posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 10:02 AM
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: MatterIsLight
The problem is, nobody actually knows if any of them actually knew Jesus or hung out with him. You have to rely on stories passed down word of mouth,
and not actually written for 20-30 years after the crucifixion, not even written by eye witnesses. You can try to check what people believed at the
time, but it has no bearing on whether or not what they said is actually correct or valid or if the stories reflect reality.
I agree that the virgin birth wasn't added in until the later gospels and was likely an exaggeration and plot device recycled from pagan myths along
with most other miracles, but there is no way to actually know. Scholars can give us some clues as to when they were written but the accuracy itself
is a big concern, as there were many doctrines related to Jesus that were destroyed and may never be seen again.
I think that is why it is so easy to manipulate people in all religions, because people only really know what they experience and see, so most of any
religion of based upon believing somebody or something. I personally believe researching is so important because of that. To gather an idea of the
first century, there are sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi texts, the bible, the Jewish Christian literature, and the apocrypha
scriptures which I believe are highly important.
If a person investigates the literature of the Early Church Fathers one can conclude that they were all followers of Paul and based in Rome. When you
line up all of the Jewish Christian literature and compare it to those texts you can see exactly what is different. In my opinion the texts of the
Jewish Christians makes sense and it righteous, and I can see where the misinformation was added into the doctrines of the early church fathers and
their doctrine is more for a gathering of peoples to control them, not so much righteous guidelines to get into heaven. But when you compare the
Hebrew gospel of Matthew and the Aramaic Nazarene scriptures to the Greek gospels we were handed down in the bible, you can clearly see the
differences and the Aramaic text is not about those pagan myths, nor is it about controlling others. It is just about being righteous, but you can see
where the Greek gospels added in their differences and based on the educated gained from researching the era and other things you can tell which one
came from the Nazarenes and which one came from the Greek followers of Paul. Many of these texts are hard to find, so it is impossible for a Christian
to gain this insight with the materials presented to them, they have to dig much further into the annals of history.
Now when we are faced with the apostles and their followers telling us that there was no virgin birth or miracles, we have to add that testimony to
the thought that in reality magic and miracles do not happen. I can understand a healing or some other amazing mysterious event, but something like
turning water into wine right in front of your eyes is not a realistic thing as for the laws of reality. So it is knowing that, and knowing that the
Romans were liars from the other research, and believing that the apostles were not liars, which would endorse the faith of a person not to believe in
such. It is a matter of how we believe, since we were not there. But the problem is that most Christians only see one side of the story - they will
not even agree to look deeper into history to even search for the other side of the story as they have made up their mind already without leaving
their mind open for any possibilities, which is not smart when the history of the powers of this world have always been dishonest.
It is such a vast complication, but when I compare my Aramaic book of Acts with the bible, my version has more information, so you can see that they
took from my source. But you can also see where they changed one small thing in the verse. So I have been raised catholic, and forever that one line
in that verse didn't make much sense, but when I found the Aramaic version and I saw that the line in the verse was slightly different, suddenly it
finally made sense. So there are things like that when added and summed up altogether, endorses the likelihood that the writers of the gospel was