The Jesus Conspiracy

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
There are a lot of People like Iason on the Net - There is DEF a Strategy & Agenda here! It's either: A) making Jesus out to be a Heretic
OR B) Jesus never existed - He is a Fable!

Now I Under stand that Jesus was a Rebel in many ways - But I find "B" absolutely INSULTING! It is like going up to a Jewish person & saying "The Holocaust Never Happened - You Whiners made it all up"! Insulting no?

Why can't we all just Respect each other’s beliefs? Just because over time Jesus was given all sorts of Strange Super-Natural Powers - Doesn't mean that he didn't actually Exist as a Man/Human Being in History!





Im with you all the way they cant even explain away why people who should be on their side from the time of Jesus, say their selves they killed Jesus for his crimes, they just side step around that all together, Yet they didnt when they told their empire's highest leader "my lord we have killed the heretic and destroyed his lies and put down the descent and rebellion of his followers" to which their king probably rewarded them for their faithful service to the empire, yet they all failed to mention they also made martyrs of 2 people that day Acarpenter and Son of God , and the lowly thief would called on him for forgivness there on those crosses that day.




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Well if you Think about it Jesus was Kind of in-between a Rock & a Hard Place (Kind of like the Iraqi People today). He was making Enemies among the Orthodox Jews that had Money & Power (the Rabbi Class) because of his Message. Remember he Hanged Out with POOR & SICK People!
*JEWS AND GENTILES AND WOMEN*!!!!!!!

Shocking for the Time! Not only that he also wasn't a big fan of the Occupying Roman Empire! I Find it Ironic that the Romans chose the CRUCIFIX as their Instrument of Torture & Death & then a Couple of Hundred Years Later they do a 180 Degree Turn Around & say that they are actually "All For" Jesus & use that SAME SYMBOL to Prove it (Something Smelly Here)!

Religion & Politics & Money have been intertwined for at least the last 2000 Years - they still are today! I find it Fascinating in the "Jesus Movies" as well as in the "Gospels" how many people came up to Jesus & asked him if he thought that he was a King! Fools! He is not our Temporal King!

He does Not Rule over us with Army & Wealth - he is our SPIRITUAL KING!!!


[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Well if you Think about it Jesus was Kind of in-between a Rock & a Hard Place (Kind of like the Iraqi People today). He was making Enemies among the Orthodox Jews that had Money & Power (the Rabbi Class) because of his Message. Remember he Hanged Out with POOR & SICK People!
*JEWS AND GENTILES AND WOMEN*!!!!!!!

Shocking for the Time! Not only that he also wasn't a big fan of the Occupying Roman Empire! I Find it Ironic that the Romans chose the CRUCIFIX as their Instrument of Torture & Death & then a Couple of Hundred Years Later they do a 180 Degree Turn Around & say that they are actually "All For" Jesus & use that SAME SYMBOL to Prove it (Something Smelly Here)!

Religion & Politics & Money have been intertwined for at least the last 2000 Years - they still are today! I find it Fascinating in the "Jesus Movies" as well as in the "Gospels" how many people came up to Jesus & asked him if he thought that he was a King! Fools! He is not our Temporal King!

He does Not Rule over us with Army & Wealth - he is our SPIRITUAL KING!!!




Could all this mean they finally realize what happened has marked their blood line , their faith and their beliefs, and maybe this is a failing attempt to buy forgivness, this reminds me of my favorite saying.

God searches the mind and the heart and gives according to ones deeds, for no man is justified in the presence of the Lord , by deeds.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Very well laid out argument Iasion. While I am of the belief that Jesus’ divinity was a mythical creation born in the late 2nd century and nurtured to what we have today, I do believe it was based on a real character or questionable reputation.

The argument Christians hold about the exclusion of apocrypha is wanting. It cannot be argued that beginning with Constantine a sect of Christians won the emperor’s ear and what followed was the blatant destruction of the writings of the anathematized early church fathers as well as those scriptures not fitting the myth even though long attested to and quoted by even some of these bishops issuing the anathema. They were ignorant and stupid to believe that it could all be hidden. One such popular scripture was the Apocalypse of Peter.

The writings of two church fathers from the late first century to early second and since made into saints not only do not support the story of Jesus as we know it today, but quote scripture that is nowhere to be found. This is direct evidence that they were either believing in all sorts of differing stories or the scriptures were tampered with and changed. Clement writing circa 120 did not speak of Jesus as being divine. His epistle is littered with quotes from the Old Testament, only a handful from Paul and Peter and some found nowhere.

Ignaeteus c130-140, another saint wrote: “He said to them: "Here; feel me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost." Immediately they touched Him and, through this contact with His Flesh and Spirit, believed’” and “The Lord permitted myrrh to be poured on His head that He might breathe incorruption upon the Church.”Neither of these statements are within the gospels we have today, and in fact when the argument over Jesus’ divinity ensued, Jerome attested these words belonged to the Gospel of Hebrews, Origen said to the Gospel of Peter, and Eusebius much later claims he had never heard of it. The scrub was well on its way, as evidenced by the myrrh story changing to being applied to his dead body Jn.19:39.

Clement was supposedly a disciple of Paul and it is very evident that much of these epistles and gospels were in fact nothing but the thoughts of some of these of early church fathers as they put their arguments to paper, as the need arose to counter the claims of those they called heretics. When one reviews the chronological arguments we have available it is very clear to see those same thoughts materialize within the epistles of the NT, and interjected in the gospels which cause the contradictions.

Paul alludes to the penning of the scriptures in Philippians, but to the reader oblivious to the heated debate of the first 3 centuries, the words have no meaning: ...help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also…

And I will expound on this next.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
The Muratorian canon c170 accepted the apocalypse of Peter, as written by Clement, yet it disappeared in favour of John’s version, or did it? The most complete copy of this writing was found with those of Clement’s, and it is written by Clement recounting a vision of Peter’s on a mountain. It is my opinion that Clement was the author of Acts as well as the Peters, and had a hand in Matthew and Luke.

This apocalypse is headed: The Second Coming of Christ and Resurrection of the Dead (which Christ revealed unto Peter) who died because of their sins, for that they kept not the commandment of God their creator.

This apocalypse is so dark and malicious it makes Revelation look like a child’s story. Peter tells of being in the mountain asking Jesus to explain what happens at his next coming, and what follows are excerpts to show that Matthew’s Transfiguration was at a minimum an appendage. Bear in mind that the authenticity of Matthew and Luke being written by them is already highly in doubt, and further supported by:
And ye, take ye the likeness thereof from the fig-tree: so soon as the shoot thereof is come forth and the twigs grown, the end of the world shall come.

And I, Peter, answered and said unto him: Interpret unto me concerning the fig-tree, whereby we shall perceive it; for throughout all its days doth the fig-tree send forth shoots, and every year it bringeth forth its fruit for its master. What then meaneth the parable of the fig-tree? We know it not.
(Luke)

And I said unto him: O my Lord, wilt thou that I make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias? (Matt)

Matthew then states: tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. Yet he is already dead and appearing in a vision. Matthew has inserted here this piece of Clement’s report to represent Jesus when he was alive. Further, one can see that it was in fact an inclusion since Matthew’s gospel is the only to claim the eleven saw him up in a mountain after his death. The author has deliberately taken this piece from Clement’s account of Peter’s vision with Jesus in the mountain and broken it into two.

And behold, suddenly there came a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: keep my commandments. And then came a great and exceeding white cloud over our heads and bare away our Lord and Moses and Elias. And I trembled and was afraid: and we looked up and the heaven opened and we beheld men in the flesh, and they came and greeted our Lord and Moses and Elias and went into another heaven. And the word of the scripture was fulfilled:

There is no mistaking from the above he had ascended into Heaven. Matthew’s gospel leaves the ascension out of Chapter 17, out of his ending and continues this very storyline in Acts, where Acts 1, concludes his ascension with the apostles leaving Mount Olivet.

The further deceitfulness of Matthew lies with the request to tell the vision to no man, where Clement notes in the recounting of the vision, that Peter bids him hide the revelation in a box so that foolish men do not see it. The request was not Jesus’ it was supposedly Peter’s.

It is unfortunate that Christians pay no attention to how their faith was forged in the early days, I can only conclude that most have no idea what transpired, they just believe it always was there written in stone in 33ACE. the rest that see it cannot bring themselves to believe they were duped.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Jason...

You are the foremost conspiracy theorist on this site of the conspiracy to discredit the historical Jesus...

Don't deny this, be proud (your doing a great job)...

For the Latin version of Abdias's "History of the Apostles" ("Historiæ apostolicæ, auctore Abdia"), Cologne, 1576, which asserts throughout, even in the title, that it was translated from the Hebrew by Julius Africanus.

Of course the Roman Emperors wanted to discredit Christianity, when they couldn't they converted, this should be expected...

Where do you get this theory that Saul of Tarsis (Paul) never met Jesus?

In Act 9:3-4 Jesus says to Saul "Saul, Saul why persecuteth me thou"...

How could Jesus have said this to Paul if they had never met ?

Or do you of all people beleive whats being descibed was a devine revelation ?

I feel you also confuse the views of those like Arius who beleived that Jesus was a man and not a God, with those who claim he was God personified, with a refutation that he came "in the Flesh".

Your quotes mearly indicate that the writers do not beleive that God came in the flesh, this is an entirely different claim to that Jesus as a man did not exist.



[edit on 4-2-2005 by Flange Gasket]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flange GasketWhere do you get this theory that Saul of Tarsis (Paul) never met Jesus?

In Act 9:3-4 Jesus says to Saul "Saul, Saul why persecuteth me thou"...

How could Jesus have said this to Paul if they had never met ?
I would like to respond to this since I have already provided this information previously.

Saul of Tarsus NEVER met Jesus! this is yet another contradiction within the gospels that Christians are blind to. Acts was not written by Paul, and this tale contradicts what Paul himself wrote. Which is lying? You decide:

Acts: And as he journey, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to earth, and heard a voice saying unto him,...And he said...and the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22 later quotes Paul: ...and went to damascus...and it came to pass that as I made my journey...suddenly there shone from Heaven a great light round about me, and I fell to the ground heard a voice saying... and they that were with me saw indeed the light... but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

That is Acts contradicting itself. Acts decides to elaborate on the conversation even further in 26:16:18


You will in fact not find those words in Paul's epistles.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Greetings fringe basket,


Hmmm .. you confused "Adbias" with "Abdias".

The "Histories of the Apostles" are later FORGERIES, not written by Abdias, nor anything to do with Julius Africanus -


These stories came at length to form a sort of apostolic cycle, of which the documents following are portions. They exists also in a Latin form in the ten books of the Acts of the Apostles, compiled probably in the sixth century, and falsely attributed to Abdias, the first bishop of Babylon, by whom it was, of course, written in Hebrew

biblestudy.churches.net...



Where do you get this theory that Saul of Tarsis (Paul) never met Jesus?
In Act 9:3-4 Jesus says to Saul "Saul, Saul why persecuteth me thou"...
How could Jesus have said this to Paul if they had never met ?
Or do you of all people beleive whats being descibed was a devine revelation ?


Pardon?
In this Acts episode, Paul "saw" Jesus in a VISION.
This was LONG AFTER Jesus was gone.
It was NOT a physical meeting.

Do you REALLY claim this was an actual, physical, historical meeting?

Even though its clearly a VISIONARY experience?
Even though the different versions of this VISION experience contradict each other?



I feel you also confuse the views of those like Arius who beleived that Jesus was a man and not a God, with those who claim he was God personified, with a refutation that he came "in the Flesh".
Your quotes mearly indicate that the writers do not beleive that God came in the flesh, this is an entirely different claim to that Jesus as a man did not exist.


On the contrary - it is EXACTLY the SAME issue - only expressed in different ways.

To the ancients, a spiritual heavenly being REALLY EXISTED.
A being who lived in heaven was no less extant than one who lived on earth.

So,
the argument in the 2nd century was whether Jesus :
* lived in heavenly worlds only,
or
* came to earth physically.

Many early Christians argued that Jesus did NOT "come in the flesh" -
i.e. he was never on earth physically,
he lived and moved in the HEAVENLY spheres.


That is exactly my point -
originally Jesus was seen as a SPIRITUAL BEING of some sort
(sure, they believed this spiritual being REALLY EXISTED - in heaven.)

You are welcome to believe that a spiritual being, who lives in heaven, really "exists".

My argument, which is supported by the evidence, is that Jesus was never a historical, physical being.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I feel it should be clearly noted that:

1. Historians are still on the fence regarding the existence of Jesus;
2. Historians do not consider the Bible a reliable documentation of that time period;
3. Iasion is not attempting to spread some bizarre conspiracy theory -- the existence of Jesus is STILL being debated by the foremost researchers in the field;
4. There are not enough facts to support either side of this debate -- with a caveat here -- one cannot use a lack of evidence to prove something, i.e., "there's no evidence that Jesus did NOT exist, therefore he existed." That argument constitutes circular reasoning and is, therefore, inadmissable as evidence;
5. Those of you who are Christian can believe until you're blue in the face that Jesus was the son of God -- that doesn't make it true -- there's no PROOF, for the reasons I mentioned above;
6. Whoever of you said that denying the existence of Jesus is like denying the existence of the Holocaust should go back to Logic 101. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Holocaust has been documented thoroughly and within recent memory. In fact, there are still victims alive. Firsthand witnesses;
7. There is a plethora of reliable evidence to support the existence of people who lived long before, well after, and during the alleged time of Jesus, i.e. the civilizations that existed prior to Rome. Why is there no evidence to support Jesus' existence? Again, historians do not consider the Bible to be "evidence" any more than they consider Greek mythology to be evidence of the existence of Zeus.

Whether you BELIEVE that Jesus existed has no bearing on this discussion. Nor is it proof. No offense, but modern historical thought does not support your viewpoint.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
LunaNik..hi, you just got a way above me! I couldn't of said it any better...and believe me I am saying it around here all the time!



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
To Jason; the Anti Jesus Conspiracy man;

It's become quite obvious that to me that it wouldn't matter what evidence you were presented with, it's all a forgery, you don't beleive in a man called Jesus but you'd have me beleive in voices from heaven...

Your've presented no credible historical basis to date from which proves any conspiracy to create a myth of Jesus the man, your quoted correspondents only did not believe that Jesus was God incarnate. I try to explain to you that just because Arius didn't beleive that Jesus was God, doesn't mean that he didn't beleive in Jesus the man, which he obviously did as this was the basis of his supposed heresy, and you just pretend you can't tell the difference, which you clearly can...

Now your just being contrary, and this debate is piontless...

To those who think that it's unreasonable to suggest there should be historical evidence from the time saying that Jesus didn't exist, try looking up the the Church of Scientology or the Raleans on the net, see how many pages are devoted to debunking these cult's. Is it so unreasonable to suggest that their should be at least one critic of the day saying that Jesus the man didn't even exist?

You can't prove that Jesus the man didn't exist, the best you can do is prove that evidence is inconclusive...this is your article of faith...

Your entirely welcome to have faith in whatever you want...

Over and out; FG...


[edit on 4-2-2005 by Flange Gasket]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Quote: "In Act 9:3-4 Jesus says to Saul "Saul why Persecuteth me thou"...
How could Jesus have said this to Paul if they had never met?"

Well Flange Gasket - I believe that this is a Question of who actually Wrote the "Acts of the Apostles"
(St. Luke?)!

St. Paul Obviously wrote the Epistles. There is a Question to whether
St. Paul ever met Jesus in the Flesh. St. Paul was a Jewish Tax Collector for the Romans (who spoke both Greek & Hebrew BTW) who Converted after Seeing a Vision of Jesus - giving him the Line above -
POST Crucifixion & Resurrection.

Co-Incidentally the Resurrection is a matter of Faith. Historians studying the matter have Theorized that it was possible that Jesus SURVIVED the Crucifixion - this is also a "Mystery"!


[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Thanks, Lady V! I thought this discussion needed to be grounded in reality -- belief versus proof. Here's an interesting article with a plethora of substantiating evidence:

Did a historical Jesus exist?

and a few excerpts:

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

-- and --

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." (Pagels, 1995)

-- and --

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels got written during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

-- and, regarding the Shroud of Turin --

Experts around the world consider the 14-foot-long linen sheet, which has remained in a cathedral in Turin since 1578, a forgery because of carbon-dating tests performed in 1988. Three different independent radiocarbon dating laboratories in Zurich, Oxford and the University of Arizona yielded a date range of 1260-1390 C.E. (consistent with the time period of Charny's claimed ownership). Joe Zias of Hebrew University of Jerusalem calls the shroud indisputably a fake. "Not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery." The shroud actually depicts a man whose front measures 2 inches taller than his back and whose elongated hands and arms would indicate that he had the affliction of gigantism if he actually lived.

Walter C. McCrone, et al, (see Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin) discovered red ochre (a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages) on the cloth which formed the body image and vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, used to represent blood. The actual scientific findings reveal the shroud as a 14th century painting, not a two-thousand year-old cloth with Christ's image. Revealingly, no Biblical scholar or scientist (with any credibility), cites the shroud of Turin as evidence for a historical Jesus.


-- and, regarding historical documents --

Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?


Conclusions
No artifacts exist that can be attributed to Jesus.
No historical writings support the existence of Jesus.
The earliest gospel was written in 70 A.D., well after the death of Jesus.
No eyewitness accounts of Jesus exist.

Those of you who are Christian, take note of a quote at the end of the article: your faith is unsupported by any reliable evidence; your belief must exist in spite of the evidence. (That's why it's called "faith.")



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Jesus probably did exist but not sure when....the jesus legend (a son born by a vigin mother, saying he was the son of god, and died executed in a lot of pain) is a legend from ancient pagan story way before christ ...
Maybe it is just the legend that was raised back in the roman times...but one thing for sure, the bible hide a lot of things, the truth would crush the catholic religion and lot of people beleifs.
BTW we are ALL sons of gods, Jesus was like us but he had more knowledge that is it....everything is manupilated and corrupted to control the masses, you can be like jesus if you want, you have the power within your higher self, beleive in YOU not in some old story written by the hand of a man...YOU, Your own higher self is here waiting for you to accept her....that is so important you guys, love in unconditional love and be one with your soul that is the part of you connected to the source!

I send you love dear ones
Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
LunaNik..hi, you just got a way above me! I couldn't of said it any better...and believe me I am saying it around here all the time!





Luna and Lady



Ill admit that yes there is no physical proof that Jesus is the spawning of God with a human virgin, but I also say devinity and power was possesed in him by his test by his accusers who themselves said he performed deeds of what they thought to be majic or sourcery , but was infact the miracles of God's Power. He was know by his accusers to cast out sickness, transformations of foods and objects and the manifesting of other miracles of defiance to scientific or physical proof, I conceed however one of the most important the writing on the wall is viatmetly left as false or denied in the accusers accounts, what are your thoughts on why the wrinting on the wall was left out by them.

[edit on 5/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
OK so lets say that "Christ" = "Pagan God or Imagined Messiah/Never Embodied" -> how does this change things? Should it lessen our Faith? It sure does not lessen Mine!


Does this make the Faith or Religion of Christianity less Relevant?

What about Judaism then? Is there Concrete proof that all of those many Judaic Prophets actually Existed in History as Actual Historical Figures -> Was Moses an Actual Historical Figure? How about Abraham or Isaiah? How about that Great Guy King Herod - Did he Really Exist? In Judaism the Hebraic God Promised that a Messiah would come - if that wasn't Jesus & the Messiah never came - then who is the Messiah or hasn't he arrived yet?

If I say that I Personally Believe & have Faith that JESUS/Yehshuah was the "Anointed Messiah of Israel" - who are you to say I am wrong? Why would you try so hard to Refute me? Is it not just a matter of Faith? Is this not my Right? Do I not live in a Free Country with Freedom of Religion?

Would anyone now deny at this point that there is an Organized
Anti-Christian Agenda in play? I wonder what is the Source of this Agenda?

Two Edged Sword this Logic thing - isn't it!


[edit on 5-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
It looks like we have been in this Territory before:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And AROUND & AROUND in a Circle we go - WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


Iason let me ask you a question - Just how Long "After Jesus" were the Gospels (including Thomas & other Gnostic Gospels) Scientifically/Forensically Examined/Determined to be Written?

As we all know Jesus wasn't Really Born on Dec. 25th or "Resurrected" on Easter - the Catholic Church purposely chose these days to Over Lap with Pagan Holidays. We also know that Jesus wasn't really Born on 1 A.D. - that is also an Arbitrary Year - it could have been up to a Decade later - say 10 A.D.
Also lets just Suppose (for Conspiracy's Sake) That Jesus Survived the Crucifixion (with the help of that handy *MANDRAKE ROOT*) & ended up living to a Ripe Old Age! If the Gospels could be Dated to about 150-200 A.D. - then how much "Written Long After" is this really? WOW Imagine that - the Contents of the Gospels could in Actuality be fairly Accurate!


Take THAT!


[edit on 5-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Greetings strange casket,



It's become quite obvious that to me that it wouldn't matter what evidence you were presented with, it's all a forgery, you don't beleive in a man called Jesus but you'd have me beleive in voices from heaven...


You didn't present any evidence.
You ignored the evidence I gave.
You have obviously never read a single scholarly reference work.

You then gave a FORGED document as evidence !
You had NO IDEA it was forged did you?

Even know you just moan about me calling it a forgery !
But you STILL haven't bothered to check the facts have you?
Next week you'll no doubt make exactly the same claims to someone else.



Your've presented no credible historical basis to date from which proves any conspiracy to create a myth of Jesus the man,


Once again - you show you didn't even READ my post.
I do NOT claim a "conspiracy"
Let me know ehen you have actually read what I posted.



your quoted correspondents only did not believe that Jesus was God incarnate. I try to explain to you that just because Arius didn't beleive that Jesus was God, doesn't mean that he didn't beleive in Jesus the man, which he obviously did as this was the basis of his supposed heresy, and you just pretend you can't tell the difference, which you clearly can...


We were not discussing Arius.
We were discussing the Christians who believed Jesus was NOT a physical being.
You have no answer.

I also pointed out the numerous other writers who:
* totally failed to mention Jesus,
* claimed the genealogies were FABLES,
* described Christianity in detail without mentioning Jesus,
* specifically DENIED the incarnation and the crucifxion,
* claimed the Gospels were FICTION based on myths,
* called the evangelists INVENTORS, not historians,
* pointed out Jesus was UNKNOWN to history.

You had no answer for that.



To those who think that it's unreasonable to suggest there should be historical evidence from the time saying that Jesus didn't exist, try looking up the the Church of Scientology or the Raleans on the net, see how many pages are devoted to debunking these cult's. Is it so unreasonable to suggest that their should be at least one critic of the day saying that Jesus the man didn't even exist?


Initially, Christianity was dismissed as a fringe cult - as a "ruinous superstition".

The Gospels did not arise till long after the alleged events.
When they did - they WERE attacked as fictional, based on myths.
They were criticised as INVENTIONS, NOT history.
Critics DID point out Jesus was unknown to history.

You keep ignoring all these facts.



You can't prove that Jesus the man didn't exist, the best you can do is prove that evidence is inconclusive...this is your article of faith...


You can't prove the Easter Bunny didn't exist either.
But that's not how it works.
If YOU claim Jesus existed, then YOU must present the evidence and prove the case.
You haven't.

Instead you present statements of faith.
You ignore the evidence that Jesus was not historical.
You present FORGED documents as evidence.
You clearly have never read a single scholarly commentary on the bible.

I presented PAGES of evidence, facts, names, dates, documents.
You ignored it all.
And you have the HIDE to pretend I have faith?

Your arguments are pathetic, deranged brisket, all you have is empty faith, no facts.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Greetings Seraphim_Serpente,


Iason let me ask you a question - Just how Long "After Jesus" were the Gospels (including Thomas & other Gnostic Gospels)
Scientifically/Forensically Examined/Determined to be Written?


Hmmm...
Why can't people get my name right?


The typical dates for the Gospels are :
* G.Mark : 65-80
* G.Matthew : 80-100
* G.Luke : 80-130
* G.John : 90-120

(At least a generation, and a war, after the alleged events.)

G.Mark was probably written in Rome, by someone who had never been to Jerusalem. It is spiritual literature crafted from the OT - e.g. many of Jesus episodes parallel the Elijah cycle of the OT :
users2.ev1.net...

It was certainly not by an eye-witness, nor by a secretary of Peter.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

G.Luke and G.Matthew copy whole sections word-for-word from G.Mark. They are not eye-witnesses either. G.John comds much later, has been reworked by several hands, and shows literary dependance on G.Mark.

In other words - none of the Gospels was by anyone who met any Jesus.

Just like the ENTIRE New Testament -
* Paul (1) - Paul only saw Jesus in a VISION
* Paul (2) - letters forged in Paul's name by someone else
* G.Mark - spiritual literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, written in Rome
* G.Luke, G.Matthew, G.John - based on the earlier literature of G.Mark
* James - forged by someone other than James
* Peter 1,2 - forged by someone other than Peter, long afterwards
* John 1,2,3 forged by someone other than John, long afterwards
* Jude - forged by someone other than Jude

Same with the later fathers - no-one has any direct evidence of anything or anyone. It's all stories and legends.




Let me ask a question or two in return -

* when was the first writer to refer to all four Gospels by name?
* when was the first writer to quote from the Gospels?


Iasion



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
would anyone try so hard to prove he does not exist?

Everyone should try hard to demonstrate that he doesn't exist no? Failure to do so would reinforce faith no?





new topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join