Christ's History ~ Why the Delay In Recording It?

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vespasian
reply to post by aaaiii
 


I think that disciples counted themselves friends of Jesus. They didn't see the bigger picture. Paul (Saul) was the most vociferous follower and he never met Jesus properly. He saw the reason Jesus came and died for us.
The disciples were ordinary men frightened of the Roman Rule....Eventually Peter did Jesus bidding and was martyred for it.
I think they wrote things down but kept them secret, The later Christians used the writings and stories to write what we now know as The New Testament.


Paul met the risen Christ and believed. The same as with Christ's half brothers James and Jude, they were not believers until they met the risen Christ.




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Written accounts were not as important to the early Christians as they are to us today. Following the tradition of the Jews (which Christianity grew out of), the truth was passed down orally by the means of tradition. The faith was passed down from the Apostles to the next generation of disciples and so on. And, not long after that, St. Paul began writing and the Gospels were written.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
So many assumptions here, and the truth is no one knows the answer.

However let me make some of my assumptions...

If Jesus is the son of god, surely an all powerful all seeing god would of seen the need for a written text of his sons life, so that is his words would not be misunderstood or misinterpreted, I mean an all powerful god could arrange that, could he not?

Also, people here are stating that the Romans (who were prolific recorders of everything) had no interest in yet another prophet, another claiming to be the saviour, and yes I can see this, but if as the bible state, Jesus died on a cross and then rose days later and walked around I am fairly sure everyone would of taken notice, especially the Romans

Books written so long after his death, by people who never met him, there is no validity in that at all. The whole thing is a con, just as the 4 testaments are named after the saints, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the way they are named is to infer they were written by his apostles, did anyone ever get told during religious education that the were not? I surely didn't get told that.

I am fairly convinced Jesus existed, and was an al round decent guy, I just doubt the divinity part, well I say doubt I mean completely disbelieve it



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 


You do not know your history.

Gospel of Mark was written at about AD 50..or just a little after. Christ was crucified when he was 33. Which places that date at about AD 33 - AD 36, making the Gospel of Mark less than 20 years, don't forget that during many of those years he was on the run, in prison, and then missionary to spread the word.

Matthew is dated to be between 70 and 85, making it only around 50 years after he left, again, on the run from the Jewish priest and Roman authorities, in prison and then spreading the word.

Luke has been dated 80-95, which would make sense....Luke of course was not an eyewitness but basically, the best way to explain Luke is to sort of equal him to a reporter of our time. Going to all the eyewitnesses, getting their stories and eyewitness accounts and writing them down. Exactly as he tells us he did in the beginning of his book. Most want to argue that with it being 50+ after the events, that no one would be able to remember correctly what happened, and that it would be greatly exaggerated by then....my answer to that is, ask those who were in the events of 9/11 50 years from now what their accounts are..see how little they remember them.

Books of John would be in the 90s. Mainly due to the fact that he simply would not shut up about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Imprisonment after imprisonment and finally sent to Patmos. Its possible there were earlier writings, but cannot be verified. His latest of course being Revelation at 95-97, This however still only puts us to the 65-70 mark for dating.

Books by Paul are all within the 60-70 range, I think a few reach to the 80 mark.

I think the main mistake people make is that they date the writings from when Jesus was born...AD 1-4, but that would be impossible....the apostles, those who wrote the books to begin with..didn't even meet Jesus till he was 30+ years old. He began preaching at around his 30th year and he was crucified during passover at his 33rd year. Which also always confuses me when people state that we don't really know when he was born for certain.....the bible tells us, maybe not an exact date, because its possible the apostles didn't know the exact date, I don't think Jesus' main focus was on birthday parties.....but the bible clearly says that he went to Jerusalem for the passover and that he was at about his 33rd year..which means..he was 32, and was going to turn 33 soon...who knows..maybe even during passover..... In either case..none of the books reach 100+



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Nkinga
 

I admitted my ignorance on the previous page and encourage others to teach me what I do not know.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 




see the thread all roads lead to rome... www.abovetopsecret.com...


christ was a myth invented by power hungry romans to create a more profitable system.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaiii
As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?


Easy. It's hard to document pure B.S. in real time and still pawn it off as being a true story. It's way easier to pull it off when the man in question has supposedly been dead for a few hundred years. That way there can literally be NOBODY living who can claim to have actually met this figment of the imagination.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by darke_raven
reply to post by aaaiii
 




see the thread all roads lead to rome... www.abovetopsecret.com...


christ was a myth invented by power hungry romans to create a more profitable system.



Indeed. Anybody who knows anything at all about ancient history or the Classical world knows that the priests, priestesses, and oracles held ENORMOUS political and economic power. A politician of the day was frequently bribing scores of competing religious factions.

Monotheism allowed for all benefits of brainwashing the masses whilst simultaneously only requiring a single faction to pay off and/or to cater to. Rome, Egypt, and Persia ALL made the exact same move once the religious factions began to get out of control.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 

If their god created trillions of galaxies, is capable of knowing every atom, can communicate instantly with every being, can alter the thought of all beings, then why the need to send his son to change the earth which is by the way insignificant on the cosmic scale?
That is one way to conceptualize God, but not one that has to be adopted based on the Bible as I see it.
The universe could have been planned to exist as a virtual living physical organism that once created, could function on its own by built-in cosmic laws.
The unified infinite mind that formed that plan could have, once the universe came into being, became a vast multitude of celestial beings to spread amongst it. Also included in that throng of entities would be ourselves, human beings who chose to have an existence within the universe, as being of a makeup that combined the physical with the spiritual. Those who chose to be powerful spiritual beings would find a world to watch over and to help and to be their God.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 


I feel the reason why is quite simple if you really think about it, The average person back then didn't have the education system that you and I have now and days. Most people probably couldn't read very well or at all, plus books were very expensive things to make and buy so it would be basically a useless tool in spreading the word about Christ, and the disciples weren't really the richest men in the world.
The first four books of the new testament are just Christ written history to show that he fulfilled old testament prophecy , These could of easily have been past on verbally rather than written down which as I stated before would have had no practical use at the time.
Conversely to the four gospels, the majority of the new testament was written by Paul and all of his writings can be traced back to between 52-67 AD only a few years after Jesus life, and these were mostly letters to other churches thus being the reason why they were penned.
modern man is funny to me we have a hard time believing in the writings of scholars and the written testimonies of man from just 2000 years ago, but we look in awe at a man on the history channel who says a hood on an ancient statue is actually a space helmet and that god is just a little green man with no facts to go on. Rather he just has a yearning within his soul to find the answer for why we are here, yet can believe it's for such a simple reason as just to worship his creator god.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WalterRatlos


Well, all religions are delusional to a point, in that they are based on myths and mythology. The sect of Christianity arose from the messianic, eschatological beliefs of the Jews, namely that one from the line of David would arise and deliver them from bondage (first the Babylonians then the Greeks then the Romans). In fact, between Augustus' death and the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD thereabouts, there were quite a few Jews who tried to convince their brethren that they were in fact the awaited Messiah. That is why Matthew and Luke both list all of the line of the house of David. Strangely enough, however, the line is traced through Joseph who was not involved in siring Jesus, if you believe the same gospels. I'm not sure whether Paul was the founder of that sect or whether he was a Trojan horse maybe or what his role was specifically. It's interesting that his name was Saul first, like the mythical first king of Israel and David's


Paul a Trojan Horse?

Jesus came to reconcile the House of Judah to the House of Israel - He came to make them one. Who do you think Paul's "Gentiles" are? Who did the Pharisees worry that Jesus would go to? Who did Jesus say He came for? Who received the firstborn birthright blessing?

Paul's "fullness of the 'Gentiles'" were Ephraim's blessing to be a "multitude of nations". Gentiles is the Latinzed word for nations. 13 tribes - 13 Apostles.

Israel has always been Our Father's portion - always. Those in Christ Jesus have always been Israel. Yes, that means that Paul's "Gentiles" are the House of Israel. Every western land welcomed their God and worshipped Him because He came for HIS OWN. That likely means your forefathers. The very descendants of which have been fooled into a life of sin to reject their Saviour and indoctrinated by those who rejected Him then.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I'll reiterate what I posted earlier in the thread. This is NOT a discussion about whether or not Christ existed.

For the purpose, of this thread, Christ the man existed.

The subject of the thread is ~ Why the Delay in Recording Christ's History?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 


*sigh* Because he never existed. The Jesus story was concocted to control the population via religion (JUST like they do today). It is the story of Isis and Osiris and Horus. There are other pre-existing stories from which they robbed for the Jesus story..

The ONLY reference to Jesus is from the Bible. That's it. The Bible is even only marginally historically accurate. The writings of Josephus of the time contain no reference to Jesus (there were two which were proven to be forgeries by a 16th Century Catholic Cardinal).

Stop trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Simply believing something does not make it so. The overwhelming evidence is that there was no Jesus. Many of us have awakened to that Truth. Here's hoping you do the same.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FeatherofMaat
 

I started the thread.

I set the parameters.

Don't tell me what to think.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by pro-all
 

If their god created trillions of galaxies, is capable of knowing every atom, can communicate instantly with every being, can alter the thought of all beings, then why the need to send his son to change the earth which is by the way insignificant on the cosmic scale?
That is one way to conceptualize God, but not one that has to be adopted based on the Bible as I see it.
The universe could have been planned to exist as a virtual living physical organism that once created, could function on its own by built-in cosmic laws.
The unified infinite mind that formed that plan could have, once the universe came into being, became a vast multitude of celestial beings to spread amongst it. Also included in that throng of entities would be ourselves, human beings who chose to have an existence within the universe, as being of a makeup that combined the physical with the spiritual. Those who chose to be powerful spiritual beings would find a world to watch over and to help and to be their God.


I am with you on this one. Come to think of it, isn`t the existence of the bible a proof that christianity is a fraud? Does the concept of a chosen people not put us the gentiles in an inferior position? How hard was it for the biblical god to carve a Jesus out of every race? People think being a christian is as easy as joining the local club. No, becoming a christian means renouncing all your values and culture. In a Africa where you have such names translated to mean devil´s own, devil is great and the like, you are required to drop them and adopt a roman name like Romanus, Philipus or Zachius. In Africa of yore, people tried to trick the devil by such names to ward of misfortune like recurring chidren deaths or bad luck.You have to even change how you eat and dress. The truth of the matter is try as much as we want, nothing can be known about "god", a word coined by man. People expose their shallow brain when they say things like: being an enemy of god, or that god is angry or that god doesnt rejoice in the death of a sinner. If god created life and death, what difference does it make when a mortal passes on? How is it possible for a man to be an enemy to god, something which could be responsible for his very being? People`s ignorance is simply annoying. Christians cannot have it both ways. Either they believe there was a carpentar`s son named Jesus on a flat earth that was the center of the solar system or embrace science and accept that there are millions of galaxies out there with life on them.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaiii
As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?


The Gospel of Mark was written about 40 years after Christ's death. The biggest allies Christ had were mainly the common and poor folk. The rich and powerful Romans and Jewish city fathers of Jerusalem had an interest in suppressing his teachings. Hardly surprising that there was a delay in transitioning from old superstitions to the Western Civilization that Jesus founded and that we all enjoy today.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
How do you know they didn't write about him?
We're talking about 2000 years ago here. It's extremely possible that Christ was prominent enough to be written about. Only in secret, and the writing were hidden. We have to remember that his followers during the time of his death, were afraid for their lives. Chriatians were put to death.
Perhaps there are extensive writings somewhere which have not been discovered yet. There's a huge desert out there.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaiii
I'll reiterate what I posted earlier in the thread. This is NOT a discussion about whether or not Christ existed.

For the purpose, of this thread, Christ the man existed.

The subject of the thread is ~ Why the Delay in Recording Christ's History?


Good call, he is wrong that there are no historical references to Jesus anyways. Your mistaken claim of 100 years delay and scholars, even atheistic ones, refutation of the non-historical claim, shows the surprising resilience of Christianity despite 2000 years of such criticism. As Rabbi Gamaliel said to his fellow Jews:

Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


I couldn't finish reading this thread without replying and addressing some of your points first. You should look into the art of attraction, a very interesting topic which not only makes more sense than miracles, but actually has physical proof behind it which miracles clearly lack. (ex. emotions trigger frequency responses, time/space doesn't affect dna response, etc). Basically the idea is that if you truly want something, and TRULY believe in something, it will become. That man from the church group must have believed that he will be healed one day and that simple thought was powerful enough to occur. Atoms are made out of energy, frequencies cause energy to respond, this energy is everywhere in the universe all at the same time since atoms are everywhere, so this theory is not just plausible but more than likely fact; it fills in all those blanks that science and psychology can't.

The bible teaches us to be good people, because if we believe we are good people, we will become good people.

I mean no disrespect, but when your brain truly believes something, ESPECIALLY if this belief has been pounding you since childhood, chances are that your belief won't change no matter how clear the opposition is. There is a word in psychology for this!! Your responses to the OP reminds me of the early church, shunning down any views that christ is fabricated, literally ignoring science, and continuing to preach in a power that makes little to no sense (if you pray, the miracle will happen; WRONG, if you TRULY BELIEVE, not just pray, it will happen. The more people believe, the more likely it is to occur. How else can you teach people to truly believe in what they are thinking if not prayer? No man in the sky nonsense, just science
)

This post isn't straying off topic, but suggesting that the writers of the bible understood that thoughts become reality, therefore the only way to truly make the masses/world good people is to implement something as radical as religion. I personally believe religion has been the best/most complicated invention the world has ever received, keeps order and teaches morals. I already know how you will respond to this, but nonetheless, I just wanted to get my point across. Religion really is a synonym to ignorance, science is that antonym. (the good kind of ignorance though)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by aaaiii
 

Tacitus the famous Roman 2nd historian:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

It was written after the fact, but they didn't have many journalist's back then, not that you should believe them either.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join