9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

a reply to: FlyersFan

Oh, and the Shroud of Turin puts the height of Jesus at about 5'8". (no, the Shroud of Turin has not been proven to be fake. In fact, a lot of evidence points to it's probable authenticity).

You've got to be kidding me! Never been proven to be a fake of what?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

1. Married, not single. (agreeable)
2. Cropped hair, not long. (agreeable)
3. Hung on a pole, not necessarily a cross. (agreeable)
4. Short, not tall. (agreeable)
5. Born in a house, not a stable. (agreeable)
6. Named Joshua, not Jesus. (I personally dont know about that)
7. Number of apostles (12) from astrology, not history. (agreeable) Considering the Astro theology in old religious texts.
8. Prophecies recalled, not foretold. (agreeable)
9. Some Jesus quotes not from Jesus; others uncertain. (agreeable)

Ultimately we can not for sure be certain about the authenticity of :
The Hebrew Bible
The new Testament
The Apocrypha (deuterocanonical and non-canonical scriptures)

Simply because they have been socially, politically, and personally altered.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

He was a crossdresser and he wasn't white!

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Pardon?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Klassified

Ignore the Shakespeare style. Someone must have thought it would be amusing to leave the translation in KJV English.

Great post, but just a literary note: that style's not Shakespearean, nor King James either. It looks to me a good bit later, late seventeenth or eighteenth century perhaps — the period containing Dryden and Pope. It is probably the work of a translator who lived around that time. I went looking round the web for the author's name but couldn't find it.

Thank you, sir.

True enough. It was a rough comparison with something people might be familiar with because of the "ye".

originally posted by: Astyanax

...................
Why should it matter to a believing Christian whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of Jesus? If you believe in him, you believe he existed and that's that, fini....

That is a very salient point because it doesn’t matter if there is any “proof” or for that matter if they believe it only matters if it is true.Reasonable evidence points to there being such a person in history.The fact is the gospels are written in such a way that it is impossible that they are myth.
I seldom ever quote from authors to make a point in this case I will defer to the Oxford don C.S Lewis who’s qualification is a Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature.

“I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that none of them is like this. Of the text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close to the facts... Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this simply has not learned to read."

The bottom line point is it doesn’t matter if you believe the testament of the “gospels” is true but to believe they are concocted by anyone in that time is unreasonable.As Lewis stated there is only one reasonable possibility.It was an eyewitness account of a real person.No one could create literature like that back then (even in the 3rd or 4th century) because that type of literature had not even been invented yet. It is clearly only bias confirmation and intellectual dishonesty that believes it could.

However the real bottom line is it doesn’t matter.The scriptures have served their purpose.As Yahoshua told the disciples (only) to “publish”(proclaim) what they witnessed to the “world”.That has been accomplished because the scriptures is the most published book in history.A herculean feat 2,000 years later even if concocted by “Rome”.

It is unfortunate(but inevitable) that “Christianity” has perverted what was written however that has also provided a purpose in that believing “what was written” is not it’s complete purpose. ..and this is what it’s detractors disparage about it(rightly so)…that the “believers” act so unlike their “master” almost as if they have never even read the scriptures!It is the main fuel to the fire of the inconsistency.Any person who wants to disparage the character reported as Yahoshua would have a difficult time convincing a reasonable person of their credibility.It makes much more sense to rightfully attack the institution and the people that subscribe to it.

However the fact remains any reasonable attempt to disqualify the gospels as anything but authentic faces a mountain of contrary evidence.Those detractors have all the credibility of a hack muckraker writing for the Enquirer and so do those that believe it.

My point is to criticize the institutions of religion that have formed a gauntlet around the scriptures is worthwhile because it is “they” that are false and an abomination not the scriptures.However it provides a huge mirror.Basing a “life” of what is written in a book and extrapolating the meaning willy nilly is begging for disaster.Yahoshua never told the disciples to do so and the disciples never told anyone else to do so yet..here we are.

My advice to anyone is..put the book down.There is no life inside of it.It is a testimony that testifies. That is its sole purpose.It is not an instructional manual for life.That does not mean there are not some profound words in them..there are…but they are “not” to be heard from the book.They can only come form the creator.None will ever know if the person Yahoshua is “real” by reading(or studying) the book.That is not it’s purpose.

a reply to: Rex282

“I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that none of them is like this. Of the text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close to the facts... Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this simply has not learned to read."

So because steam engines were not patented and used commercially until the late 1600's, the ancient Greece could not have had a working prototype as far back as the first century or earlier? That's basically what Lewis is saying. I respect Lewis, but I think he was looking for a way to confirm his bias in this case.

a reply to: Rex282

The bottom line point is it doesn’t matter if you believe the testament of the “gospels” is true but to believe they are concocted by anyone in that time is unreasonable.As Lewis stated there is only one reasonable possibility.It was an eyewitness account of a real person.No one could create literature like that back then (even in the 3rd or 4th century) because that type of literature had not even been invented yet. It is clearly only bias confirmation and intellectual dishonesty that believes it could.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. We have tons of similar writings dating back as far as Homer's tomes. And, the New Testament isn't THAT much different from the Old Testament. Are we to believe Jonah really survived living in the belly of a fish, or that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego survived a fiery furnace? Moses parted the Red Sea?

Acts is historically inaccurate and there are scholars who point to Luke and Acts having been written by Plutarch, who also wrote in the style of the New Testament and is famous for his book "Parallel Lives".

We also know that Hellenized Jews already had a celestial "High Priest" named Jesus, whose story in Zachariah Philo of Alexandria attributed to Plato's "LOGOS", and the popular belief that this High Priest named Jesus performed deeds that caused God to take away sins. We also know that Paul, who never met Jesus the Nazarene and never quotes him, claims to have gotten ALL his knowledge of Jesus, not through first hand or second hand personal stories, but through magical revelation of voices in his head.

The gospels are not historically accurate, they contradict one another and seem to have a narrative that is "shoe horned" to fit Old Testament prophecy. They certainly aren't reliable as far a documenting the life of one Jesus Christ. Who, for example, documented Jesus' vision quest in the desert for 40 days? Or, did Jesus come back bragging about how he whipped some Satan a$$? Who documented Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Did he really say that his followers could "pick up snakes" and that no poison would harm them? Who added that part to the book of Mark centuries later, and why?

Why did it take almost 1000 years to add the story of the adulteress, and the phrase "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" to the Jesus narrative, if the gospels can be trusted as historical documentation?

originally posted by: windword

It is unfortunate(but inevitable) that “Christianity” has perverted what was written

Elaborate.

Any person who wants to disparage the character reported as Yahoshua would have a difficult time convincing a reasonable person of their credibility.

It's not Yahoshua.
 

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

I didn't write any of what you've quoted and attributed to me.

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: Astyanax

...................
Why should it matter to a believing Christian whether or not there is any evidence for the existence of Jesus? If you believe in him, you believe he existed and that's that, fini....

That is a very salient point because it doesn’t matter if there is any “proof” or for that matter if they believe it only matters if it is true.Reasonable evidence points to there being such a person in history.The fact is the gospels are written in such a way that it is impossible that they are myth.
I seldom ever quote from authors to make a point in this case I will defer to the Oxford don C.S Lewis who’s qualification is a Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature.

Reasonable evidence? There is NO contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived. NO evidence is not reasonable evidence. The Gospels absolutely are myths. Myths are stories about supernatural deities. That's what the word means. C.S. Lewis. LMAO

The difference between Trekkies and Christians is that, after the Sunday convention, the Trekkies don't spend the rest of the week trying to convince people that Worf is real.

originally posted by: Tangerine

Reasonable evidence? There is NO contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived. NO evidence is not reasonable evidence. The Gospels absolutely are myths. Myths are stories about supernatural deities.

You can stop saying contemporaneous now.
Books mean nothing. You know nothing.

You want proof?
 

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: markosity1973

there are indeed roman records of Jesus Christ from Rome during his illegal trial,there are also census records which show his mother and earthly father and himself, if he had siblings they had not been born...
there are also records of him in Scotland and Tibet...

Jesus walked the Earth...

Show me the Roman records. I've looked for them and found zilch

a reply to: markosity1973

You don't need to travel the world to find proof.
Why don't you just look in your heart and ask God?
 

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
a reply to: markosity1973

You don't need to travel the world to find proof.
Why don't you just look in your heart and ask God?
 

I'm not going to disagree with you on this point.

The point I am making is that the only reliable texts on Jesus are the new testament.

The premise of the OP is that there is information out there contradictory to the NT. Some of it like what hairstyle he had is completely unimportant and do not contradict anything written but others are in clear dispute of it.

originally posted by: markosity1973
The point I am making is that the only reliable texts on Jesus are the new testament.

There is no reliable text. There is only God.

a reply to: Joneselius

This is utter nonsense and not Biblical at all.

Just wanted to let you know - this declarative statement made me laugh, out loud.

Think about it.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

Maybe you could read this and then come back with some reasoning :: Historical Jesus

Maybe you could read this and then come back with some reasoning (taking into account all of the other hero saviours with no genuine historical evidence and who also didn't exist).

special pleading

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

I didn't write any of what you've quoted and attributed to me.

Oh. Didn't even see that...

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: ~Lucidity

There's no evidence that the 12 apostles have anything to do astrology. There's no "tax collector" astrological sign and the apostles don't fit the personalities of the 12 signs.

True enough. Is there any evidence that there were 12 of them, or 20 of them..? Is there any evidence that there were any apostles at all?