Who was Jesus A. Christ?
- Thread starter witnessjudgejury
- Start date
Wow, did I miss what was going on here? I thought this guy was a religion-debunker from his first post, which however was poorly referenced. Then it turns out he thinks he's the Messiah?
I'm worried when Messiahs talk about "departing" - nowadays they tend to take people with them, if you know what I mean. It's so sad that he based all of his beliefs in books rejected as late-written fiction by scholars over two millennia ago (Enoch) or Jesus books rejected as non-inspired (not to say uninspired) 1700 years ago (Thomas).
MedicineWoman, seriously, what are you smoking? Where on earth did you read this nonsense about Peter = Ptah and Capricorn being a chicken? You have learned to reject the Bible as being founded on fantasy, when are you going to apply the same skepticism to the books of mad theories about the origins of Christianity that you devour? Just because there's a similarity in pronunciation does not make the whole Bible story an astrological allegory. I know you don't set much store in the words of St. Paul, but the fact remains that his letters are the only real contemporaneous, first century, record of the birth of Christianity, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that Paul knew Peter personally, and James. Maybe there is no solid contemporary account that allows us to state firmly that Jesus existed, but Paul, Peter and James defnitely did. Peter is not an astrological symbol, he was a real, actual bloke.
I'm worried when Messiahs talk about "departing" - nowadays they tend to take people with them, if you know what I mean. It's so sad that he based all of his beliefs in books rejected as late-written fiction by scholars over two millennia ago (Enoch) or Jesus books rejected as non-inspired (not to say uninspired) 1700 years ago (Thomas).
MedicineWoman, seriously, what are you smoking? Where on earth did you read this nonsense about Peter = Ptah and Capricorn being a chicken? You have learned to reject the Bible as being founded on fantasy, when are you going to apply the same skepticism to the books of mad theories about the origins of Christianity that you devour? Just because there's a similarity in pronunciation does not make the whole Bible story an astrological allegory. I know you don't set much store in the words of St. Paul, but the fact remains that his letters are the only real contemporaneous, first century, record of the birth of Christianity, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that Paul knew Peter personally, and James. Maybe there is no solid contemporary account that allows us to state firmly that Jesus existed, but Paul, Peter and James defnitely did. Peter is not an astrological symbol, he was a real, actual bloke.
*************Silas said:
M*W: Hello, Silas. Long time, no hear.
I've been researching how light and darkness and the elements intrigued our ancient ancestors who created lore that is still believed today in modern religions. My theory is that the bible stories were derived directly from the movements of the constellations, and the bible is nothing but an ancient astrological chart. I am in no way implying that belief in astrology as a true religion is credible. It was just as man-made as christianity, but I believe it to be the source that spawned probably all religions.
About Peter being translated as Ptah, I read that somewhere, but I don't remember where. I read a lot of books at the bookstore, but I don't always write the references down at the time. The two books I have on hand are:
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. and Jesus Christ Sun of God by David Fideler.
How can we be sure Saul/Paul wrote anything or even was a real human being? My own opinion has evolved since you were here last. I decried everything that Saul/Paul said or did, but now I understand that he wasn't a historical person either. His name change is even suspect. "Saul" is the name of the ancient king of Israel, but "Saul" is just another spelling of "Sol." The ancients believed Saul/Sol/Sun to be their monotheistic god. Another example is Sol-o-Mon or "Son-of-Man." Another way to interpret this is "God-of-Man."
Scholars say there is no proof of who actually wrote the bible, but when one re-reads it with an open mind, it becomes obvious that much of the bible reeks of astrology. If Jesus was not an historical person, then I doubt Peter and Paul and all the others were not historical persons. That leaves me to conclude that the NT must have been 'written' by the Romans who were heavy into astrology as a means of controlling the masses.
M*W, I certainly didn't want to denigrate your genuine efforts to find an understanding and to study. I'm somewhat nonplussed about an authoress who hides her surname. Anyway, following my usual practice, I checked out what Amazon readers have to say, with the lowest ratings first. Clearly Acharya S leaves a great deal to be desired in her research. Answering Christian charges of atheistic mass murder on the part of Soviet Communism by claiming that Marx and Lenin were "practicing Jews" and Stalin was an Orthodox Christian is just plain contrary to the facts. All the source material appears to be of the highest dodgyness. Most of the books cited are published by a non-mainstream controversy-specialism house. Even those reviews which are relatively positive appear to completely discount the astrology theory.
I don't like seeing an obviously intelligent person like you simply succumbing to some other piece of unfounded flimflam.
Then you say that because Paul and Peter were "not historical", then "the Romans must have written the NT". This is also a non-sequitur. Why the Romans, particularly, and not the Jews? Why would Romans create a religion that they then persecuted? Most of the writing of the NT is very clearly from a Jewish perspective, not a Roman one, and certainly involves deep knowledge of Scripture that no Roman possessed.
I'm concerned by your claims that this astrological idea is "your" theory, and that "you" conclude that the NT was "written by the Romans" etc, when they are the thesis of a book which is incredibly easy to debunk. Unless, MedicineWoman, Acharya S. is actually you!
As to the common use of 12 in a zodiacal system and the number of disciples, that's about it for a connection. And 12 is a small number with a large number of divisors (2,3,4,6) which is why it is an attractive number for mythologisers of all colours. But the number is certainly small enough to allow for the theory of it having simply been an accident. (ie if there were 57 zodiacal signs and 57 apostles, you might have had a case. But 12 is just 12 - a dozen, an important number in a huge number of applications, very few of which have anything to do with astrology. You might as well apply astrological connotations to a case of beer.)
I don't like seeing an obviously intelligent person like you simply succumbing to some other piece of unfounded flimflam.
There are two non-sequiturs there. First of all, I have never been remotely convinced by any "Jesus never existed" arguments. Accepting that his own existence is only secondarily-sourced, the letters of Paul are primary source material backing up (not completely but enough) the account of his travels recorded in Acts. No reputable scholar, whether theistic or atheistic, believes there's any reasonable doubt about Paul's existence. And it is very clear that the earliest doctrinal battles which pitted Paul (who wanted openness to the Gentiles) against Peter and James who wanted to maintain Jewish exclusivity, really took place and that consequently Peter and James also existed in actuality.MedicineWoman said:
Then you say that because Paul and Peter were "not historical", then "the Romans must have written the NT". This is also a non-sequitur. Why the Romans, particularly, and not the Jews? Why would Romans create a religion that they then persecuted? Most of the writing of the NT is very clearly from a Jewish perspective, not a Roman one, and certainly involves deep knowledge of Scripture that no Roman possessed.
I'm concerned by your claims that this astrological idea is "your" theory, and that "you" conclude that the NT was "written by the Romans" etc, when they are the thesis of a book which is incredibly easy to debunk. Unless, MedicineWoman, Acharya S. is actually you!
As to the common use of 12 in a zodiacal system and the number of disciples, that's about it for a connection. And 12 is a small number with a large number of divisors (2,3,4,6) which is why it is an attractive number for mythologisers of all colours. But the number is certainly small enough to allow for the theory of it having simply been an accident. (ie if there were 57 zodiacal signs and 57 apostles, you might have had a case. But 12 is just 12 - a dozen, an important number in a huge number of applications, very few of which have anything to do with astrology. You might as well apply astrological connotations to a case of beer.)
*************Silas said:
M*W: I somehow forgot to answer your question. Simon and Garfunkel didn't write Scarborough Fair for naught... "parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme...". Then there's Morning Glory seeds, an apt hallucinogen. If all else fails, dry some of those stringy things from bananas and smoke them. Saffron is called "Mellow Yellow," and there was a song in the 60s about it, too, by Donovan, I recall. And who needs Viagra when you can get a sexual high by drinking a tea out of or smoking Damiana?
geeser said:
Actually there is plenty evidence of a Jesus.... There is also plenty of evidence tracing him back to King David's family.... now if anyone in here know's anything about jeudism you would know that the messiah which jesus claimed to be can only come from a family member from King David.
Now, unfortunitly the only proof of Jesus of Nazareth, i.e., Jesus Christ is text's. But, they are very ver reliable texts
Erm. You mean the completely different bloodlines reported by Matthew and Luke? One descends him from David through King Solomon, and the other descends him from David through his son Nathan (of a different concubine). It is one of the chief areas of evidence against bibliolatrous "inerrancy" arguments.
Isaac Asimov's view (Asimov's Guide to the Bible) was that Matthew, a Jew, presumably with access to synagogue records, might possibly have written a generation list closer to reality, though he could not contain the Kabballist inside himself, and omitted some names and repeated others in order to make 14 generations from Jesus to David (as he counted 14 from David to Abraham and 14 from Abraham to Adam). Luke, on the other hand, a Gentile, may have simply made up the names back to David, or had a different list. As Luke's Gospel is more historically sound it is perfectly possible that it he who had the reliable list, and it was Matthew who wrote the nonsense, being excessively concerned with numerology (and of course of descending the Christ not only from David but from his most famous mythological hero descendent - his son, King Solomon).
Isaac Asimov's view (Asimov's Guide to the Bible) was that Matthew, a Jew, presumably with access to synagogue records, might possibly have written a generation list closer to reality, though he could not contain the Kabballist inside himself, and omitted some names and repeated others in order to make 14 generations from Jesus to David (as he counted 14 from David to Abraham and 14 from Abraham to Adam). Luke, on the other hand, a Gentile, may have simply made up the names back to David, or had a different list. As Luke's Gospel is more historically sound it is perfectly possible that it he who had the reliable list, and it was Matthew who wrote the nonsense, being excessively concerned with numerology (and of course of descending the Christ not only from David but from his most famous mythological hero descendent - his son, King Solomon).
could you supplie some of this evidence you claim exists.Ricky Houy said:
I think you mean judaism: if you do mean judaism you will find that they dont believe jesus to be a messiah, but just a rabbi.
if you go by the mythical christian version of jesus, he has no lineage to king david therefore cannot be the messiah, also the messiahs name was to be Immanuel
The development of the Christ myth is related to man's urge to dramatize when dealing with spiritual realities. The human mind is given to project an unconscious archetypal image onto people or objects, creating mythical figures. An image of a godman, who redeems heroically the fragile fragmented man of his failures/sins and offers an escape, a ray of hope, holds sway over him.
When the true nature of the target figure is seen, the projection is shattered into pieces. A fallen idol remains.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39831
Was Jesus of Nazareth a real historical person? Today, we cannot give a positive yes or no answer to this question. But after studying the evidence it becomes highly plausible that, as portrayed in the New Testament gospels, Jesus of Nazareth, hereinafter referred to as Jesus, is a myth and nothing more. http://home.inu.net/skeptic/exist.html
some good reading.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_12.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
That's not what he was saying. He was saying that the Jewish Messiah had to be a descendent of David. Obviously it was a claim of the Christians that Jesus fulfilled this requirement, but Ricky wasn't saying that the Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah.geeser said:
There are quite separate reasons for dismissing Isaiah 7:14 as a valid prophecy of the Christ, but the fact that Is. got the name wrong, seven centuries prior, is not really considered a valid criticism. I mean, I made that point when I was about ten years old (when I first read the prophecy in the Bible), it's not like there hasn't been an explanation for at least 1700 years.geeser said:
geeser said:
As a rationalist and atheist it pains me when I see "my side" indulging in some pretty far out twisting and writhing in order to prove a point the validity of which has no real bearing on the existence or otherwise of God. In point of fact, many of the arguments cited do no more than demonstrate precisely the same argument techniques of strawman-ism, sneering and cherry-picking of the evidence available that those of us in Evolution debates are used to getting from Creationists.
From religioustolerance.org:
This disparity between the opinions of the "Liberal Theologians" and the "Conservative Christians" is depicted so throughout the article. But it is at this point, in the Pauline Epistles, that the clearest evidence that Peter and James did exist and did interact with a historical Jesus, can be found. The part of that page that mentions this as a strong indicator that Jesus lived in the early 1st Century is in the section headed "Conservative Christians believe all the books which state that they were written by Paul were actually authored by him prior to his death". In this particular case it is not only religious nut Conservative Christians (who believe demonstrably wrong stuff like the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch) who believe that the majority of the Pauline Epistles were written by Paul. Some Liberal Theologians believe that too. But, what did the supposed skeptic say about the Liberal Theologians' beliefs? That they believed that some of the epistles were quite late! No shit sherlock, but what does that actually have to do with the argument? We've got a false dichotomy here, which portrays the mythical Jesus argument as the view of the right-thinking Libs. This is a distortion, in my view.
The atheists.org page is even worse, with a clearly sneering tone, and a somewhat mystifying habit of referring to Paul as "Saint Saul", as if the guy's name change is somehow significant to his credibility. I'm reminded of die-hard 60s boxing fans who continue to refer to Cassius Clay. No, Paul was not an eye witness to the Ministry of Jesus. Fortunately for the credibility of both Paul and the Jesus-existed theory, he never once claims to. Neither do the synoptic gospels. The point is, how reliable and credible are his descriptions of encounters with the true founders of the Church, who did indeed know Jesus.
The skeptics page includes non-sequiturs like the following:
But Jesus, historical nor not, did not found a "world religion". The founders of the religion were SS Peter, Paul and James, and what do you know, but there are contemporary records of these men and their activities! The whole of that article attempts to show a parallel between the evidence for Jesus's existence against the evidence for Emperor Tiberius's. I have never understood why it is so-called skeptics expect to find so much information in the already sketchy historical record of the period of one amongst many Jewish charismatic leaders who was dealt with for sedition. The story is only so huge in the Gospels and amongst the Christians themselves - but not necessarily for the Roman and Jewish authorities, who dealt with this kind of thing on a regular basis. Later, as the religion grows the activities of the followers certainly does impinge on history. Further down the same skeptic page:
Yet no-one particularly questions other historical events, the only evidence for which might be a passage in Tacitus or Suetonius. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the forged nature of the interpolation in Josephus, but you'd need better than that to justify the forgery argument for Tacitus, particularly as it is not particularly pro-Christian but vehemently anti-. In the next paragraph comes:
But any competent historian would say, "Yes there is evidence that Nero blamed the Christians - it's written in Tacitus!" For such ancient events, sometimes you have to go by what we have, which is utterly fragmentary or the result of many copyings, but what else is there? Thomas L. Thompson and his Copenhagen minimalists would reject all history you didn't have direct archaeological proof for, but I think this is throwing the baby (of the entirety of narrative ancient history) with the bathwater of disproving the Bible.
geeser said:
Mary the virgin mother was a decedenant from Heli i beleive that was his name who was a direct decendant from King David.
now the fact that there is no valid evidence of this there is but it is only text's but well kept text's. But if the text's are correct which i don't know of any reason why they wouldn't.
Also Thank You Silas for clearing up the rest for me I was in no mood to type al of the that.
Silas said:
What proof do you have of this? We truelly are at a stand still with this both of our proof is very shakey. But, the proof is clearly in stronger favour for my side. Although I could be wrong about that, I do ask you show me evidence that this could have happened.
[Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin"
He is in me!
Though I warned you, We still took you by surprise.
All will be rewarded.
If you did not do even as much as it takes (even to go through hell and die),
to find Him, then you have transgressed the First Commandment:
"Thou shalt LOVE GOD with all of your being, and HIM ONLY, shalt thou serve"
Now, you will not find him, even in me unless you acknowledge him in me.
Did you acknowledge Adam?
Did you acknowledge the words of Enoch?
Did you acknowledge Christ?
Did you acknowledge me?
Even Greek mythology took some from the words of Enoch.
Now, GOD will not repent of the wrath he has promised because
no one has repented of their wicked deeds and the serving of self
and money. Woe unto all the living! Even the archangels who watch
will quake at the horror which soon will be.
All things in heaven and earth will be judged by me.
Though I warned you, We still took you by surprise.
All will be rewarded.
If you did not do even as much as it takes (even to go through hell and die),
to find Him, then you have transgressed the First Commandment:
"Thou shalt LOVE GOD with all of your being, and HIM ONLY, shalt thou serve"
Now, you will not find him, even in me unless you acknowledge him in me.
Did you acknowledge Adam?
Did you acknowledge the words of Enoch?
Did you acknowledge Christ?
Did you acknowledge me?
Even Greek mythology took some from the words of Enoch.
Now, GOD will not repent of the wrath he has promised because
no one has repented of their wicked deeds and the serving of self
and money. Woe unto all the living! Even the archangels who watch
will quake at the horror which soon will be.
All things in heaven and earth will be judged by me.
Erm, what "proof" was I supposed to provide? You made a statement about Jesus's descent that I was able to show was in error. I then quoted a respected writer's opinion and speculation. It's just someone's idea that you can take on board as a possible explanation, or reject. No proof required.Ricky Houy said:
Well, it says directly in the Bible that Joseph is the son of Jacob and simultaneously the son of Heli. Your idea that the proof is "clearly" stronger for your side evidently involves some use of the word "clearly", or possibly the word "stronger", that I'm not aware of. Lets move on to your little apologetic.Ricky Houy said:
Why? What is compelling about the idea that when the Bible says "son" it means "son-in-law"? What is compelling about the idea that Joseph was "clearly" the son of Jacob and the son-in-law of Heli? Why can't he be the son-in-law of Jacob and the son of Heli? I'm afraid the only thing that is "clear" to me is that Joseph is described as one man's son (with one line of descent) in Matthew and another man's son (with a different line of descent) in Luke. That is what the words say
Those people whose faith is so pathetically weak that their entire belief system rests on the infallibility of the Bible can do one of two things - they can accept the contradiction within the Bible, or they can accept the contradiction inherent in interpreting "son" as "son-in-law" on the basis that that's what the Bible "really meant" and accepting the Bible as flawless. Either the Bible contradicts itself, or people who need the Bible to be true must contradict themselves.
I urge you, as I urge all rigid Bible-inerrancy merchants - try to open your mind to the God revealed by mankind's own explorations of the Universe. Don't tie yourself to a tiny God, endlessly concerned with the doings of a small people in a small patch of land in the Middle East, on our dust mote of a planet in the vastness of the Universe. It's such a parochial attitude that does God no service whatsoever.
Q
Qorl
Guest
Jesus come on this earth because he was the strongest one between creators.
Silas said:
I must say one thing to this, I honestly don't beleive half of what the new testiment's say's. I am jewish, and study the old testiments. My knowledge of the new testiments is mediocre. But I find in my own conjecture that it is more feasible to go by what the bible says about religion. So i beseech you to not make assumptions of people of your own ideals.
