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.

 

Jew propaganda

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I sorta feel out of line asking this since I have not read the bible but hope to soon. Anyway on history channel I watched multiple issues on religon when they were playing what is fact and what is fiction in regards to the Da Vinci Code. Anyway I remember the refrence that jews were slaves to egypt and at some point they got away.

Now my thought is this maybe the bible and jesus was created as a form of propaganda as in egypt they have huge pyramids and statues propaganda to scare people off that may travel through?

Give me some feedback please. I have always thought along these lines since when would there be one god and why is jesus a white male jew and allah an arab etc I am sure all the common question we have all asked eachother but have not talked much about..Kinda like what is what and what does it all mean with out Laws of physics etc there would be nothing to do etc etc..




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I believe your title may be an unfortunate choice, given that's not at all what you're asking about. And since this is an admittedly open ended question emanating from a lack of knowledge and not any actual evidence of a conspiracy, I believe the proper forum to discuss it would be Theology.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Since we can't travel back in time I guess we'll never know the answer to that question. The OT and NT could have both been fairy tales...or not



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I believe your title may be an unfortunate choice,


Ya think? Got me to click, tho...

Well, on the surface while taking a cursory view of the Old and New Testaments, it could be percieved as such except for several gaping holes. First of all, if it is propaganda, it is a most unique form of such. Instead of talking about the great and wonderful parts of a people, the Jews in this case, it talks about their faults. Much of the Bible is dedicated to the falability of man. This is a strange way of saying your people are better than others. The only "plus" the Jewish people had over everyone else is that they were God's chosen people, despite their common and rampant rebellion against Him through their history.

The other problem is that secular history backs up what the Bible has stated. This would mean that history, too, has been conspiring towards this Jewish propaganda.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I think people like their leader to be similar to them, they feel more comfortable this way.

Therefore, the christians (the majority of whom are white) follow a white jesus, and the muslims (the majority of whom are arab) follow an arab leader.

I would assume that since Jesus was from the Middle East he would be Middle Eastern, but its the white christians that started drawing him. As for Allah, if he is a god, then would he even have a race?

---Pineapple



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Where did you get the idea that Christians follow a white Jesus? Granted, a lot of mideval art depicted him as being white, that didn't make it true, and is not a belief held by any Christian church I'm aware of today.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The thing that causes one to pause is that Christ's coming was compliant with the OT prophesies. This makes it difficult to view either set of books as propaganda. It would be too elaborate, and involve too many people through too many centuries.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The thing that causes one to pause is that Christ's coming was compliant with the OT prophesies.


Even if what you are saying here were true, so what? I could sit down and write a bunch of stuff consistent with OT prophecies. Unless you can tie them with credible evidence to an actual person, it's meaningless.

However, it isn't true. Most of what is referenced as messianic prophecy by Christians is not messianic prophecy at all, but anthropomorphicism of the nation of Israel itself (such as Isaiah 53), and other passages taken out of context that have nothing to do with messianic prophecy.

The Jewish perspective on Isaiah



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Messianic prophesy is an interesting thing, Jerimiah, Isaiah, and several others have prophesy that applies both to an immediate (King David) and later coming event (the Christ). Revelation does the same thing, and there is a schism in Christian churches over that prophesy. Was it already fulfilled with Nero, or was Nero a shadow of things to come?

As to the first statement you made, I'm assuming you're asserting that Jesus Christ never existed. Here are a few secular quotes from various Roman officials, Jewish historians, Roman emperors, and some others.

First, we'll start with the ever so infamous Pontius Pilate. He's the guy who supposedly ordered Christ's execution, and was the fifth Roman procurator of Judea under Tiberius. There's two quotes from Pilate that are relevant. These quotes come from a book, the Acts Of Pontius Pilate, which doesn't exist anymore but is referenced in three others, Epiphanius (Heresies 50.1), Justin Martyr (First Apology) and Tertullian (Apology).


At His coming the lame will leap as a deer, and the stammering tongue will clearly speak: the blind will see, and the lepers will be healed; and the dead will rise, and walk. And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

- First Apology 48

They pierced my hands and my feet, was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were driven into His hands and feet. And. . . they cast lots for His clothes, and after they crucified Him distributed it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

- First Apology 35

Emperor Hadrian, Imperator Caesar Trainus, wrote a letter to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, on how Christians should be treated:


I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be ignored without examination, so that these men may not be harassed, nor an opportunity given for malicious proceedings to be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly show their charges against these Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not just petitions, and mere outcries against Christians. For it is more fitting, if any one brings an accusation, that you should examine it.

- Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV

Obviously Christians existed in 76A.D., during Hadrian's time, or he wouldn't be writing about them. Emperor Trajan wrote a letter on how to handle the Christians even before Hadrian's letter, too.


The method you have used, my dear Pliny, in investigating the cases of those who are accused of being Christians is extremely proper. No search should be made for these people; when they are accused and found to be guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the individual denies he is a Christian, and gives proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Documents without the accuser's signature must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, since this introduces a very dangerous precedent, and is by no means consistent with the spirit of the age.

- Pliny letters X, 97

Obviously Christians were being persecuted at this time, too.


Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

- Annals 15.44

That was from Cornelius Tacitus, who is considered the greatest ancient Roman historian ever. He talks about the strange superstition (Christianity), and for whom it was named and they follow (Christus).

There is more. Lots more. Unfortunately, I have to get back to work. If this doesn't convince you there ever was a historical Jesus, even if He wasn't devine, let me know and I'll share more...Unless your mind's already been made up and there's nothing that can be presented to convince you otherwise.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Last I heard Jews were never slaves, it is BS in the bible. No Jew Slaves, no Exodus, no Moses. Egypt kept records of event, and thousands of slaves leaving would be recorded. it wasn't, there is no proof of thousands of slaves in Egypt, so guess what? Even though the bible says they were, the facts/evidence say nope, no Jewish Slaves.

Also may want to change the title........



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Messianic prophesy is an interesting thing, Jerimiah, Isaiah, and several others have prophesy that applies both to an immediate (King David) and later coming event (the Christ).


Did ancient Jews consider these "dual prophecies", or was that concept invented later when people started to realize that the gospel writers had taken OT verses out of context to invent non-existent prophecies?


Originally posted by junglejake
There's two quotes from Pilate that are relevant. These quotes come from a book, the Acts Of Pontius Pilate, which doesn't exist anymore but is referenced in three others, Epiphanius (Heresies 50.1), Justin Martyr (First Apology) and Tertullian (Apology).


All of these are hearsay, but worse, we have no idea who wrote the Acts of Pontius Pilate, when, or what was actually in it. This provides no support to the case of a historical Jesus since it does not conflict with the premise that Jesus is purely mythical.


Originally posted by junglejake
Obviously Christians existed in 76A.D.,


I'm not aware that anyone claims there were not Christians in the first century. A better question is, were there Christians before the first century?


Originally posted by junglejake
That was from Cornelius Tacitus, who is considered the greatest ancient Roman historian ever. He talks about the strange superstition (Christianity), and for whom it was named and they follow (Christus).


Again, this was written nearly 100 years after the fact. We have no idea what Tacitus used as a source. The scarcity of information combined with the choice of words (Christus rather than something like Jesus called Christ) indicates Christians were the source of his information. This is an extremely weak argument like the others, and is not inconsistent with a purely mythical Jesus.


Originally posted by junglejake
If this doesn't convince you there ever was a historical Jesus, even if He wasn't devine, let me know and I'll share more...Unless your mind's already been made up and there's nothing that can be presented to convince you otherwise.


My mind is not made up, but I've done plenty of this investigation already, and all the arguments I've found are exceedingly week. I have not seen any that are incompatible with a purely mythical Jesus, and there are numerous reasons to conclude he was purely mythical.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I dunno if they're new concepts or old. The language used suggests more to the prophesy than just the King David.

As to the hearsay, that could be said of any historical document. How do we know anything about anyone if we don't trust historical documents? As to your question about Christians before the first century, all historical records point to no, but why would there be?

I'm guessing Tacitus used his knowledge of a generation ago's history in making his assessment. I'm actually suprised you don't believe Jesus never walked the earth. Most historians accept there is a historical Jesus even if they don't buy into the divinity aspect. Quite honestly, I had expected a "Sure, there was a historical Jesus, but he didn't do the things in the Bible" arguement. Why are you so convinced he didn't exist, and on top of that, do you believe in any history prior to 1820?

By the logic you're using, all historical arguements are weak. The Greeks never believed in their multiple gods, the Spanish Inquisition never happened, and the industrial revolution is questionable. What history do you believe?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I dunno if they're new concepts or old. The language used suggests more to the prophesy than just the King David.


Most of the prophecies referred to by Christians are not about King David, they are about the nation of Israel itself. This is the case for (almost?) all the prophecies from Isaiah referenced in the New Testament. Isaiah 53 has numerous such referenced passages, yet Isaiah 49 explicitly tells us these are about the nation of Israel itself (via anthropomorphism), and not messianic prophecies.


Originally posted by junglejake
As to the hearsay, that could be said of any historical document. How do we know anything about anyone if we don't trust historical documents?


We don't really, we are dealing with likelihoods. That's why spectacular claims are not simply accepted at face value. As a caveat, greater weight is given to eyewitness acounts, and greater weight is given to contemporary accounts. 100 year old hearsay is no better than an urban legend.


Originally posted by junglejake
As to your question about Christians before the first century, all historical records point to no, but why would there be?


I don't know that there were, I just think it's an interesting question to ask. We do know that Paul is the father of modern Christianity, and we know through his letters that there were already geographically diverse competing Christian churches circa 50 CE. The divergence suggests a common point earlier than 30 CE, but there is nothing solid to base that on. It's hard to imagine that ~20 years would be enough time for churches with nonuniform beliefs to spread over a diverse geographic region if Jesus were a real person who's teachings were known by those churches.


Originally posted by junglejake
I'm guessing Tacitus used his knowledge of a generation ago's history in making his assessment.


You have to assume that he either based his knowledge on prior written Roman records, or on Christian stories he had heard. If Roman records, then he would have used the language from such records, which would have been 'Jesus the Galilean' or something like that. Note that Christians didn't call Jesus 'Christ' until after the crucifixion (assuming it happened).

The mention of Christus was an aside to the main point he was making regarding the nuisance Christians created in his eyes. Even today, side points that set context are not generally investigated with much scrutiny. How much less in an age prior to modern standards?


Originally posted by junglejake
I'm actually suprised you don't believe Jesus never walked the earth. Most historians accept there is a historical Jesus even if they don't buy into the divinity aspect. Quite honestly, I had expected a "Sure, there was a historical Jesus, but he didn't do the things in the Bible" arguement. Why are you so convinced he didn't exist, and on top of that, do you believe in any history prior to 1820?


I don't know if there was a historical figure upon which the Jesus myth was based or not, but I can say this. None of the records I am familiar with are inconsistent with the premise that Jesus is pure myth. On top of that, there are impossible anachronisms related to Jesus, such as having the then-non-existent city of Nazareth as his home town. Further still, if you read the early Christian writings (not just the Bible) in chronological order, you see detail being added to the Jesus story as time progresses! The earliest Christian writings of Jesus are mystical in nature and give no detail at all of a human Jesus, but instead concentrate on a human/god intermediary Christ who conquered sin before creation.

When you add all this up, the most consistent premise is a mythical Jesus with details added as the decades passed just like urban legends.


Originally posted by junglejake
By the logic you're using, all historical arguements are weak. The Greeks never believed in their multiple gods, the Spanish Inquisition never happened, and the industrial revolution is questionable. What history do you believe?


They are all weak. That's why dozens of sources are generally used by historians before conclusions are drawn even for ordinary matters. The less direct the evidence, the weaker the conclusions that can be drawn.

For ordinary people and ordinary events, it isn't so important if we are in error. But for spectacular people or events, scrutiny is proportionally more important. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So for the extraordinary, we revert back to the process of science.

The process of science involves attempting to disprove your theory, not attempts to affirm it. To prove Jesus was a real character involves first assuming he was not, and seeing if the evidence reasonably precludes that premise. If it does, then it becomes reasonable to conclude he was historical.

So, is there any evidence that reasonably precludes a mythical Jesus? Not as far as I'm aware. The judgement then is myth. This isn't proof, it is merely the result of an unbiased method.

The fact that most historians accept a historical Jesus is meaningless unless you examine how they have come to such a conclusion. History is not as critical as philosophy. Too bad.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a very intresting and telling statement with which you concluded
You posted:

"The fact that most historians accept a historical Jesus is meaningless unless you examine how they have come to such a conclusion. History is not as critical as philosophy. Too bad."

Critical philosophy..Philosophy..philo.. love sophy...widsom ..love of wisdom.
This covers alot of ground.

Since Christianity seems to be mostly myth can you please cover the wisdom religions and thier philosophy since there are lots of records surviving of their existance. Yet ironically little of any substance seems to find its way to the public view. Only the "Christian Myth which we often discount in favor of sophistry...philosophy.

This too should take up several pages of rationalizaton.

Thanks,
Orangetom.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I must not think like the standard default settings that pass for excellence now days..but I know of no referencess to race in the Bible. Or race issues. The term used in the Bible is Nations.
I dont know where japlike in the first posting gets this white jesus stuff from. I would like to know.
Ironically for all the pictures we are supposed to have of what He looked like I know of no description per se of this ..what He looked like.
Yet men for all their sophistry, ..their philosophy, thier wisdom...have this picture or that picture and this is what He looked like. Astonishing!!
Only wise men can come up with a issue of race in a issue of Faith.
Its sort of like "which shell is the pea hidden under.??" Well its under none of them.!! But this philosophy will have you looking and speculating forever.!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
"Christians before the first century.???" Wow!!!!

Now that is a Wise Man!!!! Which shell is the pea under???? Did I say pea.. I meant myth!!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Since Christianity seems to be mostly myth can you please cover the wisdom religions and thier philosophy since there are lots of records surviving of their existance.


I have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Last I heard Jews were never slaves, it is BS in the bible. No Jew Slaves, no Exodus, no Moses. Egypt kept records of event, and thousands of slaves leaving would be recorded. it wasn't, there is no proof of thousands of slaves in Egypt, so guess what? Even though the bible says they were, the facts/evidence say nope, no Jewish Slaves.
Also may want to change the title........


I don't know about the rest of the stuff, but no proof of thousands of slaves in Egypt? Who built the pyramids then? A couple of workers with old-age tractors?


Since there were obviously thousands of slaves in Egypt, it is not unreasonable to assume that many of them were Jews.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by babloyi]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join