Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

reply to post by budski


I have research history, I know the ancient stories about the so call Messiah from the old text, is a reason why the ancient Israelis never recognized Jesus as their Messiah, but then again Christianity is such a very influential religion this days.

And yes I agree with the OP opening, Jesus was an invention, is only truth in the harts of the believers and those that had found a way to profit from religion.

reply to post by budski


There is really nothing to all this. Its certainly not the work of anything that could be called an historian. In fact I will go so far as to say its stupid.

To me, this doesnt make sense. The Ceasars thought of themselves as Gods, why on earth would they want to make up a religion that takes away from themselves? And in fact, they made it a point to continue to persecute Jews and the Christians that the article said the Romans invented. If the Ceasars had that big of an ego I highly doubt that they would be willing to detract from that over some very small squirmishes that erupted and were put down by the time the historical Jesus had appeared.

I personally believe that the author of the article that was mentioned has just read to much into Josephus and is looking for something, an agenda if you will. Kind of like what some of the Evangelicals did in the "Great Awakenings" here in America by looking and trying to find prophecy that went hand in hand with each other in the old and new testament in order to prove the world was ending.

Needless to say, I would like to here what the author has to say on the historical Jesus. Sometimes in here something we dont want to listen to we learn something new.

dizzie56
To me, this doesnt make sense. The Ceasars thought of themselves as Gods, why on earth would they want to make up a religion that takes away from themselves? And in fact, they made it a point to continue to persecute Jews and the Christians that the article said the Romans invented. If the Ceasars had that big of an ego I highly doubt that they would be willing to detract from that over some very small squirmishes that erupted and were put down by the time the historical Jesus had appeared.

I personally believe that the author of the article that was mentioned has just read to much into Josephus and is looking for something, an agenda if you will. Kind of like what some of the Evangelicals did in the "Great Awakenings" here in America by looking and trying to find prophecy that went hand in hand with each other in the old and new testament in order to prove the world was ending.

Needless to say, I would like to here what the author has to say on the historical Jesus. Sometimes in here something we dont want to listen to we learn something new.

I'd dispute that claim.
Some of the Ceasars thought of themselves as belonging to the pantheon of gods, but not necessarily gods themselves, and indeed being feted as a god does not mean that a person really believes that they are in fact a god.
Becoming ill or being assassinated would seem to undermine a claim to godhood as well.

Regardless, the conversation on the first page about the message being more important than the man himself (jesus) has some merit, although I don't doubt that many who call themselves christians would dispute this.
It's also probably true to say that if indeed it were the case that jesus was a fictional character, it would undermine at least 2 of the worlds major religions, and therein lies the problem with addressing anything of this nature: if a belief system is undermined it also undermines everything about a persons life when they have invested heavily into a belief system.

In an interview, Joe Atwill will say that Jesus was a fictional character but in the book, Caesar's Messiah, he makes plenty of provision for his being an actual person.

"Made-up" things about Jesus would be things like saying, "Render unto Caesar . . ."

I recommend reading the book because if nothing else, it is a good prepper on Josephus and the history of the events in Galilee in the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans.

In reply to the directly above post, The Caesar in question, Titus, did believe he was a god.

Here he is depicted going through the ceremony of his presentation as god.

reply to post by budski

It's also probably true to say that if indeed it were the case that jesus was a fictional character, it would undermine at least 2 of the worlds major religions, and therein lies the problem with addressing anything of this nature: if a belief system is undermined it also undermines everything about a persons life when they have invested heavily into a belief system.

And that my friend is at the very crux of the matter.

Not only does it undermine everything a hell of a lot of individuals have invested in it also undermines the very foundations of our societies.
Regardless of our individual faith it is impossible to deny that Christianity has helped shape and define our laws and cultures and collective psyche.
And it's undeniable that Islam penetrates every aspect of Islamic life.

If Jesus didn't exist or his divinity proven false then it brings into question the very fundamentals upon which 'Western', 'Orthodox' and Islamic societies were founded.

On the other hand, it could indeed force people in to putting the message first - and to be honest, I've never bought into the 'your reward is after you die' bollocks, but that's just my personal take on things.

Freeborn
reply to post by budski

 

It's also probably true to say that if indeed it were the case that jesus was a fictional character, it would undermine at least 2 of the worlds major religions, and therein lies the problem with addressing anything of this nature: if a belief system is undermined it also undermines everything about a persons life when they have invested heavily into a belief system.

And that my friend is at the very crux of the matter.

Not only does it undermine everything a hell of a lot of individuals have invested in it also undermines the very foundations of our societies.
Regardless of our individual faith it is impossible to deny that Christianity has helped shape and define our laws and cultures and collective psyche.
And it's undeniable that Islam penetrates every aspect of Islamic life.

If Jesus didn't exist or his divinity proven false then it brings into question the very fundamentals upon which 'Western', 'Orthodox' and Islamic societies were founded.

On the other hand, it could indeed force people in to putting the message first - and to be honest, I've never bought into the 'your reward is after you die' bollocks, but that's just my personal take on things.

To me this is another aspect of social control, and nothing else: "Behave yourself, and you'll live forever, but if you're bad you'll also live forever, but will suffer through it".
It doesn't make sense to me, except maybe for sado-masochists.

Freeborn

I've never bought into the 'your reward is after you die' bollocks, but that's just my personal take on things.

Its not reward after you die.
You have this life, but there is also a life to come which will be eternal,
and only Jesus can reward you that thru His Shed Blood and His Mighty Grace

Angelic Resurrection

Freeborn

I've never bought into the 'your reward is after you die' bollocks, but that's just my personal take on things.

Its not reward after you die.
You have this life, but there is also a life to come which will be eternal,
and only Jesus can reward you that thru His Shed Blood and His Mighty Grace

Why would you think that? No one knows what happens when we die. What you have wrote stems from myths and stories... Not facts.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


A belief system is fair enough, but it is your belief system, and is not fact.

Logarock
reply to post by budski

 

There is really nothing to all this. Its certainly not the work of anything that could be called an historian. In fact I will go so far as to say its stupid.

Are we talking about the Bible or this article ?
Your statement seems to apply for either.

i think jesus was the son of cleopatra. he was the last pharaoh of egypt. it is assumed by some scholars that julius caesar was his father, however, i don't believe he was his birth father. just like with joseph, i think julius was his surrogate father. his egyptian name was Esa or Esu or Isa, depending on which account you read. his official roman name was caesarian. the tradition of the virgin birth is not related to the woman being a virgin, but the impregnation being without intercourse. in effect, artificial insemination. jesus was artificially inseminated into cleo's womb. he was the heir apparent of the roman empire due to his adoption by julius, the egyptian empire via cleopatra, and israel via his ptolemy line to king david.
he had so many targets painted on him, it's amazing he wasn't dead before he was even born.

Anyone seen the movie V for Vendetta?
The mantra "you cannot kill an idea" fits here.
Its the message that survives. The indominable human spirit.

Was Jesus real? Sure. Someone along the line stood their ground against the mighty Roman Empire and said no. This isn't in question. There lies the source of your myth.

Yes, the same myth is echoed over and over. Itis a message that WORKS.

We could use another Christ right about now.

reply to post by undo


christianity is all just one big joke.
I'm glad us British do ont care about this crap like americans do.
To all you religous people.
What do you say about the Watchers in the old testament and the birth of Noah?? No such thing things as "angels" and "demons" like you all get brainwashed with, they were real groups of living beings, like the old testament says.

SKUNK2
reply to post by undo

 

christianity is all just one big joke.

i also think he was the sumerian God Ea (pronounced A-yah), known in the old testament as Hayah (pronoucned A-yah) . His claims to fame are 1) he created homo sapiens and gave them procreation (knowledge), 2) he warned the sumerian Noah about the impending black sea flood, 3) and he confused the languages at Babel. The rest of the events, or most of them anyway, were the deeds of the sumerian "god" Enlil, who hated the homo sapien species, decreed the flood, and spent most of the old testament killing them off in various gruesome ways.

reply to post by budski

To me this is another aspect of social control, and nothing else: "Behave yourself, and you'll live forever, but if you're bad you'll also live forever, but will suffer through it".

Again, I agree.
It's used as a tool to control the masses.
Accept what little is given to you in this life and your reward will come in the after life.
Bollocks to that, I want my fair and equal slice of the pie in the here and now - if there is an after life judge me on my acts and deeds and if I'm found wanting well so be it - but it's down to me, I don't need to hide behind anything - to quote a wise man "the devil didn't make me do it, I did it - whatever I did" - the whole quote is far better but got to be mindful of T&C.

People find it easier to accept life's injustices and inequalities if there is a belief in something better after they die, and that is exploited by those with the power and influence.
Take that belief away and I suspect people may not be as easy to manipulate and control.

reply to post by Freeborn


the devil is likely a little part of a strand of DNA that makes you a member of the procreative mammalian species known as homo sapiens. sin, as a concept, was originally Enlil's accusation against procreative humans. in other words, it literally isn't your fault. however, once you know your procreative tendencies are considered sin, the gig is up. and that's the accusation. whatever we were before we became homo sapiens, we didn't procreate. we multiplied via cloning of some kind. the addition of mammalian procreation, made us into aggressive, territorial animals. so all sin goes back to that one thing -- procreation. yeah......

"and adam knew his wife and she begat"
modern translation--- adam and eve had sex and she had a child.

the tree of knowledge = procreation. before that, they didn't realize they were naked because they weren't sexual. they reproduced via cloning and didn't need a sex drive apparently. but when they finally had a sex drive, they suddenly noticed (saw) each other's nakedness for the first time. and because they were procreative, for the first time females had pain in childbirth. it's so obvious once you know what you're looking at.

sex screwed us up. lol pun intended.

I always thought that the ambivalent atitude of the Jews towards Jesus confirmed that this was a real person. That they considered him just an ordinary man, not a Messiah, not a prophet. Some Jewish sects however, do regard Jesus as one of their own.

reply to post by SKUNK2


How untrue this is.
I'm quite sure there are true Christians in the UK, just as in the USA

budski

grandmakdw
Question:

How is the issue of the persecution of Christians by the Roman government solved in this equation?

If as you assert, the Romans invented Christianity to pacify the people then why turn around and kill thousands who convert?

If you read back very carefully you'll find that I made no assertions.
I say very carefully because you seem to be confusing me with the man who actually made assertions.

Ok..... then how does the man who actually made these assertions account for this conundrum?