Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

reply to post by The Djin


Considering that a common peasant wouldn't be mentioned at all, I'd say it's a miracle he was ever mentioned within a generation after himself, if ever.

Nope. Because the tomb is not the right name. It was given by somebody whom already owned it. They knew he would be back so he got his tomb back.

It would be like digging up the pyramid of Zoser and finding the a tomb with the names of Gangus Kahn. It just does not match.

No family linkage, common name, and the fact that the tomb was not his, all say you are wrong. In order for it to be a tomb where Jesus was, you would have to have a biological relation to Marry, or at the least, a biological relation ship with the child to Jesus, if you want to go DaVinci code on me. You would have to have the tomb be owned by a man named joseph, and you would find severe stress on the bones of the ankles and hands due to cruxifiction, along with a host of other issues.

What you are doing, is comparable to saying the birds became dinosaur argument is correct because a species with feathers was found before birds existed, completely ignoring the fact that a keratin mutation to create feathers is not that difficult and a separate evolution perfectly possible. Just as much so, you are dealing with names that were as common as john smith. You only have about 24 or so names to ascribe to 2 people in a relationship. Are you honestly going to tell me that by name alone, you can prove it's Jesus? Look up how many married people share the same names as another married couple. It's quite common.

reply to post by Gorman91

Considering that a common peasant wouldn't be mentioned at all, I'd say it's a miracle he was ever mentioned within a generation after himself, if ever.

The claim is he was heir to the line of David nothing common about that not for getting the the wealth presented at birth, hardly a common peasant.

Nope. Because the tomb is not the right name. It was given by somebody whom already owned it. They knew he would be back so he got his tomb back.

Dude there's no name on the tomb

No family linkage,

Whose family ?


From "Tears in Heaven" by Ian Ross Vayro beginning on page 55. (Published by Joshua Books)

" The most learned theologians for 2,000 years have been puzzled by this mysterious character Josephus of Arimathea because there is simply no documentation of a place in the Holy Land or elsewhere called Arimathea and indentification proved insurmountable until now. You can solve this puzzle for yourself, right here and now.

The historian, Flavius Josephus, had the Hebrew name (in Aramaic) of Joseph bar Mathias (Joseph son of Matthew). Now here's a no brainer, can you work out who the Biblical Joseph of Arimathea really was?


* Joseph of Abarimathia (Barnabas' original record of Joseph of Arimathea)


* Joseph bar Mathias (The Aramaic name of Josephus, the historian)

There is simply no question that the real identity of the influential historian, Titus Flavius Josephus (Joseph Bar Mathias) has been fraudulently disguised in the Bible as the wealthy, influential Joseph of Arimathea with the ancient record in 'The Gospel of Barnabas' retaining the real spelling and finally making identification possible. The reason the subterfuge was required is of course that Josephus in his autobiography, in the passage quoted above, tells us that a man taken from the cross, did not die. (Reverend Ted Pike, 'Have you Read the Talmud Lately?. www.godlikeproductions.com...)

reply to post by The Djin


before i'd believe any of that, i'd believe this (with provisos, as i don't think anyone has all the data, and it's pretty much irrelevant anyway, as faith, even according to jesus, buddha and about 50 other wise men/women in history, is part of how we interact with reality on several levels. if we didn't, hope would be obsolete, working towards a goal would be without impetus and mind over material would be unheard of. essentiallly, you'd naver be able to over come the demands of your body, ever, philosophically-speaking)







the missing part of the story, from what i can tell is, the BIG clue. and since you think everything is mundane, the big clue won't mean anything to you anyway.

Re Gorman91

I asked you for a presentation of your systematic methodology involving the use of deduction and induction, and as far as I can see, this should be your answer:

["The evidence for Jesus and Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, for one example, is equal. In fact one can even make a bit of a Parallel. Both taught, both created, both had a following, and both had people years later rediscover their works and gathered a following. However, both were common men in each other's respective communities. Average by all sorts. However, we assume Marcus Vitruvius Pollio existed. Why do you deny the same for Jesus?"]

So I repeat my question: Can you, including the necessary details and definitions, formulate the system of logic you use for arriving at your conclusions?

This time you maybe will observe, that I (still) don't ask for examples from or about your system, but for the system itself. Such a distinction should possibly be inside your competence for rational functioning.

Re Undo


Important parts of hope are ofcourse where hope starts from, and what its future direction is. Some people can live contentedly withour giving the big existential questions a thought, and maybe only hope to get some mundane satisfaction.

Personally I'm contented with finding mundane answers to mundane questions and looking for a method of answering non-mundane questions.

Being unable to see your video example I don't know the 'clue', you are referring to. But in general 'clues' are 'clues, not evidence.

reply to post by bogomil


3 videos discussing the subject of jesus being the son of julius casear and cleopatra. i think it's not quite right but has offered a great deal more information to the story. as far as the clue goes, this is definitely not the thread for it.

p.s. the videos suggest christianity is a continuation of the worship of the egyptian Amen, which i've traced etymologically, back to the sumerian Anu. and Anu was part of the sumerian trinity of Enlil, Enki and Anu. not surprising to me at all, in fact, it makes a great deal of sense.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio,

The Architect??

If this is so ..surely you jest?? An architect?? This should be self explainatory by history alone. Particulary after Rome fell.

I remember as a child living outside of Paris, France seeing a series of stone archs supporting a narrow bridge. I was told by people living in that area it was a Roman Aqueduct. I recal it sort of sloped along it's way until it disappeared into the ground in a farmers field. It was very unusual looking.

The problem with this and the architecture is that when Rome fell..most of the world went into the dark ages and remained there until some time about the 1700s. The only ones who could afford such architecture and or improvements or large stone buildings were the Church at Rome and Royalty.

This knowledge alone should clear up alot about the person Marcus Vitruvius Pollio and separating him from Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins. They are not the same, equal, nor parallel..not even close.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by The Djin


Yes. All from that house were considered heirs to David. That doesn't make you a kind. It makes you related to one of the tribes of Israel. if you don't even know the culture, how can you assume anything? Being an heir to a house of Israel is not that special. It makes you as good as any Israeli. As a jew you came from one of the tribes. David has his tribe.

If there is no name on the tomb, then that makes it even less likely. The tomb of Jesus belonged to a man named Joseph whom gave his tomb away for the body.

Whose family? Marry And Joseph's family. If it was Marry the mother, they would be related. If it was marry the rumored wife of Jesus, then their child would be related to one of them. Can you support either way? Not from what I see.

en.wikipedia.org...

There's no evidence either way. And I'm sorry to tell you that I don't even know what you're going on about. It could be a family name, it could be a city, hell, he could have lied about where he was from to everyone and made up his birthplace so as to make himself a new man, as was a common act, in as much as that area had a lot of contested lands where locals hated you if you were from place A. It doesn't mean the Bible lies or that it's fraud. It means we don't know. Now if you want to accuse someone of assuming, look at yourself.

reply to post by bogomil


I've described it repeatedly, and it's used by most anthropologists as well as historians. History does sometimes lie. So we look at the opinions and descriptions of many different sources from numerous places. This leads to a bell curve of stories with most being fairly much the same, and a few on each end, where some are extremely similar, and others are as far off as the Pope on Pluto. Using deductive reasoning we take those far off tales and compare them again to investigate the reason for this far-off-ness. All to often we can identify an individual or group of individuals whom started the story and, due to their isolation, had nobody stop them. We take, we compare, we compare the compared to other comparisons done by other comparing people, and then we conclude to the current status of the nature of something, always open for more evidence to sway either way.

This is not something I invented. This is how history works. While we may never get a perfect image, we can get something a few pixels off from the truth and thus know from common sense what's going on.

The example I used was The architect Vitruvius. I have others. And yes, you should use examples. otherwise your words are just words.


reply to post by orangetom1999


You say this but don't say how. In fact, your story is just a tangent unrelated to your claim. Thanks for the story, but it doesn't say anything. Vitruvius did not build those arches. In fact, they were probably there long before he was born. Vitruvius could have been a falsified character to cover a man who lost his pride in a war for all we know. We don't. There is as much evidence for him as there is for Jesus having existed. So I ask. Why does he get the benefit of the doubt but Jesus is just brushed off as never having existed?

Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["I've described it repeatedly, and it's used by most anthropologists as well as historians."]

No, you haven't described it repeatedly in a clearly outlined formalistic structure, as the one I sent you about deductive and inductive reasoning. You have presented some implied, often vague, confused mix of various hijacked principles from different areas of hard and soft science.

I studied anthropology at university myself 2-3 years, and am very familiar with the french structuralist school. This has nothing to do with the claims of objectivity you make. Please present your precise model as stated several times before in my requests on this.

You can not make hard-science 'logic' claims on e.g. the bible, based on soft-science methodology. I hope this eventually will pass your selective 'answer before facts' filters.

reply to post by bogomil


Well then we have a problem, because I just did. Failure to see how clear it is either means you're not reading it, or you can't understand it, both of which answer a lot of questions.

Re Gorman91:

You wrote:

["We take, we compare, we compare the compared to other comparisons done by other comparing people, and then we conclude to the current status of the nature of something, always open for more evidence to sway either way."]

This is inductive reasoning, and can be used to establish degrees of probability in soft science.

You try to sneak in deduction this way; quote:

["This leads to a bell curve of stories with most being fairly much the same, and a few on each end, where some are extremely similar, and others are as far off as the Pope on Pluto. Using deductive reasoning we take those far off tales and compare them again to investigate the reason for this far-off-ness."]

There is no deduction in this until the 'reason for the far-off-ness' is examined and explained by direct deductive methods. We can use the 'comparison' you mention to find common denominators, indicating phenomena where a switch to deduction seems justified, but before this switch to deduction happens, the outcome is un-acceptable in terms of hard-science logic.

This is where the cottage-industry philosophers and pseudo-science types always go astray, so we consequently have thousands of 100% true, but unfortunately different useless models of existence. Wrapping it in excessive language doesn't make any of it more true, but actually only strengthens the impression of the fanatic's single-mindedness.

If you want an example, since your mind apparantly can't operate on abstract terms, we have genesis 1, where some kind of comparative methodology possibly could lead to some inductive observations (which doesn't interest me at all). When it comes to direct deduction, the greater part of the cosmogony/cosmology of genesis 1 is plain nonsense.

Gorman91

I'll have no part in a repetition of round one, with its misapplied semantics and fabulated majic in tight spots.

As you may remember from OP, the rationally functioning part of mankind considers such as 'nutty'. So even if the common christian-extremist 'last word' repartee of delusion of grandeur: "I've won" turns up .....

.....my case is closed.

reply to post by bogomil


Uh, no. By your definition, as said before, nothing before the times of physical recordings and photographic proof can then be said to be true on physical grounds. At least not for our own peoples. Once you go into animals and fossils you can cause it's pretty easy.

If you fail to realize that, then yes, case closed. Toodles!

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Please don't take this the wrong way christians , but why should you be treated any differently than any other brainwashing cult ?
I find Christians are generally bigotted , self righteous and spiritually unable to walk without a crutch .

I had problems with atheism for quite a long time as well, because I saw atheists expressing the very attitude that you describe.

Then I started to realise, that I was in danger of becoming what I hated.

Gorman91,

You say this but don't say how. In fact, your story is just a tangent unrelated to your claim. Thanks for the story, but it doesn't say anything. Vitruvius did not build those arches. In fact, they were probably there long before he was born. Vitruvius could have been a falsified character to cover a man who lost his pride in a war for all we know. We don't. There is as much evidence for him as there is for Jesus having existed. So I ask. Why does he get the benefit of the doubt but Jesus is just brushed off as never having existed?

Yes..I agree..on the surface this would seem to be the case. Roman architecture was built on the knowledge of other civilizations which preceded Rome. What is recorded in history ..including the waterworks projects..is that when Rome fell...the world went into the dregs. With the exception of certain royalties and the church ..you did not see large construction projects..even waterworks.
In other words the type of architecture, some of which was to benefit the ordinary peon, disappeared for hundreds and hundreds of years. It was not until some time after the early 1700s that some people began to notice that there was a difference in the standard of living in certain countries which had broken away from Rome. Namely North Germany .the lowland countries and England.

These nations has broken with the religious bondage of Rome..it was not architecture which did this...but their religion. And it was in England after the English Civil war that the dogma of "Divine Right of Kings " was finally settled. This was done by peoples who began to understand a concept bigger than themselves..bigger than Royalty. But they always had architecture...and it mattered not one iota in the standard of living among the ordinary peon until other conditions were met....religious conditions.

Notice..that Henry VIII is often considered and credited with breaking from Rome. But economic conditions in England did not make a big change until after the English Civil War..about 1649. Henry VIII was running the same shakedown system as was Rome..only it was now an English/Anglican shakedown system and the new Pope was in London..and not Rome.

History can indeed be very deceptive unless you know what is in there and what is not in there.

As to science....what drivel. I am not against science...but science has not made us better or wiser peoples. It has made us better consumers who are often of sufficient ignorance to define ourselves by what we consume..not by what we know.

Remember too...that the Soviets were huge believers in the religion of science. It mattered not one iota in the economic scheme or conditions in Soviet Russia. Science did not cut it here nor benefit the standard of living of the ordinary Russian Peon. Nor did Architecture here...Yes??

One has to go to school to get dumb down enough not to notice these fingerprints across the landscape of history. What is there and what is not there. If you can see it between all the political confetti...it is very telling.

The religion or architecture and also the religion of science has not made us better peoples... and it did not help one iota in Soviet Russia. All I have to do is even today go into any store or mall in this town and seek out the plethora of Russian made goods on the market. They are not there. Tanks, rifles, and missiles are not it.

Understand??

Now that I know this about History...I will not be wasting my time this evening watching the super bowl game tonight. No interest in it at all.
Not interested in this type of Amusement.

A - without

Muse - thinking

Amuse/Amusement..something fed to us to prevent thinking. Is this history too...science?? Etymology???

Thanks,
Orangetom