Jesus wasn't crucified
ADR
> > More specifically, what event happened that appeared to be
> > the crucifixion?
Well you see, muslims think they have recieved some kind of divine message
from Allah in which he said Jesus wasnt crucified. In fact, this was a
gnostic belief that was known throughout Egypt and the middle east for a few
centuries before Muhammed decided to compile the myths into his religion. A
source for the story of Jesus not being crucified is the Nag Hammadi
scrolls. In, I think, the Gospel of Thomas the writer had Jesus speaking in
the first person, with the wording nearly exactly the same as that we find
in the Quran. The Quranic version seems to be lifting the story off word for
word from a common tradition of this story in the area.
Of course, the gnostics did not believe Jesus was born of a virgin and died
for three days before resurrecting, all that was made by the Alexandrians
and their knowledge of the god Osiris. The Quran uses the virgin birth story
to make converting easier for christians. In fact, they are all wrong.
First, someone has to show how a virgin woman can give birth to a 'male'
child. Then they have to show an historical Jesus, as well as many
patriarchs, who did all the things that have been claimed.
Sub-Zero
previous ones with all the "added human stuff" deleted and more Divine stuff
from God added.
God wanted to clean up the mess man made. First of all...Muslims believe
that Jesus did not die on the cross...God did not want his Prophet to get
murdered so he put someone who looks like him in his place and raised Jesus
to Heaven. He will return, not as a Prophet, but as a leader of Islam to
finally die (as we must all do and he has not yet) and bring Islam to all
his misguided followers and the world...
Job (Ian Rohrbacher)
ADR wrote:
Many historians, including Josephus, have found record of the man known as
Jesus. There was also found a stone engraving about Pontius Pilate and a man
named Jesus. It's safe to say, from a historical perspective, that Jesus
existed.
cthulu
question seems to be: "What was he?"
On 09 May 1999 22:26:37 PDT, "Job (Ian Rohrbacher)"
ADR
thought he was more than he was?
Aaron-Dirk Boyden
>
> Existed as what? A man born of a virgin, or a member of a jewish cult who
> thought he was more than he was?
A better question than many are willing to admit. It was not an
uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
Christianity. It's at least equally possible that there were one or
more of these Jesus characters, and perhaps one of them was involved in
cult activity, and subsequent Christians, coming across various mentions
of some Jesus person assumed they must refer to their god, and
interpreted the references in light of that assumption.
In any event, even assuming there was one unique cult leader who
inspired the rise of Christianity, it is true as you suggest that the
question of whether there was a miracle-working son of God about at the
time is another matter. As the Romans would have said, "I would not
believe such a story were it told to me by Cato."
--
---
Aaron Boyden
"It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence." W. K. Clifford
chris...@my-dejanews.com
"Sub-Zero" <subze...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> ok.......Muhammad wasn't founding an original religion, just a
revision of
> previous ones with all the "added human stuff" deleted and more
Divine stuff
> from God added.
>
> God wanted to clean up the mess man made. First of all...Muslims
believe
get
> murdered so he put someone who looks like him in his place and raised
Jesus
> to Heaven. He will return, not as a Prophet, but as a leader of Islam
to
> finally die (as we must all do and he has not yet) and bring Islam to
all
> his misguided followers and the world...
>
>
Do you not think that people would have noticed if it had not actually
been Jesus on the cross? He was captured by a so called friend,
surrounded by friends who had been with him for several years. Do you
not think they would have noticed that it was a different person?
And also, why would God want to put another person in Jesus' place? If
he did not want it to happen why did he not just send a bolt of
lightning down to strike the roman guards! Why swap another person
into his place? What evidence is there that God has ever done this
before? This theory really does not stand up to much thought.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
shawn
Jesus what was going to happen. He used this to trick the devil, then
the devil went out thinking he had no worries and he began his deception
at this time, thinking that Jesus would not return, and he used this to
turn people against God and Jesus. He used the old adage of - "Well if
God kills his own son....."
The New Testament has to be taken as a whole, and you must use common
sense, and the fact of what the education level of that day was, also
about the facts of not having all the luxuries of today.
shawn
Navali
THE WORLD'S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIORS BY KERSEY GRAVES. (1875-1860)
(Christianity Before Christ). Startling and extraordinary revelations in
religious history, which disclose the oriental origin of all the doctrines,
principles, precepts, & miracles of the Christian New Testament & furnishing
a key for unlocking many of its sacred mysteries, besides comprising the
history of 16 heathen crucified gods. 436 pp. ISBN 0-7873-0354-2 Paper
$25.50
WAS JESUS INFLUENCED BY BUDDHISM? BY DWIGHT GODDARD. (1927) A
comparative study of the lives and thoughts of Gautama and Jesus.
Including a glossary & important books about the life & teachings of
Gautama, The Buddha. 251 pp. ISBN 0-7873-0350-X Paper $15.50
THE UNKNOWN LIFE OF CHRIST BY DR. RAYMOND W. BERNARD. (1966) Vol. 4 of
The Essene-Jesus-Apollonius Series. The Essene Teacher of Righteousness,
Apollonius of Tyana, who in the year 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicea was
replaced by a fictitious messiah called "Jesus Christ" - the greatest fraud
in history. 66 pp. ISBN 0-7873- Paper $9.00
THE WORLD"S SAVIORS BY REV. CHARLES H. VAIL. (1913) Analogies In Their
Lives Examined And Interpreted; A Study In Comparative Religions. Contents:
Messianic Prophecies; Miraculous Births; Analogous Incidents of Childhood;
Death And Resurrection; Analogous Forms and Ceremonies; Origin And Meaning
Of Analogies; Conclusion. 213 pp. ISBN 0-7873-0906-0 Paper $15.00
PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN CREEDS: THEIR ORIGIN & MEANING BY EDWARD
CARPENTER. (1920) The subject of religious origins is a fascinating one, as
the great multitude of books upon it illustrates. Contents: Solar Myths &
Christian Festivals; Symbolism & Vegetation Magic; Magicians, Kings & Gods;
Rites of Expiation & Redemption; Pagan Initiations & The Second Birth;
Myth of the Golden Age; Savior-God & Virgin Mother; Ritual Dancing;
Sex-Taboo; Genesis of Christianity; Conclusion; Appendix. 319 pp. ISBN
0-7873-0147-7 Paper $18.50
APOLLONIUS THE NAZARENE - MYSTERY MAN OF THE BIBLE BY DR. RAYMOND W.
BERNARD. A startling historical discovery based on ancient records rescued
from the Alexandrian Library prior to its having been burned by the Roman
Churchmen, concerning the unknown world teacher of the first century, leader
and teacher of the Essenes who first introduced among them the Gospel
of Chrishna, Hundu Savior of 3000 B.C. He translated from the Sanskrit into
the Aramaic as the original gospel (Diegesis) which three centuries later,
was elaborated into the four Christian gospel by Roman churchmen at the
Council of Nicea, held in the year 325 A.D. 57 pp. ISBN 0-7873-1211-8 Paper
$11.00
FROM CHRISHNA TO CHRIST BY DR. RAYMOND W. BERNARD. Contains many
photographs from the rare book, "Monumental Christianity" by Lundy. This
unique volume gives the true history of the Original Gospel of the Lord of
Love and the Master of compassion, from which the Four Christian Gospels
were derived. A
New Light on the Origin of Christianity. It is the purpose of this to
show that the origins of the savior of Ancient India, which he anunciated
to his followers on the banks of the Ganges 5,000 years ago, and that these
doctrines were introduced to the west during the first half of the first
century by Apollonius of Tyana, who received them from his Himalayan
teacher, Iarchus, during his studies in the Far East. 148 pp. ISBN
0-7873-1212-6 Paper $15.50
THE GENESIS OF CHRISTIANITY BY PROFESSOR HILTON HOTEMA. (1967) Hotema
started to Sunday School - he went regularly until he was fifteen. At
twelve, he began the study of the Bible in earnest. He became a preacher and
after preaching in scores of different states, finally found that the truth
was not being given to the people. He began comparing the various Bible and
religious books and found many startling facts which were never given to the
people from the pulpit - never taught in public schools, nor in Sunday
Schools. He found the average preacher knew little about the history of the
bible, and was shouting about things that were not true. He discovered why
the Roman Empire was plunged into mental darkness with the birth of
Christianity. That darkness was necessary to help the Priesthood frighten
people, to keep the Priesthood in high places, and to drive the multitude
into the church, for the sake of profit and power. He shows why Moses could
not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible - the
account of his own demise - Deut. 34). 80 pp. ISBN 0-7873-0425-5 Paper
$13.00
THE GOSPELS AND THE GOSPEL BY G. R. S. MEAD. (1902) A study in the
most recent results of the lower and higher criticism. A book not to be
found in the average library, public or private. "Press not the breasts of
the Holy Writ too hard, lest they yield blood rather than milk." - Bishop
Ulrich of Augburg. This author commands respect from the students of
comparative religion. Contents: Preamble; a Glimpse of the History of the
Evolution of Biblical Criticism; The "Word of God" and the "Lower
Criticism"; The Nature of the Tradition of the Gospel Autographs;
Autobiographical Traces in the Existing Documents; An Examination of the
Earliest Outer Evidence; The Present Position of the Synoptical
Problem; The Credibility of the Synoptists; The Johannine Problem;
Summary of the Evidence From All Sources; The Life-Side of Christianity;
The Gospel of the Living Christ 215 pp. ISBN 0-7873-0602-9 Paper $16.50
THE BIBLE OF BIBLES - TWENTY SEVEN DIVINE REVELATIONS BY KERSEY
GRAVES. (1879) Containing a description of twenty-seven bibles, & an
exposition of 2,000 Biblical errors in science, history, morals, religion, &
principle personages of
the Christian Bible, & an examination of their doctrines. 440 pp. ISBN
0-7873-0725-4 Paper $27.50
THE CHRISTIAN CREED - ITS ORIGIN & SIGNIFICANCE BY C. W. LEADBEATER.
The Christian Creed; Occult Investigation; Council of Nicea; Athanasian
Creed; Origin of the Creed; Egyptian Rubric; third Tendency; Teaching of
the Christ; Three Tendencies; Creed of the Council; Materializing Mania;
Three Logoi; First Outpouring; Evolution of Consciousness; The Certainty
of Immortality; The Date of Easter; Pre-Christian Crosses; etc. 109 pp.
ISBN 0-7873-0541-3 Paper $9.50
CHRIST'S THREE DAYS IN HELL + CASE OF THE MISSING MESSIAH BY ALVIN
BOYD KUHN. Two previously unpublished mss. By this famous author which we
were fortunate to have offered to us by his daughter for publication.
Christian theology from the start found itself impaled on its affirmation
of the Biblical declaration that there is no other way to salvation than
through the historical Jesus and him crucified. It was on this thesis
logically confronted with the obligation of effecting some link between
this Savior and all earth"s antecedent dead, so that those also might meet,
know and profit by the grace of salvation. The Gospels of the New Testament
are not literary productions of the first century, A.D., but are re-scripts
of old,
old books of the Egyptians. Plus biographical sketch and photo of Dr.
Kuhn.
91 pp. ISBN 0-7873-1188-X Paper $14.50
--------
chris...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7h7j9h$l3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
ADR
Navali <nav...@cybersurf.com> wrote in message
news:7h8m8m$jr1$1...@iceman.tac.net...
> http://www.healthresearchbooks.com/4.htm
>
> THE WORLD'S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIORS BY KERSEY GRAVES. (1875-1860)
Ive heard of this rubbish. Its 19th century jibberish which invented many of
the quotes and stories. The fact is, the crucifixtion story was created to
reunite the passover festivities and the old resurrection of the harvest
deity festivities, whether that be Osiris or Tammuz (Thomas the (Phoenician)
twin of Osiris). Even in Jeremiah it states that jewish women had their own
deity, the Queen of Heaven (planet Venus) which was obviously the goddess
Easter/Ishtar, and that jewish women would bake cakes of bread to her, which
we call 'hot cross buns' today in England and much of Europe.
CHRIS C
Two archaeolgists having a drink in the hotel lobby in Cairo.
archaeologist n°1: "Any success this season?"
archaeologist n°2: "Yes, a matter of fact I did have."
arch. 1: "Well...?"
arch. 2: "I found an interesting grave outside Jerusalem."
arch. 1: "Old?"
arch.2: "Roman occupation.."
arch.1: "And what was in it?"
arch.2: "The remains of a man called Jezus of Nazareth..."
arch.1: "But... but.. (stutter) That... that's a great discovery!!!"
arch.2: "No... it must be a hoax, everyone knows he went to Heaven..."
;-)
chris C
>Existed as what? A man born of a virgin, or a member of a jewish cult who
>thought he was more than he was?
>
Larry Swain
> uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
> unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
> Christianity.
HMMM, seems rather a poor method to me. Josephus mentions James describing him
as the brother of Jesus who some say is the Messiah-you know, sounds an awful
lot like what the Christians were saying about their Jesus....and of course the
Christian sources could all be lieing, but many of them state specifically that
their authors either saw this Jesus in the flesh or they know those who did see
this Jesus in the flesh, and what evidence do we have to offer to say that
these eye witnesses weren't really eyewitnesses other than our NEED to see them
in this light? No, regardless of who you think Jesus was, no scholar worth his
salt doubts that there was a man named Jesus whose followers started a whole
new religion and your arguments here don't really hold water to the contrary.
ljs
Aaron-Dirk Boyden
>
> > A better question than many are willing to admit. It was not an
> > uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
> > unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
> > Christianity.
>
> HMMM, seems rather a poor method to me. Josephus mentions James describing him
> as the brother of Jesus who some say is the Messiah-you know, sounds an awful
> lot like what the Christians were saying about their Jesus....and of course the
> Christian sources could all be lieing, but many of them state specifically that
> their authors either saw this Jesus in the flesh or they know those who did see
> this Jesus in the flesh, and what evidence do we have to offer to say that
> these eye witnesses weren't really eyewitnesses other than our NEED to see them
> in this light? No, regardless of who you think Jesus was, no scholar worth his
> salt doubts that there was a man named Jesus whose followers started a whole
> new religion and your arguments here don't really hold water to the contrary.
On your first point, it is the consensus of scholars that the references
to Jesus in Josephus were tampered with by Christian copyists. Most of
them think that there were Jesus references before the Christian
tampering, but it's generally agreed that those references were
elaborated to more closely match what the Christians thought they should
be. Thus, the appearance of close match in Josephus in no way
undermines my hypothesis, since the match can be entirely explained by
Christian tampering with the text.
On your second point, I do not suggest that the Christian sources were
lying. They believed in Christianity, presumably, and according to what
Christian tradition said happened, there must have been witnesses.
Thus, in claiming that there were witnesses, they surely believed what
they were saying.* That's different from their having had evidence; if
those witnesses were actually around, why didn't any of them write about
what happened, or mention it to anyone who wasn't a Christian?
*Similarly, I do not suggest that those responsible for altering the
Josephus texts were committing forgery in the modern sense. Presumably,
they believed Josephus had gotten the story wrong, and they wished to
correct his errors. Standards of scholarship have varied greatly in
different times and places, and the modern standards which would condemn
such "corrections" would have been considered bizarre in most historical
cultures.
Quentin David Jones
On the contrary, several scholars have
argued that Jesus Christ was a spiritual
archetype (to Paul and other early writers)
and that originally there was no man Jesus
at all; including:
Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Who is This King of Glory
G.A. Wells - The Jesus Legend (and others)
Earl Doherty - http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm
(this last Web site is must for seekers)
The key issue is that for about a century
after the alleged time of Jesus, no-one
mentions the man Jesus, the miracles, Joseph
Mary, Judas, Bethlehem, Peter etc. etc.
It took a century or more for the focus to
shift from a spiritual archetype (centered
on Iasius the founder of the mysteries) to
a supposed Jesus who lived just decades before.
Trouble is, the closer ones gets to the time
of Jesus, the less there is to find!
Paul went to Jerusalem and mentions not a word
about Calvary, the tomb, etc, he says nothing
about meeting people who 'walked with Jesus'
in fact Paul and the 1st century writers not
only omit to mention a man Jesus, they clearly
have never heard of him.
The Gospel stories (not to mention Acts)
do not appear till over a century after
the events were supposed to have happened,
funny how no-one noticed these momentous
events when they happened (Pliny, Philo etc.
say nothing about Jesus).
Quentin David Jones.
Larry Swain wrote in message <373896B9...@wmich.edu>...
Christopher Forbes
anything about Jesus, and (b) there is no evidence that anyone thought he
was a real person, rather than a "spiritual archetype" or similar, for more
than a century.
(a) is simply false: though Paul didn't say much, he DID say
enough for it to be very clear that he believed Jesus to be an actual
person, "born of a woman, born under the Law" (Galatians 4.4).
(b) depends on the Gospels being written after the end of the first
century, and that's simply not a view experts in the field take seriously.
The Gospels were written somewhere between the early to mid 60s AD and the
early 90s: Mark probably first, Matthew, Luke and John an indeterminate
period later. But almost beyond reasonable doubt, in the first century.
So the claim that there's no evidence that anyone thought Jesus was
actually a man until more than a century later can only be made by ignoring
the evidence of Paul, and dating the Gospels absurdly late.
As for the Josephus evidence, there is a strong consensus that,
although Josephus has been tampered with, we can be pretty clear what he
really wrote before the tampering. Remove the obviously Christian
interpolations, and you have a number of claims which, though they are broadly
consistent with the Gospel picture, would not satisfy any prospective
Christian "tamperer". On all this see J.P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew", vol. 1,
pp. 56ff., for a meticulous discussion with full references.
If you want to claim that Jesus is "actually" a spiritual archetype,
go right ahead! But don't pretend that this religious claim is based on
history, because it isn't. If you want to see two quite good books, written
by real historians who are NOT Christians, try either Michael Grant's
"Jesus", or Geza Vermes' "Jesus the Jew". Neither is a perfect book, but
they are both real historians, arguing from the evidence.
Quentin David Jones
Sorry to tire you out, Chris,
but let me make a few more comments...
Christopher Forbes wrote in message <7hartm$i...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>...
> (a) is simply false: though Paul didn't say much, he DID say
>enough for it to be very clear that he believed Jesus to be an actual
Really? in all his voluminous writings
where he goes on about Christ Jesus
in all sorts of ways, yet even you admit
that he "didn't say much" - what an
understatement! Amongst all his writings
painting Christ in an archetypal light
moving on the spiritual plane, all you
can point to are a few references, which
arguably refer to a historical person.
Doesn't this very fact strike you as strange?
Paul goes to Jerusalem and does not
mention anything about Calvary or the
tomb? He says nothing about meeting
with those who know Jesus, he shows
no interest at all in the events of
Jesus life. How on earth can you say
>very clear that he believed Jesus to be an actual ?
To reach this conclusion, you have to
ignore all the very many references
(often in Mystery language) to Christ
as spiritual archetype, and focus on a
very small number of references which
seem to show a historical Jesus - that
is not arguing from the evidence, it
is seeking evidence to match a fixed
pre-conception.
Next, consider the example given:
>person, "born of a woman, born under the Law" (Galatians 4.4).
The context is as follows:
"God _sent_ forth his Son, born of (a)
woman, born under the law,
5 in order that he [God] might redeem
those who were under the law, that we
might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has
_sent_ forth the spirit of his Son into
our hearts"
Firstly, the 2nd 'sent' above is used to
refer to sending the _spirit_ of the son,
the 1st can just as easily be seen in a
spiritual light, particularly when the
word for 'born' is 'ginomai' which is not
the standard form but has a broader meaning
of “to become, to come into existence.”
Verse 7 continues to make it clear Paul
has a spiritual meaning:
“You are therefore no longer a slave but
a son, and if a son, then also by God’s
own act an heir.”
Now if Paul is thinking about a historical
Jesus when he speaks of freedom and becoming
sons, why does he go on to call these things
an act of God? But if we interpret this to
mean the revelation of the Son as a spiritual
reality then it all makes sense.
Furthermore "The International Critical
Commentary (Burton, Galatians)" notes that
the way the words are used means that there
is no temporal connection between the sending
and the rest - i.e. being born of woman and
being under the law are just two relevant
characteristics of the spiritual Christ.
As to a spiritual being being born
of woman - sure they could in those
days - Dionysus was, Iasius was etc.
And having connected Jesus with Isaiah
through being "under the law" he then
gave Jesus the Messiah attribute of
being born of woman.
Most importantly of all - if Jesus
was a historical person, why on earth
did Paul have to say he was born of
woman! When was the last time you
heard that said abou a historical
person?
In other words a close analysis of
this passage shows that Paul is not
talking about historical things at all,
only by excerpt tiny fragments and
interpreting them completely against
the grain (and ignoring all the evidence
which points the other way) can this
conclusion be reached.
Now consider the Gospels:
> (b) depends on the Gospels being written after the end of the first
The Gospels may have been written late
in the 1st century, but originally they
were written as Midrash (stories about
a well-known figure to expound a point
of view) about the mythical founder
of the Mysteries (Iasius) - not as history.
The events of Gospels cannot be found
in history (e.g. Herod massacre), and the
writers are clearly not eye-witnesses
to real events.
Near the begining of the 2nd century,
the first external references to Jesus
start to appear just as the Gospels
start to come into wider use and are
reformed to include the historical Jesus.
The problems with the Gospels as history
are well-known and are evidence for little.
I stand by my claim:
Hard evidence for anyone believing
Jesus to have been a real person
cannot be found till about a century
after the alleged events without recourse
to Christian wish-full thinking.
Quentin David Jones
ADR
> scripture specifically say that Jesus of Nazareth had a penis?
No, because Magdalene never got her words in.
Martin Stower
No, but the holy foreskin survived as a relic. Several of them, in
fact.
MartinS
dwsu...@bellsouth.net
<rjon...@cc.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
(clipped for brevity)
The term "woman" in scripture does not refer to the female of the
physical but to a type of person, "man" being the counterpart.
"Man" referred to those who were the creatures/creations of God in
mind and spirit. "Woman" refers to those who are not these
creatures/creations. "Woman" often refers to "fallen man-kind."
A woman may becomes "clean and pure" as a virgin, becoming acceptable
to God for the placement of His Seed, which causes the conception of
His Son in mankind/woman. In this one, a new spiritual creation
occurs; a new mind is begun; which is the "infant" Son of God. Because
this Son has come to man in the Word of and from the Living God, this
way of coming is named "anointing" causing the one receiving to be the
"Christian" or little one in the beginning, but Christ when "raised
up" to the fulness of mind and spirit which is the Creation of God in
mankind. The "woman" is transformed into the "man" who is the Creation
of God. The "bride" given this man, by God, is the "Jerusalem" from
"above" which is the new mind and spirit. These two become one and the
same, united in true "Holy" matrimony.
The man known as Jesus of Nazareth was first a "woman" being one
raised up by physical parents in the common teachings of these. Only
when learning from the teachings of David did he first become the son
of David by taking on this mind and spirit. When conceiving the
reality David conveyed in his word (the Key of David) this man entered
into a way of spirit in and by which he asked and received from the
Living God, continual and ongoing teachings (Jerusalem) which brought
the fulness of the mind and spirit of Christ into this man, into which
this man was "transformed."
The carnality of this man was not involved in this process. The
"works" this man did was of spirit; never of the physical.
Having gone through this way of transformation, he taught others of
this reality who also followed this way, being transformed into the
same Creation of God in mind and spirit, becoming Sons of God; Christs
of God.
This "image" and "concept" of the Son of God; the Christ; was
crucified by the words of those standing against this way of Christ.
The true image was destroyed from the minds of mankind as was this way
of Christ destroyed from the minds of mankind. Mankind fell away from
knowledge and understanding of this way of Christ; this way of
transformation by the "works" of the Living God.
The true "antichrist" are those who stand against this reality; this
way of transformation back into the Creation of God in mind and
spirit. The works of God are to return mankind back (re-penting) into
the Creation Adam was in mind and spirit. In order to do so, the mind
and spirit created by mankind; the fallen; must be removed and
destroyed.
Religions of man have distorted truth of this matter, covering up
truth with false religious doctrines. It was false religious doctrine
the man Jesus of Nazareth came against with his word and teachings.
Jesus of Nazareth spoke of reality he had known and experienced, as
many others of man before him had known and experienced. He was unique
in that he remained in this way until the works were completed and
finished, becoming the finished works of God which works are to "save"
mankind from the mind and spirit which came into Adam when separating
from God.
So also many events and occurences presented in scripture. These are
not the "true" as Paul knew, but "figures" of the true, being "figures
of speech."
The "virgin birth of Jesus" is a simple matter of spirit. The Seed of
God is the Word of God. This Word of God came into the mind of this
man, bringing the Son of God at the inception of this conception. The
"Son of God" is a type and kind of person in mind and spirit, being in
the likeness of God who is Spirit. This man was "raised up" from the
spiritual death of Adam in and by the works of God who resurrected
this mind and spirit in Jesus of Nazareth which was first in Adam. It
is called the "Holy Spirit" because it is of and from God, not man.
Jesus of Nazareth emptied himself of all teachings from fellow man
concerning God, making a place for the Word from God, which brought
Truth into his mind. In this, Jesus laid down the life man had taught
him to live and took up; began living; life in and by the principles
coming from God, being taught in great depths of knowledge and
understanding.
The evil one; the enemy of God; is the mind and spirit in man which is
not of God. Jesus struggled with his old mind and spirit until he
overcame the old; killing off the old; becoming whole in the mind and
spirit which is the Creation of God.
"Spirit" is merely the substance of the mind; "that" which has been
in-spired (built up within) or written/engraved in the walls of the
memory. To re-member is to bring from the store-house, the members of
knowledge and understanding which allow man to identify and understand
"that" which he faces. The mind is the "house" of scripture, as is
also the "earth."
Whether or not the physical body of this man was "crucified" is of no
importance. The physical body of man is predestined to die and rot
away. Life and death is of the spirit.
The apostles, especially Paul, addressed these matters of life and
death. Paul spoke in detail of his transformation; of the mind and
spirit of Christ.
Spiritual matters of God cannot be seen, known, nor understood by the
physical senses. Mankind makes feeble attempts to understand the
workings of the mind, in and by their own mind which is deficient in
knowledge and understanding of these matters. The "mind factories" of
man, manufacture, replicate and duplicate, their mind in others. This
is the reality of man making his (seed)bed with others of mankind,
receiving their seed instead of the Seed from God. This was the great
error of Adam who was warned to not allow any other to plant their
seed in his mind, which mind was the planting of God and His Seed; a
"garden" as opposed to the mind of fallen man which is, in comparison,
a wilderness where things (thoughts, ideas, concepts, beliefs) grow.
wild and uncontrolled.
Unless mankind knows and understands his destiny, both physically and
spiritually, he has no direction for his life, no specific goal for
his betterment. When he sees and understands ongoing life when
"passing on" from the physical body, he sees the need to know and
understand what life is. By need, man calls out to God, when knowing
truth concerning God, and his needs are met; his spiritual needs.
Such are the foundational truths concerning the matters of Christ; of
salvation by the works of the Living God. The greater and higher
knowledge and understanding of the principles of God are taught by the
Living God, in and by which man is "raised up" in these teachings, to
maturity of the mind and spirit which is the Creation of God, which is
the promise of God to create in each and every one who sincerely seeks
this mind and spirit. To these, Christ comes, in and by this true way.
In these, the evil one of mind and spirit is taken out; killed off.
The "crucifying of Christ anew" is to attack and attempt to destroy
the image of the Christ and Son of God portrayed by the word of one
knowing Truth; one who is this same Christ and Son of God as Jesus of
Nazareth was one of many. The antichrist is the one who crucifies for
this one stands against this way of Christ coming into mankind; Christ
in you. The weapons of this warfare are not carnal, but are spiritual;
of the mind; which substance is issued or sent forth in words as ships
carrying or conveying cargo/substance. These are the "waters" of
scripture, the "sea" of mankind, compared to the waters from above,
which refers to the Word and teachings of God; from God.
In and by Judaism, carnally minded religion gave birth to what is now
named "Christianity." As the Jews await a "saviour" so do the
followers of "Christianity" in this day and hour. All are blind to the
truth; all give a deaf ear to truth; all remain spiritually dead
concerning the Spirit which is given man by the Living God.
It is now, however, the latter day in which the Living God is "pouring
out" His Spirit on all mankind, as Living water is poured out; the
waters from "above;" the higher ways and principles of God which
structure a life for man to live; the live God gives man in and by
this Spirit of promise.
In declaring he was the way; truth; and life; Jesus of Nazareth spoke
of himself as the Christ and Son of God; a spiritual being who had
come from God; who returns to God to dwell in peace, love and joy.
Those who truly follow him, follow the way in and by which he became
this person.
DW Suiter
M.C.Harrison
Quentin David Jones wrote in message <7hb0pj$23e$1...@ftp.curtin.edu.au>...
>
>> (b) depends on the Gospels being written after the end of the first
>
>The Gospels may have been written late
>in the 1st century, but originally they
>were written as Midrash (stories about
>a well-known figure to expound a point
>of view) about the mythical founder
>of the Mysteries (Iasius) - not as history.
Worth throwing a comment or two in at this point. What we refer to as the
Bible didn't exist until it was constructed during the Council of Nicea
under the active auspices of Emperor Constantine IIRC. This formed the basis
for the state religion to hold together the crumbling Roman Empire for as
long as possible, with a creed of self-sacrifice and duty to the state, and
drew heavily on several extant, non-christian religions such as Mithraic.
Thus, there are folk who predate the alleged events, who are dead ringers
for a historical Christ, e.g. virgin birth, crucifixion, born in a stable,
and so on.
Perhaps this was, indeed, Satan trying to undermine Christianity by going
back in time to create a parody of Christ, or we might prefer to think that
the story is older than Christ, and was merely used since the common people
were more familiar with Mithras and it fitted the theme well.
Other points to note, the name "Jesus" is not all that rare, and some bibles
carry the observation that Herod had at least two Jesus' in the cells at the
time of the alleged trial. One was called "Jesus Barabbas", but some
versions omit the forename (perhaps so as not to confuse True Believers?).
The name "Jesus Barabbas" is interesting for another reason, as "Bar" and
"Abba" translates (I gather) into "of the" and "Father" rather than being a
regular surname.
So when the trial is held, Herod offers to free one of the Jesus's and the
people apparently ask for "Jesus of the Father", who is then released. Maybe
Monty Python were not that far off when they have the Jews call out for all
sorts of people, in order to make fun of the romans who do not understand
the language. <fbg>
>The events of Gospels cannot be found
>in history (e.g. Herod massacre), and the
>writers are clearly not eye-witnesses
>to real events.
Yeah, one gospel is written to include a whole load of astrological
credentials that the aspiring demigod could be seen to require if you happen
to be into astrology. That's the one that mentions the three kings, and the
gifts of gold, mhyr and other occult materials for mystic reasons. Also, the
infant seems to have gotten about pretty sharp in order to meet the, by then
somewhat overly complicated, requirements for a messiah, e.g. has to come
out of Egypt, has to be born in a stable, etc, etc.
Whoever wrote that gospel was clearly into astrology and wanted to present
as much evidence as possible to satisfy the witches, warlocks and fortune
tellers that were pretty widespread in those times. Also, in order to meet
all the requirements, quite a lot of events have to be out of sequence, and
there is resulting doubt about when Christ was supposed to have been born,
any time within a decade or two for some events, and the events can't all
have been true. At Nicea, quite a lot of the conflicting data was removed so
that the story was consistent (you know, like when you and the co-defendants
meet up prior to the trial so that the various bogus aliases and so forth do
not immediately conflict.)
>The problems with the Gospels as history
>are well-known and are evidence for little.
Agreed. Whatever else one can say, there are definitely bits of evidence
that argue against the gospels, and not much to support them. It is valid to
consider the possibility that Christ existed as a person, and that all of
the events described took place as reported. It is also very valid indeed to
see the gospels as things constructed in order to create the basis for a
religion, particularly the bits to do with miracles, which can be
interpreted in several ways other than as literal accounts.
Or any number of positions in between, e.g. Christ existed, but as a Jewish
freedom fighter rather than as a messanaic figure.
Being a cynical read_between_the_lines type of person, I find it remarkably
easy to see what the orginal text was meant to mean, rather than what
fundamentalists read from it.
ADR
Frank Zeeb
> Does any scripture specifically say that Jesus of Nazareth had a penis?
As Jesus got circumcised on the eighth day according to Jewish law and
as his parents offered the offering due at the circumcision of a male
child (Luke 2,22-24) the answer is to the affirmative.
Greetings,
Frank
Larry Swain
those under dispute, why I chose it. Plenty of material on it in the
secondary literature. Thus, we do have at least one source that refers
to a Jesus connected to the Christians wherein that source is not
Christian nor received its information from Christians.
On my second point, I'm only argueing for a historical person named
Jesus connected with the Christians, not for anything about the
miracles, the incarnation, etc. So, if that helps....but we keep
running up against statements in the NT that say these people saw him,
touched him (such as the beginning of 1 John, such as Paul referring to
others such as Peter and James "the brother of our Lord" and so on),
further certain Jewish sources are thought to be references to Jesus too
and some scholars have dated these to the first century. And finally of
course we have the reports of the Romans who admittedly are getting
their information from the Christians, but don't seem to have a problem
with Jesus as an historical person.
You ask why didn't those witnesses write anything? Perhaps they did and
for some reason (oh, like persecutions, like the destruction of
Jerusalem etc) it was lost. We must also remember that this culture is
an oral culture and so Oral Tradition plays a much more important role
than a written tradition, hence they didn't write it down because they
passed it on orally. Further, if the traditions are in someway
historical, they did write it down: Mark wrote his gospel from Peter's
words, Matthew very early is attributed the gospel bearing his name,
John says he knew him and touched him and wrote at least the gospels and
the letters, Papias says he was a disciple of the disciples (and so say
Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) and they wrote down what they learned
from those disciples. In short, even when we remove the element of
faith, we're still left with a man behind it all. We may not know just
what he really taught, what he looked like, where he went, but few
scholars really doubt that there was a first century Jew in Palestine
who had a group of disciples and he taught them something, and they took
the ball and ran.
Larry Swain
Larry Swain
Quentin David Jones wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> On the contrary, several scholars have
> argued that Jesus Christ was a spiritual
> archetype (to Paul and other early writers)
> and that originally there was no man Jesus
> at all; including:
>
> Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Who is This King of Glory
> G.A. Wells - The Jesus Legend (and others)
> Earl Doherty - http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm
> (this last Web site is must for seekers)
>
I'm afraid I don't know the credentials of these "scholars", not that they may
not be right, but I study the field of the Roman Empire and I don't recall these
men being cited as authorities on early Christianity. Now your last one does on
his web page refer to some people who are authorities on early Christianity and
do belong to a particular group of scholars with a unique and interesting spin
Christian origins (not one of whom from their writings that I've read questions
the historicity of a man named Jesus who stands somewhere in the mists behind
the Christian movement.Second, there is a big difference between recognizing
that Paul's exalted Christ has very little to with Jesus the man and
extrapolating from that to the proposition that a historical Jesus didn't
exist. A very big step indeed.
Your key issue is rather interesting as well. Assuming we take the usual dates
(and there is some reason we shouldn't, but more on that another time) that
scholars posit for the life of Jesus and for the NT writings how you go from 33
(or so) CE to over a century before anyone mentions Jesus by name or writes
anything about him is a little far fetched to me. Paul's genuine writings are
dated from the late 40s to late 50s do place an empasis on Jesus' geneology, his
physical birth, his crucifixion, as well as mentioning this Peter character, and
others. Further, most scholars put Mark's gospel at about 68, making it 35
years after Jesus' death, well before your century mark, which seems to negate
your "over a century" remark. In fact the majority of the Guild place all the
writings which make up our current New Testament as being penned before 100, and
most make reference to Jesus the man that can be touched. Further, others
mention the same in the first or early part of the second century: Clement of
Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Polycarp, Josephus (see previous post) to
name a few.
As for Pliny's and Philo's failure to mention these things, that should come as
no surprise. Let's face an important fact, the Jesus movement at the time Pliny
is writing is pretty much a local concern and isn't important enough for him to
mention. As for Philo, even if he had heard of it in Alexandria, isn't going to
be concerned about it, he's too busy reconciling the Torah with Platonism to
bother about some itinerant in Palestine. But their failure to take note of it
doesn't mean that such a man didn't exist, the arguement from silence is
notoriously weak.
Larry Swain
Larry Swain
as those you wish to undermine.
Jonathan Stone
|> The problem Mr Jones, is that you have as much of a faith claim involved
|> as those you wish to undermine.
No archaeology here either. Followups set accordingly.
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
Larry Swain <x99s...@wmich.edu> wrote:
> [...] don't seem to have a problem with Jesus as an historical person.
I don't have a problem with Pliny the Younger as a historical person,
but that alone says fuck-all about him.
> [...] even when we remove the element of faith, we're still left
> with a man behind it all.
So what?
TheDavid
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNzoQLRz40he1RakNEQLwlACgv5HYHsDGNlCyAWG/pHp4ZRjLl2IAoL3B
Dcr00CmJz9EoIWaKvch5irPl
=KJcG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Aaron-Dirk Boyden
>
> Actually, the section in Josephus to which I referred is not one of
> those under dispute, why I chose it. Plenty of material on it in the
> secondary literature. Thus, we do have at least one source that refers
> to a Jesus connected to the Christians wherein that source is not
> Christian nor received its information from Christians.
There are only two alleged references to Jesus in Josephus, and they're
both in dispute. There may be a majority opinion in favor of their
having been at least based on actual references by Josephus, but there's
a difference between there being a majority opinion and the matter not
being under dispute at all.
Suzanne
Bud (the original) wrote in message <3738da9f.38692379@news-server>...
>On 09 May 1999 22:26:37 PDT, "Job (Ian Rohrbacher)"
><nifl...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Many historians, including Josephus, have found record of the man known as
>>Jesus. There was also found a stone engraving about Pontius Pilate and a man
>>named Jesus. It's safe to say, from a historical perspective, that Jesus
>>existed.
>
>
>Was one of them the man described in the Bible?
>
> Possibly.
>
Possibly?
>
Suzanne
mrsingerejohansson
could have imagined any one pretending to be Scholar using. First of all
there do exists written sources(not records) among them Josephus, giving
two essential information:
a) there did indead exist a person named Jesus(spelled in the way the
hebrews and Romans would have used at the time) that had at least one
brother with the same name as the Bible indicate that our Christian Jesus
had.
b) That person Jesus was cruzified during the same period as our Jesus was.
That is to say, we don't know if Jesus was a common name or not, nor do we
know if Josephus talked about our Jesus - But(and that is important) we who
believes in him have at least stronger support out of written sources than
those who doesn't believe in him - None of us was to my knowledge(at least)
living during that age nor at that part of the world. Given the time and
the place where there have been many wars and quarrels going on we can be
lucky to find one document remaining talking about Jesus, let alone giving
the informations above confirmed(!) by the Bible.
If you don't believe, let it be. If you do believe than you can feel much
stronger than anyone living before our Age, not so long ago Josephus was
known only from his other books and other sources remained negelected.
Remember that and do please remember that none of us is immortal nor can we
prove anything out of assumptions.
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
Suzanne <suzan...@altavista.net> skrev i inlägg
<%sP_2.1187$Qy3....@news.flash.net>...
Jonathan Stone
|> I have to tell you all that I find the discussions below lower than one
|> could have imagined any one pretending to be Scholar using. First of all
|> there do exists written sources(not records) among them Josephus, giving
|> two essential information:
But aren't the references in Josephus are widely taken to be later
additions. when it comes to bad scholarship: et tu, Inger, perhaps?
mrsingerejohansson
Jonathan Stone <jona...@Whisk.DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i inlägg
<7hgn2e$6d5$3...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
Josephus references wasn't known until later years, that's true but they do
exist in the best A2-B versions as well as in one other document of the
actual time!
So, I can't regard your comments above as serious, have you done any
controls yourself? Among my close friends I have one who have done so,
sometimes it's been he sometimes it's been me that found information in
sources long forgotten. We have had the pleasure of due to good contacts
have photos or photocopies of old writings in Hebrew, Greek and other
languages. My friend can read old Hebrew handwritings, we have other
friends who can do the same with Greek and when it comes to Latin I do the
first control myself before letting specialist check what we have
found..... Et tu Brutus????
Inger E Johansson
>
Alex Green
>[snip] when it comes to Latin I do the
>first control myself before letting specialist check what we have
>found..... Et tu Brutus????
CAESAR: Et tu, Brute? Then, fall, Caesar!
CINNA: Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!
(William Shakespeare *Julius Caesar* Act 3. Scene 1. 77-78)
Sincerely,
Alex Green
Ars artis est celare artem
Suzanne
Aaron-Dirk Boyden wrote in message <373732A0...@brown.edu>...
>ADR wrote:
>>
>> Existed as what? A man born of a virgin, or a member of a jewish cult who
>> thought he was more than he was?
>
>uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
>unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
>more of these Jesus characters, and perhaps one of them was involved in
>cult activity, and subsequent Christians, coming across various mentions
>of some Jesus person assumed they must refer to their god, and
>interpreted the references in light of that assumption.
>
>In any event, even assuming there was one unique cult leader who
>inspired the rise of Christianity, it is true as you suggest that the
>question of whether there was a miracle-working son of God about at the
>time is another matter. As the Romans would have said, "I would not
>believe such a story were it told to me by Cato."
>
cannot post to more than 4 newsgroups anymore. No more
than that will go through many servers now.
>
There is not any doubt as to which Jesus this is. Though Jesus Christ
is not the only one who had the name "Jesus", he became so rapidly
well known, and the Romans anyway would tell you that they believed
who he was after the fact. The many Christians that they killed did not
die in vain, but led them to believe, themselves in Jesus Christ of
Nazareth.
>
In 93 AD Flavius Josephus published his history of the Jews. In
this account of the period in which the Jews were governed by
Pontius Pilate, in Judea, the following account is presented by
Josephus:
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought
to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds
and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won
over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And
when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had
condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did
not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life,
for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand
other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called
after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
~ Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 &63 ~
>
This is called the "Testimonium Flavianum". It was met with opposition.
Always, and forever, the devil thinks up the same opposition. He does
not vary, for what worked the first time, he will use again and again.
The Book of Isaiah went through the EXACT claim, that it was not
authentic, that some scribe somewhere added to it, and therefore
rendered it false, and that it was embellished. Then the remarkable
find of the Dead Sea Scrolls ended the claims that were made that
discredited the Book of Isaiah.
>
Either the devil is not very imaginative, or he decides to use the
same thing over again all the time, because it just plain works for
him! If people want to fall for the very same claims, over and
over and over again, I can't do anything about it but you should know
that this is "deja vu" : We have been there before, in other words.
Here is a URL about the claims about and against the Testimonium
Flavianum : http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/companies/shap/journals.html
Enjoy.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Aaron-Dirk Boyden wrote in message <373732A0...@brown.edu>...
>ADR wrote:
>>
>> Existed as what? A man born of a virgin, or a member of a jewish cult who
>> thought he was more than he was?
>
>A better question than many are willing to admit. It was not an
>uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
>unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
>Christianity. It's at least equally possible that there were one or
>more of these Jesus characters, and perhaps one of them was involved in
>cult activity, and subsequent Christians, coming across various mentions
>of some Jesus person assumed they must refer to their god, and
>interpreted the references in light of that assumption.
>
>In any event, even assuming there was one unique cult leader who
>inspired the rise of Christianity, it is true as you suggest that the
>question of whether there was a miracle-working son of God about at the
>time is another matter. As the Romans would have said, "I would not
>believe such a story were it told to me by Cato."
>
years. Jesus has not inspired the start of a cult. He still leads in
the building of his church. He is, you see, still doing this today. People
love Elvis Presley, who was a poor boy who made it big, but never
forgot the feeling of poverty, and he lavished his money on his friends.
People loved him because of who he was, but they don't daily follow
him. They don't die for him. They don't pray to him, and they don't
follow any words that he said. This is a work by an unknown author,
which many people love, about the life of Jesus :
>
One Solitary Life
(Author Unknown)
He was born in an obscure village, The child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in still another village where He worked in a carpenter
shop until He was thirty.
Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never wrote a book.
He never held an office.
He didn't go to college.
He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where he
was born.
He did none of the things one usually associates with greatness.
>
He had no credentials but Himself.
He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned
against him.
His friends ran away.
He was turned over to His enemies and went through the
mockery of a trial.
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While He was dying, His executioners gambled for His
clothing, The only property He had on earth.
When He was dead, HE was laid in a borrowed grave
through the pity of a friend.
>
Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today
He is the central figure of the human race and the
Leader of mankind's progress.
All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever
sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings
that ever reigned put together have not affected the life of
man on earth as much as that one solitary life.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Aaron-Dirk Boyden wrote in message <3738C08D...@brown.edu>...
>Larry Swain wrote:
>>
>> > A better question than many are willing to admit. It was not an
>> > uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
>> > unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
>> > Christianity.
>>
him
>> as the brother of Jesus who some say is the Messiah-you know, sounds an awful
>> lot like what the Christians were saying about their Jesus....and of course
the
>> Christian sources could all be lieing, but many of them state specifically
that
>> their authors either saw this Jesus in the flesh or they know those who did
see
>> this Jesus in the flesh, and what evidence do we have to offer to say that
>> these eye witnesses weren't really eyewitnesses other than our NEED to see
them
his
>> salt doubts that there was a man named Jesus whose followers started a whole
>> new religion and your arguments here don't really hold water to the contrary.
>
>to Jesus in Josephus were tampered with by Christian copyists. Most of
>them think that there were Jesus references before the Christian
>tampering, but it's generally agreed that those references were
>elaborated to more closely match what the Christians thought they should
>be. Thus, the appearance of close match in Josephus in no way
>undermines my hypothesis, since the match can be entirely explained by
>Christian tampering with the text.
>
findings about this explanation of Josephus'.
>
>On your second point, I do not suggest that the Christian sources were
>lying. They believed in Christianity, presumably, and according to what
>Christian tradition said happened, there must have been witnesses.
>Thus, in claiming that there were witnesses, they surely believed what
>they were saying.* That's different from their having had evidence; if
>those witnesses were actually around, why didn't any of them write about
>what happened, or mention it to anyone who wasn't a Christian?
>
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld
his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth." [this is not John the Baptist, but the Apostle John]
>
Then John the Baptist, it is recorded in John 1:15, says Jesus existed,
"John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, 'This was he of whom I
spake" and..................
Without question, Flavius Josephus wrote about John the Baptist
in detail in many accounts:
http://user.aol.com/fljosephus/JohnTBaptist.htm
This is overwhelming proof that John existed. John's testimony
of Jesus is a great one.
>
> *Similarly, I do not suggest that those responsible for altering the
>Josephus texts were committing forgery in the modern sense. Presumably,
>they believed Josephus had gotten the story wrong, and they wished to
>correct his errors. Standards of scholarship have varied greatly in
>different times and places, and the modern standards which would condemn
>such "corrections" would have been considered bizarre in most historical
>cultures.
>
that you may as well hang up the whole work if you think he did not
write about what really happened.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Bud (the original) wrote in message <373e18dd.32621570@news-server>...
>On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:23:38 -0400, Larry Swain <x99s...@wmich.edu> wrote:
>
>>Actually, the section in Josephus to which I referred is not one of
>>those under dispute, why I chose it. Plenty of material on it in the
>>secondary literature. Thus, we do have at least one source that refers
>>to a Jesus connected to the Christians wherein that source is not
>>Christian nor received its information from Christians.
>
>
Oh really? Then who are the ones who saw him in his resurrected
form? Mary Magdalene? the Apostles? The people at Pentecost?
The crowd gazing up at heaven when he ascended? Peter, who
denied him, but later repented? Paul who was saved on the road
to Damascus? His mother? His brothers? My gosh, we have the
Locations to these events in the New Testament. The Upper Room
of Pentecost, for example (and also the Last Supper) are in the
southernmost section of the Gate of the Essenes, which opened
upon the Valley of Hinnon, where offal was dumped and burned,
and which Jesus used as a figurative term of eternal hell where the
wicked would go (Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The well known Pool of
Siloam, where Jesus healed the man born blind (John 9:7) was
located in the Lower City at the end of Hezekiah's underground
conduit which brought water from the Gihon Spring, so vitally
essential to the existence of Jebus and later to the city of David
(1 Kings 1:33) that is within the city of Jerusalem. The Tower of
Siloam which collapsed and killed eithteen people (Luke 13:4)
also was in this general area of the most ancient part of Jerusalem.
Akeldama ("the Field of Blood") referred to in Acts 1:19 has been
located in the Valley of Hinnon below En-rogel since the fourth
century AD. The Mount of Olives is there, and the trees were
cut down, but grew back from the roots (also in the Garden of
Gethsemane). The town of Mary and Martha, which is Bethany
and is found in the visinity of the presen-day village el-Azariyeh
"The Place of Lazarus" in which the Arabic name preserves the
tradition of the connection of Lazarus with Bethany. These people
were the followers, and they met in secret, and many were also
killed for their witness, but not all of them were killed. Many of
the Jews also believed.
>
There is a problem though. Jerusalem pretty much destroyed
when the Roman invaders came in and took hold of it. It is not
true that there were no Christians until "well after the death of
Jesus" is preposterous. It took about three days after his death
for them to be obvious. Even the Roman centuriun decided that
Jesus was the Son of God. Many of the first followers were the
Jews, but those who gave their lives and allegiance to him
before he died were already believers, for he gave them the
Holy Ghost, but admonished them not to act upon it until later.
There were also cities around Jerusalem who did believe on
him, and follow him.
>
Jesus said that upon the statement "Thou art the Son of the
Living God", the rock of salvation, he would build his church,
and he said "The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it".
That would have had to have meant that at no time did it cease
to exist.
>
Suzanne
Saabirah
Suzanne wrote in message ...
>
>Bud (the original) wrote in message <373e18dd.32621570@news-server>...
>>On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:23:38 -0400, Larry Swain <x99s...@wmich.edu>
wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, the section in Josephus to which I referred is not one of
>>>those under dispute, why I chose it. Plenty of material on it in the
>>>secondary literature. Thus, we do have at least one source that refers
>>>to a Jesus connected to the Christians wherein that source is not
>>>Christian nor received its information from Christians.
>>
>>There WERE NO Christians untill well after the death of Jesus.
>>
>Mary Magdalene? the Apostles? The people at Pentecost?
>The crowd gazing up at heaven when he ascended? Peter, who
>denied him, but later repented? Paul who was saved on the road
>to Damascus? His mother? His brothers?
They were Jews..... as the supposed accounting of his (pbuh) anointing and
burial rituals were supposedly carried out according to Jewish law.......
Paul and Peter quarreled over the observance of the law.
Acceptance of Jesus'(pbuh) was not abandonment of Judaism..... it was, as
Jesus himself said, "the fulfillment of the law".
>My gosh, we have the
>Locations to these events in the New Testament. The Upper Room
>of Pentecost, for example (and also the Last Supper) are in the
>southernmost section of the Gate of the Essenes, which opened
>upon the Valley of Hinnon,
It's just inside Zion Gate in the Armenian Quarter of al-Quds. It is also
just beside the tomb of David (pbuh).
>The well known Pool of
>Siloam, where Jesus healed the man born blind (John 9:7) was
>located in the Lower City at the end of Hezekiah's underground
>conduit which brought water from the Gihon Spring, so vitally
>essential to the existence of Jebus and later to the city of David
>(1 Kings 1:33) that is within the city of Jerusalem.
It's just inside the Sheep Gate and the evidence of the springs are still
quite visible. There are also the remains of ritual baths used by the
Jewish residents.
>The Mount of Olives is there, and the trees were
>cut down, but grew back from the roots (also in the Garden of
>Gethsemane).
There *are* olive trees there that supposedly survived...although not many.
Most of the trees in the Garden of Gethsemmane have been planted from shoots
taken from those olive trees.
>The town of Mary and Martha, which is Bethany
>and is found in the visinity of the presen-day village el-Azariyeh
>"The Place of Lazarus" in which the Arabic name preserves the
>tradition of the connection of Lazarus with Bethany.
The tomb of Lazarus and the olive press just outside of the tomb are still
there, in Bethany, just about 2 kilometers outside of Jerusalem...... The
tomb is one of a Jewish man.
>These people
>were the followers, and they met in secret, and many were also
>killed for their witness, but not all of them were killed. Many of
>the Jews also believed.
Exactly, they were Jews who believed that their Messiah had come. They were
rejected by the Jews of the day and therefore seen as members of a new cult.
>>
>Even the Roman centuriun decided that
>Jesus was the Son of God.
Matthew and Mark mention an ambiguous statement made by the centurion......
not a claim of Jesus or his followers. Luke mentions the centurion but not
the statement....John does not mention the account at all. Even in the
gospel account of Mary Magdalene's visit to the tomb it is mentioned that
she was going there to anoint the body *after* the sabbath.....the Jewish
sabbath.
>Jesus said that upon the statement "Thou art the Son of the
>Living God", the rock of salvation, he would build his church,
>and he said "The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it".
>That would have had to have meant that at no time did it cease
>to exist.
The whole scenario at Cesaria Phillipi began with Jesus'(pbuh) question,
"and who do you believe the Son of Man is?" Jesus never claimed
divinity......
Saabirah
thei...@my-dejanews.com
"Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
> Aaron-Dirk Boyden wrote in message <373732A0...@brown.edu>...
> >ADR wrote:
> >>
> >> Existed as what? A man born of a virgin, or a member of a jewish cult who
> >> thought he was more than he was?
> >
> >uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
> >unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
> >more of these Jesus characters, and perhaps one of them was involved in
> >cult activity, and subsequent Christians, coming across various mentions
> >of some Jesus person assumed they must refer to their god, and
> >interpreted the references in light of that assumption.
> >
> >In any event, even assuming there was one unique cult leader who
> >inspired the rise of Christianity, it is true as you suggest that the
> >question of whether there was a miracle-working son of God about at the
> >time is another matter. As the Romans would have said, "I would not
> >believe such a story were it told to me by Cato."
> >
> Cults tend to die off.
>
>
Christianity has been going on for thousands of
> years. Jesus has not inspired the start of a cult.
>
Oh,yes he has!... But it's
not of his own doing!!!...
Take a guess who....
>
He still leads in
> the building of his church.
>
Really,how???...
>
He is, you see, still doing this today.
>
But,how???...
>
People
> love Elvis Presley, who was a poor boy who made it big, but never
> forgot the feeling of poverty, and he lavished his money on his friends.
>
Uhhh... There's big difference between being a supposed "Lord & Savior" of
the world,and being a rock star,who btw,led a very dubious life.
> People loved him because of who he was, but they don't daily follow
> him.
>
Very true...
I REALLY beg to differ!...
Christ isn't the only one on
the planet with huge "pop"!...
Muhammed,Tukulti I & his wife,the Hindu gods,and some others,still to this
day have very large followings...
As a matter of fact,if it was'nt for European colonization &
proselityization(sp?),"Christianity",as we know it,would not be as big as it
is today.
BTW,where did you get this
passage from?...
> Suzanne
>
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Suzanne
Saabirah wrote in message <2N1%2.6869$kE6....@wbnws01.ne.mediaone.net>...
woman at the well, he said he was the Messiah. He also said
he was the Son of God ("I and my Father are one, if you have
seen me, you have seen the Father"). Also, when he was
baptized, the spirit of God descended as a Dove, and the
voice of God was heard saying "This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased". He said "In my Father's house, there
are many mansions.....If it were not true, I would have told you....
I go to prepare a place for you, and I will come again and receive
you unto myself. He also said just before departing from this
world, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you....And lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the age of the earth." He said "I will never leave you nor forsake
you" and he forgave sin. Only God can forgive sin. Also, Pilate
asked him "Are you the Son of God?", and he replied "Thou
sayest it". That means in the right translation "As you have said
(I am)". Or, as we would say in modern English "You said it !!!"
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
>anything about Jesus, and
>
Christopher, I don't know how to break this news to you, and
I would not want to embarrass you, but someone, perhaps has
misinformed you abut this. You see, there are many instances
in which Paul refers to Jesus. For example, It says in
Romans 1:1-3
1) "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle,
separated unto the gospel of God,
2) (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the
holy scriptures,)
3) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
<
Christopher, he also says "For me to live is Christ, and to die
is gain". He also says that the mystery that is hid from all the
ages is the mystery of "Christ in you, the hope of glory". So,
you see, Paul does mention Jesus, and quite a lot.
>
>(b) there is no evidence that anyone thought he
>was a real person, rather than a "spiritual archetype" or
>similar, for more
>than a century.
>
Sure there is, which is what we were discussing a few
posts back. You see, all the places that Jesus has been or
talked about have been mostly found and many unearthed
by archaeologists. Flavius Josephus mentions him, but he
also mentions a lot about John the Baptist, and John mentions
Jesus all the time, in fact worked his whole ministry around his
cousin, Jesus.
>
> (a) is simply false: though Paul didn't say much, he DID say
>enough for it to be very clear that he believed Jesus to be an actual
>The Gospels were written somewhere between the early to mid 60s AD and the
>early 90s: Mark probably first, Matthew, Luke and John an indeterminate
>period later. But almost beyond reasonable doubt, in the first century.
> So the claim that there's no evidence that anyone thought Jesus was
>actually a man until more than a century later can only be made by ignoring
>the evidence of Paul, and dating the Gospels absurdly late.
> As for the Josephus evidence, there is a strong consensus that,
>although Josephus has been tampered with, we can be pretty clear what he
>really wrote before the tampering.
>
And there are new findings about that. It is not thought that now.
>
>Remove the obviously Christian
>interpolations, and you have a number of claims which, though they are broadly
>consistent with the Gospel picture, would not satisfy any prospective
>Christian "tamperer".
>
Christians did not tamper with the Bible. The word "tamper" would
indicate changing it, or embellishing it, or adding to it, or taking away
from it. It was preserved by God in its inspired form. No Christian
would have "tampered" with it because they are people who have
Jesus as their motivation. Jesus would not obliterate truth, for he
is truth personified. The last part of the Revelation says that if
someone adds to or takes away from God's word, his part shall
be taken out of the Book of Life. No Christian would have done
so because of this anyway.
>
>On all this see J.P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew", vol. 1,
>pp. 56ff., for a meticulous discussion with full references.
> If you want to claim that Jesus is "actually" a spiritual archetype,
>go right ahead! But don't pretend that this religious claim is based on
>history, because it isn't. If you want to see two quite good books, written
>by real historians who are NOT Christians, try either Michael Grant's
>"Jesus", or Geza Vermes' "Jesus the Jew". Neither is a perfect book, but
>they are both real historians, arguing from the evidence.
>
You did not say what they were arguing from evidence. (?)
>
The writers of the Bible were real historians, but especially since they
were writing what the Lord told them to write. If God doesn't know or
understand history, we really are in trouble. :)
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
M.C.Harrison wrote in message <37397...@145.227.194.253>...
>>
>>in the 1st century, but originally they
>>were written as Midrash (stories about
>>a well-known figure to expound a point
>>of view) about the mythical founder
>>of the Mysteries (Iasius) - not as history.
>
>
>Worth throwing a comment or two in at this point. What we refer to as the
>Bible didn't exist until it was constructed during the Council of Nicea
>
way early. There even is evidence that there were earlier versions
than what we know for sure. The Gospel of Matthew reports the
fall of Jerusalem and the temple as a future event. Luke's Gospel is
earlier than Acts and Matthew is earlier than Luke's. It is also thought
that Matthew wrote an Aramaic oricinal around 40-45 AD. This would
place the Greek Matthew around the middle of the first century A.D.
Mark's Gospel was written before Luke's and that would place it at
least at earlier than 63 A.D., as Luke's is in 63 A.D. The date of
John's Gospel has been dated 85 to 95 A.D. A bit of papyrus
containing two verses of the Gospel of John has been discovered
and belongs to the Papyrus Rylands and is dated c.140 A.D. This
bit of evidence suggests that the fourth gospel was in existence as
early as the first half of the second century and at that time was
already in very wide use.
>
>under the active auspices of Emperor Constantine IIRC. This formed the basis
>for the state religion to hold together the crumbling Roman Empire for as
>long as possible, with a creed of self-sacrifice and duty to the state, and
>drew heavily on several extant, non-christian religions such as Mithraic.
>Thus, there are folk who predate the alleged events, who are dead ringers
>for a historical Christ, e.g. virgin birth, crucifixion, born in a stable,
>and so on.
>
Council was Catholic. However, there are others who claim that
it really was not. This Council was not there for the purpose of
writing the Bible, according to what I have read, but rather to
clarify what the scriptures meant. There had been some as
always that wanted to corrupt what the scriptures said. As I
gather, it was a meeting to preserve the scriptures in their truths.
>
>Perhaps this was, indeed, Satan trying to undermine Christianity by going
>back in time to create a parody of Christ, or we might prefer to think that
>the story is older than Christ, and was merely used since the common people
>were more familiar with Mithras and it fitted the theme well.
>
>Other points to note, the name "Jesus" is not all that rare, and some bibles
>carry the observation that Herod had at least two Jesus' in the cells at the
>time of the alleged trial. One was called "Jesus Barabbas", but some
>versions omit the forename (perhaps so as not to confuse True Believers?).
>The name "Jesus Barabbas" is interesting for another reason, as "Bar" and
>"Abba" translates (I gather) into "of the" and "Father" rather than being a
>regular surname.
>
at the crucifixion, as Pilate wrote on the sign for he benefit of the
Jews that he felt were the ones crucifying him, that this was one
"Jesus of Nazareth", so that they would be able to differentiate exactly
which Jesus that was. I would also say that from that, you could
conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was well known, if he could simply
be differentiated from someone else, simply by his city. Perhaps
Jesus and Joseph were well known aside from Jesus's ministry,
from the Carpenter shop that Joseph must have run very well.
>
>So when the trial is held, Herod offers to free one of the Jesus's and the
>people apparently ask for "Jesus of the Father", who is then released. Maybe
>Monty Python were not that far off when they have the Jews call out for all
>sorts of people, in order to make fun of the romans who do not understand
>the language. <fbg>
>
>
>>The events of Gospels cannot be found
>>in history (e.g. Herod massacre), and the
>>writers are clearly not eye-witnesses
>>to real events.
>
falls apart when you read them. For example, the accounts
that are claimed to be alike, are not really alike. Each writer
contributes to the stories what he sees. They are not
alike, and because of the little differences, they would tend
to be more of an eye-witness kind of writing, although it is
trendy to think not, it is not accurate I don't believe. The idea
that they are not eye-witnesses comes from the notion that
they all had a common source. Look, Matthew presents
Jesus as being a King. Mark presents Jesus as being
a servant. Luke presents Jesus as being a man, and shows
his humanity, and John presents Jesus as being God.
These cannot be from the same source because of this.
Also, each account of the crucifixion is different. Each one
of those differences is a clue to something else. The
places where they are similar are simply because they
all were present.
>
>Yeah, one gospel is written to include a whole load of astrological
>credentials that the aspiring demigod could be seen to require if you happen
>to be into astrology. That's the one that mentions the three kings, and the
>gifts of gold, mhyr and other occult materials for mystic reasons. Also, the
>infant seems to have gotten about pretty sharp in order to meet the, by then
>somewhat overly complicated, requirements for a messiah, e.g. has to come
>out of Egypt, has to be born in a stable, etc, etc.
>
It was an astronomy that was ancient, not to be confused with astrology,
which was condemned. This was a godly astronomy, as it says in
Genesis that the stars were given to man as signs for days, months, and
years. That does not mean that they believed the stars "ruled" them,
as astrologers do.
>
>Whoever wrote that gospel was clearly into astrology and wanted to present
>as much evidence as possible to satisfy the witches, warlocks and fortune
>tellers that were pretty widespread in those times. Also, in order to meet
>all the requirements, quite a lot of events have to be out of sequence, and
>there is resulting doubt about when Christ was supposed to have been born,
>any time within a decade or two for some events, and the events can't all
>have been true. At Nicea, quite a lot of the conflicting data was removed so
>that the story was consistent (you know, like when you and the co-defendants
>meet up prior to the trial so that the various bogus aliases and so forth do
>not immediately conflict.)
>
removed at all, but clarified and declared. There were people
that wanted to change what was written. What the Council did
was clarify so that there would be a preservation of the original
not a loss of the original.
>
>>The problems with the Gospels as history
>>are well-known and are evidence for little.
>
is a must then for you to read, and also "The Bible As History".
The Gospels are a great source of History. So much so that the
Supreme Court ruled that a student could use the Bible as a
historical source for a paper that the student wrote. Archaeology
has confirmed much of what is in the Gospels. They are finding
new evidences every day.
>
>Agreed. Whatever else one can say, there are definitely bits of evidence
>that argue against the gospels, and not much to support them. It is valid to
>consider the possibility that Christ existed as a person, and that all of
>the events described took place as reported. It is also very valid indeed to
>see the gospels as things constructed in order to create the basis for a
>religion, particularly the bits to do with miracles, which can be
>interpreted in several ways other than as literal accounts.
>
>Or any number of positions in between, e.g. Christ existed, but as a Jewish
>freedom fighter rather than as a messanaic figure.
>
>Being a cynical read_between_the_lines type of person, I find it remarkably
>easy to see what the orginal text was meant to mean, rather than what
>fundamentalists read from it.
>
a person that simply believes that the Bible is true. Though the
word is rather pummelling sounding, with its five evenly accented
syllables, sounding like cat tails pommeling a log in the wind. :)
But, you say you see in it what the person who believes the
Bible is true does not see.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
thei...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7higg6$2gk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <0pY_2.604$yv6...@news.flash.net>,
> "Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote:
>>
>> Aaron-Dirk Boyden wrote in message <373732A0...@brown.edu>...
>> >ADR wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Existed as what? A man born of a virgin, or a member of a jewish cult who
>> >> thought he was more than he was?
>> >
>> >A better question than many are willing to admit. It was not an
>> >uncommon name, so even if contemporary references can be found, it is
>> >unclear that we should conclude that they have anything to do with
>> >Christianity. It's at least equally possible that there were one or
>> >more of these Jesus characters, and perhaps one of them was involved in
>> >cult activity, and subsequent Christians, coming across various mentions
>> >of some Jesus person assumed they must refer to their god, and
>> >interpreted the references in light of that assumption.
>> >
>> >In any event, even assuming there was one unique cult leader who
>> >inspired the rise of Christianity, it is true as you suggest that the
>> >question of whether there was a miracle-working son of God about at the
>> >time is another matter. As the Romans would have said, "I would not
>> >believe such a story were it told to me by Cato."
>> >
>> Cults tend to die off.
>>
> Not true... What's "Hinduism"???...
>
I had chosen other words. But what I was meaning was that
as a rule many cults do not last. (Like Jim Jones, or all those
sad occasions where the people ended it all....the Waco thing,
for example....very sad things)
>>
>Christianity has been going on for thousands of
>> years. Jesus has not inspired the start of a cult.
>>
> Oh,yes he has!... But it's
>not of his own doing!!!...
>
To me, there is a difference between a religion and a cult.
>
> Take a guess who....
>
Jesus alone.
>
>>
> He still leads in
>> the building of his church.
>>
> Really,how???...
>
inside that person.
>>
> He is, you see, still doing this today.
>>
> But,how???...
>
be filled with the Holy Spirit, that means that he agrees to be controlled
by the Holy Spirit, which in turn means that Jesus, himself, can work
through that person to do what he wishes. It involves trusting and obeying,
which means you are inhabited by the Lord to be on earth again in your
members.
>>
> People
>> love Elvis Presley, who was a poor boy who made it big, but never
>> forgot the feeling of poverty, and he lavished his money on his friends.
>>
>
> Uhhh... There's big difference between being a supposed "Lord & Savior" of
>the world,and being a rock star,who btw,led a very dubious life.
>
died for the witness of Jesus, plus all that have lived the last 2,000
years or so for him, that the Christians would outnumber them all.
>
> Muhammed,Tukulti I & his wife,the Hindu gods,and some others,still to this
>day have very large followings...
>
Jesus would out do them all.
>
> As a matter of fact,if it was'nt for European colonization &
>proselityization(sp?),"Christianity",as we know it,would not be as big as it
>is today.
>
>
> BTW,where did you get this
>passage from?...
>
It is in a Family Study Bible that I have, and it is in many places on the
Internet. It is by an anonymous author. I don't think anyone knows the
origin of it. Many people like it and read it on special occasions.
>
Suzanne
ADR
and whatever one can be indoctrineate with, just like Suzanna. This is all
matter of opinion. The Christian says this, Muslim says that and Jesus says
the other.
I for instance could say that if you see me, you see the father God. Can you
prove I am wrong? Then its better to forget about it, just like all these
religions which breed such arguments.
ADR
thei...@my-dejanews.com
<eae%2.51$w42...@news.flash.n
et>,
"Suzanne"
<suzan...@altavista.net>
wrote:
Well,in Websters,a "cult" is
defined as,"a system of
religious practices,or
worship".
From Wordnet:
A "religion" is a "strong
belief in a supernatural power
or a power that controls human
destiny".
But it isn't defined as an
"organization",which is
exactly what a "cult" is.
To me,a cult is
basically,any organization
where the leader,or leaders,of
that organization knowingly
mislead people into following
them by making false promises.
>
> > Take a guess who....
> >
> Jesus alone.
> >
Originally,yes,until it got
to Rome. Which is exactly what
your lord & savior was trying
to point out in the last
chapters in the NT.
Modern-Day Christanity is a
"falsehood".
If it was not for Paul's
doctrines,Mr. Ninurta's(sp?)
family,and the Roman
Papacy,"Christianity",the
religion as we know it today,
probably would not exist.
Ok,then. That's
"spirituality",which is true
Christianity.
(BTW,"Jesus Christ" isn't
really his name. It was a
title given to him by the
Greeks.)
Really?... "Proselytizing"
as it was during the Spanish
Inquizition,is to be
considered an act of
God???....
> > BTW,where did you get this
> >passage from?...
> >
> You mean "One Solitary
Life"?...
> It is in a Family Study
Bible that I have, and it is
in many places on the
> Internet. It is by an
anonymous author. I don't
think anyone knows the
> origin of it. Many people
like it and read it on special
occasions.
> >
> Suzanne
>
ADR
and whatever one can be indoctrineate with, just like Suzanna. This is all
matter of opinion. The Christian says this, Muslim says that and Jesus says
the other.
I for instance could say that if you see me, you see the father God. Can you
prove I am wrong? Then its better to forget about it, just like all these
religions which breed such arguments.
> Gee, nice post, Saabirah, but he did, he did. When he met the
Duane Morse
Shroud of Turin.
Duane
ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7hkgc9$sdu$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net...
> Yeah, thou Saabirah is full of it and believes in angels and virgin births
> and whatever one can be indoctrineate with, just like Suzanna. This is all
> matter of opinion. The Christian says this, Muslim says that and Jesus
says
> the other.
>
> I for instance could say that if you see me, you see the father God. Can
you
> prove I am wrong? Then its better to forget about it, just like all these
> religions which breed such arguments.
>
ADR
Duane Morse <Du...@computerroom.com> wrote in message
news:0Tj%2.55$dI3....@news.uswest.net...
> We have the physical proof that he was crucified and resurrected in the
> Shroud of Turin.
Come on. You know that is really Elvis.
ronald68
ADR wrote in message <7hkl8p$qbo$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
>Duane Morse <Du...@computerroom.com> wrote in message
>news:0Tj%2.55$dI3....@news.uswest.net...
>> We have the physical proof that he was crucified
That is much debated, though your side doesn't present proof, only
objections to proofs.
>>and resurrected
How is this proved by the "shroud"?
V.T.
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
> The whole scenario at Cesaria Phillipi began with Jesus'(pbuh) question,
> "and who do you believe the Son of Man is?" Jesus never claimed
> divinity......
>
> Saabirah
***Do you know this for a fact Saabirah? Where you there? Or are you
just spouting the same old Islamic propoganda found in the Koran? I
think Jesus in his life, showed a whole lot more of the Divine than a
certain prophet who massacred 900 defencless men, married a dozen women
including one of dubious age, had enemies assassinated etc etc. Come to
think of it, the Buddah showed us more of the divine in his life too!
Adam
Suzanne
Frank Zeeb wrote in message <3739844D...@uni-muenster.de>...
>patowic+u...@jurai.net wrote:
>
>> Does any scripture specifically say that Jesus of Nazareth had a penis?
>
>As Jesus got circumcised on the eighth day according to Jewish law and
>as his parents offered the offering due at the circumcision of a male
>child (Luke 2,22-24) the answer is to the affirmative.
>
Excellent reference ! It also says in the scriptures that Jesus was tempted
in ALL ways known to man :
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
are, yet without sin." ~Hebrews 4:15~
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
ADR wrote in message <7hju3e$inl$2...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>Yeah, thou Saabirah is full of it and believes in angels and virgin births
>and whatever one can be indoctrineate with, just like Suzanna. This is all
>matter of opinion. The Christian says this, Muslim says that and Jesus says
>the other.
>
>I for instance could say that if you see me, you see the father God. Can you
>prove I am wrong? Then its better to forget about it, just like all these
>religions which breed such arguments.
>
the father God, then there would be something simultaneously
going on in my heart to confirm what I was hearing, if, indeed
you were the Son of God. However, since I felt no such thing
in my mind or heart, then I would have to conclude that you are
definitely not Jesus Christ. Did you ever think about what it
does say in the Bible? Jesus walks up to two fishermen, and
says nothing more than "follow me"...and the guys drop their
nets and follow like they have been mesmerized. You simply
would not go after a person on the beach who walked up to you
and said "follow me" unless you simultaneously felt something
going on inside of you. You wouldn't. It must have been that
he was compelling them because he was God and all things
obey him, even the wind and the sea. There is NO other
explanation.
>
I also don't believe in virgin births, but only one. That being
the one true one. You see, the virgin birth thing snows people
and they can't get past the absurdity of it to see that if God
wanted to become one of us, he had to climb inside the seed
of the woman and come here the same way the rest of us got
here. There had to be a vehicle whereby God could be born
as a human. If Jesus had an earthly father, then God could
not have been born in the flesh. That would have then been
someone else. This child, Jesus, was God and man at the
same time. This is the only way that what Adam and Eve
had done to plunge man into mortality, and bar them from
paradise could be overcome. Only one man that ever lived
could have stood between what God had already pronounced
"Thou shalt surely die", and been victorious. That was Jesus.
When Jesus died on the cross, it undid what Adam did. It
fooled the Devil, who has been trying to kill the "seed of the
woman" who would bruise his head. (Genesis 3:15). The
Devil tried to kill the baby Moses through Pharaoh. He tried
to kill the baby Jesus also. Both times, he was looking for
the baby who fulfilled the predictions, and would be king.
When Jesus died, the Devil got a good night's sleep. He
probably slept for 3 days, but when he awoke, he said,
"Hey, what's going on?" The greatest military coup ever
done was this. God outwitted the devil completely, and
resolved the Angelic Conflict. When Jesus said on the cross,
"It is finished". He completed his triumphant work on the
cross, which now undid death, and caused all people to
now be alive after death. Some immediately, who go to
heaven, and some ultimately at a later date when they
will be judged, but not bound for glory.
>
Suzanne
Saad Ahmed
Son of God is used figuratively in the Bible as a holy person.
Many times.
As for the Centurion saying Jesus was the son of God as
Suzanne said....if you CHECK the cross-reference to Luke it
says he was a righteous man so son of God=righteous man.
Mark 15:39 AND Luke 23:47
Otherwise hundreds of ppl are sons of god literally in the
Bible "Blessed are the peacemakers they shall be called
children of God" etc.
Geez.
Wake up!
Saabirah wrote:
>
> Suzanne wrote in message ...
> >
> >Bud (the original) wrote in message <
> Exactly, they were Jews who believed that their Messiah had come. They were
> rejected by the Jews of the day and therefore seen as members of a new cult.
> >>
> >Even the Roman centuriun decided that
> >Jesus was the Son of God.
>
> Matthew and Mark mention an ambiguous statement made by the centurion......
> not a claim of Jesus or his followers. Luke mentions the centurion but not
> the statement....John does not mention the account at all. Even in the
> gospel account of Mary Magdalene's visit to the tomb it is mentioned that
> she was going there to anoint the body *after* the sabbath.....the Jewish
> sabbath.
>
> >Jesus said that upon the statement "Thou art the Son of the
> >Living God", the rock of salvation, he would build his church,
> >and he said "The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it".
> >That would have had to have meant that at no time did it cease
> >to exist.
>
28SW2
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell wrote:
> Saabirah wrote:
>
> > The whole scenario at Cesaria Phillipi began with Jesus'(pbuh) question,
> > "and who do you believe the Son of Man is?" Jesus never claimed
> > divinity......
> >
> > Saabirah
>
> ***Do you know this for a fact Saabirah? Where you there? Or are you
> just spouting the same old Islamic propoganda found in the Koran?
Well, it is not exactly Islamic propaganda.
It is the Revelation of Truth that a person cannot claim to be God. This is
quite EASILY determined with a reading of the Torah and the Prophets.
Such an assertion is simply OFF SCALE when it comes to the Revelation
of Truth.
> I
> think Jesus in his life, showed a whole lot more of the Divine than a
> certain prophet who massacred 900 defencless men, married a dozen women
> including one of dubious age, had enemies assassinated etc etc.
And what do you think of King David?
Jesus had certain responsibilities with regards to the Truth that had been
Revealed
to him, as did Mohammed, as did David. I doubt that you would consider as
'Divine'
a man who murdered his son as a sacrifice to God. Yet this is PRECISELY what
Abraham was faced with.
Of crucial importance here is whether the DOCTRINES expressed in the Koran
are Revealed Truth or pagan doctrines.
> Come to
> think of it, the Buddah showed us more of the divine in his life too!
Well, there is a strong similarity between the Doctrine of the "resurrection
of
the dead" and the Buddhist Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.
Michael Cecil (
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
>
> Saabirah wrote in message
> >"and who do you believe the Son of Man is?" Jesus never claimed
> >divinity......
> >
> Gee, nice post, Saabirah, but he did, he did. When he met the
> woman at the well, he said he was the Messiah. He also said
> he was the Son of God ("I and my Father are one, if you have
> seen me, you have seen the Father"). Also, when he was
> baptized, the spirit of God descended as a Dove, and the
> voice of God was heard saying "This is my beloved Son, in
> whom I am well pleased". He said "In my Father's house, there
> are many mansions.....If it were not true, I would have told you....
> I go to prepare a place for you, and I will come again and receive
> you unto myself. He also said just before departing from this
> world, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, baptizing
> them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the
> Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
> have commanded you....And lo, I am with you alway, even unto
> the age of the earth." He said "I will never leave you nor forsake
> you" and he forgave sin. Only God can forgive sin. Also, Pilate
> asked him "Are you the Son of God?", and he replied "Thou
> sayest it". That means in the right translation "As you have said
> (I am)". Or, as we would say in modern English "You said it !!!"
> >
> Suzanne
***Now Suzanne dont confuse our little sister Saabirah:) You know as
soon as she puts on that Hijab, she has to Hijab her mind also(its a
Muslim thing:) She and they have to stop thinking for themselves and
take their views from that little green book, a bit like the little red
book only not as garish:) hence when you bring up a subject like Jessus'
divinity, you can only expect the stock Koranic repsose that Jesus did
not claim to be divine. Anything else would require independent thought,
and this is not encouraged in the little green book. Just like in the
little red book infact:)
Adam explaining the Islamic mind set to another Kaffir:)
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
>
> We have the physical proof that he was crucified and resurrected in the
> Shroud of Turin.
> Duane
***You have a piece of cloth, the rest is faith!
Adam
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
>
> In article <0pY_2.604$yv6...@news.flash.net>,
> "Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote:
> >
> > Aaron-Dirk Boyden wrote in message <373732A0...@brown.edu>...
> > >ADR wrote:
Uhhh... There's big difference between being a supposed "Lord &
Savior" of
> the world,and being a rock star,who btw,led a very dubious life.
***Excuse me, but do you mind retracting that statement. There are many
people who worship the ground Elvis hovvered over! Please do not upset
people in their religious beliefs. Very bad Adab. As it says in the good
book, "To you your religion to me mine".
Adam founder of the Sunderland branch of the 2nd coming of Elvis
society.
28SW2
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell wrote:
> ***Now Suzanne dont confuse our little sister Saabirah:) You know as
> soon as she puts on that Hijab, she has to Hijab her mind also(its a
> Muslim thing:)
Such contemptuousness is really not necessary.
> She and they have to stop thinking for themselves and
> take their views from that little green book, a bit like the little red
> book only not as garish:) hence when you bring up a subject like Jessus'
> divinity, you can only expect the stock Koranic repsose that Jesus did
> not claim to be divine.
Well, because it is the Truth.
> Anything else would require independent thought,
> and this is not encouraged in the little green book. Just like in the
> little red book infact:)
Same goes for your interpretation of the Gospel of John. Much of it was
theeffect of MARKETING the Teaching of Jesus in a PAGAN world.
Do you actually think that, within a couple of hundred of years, a PAGAN world
would COMPLETELY change its world view?
This is merely another expression of 'magical thinking'--like the Rapture and
the
return of Jesus on a white horse out of the sky.
Christianity was accepted by so many pagans because it incorporated into the
Teaching of Jesus an entire spectrum of pagan doctrines such as the
metaphysical
'soul', without which it would have gained VERY few adherents.
Michael Cecil (
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
>
> Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell wrote:
>
> > ***Now Suzanne dont confuse our little sister Saabirah:) You know as
> > soon as she puts on that Hijab, she has to Hijab her mind also(its a
> > Muslim thing:)
>
> Such contemptuousness is really not necessary.
WHY? Would you prefer me to use your own words:" Well, because it is the
Truth."
Adam
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
> Christianity was accepted by so many pagans because it incorporated into the
> Teaching of Jesus an entire spectrum of pagan doctrines such as the
> metaphysical
> 'soul', without which it would have gained VERY few adherents.
>
***I think you are thinking of islam here??? You know the pagan Kaba,
magic numbers like 7 and all that jazz!
Adam
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
> > just spouting the same old Islamic propoganda found in the Koran?
>
> Well, it is not exactly Islamic propaganda.
***Oh yes it is:)
>
> It is the Revelation of Truth that a person cannot claim to be God.
***Who says??
This is
> quite EASILY determined with a reading of the Torah and the Prophets.
***First you want me to read your posts in Deja now the Torah and
Prophets:)
>
> Such an assertion is simply OFF SCALE when it comes to the Revelation
> of Truth.
***Scales change:)
>
> > I
> > think Jesus in his life, showed a whole lot more of the Divine than a
> > certain prophet who massacred 900 defencless men, married a dozen women
> > including one of dubious age, had enemies assassinated etc etc.
>
> And what do you think of King David?
***Not a bad name, but Jesus is better:)
>
> Jesus had certain responsibilities with regards to the Truth that had been
> Revealed
> to him, as did Mohammed, as did David. I doubt that you would consider as
> 'Divine'
> a man who murdered his son as a sacrifice to God. Yet this is PRECISELY what
> Abraham was faced with.
***How do you know that was God at all? Or that Abraham ever existed?
>
> Of crucial importance here is whether the DOCTRINES expressed in the Koran
> are Revealed Truth or pagan doctrines.
**They could be both:)
>
> > Come to
> > think of it, the Buddah showed us more of the divine in his life too!
>
> Well, there is a strong similarity between the Doctrine of the "resurrection
> of
> the dead" and the Buddhist Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.
**Ha so you are you a Buddhist?
Adam
a
d
a
m
i
s
t
h
e
n
a
m
e
o
f
a
p
r
o
p
h
e
t
28SW2
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell wrote:
A similar mechanism effects ALL Revealed Truth--that people do NOT want
to hear It., yes.
Michael Cecil (
CHRIS C
Suzanne wrote:
>If God doesn't know or understand history, we really are in trouble. :)
I guess we ARE in trouble and where for almost 2000 years!
If the Gospel is really the Word of God, how come there is so much dicussion
about it?
(I won't mention the religeous wars, persecusions, etc...)
If it really was the word of God, THE GOD, ALLAH, The Almighty (and all the
other names)
If it really was HIS word in the Bible/Koran/Torah it should be clear to
everyone as a cool glas of water after a week in the dessert. No comment on
it.
What many want to believe today as being the word of God is susceptible to
misinterpretations, etc...
The real WORD of God is unspoken untill now I guess.
If he opens his mouth one day it will be clear for all... no discussions
possible, it will be a watertight reasoning and there will be no flaw in
that argument...
It will be understood in every language!
I am ready to listen, and it should be funny to see the faces of all the
"believers" of today...
chris C
ADR
you just posted about the Pharaoh and the virgin birth and god and the devil
and so on, and if you are older than 25, your'e life is not worth living in
such a stupid state. Please, dont answer me with that crap again.
ADR
character, from his sentences of punishment to his views of women and
foreigners is Arab in character. So there is many like him just as every
Orthodox Jew is Yahweh himself for Yahweh is made in their image and not the
other way.
> Islam, the unity of God is paramount ("He is God the One, the Only, and
> there are none like unto Him").
>
> Cheers,
>
> Troy
Mattaeus
what they say due to spelling errors. I don't mean to point any fingers here
Chris, but it does make your argument loose some credit.
>Well Suzanne,
>Let's look at it from another side...
>
>I am thinking about all those who died for Jezus because the Pope in Rome
>wanted them to die for HIS Jezus.
>Allright in Roman periods lots of christians died for the witness of Jezus
>in those days Jupiter was still the Boss in Rome.
>But as soon as there was a Pope in Rome... the other guys died because they
>believed something else...
>Open youre history book ... you will find a religeous war... with Jezus
>leading the army...at any page...
>They where all fighting and dying for THEIR Jezus and they stil do...
>I don't think Jezus died on a cross so that many could follow him and be
>burnt at the stakes, or in Texas-Waco, or be massacred in their sleep,
>(Paris 1572-Bartholomeus night), etc....or bombed in an Nord-Irish pub.
Just
>because they where member of a different church worshipping Jezus a
>different way. That's what people do and use to do witnessing Jezus...
>
>It's those men, women and children wo have died for worshipping something
>else, I remember everytime I see a picture of Jezus on the cross.
>
>The cross as a death symbol is well chosen...
>I feel no need for worshipping a fellow who died on a cross and because of
>that many "believers" crushed each others head just for the love of Him.
>Thank you, allow me to believe in something else.
>chris C
>
>
>
>
dwsu...@bellsouth.net
Are you sure you are ready to listen?
DW Suiter
CHRIS C
>I think in the total scope of it, if you consider all those also who have
>years or so for him, that the Christians would outnumber them .
Suzanne
Christopher Forbes wrote in message <7hartm$i...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>...
>I'm getting really tired of the repeated claim that (a) Paul never said
>anything about Jesus, and (b) there is no evidence that anyone thought he
>was a real person, rather than a "spiritual archetype" or similar, for more
>than a century.
> (a) is simply false: though Paul didn't say much, he DID say
>enough for it to be very clear that he believed Jesus to be an actual
>person, "born of a woman, born under the Law" (Galatians 4.4).
> (b) depends on the Gospels being written after the end of the first
>century, and that's simply not a view experts in the field take seriously.
>The Gospels were written somewhere between the early to mid 60s AD and the
>early 90s: Mark probably first, Matthew, Luke and John an indeterminate
>period later. But almost beyond reasonable doubt, in the first century.
> So the claim that there's no evidence that anyone thought Jesus was
>actually a man until more than a century later can only be made by ignoring
>the evidence of Paul, and dating the Gospels absurdly late.
> As for the Josephus evidence, there is a strong consensus that,
>although Josephus has been tampered with, we can be pretty clear what he
>really wrote before the tampering. Remove the obviously Christian
>interpolations, and you have a number of claims which, though they are broadly
>consistent with the Gospel picture, would not satisfy any prospective
>Christian "tamperer". On all this see J.P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew", vol. 1,
>pp. 56ff., for a meticulous discussion with full references.
> If you want to claim that Jesus is "actually" a spiritual archetype,
>go right ahead! But don't pretend that this religious claim is based on
>history, because it isn't. If you want to see two quite good books, written
>by real historians who are NOT Christians, try either Michael Grant's
>"Jesus", or Geza Vermes' "Jesus the Jew". Neither is a perfect book, but
>they are both real historians, arguing from the evidence.
>
Christopher, could it be that I have misunderstood what you have
written? I neglected to ask you. Maybe you didn't mean exactly
what I was reading into what you were saying. You do believe that
Paul talked about Jesus a lot, don't you? Something tells me you
might have meant something else. If you have time, would you explain
more? Thankyou if you can.n
>
Suzanne
>
Schlau
You cross-posting to religous newsgroups on purpose to get such
responses. Your being a troll ADR.
--Oscar Schlaf--
PS - Curiosi giusti ma sono voi italiani?
lraven
Not to mention the fact that if the shroud is the real thing, it probably
means Jesus was still alive and hadn't actually died during the
crucifixion. On the shroud it appears that considerable bleeding continued
to take place from some of the gravitational highpoints of the body. A
corpse without a heartbeat simply cannot generate any of the blood pressure
which is necessary for that to happen.
If he survived the crucifixion (and he well could have, since crucifixion
victims typically lasted several days before succumbing and he was only on
it for 3 or 4 hours), that would certainly explain a lot. It would
certainly explain why he kept such a low profile afterward, appearing in
secret behind locked doors and so on. If he was discovered by the
authorities to be still alive after he was supposed to have been executed,
they would certainly have hung him back up again and made doubly sure of
it, plus they would probably have been hot to round up a certain bunch of
his friends as conspirators and do unpleasant things to them as well. They
would have probably hung them all up together; the Romans didn't care much
for trouble makers. So much for the early church!
It would also explain why Nicodemus (as reported in the gospel of John)
brought a hundred pounds of healing herbs to the tomb (myrrh is a
disinfectent and aloe a healing agent, a combination once used by soldiers
to treat battle wounds). I guess when you've been punched in the face,
whipped to bleeding all over the upper body with a lead-tipped flail, had
thorns forced into your scalp, nails driven through your wrists and feet,
and been jabbed in the ribs by a sharp instrument (the original word
describing the spear thrust implying a shallow wound, BTW), you probably
need a pretty thorough overall coating of medicine of that very sort.
Of course, it might just be a coincidence.
Chris
M.C.Harrison
Suzanne wrote in message ...
>>Yeah, thou Saabirah is full of it and believes in angels and virgin births
>>and whatever one can be indoctrineate with, just like Suzanna. This is all
>and they can't get past the absurdity of it to see that if God
>wanted to become one of us, he had to climb inside the seed
>of the woman and come here the same way the rest of us got
>here. There had to be a vehicle whereby God could be born
>as a human. If Jesus had an earthly father, then God could
>not have been born in the flesh. That would have then been
>someone else.
Um, no, this is one of those dna thingies, which back in the 3000 BCE days,
ignorance was understandable and things like virgin births appeared to make
sense. These days, we know the mechanism, and can therefore see that the
tale is just incorrect. Note, even if Jesus had been the messiah, and so
forth, this story would still originate with Gilgamesh or beyond, and still
be wrong for reasons of dna.
I shall explain, although there's others who know more about this stuff than
I do. First off, a human being gets two lots of dna, one from the mother,
one from the father, and the genes are a mixture of genes from both parents.
Only a man can provide the male Y chromosome, and for various reasons, males
need genes on other chromosomes that come from a man in order to avoid
genetic morbities, i.e. you can't just bolt together dna and hope what comes
out is well evolved.
Ok, now to details. Let us imagine that God <tm> provides the Y chromosome
and the male set of genes on the corresponding strands. There are much
easier ways to do this than by magic, the most obvious method would be to
provide guidance during conception so that a particular set of genes are
inherited, rather than leaving things to chance as happens in the rest of
the cases.
But let's ignore that for now, and assume that God <tm> actually impregnates
the human in much the same way as any male would, except perhaps the rest of
the experience other than just conception. We have our offspring with a
viable set of dna, which we'll assume is because God is all powerful and
knows exactly what's what despite not having evolved himself and lacking any
mechanism for removing bad genes.
Is there a divine content? Well, the dna he gets is coded, that is to say it
is made up from regular chemical bases composed in a certain way, there is
nothing "divine" about a given carbon atom, for instance, unless it is
indistinguishable from any other carbon atom*. More to the point, the
initial dna is almost immediately watered down, since each cell has to have
a complete copy. Each time the cell divides, it must get another set of dna
to make up for the bits the other cell contains, so by about the fourth
division, when the baby has sixteen cells, each one is only a little bit
divine, and by the time the child reached the sixteenth, and has several
thousand cells, each one is mundane and only a few still contain divine dna.
The rest are just normal dna coded in a divine way.
(* the properties of a regular carbon atom determine how it behaves in
chemical reactions. Either divine carbon atoms are exactly the same as
regular ones, in which case there is nothing much divine about them, or they
are different, in which case they prevent organic chemical reactions from
proceeding normally, and hence do not allow organic life to survive. My
point is that a divine carbon atom that has an atomic weight of 12.5 rather
than 12 is silly, and pointless. Atoms are already perfect, so divine ones
can only be imperfect or different in some other sense.)
But maybe that dna sequence is divinely inspired? Well dna of itself has no
function, it just instructs the other chemicals in the cell to behave in
certain ways. These ways, for a human to have viable dna, must be
instructions that the cells are capable of carrying out. Thus, a cell cannot
of itself carry a mechanism for walking on water. Dna could be coded such
that a latent ability of the organism was activated, but there isn't any
such mechanism in our body to walk on water, if there was, such a useful
ability would have been discovered by evolution, unless of course God <tm>
deliberately prevents beneficial evolutionary progress in favour of causing
cancers and stuff.
So the dna is basically irrelevant, and the involvement of a deity is
animism, i.e. imagining some unknown substance is involved rather than
knowing how a human being develops and how genetic inheritance works.
Gilgamesh was even more unlucky, he had a third divine, two thirds mortal,
which would be possibly viable, but would have rendered him sterile, at
least. Perhaps he was XYY, alleged in the seventies to cause violent
behaviour, which would explain a lot about the Epic... ;)
Vic Rattlehead
"M.C.Harrison" wrote:
> {SNIP}
> That's the one that mentions the three kings.....
[humour]
Three wise men are following a star through the desert.
The star stops over a little village and begins to shine brightly on a barn
behind a small inn.
They walk into the barn and find a little baby lying in a manger.
As they approached the manger, one of the wise men walks into a plough and
smashes his knee on the handle and in agony yells out "JESUS CHRIST!"
A voice came down from above and said "That's a good name, I was going to call
him Roger."
[/humour]
On a slightly more serious note, I tend to agree with the comments made in your
post. I am fairly new to this group (and indeed this medium) and would
apologise in advance if I am going over old ground here....
I am in the process of reading a book called "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail"
by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln which mentions the crucifiction. The possible
hypotheses they cover are that:
1. The crucifiction never took place
2. Jesus was indeed crucified but survived. They expand upon this by referring
to a passage which mentions Jesus being given a sponge soaked in vinegar when he
asked for a drink upon the cross. Their theory is that the sponge actually
contained a concoction of Opium and Nightshade (amongst others) which served to
render Jesus comatose for approximately 3 days, thus being sufficient to
persuade those in charge that Jesus was actually dead. It is also interesting
to note that the Romans wee prepared to give Jesus body to Joseph of Aramithea,
which went against the standard of the time. Victims or crucifiction (a
punishment reserved for crimes against the Roman empire IIRC) were left on the
cross until their flesh could no longer support them and they fell.
3. There was indeed a crucifiction, but it was not the one called Jesus Christ
who died on the cross, but a substitute. They even go as far as to suggest a
name for the alleged substitute, but I am afraid I cannot recall it at the
moment. Should anyone be interested, however, I would be more than willing to
re-read the section to find out.
With regard to your comment concerning the meaning of Jesus Barabbas, you are
correct, although Barabbas can also be translated to read 'Son of the Rabbi'.
Regards
Stu
--
Above email address is false. If you are desperate enough to want to Email me
try
stuart DOT scott AT gecm DOT com
M.C.Harrison
Suzanne wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Quentin David Jones wrote in message <7hb0pj$23e$1...@ftp.curtin.edu.au>...
>>>
>>>> (b) depends on the Gospels being written after the end of the first
>>>
>>>The Gospels may have been written late
>>>in the 1st century, but originally they
>>>were written as Midrash (stories about
>>>a well-known figure to expound a point
>>>of view) about the mythical founder
>>>of the Mysteries (Iasius) - not as history.
>>
>>
>>Worth throwing a comment or two in at this point. What we refer to as the
>>Bible didn't exist until it was constructed during the Council of Nicea
>>
>No, the Council of Nicea was in 325 AD. The Gospels were penned
>way early. There even is evidence that there were earlier versions
>than what we know for sure. The Gospel of Matthew reports the
>fall of Jerusalem and the temple as a future event. Luke's Gospel is
>earlier than Acts and Matthew is earlier than Luke's. It is also thought
>that Matthew wrote an Aramaic oricinal around 40-45 AD. This would
>place the Greek Matthew around the middle of the first century A.D.
Since we are in a sci.* newsgroup, well I am anyway, I would point out that
what we refer to as the Bible didn't exist until that conference, because
there were all sorts of texts associated with the matter, and that these did
not constitute a coherent tome but were contradictory, retranslations of
other material that was used to produce the core of the modern Bible, at
that conference. To make a parable about this, imagine that the world was
looking for a networking infrastructure, and that nobody much knew what to
do about it. So, a steering group is formed under the auspices of the OSI,
and various networking gurus are invited to propose various ways of going
about it. They have some ideas, both good and bad, but at the end of the
conference, IEEE12345 is produced, as a consistent networking standard.
Before that, some people had ideas about using token ring architectures,
others liked the idea of asynchronous packet switching, and more favoured
the use of existing landlines and mulitplexed modems. None of these partial
solutions worked, and they were inconsistent with each other, but if the OSI
want a coherent standard, they draw on existing methodologies and
technologies and invent the new standard from those.
You are saying that IEEE12345 existed in various forms, faithfully recorded
by some unidentified individuals, because there was an IEEE12345 standard
already present, and that the only problem was that some people were trying
to propose different architectures. That is not what history claims, I
gather, but produce some concrete information otherwise and I can change my
perception of the matter. Simply telling me that it wasn't extensively
edited by Emperor C and his merry scribes doesn't cut the mustard.
>Mark's Gospel was written before Luke's and that would place it at
>least at earlier than 63 A.D., as Luke's is in 63 A.D. The date of
>John's Gospel has been dated 85 to 95 A.D. A bit of papyrus
>containing two verses of the Gospel of John has been discovered
>and belongs to the Papyrus Rylands and is dated c.140 A.D. This
>bit of evidence suggests that the fourth gospel was in existence as
>early as the first half of the second century and at that time was
>already in very wide use.
Thing is, the disciples were fishermen, and weren't generally literate. If
they did write gospels, this would be done by using a scribe, and in any
case, quite a lot of the gospels contain information that the alleged author
was not present to observe. In fact, until Jesus "began his ministry", there
would be no reason to record his doings in detail, except in order to
present credentials.
>>under the active auspices of Emperor Constantine IIRC. This formed the
basis
>>for the state religion to hold together the crumbling Roman Empire for as
>>long as possible, with a creed of self-sacrifice and duty to the state,
and
>>drew heavily on several extant, non-christian religions such as Mithraic.
>>Thus, there are folk who predate the alleged events, who are dead ringers
>>for a historical Christ, e.g. virgin birth, crucifixion, born in a stable,
>>and so on.
>There is controversy over this.
Not really, it is a well-recorded event. Also, there is no problem checking
other sources like translations of the Epic of Gilgamesh, where you get all
the same tales, and which easily predates the council of Nicea. Similarily,
I've yet to see anyone claim that Emperor Constantine was anything other
than a sun god worshipper, one of the Ra sort, which did not believe in an
afterlife, among other things. I gather that on his death bed, he observes
that worshipping a god who doesn't provide an after life is fine until you
are on your death bed, and so recants and converts to the christian
religion, which although he helped re-invent it, does give at least some
prospect of further existence.
I've seen this presented in various lights, but that's the core of his
involvement.
>Some who are Catholic claim the
>Council was Catholic. However, there are others who claim that
>it really was not. This Council was not there for the purpose of
>writing the Bible, according to what I have read, but rather to
>clarify what the scriptures meant. There had been some as
>always that wanted to corrupt what the scriptures said. As I
>gather, it was a meeting to preserve the scriptures in their truths.
You carry on believing that if you prefer, but the evidence is something
altogether different. For a start, consider the route the documents came
from. We know that the Romans obtained the bulk of the scriptures from the
Greeks, and we know that they, in turn, got them from the middle east
Leaving aside the issue of figurative language, e.g. those with the Jewish
faith were numbered among the living, and those outside it were numbered
among the dead, and so someone "dying" and being "brought back among the
living" doesn't necessarily imply anything miraculous, etc, leaving aside
all that, the Greeks were notoriously keen on magical tales, and translated
everything literally. They were using documentation that had not been
written in order to be easy to translate, but with the true meaning hidden
to avoid it falling into the hands of foreign occupiers.
And diverse versions, too, all sorts, often contradictory.
Not ideal for the basis for a new state religion, especially when there were
many cults around which had strong support, e.g. Mithras.
>>Other points to note, the name "Jesus" is not all that rare, and some
bibles
>>carry the observation that Herod had at least two Jesus' in the cells at
the
>>time of the alleged trial. One was called "Jesus Barabbas", but some
>>versions omit the forename (perhaps so as not to confuse True Believers?).
>>The name "Jesus Barabbas" is interesting for another reason, as "Bar" and
>>"Abba" translates (I gather) into "of the" and "Father" rather than being
a
>>regular surname.
>Yes, I can tell you that is so, for the Bible makes such a distinction,
My point was that not all Bibles do. However, it *is* clear that we are not
talking about a single person at the time, being relevant to the plot, but
at least two. I've also heard a theory that there were two Jesus, one was
the teacher of righteousness, the other was the secular leader. High priest
and King, as it were, each validating the position of the other. Very
convincing, but I read it as fiction rather than fact.
>at the crucifixion, as Pilate wrote on the sign for he benefit of the
>Jews that he felt were the ones crucifying him, that this was one
>"Jesus of Nazareth", so that they would be able to differentiate exactly
Erm, not really. "INRI" is what I've mostly seen chalked up in pictures,
which IIRC means "King of the Jews", but this is all rather peripheral and
there's no reason to suppose it really happened, from the evidence, Bible to
one side. See, looking at motivation, why would Pilate, who washed his hands
of the matter in accordance with Jewish tradition, in a way that said he did
not consider whoever it was that was crucified as guilty of any capital
crime, why he would want to hang occultly significant signs on the victim,
or otherwise engage in symbology. As a Roman, you'd expect him to
subcontract the execution to the executioners, wasn't exactly a rare event.
To the Romans, names would be somewhat irrelevant, aside from the important
figures orchestrating the revolting against their rule, and since "Jesus"
probably means "Redeemer", it is just a good name for a freedom fighter,
hence having folk locked up as terrorists bearing that name, is hardly
surprising. Nailing them up would be equally mundane, but putting special
name tags onto them first would be stirring up trouble for yourself, and
Pilate was, if nothing else, an adept diplomat capable of maintaining peace
in the province with only a skeleton occupation force.
>which Jesus that was. I would also say that from that, you could
>conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was well known, if he could simply
>be differentiated from someone else, simply by his city. Perhaps
>Jesus and Joseph were well known aside from Jesus's ministry,
>from the Carpenter shop that Joseph must have run very well.
Jesus is described as being "of the line of David" in one of the gospels.
That implies (A) no virgin birth, jewish lines being paternal, and (B) that
his family line puts him into the frame for the throne. Of course, if not
true, then that would be added later as another Credential. If it is true,
then he isn't just another Jesus who has to be identified by his city. The
bible doesn't imply the carpenters shop being of great fame, and in fact the
family seem to spend the night in stables and whatnot. Not rich or famous,
judging by the subjective information available.
>>people apparently ask for "Jesus of the Father", who is then released.
Maybe
>>Monty Python were not that far off when they have the Jews call out for
all
>>sorts of people, in order to make fun of the romans who do not understand
>Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!
Gotta admit, the logistics of this event are highly peculiar. First off, the
crowd are calling for a Jesus to be released. Fine, that can be recognised
easily enough, but then they are apparently also calling for a Jesus to
*not* be released, and the Romans are able to tell the difference between
Jesus "of the father" and Jesus "of Nazareth" just from what the crowd are
shouting for.
Quite apart from the question of whether Romans were in the habit of
releasing convicted prisoners to celebrate jewish religious days, as I
recall there was some in here that say they were, although if it had been my
house that the criminal had broken into to earn his sentence, I'd not think
highly of them (and cannot see why anyone else would be in favour aside from
the convicts mother - oo, getting back to that Life of Brian film again
here...)
>Also, each account of the crucifixion is different. Each one
>of those differences is a clue to something else. The
>places where they are similar are simply because they
>all were present.
At that, check your sources. My information suggests the differences are
part of the process at Nicea, not something present at the time they were
alleged to have been penned. Like, which of the "four" authors produced the
apocrypha, and why are these dropped?
>>Yeah, one gospel is written to include a whole load of astrological
>>credentials that the aspiring demigod could be seen to require if you
happen
>>to be into astrology. That's the one that mentions the three kings, and
the
>>gifts of gold, mhyr and other occult materials for mystic reasons. Also,
the
>>
>If I may make a minor observation:
>It was an astronomy that was ancient, not to be confused with astrology,
>which was condemned.
Astronomy is the study of the stars, astrology is the idea that symbolism
and birth time/place have mystical significance. I am extremely well aware
of the difference, having tried to get a subscription to "Astronomy Today"
and being advised to buy "Astological Times" and the like on many occasions.
The gospel, however, clearly has little or nothing to do with astronomy.
While the star over Bethlehem could be seen as astronomical information, it
does not behave like a real star, and in fact cannot describe any star in
the real world, for reasons of mechanics. Similar, the gifts and stuff are
quite obviously astrological, so it is easy to see the stellar connection is
an astrological one. I am aware that the astronomical/astrological
significance is not well formed from the point of view of actual astronomers
of the period, who were well aware of the periodicity of the planets and
behaviours of stars and comets and the like. The line between astronomy and
astrology was already becoming sharper at the time.
>This was a godly astronomy, as it says in
>Genesis that the stars were given to man as signs for days, months, and
>years. That does not mean that they believed the stars "ruled" them,
>as astrologers do.
Yet the time and place of the birth of Christ is seen as significant? That
is my point exactly.
You'd have little or no chance working out the time or date from the star of
bethlehem.
>>have been true. At Nicea, quite a lot of the conflicting data was removed
so
>>that the story was consistent (you know, like when you and the
co-defendants
>>meet up prior to the trial so that the various bogus aliases and so forth
do
>>not immediately conflict.)
>What are you saying was removed? The scriptures were not
>removed at all, but clarified and declared.
Well e.g. when the gospels talk about Jesus killing one of his elder
brothers, this is in conflict with his mother being a virgin, ignoring the
detail of fraticide. So, it was out, since the virgin birth had to be in to
satisfy the Mithra cultists. That's hardly clarification, as it is the
complete removal of a given book. Other places the wording has to be
changed. At this point, also, we have the revision of mortality, up until
then it wasn't obvious that Jesus was divine, most folk had it that he was a
prophet, born to be king of the Jews, it was at Nicea that it was decided to
make him a divine being, which at the time more or less mandated a virgin
birth. Then there was the issue of monotheism, for Jesus to be divine, then
God has to be split into at least two beings at any one time, so we have a
sort of triple deity that is one as well as three, at the same time, sort of
thing.
Lots of it, in fact.
>There were people
>that wanted to change what was written. What the Council did
>was clarify so that there would be a preservation of the original
>not a loss of the original.
Check that out, because it isn't likely. Who was the driving force behind
it, and what was the outcome? It is significant that Constantine had his
co-emperor bumped off with the pretext that he was persecuting christians,
allowing him to unify the east and west empire, and rule by means of the
newly invented Catholic church, that the emperor himself didn't bother with
until the end, when it might have made a difference.
>>Being a cynical read_between_the_lines type of person, I find it
remarkably
>>easy to see what the orginal text was meant to mean, rather than what
>>fundamentalists read from it.
>I wonder what you are meaning here?
Ok, stuff can be in a document for overt reasons, e.g. the transcript of a
murder witness contains information that is what the witness wants to tell
you about. Fundamentalists would take it as a true account of what the
witness saw.
But more than that, the transcript contains information that is *not*
intended by the "witness" to be provided, e.g. talking about something that
the witness would not actually have been able to see. I am the sort of
person who notices the subtle, and so spots clues that with retrospect tell
me more about what is happening than the simple taking of information from
it would provide.
>A fundamentalist is
>a person that simply believes that the Bible is true.
Given that it is self-inconsistent, at least in places, this requires an act
of "faith", since it cannot be a position logically arrived at.
I could put it another way, a fundamentalist is a person who does not
question what they think they know, and so therefore never advance in
knowledge.
>Though the
>word is rather pummelling sounding, with its five evenly accented
>syllables, sounding like cat tails pommeling a log in the wind. :)
>But, you say you see in it what the person who believes the
>Bible is true does not see.
Indeed. What the bible says is what the bible says. This is interesting
since it comes via various mechanisms, mostly with ethical or studied
translations, and a lot of what is said is still meaningful in the context
of a wider view of history.
Other things worth reading carefully are old works of literature, getting
inside the head of the author is quite productive there, too, since they do
not realise what they are revealing. Unspoken assumptions, and the Bible is
riddled with those, mostly dating from the Roman era and before.
Omar
Sub-Zero skrev i meldingen <#kwT48om#GA.241@cpmsnbbsa05>...
>ok.......Muhammad wasn't founding an original religion, just a revision of
>previous ones with all the "added human stuff" deleted and more Divine
stuff
>from God added.
But then you have to acknowledge that you christians have even less an
original religion. The NT is like the Hadith, ie. sayings. They not the word
of God, they are things that the Prophets reportedly have said. Christians
still use the OT as a reference to moral. How can you then call Christianity
a origianl religion, it is just Judaism mixed with Roman mythology. Example;
The day of worship in Christianity is Sunday, but in Roman Mythology Sunday
was the day of the Sun god. Emperor Constantin was the first christian
emporor, but even then he was an active member in the Sun kult up till the
time of his death. He was the force behind the Bible and Christianity as we
know it today!
>God wanted to clean up the mess man made. First of all...Muslims believe
>that Jesus did not die on the cross...God did not want his Prophet to get
>murdered so he put someone who looks like him in his place and raised Jesus
>to Heaven. He will return, not as a Prophet, but as a leader of Islam to
>finally die (as we must all do and he has not yet) and bring Islam to all
>his misguided followers and the world...
Not true. You have just heard a crazed follower of a illiterate mullah, and
thought that that is what most muslims believe. In fact there is no proof
what so ever in the Holy Qur'an that another man was crusified instead of
Jesus(pbuh). The Qur'an furthermore never states that Jesus(pbuh) was never
crusified, in fact it says several times that hadhrat Isa(pbuh), arabic for
Jesus(pbuh), was crusifeid.Take these things in account when you write
anything on this subject the next time!
Omar Bin Muslim
Omar
>scrolls. In, I think, the Gospel of Thomas the writer had Jesus speaking in
>the first person, with the wording nearly exactly the same as that we find
>in the Quran. The Quranic version seems to be lifting the story off word
for
>word from a common tradition of this story in the area.
Proove it, you say things like this but you do not prove it. I have read
some reaserch on the Nag HAmmedani documents, but I have not found any link
to the fact that the Qur'an is a word by word copy of parts of the Nag
Hammedani documents!
And Muhammad(saw) was a known illiterate and how do you expect an illiterate
person to create a whole new religion from nothing and then say that it is a
copy of other religions!
And The Holy Bible is partly a word by word by word by word copy of the
Torah!
>Of course, the gnostics did not believe Jesus was born of a virgin and died
>for three days before resurrecting, all that was made by the Alexandrians
>and their knowledge of the god Osiris. The Quran uses the virgin birth
story
>to make converting easier for christians. In fact, they are all wrong.
>First, someone has to show how a virgin woman can give birth to a 'male'
>child. Then they have to show an historical Jesus, as well as many
>patriarchs, who did all the things that have been claimed.
First of all virgin births are possible amon humans, see Ilusstrated Science
or the American Medical Journal. There is a tomb in a city in India called
Srinager. The tomb is of one "Yus Asaf" which means something like "Prophet
Jesus".
Omar Bin Muslim
Victor
scholar Dr. Douglass, and Islamic scholar Ahmed Deedat on this topic. I can
mail it to u for free at the end of may.. just email me your address
Vic Rattlehead wrote in message <37400ADB...@rattlegecm.com>...
rus...@wku.edu
>
> Sub-Zero skrev i meldingen <#kwT48om#GA.241@cpmsnbbsa05>...
>>ok.......Muhammad wasn't founding an original religion, just a revision of
>>previous ones with all the "added human stuff" deleted and more Divine
> stuff
>>from God added.
>
>
> But then you have to acknowledge that you christians have even less an
> original religion. The NT is like the Hadith, ie. sayings. They not the word
> of God, they are things that the Prophets reportedly have said. Christians
> still use the OT as a reference to moral. How can you then call Christianity
> a origianl religion, it is just Judaism mixed with Roman mythology. Example;
> The day of worship in Christianity is Sunday, but in Roman Mythology Sunday
> was the day of the Sun god. Emperor Constantin was the first christian
> emporor, but even then he was an active member in the Sun kult up till the
> time of his death. He was the force behind the Bible and Christianity as we
> know it today!
>
Christianity is NOT an orginal religion, it is an extension of
Judaism. It is the sum of what the prophesies fortold in the Old
Testament. It is the fulfillment of Judaism... Jesus Christ
fulfilled ALL the prophesies of the OT pertaining to the Messiah.
"Christians" were allowed in synagogs. Then they were thought of
as Jews (and Gentiles) that simply believed the Jewish Messiah had
come which went along with Jewish prophesies.
Andrew Christian
CHRIS C
>Are you sure you are ready to listen?
>DW Suiter
Nothing wrong with my sense of hearing,
I am ready.
thank you
chris C
dwsu...@bellsouth.net
The Living God speaks continually to those with "ears to hear."
DW Suiter
Suzanne
Bud (the original) wrote in message <3738da9f.38692379@news-server>...
>On 09 May 1999 22:26:37 PDT, "Job (Ian Rohrbacher)"
><nifl...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Many historians, including Josephus, have found record of the man known as
>>Jesus. There was also found a stone engraving about Pontius Pilate and a man
>>named Jesus. It's safe to say, from a historical perspective, that Jesus
>>existed.
>
>In fact, a LOT of men named Jesus have lived.
>
>Was one of them the man described in the Bible?
>
> Possibly.
>
>Does that make the Bible historically accurate?
>
> Not in a million years.
>
It is hard to keep those of you straight who are called
"Bud". The Bud I have been typing to a lot says he is
a Christian.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Omar wrote in message <7hpulm$jnr$1...@romeo.dax.net>...
>
Suzanne
M.C.Harrison
Vic Rattlehead wrote in message <37400ADB...@rattlegecm.com>...
>
>
>"M.C.Harrison" wrote:
>
>
>> {SNIP}
>> That's the one that mentions the three kings.....
call
>him Roger."
>[/humour]
<Snicker>
>On a slightly more serious note, I tend to agree with the comments made in
your
>post. I am fairly new to this group (and indeed this medium) and would
>apologise in advance if I am going over old ground here....
>I am in the process of reading a book called "The Holy Blood and the Holy
Grail"
>by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln which mentions the crucifiction. The
possible
>hypotheses they cover are that:
Welcome to the group. We have all sorts in here, so no need to worry about
fitting in, the only thing to bear in mind is that it is a sci.* group, and
stuff posted ought to be scientific, if at all possible. Not that you will
stand out as unusual if you post gibberish, you'll see enough of that as
well. If you're posting in alt.religion.christian I won't see it, as I don't
import alt.* hierarchy. Similar, I don't post in soc.history.ancient, which
are also carrying this thread.
So far as your book goes, many books are written in order to sell, rather
than having much merit for the value of their contents. This isn't to say
that all books are bad, just that you will find quoting out of a single book
leads to those with more archeological experience than the author of the
book may well point out inconsistencies or correct errors, often
invalidating the premise of the book altogether. When this happens, the best
thing is to accept data as it comes rather than trying to justify what are,
after all, someone else's ideas.
FWIW, I myself enjoy reading books regardless of their accuracy, some are
thought-provoking, others are entertaining, some make me laugh at the idiocy
of the theories being presented.
>1. The crucifiction never took place
We know that crucifixions in general certainly took place, so really we have
to identify which crucifixion it was that either did or didn't take place.
It is hard to prove that the one in the bible didn't take place, much as it
is hard to prove that life doesn't inhabit the planet Pluto.
Similar, we needn't assume that it took place either, reports in the bible
are only gospel truth, not like reading it in a newspaper ;)
>2. Jesus was indeed crucified but survived. They expand upon this by
referring
>to a passage which mentions Jesus being given a sponge soaked in vinegar
when he
>asked for a drink upon the cross. Their theory is that the sponge actually
>contained a concoction of Opium and Nightshade (amongst others) which
served to
>render Jesus comatose for approximately 3 days, thus being sufficient to
>persuade those in charge that Jesus was actually dead.
Don't see why this should be proposed, really. The Romans were experienced
practitioners of crucifixion, and with what is supposed to be a high-profile
execution, would be expected to take extra care to ensure that all went
according to plan. The description of what they did bears out the notion
that they got it right, and tested the body properly.
>It is also interesting
>to note that the Romans wee prepared to give Jesus body to Joseph of
Aramithea,
>which went against the standard of the time. Victims or crucifiction (a
>punishment reserved for crimes against the Roman empire IIRC) were left on
the
>cross until their flesh could no longer support them and they fell.
Indeed. Mind you, Pilate had to do diplomacy, as he didn't have enough
troops to put down serious rebellion. If burial was going to make his job
easier, he'd not worry about how the body was disposed of. Also, if the
story in the bible is accurate, Pilate didn't nail him up for any crime as
such, so he wasn't a common criminal, and if his lineage was (as claimed)
from David, etc, then special arrangements would be in order. Speculation,
of course, not supported by any scientific evidence.
>3. There was indeed a crucifiction, but it was not the one called Jesus
Christ
>who died on the cross, but a substitute. They even go as far as to suggest
a
>name for the alleged substitute, but I am afraid I cannot recall it at the
>moment. Should anyone be interested, however, I would be more than willing
to
>re-read the section to find out.
Yeah, there's all sorts of ideas along these lines. One that springs to mind
is in the Mason thingy book, the Hiram Key (spelign?) which makes out there
were two messiahs, only one of which was crucified, and the other set free.
>With regard to your comment concerning the meaning of Jesus Barabbas, you
are
>correct, although Barabbas can also be translated to read 'Son of the
Rabbi'.
Sure, given that a priest is also "father". Abba means Father, in fact it is
used to refer to god in some places in the bible, or possibly it refers to a
fan of the seventies pop group... Hmm... I must write a best-selling book...
Bjorn can be the father, Aneka can represent Isis... and... ;)
Vic Rattlehead
"M.C.Harrison" wrote:
> >A voice came down from above and said "That's a good name, I was going to
> call
> >him Roger."
>
> <Snicker>
>
Glad you liked it. Certainly gave me a chuckle.
> Welcome to the group.
Thank you.
> We have all sorts in here, so no need to worry about
> fitting in, the only thing to bear in mind is that it is a sci.* group, and
> stuff posted ought to be scientific, if at all possible. Not that you will
> stand out as unusual if you post gibberish,
I shall try my best not to :)
> you'll see enough of that as
> well. If you're posting in alt.religion.christian I won't see it, as I don't
> import alt.* hierarchy. Similar, I don't post in soc.history.ancient, which
> are also carrying this thread.
Nope, sci.archaeology, which is the only group of the three in the headers which
my server carries.
>
>
> So far as your book goes, many books are written in order to sell, rather
> than having much merit for the value of their contents. This isn't to say
> that all books are bad, just that you will find quoting out of a single book
> leads to those with more archeological experience than the author of the
> book may well point out inconsistencies or correct errors, often
> invalidating the premise of the book altogether. When this happens, the best
> thing is to accept data as it comes rather than trying to justify what are,
> after all, someone else's ideas.
I agree wholeheartedly. I have really just found an interest in stuff like this
(there is a bit of Templar history in my family tree which I found whilst having
my geneology researched to give a detailed family tree to my parents for a
present. Apparently, one of my distant ancestors was a Templar who fled to
Scotland during the Inquisition, and that is what sparked my interest. Sorry if
I bored anyone!!), and am always willing to listen to those who are more
experienced than I. For the most part, Holy Blood...Holy Grail does seem to be
well researched, and gives some extremely good hypotheses regarding certain
areas of Christian history, none of which are new, admittedly, example that the
Magdalene was Jesus wife/concubine and sired him a child/children, but
nonetheless, the authors go into some good detail to try and rationalise their
statements.
>
>
> FWIW, I myself enjoy reading books regardless of their accuracy, some are
> thought-provoking, others are entertaining, some make me laugh at the idiocy
> of the theories being presented.
>
> >2. Jesus was indeed crucified but survived. They expand upon this by
> referring
> Don't see why this should be proposed, really. The Romans were experienced
> practitioners of crucifixion, and with what is supposed to be a high-profile
> execution, would be expected to take extra care to ensure that all went
> according to plan. The description of what they did bears out the notion
> that they got it right, and tested the body properly.
Sorry, I should perhaps have expanded on this point some more. In proposing
this theory, the authors presumed that Pilate (given that history records Pilate
as beeing quite different from the man described in the texts) was susceptible
to the odd backhander here and their, and was paid a substantial sum of money by
Jospeh of Arimithea in return for the survival of Jesus. Again, they go into a
fair bit of detail describing (circumstantial) evidence for this to have
occurred. They go on to suggest that following the crucifiction, Jesus went
into exile in Egypt, whilst the Magdalene and Joseph of Arimithea travelled to
southern France, more spcifically, the Languedoc. Personally, I remain to be
totally convinced, but their argument was at least thought provoking. I can
however, believe that the Magdalene was Jesus' wife, and it is therefore not
unreasonable to assume that they had children. As I am sure you are aware,
Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln are not alone in the belief that the family of Jesus
fled to (what is now) southern France following Jesus 'crucifiction'. "The
Templar Chronicles", another book I have just started appears to be going into a
bit more detail on this.
>
> >It is also interesting
> >to note that the Romans wee prepared to give Jesus body to Joseph of
> Aramithea,
>
> Indeed. Mind you, Pilate had to do diplomacy, as he didn't have enough
> troops to put down serious rebellion. If burial was going to make his job
> easier, he'd not worry about how the body was disposed of. Also, if the
> story in the bible is accurate, Pilate didn't nail him up for any crime as
> such, so he wasn't a common criminal, and if his lineage was (as claimed)
> from David, etc, then special arrangements would be in order. Speculation,
> of course, not supported by any scientific evidence.
Agreed with the above, hoever, this could also be further evidence that Pilate
was in the pocket of Joesph of Arimithea, again, pure speculation, but that is
what makes this so much FUN isn't it :)
>
>
> >3. There was indeed a crucifiction, but it was not the one called Jesus
> Christ
> >who died on the cross, but a substitute.
> Yeah, there's all sorts of ideas along these lines. One that springs to mind
> is in the Mason thingy book, the Hiram Key (spelign?) which makes out there
> were two messiahs, only one of which was crucified, and the other set free.
I saw The Hiram Key when I was buying The Templar Chronicles. Any good?
>
>
> >With regard to your comment concerning the meaning of Jesus Barabbas, you
> are
> >correct, although Barabbas can also be translated to read 'Son of the
> Rabbi'.
>
> Sure, given that a priest is also "father". Abba means Father, in fact it is
> used to refer to god in some places in the bible, or possibly it refers to a
> fan of the seventies pop group... Hmm... I must write a best-selling book...
> Bjorn can be the father, Aneka can represent Isis... and... ;)
If Bjorn is the father, Agnetha (I think that is who you meant) is Isis, Benny
can be Horus, and Anna-Frid can be........... the one that always seems to get
forgotten about????? ;)
Bill Kinkaid
<STARRI...@worldnet.att.net> took it upon her/himself to inform us, for
one reason or another, that:
>I find it extremely difficult to believe someone when I have to decipher
>what they say due to spelling errors. I don't mean to point any fingers here
>Chris, but it does make your argument loose some credit.
^^^^^
oops...
(not that Chris's post wasn't undecipherable even if had been spelled
right...)
Bill in Vancouver
(delete EAT-SPAM-AND-DIE
from e-mail address to respond)
Suzanne
Omar wrote in message <7hpu06$j4m$1...@romeo.dax.net>...
>
>Sub-Zero skrev i meldingen <#kwT48om#GA.241@cpmsnbbsa05>...
>>ok.......Muhammad wasn't founding an original religion, just a revision of
>>previous ones with all the "added human stuff" deleted and more Divine
>stuff
>>from God added.
>
>
>But then you have to acknowledge that you christians have even less an
>original religion. The NT is like the Hadith, ie. sayings. They not the word
>of God, they are things that the Prophets reportedly have said. Christians
>still use the OT as a reference to moral. How can you then call Christianity
>a origianl religion, it is just Judaism mixed with Roman mythology. Example;
>The day of worship in Christianity is Sunday, but in Roman Mythology Sunday
>was the day of the Sun god. Emperor Constantin was the first christian
>emporor, but even then he was an active member in the Sun kult up till the
>time of his death. He was the force behind the Bible and Christianity as we
>know it today!
>
in my front yard, this most amazing weed came up right next to it. In fact,
it came up all around it. I was amazed that it looked exactly like the
ajuga. I thought it was probably a weed, but just to be sure, I didn't dare
pull it up. Turns out that it was indeed weeds that looked exactly like the
more desireable plants. It absolutely amazed me that this weed knew
just where to grow to be confusing. You'd think those things could think
or something. Lots of times there are imitations of the real thing around.
In this case, the Roman, and also Greek mythology was truly believed by
the long ago Romans. This was not mythology to them. The tales got
embellished through the years, and then interpretted by Holywood on
some occasions. Turns out that possibly they were tales of when there
were giants on the earth who became well known during the time that
the angels who rebelled are supposed to have rebelled. It is thought
by many now, that these myths were based possibly on real things that
happened. Neither Christianity or Judaism got this from any ungodly
source to copy. In my book ( : ) ). It is more likely that the people who
embraced these pagan practises, were imitating the real thing, but not
with understanding. I am sure there must have been jealousies and
envies from people that were not seemingly in good with the real God.
Those people did have a reason to look for gods, as they knew that
there really was one. According to what I read in the Bible, these
pagan people were not people that didn't have a chance to please
God. He was the only God of many people, whether they acknowledged
him or not. In all the nations, there is truly only one God. That doesn't
mean that all call on him. The Moslem faith had the same beginning,
for they came from Abraham and Adama and Ewe as well. The
Christian church makes Sunday into Sonday you know.
>
>>God wanted to clean up the mess man made. First of all...Muslims believe
>>that Jesus did not die on the cross...God did not want his Prophet to get
>>murdered so he put someone who looks like him in his place and raised Jesus
>>to Heaven. He will return, not as a Prophet, but as a leader of Islam to
>>finally die (as we must all do and he has not yet) and bring Islam to all
>>his misguided followers and the world...
>
>Not true. You have just heard a crazed follower of a illiterate mullah, and
>thought that that is what most muslims believe. In fact there is no proof
>what so ever in the Holy Qur'an that another man was crusified instead of
>Jesus(pbuh). The Qur'an furthermore never states that Jesus(pbuh) was never
>crusified, in fact it says several times that hadhrat Isa(pbuh), arabic for
>Jesus(pbuh), was crusifeid.Take these things in account when you write
>anything on this subject the next time!
>
they also do believe that he was the Messiah, I understand. There is
a legend that because Abraham was married later, after Sarah died
to a woman named Keturah, that this is an indication of the love that
God also has for the other Middle Eastern peoples, and that this is
representative that he has made provisions for them also to come to
a saving knowledge of Jesus as their Savior as well. When he returns
this very well could be the time. This could happen tonight or tomorrow,
or at any time. A possibility always exists though that a person may
not make it to the day when he comes back again, so it is good to
do this now, and prepare one's heart for this event. We are all the
same on the inside of us.
>
Suzanne
>
Feeling Bad
The verb "to lose" is spelled with one "o". Not with two. The word that is
spelled with 2 means to let something go, to untie something, etc. The past
participle of this is "loosed". The past participle of the verb "to lose"
(ie, to misplace, to become devalued, etc) is lost.
An argument that "looses" credit therefore is an argument that "frees up
some credit, let's some credit go, unties some credit" etc.
An argument, on the other hand, that "loses" credit is one that is devalued
or becomes less significant.
Sorry for this out-of-place rant, but I see this particular bug-bear all the
time and it does something unspeakable to my anal sphincter.
Bill Kinkaid <kin...@eat.spam.and.die.bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:37423825....@news.bctel.ca...
collomb
You are lucky to have the name of Suzanne whose feast falls on August 11,
1999, the day of the total solar eclipse. See rather my website on :
http://calvaweb.calvacom.fr/collomb/
thank you
col...@calva.net
Suzanne <suzan...@altavista.net> a écrit dans l'article
<wms03.797$qP5....@news.flash.net>...
>
> Omar wrote in message <7hpu06$j4m$1...@romeo.dax.net>...
> >
> >Sub-Zero skrev i meldingen <#kwT48om#GA.241@cpmsnbbsa05>...
> >>ok.......Muhammad wasn't founding an original religion, just a revision
of
> >>previous ones with all the "added human stuff" deleted and more Divine
> >stuff
> >>from God added.
> >
> Suzanne
> >
>
>
>
>
Suzanne
Saad Ahmed wrote in message <373ECF4E...@nospam.mobius8.u-net.com>...
>SOME PEOPLE ARE SOOOOO THICK!!!!
>
>Son of God is used figuratively in the Bible as a holy person.
>Many times.
>
>As for the Centurion saying Jesus was the son of God as
>Suzanne said....if you CHECK the cross-reference to Luke it
>says he was a righteous man so son of God=righteous man.
>Mark 15:39 AND Luke 23:47
>
>Otherwise hundreds of ppl are sons of god literally in the
>Bible "Blessed are the peacemakers they shall be called
>children of God" etc.
>
And, John 1:12 reminds me of what you just said:
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on his name:"
>
Yet, he being God as well as man would therefore be
the firstborn son from the earth, and we are children
of God (the believers) but we are not God. Yet, inside
the Christian resides God in the heart of him.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
28SW2 wrote in message <373EE608...@MichianaToday.com>...
>
>
>Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell wrote:
>
>> ***Now Suzanne dont confuse our little sister Saabirah:) You know as
>> soon as she puts on that Hijab, she has to Hijab her mind also(its a
>> Muslim thing:)
>
>Such contemptuousness is really not necessary.
>
>> She and they have to stop thinking for themselves and
>> take their views from that little green book, a bit like the little red
>> book only not as garish:) hence when you bring up a subject like Jessus'
>> divinity, you can only expect the stock Koranic repsose that Jesus did
>> not claim to be divine.
>
>Well, because it is the Truth.
>
No, he did claim that. In fact when he asked the woman at the
well for a drink of water, he revealed to her that he is the Messiah.
He also, Pilate said, said he is the Son of God. He also said
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the
Father, except by me" He also forgave sin, which only God can
do. A person that believes that Jesus is a prophet, must also
believe what Jesus has said.
>
>> Anything else would require independent thought,
>> and this is not encouraged in the little green book. Just like in the
>> little red book infact:)
>
>Same goes for your interpretation of the Gospel of John. Much of it was
>theeffect of MARKETING the Teaching of Jesus in a PAGAN world.
>
>Do you actually think that, within a couple of hundred of years, a PAGAN world
>would COMPLETELY change its world view?
>
when he gets here, it will be sooner than that
>
>This is merely another expression of 'magical thinking'--like the Rapture and
>the
>return of Jesus on a white horse out of the sky.
>
Jesus said these things.
>
>Christianity was accepted by so many pagans because it incorporated into the
>Teaching of Jesus an entire spectrum of pagan doctrines such as the
>metaphysical
>'soul', without which it would have gained VERY few adherents.
>
The "pagans" were those who were "lost". The way was
opened to them.
>
Suzanne
ltx...@hotmail.com
Suzanne wrote in message ...
>Yes, it is never questioned by the Muslim that Jesus is a prophet, and
>they also do believe that he was the Messiah, I understand. There is
>a legend that because Abraham was married later, after Sarah died
>to a woman named Keturah, that this is an indication of the love that
>God also has for the other Middle Eastern peoples, and that this is
>representative that he has made provisions for them also to come to
>a saving knowledge of Jesus as their Savior as well. When he returns
>this very well could be the time. This could happen tonight or tomorrow,
>or at any time. A possibility always exists though that a person may
>not make it to the day when he comes back again, so it is good to
>do this now, and prepare one's heart for this event. We are all the
>same on the inside of us.
>>
>Suzanne
Jesus will return like a thief in the night. We are not to know when. That
is why we must live today like our last, live honestly, honorably, and love
thy neighbor as thy self is so important.
David Lawler
M.C.Harrison
Vic Rattlehead wrote in message <37415F31...@rattlegecm.com>...
>
>"M.C.Harrison" wrote:
>
>> stuff posted ought to be scientific, if at all possible. Not that you
will
>> stand out as unusual if you post gibberish,
>I shall try my best not to :)
Jolly good.
>> import alt.* hierarchy. Similar, I don't post in soc.history.ancient,
which
>> are also carrying this thread.
>Nope, sci.archaeology, which is the only group of the three in the headers
which
>my server carries.
That's where I am, then. Hmm, maybe I should figure out how to edit the
newsgroups list on this overly coded browser? If you don't see this, I
probably got that part wrong. ;-)
>> invalidating the premise of the book altogether. When this happens, the
best
>> thing is to accept data as it comes rather than trying to justify what
are,
>> after all, someone else's ideas.
>I agree wholeheartedly. I have really just found an interest in stuff like
this
>(there is a bit of Templar history in my family tree which I found whilst
having
>my geneology researched to give a detailed family tree to my parents for a
>present. Apparently, one of my distant ancestors was a Templar who fled to
>Scotland during the Inquisition, and that is what sparked my interest.
Sorry if
Ah, you'll like the Hiram Key, then, it goes into that period in detail.
Although, be warned, it will make you think your ancestor arrived in America
some time before Columbus did... ;)
>I bored anyone!!), and am always willing to listen to those who are more
>experienced than I. For the most part, Holy Blood...Holy Grail does seem
to be
>well researched, and gives some extremely good hypotheses regarding certain
>areas of Christian history, none of which are new, admittedly, example that
the
>Magdalene was Jesus wife/concubine and sired him a child/children, but
>nonetheless, the authors go into some good detail to try and rationalise
their
>statements.
I shall probably pick that one up as and when then, I have a growing
collection of such things, and it is quite nice to know in advance what
someone else has accepted as gospel truth, in details rather than just
knowing what they are saying is wierd.
A surprisingly worthwhile book I read a while back, and the author posts in
here from time to time, is Magi. I started reading this, hoping it would
discover all sorts of things about magic and the Ark and so on, but it was
all a bit mundane. I gave up on it, but returned and the second time I read
it, got the hang of what was in it. My initial judgement about it being a
von Daniken sensationalist book was mistaken, that was only how they
persuaded people to buy it. It actually is a well written description of
proper history, with a bit of speculation bolted on to make into a best
seller (proper history sells only a few copies, I suppose).
>> >2. Jesus was indeed crucified but survived. They expand upon this by
>> according to plan. The description of what they did bears out the notion
>> that they got it right, and tested the body properly.
>Sorry, I should perhaps have expanded on this point some more. In
proposing
>this theory, the authors presumed that Pilate (given that history records
Pilate
>as beeing quite different from the man described in the texts) was
susceptible
>to the odd backhander here and their, and was paid a substantial sum of
money by
>Jospeh of Arimithea in return for the survival of Jesus. Again, they go
into a
Yes, that could work. Pilate was a cunning guy, who is entirely
misrepresented in folk myth. The whole point about washing his hands of
Jesus was most likely added to give symbology by the author, rather than
being fact, and even then, the jewish significance of it bears no
resemblence to the western symbolism of washing ones hands of some matter.
Comes from the OT, I forget where, but probably leviticus or numbers. To do
with discovering a murder.
Pilate would be fairly unlikely to take backhanders if the result was a
resistance leader gaining credibility and even a legendary reputation for
having risen from the dead, which would certainly endanger his political
position. He was wealthy already, and thus not eager for money. He had the
power to levy taxation, etc, and being far from Rome in a politically
uncertain province would have ample opportunity to enrich himself. So, I
don't think it is a likely tale, but then I have yet to read their
reasoning.
>fair bit of detail describing (circumstantial) evidence for this to have
>occurred. They go on to suggest that following the crucifiction, Jesus
went
>into exile in Egypt, whilst the Magdalene and Joseph of Arimithea travelled
to
>southern France, more spcifically, the Languedoc. Personally, I remain to
be
>totally convinced, but their argument was at least thought provoking. I
can
I'd be far from convinced. Since Jesus was, by all accounts, a Jewish
wannabe king, why would any of them go off to Europe? Egypt yes, but the
only reason I think these tales appear is to make the period more
europeanised, when in reality the only element of europe relevant to the
story was that the Romans occupied the country in question.
It is quite likely that some of these stories come from people in the middle
ages trying to trace their descent to an important figure, often right back
to Adam and Eve. Fantasy, of course, but repeated often enough such that
some come to believe it. The perennial "I too heard something about that".
>> >It is also interesting
>> >to note that the Romans wee prepared to give Jesus body to Joseph of
>> Aramithea,
>> Indeed. Mind you, Pilate had to do diplomacy, as he didn't have enough
>> troops to put down serious rebellion. If burial was going to make his job
>> easier, he'd not worry about how the body was disposed of. Also, if the
>> story in the bible is accurate, Pilate didn't nail him up for any crime
as
>> such, so he wasn't a common criminal, and if his lineage was (as claimed)
>> from David, etc, then special arrangements would be in order.
Speculation,
>> of course, not supported by any scientific evidence.
>Agreed with the above, hoever, this could also be further evidence that
Pilate
>was in the pocket of Joesph of Arimithea, again, pure speculation, but that
is
>what makes this so much FUN isn't it :)
Pilate would certainly have links to significant members of the community,
and could be persuaded to do them favours in return for other favours.
That's not unreasonable, of course. I wouldn't think he was under control
though, he was from Imperial Rome, very important, connected to the Emperor
and so forth.
There is no problem letting a noble be buried with ceremony, of course,
particularily if someone is prepared to pay for the privilege. Quite another
issue in faking an execution.
>> >3. There was indeed a crucifiction, but it was not the one called Jesus
>> Christ
>> >who died on the cross, but a substitute.
>> Yeah, there's all sorts of ideas along these lines. One that springs to
mind
>> is in the Mason thingy book, the Hiram Key (spelign?) which makes out
there
>> were two messiahs, only one of which was crucified, and the other set
free.
>I saw The Hiram Key when I was buying The Templar Chronicles. Any good?
Yes. As in so many cases, what you read in it is not in any sense an
accurate story, but they are pretty up front about the fact that they are
speculating, which they are. Very fascinating ideas, though, well worth a
read. Better than Velikovsky <fbg>
>> Sure, given that a priest is also "father". Abba means Father, in fact it
is
>> used to refer to god in some places in the bible, or possibly it refers
to a
>> fan of the seventies pop group... Hmm... I must write a best-selling
book...
>> Bjorn can be the father, Aneka can represent Isis... and... ;)
>If Bjorn is the father, Agnetha (I think that is who you meant) is Isis,
Benny
>can be Horus, and Anna-Frid can be........... the one that always seems to
get
>forgotten about????? ;)
Hmm, let's have Bjorn as Set, Benny as Horus, Agnetha as Isis and Anna-Frid
as Cleopatra. Then, we would expect Hidden Relics to be buried under the
field of Waterloo, indeed, there was a letter from Napoleon in which he
makes it clear that he wants to take the field in order to have the Imperial
Guard excavate it and to carry the Hidden Relics to Paris, thus validating
his rule over the French Empire.
Wellington, who is a fictional character based on Set's left testicle, and
represented by a Silver Boot in the Mystical and Highly Symbological game
popularised by the Freemasons, is then reputed to have stopped Napoleon from
Realising this Quest in the parable that has come to be accepted as
historical fact for decades on the field of battle. Let me now just hint
darkly that the Farmhouse at Quatre Bleau has a lot more significance than
merely being a location in the battle, but not go into details since that
would give the game away (i.e. since I can see nothing meaningful about it,
you'd spot I was making the whole thing up.)
Now, off to trough Abba song lyrics so as to see if there is anything
ancient egyptian or possibly aramaic that I can read into them.
nada_v...@altavista.net
"Suzanne" <suzan...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
> Bud (the original) wrote in message <3738da9f.38692379@news-server>...
> >On 09 May 1999 22:26:37 PDT, "Job (Ian Rohrbacher)"
> ><nifl...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Many historians, including Josephus, have found record of the man
known as
> >>Jesus. There was also found a stone engraving about Pontius Pilate
and a man
> >>named Jesus. It's safe to say, from a historical perspective, that
Jesus existed.
Mmmmm
> >In fact, a LOT of men named Jesus have lived.
> >
> >Was one of them the man described in the Bible?
> >
> > Possibly.
> >
> >Does that make the Bible historically accurate?
> >
> > Not in a million years.
make it a googol (10 raised to the power of 100, i think)
> It is hard to keep those of you straight who are called
> "Bud". The Bud I have been typing to a lot says he is
> a Christian.
> >
> Suzanne
Could you type some more to Bud on behalf of me cos if he's a
Christian as he sez (i haven't heard him & i've been around) he could
do something in aid of humanitarian resistance to this obscene assault
on my country and my people. Did i mention Christians are needed,
like fucking right NOW?
Nada
Andrew Case
>An argument that "looses" credit therefore is an argument that "frees up
>some credit, let's some credit go, unties some credit" etc.
Pedant, scold thyself.
--
Andrew Case |
ac...@plasma.umd.edu |
Institute for Plasma Research |
University of Maryland, College Park |
lilac-breeze
Suzanne wrote:
Suzanne you always have such refreshing posts, pure and full
of love.
Alef
King Of Terror
Yes, a delightful post - warmed my heart!
------------------------
The year 1999, the seventh month,
From the sky will come a great King of Terror...
ronald68
Suzanne wrote in message ...
>
>In this case, the Roman, and also Greek mythology was truly believed by
>the long ago Romans. This was not mythology to them. The tales got
>embellished through the years, and then interpretted by Holywood on
>some occasions. Turns out that possibly they were tales of when there
>were giants on the earth who became well known during the time that
>the angels who rebelled are supposed to have rebelled.
The ancient Romans and Greeks did not believe in an angelic rebellion.
Giants? What giants? Why did Jews and the third and fourth Century Church
fathers condemn Enoch?
>It is thought
>by many now, that these myths were based possibly on real things that
>happened.
Doubtful. Bulls impregnating women. Beasts at the ends of the earth. The
sons of Hercules. The cyclops, son of Poseidon. Maybe even the Trojan horse
and the golden fleece are mythical.
> Neither Christianity or Judaism got this from any ungodly
>source to copy. In my book ( : ) ). It is more likely that the people who
>embraced these pagan practises, were imitating the real thing, but not
>with understanding. I am sure there must have been jealousies and
>envies from people that were not seemingly in good with the real God.
>Those people did have a reason to look for gods, as they knew that
>there really was one. According to what I read in the Bible, these
>pagan people were not people that didn't have a chance to please
>God. He was the only God of many people, whether they acknowledged
>him or not. In all the nations, there is truly only one God. That doesn't
>mean that all call on him. The Moslem faith had the same beginning,
>for they came from Abraham and Adama and Ewe as well. The
>Christian church makes Sunday into Sonday you know.
Your message is so elitist and chauvinistic. So the Hindus, Buddhists,
Native Americans, and other religious and nonreligious people are wrong,
misguided or delusional according to your book.
V.T.
ronald68
without one.
V.T.
Suzanne wrote in message ...
>