Jesus and Jesus and Jesus and Jesus....i did this cause I love you not to convince you...

a reply to: windword

Why would "Christians" Jews in Rome be rioting about the death of Jesus in Jerusalem when it was JEWS that demanded his death of Pilate?

You do realize there are people who were Jewish who followed Christ right? You do realize Christianity spread from Jerusalem?

Wiki Early Christianity:

The earliest followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic, Second Temple Jewish sect, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. The first part of the period, during the lifetimes of the Twelve Apostles, is called the Apostolic Age. In line with the Great Commission attributed to the resurrected Jesus, the Apostles are said to have dispersed from Jerusalem, and the missionary activity spread Christianity to cities throughout the Hellenistic world and even beyond the Roman Empire.

The earliest Christians were Jewish...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That's my point! It was the Jews that supposedly demanded the death of Jesus. Pilate acquiesced to the Jews. So why would a bunch of Christian/Jews be rioting circa 64 AD, in Rome, about something that JEWS required in Jerusalem? It doesn't make sense!

However, the massacre of the Samaritan Jews caused Pilates recall, but he never had to answer for his crimes, because Tiberius died before the trial. There was no closure, there were more and more uprisings and it all finally culminated in the Siege of Jerusalem that began in 67AD.

a reply to: windword

I think you are reading the wrong historian. Tacitus doesn't mention the Christians rioting at the instigation of Christus that is Suetonius. Tactius writes that Christians were wrongfully punished by Nero in attempt to blame them for a fire. So I am a little confused as to what your talking about....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

ServantOfTheLamb: "Jesus, and Jesus, and Jesus, and Jesus; I did this cause I love you and not to convince you"

Take the word 'Jesus' and replace it with 'God' instead, replace the "I" with Jesus/mankind and you will have a better picture of what this is all about.

"God, and God, and God, and God; Jesus/Mankind did this because we LOVE you and WANT TO CONVINCE YOU of this".

Quotes from Scholars:

"some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. .... We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world." Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University, in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." Richard A. Burridge, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Kings College, London, in Jesus Now and Then

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus .... We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period." Prof Bart Ehrman,

"we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ..... In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire, in Jesus: an historian's review of the gospels

"So in one sense I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot." Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University, on Larry Hurtado's Blog

"I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed." Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web

".... a growing conviction among many scholars that the Gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought ..... subsequent Christianity may be in greater continuity with Jesus than was previously thought." J Paget, Cambridge University, in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus

"Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ..... the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism." EP Sanders, Oxford & Duke Universities, in The Historical Figure of Jesus

"Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically." The late Graham Stanton, Cambridge University, in The Gospels and Jesus

Robert van voorst seven reasons historians think Jesus existed:



The Apostle Paul did not say a lot about Jesus (an argument sometimes used by sceptics, but this is an argument from silence and therefore invalid without positive evidence). But Paul did know about Jesus, and was unlikely to write a lot of historical detail in letters.

The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.


The development of the early christians' understanding of Jesus which can be seen in the gospels (another argument sometimes used) is not sufficient to justify the belief that they were inventions.

No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.

Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.

Most arguments that Jesus wasn't a historical figure have come from people opposed to Christianity and thus not unbiased, whereas scholars of all viewpoints from atheists to Christians accept the historicity of Jesus.

Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.

Bart Ehrman reasons historians think Jesus existed:

The gospels and Paul's writings are extremely useful independent historical sources. Even though they were written by people with a particular viewpoint, they cannot be discounted because most ancient sources had viewpoints, and historians have learnt to discount biases. Likewise, any discrepancies in the stories don't take away from the significant agreement on the main facts.


Historians can discern a number of sources behind these documents, in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) and dated within a few years of his life. This is unprecedented in ancient history.

Paul, who lived at the time of Jesus, didn't know Jesus (as far as we know), but knew one of his closest followers, Peter, and his brother, James. As Ehrman pithily says: "If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it."
No Jew would invent a story of a crucified Messiah, for this was a scandal to a Jew. Only the historical fact that Jesus truly lived and was crucified can explain this.

The alternative theories proposed to explain the facts are often based on unhistorical and misrepresented 'facts' and incorrect methodology. For example, theories about dying and rising gods are not based on real historical information, but on old books whose research has been discredited, and there are no comparable pagan stories of virgin births, as is claimed.

Those who believe Jesus was a myth often resort to self-serving methodology when confronted with inconvenient facts. Many attempt to gloss over textual evidence against their theories by claiming the inconvenient text is a copyist's interpolation.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Most arguments that Jesus wasn't a historical figure have come from people opposed to Christianity and thus not unbiased, whereas scholars of all viewpoints from atheists to Christians accept the historicity of Jesus.

Almost All biblical scholars, even Bart Ehrman, went into New Testament and biblical studies as believers looking to confirm their beliefs. Besides, I thought the Bible says that ALL non-believers are "Anti-Christs"!

Ignoring the reality that there are quality scholars presenting credible arguments and evidence that offer reasonable doubt for an historic Jesus "Christ" and solid support for a mythical Jesus who was a composite figure, doesn't make you side stronger. Stubbornly repeating the same tired and debunked arguments, over and over again, may bore and repulse detractors, but it won't get you converts or sympathizers. It makes you look desperate and dishonest.

Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.

Oh please!

Why Josephus’ So-called Testimonium Flavianum Must be Rejected
By Harry H. McCall at 11/29/2008
The acknowledged authority on the life and works of Josephus is Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University.

"So, by the account given by Louis Feldman, Christians are not above forgery and lies to give credence to Christianity!"

“We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Orgen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Jeosphus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it.
debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...

A False Witness

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled

The evidence, in reality, is overwhelmingly against the existence of an historical Jesus Christ. Evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth's existence is on very, very shaky grounds, at best.

The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn't really "the Messiah", perhaps he was not "The Son of God", and perhaps he didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

Not likely. In fact, a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.
rationalrevolution.net...

a reply to: windword

I am.not here to debate. I out information you are free to make of it what you choose.

a reply to: windword

Stubbornly repeating the same tired and debunked arguments, over and over again, may bore and repulse detractors, but it won't get you converts or sympathizers.

That is so true. Trying to talk about or explore the subject openly and rationally is near impossible with some. It does get very boring and make one lose interest in trying.


BTW I was searching through some things and came across evidence for a historical Hercules. It was pretty interesting to compare to this subject there were even some parallels with the characters.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Have you seen this? This is early Christian father Justin Martyr writing to a Pagan king on behalf of Christians living in his territory. He clearly excepts the Pagan gods to be just as real as their Christ god. He's just another "Son of Jupiter"!

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?

And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?

And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, Strong as a giant to run his course, they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Æsculapius.

www.newadvent.org...

a reply to: windword

There are more parallels with Greek Mythology and Abrahamic religion than I could possible list.

I am certain that the concept of Hell came from Tartarus it is even mentioned in the NT as such..

a reply to: Grimpachi

"Hell" actually came from Sheol... in greek its Hades, or the place of the dead...

Christians got Dante's divine comedy all twisted into its meaning because the church presumed his book was reality

Personally I think it was because it made people fear the afterlife so the church took advantage

a reply to: Akragon

Hades was above Tartarus and Dante may have found inspiration for his work from Greek roots. The early Christians that were exposed to and drew upon the Greek mythology of Hades were certainly exposed to Tartarus.

As a place, it was far below than where Hades resided and it was used as the most horrible prison. Some accounts say that the distance between Tartarus and Hades was the same as between the earth and the heaven. Although the kingdom of Hades was the place of the dead, Tartarus was where ferocious monsters and horrible criminals were banished, or where the gods imprisoned their rivals after a war. The three judges of the Underworld, Rhadamanthus, Aeacus and Minos, decided who would go to the realm of Hades and who would be banished to Tartarus. Its all Greek

In the New Testament, the noun Tartarus does not occur but tartaroo (ταρταρόω, "throw to Tartarus"), a shortened form of the classical Greek verb kata-tartaroo ("throw down to Tartarus"), does appear in 2 Peter 2:4. Liddell Scott provides other sources for the shortened form of this verb, including Acusilaus (5th century BC), Joannes Laurentius Lydus (4th century AD) and the Scholiast on Aeschylus' Eumenides, who cites Pindar relating how the earth tried to tartaro "cast down" Apollo after he overcame the Python.[10] In classical texts, the longer form kata-tartaroo is often related to the throwing of the Titans down to Tartarus.[11]

The ESV is one of several English versions that gives the Greek reading Tartarus as a footnote:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [1] and committed them to chains [2] of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;"
Footnotes [1] 2:4 Greek Tartarus wiki

a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh for sure... There was several layers to "hell" in ancient theology...

I remember a picture of the layers in a book I read... Lets see if I can find it

EDIT: Meh... theres hundreds of them LOL

The one I recall was very detailed... included the sins of each layer and the names of the circles of "hell"


Oh well... No time now, Off to work

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ was a real person that walked the earth I challenge you to explain the conversion of Paul without sounding like a nut..

Again, I will use Paul's teachings mixed in with The Secret Teachings of St.Luke. who was a Greek physician by trade...

The always seeing eye was called in the Latin the *president* (first sight). The two sometimes seeing eyes were called in the Latin the two *counselors* (second sight). These three formed the presidency of sight. *Their symbol was the triangle.* The physical body or temple of sight was protected by guardian angels: the five senses. If something looked, tasted, smelled, sounded, or felt bad, these senses would not let it be offered as an offering to the altar (stomach) of the temple.

The guardians of the temple (the five senses) often can be divided within the temple causing issues to arise in the not yet awakened Self.

* From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. -Luke 12:52

However...

The guardians of the temple could be overridden by the twelve (12) witnesses, the twelve (12) lights, the twelve (12) messengers; in Latin named the twelve (12) apostles.

In medical science today,they are called the twelve (12) cranial nerves.

The twelve (12) cranial work in unity to give account or witness as to the condition of each of the organs or offices of the temple to the always seeing eye.

The twelve (12) are supported by the seven (7) doors of the head of the church, ( a Greek term for Lord's house or temple).

The seven (7) doors were also called *presidents*. Hence, the seven (7) presidents were head of the seventy (70)-- -the seven (7) holes, or doors, of the head. Two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, and one mouth. And who were the seventy (70)? The 70 joints of the human body.

Thirty-three of them in the spinal column. And the twenty-four (24) elders? The ribs.

The ancient Egyptians had names for each and every one of these, as did the Hebrews and early Christians under Paul's direction.

Religious organizations, esoteric brotherhoods, and all rites, rituals, and ordinances in the beginning reflected the human body: the temple of god. The trumpet of God was the voice. And what lit the house? The light of understanding. Your memory: Light shining on pure waters brought all things to your remembrance. Remembrance brought with it knowledge. Knowledge was the key to immortality of the flesh, or temple, the church or kingdom of God. Knowledge comes to us in the names of people and things. The names of all these work together to bring the sight of understanding which causes sound to utter from our throats. (Magnus Opus, by Don Tolman.)

Twelve (12) Cranial Nerves (Atlas of Human Anatomy):
1 Olfactory (smell)
2 Optic (vision)
3 Oculomotor (eye movements)
4 Trochlear (eye movements)
5 Trigeminal (mastication)
6 Abducens (eye muscle movement)
7 Facial (taste, muscle sense)
8 Acoustic (hearing, sense of balance)
9 Glossopharyngeal (swallowing, taste, cutaneous sensations of the ear)
10 Vagus (hunger, pain, respiratory reflexes, swallowing, actions of internal organs)
11 Spinal accessory (movements of the neck, shoulder, and soft palate)
12 Hypoglossal (muscular movements of the tongue)

Principal Joints:

33 The spinal column, consisting of 33 vertebrae: cervical 7, thoacic 12, lumbar 5, sacral 5,
coccygeal 4.
34 Sternoclavicular
35 Acromioclavicular
36 Shoulder
37 Elbow
38 Radioulnar, proximal
39 Radioulnar, middle
40 Radioulnar, distal

41 Wrist
42 Intercarpal
43 CarpoMetaphysicalcarpal
44 InterMetaphysicalcarpal
45 Metaphysicalcarpophalangeal
46 Interphalangeal
47 Hip
48 Knee
49 Tibiofibular
50 Tibiofibular syndesmosis
51 Ankle
52 Subtalar
53 Talocalcaneonavicular
54 Calcaneocuboid
55 TarsoMetaphysicaltarsal
56 InterMetaphysicaltarsal
57 Metaphysicaltarsophalangeal
58 Interphalangeal
59 Vertebral bodies
60 Vertebral arches
61 Atlas
62 Vertebral column with cranium
63 Mandible (Jaw)
64 Ribs, heads of
65 Ribs, tubercles and necks of
66 Sternocostal
67 Sacroilioc
68 Sacrum and ischium
69 Sacrococcygeal
70 Public

There is no such thing as coincidence. One can either go ahead and begin to debunk the above or they can delve deeper with an open mind and discover something magical that was right under their nose their entire lives that they were unable to recognize due to cognitive dissonance that arises from dogmatic fundamentalist views.

The insight can be empirically weighed. Your insight and those debating historical documents above and what they mean is akin to a dog chasing its tail.

Jesus perhaps was indeed a real person made of flesh and blood that walked the Earth, but based on my esoteric understanding; that Christ dwells within each human being who is also made of flesh and bone. There are 7 billion Christ currently incarnated walking the Earth. The day many wake up to that truth is the day all false idols crumble to dust and the day they start constructing their own body/temple of light. The Jesus you like to believe in was trying to tell the world the same thing.

I wonder if you lived in those times and carried the same belief you hold in your mind right now if you would of crucified that very same Christ you hold dear:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? John 10:34

How ironic that the true teachings point to the "God within" to which the dogmatic fundamentalist will crucify you for doing so when you deny their God without. One can be easily proven to exist within oneself by:

He says, “Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth.” Psalm 46:10

exalted
adjective
1.
raised or elevated, as in rank or character; of high station:
an exalted personage.
2.
noble or elevated; lofty:
an exalted style of writing.
3.
rapturously excited.

Be Still...the kingdom of heaven is within.

Researching the spiritual writings of Tesla and Einstein may help one understand what I'm trying to give you here. They certainly understood mysticism greatly. I am not trying to bash your beliefs or upset you despite the possibility it may. But if you have an open heart and mind; you may one day actually come to love me truly for what I shared openly.

I have not given you very much in this post -- just a little signpost to follow if you choose to. In fact, I used the same source as in my other post. I want to link more deeper insight that can be weighed out empirically for those who may silently reading or might be interested but I will never do so publicly.

I have found that those who try to convince others of their version of Christ only do so because they themselves have not seen the proof themselves.

A confident soul who lives their metaphysics will simply present information because a platform arose to do so. In this case it was your thread.

www.lojsociety.org...

ETA: When one constructs their own temple of light means becoming more AWARE or illuminated concerning the flow of creation and of Self. Not superhuman walk on water stuff.