The True Authorship of the New Testament

Render to Caesar what is his material possession and render to God what is spiritual= LOVE.

Simple and easy.

There is a poster here that has shone light on this history and I think he calls himself 12.12.2012 or something like that.

Originally posted by spacecowgirl
Render to Caesar what is his material possession and render to God what is spiritual= LOVE.

Simple and easy.

FYI: The word LOVE is mentioned less in the bible than the word GOLD.

Apparently God wants the gold too.
Don't forget the gold and the silver...Hag2:8

reply to post by rusethorcain


"Separation of church and state
Main article: Separation of church and state
Jesus can be interpreted[who?] to be saying that his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reading finds support in John 18:36, where Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” This reflects a traditional division in Christian thought by which state and church have separate spheres of influence.

Others[who?] read this passage to suggest that Jesus wanted his followers to be very careful in determining where God and Caesar came into conflict so as to be able to discriminate appropriately between what they owe to one and to the other — the very opposite of an aloof, apolitical stand, and one exemplified by the persecuted apostles in Acts 5, when they said in reference to teaching about Jesus, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

en.wikipedia.org...

Mark 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. - Matthew 5:5 KJV


I think this means: Blessed are those who have rid themselves of EGO for they will inherit the earth.

Cesar was the biggest thief of all, especially Augustus Cesar. So, yes, give all to thieves because it all belongs to them.

Very wise advice. Thank you very much for this religious enlightenment.

The Mark of the Beast is stamped on everything... teach us the history and the politics.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Hemisphere
VIVIVI (Roman for 666)

Wrong again -
VIVIVI is not Roman for 666.
It's DCLXVI.

You just make it up as you go, without ever checking anything.


K.

For your interest -

The newest volume of Oxyrhynchus Papyri contains a fragmentary papyrus of Revelation which is the earliest known witness to some sections (late third / early fourth century). A detailed discussion of its place in the MS tradition is given in the printed volume.
One feature of particular interest is the number that this papyrus assigns to the Beast: 616, rather than the usual 666. (665 is also found.) We knew that this variant existed: Irenaeus cites (and refutes) it. But this is the earliest instance that has so far been found. The number — chi, iota, stigma (hexakosiai deka hex) — is in the third line of the fragment shown below.


[img]http://[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0b85d0f6431.jpg[/img]

Originally posted by Wang Tang
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

Submission to tyranny, I think not. When Jesus says give to Caesar what is Caesar's, he isn't saying bow down and submit to him. He is saying respect the current social order, and don't act like you are above the social order of the day, but at the same time, try to change the social order.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I came to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword."

That's an interesting take and one that goes against the grain for sure. There are others here that will insist Christ was here to show the way out not the way to rule on earth.

A little later Jesus foreshadows his own fate for sending a sword:

Matthew 26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Ouch!

That first Mathew quote is very passionate. Almost "zealous" and backs my thinking that Jesus was a composite character, with parables and sermons that targeted various groups. The Zealot sect would have been one of those most targeted by the scriptures and most dangerous to Rome. And so Jesus isn't disarming himself with these two conflicting passages, he's disarming Zealots. There was something for everyone. Another reason there are 4 Gospels with different styles. Different audiences.

This from encyclopedia.com on the Zealots:

Later (c.AD 6), when Cyrenius, the Roman governor of Syria, attempted to take a census, the Zealots, under Judas of Galilee and the priest Zadok, arose in revolt against what they considered a plot to subjugate the Jews. Thereafter the Zealots expressed their opposition by sporadic revolts and by violence against Jews who conformed to Roman ways. The Zealots played a role in the unsuccessful revolt in which the Temple was destroyed (AD 70) by the Romans. The Zealot garrison at Masada, a mountaintop fortress near the Dead Sea, was captured by the Romans only after its 900 defenders had committed mass suicide (AD 73) rather than be captured.

Again, I think those Mathew passages were aimed directly at the Zealots. If not to win over those still alive after the Roman massacres, then just as a reminder to all "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". A Roman sword. 900 committed suicide, that's very efficient control of your opposition.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Hemisphere]

Originally posted by Cigar

Originally posted by Hemisphere

The True Authorship of the New Testament

Read the following Biblical verse:

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

- Mark 12:17 KJV

I've always thought that only a Roman could have written that. Give to me, your oppressor, everything of earthly value and as for God? Give him those intangibles that will soothe you. Give God your soul, your prayers and your allegiance. Those have no value to the Caesars. You are slaves and we your controllers have given you a creed that will sustain you in your oppression and lock you blissfully into that oppression.

The NT is full of catch phrases that prescribe submission to tyranny.

You completely took that scripture out of context.

I've used that one for people who try justify stealing.

What Jesus was referring to was a coin with Caesar's face on it (reading the entirety of that passage would have revealed that to you). The man that approached Jesus questioned why he had to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus had replied, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

It was a simple lesson of ownership, and a powerful one too!

It can very much be applied to pirating movies, music and games. Simply put if you are taking something which is not yours, that has a price associated with it, you're stealing.

To walk in a store and lift a copy of Windows 7 is no different than d/ling the torrent online. The internet has certainly blurred that line for MANY people, but don't be fooled! Taking something of value without paying for it is stealing, PERIOD.

Thanks. I submit this is much more than a morality lesson on stealing. The commandments covered that. This is how and who to submit to. The Jews were not willingly under Roman rule. These were not taxes being payed to a Jewish government. What do you think the taxes were being levied for? Roman protection. And if the Jews payed the Roman taxes then the Romans would protect the Jews from the....... it'll come to you....... the...... ROMANS!

This was submit to the protection racket. The coin with Caesar's face had come to represent the labors of the Jews. Your labors belong to Caesar, slaves once more. These were conquered people and they would find it much more palatable to pay their taxes if a long winded storybook with a glorious ending told them to do so. The Jews loved their own storybook, why not write ROCKY II for them?

The Romans wanted NO resistance. That is efficiency. The Empire was growing and efficiency was crucial. If you can win with words, all the better. You can see these same tactics in use today. Don't you want everyone to have health insurance? Doesn't everyone deserve health insurance? I don't believe that story either. Romans!

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

I like your post.

Did you ever notice along with "render unto Caesar"
God also said "the gold is mine"? Hag 2:8

Who is this guy??? Sounds a little schizophrenic to me.

Thanks! No, that's a new one to me. I'm not a Biblical scholar as many have noted. I'm just a guy. That there are loose ends and sections that conflict points out that it was man-made and that's my premise. The amazing thing to it all is that the writer(s) of the New Testament, and I assert they were Romans or guided by the Romans, did as thorough a job as they actually did. That only attests to the Romans sparing no expense to do this. They had scholars, poets and writers on call. It must have been like Warner Brothers in its' heyday. They had Josephus a Jewish defector. They had the tools and they also had the hubris to think no one outside of their inner circle would catch on. No one would find the hidden meanings.

They combined all of the elements necessary to enslave the most people. This was a broad net. Letters to these, sermons to those, eventually entrapping those outside Judaism by hijacking their Pagan celebrations. And so the return of the sun at the winter solstice becoming the return of the son. God's gift of Christ to the world. Some might argue that the dates are not correct. Solstice on the 21st and Christmas on the 25th. I think they were the same in the Julian calendar and separated hundreds of years later. Just an uneducated guess of course.

I annoy people because I refuse to "devote" my current life to proving my premise that a man in a book, reported to have lived 2000 years ago didn't exist. But there's so many volumes of supporting evidence! Look, people needed employment. Some things never change. Why would a saint a pope or a priest undercut his own gig? Those were positions of political power at that time. Has anything changed?

There have been those that have broken away. Seeing the sham from the inside and escaping the mind control. One that comes immediately to mind is Joseph McCabe. He was born in 1867 and was given to the Franciscans at age 15. That was common in England at that time if your physique or mental abilities limited your prospects for earning a living. McCabe was an exception to the rule. While not physically imposing he was mentally sharp and being surrounded by addle minded drones within the order bothered him. He was ordained in 1890 and left the priesthood having lost his faith in 1896. He was highly educated by the Church and that education is what undermined his faith. He refused to swallow the inconsistencies. It drove him away.

He went on to become the most prolific writer of his generation on freethought. He wrote 250 books in his life on religion, politics, science, history and culture. The reason I mention him at all is that two of his most prominent works uncovered bias toward the Catholic Church by first the Encyclopædia Britannica and then the Columbia Encyclopedia. In a nutshell, he painstakingly compared earlier editions to the most recent and found that these (at least during that time, the late 1940's) highly respected institutions had altered, softened and in some instances completely eliminated historical entries that shown the actions of the Church and it's leaders in an unpleasant light (to put it nicely). They were re-writing history. To think that this had not occurred within the Church as well as outside throughout history is naive in my estimation. I think the Vatican's "secret vault" holds the evidence. Otherwise why have a "secret vault"? Then again, why keep the evidence at all? Well, if you're the generation that gets undressed you might want to point to someone long dead and say "it's their fault".

This from McCabe's "The Psychology of Religion":

There is yet another theory of the psychology of religion that we must consider. There are, in fact, almost as many theories as there are religious thinkers, or thinkers about religion, but my readers will scarcely expect me here to discuss all the philosophic subtleties and novelties of Eucken, Bergson, Fouillée, Tagore, Royce, Croce, Seth, Ward, and every other modern religious thinker who invents some variation on the ancient theme and gathers a group of followers. If a single one of these gentlemen is correct, if a believer of any type is right, the essential truth for man, the real drama of life, in comparison with which the secular story of the race, is a puppet-show and the unfolding of the universe is a triviality, is the dialogue of the immortal soul and the eternal God. Yet it seems that there is nothing in the world so hard to discover as this. The theory refutes itself.

- Joseph MCabe

His writings are widely available on the Internet. Is he verbose? For sure! He was highly educated but not an expert on some of the other topics; his science writings reflect his religious views more than they do science. This does not detract in the least from his views on religion. He was as sharp as they came. He was at one time behind the curtain.

The Psychology of Religion

The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britanica

Historical Documents: Joseph McCabe

Originally posted by rusethorcain

Originally posted by spacecowgirl
Render to Caesar what is his material possession and render to God what is spiritual= LOVE.

Simple and easy.

FYI: The word LOVE is mentioned less in the bible than the word GOLD.

Apparently God wants the gold too.
Don't forget the gold and the silver...Hag2:8

This makes perfect sense in my interpretation. The OT God was the Jewish hierarchy. They wanted the Gold and they kept the Gold within the tribe. The "Words" told them to. In the NT, the Romans were hijacking the Gold from the Jews. Writing new "Words" for the Jews to follow. And... here's the laugh... give it over "lovingly".

Originally posted by spacecowgirl
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. - Matthew 5:5 KJV

I think this means: Blessed are those who have rid themselves of EGO for they will inherit the earth.

Thanks for contributing scg! Yes, that is one valid take for that section. That would have been my take for the first 50 years of my life. I have changed my mind. Now, I would interpret this as "take your medicine and calm down". "You'll get yours in due time, the next life or when God's kingdom comes." And being this is Mathew again this might have also been aimed at the more hostile "converts" (conquered peoples) like the Zealots. So this again is "God says to calm down!" Submit!

Keep in mind that the only time EGO was a bad thing in the OT was when yours was up against God's. And the "God" of the OT in my estimation was again the Jewish hierarchy. Men controlling men and in the NT the Romans stole control with an engaging plot line that gave hope to the hopeless. It would take one to steal away the hearts and minds controlled by the vengeful God of the OT. That's why God shifts his attitude. The NT is a nicer, newer, brighter, bigger all welcoming God. A God that chose to now control all people. (Just like the Roman Empire.) What a change of heart and mind at that precise point in Jewish history. When Rome had destroyed the Temple.

Originally posted by Hemisphere

I'm not a Biblical scholar as many have noted. I'm just a guy. That there are loose ends and sections that conflict points out that it was man-made and that's my premise.

Its probably best that you are not.

I've often asked: "if one could read the bible as if it is a novel - - from an unbiased clean slate - clear head" - - would you have the same interpretation - as when you believed it was god based. I doubt it.

A biblical scholar does not start from an unbiased clean slate. They start with a belief and try to make the bible fit that belief.

I am enjoying your thread.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Hemisphere

I'm not a Biblical scholar as many have noted. I'm just a guy. That there are loose ends and sections that conflict points out that it was man-made and that's my premise.

Its probably best that you are not.

I've often asked: "if one could read the bible as if it is a novel - - from an unbiased clean slate - clear head" - - would you have the same interpretation - as when you believed it was god based. I doubt it.

A biblical scholar does not start from an unbiased clean slate. They start with a belief and try to make the bible fit that belief.

I am enjoying your thread.

Thank you Annee, that's very kind of you to comment.

Very early in the thread a learned poster was disapproving in the very least of my refusal to consult ancient texts and studies that were built upon the very scriptures I said were evidence of Roman authorship. Those authorities were not looking to undercut their own positions and brain washing. They had no idea they had been brain washed. Most of them anyway. What theologian wants to prove we don't need theologians? That ends the pay checks right there. Even if one of these learned men of history were to find his beliefs were built on sand, what would they do? Fudge it! "I need the job!"

We see evidence of this in modern times. The Jimmy Swaggarts of the world. "I have sinned!" "Forgive me!" He wasn't afraid of eternal damnation as long as nobody knew of the hookers. Once found out, it wasn't eternal damnation, it was loss of salary that brought him back to God. Don't you think if anybody would have fear of sinning, it would be the guy that told you to have fear of sinning? This proves to me that he didn't buy what he was selling. Once found out he used the confusing scriptures once again to pull the wool over the eyes of many. "Jee - sus wants you to forgive me!"

The Catholic Church has been undressed too. Why would Ratzinger have attempted to bury the pedophilia as he did? He didn't want outsiders looking into Church and it's multitude of secrets. His hubris has denuded the Roman Catholic Church. And a good thing too in my opinion. I'm not against Catholics, I was one.

This is terrible. It shows the current Pope acting like a Mafia chieftain, binding his subjects to silence ("Omerta") and threatening to throw them out of the church if they fail. It also shows that his plan to obstruct justice was neither reflexive nor simply a "moral lapse"; it was a well-thought out conspiracy designed to intimidate church leaders and force them to shut up and hide the evidence. - Mike Whitney on dissidentvoice.org

Here's Mike's entire article from April 26, 2005:

Ratzinger's Plan to Hide the Pedophiles

We've seen from the various posts that almost any position can be arrived at and defended by the NT. We've seen from history the various uses of those various positions. Some for very good, some for evil purposes. Almost all were for control of one sort or other. Words from a divinity would not be so vague and open to interpretation. Words from a divinity would not need be handed down from man to man. They would be burned directly into the hearts and minds of all men from birth. Just my opinion.

Why do most people fear Islamists? I think this is because intuitively they know that all of these texts, Islamic texts included, were built upon the lies of the Jewish priests and later their Roman conquerors. It's hard to call BS on someone when you're standing in BS. Again, just my opinion.

Another interesting point I just stumbled upon. This, another hint at the Roman authorship in my uneducated opinion. On another thread regarding the "four horsemen of the apocalypse", I mentioned I was intrigued as to why "horsemen"? What was the Judeo-Christian relation with horses and I think there are none. What I did find is that Roman Emperor Vespasian, founder of the Flavian dynasty that ruled from 69 AD through 96 AD, was "descended from a family of equestrians". These "equestrians", were members of the lower of two Roman ruling classes. The "patricians" being above them.

From what little I've read, the patricians had hereditary status, they were blood royalty or "old money" as we might describe them today. The "equestrians" were men of lower standing that earned their way into public standing, maybe the prequels of "knights". They worked their way up to prominence starting in either low level government positions or in the military. We think of knights arriving on horseback and perhaps this was derived from these "equestrians". Makes some sense don't you think?

And so why the "horsemen of the apocalypse"? Perhaps this is another subtle nod to the Flavian dynasty, those fearsome mounted warriors, those "equestrians". Who would suspect? Vespasian also had three children. Titus and Domitian, sons that followed their father to the thrown and a daughter Domitilla the Younger. Domitilla died prior to Vespasian becoming Emperor. "She was later deified by her younger brother Domitian, who also bestowed the honorific title of Augusta upon her." - Wikipedia

Here we have Vespasian, an "equestrian", Emperor of Rome. His two sons follow him to the throne. His dead daughter considered divine. How much of a stretch would it be to consider these people, these equestrians, the "four horsemen"? I think these people considered themselves above the rest and "godlike" and that is not a stretch. The Pharaohs of Egypt left monuments to themselves and this reigning Roman family left theirs in a book. Just my opinion.

Of further interest is that Vespasian's dead daughter had a daughter that later became the Christian saint Flavia Domitilla. Check out her Wiki. It's very interesting and does nothing to dissuade me from my position.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Hemisphere]

reply to post by Hemisphere


For a good study on the political and religious biases of the New Testament authors in general and the forgeries and manipulation of (some of) Paul's letters, and the background and different purposes of the gospel authors in particular you would do yourself a BIG favor by finding

"Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", by Burton L. Mack, published by HarperSanFransisco, ISBN 0-06-065518-6 (paperback)

Mack's book on Amazon

There is another book, that I haven't read (yet), called "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman that could provide interesting insight too. That should be available on Amazon too, I imagine.

seams they had circular reasoning in the brainwashing scheme back then to ,

ceasar made him self god so that passage of text just makes you run in circles

all which is ceasars is his
and all that is gods is his aswell...

more or less that passage just rights all and everything as ceasars property
and makes "jesus" even more just a tool for oppression

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

For a good study on the political and religious biases of the New Testament authors in general and the forgeries and manipulation of (some of) Paul's letters, and the background and different purposes of the gospel authors in particular you would do yourself a BIG favor by finding

"Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", by Burton L. Mack, published by HarperSanFransisco, ISBN 0-06-065518-6 (paperback)

Mack's book on Amazon

There is another book, that I haven't read (yet), called "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman that could provide interesting insight too. That should be available on Amazon too, I imagine.

Thanks for that rnaa. You might have noticed I'm not looking for another's take on this. This is mine, although others have come to similar conclusions long before I gave it a thought.

Two books that might interest you are these:

The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby

and

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill

Macoby's is more a Jewish take on what is wrong with Paul's writings and what would have given him reason to write what he did. And the Atwill piece is very much in line with my own thinking but he is much more detailed on the hidden meanings and symbolism. He's an authority, I just dabble and shoot from the hip.

Originally posted by zerbot565
seams they had circular reasoning in the brainwashing scheme back then to ,

ceasar made him self god so that passage of text just makes you run in circles

all which is ceasars is his
and all that is gods is his aswell...

more or less that passage just rights all and everything as ceasars property
and makes "jesus" even more just a tool for oppression

Good take there! I hadn't quite completed that circle but yeah. Give to me and the rest..... give to ME! Clever, as I've said all along. Jesus was written to be from among the commoners. That was his attraction. He was a commoner elevated to royalty. He showed that everyone could climb out through love of their oppressor. To rise above it. And if you read my post on the Vespasian family you would see at the start they were commoners that rose through the ranks by kissing the *****....er let's just say loving their oppressors as the patricians were to everyone else in the Empire. So in effect they, the Flavians, were showing the way out of poverty and oppression. They had by hook and crook made themselves into royalty. And with the NT, Vespasian flaunted that fact in the face of everyone to the court's delight I'm sure. Keep in mind that most Romans (non-Christians) would have loved Vespasian over his predecessors. Vespasian elevated from the lower ranks, a self-made man, destroyed that pesky Jewish temple succeeding where others had failed. He would have been a favored son of Rome.

Thanks!

Hello!
I would like to clear up some very fundamental ideas about the Bible that certain people seem to be unclear about.

Religion is not God. Any congragation that says that they know god and that God talks through them for financial gain isn't god.

Who is god for you?? He exists, but maybe not the way that he exists for the "Christians" or the Muslims. He is different because everybody in this earth is very different.

Also, Fundamentalists who say the bible is COMPLETELY literal are missing the point of the bible, and I don't even acknowldege them anymore.

There are many fascinating this about the bible that we still have not understood, and it is Blastphemous of that person to say that they know everything in the bible! REad it before splurting out stupidity.

I think most people need to take a step back and get to know god on a personal level, that is all what he is about. Skeptics, give it a try! If you are afraid its ok...wait a couple years until you mature spiritually then give it a try.

Originally posted by Mastermind_2011
Hello!
I would like to clear up some very fundamental ideas about the Bible that certain people seem to be unclear about.

Religion is not God. Any congragation that says that they know god and that God talks through them for financial gain isn't god.

Who is god for you?? He exists, but maybe not the way that he exists for the "Christians" or the Muslims. He is different because everybody in this earth is very different.

Also, Fundamentalists who say the bible is COMPLETELY literal are missing the point of the bible, and I don't even acknowldege them anymore.

There are many fascinating this about the bible that we still have not understood, and it is Blastphemous of that person to say that they know everything in the bible! REad it before splurting out stupidity.

I think most people need to take a step back and get to know god on a personal level, that is all what he is about. Skeptics, give it a try! If you are afraid its ok...wait a couple years until you mature spiritually then give it a try.

Thank you for your comments. I as a former Christian of 50+ years gave it more than a try. I found very much the same as Mother Teresa that "the silence and the emptiness is so great".

I'm glad you have a personal relationship with someone or something that helps you "spiritually". I hope you know exactly who or what that is. Thanks again.