Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

reply to post by NewAgeMan

By your avatar you look like you're in dire need of some living water.

By the looks of your avatar, you need to come back to Earth. Your head is so far in the clouds you've drifted into outer space.

I just started on his book; plausible theory but I personally believe that Jesus did exist but his teachings were hijacked. Also am wondering what says he of the brother of Jesus James.
To totally deny the existence of Jesus, I see the atheist Acharya S in the background somewhere

reply to post by AfterInfinity


There's a lot of science bottled up in the whole chain of causation leading to the cross, but the final double-reverse sting hoodwink at the expense of the "evil one" is largely psychological in nature, where the Darth Vadar depicted represents simultaneously an evil empire, as well as that evil which lurks in the heart of man as the prideful and sinful self who wanted Jesus dead, which at some level can apply to us all where there was a part of us who were in that mob shouting "CRUCIFY HIM!", so the joke is really at everyone's expense, including my own.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You misunderstood the framing and context of my avatar and background including the need to transcend "the box".

It's got science and stuff in it and everything, tell's one HECK of a story too, and there's even a great joke to be had for anyone who can find it.

Maybe this was already posted but here is the free ebook

archive.org.../n0/mode/2up

so interesting but so deep you really have to devote yourself to knowing more and then by immersing yourself so you will for a very strong opinion. mines is a mixed belief that yes there seems to be a very good story or guidance there that teaches us good and to oppose authorities using us. almost like an anti establishment other way of living that we can never achieve. it is quite plausible it was written to subdue because when you think about social affairs it makes you think about why you shouldn't really worry.

bt then it also teaches you to oppose those things and always stands in the way of progress and could ultimately be the downfall of such secret society or empire.

CJCrawley
Jesus wasn't invented.

Christianity was.

This. Christianity doesn't begin until Yahesh'ua-Jesus Returns.

Everyone calling themselves a christian now is giving themselves a title that their actions haven't earned.

wildtimes
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

Recently he wrote a paper with Robert Eisenman on the dating of the Scrolls.

Oh right, Eisenman. The cheerleader for first-century militant Judaism. The guy whose entire career hinges on his assertion that the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions are authentic, even though the rest of the biblical scholarly world thinks that they are pseudoepigraphical. Yeah, there's a real feather in his cap.

TheEthicalSkeptic

BO XIAN
The fear claim is more reasonably leveled at those who are hostile to Christianity.

Christianity's core message is telling people that everyone's god made hell, to throw them into after they die, in order to punish them for even existing.

This is spiritual terrorism, to gain power, control and profit. This message is the largest evil in the world today. And it is all based on creating and manipulating fear.

Decent try but I would say that Hell exists to throw people who "claim" to know (Most modern Christians) yet still don't live or act accordingly. It's not punishment. They bring it on themselves much like we do every single experience we are in while living this life. God created BOTH good and evil. Hell is for all the "sinners".
You see them every where you go, you might not be one but you know what a sinner is. If you deny the story that is fine. If you deny the message that is fine. Don't make up stories that fit into your time line that you have gathered from other like minded people.


The term sinners in my opinion is not relative to just "Christians" or ones that "Christians" deem to be sinners.
They know who they are and even if we do. It is not our obligation to pass Judgment on them. That is what death is for.

It is a fault of humans for them to believe that nothing exists. If you deny that anything with intelligence exists that is greater than you. This is also fine. If the quarter lands on the other side of the road.

Broken down.
Some people and their souls WANT to live forever, dream about living forever in ways and places unimaginable and with great wonders.

Others think such places do not exist and that once you die you die.

Even in the cyclical nature of our world and universe I personally don't see how people see it this way. I don't have a problem with they do, but don't spout stereotypical answers just because you so avidly want something to not be true.

If it is targeted at closed minded "Christians" that is fine. Religion is the root of all evil.
God and Christ don't care about religion. If you're an atheist you would honestly have a better chance of getting into heaven than one might realize because you never worshiped a false idol. Even the "God" that Christians refer to..many do not know.

Thing is, arguing over Christianity is stupid. That is like arguing that the Baltimore Ravens are the only REAL NFL team.
They ARE an NFL team but not the only one.
Much like the body of Christ.
There is room for EVERYONE in the Kingdom of God.

Have morals.
Have integrity.
Have honesty.
Have modesty.
Be selfless.
Love each other.
Love your parents.
Don't steal.
Don't commit adultery.
Don't murder.

We don't need RELIGION. To establish these. We don't necessarily need God. But unfortunately men are NOT angels. God is BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. HE IS RIGHT AND WRONG. HE IS EVERYTHING.
He is also sovereign and you don't have to choose.
In a world where we don't even KNOW where we came from (Science can never "prove" anything as whatever they seek always lies in the eyes of the beholder)
You can believe in whatever.
Maybe you'll find out that you're an atheist and you meet God as you die and he blesses you for living a moral life style.
Maybe you'll find out that you're a christian and Christ denies you because you denied what he stood for.
Maybe the lights just go off and you dream forever.
Maybe the lights go off and never turn back on and without dreams.
Maybe we die and are born again instantly in a circle of life.

I have 100% gained the knowledge and the wisdom to develop MY OWN understanding. Some will, some won't. so what.
I have felt the Holy Spirit.
I have felt the Spirit of Christ.
With those I have developed an understanding of the father.

I would say that more "religious" people are likely going to Hell over Atheists or non-believers because these "religious" people have denied what Christ stood for. Many are hypocrites at telling people things that only the spirit of Christ can say. Anything else is blasphemous.

We each have a unique road to salvation.
Religions split that road up and make it impossible to find solid directions.
Spiritual freaks lead you towards all of the wrong things
Science tries to understand just what in the hell goes on.

Space-Time-Matter
Father-Son-Spirit.

All the same thing. Somewhere it all got lost in translation.
I have a Geneva 1599 Bible and there are verses in there that aren't in KJV and NIV bibles and it's astonishing at the gravity they hold.

Solomon's wisdom should be read.

I'm just confused by how so many people on EITHER side claim to KNOW one thing or another.

All that you have just read is not a "Knowing"
It is my understanding.

If only we could all respect each others. Yet someone always has to tell someone else they are wrong and we wonder why our world is so F****D up.
SMH


Shalom to all my brothers who have just found that they have the ability to believe in whatever they want and have decided to stick with it. God will reward all of us-Non-Believers and Believers alike.

People want proof and when you die..odds are you will get your 30 seconds of undeniable proof.

Sadly.. It is this that will cause many swept up by religion to fall to hell while the "true believers and un-believers" receive their reward.

They held to their position but didn't cast others out as wrong.

To this poster. I don't disagree with your stance..just use a different description of Hell. It's a place where people go who aren't fit for existence.

God wants both sides.
He just doesn't want people intolerable of either. (I Believe)

Peace and Love to all.

reply to post by Spectral Norm


Would you please indulge me with some sources to help me understand why he's unworthy of attention?


I'm open to whatever. Never even heard of either him or Atwill before this thread.

reply to post by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420


Interesting. Why do you (and most everyone else) still refer to God as "He", "His", "Him", in the male sense? Is not God both male AND female? Making God ipso facto a hermaphrodite. Just curious...

reply to post by AutOmatIc


Really more of a form of habit. I don't know what God would be or even if he were a sex but the fact that Jesus (Christ-it would be the spirit of Christ within Jeuss that makes him say and do the things he has been given recognition for. (Again TWO separate things) constantly refers to him as the Father.
The Holy Spirit is the Feminine.
Christ is the Son in the trinity.

So in a sense. God is the culmination of all three of those. I don't have an answer other than just habit.

God the FATHER is male.
God the SON is male.
God the Spirit is female.

3 Spirits.

Not saying it is true.

It is just how I personally have come to understand it but to each their own.

To use the term hermaphrodite is to show a slight misunderstanding or presumption of our own world.
Plato's Allegory of the Cave is what I mean by this. It again, is just my understanding. Does not make it right or wrong in comparison to everyone else' as it is my own and to each theirs.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your signature.
Cheers.

AutOmatIc
reply to post by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420

 

Interesting. Why do you (and most everyone else) still refer to God as "He", "His", "Him", in the male sense? Is not God both male AND female? Making God ipso facto a hermaphrodite. Just curious...

Well if you really want to know, according to the record God made Adam for Himself. At some point He felt that it wasn't good for Adam to be alone so He made Eve for Adam using part of Adam.

So maybe Adam was the hermaphrodite.

wildtimes
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

Would you please indulge me with some sources to help me understand why he's unworthy of attention?

I'm open to whatever. Never even heard of either him or Atwill before this thread.

I am happy to do so, insofar as I am able.

As far as Atwill goes, sources are just the problem, indeed. His blurb doesn't give any. There is nothing, at least at this point, to argue. If he referred to, say, Book 1, Chapter 26, of Phlabiou Iosepou historia Ioudaikou polemou pros Romaious biblia, or something, then I could go and read that (again) and determine whether or not I agree with his interpretation. But there is nothing like that. Indeed, in order to find out if he even has any sources, I have to buy a ticket to his seminar. That just sounds like money-grubbing. Why not just submit your ideas for publication and debate them openly just like everyone else in the industry? There is a tendency these days to try to bypass scholarly review by making direct appeal to the general public. That's all well and good, but it can lead to trouble. E.g., I have a theory, but it requires that the Gospel of Peter (for example) be dated to the first century. But if I try to make the case for an early date for it, biblical scholars will point out that there are some serious problems, so I will just bypass them and appeal to the masses, because the average person doesn't know any better and will accept my claim and (hopefully) buy my very expensive book. Great. Except for one thing. That isn't scholarship, it's moneymaking via writing.

Regarding Eisenman, I was being a little hard on the guy. He has excellent credentials, he is fluent in several languages, including Aramaic, and he is an eloquent writer. But he is also on the scholarly fringe. Eisenman's idea is that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not date from the Maccabean period, but instead are first century Christian documents. According to Eisenman, early Christianity was a militant, nationalistic, warlike, anti-Roman revolutionary Jewish movement, headed by James, "the brother of the Lord," whom he identifies as the "Righteous Teacher" of the Qumran Scrolls. The "Man of Lying" of the Scrolls he identifies as Paul, whom he sees as having fostered a pacifistic (and therefore unworthy) corruption of the movement's tendencies toward violent revolution.

I am old school when it comes to research, so I can't point you to any youtube videos or websites or such. I do most of my research in actual libraries reading actual books. But, if you like to read, some of Eisenman's books that I have read, and are worth a look, are:
James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I: The Historical James, Paul the Enemy, and Jesus' Brothers as Apostles
James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II: The Damascus Code, the Tent of David, the New Covenant, and the Blood of Christ
The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents withheld for Over 35 Years
Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians, and Qumran: A New Hypothesis of Qumran Origins

On the other hand, if you are interested in scholarly criticism of Eisenman's ideas, try
John Painter, Just James Personalities of NT
Philip Davies in James the Just and Christian Origins, Chilton and Evans, eds.

My apologies for having temporarily hijacked this discussion.

Peace be with you.

As many others have pointed out, the Roman conspiracy idea doesn't really add up. When you look at what Jesus said and did, he actually went around subverting Roman rule, and declaring a Kingdom which will outlast all others (even the great Rome).

From the article:

...Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome.

I believe Mr. Atwill has missed the point here. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. The coin bore the image of Caesar, but we bear the image of God. Give Caesar his silly coins, which mean nothing, and give God yourself; heart, soul, mind, and strength. This ran completely contrary to what Rome was going for (total allegiance to Caesar as their god). The claims this man is making are off base, at best.

I am currently reading a book called 'Heaven on Earth: Experiencing the Kingdom of God in the Here and Now' by R. Alan Street (someone you probably have never heard of) that deals with the concept of the Kingdom of God and what that means. He puts into historical context a lot of what Jesus was talking about, and it was very much anti Roman. After reading this I am very interested in getting another book by him, 'Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord's Supper under Roman Domination during the First Century'. I would encourage anyone interested in such things to check those books out. They are informative, practical, and easy to read.

ltheghost
uk.prweb.com...

Ran across this article today. Thoughts? And what are the ramifications if it is true? Or is this just sloppy research or something to discredit an entire religion?

Quite shocking I know...But who knows man? And obviously the only way were going to solve this mystery if Jesus existed is by splitting into two camps, pro Jesus existent group, and con Jesus existent group. And then going at it full on blast war. Obviously that has been the only thing so far in all of history which has solved or put to rest any dispute...Oh ya! as they say! May the most well funded group win.

Or was that may the best man win, or some #...Ahh! Never mind.

But seriously, can something like the whole of the entire writings about Jesus be faked and created and over time brought into a life of itself when there actually was no real history behind or it was so twisted as its not the same thing....Ya it technically can be done, does not mean it was all faked though.

But who knows, personally I think a Jesus existed but the whole thing may have gone down nothing like we know of it today, and as ages past it's all just a free for all by all kind of powers involved, church, state, powerful people and groups and off course useful propaganda, and something like the game of telephone only stretched out over centuries. Generally speaking that is what all religions are, most if not all are merely adaptive things which change sometimes drastically to suit the ages and powers and peoples believes, or its better said what they want to believe in.

Not going to touch this thing, as I think either way it does not matter.

But the quote by Seneca comes to mind, in fact his brother Gallio was actually quoted in the bible as dismissing a case against the apostle Paul. Or at least so they say and its on the wiki. Gallio

But anyways the dude was around when the whole Christianity was just taking place place, so I would say he may know a thing or two about it. Though I doubt that Jesus or the whole thing is completely fabricated like the guy in your link says. Real life and the truth is usually stranger then fiction. Not to mention much more convoluted.

"Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful...Seneca"

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Well since you asked...I was specifically speaking about

The Dialogue of the Saviour
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Apocryphon of James
The Gospel of Philip and
The Gospel of Thomas.

All of these texts have sayings of Jesus and incidents that took place within his life...

A2D

Ah, same old same old then. For a moment I thought you might have been claiming a genuine historical source for jesus.

Do you even realize what you're actually looking for? Here I'll answer it for you....You're looking for writings 1)within the time frame of Jesus' proposed existence or ministry circa 4BC-33AD based on varying estimations, 2)refering to the right geography, people, and events, 3) is credible in the sense that other things that are mentioned have been verified, and 4) was translated correctly.

Basically you're stacking the odds in your favor against any and all texts or papyri that we have found or may find....You simply don't want to accept ANY evidence at all and will throw the book at anything we propose. You have shut your mind and are unwilling to open it.

Let's change course for a minute...Would you like to argue the historical existence of Gautama Buddha? How about a historical King Arthur? Pythagoras (who also lacks contemporary writings that prove his existence)? John Henry? Homer, Robin Hood....the list could go on...Would you care to discuss any of these individuals?

A2D

AfterInfinity

By the looks of your avatar, you need to come back to Earth. Your head is so far in the clouds you've drifted into outer space.

And if I'm not... what then?

What if there is nothing about anything that I've said in this thread, so far, that could be interpreted and understood and comprehended as "unreasonable", no matter how ah.. unreasonably reasonable the proposition might be, as made by none other than Jesus himself, through his action and through his freedom of choice.

If you wish point to what I've said that could be construed as "crazy".

It's funny, I am aware of that much, but I'm not sure you understand precisely why, yet.. but you will because in the fullness of time and history, it's inevitable.

Release from the snare and from the trap of a just judgement is woven right into the very heart of things, but sometimes, somewhere down the line those things that are the very best of the very best of what life freely offers (Virtuous), has to be held in reserve and protected, for US ALL, and for all the right reasons, and for the sake of what is right, and for the sake what is loving where it might be said that mercy is the very heart of the law of life and love.

It's all mere speculation however, absent the model, and the action, and the words, thus many would simply prefer it if there were no such a one as Jesus and no such event as the cross whether he resurrected or somehow threaded the needle or not - it's scares their ego, and rightly it should because Jesus didn't mess around, didn't really leave any options but a full on baptism into his death and resurrection.

Some might measure the cost of discipleship and recognize that it's too much and that they do not wish to be assigned an incalculable value and incorporated as a true sacred being and child of God, and I get that and am prepared to leave them alone, but not without offering a sound and well reasoned argument that they might be able to weight it all out for themselves in recognition of what they will also be missing out on by refusing the call to bigger and better things. It's an evolutionary principal that Jesus and his Great Work are pointing to, a process of differentiation in judgement and of reintegration in forgiveness, and after all as Socrates pointed out - an unexamined life is not worth living.

Just know that there was a return path which shall forever re-extend itself in one way or another if only because we have from now until the end of time to finally get it, but why waste so much time while we're on our way stumbling blindly along in search of truth.


Best Regards,

NAM

Agree2Disagree

Let's change course for a minute...Would you like to argue the historical existence of Gautama Buddha? How about a historical King Arthur? Pythagoras (who also lacks contemporary writings that prove his existence)? John Henry? Homer, Robin Hood....the list could go on...Would you care to discuss any of these individuals?

A2D

I would like to talk about Robin Hood. Maybe you could make a thread on him? Thanks in advance.


Best Regards,

NAM aka Rob

reply to post by NewAgeMan


NAM have you ever tried dimethyltriptamine ?

If you had, you just might realize that the paradigms you are talking about are plausible, but certainly not deep enough into the background of creation.

It is easy to see that we do not need a "way back" since there was never somewhere in the first place to get "back too".

All of this is being created on the fly, the only thing the "evil" entities want is to get us to open the last gate, so they can finally put down the energy which powers it all, without a thought about consequence.