The Great Conspiracy-what if Jesus was never born?

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by Komodo

 

However, on a side note... Jesus was a very common name in the period in question, much like the common name "Joe" or "Bill"... You may be able to find the name documented many many places, however none actually points to "the christ".

hmm?????

Suetonius, Claudias 25.4. De Vita Caesarum

Life of Nero 16.2

Tacitus, Annals xv.44.

Pliny the Younger, Epistles x.96-97.

Julius Africanus on Thallus

Lucian of Samasota, The Passing of Peregrinus.

Source from a Syrian Philosopher- Mara bar Sarapion.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.116-19

Josephus, Antiquities 20.200,

Josephus, Antiquities 20.200

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.7-8

Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.105-06

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17.

b Sanh 43a and 107b

b ‘Abodah Zerah 27b, 16b-17a

Tosefta, Shehitat Hullin

‘Abodah Zerah 16b-17a

‘Abodah Zerah 27b

Justin, Dialogue 69:7

Justin, First Apology 30

Justin, Dialogue 108

Origen, Contra Celsum 1:68.

Justin’s Dialogue 69:7

none of those examples are from his lifetime...

whats the earliest written source you have?

The earliest written accounts of this figure weren't written until almost a century after his death...

We actually have MORE evidence of the existence of King Arthur than we do of Jesus...

What evidence do you have of jesus the mangod?. he who did the exact same things other mythological creatures told of in stories did. As far as im concerned he is a myth based on a compilaition of other myths. virgin birth, rising from dead etc etc.

At best a normal man named jesus existed, who preached to people and then got all these superabilities given to him after his death when people made stuff up about him. The result is in the bible.

I dont believe for a second the mangod ever existed, and there arent any reasons to believe any more in him than some other mythological creature with a nice story behind it.

Well, the Bible (torah, prophets, gospels, epistles, revelation) are not 5 books by five authors, but 66 books by 40 authors...who did not know one another, did not live in the same town, did not live in the same time line...authors were of every occupation and financial status........yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story.

I am going to single this particular point out because it is the one I feel the most passionate about in your post.
Further disection to:
66 books by 40 authors from different towns, status, careers, etc, all wrote a continuous story.

This is hardly a true statement. The judeo-christian bible IS a collection of works by different authors across a vast time frame. The book's timeline has been estimated to span from creation until today equating to around 6000 years. Of course, that is before the dead sea scrolls. That is also before we honor the fact that this book has been translated into its current text from Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, Italian, Old World English, New English and American English. The book as it is known today was not written as a continuous story. It was edited and placed specifically together by scholars of reading and writing to resemble a continuous story.

Additionally, beyond the fact that some of the scrolls are unreadable due to weathering, many of those discovered are not even allowed to be viewed by anyone beside the Pope and the highest ranks of Catholic Priests. Those that have been released have already begun to paint an entirely different history of God's creation of the world as well as the progression of false prophets who claimed to be that which Jesus claimed to be.
Lets keeping doing the "math". Why does the Jewish faith not recognize Jesus? Their religious beliefs stop with the Old Testament and they only worship the God of Abraham. Did those that started the Jewish faith know something that others will not see? Judaism and Christianity are spawned from the same biblical works. They are essentially sectarian faiths of the same religious system. Why then would a single faith split into sects? Perhaps it was all the false prophetic men coming forward claiming to be also who Jesus claimed to be.

I have heard it said and find it a most intriguiing notion. Jesus has been one of the most successful cult leaders in all of history.

What has history often taught us about these such things? Something so influential and successful as Jesus, while staying shrouded in near absolute mystery, more often than not, do not and never have existed. Since someone mentioned it above, this also applies to King Arthur. This applies to the Holy Grail. This applies to the Arc of the Covenant.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by wheresthetruth]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by wheresthetruth]

Originally posted by Daniem
What evidence do you have of jesus the mangod?. he who did the exact same things other mythological creatures told of in stories did. As far as im concerned he is a myth based on a compilaition of other myths. virgin birth, rising from dead etc etc.

At best a normal man named jesus existed, who preached to people and then got all these superabilities given to him after his death when people made stuff up about him. The result is in the bible.

I dont believe for a second the mangod ever existed, and there arent any reasons to believe any more in him than some other mythological creature with a nice story behind it.

Sure I’ll play…

www.allaboutarchaeology.org...

www.leaderu.com...

www.bethinking.org...

www.bethinking.org...

www.bethinking.org...

www.bethinking.org...

Daniem, Here’s my two cents…without FAITH it is impossible to please God…New Testament

reply to post by OldThinker


most of those links use the bible as "proof"...

One site you linked does show that some of the key players for the Romans were around in that time period, and shows that the Romans practiced Crucifixion.

I didn't see any hard evidence presented on the birth of Jesus, as the original thread title asks...

On top of that, proof that the bible shows some of the aspects of roman times (such as crucifixion) does not mean that the bible is correct about jesus...

I'm still waiting for specific archeological evidence, or historian accounts, legal records or anything of the sort on Jesus "the Christ"...

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by OldThinker

 

most of those links use the bible as "proof"...

One site you linked does show that some of the key players for the Romans were around in that time period, and shows that the Romans practiced Crucifixion.

I didn't see any hard evidence presented on the birth of Jesus, as the original thread title asks...

On top of that, proof that the bible shows some of the aspects of roman times (such as crucifixion) does not mean that the bible is correct about jesus...

I'm still waiting for specific archeological evidence, or historian accounts, legal records or anything of the sort on Jesus "the Christ"...

man, you are the freakin' fastest reader I've ever seen on ATS!!!!

OT not going to argue, here....


Read the last line of the above thread...

[edit on 30-10-2008 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by psychedeliack

 

ok, good truth there....

as an aside....JC said, "psychedeliack, whom do you say I am?"

That is THE question...I think...

OT

And I would have to truthfully admit, Jesus, you are god, for there is nothing else but god, anything else, is an illusion meant to teach of gods ineffable greatness.

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by OldThinker

 

most of those links use the bible as "proof"...

One site you linked does show that some of the key players for the Romans were around in that time period, and shows that the Romans practiced Crucifixion.

I didn't see any hard evidence presented on the birth of Jesus, as the original thread title asks...

On top of that, proof that the bible shows some of the aspects of roman times (such as crucifixion) does not mean that the bible is correct about jesus...

I'm still waiting for specific archeological evidence, or historian accounts, legal records or anything of the sort on Jesus "the Christ"...

man, you are the freakin' fastest reader I've ever seen on ATS!!!!

OT not going to argue, here....


Read the last line of the above thread...

[edit on 30-10-2008 by OldThinker]

I speed read Unless the material is highly technical, or requires ALOT of concentration to understand, I can whiz right through it...

As far as your quote, I understand the disclaimer, and think it is great that you recognize that fact. Many people of faith do not understand that the only evidence available for their religion is their own faith... I think its pretty responsible and requires a lot of inner reflection to recognize that fact... kudos to you

I am one who wants solid evidence before I'm apt to believe anything... Its a good thing, and a bad thing at the same time...

I am open to the possibility that your faith might be correct, however, I refuse to make a "leap of faith" to get there without evidence.

I seek truth, not warm fuzzies

I speed read Unless the material is highly technical, or requires ALOT of concentration to understand, I can whiz right through it...

As far as your quote, I understand the disclaimer, and think it is great that you recognize that fact. Many people of faith do not understand that the only evidence available for their religion is their own faith... I think its pretty responsible and requires a lot of inner reflection to recognize that fact... kudos to you

I am one who wants solid evidence before I'm apt to believe anything... Its a good thing, and a bad thing at the same time...

I am open to the possibility that your faith might be correct, however, I refuse to make a "leap of faith" to get there without evidence.

I seek truth, not warm fuzzies




OK...

That was appreciated...

This helped me find him... www.tonycampolo.org...

reply to post by OldThinker


Ah. another long list from oldthinker. This time on refferences to the christ, christis[sic], christus, etc.

What do you suppose "Christ" means? Both in it's original meaning and what it means to you. Then think about the difference.

Christ ultimately means 'anointed' where Christus meaning 'anointed one'. That was used for a lot of people like holy men, kings and such. Adding 'Christ' to 'Jesus' merely shows that early followers were trying to elevate their leader to the level of a king with a label.

Then think about all the references in the historical record to 'Christ' and then all the reference to 'Jesus'. As far as I know, there is only one reference to Jesus and a handful of 'Christ'. Since Christ could refer to just about anybody if Jesus isn't mentioned then all those references are not evidence of JC

reply to post by Good Wolf


see next post...ATS was down I guess????

[edit on 30-10-2008 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Ah. another long list from oldthinker. This time on refferences to the christ, christis[sic], christus, etc.

What do you suppose "Christ" means? Both in it's original meaning and what it means to you. Then think about the difference.

Christ ultimately means 'anointed' where Christus meaning 'anointed one'. That was used for a lot of people like holy men, kings and such. Adding 'Christ' to 'Jesus' merely shows that early followers were trying to elevate their leader to the level of a king with a label.

Then think about all the references in the historical record to 'Christ' and then all the reference to 'Jesus'. As far as I know, there is only one reference to Jesus and a handful of 'Christ'. Since Christ could refer to just about anybody if Jesus isn't mentioned then all those references are not evidence of JC

GW, ATS was just down awhile, that's what took me so long...

What LIST are you refering to about 'Jesus' and the 'Christ'...sorry I can't remember?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


I thought the first line of my post would have made it clear by maybe not. I was just responded to the list you made at the top of the page. I figured it was something to note.

If you'd clicked the link (reply to oldthinker) ar the top of the post it would have lead you to the specific post I was responding to.

[edit on 10/30/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf


Oh, ok...

These are historian perspectives on the beginnings of Christianity...

Jesus?

Christ?

Who referred to what, etc???

OT not too concerned with the number of times ‘Jesus’ or the ‘Christ’ was referred to by historians…basically irrelevant, GW!

‘I AM’ more concerned how 'HE' referred to himself…

since we are asking what words mean…

how about ‘ego eimi’?

please look it up…here’s few examples...

John 4:26 Jesus *said to her, "I who speak to you am He [ego eimi]."
John 6:20 But He *said to them, "It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid."
John 8:24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am [ego eimi], you shall die in your sins."
John 8:28 Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [ego eimi]"
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. [ego eimi]"
John 9:9 He [man born blind] kept saying, "I am [ego eimi] the one."
John 13:19 "From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am" [ego eimi].
John 18:5 They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He *said to them, "I am [ego eimi]." And Judas also who was betraying Him, was standing with them.
John 18:6 When therefore He said to them, "I am," [ego eimi] they drew back, and fell to the ground.
John 18:8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am [ego eimi]; if therefore you seek Me, let these go their way,"

How about the 'Greek' referral to the 'Hebrew'??? Here’s a few…

John 6:20 echoes Isaiah 41:10,13 (fear not)
Phil 2:6-8 echoes John 13:19 which echoes Isaiah 43:10-12 (saviour/God incarnate)
John 14:5-6 echoes Isaiah 40:3 (the way)
John 4:25-26 echoes Isaiah 52:6 (quoted by Jesus)
John 8:58 echoes Isaiah 40-55; Ex 3:14; Psalm 90:2 (eternal)
John 18 echoes Isaiah's "I AM"
Rev 22:12-13 echoes Isaiah 44:6 (first and last)
Acts 26:15-18 echoes Isaiah 42:6-8 (calls to service)
John 1:1-5 echoes Isaiah 44:24 (only creator)
1 Cor 10:4 echoes Isaiah 44:8 (only Rock)
King of Babylon echoes Jehovah: Isa 47:8-10; 46:9 (quote)

Look, we can post all day long...in opposition to one another...I've read/reviewed...and will continue to...all you have posted, with great respect for your intellect...????....but you won't even listen to... www.tonycampolo.org...

OT is REALLY struggling, with WHY...you avoid this....and am inclined to hit the IGNORE button...out of confusion....

Thoughts?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


Firstly, I'm talking about extra-biblical accounts and references to Jesus.

Originally posted by OldThinker
OT not too concerned with the number of times ‘Jesus’ or the ‘Christ’ was referred to by historians…basically irrelevant, GW! ‘I AM’ more concerned how 'HE' referred to himself…

I was talking about some records that you brought up, how JC refers to himself is irrelevant.

Secondly, the Bible is not any use as historic accounts.

Thirdly, I did listen to Campolos sermon but was unmoved.

[edit on 10/30/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf




I had responded/quoted to your post in a draft form on micr word...thought maybe I should count to ten first...

and now have seen your re-edit...OT quite aware!


and will leave it here GW...

good night!



[edit on 30-10-2008 by OldThinker]

reply to post by OldThinker


Yah, i've done that a few times too OT...

I've counted to 100 before

I hope you realize that when I respond to you, I'm trying to do it tactfully and as cool as I can

Hope I never get ya counting to ten

reply to post by OldThinker


I'm sorry? Have I done something to upset you? All I did was make a point to consider

What do you mean if he never lived. He didn't. Its a solar mythos. 16 crucified savior many where born of virgins and all were crucified. Many predate Jesus. An old story just retold with the names changed to protect the innocent.