It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Jesus Conspiracy

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
Old Saul of Tarsus (St Paul) was known to 'gild the lilly' even in Jesus day, he was highly critical of Jesus when he was a tutor to Herod Agrippa even though they had never met, and when they actually first met, Jesus said "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" [...] But after they got to know each other

Er? Saul never met jesus. He had a vision long after the gospels maintain jesus was crucified.


dnero
And I would like to point out that Santa Clause is based off of a real person who lived

Thats one story of what santa claus is, that he's based on the greek orthodox saint nicholas. Its not the only one tho, Father Christmas in england has nothing to do with st nick, and apparently the santa claus mythos stretches back to pre-christian times.




posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
You are the foremost conspiracy theorist on this site of the conspiracy to discredit the historical Jesus...

Why must it be a conspiracy? No one knows what happened back then anyway, all thats had is a canonical set of sometimes contradictory accounts, and even the authorship of those apostolic accounts is 'fuzzy'. It does not require a conspiracy to rationally examine the evidence as to what happened, and merely because you disagree with the investigators ultimate conclusions doesn't make it a conspiracy either.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Quote: "The typical dates for the Gospels are :
* G.Mark : 65-80
* G.Matthew : 80-100
* G.Luke : 80-130
* G.John : 90-120 "

Oh so within the Lifetime of an Individual after Jesus’ Death I see!

Another Question: What do you attribute the SOURCE of the
Gospel of John & the Gospel of Thomas to?

*********************************************************

Quote: "When was the first writer to refer to all four Gospels by name?
When was the first writer to quote from the Gospels?"

Who = St. Paul - when - I don't know. Jesus may have only wanted to Reform Judaism & not create a New Religion Based on Himself - but the same cannot be said of the "Messianic Jew" Paul/Saul - nor (Ironically enough) of the Vatican! I see how many people could have resented this!



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
DrBryan and Seraphim -- you are both missing the point of this discussion -- and of Iasion's, Lady's, and my posts. You may, of course, believe whatever you like. But the fact remains that there is absolutely not a shred of reliable evidence to prove the existence of a historical Jesus.

DrBryan, I'm not addressing the point of whether Jesus was the "spawn" of Jehovah and Mary. I'm stating that there is no evidence Jesus even existed at all. Historically speaking, Jesus is as much of a myth as Zeus. Link to the article I posted.

Again, there is a ton of evidence to support the existence of many other people before, during, and after that time period. There exists no document by a firsthand witness to the existence of Jesus.

Seraphim, your conjectures contain way too many what if statements and no evidence whatsoever. Again, the Bible is not considered by historians to be a reliable depiction of the events of that time period, especially as none of the writings are firsthand witness accounts.

I'll say it again: your belief must exist in spite of the available evidence to the contrary.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LunaNik
DrBryan, I'm not addressing the point of whether Jesus was the "spawn" of Jehovah and Mary. I'm stating that there is no evidence Jesus even existed at all. Historically speaking, Jesus is as much of a myth as Zeus. Link to the article I posted.


Zues was a God according to the writings and didnt reside on earth but olympus so I would think Hercules would be the closer comparison and there is historical presidence for a strong and wonderous man who had great virtue and strenght but didnt have God like powers, and he resided on earth till completing the tasks set out for him and when they where completed that the man Known as herucules was caught up to olympus by zues his father and then recieve God like powers and immoratlity and didnt return to earth but wisely watched over from olympus, at least that is the way I came to know it which I see to great differences one Jesus was born to this earth with god like powers , hercules was not , Jesus died here on earth and was witnessed reborn , hercules was called up to olympus alive never to return.




Again, there is a ton of evidence to support the existence of many other people before, during, and after that time period. There exists no document by a firsthand witness to the existence of Jesus.


But then why do the claims of the roman governor state that a man named Jesus was crucifered, it in roman history. I will try to locate the history for you but this was the boastings of the death of Jesus who was revieled for treason, heracy, rebellion. There is also the burial plot of the roman offical who couldnt be buried in his own crypt as he gave it to Jesus burial and in this exact crypt there was a cloth with the scorched outline of the person whom it covered and that cloth exists for fact and has been being stored for further keeping and furture research.


[edit on 6/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

But then why do the claims of the roman governor state that a man named Jesus was crucifered, it in roman history.

No, it's not. There is nothing is the history of ancient Rome, or in the records from that time period about a man named Jesus being crucified.



in this exact crypt there was a cloth with the scorched outline of the person whom it covered and that cloth exists for fact and has been being stored for further keeping and furture research.

Uh, did you read my post? The Shroud of Turin is a forgery. It is a 14th Century painting. Dating and analysis of the cloth have proved this.

Back to the drawing board...there exists no reliable evidence of a historical Jesus.

Slightly off-topic, but still germane, the word "virgin" simply referred to an unmarried woman, not one who had never had intercourse.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LunaNik
DrBryan and Seraphim -- you are both missing the point of this discussion -- and of Iasion's, Lady's, and my posts. You may, of course, believe whatever you like. But the fact remains that there is absolutely not a shred of reliable evidence to prove the existence of a historical Jesus.



You bring up a good point concerning reliable evidence. How do you determine which evidence is reliable? When referencing historical records written by men can any of them be considered reliable? Man is fallible and as evidenced by so many books, and posts on the web, constantly makes mistakes especially concerning testimony of memories. Those who believe that the scripture is inspired by our creator need not rely on "blind faith". We can reasonably conclude that the Bible is the inspired word of Yahweh based on the history, logic, and fulfilled prophecy it contains.

I have noticed that it is quite popular to say that the Bible borrowed this from some culture or the bible contains stories that are retellings of earlier stories. No one seems to consider the possibility that those "earlier" stories are based on scripture and not the other way around. If the Bible is true the oldest part of it has been passed down from our first ancestors. I thank the father that we have evidence we can rely on as opposed to turning to the views of fallible men.

Steve



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
NEWS FLASH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the bible did not arrive by fax from heaven. it was written by men for men.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by stalkingwolf]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I agree. It was written by men for men and divinely inspired. That is why it is unique in all human literature.


Steve



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
I agree. It was written by men for men and divinely inspired. That is why it is unique in all human literature.
It is so divinely inspired it took a ruling by an emperor with a massive dislike for Jews to silence the opposition who themselves were believers in Jesus the man, just not Jesus the divine. How then can it be the inspired word of God?

It is so inspired that the churches breaking away from the RCC decided only some of the doctrine as divinely inspired and not the others. How can it be a partial divine inspiration?

How does one explain the Apocalypse of Peter being accepted for 200 years then dismissed, especially when that vision of his was supposed to be after Jesus' death, but bits and pieces are attributed to him in the gospels while he lived? Why is it that the obvious is ignored, where is the rebuttal for this?

How does one explain Clement calling him a high priest? Where is the rebuttal for this?

Where is the rebuttal to to the blatant contradiction in Acts as to what was heard or not heard by the men travelling with Paul?

You all conveniently shy away from every single piece of logic presented to you and carry on your arguments based on it being the divinely inspired word of God nontheless.

Your God is prone to many mistakes.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
SomewhereinBetween,

You are apparently very capable of doing research on your own so I would think the rebuttals you are requesting shouldn't be too hard to find. It is obvious from your posts that you are filled with a passion to discredit scripture. In my opinion it is a sad waste of what is obviously great intelligence. Any perceived mistakes in the scripture are just that that, the fallible conclusion of a deceived reader. The errors lie with man not the creator. I pray that you will answer his call.

Steve



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
SomewhereinBetween,

You are apparently very capable of doing research on your own so I would think the rebuttals you are requesting shouldn't be too hard to find.
I am sorry but that is an excuse, for my research has brought discredit to the scriptures, and if you could prove otherwise you would not be attempting to send me to credit that which is already discredited.


It is obvious from your posts that you are filled with a passion to discredit scripture. In my opinion it is a sad waste of what is obviously great intelligence.
I prefer to see it this way. I searched for truth and found it. What is sad is your willingness to accept the plethora of falsities within those writings, and still call them divinely inspired, and preach them as truths. How can that be? You have yet to prove where one of the contradictions I cite is not a contradiction. How can God possibly make mistakes? I am quite sure you do not accept your govenment lying to you, or anyone else, so why would you accept the lies behind the grandest cultural economy?


Any perceived mistakes in the scripture are just that that, the fallible conclusion of a deceived reader. The errors lie with man not the creator. I pray that you will answer his call.
Thank you for your prayer, but it means nothing to me since the God to whom it was made is a false God. Your lack of refutation is why your reesponses are reduced to empty platitudinous statements such as that, and that tells me that behind the faith is a factual void.

As with the books of Acts, Hebrews, Peter, James, Jude and Revelation which took 300 or so years to acquire global ascension to canon only because by then no one cared anymore about their hotly debated authenticity, so too that is what is behind the belief today, the issue of truth has been discarded in favour of just accepting that the omnipotent God needed intermediaries to act on his behalf and to stand at the pearly gates screening what is acceptable to him and that everything that is written always was as it is.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It is archaically naive to believe that the most debated, popular book in the history of mankind has suffered any form of demonic corruption. Is Jesus the Son of Man? or is he the Son of God? "Both", the mundane believer would answer.
But then we have Numbers 23:19, Psalm 146:3, Psalm 144:3.

Do me a favor, go through the entire NT and scratch out the word, "man" in the phrase, "Son of Man" when referring to Jesus, and replace it with the word "God". Makes a lot more sence.

Scratch out the knostic psuedo-teaching attributed to Jesus, like cutting off one's arm, or plucking out one's eye. Scratch out "agreeing with thine adversary", eliminate the parable of the talents.

You have to polish the scriptures, like a ball boy rubs grease on a new baseball before they play ball. You can't just go to a Christian bookstore and start vacuuming in everything.

Test, prove, retest.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
You bring up a good point concerning reliable evidence. How do you determine which evidence is reliable? When referencing historical records written by men can any of them be considered reliable? Man is fallible and as evidenced by so many books, and posts on the web, constantly makes mistakes especially concerning testimony of memories. Those who believe that the scripture is inspired by our creator need not rely on "blind faith". We can reasonably conclude that the Bible is the inspired word of Yahweh based on the history, logic, and fulfilled prophecy it contains.

I have noticed that it is quite popular to say that the Bible borrowed this from some culture or the bible contains stories that are retellings of earlier stories. No one seems to consider the possibility that those "earlier" stories are based on scripture and not the other way around. If the Bible is true the oldest part of it has been passed down from our first ancestors. I thank the father that we have evidence we can rely on as opposed to turning to the views of fallible men.

Steve







All of this has been argue by me and others over and over again yet the hard line scepticts taht you just challenged with this stament has walked you into that familiar muck that is the consperators mind. I have even here tryed a diefferent approach and showed where those who have made statements confirming the issues yet who never where part to the scriptures construction have backed the scripture up from a differnt point of view, a human point of view and now these people say that human that didnt write in nor even accept the workings of the scriptures and even thought it haracy are made up as well good luck , whats even more sad is some of the held a study group here on ats to prove the parts of the bible most popular to present day man and they showed how the fortold parts of the bible where coming true piece by piece are now saying they have no proof at all that the key figure who fortold the prophacies even existed, Jesus was alive on earth and did give prophacies and God and Jesus both continue forth with the teachings of the entire bible as both historical and furture facts, but its never going to see the fruition justified as truth till its to late for them to actually believe. All i and other like me can do is stick to our guns and hope the bible styory and mans story dont end before they catch on.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaNik

But then why do the claims of the roman governor state that a man named Jesus was crucifered, it in roman history.


No, it's not. There is nothing is the history of ancient Rome, or in the records from that time period about a man named Jesus being crucified.



But even though some details are desputed by many as modified by christian, Flavius Josephus did say that there existed a man named Jesus in the context of Jesus was a wise man and as a teacher wrought with surprising feats was able to win over many greeks and jews.

Note I did admit some of the works where altered from original texts of Flavious Josephus to ad more there is a direct commonality to the existance of Jesus in both the original text as well as the altered text.
Jesus existed and was a great teacher and miracle worker who caused many to believe is common in both historian Flavious Josephus version and the altered version of his text the only descrepencies lie in the the phrase that Flavious said in his paper said "HE (Jesus) Was thought to be the Christ" now in the cristain altered version It says "He (Jesus) Was the Messiah. There are more differences but the priciple claim is intact there is a Jesus in both versions.




in this exact crypt there was a cloth with the scorched outline of the person whom it covered and that cloth exists for fact and has been being stored for further keeping and furture research.



Uh, did you read my post? The Shroud of Turin is a forgery. It is a 14th Century painting. Dating and analysis of the cloth have proved this.


Not true this is still not the totally excepted point of view even with non Christian researchers they are still looking into the matter from a non-Christian point of view yet today.





[edit on 6/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
quote]I am sorry but that is an excuse, for my research has brought discredit to the scriptures, and if you could prove otherwise you would not be attempting to send me to credit that which is already discredited.


You're right. I was being lazy. It's one of my worst qualities and something that I am working on. The amount of work that you put in to your posts is something that I admire about you. The truth is scriptural authority is a completely new subject to me as I have been an indifferent non believer for most of my life. There are people who have done much more work than I have on the subject. I am working on my own research but it is a slow process for me (especially considering the quandaries I am stumbling over regarding source reliability as described in my previous post) and I am just getting started. I am sure you have seen the rebuttals to the apparent discrepancies in Acts at www.tektonics.org....


I prefer to see it this way. I searched for truth and found it.


That is how I feel also, but I didn't find the truth until I looked to the scriptures.


What is sad is your willingness to accept the plethora of falsities within those writings, and still call them divinely inspired, and preach them as truths. How can that be? You have yet to prove where one of the contradictions I cite is not a contradiction. How can God possibly make mistakes? I am quite sure you do not accept your govenment lying to you, or anyone else, so why would you accept the lies behind the grandest cultural economy?


I simply don't see them as falsities or contradictions. I see them as human error in translation or interpretation.

Steve



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Greetings Seraphim_Serpente,


Oh so within the Lifetime of an Individual after Jesus’ Death I see!


What is your point?
What is your answer to the evidence that the Gospels were later anonymous works by people who never met any of the alleged actors?



What do you attribute the SOURCE of the Gospel of John & the Gospel of Thomas to?


To human writers - unknown ones.

To whom do you attribute the Gospel of Peter?
or the Gospel of Mary?
or the Gospel of the Hebrews?
or the any other Gospels?



(regarding the first writer to refer to all four Gospels by name)
Who = St. Paul - when - I don't know.


I beg your pardon?
This is absolute nonsense.

Paul does NOT refer to ANY written Gospel.
He does NOT mention ANY of the Evangelists as such.
He does NOT show any knowldge of the Gospel events.

Paul wrote in the 50s - before the war.
The Gospels were all written AFTER the war.
The Gospels did not become known to Christians until early-mid 2nd century.

If you think Paul refers to "ALL FOUR GOSPELS BY NAME" -
produce the evidence.


But, there is no such evidence -
the first writer to refer to all four Gospels by name was IRENAEUS in the 180s.

You were wrong by over a CENTURY, Seraphim_Serpente.


May I suggest you research these issues, perhaps here:
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Iasion



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
WE ARE ALL SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beleive in YOURSELF and you'll find out! Who said you can't, "they" the religious freaks told you that!
YOU are here on earth NOW not in the "0" welcome to the new millenium!
Practice spirituality, trust your soul and you'll understand everything! You have the power! Now I can't take you by the hand to have faith in the one and only god that has many many childrens that you are a part of it!
Let GO of the old stuff and think about now

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Nice one Stalkingwolf! I think we all needed that Sobering Moment!

Now Back to the Debate! Iasion - what I am pointing out is your Obvious BIAS! You seem to be Pointing out how the Gospels are "Fake" - but what about the even older books that they are based on - will you call them “Fake” & “Meaningless” too? So what if Paul never met Jesus in Person - neither have I - but are you going to say that Paul wasn't a Well Versed Jew? That he Didn't know what he was Talking about? That a Messiah/Savior was Never Promised or Needed by the People?

Listen - even if Jesus was Never a "Real" Person in History - the Point of the Message of the Gospels is a SPIRITUAL ONE! The Bible is not simply just a History Book - thus the Message of the Gospels & concept of "Christ" is Not invalid! It is my right to believe in the Message of the Gospels - even if it was written by
Greek Speaking Hellenistic Jews well after the "War" & the Destruction of the Temple! Do you resent this? Do you Resent that the Christian Movement eventually overtook Judaic Orthodoxy?

I resent the tone of your argument - as if the Entire Christian Religion & Scriptures are Invalid - that it is not Historically Valid - since when was it supposed to be? Are Judaism & the Hebrew Scriptures
"Historically Valid"? Like the Gospels were a silly Hoax pulled off a couple of years ago for a Laugh – the Original Gospel Documents are Nearly 2000 Years Old & are in concordance with the Greek Septuagint or
Greek Old Testament! Have you even read the Gospels?

Quote: "You were wrong by over a CENTURY, Seraphim_Serpente."
= Big Deal!

"History" & "Religious Belief" are two separate things! The former does not
invalidate the latter! Religion is based on Language & Culture & so it is only Natural that over Time/History that Various Religions Influence each other that it Changes & Grows! Try being a little more balanced in your studies instead of trying to simply “Disprove Christianity”!


[edit on 6-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx The truth is scriptural authority is a completely new subject to me as I have been an indifferent non believer for most of my life. There are people who have done much more work than I have on the subject. I am working on my own research but it is a slow process for me (especially considering the quandaries I am stumbling over regarding source reliability as described in my previous post) and I am just getting started.
I accept your quandry and cannot fault you for wherever you are on the seesaw at present, as long as you search for that which is known, not anyone else's opinion, but fact. To learn some of what has been kept secret for 1900 years can be devastating. There is some opinion I give relative to the OT, and even those are just opinion formed from due diligence based on a reconstruction of mother earth belching up her hidden history, and should be viewed as such. But when it comes to the NT, I provide you with facts as we have them today. But continue your research and do so with an open mind or you will never know for certain that what you believe whatever it is, is based on solid evidence.


I give only because I am sure you have seen the rebuttals to the apparent discrepancies in Acts at www.tektonics.org....
No I have not. This is the only site I belong to. I do not read other sites or the opinions of others unless it has to do with the authenticity of an old document. When doing my research, it is based solely on what I find within the scriptures and the documents sourced to early church fathers, political governance or historians. But feel free to proffer some of those rebuttals, i would be most happy to address them.


I simply don't see them as falsities or contradictions. I see them as human error in translation or interpretation.
God makes no errors, and he would not accept errors transmitted in his name. It is as simple as that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join