Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

So the word 'Easter' (Ester) in Anglo Saxon was used for both the Passover and the Christian celebration of the resurrection...
...as it is in other European languages to this day.

I have no quarrel with the etymology of the term. I have issues with whether or not this man really existed. Previously I believed he did, and my entire "spiritual view" of the Divine was based on that.

Even agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says scholars agree that Jesus existed and died by crucifixion...
...the historical sources for this is better attested than other well known Roman figures.

Perhaps you could read his latest book Did Jesus exist?

while everyone is waiting for a savior the damn ship is going to the dogs
thats exactly what the debble wants

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by wildtimes

 

What pagan goddess was a virgin ... lots of people say it but there is no such thing.

There have been many virgin goddesses. The goddess is a "perpetual virgin," as she represents what no human man is able to "unveil."

It is important in discussing Neith as autogene, or self-created Virgin Mother...first to establish her preeminence in the Egyptian pantheon. Neith...was one of the oldest of all Egyptian deities and one of the most important divinities during the early historic period. There is strong evidence that her worship was widespread in predynastic times... She is first documented iconographically in the last phase of the predynastic period (c. fourth millennium B.C.E.)... (26)

Here's a link about the Chinese Virgin Goddess of Mercy. en.wikipedia.org...

And, here's 30 more. 30 VIrgin Goddesses

Originally posted by Danbones
while everyone is waiting for a savior the damn ship is going to the dogs

Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!

You know what I would like to have a discussion on? Was it militarily prudent for Jesus to make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the back of an ass, while riding next to a horse? Did this action seal Jesus fate even as Pilate "washed his (own) hands and sealed his fate"?

reply to post by troubleshooter

Even agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says scholars agree that Jesus existed and died by crucifixion...
...the historical sources for this is better attested than other well known Roman figures.

Perhaps you could read his latest book Did Jesus exist?

Yes, I "could read" it. And I will....
have you read The Fifth Gospel? By Haisnnan? It says (and I'm leaning toward the idea) that he SURVIVED the crucifixion and went into exile. And, oddly enough, the website author in question (Kenneth H) debated and even mentions Ehrman on his site.....

okay, guys, I'm glad to see yall are interested here....I need to crash, for my part...
sleep is good. Takes me into the other dimensions.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I have no more come here to crucify you than I wish to be crucified, but if you genuinely would like a discussion on this matter, then I suppose you're stuck with me in the same way those nuns and priest were while I was in parochial school.

....
okay.....

??

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I have no more come here to crucify you than I wish to be crucified, but if you genuinely would like a discussion on this matter, then I suppose you're stuck with me in the same way those nuns and priest were while I was in parochial school.

....
okay.....

??

Sigh...the priests and nuns got just as defensive as you've been on controlling how a discussion should go.

reply to post by wildtimes


Hey Wild thanks for the thread! Good post! Thanks for the links, this looks really interesting. I'm going to have to spend some time looking at this and other links that your commenters have also left.

I don't think that the bible portrays just one Jesus, or has the whole story, or een that the story it does have is correct. I tend to think that the story was portrayed by actors years, even centuries later, and the script was embellished and changed according to the audience and the message certain politicians wanted to get across.

CIrcus and theater were a way to entertain, educate and give news to populations. Many myths were incorporated into these shows. It's easy to see how things could have gotten changed, and then passed on as truth.

Heck, as kid, when I saw "2001, a Space Odyssey," I thought it was a true story!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Militarily prudent? Probably not. But expedient.
If memory serves me, the actions of the people during this event were that of acceptance. Acceptance of a king.

I don't know that it sealed his fate, but it was most certainly insulting to the religious establishment of the day, and added a straw to the camels back so to speak.

reply to post by Klassified


I think it was primarily a message of peace, and not in anyway intended to insult anyone. 2,000 years ago, the horse was ridden for one singular purpose and that was warfare. The ass was, as it remains, a beast of burden. I think Jesus attempted to put out a message of peace even as he rode into Jerusalem to reclaim the throne that he quite clearly possessed the human lineage to sit upon. The first two Testaments go to great lengths to show that Jesus came from both the houses of Abraham and David.

I suspect that his action of entering upon an ass as opposed to a horse like any priest king might upset more than just his enemies.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

controlling how a discussion should go.

What?! I have not attempted at all to "control" how the discussion should go.!! I just want to have the discussion.
Wow.
I'm not defensive, either. I totally admit I am on the fence, and just recently aware of the site author's pov. How is that controlling?
I just want to talk about it!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

My opinion JP is that there is a people who were waiting for a savior that would lead them to world domination.
like the biblical prophesy of a homeland, they couldn't wait for it so...
they created one
controlled opposition I think its called

A fabrication..like holywood
it seems to be working

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Agreed. But just like the religious establishment today, they were violently opposed to anyone who questioned their self perceived authority, and swayed the heart of the people.

reply to post by windword

Heck, as kid, when I saw "2001, a Space Odyssey," I thought it was a true story!

Heh!!
I thought the music was awesome (Also Sprach Zarathustra)...and the monolith and fetus...
wow.
There's just so much we don't really know.
Glad you're appreciating the idea here, w!

reply to post by wildtimes


Of course, declaring you "are not defensive" is defensive. It was your comment "Is that disallowed on ATS?" is undeniably defensive. Why would you ask such a question simply because I am asking what is accomplished by "exposing" any fraudulence to Jesus' historicity? Indeed, instead of addressing the vast majority of my remarks regarding Jesus' mythology, you insisted to me that this was not what you want to discuss, and of course you do not have to, but it does come off as and attempt at controlling.

reply to post by Danbones


I agree, but this brings up some interesting points and questions. We know much more about the Essene's since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The "turn the other cheek" message is attributed to a contemporary of Jesus' Hillel, and some have considered that Jesus was a student of Hillel. Both Hillel and Jesus have many teachings that are Essene like.

One of the goals of the Essene's, it would seem, was to lead the Jews back to a covenant with God, and they believed that covenant was broken when David stole Jerusalem creating a nation state that became more important to the Jews than their covenant of God. I have a theory that the Essene's set Jesus up to fail in an attempt to smash the hopes of Messiah, where the Jews would finally give up this idea of a Messianic legacy restoring Jerusalem to the legacy of David, and even encourage the Jews to leave Israel and spread across the world, reestablishing their personal covenant with God. It is just a theory, but as theories go, this is actually what happened...the Diaspora at least, not so sure about the reestablishing of the covenant and only individuals can answer that.

reply to post by Klassified


Religion seems to be a big part of many problems, and then, religion also seems to be a big part of many answers. What a paradox, no?

that is actually not a bad plot synopsis JP
I think one level behind that are some Luciferians who are using that diaspora as an infiltration tactic,
both of the Jews and of the world they are dispersed in
"give me control of the money"
which according to some in the know is the situation we have now.

a shadow government serving the purpose in a Kabbalistic way of full filling the prophesy of world domination

“The presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has, up to now, always won the White House,” say the researchers at Burke’s Peerage. They say Bush’s blue blood runs thicker than Vice President Al Gore’s. In fact it trumps the royal ties of every other President to date, including his father’s. It seems George W. has inherited his mother’s deep blue blood-line.

“His Royal Highness, King Dubya

“Burke’s publishing director, Harold Brooks-Baker says Bush’s royal connections are startling. “[Bush] is closely related to every European Monarch both on and off the throne,” says Brooks-Baker.

www.everlastingkingdom.info...

Im pretty sure the crowns of Europe trace thier liniage back to David....well thats for the plebes
actually they trace back to ea Enki and An and especially ans wife the Queen of heaven

connecting to your other thread:
EArth..mAN etc..Me, I'm decended from The Goddess Bau myself

Originally posted by wildtimes

The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.

The 'burial ground stuff was about 9000 years ago...
...Jesus was born there 2000 years ago...

Do you think there might have been a few changes in 7000 years.

Do you know of any scholars (not mythicist) who believe that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century?

If you really believe all this stuff why not just blow it off and go fishing?

reply to post by wildtimes

You may be interested in Joseph Atwill's book, Caesar’s Messiah – The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Here is a link to an interview with the author. Joseph Atwill interview

Says Atwill, “I did not share in this certainty.” What contributed most to his skepticism was that at the exact time the followers of Jesus were purportedly organizing themselves into a religion that urged its members to “turn the other cheek” and to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, another Judean sect was waging a religious war against the Romans and seeking a Messiah who would lead them militarily. Atwill continues, “It seemed implausible to me that two diametrically opposite forms of messianic Judaism would have emerged from Judea at the same time. So the Dead Sea Scrolls became of such interest to me that I began what turned into a decade-long study of them.” Like others, Atwill was hoping to learn something of Christian origins in the 2,000 year old documents found at Qumran. To assist in his understanding of them, Atwill began studying the history of the era.

It was then that Joseph Atwill came across the key that led to his discoveries. “While reading Josephus’ War of the Jews, and his account of Titus’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE,” Atwill recounts, “I noticed some curious parallels. At first I could make no sense of the parallels between Titus’ campaign and Jesus’ ministry. So I tried to look at the Gospels with fresh eyes, as if I had never seen them before, giving up any preconceived notions about what they meant.” This perspective resulted in the discoveries Atwill presents in Caesar’s Messiah and his soon-to-be-published book, The Single Strand. A Roman imperial family, the Flavians, had created Christianity, and, even more incredibly, they had placed a literary satire within the Gospels and War of the Jews to inform posterity of this fact.
- - excerpt from interview page

I haven't finished reading the book yet. The interview gives a very good synopsis though.

The main take away seems to be that radical zealous Messianic Zionism was a very real threat to civilization during the Roman empire. I see it as the single most dangerous resurgent threat to civilization today. In fact, just about every thread I start concerns some aspect of that threat.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

More unscholarly disinformation...

What? Why should I take your word for it and not look into it myself, please? I don't believe Klassified is giving "disinformation"....
what is your angle here?

But he is simply telling you correct info.
To put it mildly, semiramis was a slut.
She made many babies. When her husband, Nimrod was killed after being judged and his body dismembered to prove to all his claims of being the anointed one (prophecy:not a bone of his will be broken) was dismissed she became pregnant after failing to reanimate nimrod(she was a witch). She was no virgin by any means and the immaculate conceprtion was that she claimed Tammuz, her son, was Nimrod reborn and he was also the father.
She was to later marry Tammuz.
So no, she was never a virgin for the story and the conception was simply storyline, nothing close to the story found in the gospels.
She elevated Nimrod, as did he, to god status so her claiming she was impregnated by him was her claim of giving birth to the son of a god.
But like I said Seth judged him with the council and he was proven to all he fell short in fulfilling the prophecies.
All religions especially those from the mystery schools come from either Semiramis or Nimrod or both.
The RCC with the depiction of jesus as a babe in his mothers arms comes from the mother/son cult of Semiramis and Tammuz for instance.
Hey, but don't take my word for it either.Look into E.W. Bullinger's and others work on the Mazzaroth if you want to know where the storyline came from that posers like Nimrod and those behind him used as framework to engineer their stories for godhood.
There have been many poser Christs but only one has ever fulfilled all the prophecies. But maybe He simply never existed...except all the posers, they existed fer sure.

ok, I have to elaboprate a little since so many are being fooled by so little.
Both the Pisos and Flavians have modeled their stories around a christ character that existed at the time of Yeshua. That was Appolonius of Tyana.
The Indian sages claimed him as the christ.
They say Jesus gave up "the christ principle" at His death and it went to Appolonius.So when you read these stories that the new age historians use to reinvent what the Sophists allready did at the time simply insert Appolonius as the christ they refer to and the confusion begins to fade the more you study.
The claim the Piso's wrote the New Testament becomes evident that no, they didn't write the New Testament and yes, they were confused with what to do with Appolonius so they used him as their model for their gnostic works.
They plagiarized the letters of Paul but were never concerned with the Christians as they were simply lion feed and lamplights. It was Appolonius they went to work on.
The Christians simply were no concern at the time outside of the healings and the legend from eyewitnesses of Yeshua's ascention from the empty tomb.
No, Appolonius was alive and that was their concern.
But some of these pseudo-anthropologists today that pose as historians want to focus it now on Yahsyah....why? Because nobody today even knows of Appolonius of Tyana so the bait and switch is for a Red Herring distorting the distortion the Sophists made at the time.
Appolonius was made out to be the pagan christ of their day.
Today they want to make Yashayah the pagan equivalent due to ignorance of historical precedence.
There is a reason this never took hold in centuries past.
They knew more history from books and research and not wiki and google.
What a miracle they found in controlling search engines.

Originally posted by wildtimes

The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.

Evidence for the existence of Nazareth in and before 1st century AD: www.nazarethvillage.com...

Sorry, Charlie.

Which also may be an indicator that no other statements made would hold water, either.

The existence of Jesus is the most proven historical event in human history.