot here, not most not least, will start attacking my replyies, so again, i prefer to stay out of this,
Attacking can be part of debate
But I see your point. You have every right to withdraw from it. And... I've seen how some here turn angry, bitter and hateful in their attacks. I cannot say I blame you for not wanting to talk about it....
in christanity you beleive that the christ is the god? i didnt knew that
anyway, for the idea that humans are from god not monkeys, yeah i aprove, i also aprove on the adaptation, that change humans, or anyliving things, to live better in a certain envirement, or a certen life style, or the cumminty, etc... evolution, i don't beleive much in it, adaptation , when it taked deep affects, you can call it evolution, well, i think so,
i also beelive in evolution, like, certain diseases evovle to be stronger, or like soem insects, when you use always the same kind of toxics to kill them, they finally find a way, and don't affect with it, so, yeah, evolution, or adaptation.
i'm convince cause of my logic, my knoledge, and my relegion, i know alot of muslims, and they beleive in evolution, but not from monkeys to human, or humans splitted from somekinda of monekys, no problem actually
in christanity you beleive that the christ is the god? i didnt knew that
anyway, for the idea that humans are from god not monkeys, yeah i aprove, i also aprove on the adaptation, that change humans, or anyliving things, to live better in a certain envirement, or a certen life style, or the cumminty, etc... evolution, i don't beleive much in it, adaptation , when it taked deep affects, you can call it evolution, well, i think so,
i also beelive in evolution, like, certain diseases evovle to be stronger, or like soem insects, when you use always the same kind of toxics to kill them, they finally find a way, and don't affect with it, so, yeah, evolution, or adaptation.
i'm convince cause of my logic, my knoledge, and my relegion, i know alot of muslims, and they beleive in evolution, but not from monkeys to human, or humans splitted from somekinda of monekys, no problem actually
Last edited:
"Before Abraham, I Am."
And various other quotes. It's a modern trend that has little to do with the majority of what Jesus had said and more to do with exhultation.
The idea is that Christ, Holy Spirit and God (Trinity) all are one in a LITERAL sense.
.
ah, i see,
in islam, the christ is a phrophet from god. We beleive in jesus christ (we call him messiah), (but not as a god, or a son of god)also meriem the mother of christ, Mohamed, noah, and the other bible things, islam and christanity are very related, also islam and judaism, are related,
ah, i see,
in islam, the christ is a phrophet from god. We beleive in jesus christ (we call him messiah), (but not as a god, or a son of god)also meriem the mother of christ, Mohamed, noah, and the other bible things,
islam and christanity are very related, also islam and judaism, are related,I agree with you about not experimenting on animals, but what is all this talk of monkeys?
*************ah, i see,
in islam, the christ is a phrophet from god. We beleive in jesus christ (we call him messiah), (but not as a god, or a son of god)also meriem the mother of christ, Mohamed, noah, and the other bible things,
M*W: The likelihood that jesus christ existed is very slim.
Why so slim?
Did Abraham exist? John? Cleopatra?
Are you comparing Christ to Paul Bunyan?
There were actually likely TWO of them. Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas.
We all know that Barabbas was released by Pilate according to the story. However, it's likely that it was because both were claimed Messiahs. He did what he needed considering that he would have a bloody riot on his hands if he detained TWO supposed or claimed Messiahs. He offered that the jews gathered spoke who was the true messiah and they chose Jesus Barabbas (Barabbas is Hebrew for "Son of God") over Jesus Christ (Greek for Son of Man) and he gave him to the crowd in order to placate them.
This led to the crucifiction of Jesus Christ under Roman Law.
Barabbas, however, was much like Christ. He had 12 disciples and wandered the land preaching-- Yet since he was not martyred, is not remembered.
Many historians claim that it is Jesus Barabbas that traveled through the middle east, eventually being entombed as Jesus and is remembered by Islamists to this day as Christ.
You do not need to be religious to think a human being existed and there is much more documentation on many people of the time than just the "Gospels."
*************
M*W: Because there isn't enough evidence to convince me he existed.
*************
M*W: Abraham is questionable. I believe Abraham was a man's name they (whomever they were, most likely the Egyptians) gave to the Constellation of Aries.
John who?
Cleopatra probably existed according to history records.
*************
M*W: This is assuming Jesus and Barabbas both existed. If you talking about the "story" of the crucifixion, I don't buy into it. I think the crucifixion was a way of explaining the total eclipse of the sun. It was a way to get around the religious aspect of the "story" to describe the astrological take on it.
If the "story" of the crucifixion was true, and assuming Jesus and Barabbas existed, I think they let Jesus go and Barabbas was on the cross. I know some christian doctrine says Barabbas hung on the cross next to Jesus. However, the Romans kept very good records of crucifixions, and there is no record to be found of anyone named Jesus or Barabbas in historical records. I know this isn't an easy concept to understand, but it's my belief that the gospels were an astrological calendar, but the Jews would have considered it witchcraft. The whole bible has an Egyptian influence, and the Egyptians were heavy into astrology. Some Jews followed astology, but they wrote it down in story form so as not to be strung up on a cross.
*************
M*W: Can you recommend a book or two on Barabbas? I've never read anything about Barabbas having disciples, etc.
*************
M*W: I know Muslims agree that Jesus existed. He is spoken of in the Quran, but that doesn't prove Jesus existed. He was a myth.
*************
M*W: Oh, I agree that one doesn't have to be religious to believe certain people existed. There was a time I believed the christian myth--I was a christian! But from the research I've done, and the reading I've pursued, I don't believe they existed.
It's an interesting subject. I believe Flavius Josephus existed, it that helps.
Very well.
Because she's not a religious zealot?
They probably did according to historical records.
Actually, there is (ironic) more documentation on Jesus Barabbas than on Jesus Christ...
Crucification is a well documented and mainstream historical fact on Roman Law. Why is it suddenly unbelievable in the case of a religious zealot?
What basis do you have for such a thing? There is far, far less reason to think such (Considering there is zero supporting documentation I've uncovered of such an idea and I've researched that topic for over five years) than there is to think the men existed. That was nonsense.
Do you have any support for this claim?
I think you're making things up at this point. I've never encountered any such idea. Why would Pilate crucify them both and send the jews under his governorship into major riots?
The closes match was a Joshua of Galilee that fit the description to a T. However, it is also known that the Romans may have recorded some events (e.g. there were 3 Crucifictions this month, seven whippings and one castration), they rarely gathered names of the accused in full. Most punished were minor serfs or slaves and were unworthy of naming.
Uhhh... ok. Is it for this belief that you have that you decided none of these men existed?
Most that I've read did not cover Barabbas exclusively. However, one that covers this issue pretty well might be The Hiram Key. This particular book is written by a couple non believers who were curious to see the relation between Masonic rituals and Christianity.
What they uncovered was a lot of little known Gospel and some startling revelations about what people commonly accept.
http://www.amazon.com/Hiram-Key-Pharaohs-Freemasons-Discovery/dp/1862042217
It is not a Masonic book nor does it promote theology.
The Roman Gallo family kept personal family records due to personal reasons-- These MAY be discounted on account of a bias on their part. It was a Gallo, a Roman Tribune, that was in charge of the soldiers that performed that particular crucifiction.
According to those documents, some of the crucifiction story is true, such as casting lots for Christs possessions, but it discounts a great deal of the religious aspects and makes no mention whatsover of the tomb or other events. It deals only in the crucifiction and the strange effect it had on that family member.
Apparently, the tribune felt that the man hanged was innocent of crime and was panged with heavy guilt that caused a political stir. This has often been misquoted as a basis to say that the man had been Touched by Jesus-- The family account makes it sound like ordinary qualms and nothing more...
Those two collections alone (Or the Mormon book) would not be enough. However, the men are documented vaguely at first because they were serfs. It wasn't until later that interest allowed documentation be further investigated, as much as 100 years A.D.. Bear in mind, as well, that Roman Rule --Caligula (little boots) and Nero detested the movement and damged a lot of documentation trying to stamp it out.
So there is no "proof" the men existed. But that's as understandable as there is with MANY historical figures.
Yes, and I can see how a lack of evidence would allow you to conclude that certainly.
IF that is the reason you think they did not exist.
It has occupied my time for years when I had spare moments to look things up. It's actually fascinating. Not for the study of the men but for the study of modern people and their warped perceptions of history.
I do the same with World Wars and other historical events.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: I'll try to respond to your reply. It was thorough, and I appreciate your effort to answer my post in detail.
Cleo was Egyptian, maybe not a religious zealot, but a sexual and political one.
*************
M*W: Yes, I agree with you that there is more written on Jesus Barabbas than on Jesus Christ. I ordered a book online a few years ago to add to my collection of the mysteries of Rennes-le-Chateau, France. The citation is:
Jesus-Christ Bar-Aba: The Angel of the Last Judgment, by Peter Silvain, Publisher: Sarl S.S.I., 13009 MARSEILLE, 1999.
Email: p.sylvain@wanadoo.fr
Internet: http://www.rennes-le-chateau-la-revelation.com
"The book is about the first revelation of the real christ, Jesus Bar-Aba, King of the Jews. He was not crucified, and he was not resurrected. His tomb is hidden in Alet-les-Bains (Aude, France)."
There is no index in his book, so I would have to re-read the book to find specific references to Barabbas. I'll try to scan through it and post some info.
My note: The paintings of The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci (Milan), Nicholas Poussin (Munich), Juan de Juanes (Madrid), and Philippe de Champaigne (location unknown), show the two Jesus's at the table.
Footnote: "Apart from the double nature of Jesus, since Jesus Barabbas was divided into the Jesus of the Gospels (the true one) and Barabbas (the bandit), the existence of two Messiahs (D.M. = Double "M") should be noted and the "M" symbolised by Jesus and the woman to his right in the "Last Supper" of da Vinci and Poussin."
Leonardo da Vinci was well aware of the two-Jesus belief. He depicted it in both paintings of "The Virgin of the Rocks." Curiously, the book states, "the two babies are identical."
A bas relief called "The Adoration of the Magi" (Ratchis altar, c.745 CE) by Cividale (San Martino), is explained: "The relief unquestionably represents the Three Kings making an offering to Mary, who is holding the infant Jesus on her knees. (This concerns a son being "presented.") However, a second infant Jesus, identical to the first, is represented, and the intention of keeping him "hidden" is shown, because he is behind the back of Mary's chair." The Jesus concealed behind the back of the chair is the "Hidden Son," which translates as "Bar Aba." (My note: Their translation).
"The two infants Jesus are identical as regards their sex, size and clothing, with the exception of a motif on the head of the Jesus being presented by Mary; this motif is the same as that appearing on the head of the angel, evoking a tie in kinship."
"Contradictions in the Gospels: The study of the Gospels draws attention, and gives rise to a certain number of interrogations, mainly concerning the course of Jesus' trial and the "Passion."
~ "How to explain that the crowd preferred the liberation of "Bar Aba," described as a bandit, to that of Jesus, who had just made a triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, acclaimed as the King?."
~ "How is it that Jesus, so famous, had no family name, and Bar Abbas had no first name?
~ "How to accept that Jesus, who preached Love for one's fellow man, Forgiveness, and Peace, could have expressed totally opposite feelings?"
My note: Even though there seems to be extra-biblical references to this theory, I can't help but believe it was created with literary license. No wonder it's a best-seller!
I could go on, because this book details the story of Barabbas, but I shall move on.
In "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus," by Joseph Atwill, Berkeley, Ulysses Press, 2005.
Internet: http://www.ulyssespress.com
He describes Barabbas as "a character in the Gospels who acts as a foil for Jesus and is released instead of him. The name is a composite of the Hebrew bar (son) and abba (father), meaning "son of the father." In some early manuscripts his name is given as Jesus Barabbas."
"The Book That Jesus Wrote: John's Gospel," by Barbara Thiering, Corgi Books, 1998.
In this book which goes into more detail than some of the other selections, states:
"Simon Magus, the Zealot, had been appointed Pope the previous season, and had probably conceived the plan (where the Romans dressed as Jews to feign an insurrection, a suicide mission, to remove a governor). With him was his deputy in the same order, Judas Iscariot. The two were bound together in the monastic system, although they had opposing views on the restoration of the Herods. Theudas, the Chief Therapeut, saw such danger the state that he answered the call, despite his age. He would use the title 'Barabbas' in this role. The three of them formalized their structure into a triarchy, an answer to the triumberate that had once ruled Rome, but saw it in religious terms as Priest (simon), Levite (Judas), and King (Theudas, in the scnse of lay leader)."
Further, "the Therapeuts of Egypt were always torn between the different factions of the mission, for their meeting place in Alexandria stood on the border of east and west. Their at this time was Theudas, who was to survive into the time of Jesus as Barabbas, and who was associated with Joseph. He appears in this story as the Prodigal Son."
"The Hiram Key: Pharoahs, Freemasons, and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus," by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, Barnes & Noble, 1996, does, in fact, state: "As we are researching the whole complex area of the expected role of the messiah we came across a very strange and startling point that no one seems, to the best of our knowledge, to have considered before. It concerns the name of the murderer who was released instead of Christ at his trial. His name, you may recall, was Barabbas. Just another biblical name, you may think, and one that feels to have an evil ring to it: 'Barabbas' the wicked murderer whom the equally wicked Jews chose to release in preference to our Savior."
They go on to acknowledge that "'Barabbas' is not a name at all but a title meaning precisely 'Son of God'! 'Bar' means 'son of' and Abba!' literally means 'father,' but its usage was, and generally still is, a reference to The Father; that is, God. This intrigued and puzzled us but we were staggered when we went on to discover that early manuscripts of Matthew, in verse 27:16, this man's designation is used in its full form: 'Jesus Barabbas.'"
"As we had suspected since we realised the true meaning of the name Barabbas, the two people on trial were both called Jesus - Jesus 'the king of the Jews' and Jesus, 'the son of God.' James was called Barabbas - literally, 'the son of God' - here because it was understood that he was the priestly messiah and therefore the one more directly in line to his 'father.'"
My note: My impression of Knight and Lomas are they are more sensationalistic journalists and perpetuators of others' research and publications.
My note: So yes, I am aware that Barabbas is more popular than Jesus in art and literature, but he sells less copy.
*************
M*W: Simply because I don't believe Jesus existed anywhere except in fiction, and although crucifixion was a form of ancient Roman torture, as far as I have read and researched, there are no records outside the literature of any Jesus being crucified. The problem is that "Jesus" is from the Greek and Jesus/Barabbas were Hebrew names. Nevertheless, literature is not history.
We shall discuss the crucifixion at another time.
The concensus is that she looked like Robin Williams in drag
As to the rest- Wow, I'm short on time. Very informative post and perhaps we should start a separate thread on this topic-- I think it could get interesting.