It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 02:25 PM

Just the title is offensive and herasy I dont mean to " force my religon on you" as people put it , but I'll pray for patients and forgiveness.....Im not returning to read this thread again cause It is not one of my better points to be active in threads like this and be calm and civil and Im trying to work on self control. But why could anyone even want to see this type of material or so much a put it out here.

Look Im sorry I wont bother you anymore here forgive my intrusion it just jumped out there and slapped me in the face.

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 04:13 PM

this discussion is ALL ABOUT challenging "believers" to take a hard look at the texts they are forced to believe, and getting all the "lazy Christians" on this thread off their lazy behinds and start reading a little between the lines of the texts they consider "inspired" (for some reason) i.e. texts which they (and you apparently) cannot even read or fully understand (grammatically or otherwise)

Ouch! Thats a bit rough Amadeus considering some of the total unbelievable and grossly adaptive and imaginary verses in the Tanakh. While I have a lot of issues with the good book, its creative history and its alleged authors, I would not refer to either member of any faith as above. As much as Jesus may or may not have been the son of God as some claim, the wisdom of his words are the most profound ever written, followed in close pursuit in my opinion only by Mohandas Ghandi. I am surprised that you would lash out so against Christians when you have stories about a Jew named Moses who was nurtured and raised by the daughter of the very pharaoh who gave the order to kill all Jewish males, without narry a mention of how said pharaoh reacted to this and why he allowed the child to live. Of course the cover is that the Moses child was allowed to grow up whilst living with the woman pharaohs daughter paid to raise the child, a woman who was also a Jew, and who as far as pharaoh was concerned, would have been raising a Jewish male, unless of course said child was disguised as a female or escaped detection.

The story of Moses and others does little to explain why you would be so fanatical about whether Christ was a bastard or not, when the Jewish scriptures is rife with debauchery, and infidelity, all seemingly forgiven by God, where the bastard offspring if any, is either killed or a new heir created thereby allowing for the righteousness of the Jews to remain in tact. And the incest post Moses and his laws! Save for the writings of one Egyptian priest, Manetho, about a man named Osarsiph, who vaguely resembled Moses, there is in all of the historical documents discovered thus far about Egypt nothing that corroborates the Jewish scriptures on the story of Moses.

No Amadeus, challenge the scriptures if you wish, but dont attack the believers of those scriptures, for you would have an awful lot of explaining to do that requires more than a belief in the same divine intervention you deny Christians here to explain from where came the woman Cain took as his wife for starters, never mind the entire Genesis chapters 2 through 6.

In my thread on Giza-what is the Egyptian government hiding, I was going to be delving into those chapters but stopped because I know that what I would write about without trying to insult anyone's religious beliefs, could actually do just that. But Ill give you something I held back so you may ponder it nonetheless: Sebi and the relief from the mastaba of Ankhmahor at Saqqara, c2300BCE. Gives one much to think about, doesnt it?

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 04:41 PM

Originally posted by dbrandt
So satan has been manipulating and copying God since almost his creation moment. The birth and life of Christ isn't based on paganism. paganism is a perversion of the story of Christ. satan has been deceiving people with false paganistic stories. He had ample time to do it since God predestined 4000 years before Christ(the seed) would come.

Paganism has been around alot longer than Jesus, my friend. And what about the time before the 'supposed' 4000 years?

Some even believe the character of "Jesus" was based upon the Mithra Cult of Persia.

Research it out, and post what u think.

BTW, Excellent thread Amadeus. Very thought provoking.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by nathraq]

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:12 PM
Hi Nathrag:

You're quite right in thinking that "paganism" was around a lot longer than "Christianity" (whatever that is) a mystery cult ("Behold I tell you a Mystery...." ..."to you is granted the Mystery of the Kingdom, but to those outside the circle, everything is in riddles....." ) which is a comparative newcomer on the scene---religiously speaking.

The early "Church Fathers" (such as Iranaeus and Tertullian) had to face some very harsh accusations and pointed comments apparently from older and more sophisticated Greco-Roman Philosophical schools in every major city where there were thinking people---as well as from within various Mithraic and other varied Mystery School Religious groups when it was pointed out to them---time and time again---- that the "Christian Mysteries" (especially as time went on and the latest rituals were added or grafted on to what they already had) had in fact actually stole, or more politely, borrowed, entire symbolism, miracle-events, themes and many other details of diverse ritual elements from paganism in general, especially from their own older Mysteries (i.e. the Mysteries of Eleusius, Attis, Osiris/Apis-Serapis, Isis and Orpheus among many others) which were in existence more than 600 years or more before "Jesus" :

The stock answers of the Christian Bishops to these lurid accusations (read "Contra Celsum" for example) seem to us abosultely ridiculous in the extreme when read in the cold light of day----whose inane "circular logic " went sort of like this (which I have expresssed in modern "conversational" American English, to catch the flavour of the original):

"oh that...well, you why there were so many of those nasty heathen Virgin Birth before the time of our Lord [e.g. Hercules, Krsna, the "gods" Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar etal.] ...and the reason why there was all those pagan heathen Bread and Wine Eucharist Ceremonies [Mithra etal. ] before the time of our Lord.....oh...and the reason why there were so many nasty pagan stories of their false gods turning water into wine [Dionysius, etal. ] so long before the time of our all those dying and rising gods (Attanuzzi/Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Orpheus etc.) devil--yeah the DEVIL...made it APPEAR SEVERAL CENTURIES IN ADVANCE of our Lord.....yeah... to denegrate our Lord....that the heathens had all these similar Christ miracles...and pre-empted our SATAN after all has the power to deceive it only appeared like real miracles and false virgin must have been something like that...after all our god wouldn't have to copy anybody.....since our god is the only true god...."

However it seems clear to me that the early Church felt the need to graft on to their own "saviour god" whatever various pagan elements they could which would help :

l. ingratiate themselves with pagan Greeks and others in the Empire who were wide open to this kind of demi-god language----

2. make fresh use that very language and Weltanschauung to mask or cover up (like the Virgin Birth myths) certain "embarassing aspects" or base suppositions about their hero-----

accusations, moreover, that were being daily cast into their faces by some very ardent and (comparatively speaking) more sophisticated critics, both in Rabinnic and Greco-Roman spheres of influence after AD 70 when rabble rousing Rebbes were out of fashion (i.e. after the Jewish War)

Some close readers of the gospels have pointed out over the years how the 7 Miracles ("signs") in the 4th gospel are all seem to deliberately OUT-DO miracles of Elisha' in the Old Testament--another northern "galilean" prophet from centuries before. You can see at a glance the similar 'gospel" format of II Kings chapters 2 through 9 with little pericope stories with little beginnigs and little middles and little endings all concluding with a kind of moral punch line (e.g. "and so it happened in accordance with the word of the man of god..")

In John's gospel, we see "iesous" out doing Elisha at every turn: he is seen walking on water (whereas Elisha merely raises a loose axe head to float on water), and later we see "Iesous" performing the "raising" of Eleazar by a mere word ("Lazarus come forth!") whereas Elisha has to "raise back to life" the Shunnamite woman's son by giving him mouth to mouth resuscitation), "Iesous" in John's gospel feeds 5,000 men with a few fish and some bread, whereas Elisha only gets to feed 100 prophets with a bowl of porridge etc.

In other words, the Messiah had to "out-miracle all the miracle-men"---and this is the same kind of tendenz we begin to see in the Greek Gospels with the miracles of so many pagan gods being out-miracled by the Nazir from Galilee...which included the Virgin Birth myths since after all, as every one knows, all gods are born of Virgins....even the Pharaohs of Egypt and later Emperors like Alexander the Great got millions of people as early as 340 BC to believe they too were descended from the gods in such a peculiar fashion---even when their physical mothers were known to have shall we say "lurid pasts" (as in the case of Alexander) ...

But tell that to a "Christian Fundamentalist" today, and he'll say right to your face that "it was clear that Satan had deceived the world with all those fake miracles before our REAL Lord appeared..."


posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by nathraq
Paganism has been around alot longer than Jesus, my friend. And what about the time before the 'supposed' 4000 years?

[edit on 22-10-2004 by nathraq]

Heres's the deal, at a point in time Jesus was born in human flesh. Before that He existed. He's God , so He has always been. You can study the ages of people in the Bible and do calculations and roughly 4000 BC was when God created mankind.

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:57 PM
Quote: "roughly 4000 BC was when God created mankind.".

What a Foolishly Unscientific thing to say!

As for Christianity being rooted in Paganism - I think at this point we could all acknowledge that it is - that is the way that I like it - I wouldn't have it any other way!!! If that was not the case well then it would be identical to Judaism!!!

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
As for Christianity being rooted in Paganism ... If that was not the case well then it would be identical to Judaism!!!

so you are saying that christianity has roots paganism and judaism does not?

"WE created man in OUR image"

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 09:13 PM
Oh Yes - woops you are correct - You have YahVeh/JehoVah & Elohim & BAAL- It looks like they couldn't make up their mind either!!!

posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 12:17 AM
what happened to the rest of my post?

posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 10:29 AM
Amadeus why cant you use your powers for good instead of evil?

posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 11:50 AM
Another saying some may be familiar with:

the proof is in the pudding.

The question of whether any certain religion was based on paganism, or whether the savior figurehead was or was not a bastard really is inconsequential in its entireity. The most learned person in teh workd can pontificate about theories and conclusions based on incomplete thoughts and biased predispositions as long as they want to.

I realize this is just another thread developed by certain parties to assault a particular religion's origins in an attempt to satisfy some unkempt desire for acceptance of a particular lifestyle or lack therof. I often wonder why the Judeao-Christian sects of the religious movements are assaulted more than any other. you never see threads posted refuting the Islamic faith, or the Buddhist, or Taoism, or Wicca, etc, etc. In almost every case, it's Christianity being assaulted. That speaks volumes to me about the validity of the belief system.

In addition, the Christian sect of Judaism is unique in its personal manifestation of metaphysical and spiritual divination to the individual believer. The Christian sect, particularly the evangelical, protestant sect ( I consider the Catholic sect to be nothing more than worship of Isus in modern form, perverted by the Catholic church to hold on to power) practices several aspects of faith unique to those sects, such as the indwelling of the 'Holy Spirit' in the believer evidenced by the ability to speak in other languages fluently with no prior knowledge.

The christian faith has the ability, and has in many cases, produced instantaneous changes in behavior, mindset, and even physical appearances and characteristics unique in scope and depth to the sect.

To sum this up:

The proof of the validity of Christianity is in the heart and mindsets of its true followers, who are again, unique in their class. Logic and humanistic wisdom can be banted about until the end of time, but the truth manifested in the hearts of tru followers cannot be reasoned away. End of story.

The more it is derided and the more people of questionable credentials and scholars alike attempt to disprove it, the more it becomes ensconced upon the hearts of the believers.

The only ones embracing attempts and agreeing with attempts and theoretical arguments aginst are those who already hold in contempt the concepts, and embrace the contrary argument as a justification for their own moral code.

"Professing themselves to be wise. they became as fools"

posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 12:19 PM
Hi Ashlar:

Use my powers for good rather than evil...? Do you think supporting a book as heinous and immoral as the Old Testament (or as ludicrous and misanthropic as the New Testament) would make me in any way shape or form "good" ??

You mean, like.... "memorize the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament" and "meditate" on the so-called "words of YHWH" day and night and then go out like the American born Brooklyn Rabbi "Dr." Baruch Goldstein did, who while spouting Hebrew verses from Hezekiel chapter 8 and 9, and Deuteronomy chapter 13 and chapter 20 then open fire in a crowded Hebron Mosque and kill as many Palestinian civilians on their knees "facing the east" (to Hezekiel, THAT was sinful !!!!) as I could in one spray?

(Or have you forgotten exactly what happened in the Cave of the Patriarchs on the early morning hours of 25 Feb 1994)?

Maybe you also forgot what R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (the "Jeezuzz" you worship and pray to as a man-god) did that night when he armed his disciples with swords on the hill?

For one thing, I don't like cutting people's ears off...and for another, I would hardly be waiting around all night ("sweating blood") for 12 legions of Jewish Angels to swoop down and overthrow the Romans and put the Davidds back on the throne of "Israel"...

Read the text again, and tell me I'm wrong again, please.

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Amadeus]

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Amadeus]

posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 06:49 PM
Well if they were married, technically he's not a bastard. I thought that she did get pregnant before they were married however.

What about DNA. Jesus was only a man, flesh and bone. Born of a natural birth that occured with conception. One half of the DNA from Mary and the other half from where...........GOD? If god has DNA he is human. There had to be two sides of DNA. You can't just get pregnant out of thin air. Someone had to put the donor DNA in there for conception to occur.

I truely think its a myth of virgin birth, mostly to make Jesus fit the part of the messiah. The virgin birth story goes back very far into other cultures and beliefs that far out date christianity. For example

Held to be god incarnate
Mother was a holy virgin
Father was a carpenter
Of royal descent
Had the divine title of Savior
Without sin
Was crucified between two theives
Taught of a final day of judgement

Mitra-taken from
Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Birthdate on December 25
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world

Have you ever wondered why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ? If the accounts in the Bible are correct, the time of Jesus birth would have been closer to mid-summer, for this is when shepherds would have been "tending their flocks in the field" and the new lambs were born. Strange enough there is an ancient pagan religion, Mithraism, which dates back over 2,800 years that also celebrated the birth of their "savior" on that date.

posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 07:17 PM
Hi FavouriteSlave:

The Roman Mithras was a little different than the Persian Mitra, but both cults had a lot in common----for one thing both versions of the god were associated with the SUN, and of course the birth-day of the SUN is December 25th on the ancient reckoning in the pre-Gregorian calendars....

(something to do with lunar-solar cycles i.e. 12 months of 30 days makes 360 + 5 extra days (i.e. Dec 21 22 23 24 and 25) left over so the following year starts out correctly).

We remember the Messiah also being associated with a dying and rising sun ("And in that Day shall ARISE the SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS with HEALING IN HIS WINGS" in Malachi chapter 4)--sort of a precursor Midrash for the resurrection pericopes (also Mythologically based Midrashim)

The DATE for the MASS OF CHRIST on DEC 25 of course (christ-mas) was not officially fixed by the Roman as the birth-day of "Jeeezuz" until the 6th century AD----and it had effectively replaced or merged with the Mithras cult by then---by a vicious series of pagan pograms mostly--but what Chrsitianity could not annhialiate, it digested instead...

The many surviving examples of painted Mithraea in Europe (underground shrines with bas-reliefs of the slaying of Taurus by Mithras and those long tables for the Mithraic Eucharist--which predate Christianity by a hundred years or so) show how many ritual symbols were taken over by the Catholic church, including the 7 sacraments.

Notice all the painted bas reliefs and statues of Mithra being born in a rock-cave attended by shepherds-------sound familiar? (read the Lucan infancy narrative, Luke chapters 1 and 2)...

Some of these are after Christianity but a sizeable number of them in Italy date from around 80 BC when the Roman General Pompey (remember him?) introduced the cult into Rome especially via Soldiers on active duty in Tarsus in Cilicia the later birth place of St. Paul of all people...

Plus ca change....

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Amadeus
Hi Ashlar:

Use my powers for good rather than evil...? Do you think supporting a book as heinous and immoral as the Old Testament (or as ludicrous and misanthropic as the New Testament) would make me in any way shape or form "good" ??

Hmmm. Although I agree with you that these books are flawed, do you really expect anything else, Amadeus? Over the passage of time, it was inevitable that things would change and messages would be corrupted. It's also obvious that there are political agendas in both books but didn't man's involvement in the Bible also make that inevitable?

But the problem is that you seem to be discarding everything because of a few inconsistencies. Just because mankind has been at work in the Bible doesn't mean that the whole thing is flawed does it? Surely it's possible to read between the lines, recognise the corruptions for what they are and come out the other side with the original message? I believe that when reading Biblical literature, you need to filter some of it - but it doesn't mean that the whole thing is worthless.

I totally agree with you that the Bible is grossly mistranslated and misinterpreted in places. But in my opinion, that doesn't mean that it doesn't contain some form of truth - just that the truth has to be disseminated from the politics contained therein. What you are doing here is trying to separate fact from fiction. By recognising that there is fiction within the Bible, you recognise by default that there is also a truth hidden there. I therefore can't agree with your condemnation.

Just because there is a smattering of deceit in the Bible, it doesn't mean that the truth can't be found in there somewhere. By throwing out the Bible man may be throwing out a knowledge that he could possess if only he bothered to read between the lines.

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Quote: "roughly 4000 BC was when God created mankind.".

What a Foolishly Unscientific thing to say!

As for Christianity being rooted in Paganism - I think at this point we could all acknowledge that it is - that is the way that I like it - I wouldn't have it any other way!!! If that was not the case well then it would be identical to Judaism!!!

You have hit the nail on the head. You have made christianity into what YOU want it to be. Because then it's easier to dismiss it as the truth and you don't have to deal with your sin. And obviuously All do not agree it is rooted in paganism, because I am speaking out and I'm part of all.

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 12:32 PM

You seem truly knowledgeable concerning other belief systems and other theories of origin and errant translations/additions/omissions/ of the canonical, as well as apocryphal and gnostic books of the Bible. While I have no intention of professing belief that my own faith may be unfounded or missplaced, I feel it is important to a true seeker of knowledge and truth to study their opposing views and decide truth ass they see it. Where can i begin this quest for the knowledge you have gained? Reccomend a good introductory literature of two or three sources for beginner study?

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 01:57 PM
Hi Leveller:

I suppose the same argument could equally apply for the textual problems surrounding the 1926 German edition of Mein Kampf and the many variants and some glaring loss of the original handwritten text)

Ditto for all the poor translations of the original in to French, Italian, Russian, Spanish, English and Portugese.

But even if were to be able "faithfully to reconstruct the exact German text" of "Mein Kampf" exactly as Adolf Hitler left it for his publishers,, it doesn't necessarily mean that the book should be studied all day and all night in special tax supported German neo-Nazi Yeshiva-like Institutions, much less that it should ever be "acted upon" as a way of life !!

Unfortunately, with all the dis-information in the US press etc. people forget that the texts of the Old Testament, even when cleaned up into "original readings" is actually just as heinous and racist a document as Mein Kampf is (especially in the Torah---read Deut chapter 20 and Deut chapter 13---both these ghastly collections of racist texts speak openly (and without any shame !!) of "Master Races/Chosen People" and the best ways to genocide all those raceas "not like them"....whether it be Amalekites or non-Aryans).

Christianity is inherently based on Judaeism and "zionist Racism" ("Jesus" was ultimately a "Jew" and descendant of David) and thus on the same racist "chosen people/elect race" Weltanschauung.

People just don't stop and think that it's not as universal as it purports to be ("to the Jew first and also to the Greek.." as Paul was fond of saying).

I reject any "hierarchy" of races in this world, and any religion which is based on such an heirarchy.

There is NO CHOSEN ANYTHING in this world, and Jews and Christians and neo Nazis will just have to get over it.

Period. Full Stop.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Amadeus]

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 02:34 PM
Amadeus. But isn't that the point of Christianity? Ridding the old religion from racism and tribalism and becoming freely available to all?

Sure there are textual throwbacks to Judaic tribalism, but heck dude, what do you expect from a book written in tribal times? There is no way that historical man could not include some politics when writing and editing the Bible.

Sure, there are no Chosen tribes. I believe that man is chosen as an individual. But the Bible is as valid as any other religious text when taken in the light that certain men and societies have adapted it for their own purposes. Like I said earlier, if you can get past the bull#, I believe that there is a message there.

As for the statement that Chrisitianity is inherently based on Judaism? I don't go all the way with that one. Judaism is just the most visible basis. Paganism and originality also play a major part in the founding of the religion. Obviously there is a major connection with Judaism but wasn't the whole point of the new religion to get away from the blinkered mindset that hampered the old? Just because Christianity contains a hardcore of fundamentalists who like to Bible bash and pick and choose passages to suit there agendas doesn't mean that the whole religion should be condemned for it's literature.

I'll totally agree with you that the OT is a book of racism, fear and contradiction. But to be a Christian, do you really need that book? I believe that it was only used to form the groundwork for the proto-Christians and to enable the new religion to hit an established follower base - you want to convert historical Jews then you had to give them something familiar.

But even this doesn't mean that the OT is totally invalid. Again, taken in the right context, there is a spiritual message. OK, you're not going to find that in Leviticus, Deuteronomy or some of the other tribal books, but there are glimpses of religion and life as it maybe should be practiced.

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 07:51 PM
Quote : "deal with your sin."

Don't you know that "Sin is the Word of Restriction" - my friend? I SPIT on your word "Sin"!

Leveller - Christianity rids Judaism of Racism - thats news to me!!! Do you mean when the Pilgrams Came to America & Killed the Natives proudly displaying a Cross - Or do you mean when the British Empire did the Same thing in India & South Africa?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in