The Dishonest Church and the Dishonest Christians----Jesus: The Man and the Myths

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
In looking for the truth on the Bible's compilation, one has to consider what did Rome have to gain from their sudden endorsement of Jesus and the formulation of the Bible's collection of books.

Are you making the claim that the Roman government determined what books would be included in the New Testament?

By the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, an increasing number of scholars and intellectuals were coming to realize that Christianity could not actually be historically true. In the nineteenth century, the floodgates opened. From David Strauss's "Life of Jesus" to Albert Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus," scholarly research proved that the Bible was a crazy mish-mash of garbled history, Jewish mythology, and fantasies based on pagan stories of "virgin" births, resurrected savior gods, etc.

You apparently didn't bother reading my earlier response, so I will reiterate it -- the 19th Century "quest for the historical Jesus" was a sham. It set out to find an "historical Jesus" who fit the mould of 19th Century German liberal theologians, so guess what it found?

Contrary to the statement above, Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus was a survey of the work of others to date, and Schweitzer came to the conclusion that the studies were all just simply invalid, and that there was no point to continuing such, because the limited historical evidence resulted in the researchers substituting irrelevant facts which matched their pre-conceived notions.

Schweitzer's book effectively ended "historical Jesus" research at the scholarly level. Whoever wrote that piece that you've quoted there obviously never read the book, or they would know that.

Finally, the "Jesus Seminar" is doing the exact same thing today. If you look at their "Jesus said this", "Jesus might have said this" and "Jesus didn't say this" analysis of the Gospels, it is predicated on the notion that Jesus could not have been supernatural. That's it, that's the basis for their claims -- a preconceived notion that has no basis of its own, apart from their opinion that Jesus could not have been supernatural.

It's a "garbage in, garbage out" research method -- whether in 1800s Germany, or the United States in 2012.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by ALightBreeze

 

hah. Sure thing. Granted, I'm more confused leaving the conversation than when I came in to it, but glad to be of service.

If you might end up feeling so inclined as to clarify where our disconnect is, it would be appreciated - otherwise, you just have a great night.

I'm not sure.

You know better than I that forums are terrible formats for debate. Great for "who has the latest post" but terrible for debates which is why i refuse to enter into any long, extricated dialog-debate on them.

Thanks again!

reply to post by MagnumOpus

In looking for the truth on the Bible's compilation, one has to consider what did Rome have to gain from their sudden endorsement of Jesus and the formulation of the Bible's collection of books. Sure, there is the Constantine's military advantage from a skirmish over the sign of the cross on shields and his vision of a cross over the Sun, not to mention his own mother took up the Jesus cause. What did Rome hope to gain? Why did Rome want a Bible?

It appears the advantage was pacifism, less wars, and with that easy rule over the masses. Roman rule married the church and themselves to being god, or playing god, in the minds of the masses. But at what cost did this happen in the long term? Certainly Rome was not going to shoot itself in the foot with the Bible, so there had to be gain to be had. What one finds is Rome's Bible gave more a fictional account of Jesus, and this to gain control over the issues and cast the history as they wanted it told.

There comes a book called "The Dishonest Church" that examines some of the downwind fallout from the selection of books with the poorest of foundations in any truth, but the foundations for the political church of Rome and its political Bible for control over the masses.

Rome, the Flavian "divine Caesar's" specifically, ultimately had two agendae for creating Christianity and the NT. One was, as you say, pacifism, populace control, etc.

Second was revenue production...which you cannot have without the first. Proof of this as workable first century Roman policy was the Roman Christians - not to be confused with the Messianic Jewish Christians - who were docile, tax paying citizen-slobs.

The collateral effects of Christianity the Flavians could hardly care about.

Originally posted by adjensen

You apparently didn't bother reading my earlier response, so I will reiterate it -- the 19th Century "quest for the historical Jesus" was a sham. It set out to find an "historical Jesus" who fit the mould of 19th Century German liberal theologians, so guess what it found?


It's a "garbage in, garbage out" research method -- whether in 1800s Germany, or the United States in 2012.

ADJ,

The world certainly knows you would call peanut butter Holy, if it was written in your little book. The rest of us read and look for ourselves and are not iimpressed with supernatural Holy Nut Cream.

We also know better than to trust big dramatic productions from the church or the state, as everyone has seen such things as the supernatural Warren Report and we know better than to believe in propaganda, even yours or the churches.

Your ideas were written off for what they are, garbage and non-sense. There is and never was a supernatural Jesus, only the faked up claims existed as supernatatural. I've seen your logic on religions and you carry zero respect with myself.

The real story for Jesus, The Man, was abducted and embellished beyond that which was the true history and books that speak to this reality are more honest than you and your themes for god, and attempts to paint supernatural Jesus.

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

In looking for the truth on the Bible's compilation, one has to consider what did Rome have to gain from their sudden endorsement of Jesus and the formulation of the Bible's collection of books. Sure, there is the Constantine's military advantage from a skirmish over the sign of the cross on shields and his vision of a cross over the Sun, not to mention his own mother took up the Jesus cause. What did Rome hope to gain? Why did Rome want a Bible?

It appears the advantage was pacifism, less wars, and with that easy rule over the masses. Roman rule married the church and themselves to being god, or playing god, in the minds of the masses. But at what cost did this happen in the long term? Certainly Rome was not going to shoot itself in the foot with the Bible, so there had to be gain to be had. What one finds is Rome's Bible gave more a fictional account of Jesus, and this to gain control over the issues and cast the history as they wanted it told.

There comes a book called "The Dishonest Church" that examines some of the downwind fallout from the selection of books with the poorest of foundations in any truth, but the foundations for the political church of Rome and its political Bible for control over the masses.

Rome, the Flavian "divine Caesar's" specifically, ultimately had two agendae for creating Christianity and the NT. One was, as you say, pacifism, populace control, etc.

Second was revenue production...which you cannot have without the first. Proof of this as workable first century Roman policy was the Roman Christians - not to be confused with the Messianic Jewish Christians - who were docile, tax paying citizen-slobs.

The collateral effects of Christianity the Flavians could hardly care about.

Yes, that was indeed the case. Rome profitted and even today the Catholic Church of Rome has some of the richest of economic holdings in the world and it still marries with leaderships that promote concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Yes, that was indeed the case. Rome profitted and even today the Catholic Church of Rome has some of the richest of economic holdings in the world and it still marries with leaderships that promote concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.

And why should it not?

One of the first "Christian" saints was Domitilla...Titus' niece. aka "Mother of the Catacombs" where the archaeological evidence of inscriptions that, here it comes, point to Uncle Titus as the militaristic messianic Christ.

Imagine that. har.

Not to mention, but I will , that the precursor to Christianity, which the Flavians most assuredly were schooled and most positively were influenced and copied, was Mithraism, a Persian religion which had its most prominent temple...this is good, wait for it...on Vatican Hill! [gasp]

Why is it the Romans have the catacombs, all the archeology, the use of militaristic Roman terms like "Supreme Pontiff" and the first real Pope? Because it's a massive coincidental anomaly of which has never been seen on Earth again?

Onward Christian soldiers?

The notion that Pope Clement was a Flavian was recorded in the Acts of Saints Nereus and Achilleus, a fifth- or sixth-century work based on even earlier traditions. This work directly linked the Fla-
vian family to Christianity a fact that is noted in The Catholic Encyclopedia

Hey, these Roman-Flavians, who uprooted messianic Judaism and replaced it with Christianity, these weren't a bunch of dopes.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
The real story for Jesus, The Man, was abducted and embellished beyond that which was the true history and books that speak to this reality are more honest than you and your themes for god, and attempts to paint supernatural Jesus.

And what "real story" is that? Remove the supernatural stuff (like Jefferson did, and the Jesus Seminar people are,) and you wind up with a non-significant wandering Rabbi who dispensed platitudes that were little different than those said millions of times before and after him. Your anti-religious rabidity has blinded you to the fact that you've demoted Jesus to something akin to "Chicken Soup for the Soul" books.

If that's what you really think of him, why the obsession with Christianity?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
The real story for Jesus, The Man, was abducted and embellished beyond that which was the true history and books that speak to this reality are more honest than you and your themes for god, and attempts to paint supernatural Jesus.

And what "real story" is that? Remove the supernatural stuff (like Jefferson did, and the Jesus Seminar people are,) and you wind up with a non-significant wandering Rabbi who dispensed platitudes that were little different than those said millions of times before and after him. Your anti-religious rabidity has blinded you to the fact that you've demoted Jesus to something akin to "Chicken Soup for the Soul" books.

If that's what you really think of him, why the obsession with Christianity?

What unifies the world is truth, not made up supernatural non-sense.

Jesus was the hero to many because he stood up to the untruth of the Phraisee. Jesus truth is better as a Hero up against the odds, who survived and lived, but not by resurrection. Just some good old fashion healing with myrrh, and lots of help from Joseph and Nicodemus..

We value Martin Luther King for these same standing up to oppression and also Ghandi, and both used the methods of peaceful resistance. And perhaps the originator of the effect is Jesus and that made him the Hero.

Nothing is wrong with Jefferson's view on the Jesus story and that one is accepted by most of the world and doesn't get people called Infidels and worse. The truth promotes peace and unity in the world of religions.

One way provides for the near universal acceptance of the Jesus as the Hero for men that value truth and freedom, and the other embellished into non-sense fosters rejection around the world and resistance of the evil untruth promoted by the corrupt political church derived of Rome's political need for control and power.

I choose truth, and reject the supernatural insanity, and call that rejection and denial of ignorance.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Jesus was the hero to many because he stood up to the untruth of the Phraisee. Jesus truth is better as a Hero up against the odds, who survived and lived, but not by resurrection. Just some good old fashion healing with myrrh, and lots of help from Joseph and Nicodemus..

I'd suggest you take a look at this article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, which details the physical effects of Roman scourging and crucifixion. Myrrh isn't going to magically cure those kinds of wounds, sorry.

We value Martin Luther King for these same standing up to oppression and also Ghandi, and both used the methods of peaceful resistance. And perhaps the originator of the effect is Jesus and that made him the Hero.

Who were the Pharisees oppressing? They were the religious leaders of the Jews, and Jesus's complaint with them was with their misunderstand of God's Law, so if that's what you find admirable, you're essentially making a religious argument. Nothing Jesus said repudiated the Law of the Old Testament, simply its interpretation and application, and he had hardly anything to say about the politics of the day, which is where the people were actually being repressed.

Originally posted by ALightBreeze

The notion that Pope Clement was a Flavian was recorded in the Acts of Saints Nereus and Achilleus, a fifth- or sixth-century work based on even earlier traditions. This work directly linked the Fla-
vian family to Christianity a fact that is noted in The Catholic Encyclopedia

Hey, these Roman-Flavians, who uprooted messianic Judaism and replaced it with Christianity, these weren't a bunch of dopes.

Yes, no one should read the Bible's narratives without the question of how would Rome profit in the back of their minds, especially in mind for the works as a whole.

The Roman Bible is a political contrivance, and is the issue that Revelations speaks to as the political church that is corrupt.

The Jesus of the political church is not reality, only embellished nonsense to attract a following that basically paralized the masses minds to act for change, and be free for thought on actual truth and freedom from political oppression.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Yes, no one should read the Bible's narratives without the question of how would Rome profit in the back of their minds, especially in mind for the works as a whole.

Sadly, few do.

Even though the evidence is overwhelming, easily accessible [by idiots like me fer ghod's sake] and slaps any reader with a lick of coherent thought and literary capability smack in the face.

The spiking, historical question is at what point did Christianity lose the memory of its Roman origins? The first church scholars' lack of awareness of this key theological element is translated to mean "right away".Maybe they were puffing the hemp plants and their short term memories were compromised? rofl

What did the Romans have to specifically gain?

Christianity seems especially logical when one considers the degree to which the Roman Empire relied
upon slavery in the first century C.E., where perhaps 40 percent +/- of the population were slaves. Slavery was also prevalent in Judea throughout the first century judging from the number of references to slavery within Hebraic literature.

Jesus' advocacy of accepting one's plight, and of pacifism, were Flavian principles taught within rebellious Judea. "Give unto Caesar and to God what is God's" he sez and why not? Caesar was deified, the translation should have been "Give to the Romans you band of morons either as your God or as your emperor".

Two wings - same bird.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

The Roman Bible is a political contrivance, and is the issue that Revelations speaks to as the political church that is corrupt. The Jesus of the political church is not reality, only embellished nonsense to attract a following that basically paralized the masses minds to act for change, and be free for thought on actual truth and freedom from political oppression.

I realize it is hard to accept that so many have glossed over the blatantly obvious clues left by the Flavian creators of Christianity to inform us of the true origin of this pseudo- religion. I remain completely astounded that so few noticed that Titus' campaign had a direct outline parallel to Jesus' mythical ministry.

Talk about drunk with the Christian Kool-Aid. pffffffft.

Flavian-Roman Christianity was a cruel joke yet where are we now? It has become the very basis for much of [Western world] humankind's moral (di)(pro)gress.

Things globally are rip to become horrendously, unimaginably awful. During the upcoming turmoil, will we remember the words of mythical, Flavian created Jesus?

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

I doubt it.

Originally posted by adjensen

I'd suggest you take a look at this article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, which details the physical effects of Roman scourging and crucifixion. Myrrh isn't going to magically cure those kinds of wounds, sorry.

I think you and the AMA need to stop playing doctor on a patient they never saw.

Most can read the bible and deal with the translation issues:

www.beliefnet.com...


But there is yet another oddity that we need to note: in the Gospel of Mark, Joseph of Arimathea is described as visiting Pilate and requesting the body of Jesus. Pilate asks if Jesus is dead and is surprised when told that he is indeed, for his demise seems very rapid to Pilate. But since Jesus is dead, Pilate allows Joseph to take the body down. If we look at the original Greek text, we see an important point being made: when Joseph asks Pilate for Jesus' body, the word used for "body" is soma. In Greek this denotes a living body. When Pilate agrees that Joseph can take the body down from the cross, the word he uses for "body" is ptoma (Mark 15:43-45). This means a fallen body, a corpse or carcass. In other words, the Greek text of Mark's Gospel is making it clear that while Joseph is asking for the living body of Jesus, Pilate grants him what he believes to be the corpse. Jesus' survival is revealed right there in the actual Gospel account.

Plus, folks that die go to heaven to meet up with the father, so he never died:

bible.cc...

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.

Plus, Myrrh was very powerful medicine and was used to treat gladiators for wounds worse than Jesus' wounds. Even the father of medicine, Hippocrates, used it.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


So you're basing your belief that Christ survived the crucifixion on one word, in one Gospel, and an argument by Michael Baigent, the co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail? Mmmm... okay.

I'll take the facts, as I presented them, instead.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

So you're basing your belief that Christ survived the crucifixion on one word, in one Gospel, and an argument by Michael Baigent, the co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail? Mmmm... okay.

I'll take the facts, as I presented them, instead.

You have no facts, just wild conjectures.

Also, you can't read. Jesus own words tell he didn't die on the Cross, else he would have been with the father, if he died on the cross.


Plus, common sense tells the world that if you die, you won't be up walking around in a few days.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

So you're basing your belief that Christ survived the crucifixion on one word, in one Gospel, and an argument by Michael Baigent, the co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail? Mmmm... okay.

I'll take the facts, as I presented them, instead.

You have no facts, just wild conjectures.

The facts are the historical testimony of narratives that date back to the First Century. Yours are inventions made in the 20th Century. I don't really care what you believe, it is sufficient to demonstrate that you're relying on the biased and baseless claims of 20th Century morons like Michael Baigent.

Plus, common sense tells the world that if you die, you won't be up walking around in a few days.

Congrats on throwing your hat in with the "Jesus Seminar" crowd. Why you don't just renounce Jesus as being wholly fictional, since you've renounced anything of relevance for him, I guess we'll leave as a mystery to the ages.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

So you're basing your belief that Christ survived the crucifixion on one word, in one Gospel, and an argument by Michael Baigent, the co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail? Mmmm... okay.

I'll take the facts, as I presented them, instead.

You have no facts, just wild conjectures.

The facts are the historical testimony of narratives that date back to the First Century. Yours are inventions made in the 20th Century. I don't really care what you believe, it is sufficient to demonstrate that you're relying on the biased and baseless claims of 20th Century morons like Michael Baigent.

Plus, common sense tells the world that if you die, you won't be up walking around in a few days.

Congrats on throwing your hat in with the "Jesus Seminar" crowd. Why you don't just renounce Jesus as being wholly fictional, since you've renounced anything of relevance for him, I guess we'll leave as a mystery to the ages.

Isn't it past due for another one of your dramatic blow-ups where you storm off in a huff.

Hey, I am no different that Thomas Jefferson, an intelligent and influential US 3rd presidet, and a whole bunch of Masons, that set up that separation of church and state thing, that consider Jesus as just a man, no big supernatural productions needed.

Not to mention all the Islam that also call Jesus just a prophet. Then the orthodox Jewish have some extreme words on Jesus and family, that is a little extreme.

All those are right, sans OJ, and the Christian stance on Jesus being god is pure over the top non-sense. Jesus didn't die on the cross and all the supernatural stuff is just creative writing to embellish him into something that never existed.

I have some Holy Peanuts for you, since you are a market for supernatural anything. Got a real deal on Holy Water and Holy Smoke too!

Might have a deal on a free ride to heaven on a super hot A-bomb cloud, one way, if your interested--courtesty of John.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Isn't it past due for another one of your dramatic blow-ups where you storm off in a huff.

Storm off in a huff? I think you're confusing me with someone else, lol.

No, I just present the facts of the issue until the other person starts ignoring them, because their ignorance doesn't like to face truth.

Hey, I am no different that Thomas Jefferson, an intelligent and influential US 3rd presidet, and a whole bunch of Masons, that set up that separation of church and state thing, that consider Jesus as just a man, no big supernatural productions needed.

Which is fine, except that, like Jefferson and the "historical Jesus" crowd, all that you'll find is a Jesus who conforms to what you want him to be. In which case, as I've said before, why not cut out the middle man, and just accept from the start that you will only accept evidence that supports your pre-conceived notions?

reply to post by ALightBreeze


/Yawn, all i've seen is your opinions without sources that Adjensen, me or NuT can scrutinize and pick apart.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Isn't it past due for another one of your dramatic blow-ups where you storm off in a huff.

Storm off in a huff? I think you're confusing me with someone else, lol.

No, I just present the facts of the issue until the other person starts ignoring them, because their ignorance doesn't like to face truth.

You have no facts, so you misrepresent the issues of Jesus. All you have is conjecture that doesn't stand up to critical thinking.

Else, show everyone the death certificate on Jesus at the Cross. Show us the medical views on how a dead person returns to life.

Any doctor that tells anyone in the US that a clinically dead person returned to the living needs to be tossed out of the medical profession for malpractice and misdiagnosis.

Again, what we see is how easy it is for the Christian to tell great lies that defy reality. imho