Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

page: 37
57
<< 34  35  36   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

If I write a book that declares Barack Obama to be the anti-Christ, does that make him so?


Only if you manage the PR and make people believe the nonsense. Besides, there are plenty of books out there declaring Obama as the Antichrist, written by people like yourself, pious Christians, mind you. Did a search for Obama Antichrist on Amazon and received 234 results.


'Cause that's pretty much what you're saying, lol.


Unfortunately for you I have to disappoint you. I didn't say anything of what you claim I did. I gave a summary according to a book and gave quotes from the book. Sometimes I even quote Gilgamesh or the Rig Veda, it doesn't mean I'm even religious. This would be a great time to start your course in textual criticism I suppose.




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Aren't you talking about Gospels written by the actual apostles to Christ that the church decided they didn't want in the christian Bible? You do realise there was a huge rift between the western church fathers and the men who were supposedly Christ's disciples and family.

Surely that alone makes you wonder what the apostles had to say that the new self-appointed church fathers didn't want coming out. Had this information have come out, people would have gone directly to God themselves which, even the Pope today is banging a drum about and saying people are not allowed to go to God direct.

He says they must, must, must go to God only through the Church and her initiates. EG you would make the church redundant if religious worship were personal between you and God.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


I didn't say anything of what you claim I did. I gave a summary according to a book and gave quotes from the book.

What you quoted from is a pseudopigraphical text that was written long after "Thomas" died, a work of fiction from the Second Century, written in response to early Christians who wondered about what Jesus was up to in the years between his being at the Temple at age 12 until he started his ministry. So, yes, claiming that Jesus killed a kid for bumping into him because a work of fiction said that happened is the same thing as Barack Obama becoming the anti-Christ simply because I said so.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7


Aren't you talking about Gospels written by the actual apostles to Christ that the church decided they didn't want in the christian Bible?

And what Gospels would these be?

The earliest, and most reliable, Gospels that we have are those that are included in the New Testament, chosen because they met the criteria of a) having an Apostolic connection; b) being in wide circulation and general use and c) being in harmony with other accepted scripture, including the Hebrew Bible (now Old Testament).

Stuff like The Gospel of Thomas or The Gospel of Truth are later texts that reflect a version of Gnostic Christianity that was formulated by Valentinus in the mid-Second Century, and couldn't possibly have been written by an Apostle.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


I didn't say anything of what you claim I did. I gave a summary according to a book and gave quotes from the book.

What you quoted from is a pseudopigraphical text that was written long after "Thomas" died, a work of fiction from the Second Century, written in response to early Christians who wondered about what Jesus was up to in the years between his being at the Temple at age 12 until he started his ministry. So, yes, claiming that Jesus killed a kid for bumping into him because a work of fiction said that happened is the same thing as Barack Obama becoming the anti-Christ simply because I said so.


Unless you knew, nearly all books of the Bible are pseudepigrapha and written long after the fact and the people they are supposed to have been written by lived. Daniel didn't write Daniel. Moses didn't write Exodus. John the disciple of Jesus didn't write the gospel carrying his name. The only books we can assume is written by the same character as the books says, is Luke, based on the opening verses of Acts where the supposed author refers to it, but we still don't know for certain it was Lukas the friend of Paul, but we still only have 2nd century church tradition to rely on. Luke was a Roman physician. The other Roman we by some certainty assume wrote anything is Saul Paulus. Another Roman. How fitting. Revelation was written by another John than the one who wrote the Gospel according to John. How do we know? The texts are written in two completely different dialects with a relatively very different style and skill:

en.wikipedia.org...

Eusebius (c. 263–339) was inclined to class the Apocalypse with the accepted books but also listed it in the Antilegomena, with his own reservation for identification of John of Patmos with John the Apostle, pointing out there were large differences in Greek skill and styles between the Gospel of John, which he attributed to John the Apostle, and the Revelation.


You are cherry picking here. The only thing that has shaped the Bible as we know it, is the doctrinal concept of canon. Basically a bunch of old grumpy men deciding which books should be included and which should not. Again, some textual- ('lower') and historical ('higher') criticism on your behalf would do you well.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Teaspoons



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I was academically trained as an historian, so I'm quite familiar with the field, lol.

As for the texts themselves, I would suggest that you have a look at Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Dr. Richard Bauckham. Your textual criticism perspective is a bit out of date.

Are you claiming that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is an authentic text that relates events that actually took place? Or merely trying to deflect my argument by changing the subject?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I was academically trained as an historian, so I'm quite familiar with the field, lol.

As for the texts themselves, I would suggest that you have a look at Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Dr. Richard Bauckham. Your textual criticism perspective is a bit out of date.

Are you claiming that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is an authentic text that relates events that actually took place? Or merely trying to deflect my argument by changing the subject?


Oh dear. An academically trained historian. May I ask what degree in history you hold? And from which university? By being academically trained, what do you mean? Odd for a historian to claim Bible is historically accurate, that's all.

I quoted from the given gospel in response to a post by another person in the thread who asked about citations about Jesus killing people. I don't really believe any of this crap. It's a collection of 2nd century soap operas and hold about as much water as the Arthurian legends and Don Quijote or Ali Baba and his Fourty Thieves. Or James Bond or X-Men for that matter. It's all bollocks. The Church and the kings of Europe have founded their seats of power, their kingdoms and empires-- on myths and bollocks. And why? Because 'The Book of Books' in the hands of the Pope or some priest gives them 'divine rights' to stand above the law and do whatever they please:

en.wikipedia.org...

The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: intro



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
PRWeb is a press release site where literally EVERYONE can write and submit a "press release". No one asks about the validity etc.

Give me 15 mins and I write a press release that a UFO landed with Jesus. Be assured I am very good at writing : ) Just saying don't trust what you read on the internet.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
PRWeb is a press release site where literally EVERYONE can write and submit a "press release". No one asks about the validity etc.

Give me 15 mins and I write a press release that a UFO landed with Jesus. Be assured I am very good at writing : ) Just saying don't trust what you read on the internet.


Now that's interesting. I did think straight away that this was simply too good to be true. It does ring quite perfectly in harmony with the consensus of the bulk of atheists arguing against Biblical authenticity.

Good info



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
This does not seem clear to me. Is he claiming they wrote the new testimant or is the claim they just passed around rumors? The first case sounds very unlikely but second is plausable. It makes no sense to me to think it was psychological warfair. If anything a person going around trying to discredit anothers beleifs is far more psychological effects than falsifying an entire religion.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Aural

Yah. Desception sucks....



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Perhaps, the article is true for most parts of the Bible.

Ironically, even in the Bible, Jesus never introduced himself as "Jesus" but only as the "Son of Man"

We only read "Jesus" saying "I am Jesus" to Paul who is a Roman citizen, coincidence??

This is what I think:

- The majority of NT is possibly a Roman fabrication with apostle Paul as the central figure (The False Prophet, whether he's real or not).
- Paul strived for absolute subservience to governing authorities (this is definitely our guy!)
- "Jesus" is an invented name.

However:

- I could not deny the "Son of Man" whose teachings are still within the boundaries of sound logic. This is mostly found in the Book of John in the Bible.
- the "Son of Man" defied authorities and religious laws of their day and did not preach subservience to governing authorities but rather defiance to the point of death - if defiance brings greater good.

Conclusion:

- Only the Book of John from NT is the untainted Christian material. It's only a small percent of the whole NT!
edit on 22-7-2014 by johndeere2020 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
First step of project bluebeam: some archeological (or other) finding that discredits major religions.

So it begins.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vortiki
First step of project bluebeam: some archeological (or other) finding that discredits major religions.

So it begins.



It won't take me archeological digs to figure it out.

I am a Christian for over 20 years. I actually found right in the Bible a curious pattern which Jesus never introduced himself as Jesus in the Gospels in the flesh.

But Jesus does so, post ascension to a Roman Citizen called Paul. In such circumstances that the "Son of Man" warned would be present with false prophets. I found it extremely suspicious.

WHat more, many of teachings of Paul were similar to mysticism which can be ascribed to occult.

Whoever tampered with the Bible sure left some clues. Only the Book of John in NT I think can be trusted and most of the Gospels. Jesus did not teach absolute subservience to worldly authorities (which the Roman/Jew Paul taught!). To Jesus or more closely, the "Son of Man" taught that laws could be broken if it brought greater good.

edit on 22-7-2014 by johndeere2020 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

One more time Seraph?




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
To all you guys who say Jesus never introduced himself other than in the Conversion of Paul. You seem to forget what's possibly the oldest book in the NT. A certain controversial book some refer to as the Apocalypse. Revelation, right?

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches [U: congregations, no churches existed at the time]. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” ESV

You seem to have forgotten that part. And that's what's messed up with the NT, the chronology is all arse over tits. Had the books been in chronological order, books like the Apocalypse and some of the letters would come first, while Acts, Paul and the gospels would come at the end. When you reorganise the NT according to when the books came about, the Roman deception becomes evident, and the books in question reveal themselves as the perfect fulfillments of Revelation's prophecies.

To me there are only Two truely sacred books in the Bible. Genesis and John's Apocalypsis. The rest of the books belongs together with a bunch of other codexies in the library needed to understand those two books. The Apocalypse says there will be a worldwide religion worshipping a Messiah who was killed but came back to life as their saviour and god. Sounds familiar? Church and Christianity is Beast, Babylon and clearly nothing but disguised Mithraism. However, putting the Gospel and Paul in BEFORE the prophecy would sort of leave them in the prophecy's shadow. Remember Jesus saying "Get thee behind me Satan"? Was he talking about his books perhaps?
edit on 23-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Note in quote+ punchline to the § after



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

It continually amazes me how much confirmation bias plays a part in peoples cognitive processes. There are literally pages and pages and pages of information not only in this thread, but in other threads here (linked herein, even) that completely debunk atwills theory, as well as scholarly rebuttals written by people who don't even believe in a historical Jesus but have punched so many holes in Atwill's theories only cranks take them seriously. Yet nobody reads any of it, because "fake jesus". Just goes to prove you can present the most inscrutable proof possible to someone, if they refuse to believe it you are wasting your time.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself."

I am Guilty of this far too often.
edit on 24-7-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
57
<< 34  35  36   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum