The conspiracy of the historical Jesus

Gday all,

(The shroud thread touched on whether Jesus existed, so I'd thought I'd post this in a new thread.)


Probably the biggest un-resolved religious conspiracy to this day is the conspiracy to convince people that Jesus actually existed - by simply claiming it's already proven.

In fact, it's an unproven assumption of faith.

If you read a typical modern book on the 'real Jesus' - whatever that may be to the author- they all start by ASSUMING Jesus existed (because everyone else assumes so) without ever evaluating.

But now, with the internet and much better availability of information, the assumptions and mis-understandings and distortions and misinformation becomes clear.

The alleged 'evidence' for Jesus is weak as water, here is what I found when I checked for myself :



JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

...

...


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.


K.

I think the messeg that a jesus was to convey is to be selfless, that because you a flawed that its ok. Some people need to believe that the man existed for them to believe. There is always gogint o be someone somewhere that says its real and someone over there that says its not.

Thank you for this thread. the best way to make the right choice is with supporting info from both sides. but lat me ask some questions


1. what is the one before were chosen to lead but fell off the path?
2. maybe his name wasnt jesus, but think about this. we at the basic level of society are selfish, ignorant and basically a animal with no morals. The jesus story although it has been used for other self serving purposes, is a story that lest people know that its ok to be flawed, but keep trying. live your life the right way. and over the years that stiry as well as other stories in the bible have been twisted to suit the reglious institutions needs.


S&F

Originally posted by Kapyong
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,

Certainly there is, and to borrow your word: "BUT" the details are not specific enough for you to believe. I can respect that as an ex-agnostic myself. Lots of personal interpretation in your research, why is that?

Originally posted by Kapyong
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,

There is, the problem is in trying to share it. I hope your evidence arrives soon and would be glad to help if you're seeking to obtain it.

Originally posted by Kapyong
* the claimed evidence is very weak

I was thinking the same about your "but"s.

Originally posted by Kapyong
suspect

And will continue to be suspect until you obtain your proof. Again, that's something I can relate to but is by no means the fault of Jesus.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by saint4God]

Love me as You love you.
AND IF YOU DONT LOVE YOU INVESTIGATE Buddhism, it shows you the way, love your neigbour as yourself.
Love is not vain or self serving, it keeps no account,it forgives,and seeks no reward.
God exists.
Do you love me?
Do I love you?
We not met?
This is the illusion if you say no.

I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what Dr Conspire is talking about or how it relates to the topic at hand, but this OP is discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here (by this threads author):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and in lots of other threads.

Eric

Have you researched Tiberius, or Pontious Pilate, who were in communication about Jesus?

Something else you might want to check into.

Gday,

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Kapyong
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,

Certainly there is, and to borrow your word: "BUT" the details are not specific enough for you to believe.

No there isn't.
There are NO records of JESUS.

All we have is 2nd century records of Christians who believed in Jesus.

It's nothing to do with being specific - I didn't even use that word or anything like it. I showed the alleged 'evidence' is all LATE - it's evidence for Christians believing in Jesus.

So what?

Originally posted by saint4God
I can respect that as an ex-agnostic myself. Lots of personal interpretation in your research, why is that?

It's all clear and present facts that anyone can check.
But you didn't bother of course.
No personal interpretation.

Originally posted by Kapyong
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,

Originally posted by saint4God
There is, the problem is in trying to share it. I hope your evidence arrives soon and would be glad to help if you're seeking to obtain it.

What?

Originally posted by Kapyong
* the claimed evidence is very weak

Originally posted by saint4God
I was thinking the same about your "but"s.

So, you are not interested in discussing the evidence?

Ok, bye....


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Have you researched Tiberius, or Pontious Pilate, who were in communication about Jesus?Something else you might want to check into.

Of course I have checked this well known FORGERY - the Letter of Pilate to Tiberius.
www.newadvent.org...

But are you actually claiming this is genuine?
No scholar thinks that - it's a known forgery.


K.

reply to post by Kapyong


plus the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were written in the time and area where christ was but do not make any mention of jesus or christianity.

Been saying this for years..

The story could be mythology. I think the real question is, for your sake, does the Christhood exist? Can you enter into a Christlike state? Not the actual person who has done it, but how did he/she do it? What is being hidden from how he/she did it?

Do you refer to Christ in the masculine?

When i ask, how, i am assuming that it is myth, i am also assuming that it is real.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by onequestion]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by onequestion]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by onequestion]

Originally posted by Kapyong
No there isn't.
There are NO records of JESUS.

Sure there is but certainly couldn't make you believe that.

Originally posted by Kapyong
All we have is 2nd century records of Christians who believed in Jesus.

Alright, I suppose we haven't spoken before then, so let's start with the most basic of source material:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." - 2 Peter 1:15-17

"Main Entry: eye·wit·ness

: one who sees an occurrence or an object; especially : one who gives a report on what he or she has seen" - www.merriam-webster.com...

Originally posted by Kapyong
I showed the alleged 'evidence' is all LATE - it's evidence for Christians believing in Jesus.

See above.

Originally posted by Kapyong
It's all clear and present facts that anyone can check.
But you didn't bother of course.

Careful making assumptions, they have a tendency with being wrong.

Originally posted by Kapyong
No personal interpretation.

Personal interpretation should be moreso apparent if it is not your own.

Originally posted by Kapyong
What?

Succinctly put, the proof is typically not shareable (like iTunes songs). Occasionally but not usually. I cannot prove to you the experiences I have and what I've seen, only tell you about them.

Originally posted by Kapyong
So, you are not interested in discussing the evidence?

I could, but surely it would not be believed. Therefore as an alternative, I'm more interested in helping others obtain their own evidence.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Kapyong
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,

Certainly there is, and to borrow your word: "BUT" the details are not specific enough for you to believe. I can respect that as an ex-agnostic myself. Lots of personal interpretation in your research, why is that?

Originally posted by Kapyong
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,

There is, the problem is in trying to share it. I hope your evidence arrives soon and would be glad to help if you're seeking to obtain it.

Originally posted by Kapyong
* the claimed evidence is very weak

I was thinking the same about your "but"s.

Originally posted by Kapyong
suspect

And will continue to be suspect until you obtain your proof. Again, that's something I can relate to but is by no means the fault of Jesus.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by saint4God]

Fascinating. Are you suggesting that the OP will get divine evidence of the existence of Jesus as a human being who lived on the Earth? Of course, if he never achieves a proper level of faith, then he won't. Am I correct?

My brother uses this absurd argument as well. Reality is not impacted by faith. Perception is but then perception is not true reality.

The heroic God-man narrative is one of the most enduring gifts from one human era to the next. The Jesus version is all of 2,000 years old. Successful, but not remarkably so. Then again, a lot of blood and treasure went into establishing and securing it. The payout has been worth it though. One of the more profitable ventures in human history.

I (a ignorant Christian slut) would like to poise the following points:

1. The reason we have many copies of Josephus and Tacitus is because of Christian scribes. Now if I were a scribe in a monastery intent of making a forgery in Josephus (other than some interpolation, or "tweaking"), you best believe that whole pages would have been dedicated to the life of Jesus. Hence these passages do bear the "ring of authenticity". No serious Christian scholar denies that there are interpolations (such as "He was the Christ") in Josephus, but the critics claim that the passages are complete forgeries does not hold water either.

2. The skeptics like to make the "argument based on silence" (since the claim that no contemporary secular references to Jesus exist implies that Jesus was a myth). We will make our own "argument based on silence". By 64CE, Christianity have enough followers in Rome for Nero to take notice of them and blame the fire of Rome on them. In other areas, they were getting the reputation of being "trouble makers". If there was a hint that Jesus was a mythical figure, then surely some secular source would have mentioned something on the order "these loonies believe in some guy who never existed". Indeed the lack of such statements in the Jewish Talmud are telling:

J. P. Holding
Further, we may point out again, as Wilson has, that if there were any hint that Jesus was a mythical figure, we would expect that the Talmuds would aim some polemics in that fertile direction. As it is, there are no such statements; and it strains credulity to say that the authors of the Talmud would have simply taken Christians' word for Jesus' existence if evidence existed to the contrary (and it would have existed, had that truly been the case -- there would be "holes" in the historical record big enough to drive a Borg cube through).

The anger and distaste expressed in the Talmud for Christianity leads to a solid inference that any useful information against it would have been taken up as a weapon. Therefore, they may be taken as an independent and reliable witness for the mere fact of Jesus' existence, while not necessarily that for actions and sayings of Jesus. And of course, just because they are polemic, this does not automatically mean that they are not independent.

While contemporary secular references to Jesus are slim by today's standards (there isn't that much for Tacitus either), where is the contemporary secular source which states that Jesus did not exist? Indeed by 64CE, Roman authorities (Nero) had taken some note of the existence of Christians. This indicates enough Christians in Rome at that time to appear "dangerous" to the rest of the population. Surely there would have been at least one Roman historian (or other source) to state that these "Christian loonies" believed in some guy who never existed.

www.tektonics.org...
www.tektonics.org...

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Kapyong
All we have is 2nd century records of Christians who believed in Jesus.

Alright, I suppose we haven't spoken before then, so let's start with the most basic of source material:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." - 2 Peter 1:15-17

"Main Entry: eye·wit·ness

: one who sees an occurrence or an object; especially : one who gives a report on what he or she has seen" - www.merriam-webster.com...

Trying to suggest that a verse from the bible can be used to verify the accuracy of the bible - of course - is ludicrous. Doing so seriously cripples your effectiveness in this debate.

Did you know that the historical existence of Peter can't actually be independently proven either? The existence of Paul can be proven, but Paul was a Roman citizen (by his own admission) and only 7 of the letter attributed to him have been assigned to him by biblical scholars. This well-documented legal status that Paul enjoyed (a Roman citizenship was no small status at the time) and the fact that his letters were not only forged in whole, but we also have only copies and no originals, means that even Paul's documented credibility is suspect in the larger picture of Christian history.

After all, why was his account preserved when thousands of others' accounts were destroyed by a virulent effort - directed by Rome's "Christian authorities" - that raged from Rome to Egypt and into Israel itself to purge the region of heretical claims concerning Jesus and the tenets of the new faith. This became doctrine-by-the-sword, and many thousands died under this first of many violent purges. Don't you have a problem with whatever "truth" emerged from such a process? I do.

Also, Paul did a real number on the Jesus cult when he initially appeared on the scene and brought this unique spin on what was actually well-established Greek Hellenistic mystery-religion principles to the Roman culture by means of this previously unknown Jesus character, who he even likened to established Roman God-men hero archetypes in his letter to the Romans, as if to say "Hey, you know this story. You've got your own version of it as well. This one's better, though. This one involves you being the beneficiary." The guy was nothing if not the best salesman in history. In truth, Paul invented the Christian faith that we know today. He's a very interesting character himself. I'm not sure how I actually feel about him. In fact, before Paul, there is no concrete presence of Christian history. His letters are the oldest record we have of any of it.

Also, it is significant that what we do know about Christianity is that nothing made it out of the region that didn't pass through the Roman Empire before being allowed to exist as church history. And what this means is that the entire Christian religion that we know today - as in history, characters, theological tenets, and general structure - was approved by the Roman government before being allowed to survive for future generations. It is - by all definitions - a Roman Empire construct, and all historical fact points to this one disturbing truth.

Believe what you want and you're entitled to your faith, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The OP did a pretty good job at listing the facts concerning the written history of the historical Jesus that cannot be directly linked to the Roman government's efforts to standardize the canon and approved church chronology.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by NorEaster]

reply to post by Kapyong


S&F you you, good post, and great research here. I have been trying for many years to wake Christians up to the fact that they give their worship and power to a false God, and know not where that power really goes for years now. Even their bible tells them to have "no gods before me," but does that stop them? No, they don't care about any writings that isn't the latest version of the KJB, and they are quick to tell you that it's "the word of God," and some have told me that Jesus wrote it! See, they are all fooled, and mind controlled into thinking this, and I fear it is for a very sinister agenda. Let me see, they have picked out one Ancient God only, name of Yahweh, and convinced themselves that he made a child come into a women, I guess my magickal means, and then that child became the God, and the old Gad was then forgotten. That is the way of things, I guess, the new Gods come into vogue, and the old Gods are forgotten. Meanwhile, their holy book is constantly updated and changed, and they do not even notice, because they never read the thing! They only read passages from it, you can find literally thousands of these in this very forum.

Also, humanity seems to have long forgotten that the Earth itself is a living Spirit. Yes, it's true, it is a creative, loving spirit, and it provides for all of our needs, whatever they may be, and most then get on their knees, and thank a fake God for the bounty they ripped from Mother Earth. Nice, huh? I will let you all in on a little secret. The Spirit of Earth come up to the surface in some places, in the distant past, before Christianity came along, Temples were built over these power points, and the ancient peoples would go there to do ritual and pray to the Mother for good crops, rain, and healthy children. Then came the oppressors, who tore down the ancient places of worship, and build their churches over the spots where the ancient temples were. Then they began to stamp out all vestiges of the Goddess, and named Her a Whore, and worse. They connected Her with their Satan, and their Devil, and even though those two seemed to be male, I have heard several Christian preachers state that anyone who gave worship to a Goddess was worshiping the Devil.
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky. All references – including the notorious insertions in Josephus – stem from Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-packaged for the needs of the early Church.


I will leave with a few quotes, one from the Bible itself...

"I sought him but found him not."
(Song of Solomon, 3.1)

'The Jesus of the Gospels is an artificial creation, a collective work of art who evolved through the combined consciousness of two generations of Christian worship.'
– A. N. Wilson (Paul, p144)

''Whether Jesus ever actually existed has long been debated. The argument (very well documented) is that there is absolutely no corroborating evidence of his existence in documents other than highly suspect Christian sources.'
– Riane Eisler (The Chalice & the Blade, p122)

reply to post by autowrench

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky. All references – including the notorious insertions in Josephus – stem from Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-packaged for the needs of the early Church.

Excuse me for my slut ignorance, but I thought that no manuscripts of Josephus dated before the 10th century CE have been discovered. Evidently you know of a manuscript which can be dated before the fourth century. Is this a new discovery?

Never met Jesus myself. If he existed, he's been gone a long time. If my doctor died yesterday he wouldn't be of any help with a broken leg, let alone if he died 2,000 years ago or never existed at all. Jesus is meaningless and misdirection. The living presence of the True Supreme Being is all that matters and all that can help. In the absence of his coming and joining someones church, he won't be accepted and recognized by most of them. Even if he did, the minds, the karmic condition of people is such that they would only see themselves in him and, for most people, what they would see would not be the virtue standing before them. There is documentation that Jesus may have exited as Cleopatra's son but, true or not, it remains meaningless and misdirection.

Gday,

Originally posted by saint4God
Alright, I suppose we haven't spoken before then, so let's start with the most basic of source material:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." - 2 Peter 1:15-17

2 Peter was forged in 2nd century.
2 Peter insists they are NOT following fables.

By 2nd century, critics were saying Christians believed in fables, so someone FORGED a letter insisting theye did NOT follow fantastic fables.

It could not be more clear.

The ONLY claim to have met Jesus is from the most SUSPECT and LATE book in the whole NT.


And see this phrase :
"This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

It was originally like this :
"This is my Son, whom I love; this day have I begotten thee"

But Christians CHANGED it so it didn't support adoptionism.

More evidence it's all myths and legends.


K.