Who is / was Christ?

[nocilah]

If there was one person I could meet it would be J3sus Christ.

Things that still baffle me about him according to history that i think most of us can agree on.

He was born in a village, and traveled in a space smaller then most of us travel in our lives. He lived till about 30 something. He apparently never owned a home and never reached a higher education. He was poor and by the sounds of it never owned a home.

Was never in an election or chose to become a leader of sorts, and popular opinion at the time was against him (much like now). He was crucified like a common thief among thieves by the town dump.

And when he died they had to bury him in a borrowed grave.

Now for 2000 years there have been hundreds of leaders and empires yet this person has somehow existed through history... and yes i am sure the church ruling like an iron fist for a while helped, not to mention the powerful Vatican City.

But how can someone who ultimately seemed no more significant then a town bum still live on today in many peoples lives. Not only that, but if he had only 12 disciples who faced much persecution to spread the word of christ in their life time, some of them imprisoned or killed, how on earth did his message spread like wildfire?

Anyway. Yes another religious thread. Sorry.

[arf9999]

Well that's the story anyhow...

[nocilah]

Well that's the story anyhow...

So how did he become such a figure. Its not like other figures in history who conquered this or did that. If you think of it most characters in history are known for all the bad things they did.

[arf9999]

Do you want my opinion? A combination of Jewish and pagan mythology and politics.

[edit] i know this going to cause the dodos to crawl out from the woodwork, but you do realise that there is no contemporary evidence that JC ever lived?

[nocilah]

Do you want my opinion? A combination of Jewish and pagan mythology and politics.



and islamic. apparently j3sus is mentioned as a prophet.

so then you are saying you dont think j3sus lived then?

[kilo39]

Je sus has to have been a real figure or somebody wrote a 'bestseller.' Doubtful especially the concept and notions expressed (for that time.)

[nocilah]

Je sus has to have been a real figure or somebody wrote a 'bestseller.' Doubtful especially the concept and notions expressed (for that time.)

well apparently the bible is still a best seller, but more so then that is j3sus then just a typical tragedy story. lets face it - it follows all the rules of a good tragedy.

the hero is always an honourable person. dies unjustly. has a friend who turns against him.

but how many bestsellers have come and gone, some even better then the life of j3sus, and bear in mind the bible did not exist back in the day when the word was being spread.

What made people believe? More so what made people believe that j3sus was the son of god bearing in mind most of this was going on underground due to the fact that you would more then likely be killed or persecuted if you acknowledged you believed that j3sus was the son of god?

Also jews reject j3sus as being the son of god, well i think the fact that they got him crucified is a sign that they disliked him at the time. :P

[kilo39]

As others have said 'I'm not a theologian' but...


well apparently the bible is still a best seller, but more so then that is j3sus then just a typical tragedy story. lets face it - it follows all the rules of a good tragedy.It (the new testament) is too sophisticated to have been dreamed up. The conspiracy is too large, ie, many contributed to the NT, what you think they exchanged email? :p


the hero is always an honourable person. dies unjustly. has a friend who turns against him.If you look into the basis of fables, we humans only tell a few stories. Yes perhaps je sus could fit into one of these but it is still a very sophisticated tale for its time.


but how many bestsellers have come and gone, some even better then the life of j3sus, and bear in mind the bible did not exist back in the day when the word was being spread.Previous works existed, ie, the old testament, itself a carefully hoarded text worked on by many (also too large to be a conspiracy.) Each is interleaved with the other therefore to hold the whole thing together requires even larger concept over a span of time covering hundreds of years. It is a carefully protected text which grows but at the same time there was no email so it has to be basically true. IOW a multiplicity of authors couldn't all "dream up" the same thing and keep it 'contexually' correct.


What made people believe? More so what made people believe that j3sus was the son of god bearing in mind most of this was going on underground due to the fact that you would more then likely be killed or persecuted if you acknowledged you believed that j3sus was the son of god?Preaching at the Sea of Galilee wasn't exactly an underground event. Feeding 10 000 wasn't an underground event. These things profoundly affected a 'small' crowd who spread the word. Over time these events were transferred to written text.


Also jews reject j3sus as being the son of god, well i think the fact that they got him crucified is a sign that they disliked him at the time. :PThe fact that Christs coming is foretold in the OT, a text far older than the time of Christ (how long, foretold a 1000 years before?) + the fact he is rejected as foretold. Have to realise this is almost contradictory in the sense why reject someone that is foretold. They do it almost against their better judgement thus 'making the text (contextually) true'.

[Highflyer_GP]

So how did he become such a figure. Its not like other figures in history who conquered this or did that. If you think of it most characters in history are known for all the bad things they did.

The same way that Santa lives on in the minds of kids. You're merely a kid to the higher powers that be ;)

[nocilah]

As others have said 'I'm not a theologian' but...

It (the new testament) is too sophisticated to have been dreamed up. The conspiracy is too large, ie, many contributed to the NT, what you think they exchanged email? :p

If you look into the basis of fables, we humans only tell a few stories. Yes perhaps je sus could fit into one of these but it is still a very sophisticated tale for its time.

agreed. I do not deny the existence or the story of Christ.


Previous works existed, ie, the old testament, itself a carefully hoarded text worked on by many (also too large to be a conspiracy.) Each is interleaved with the other therefore to hold the whole thing together requires even larger concept over a span of time covering hundreds of years. It is a carefully protected text which grows but at the same time there was no email so it has to be basically true. IOW a multiplicity of authors couldn't all "dream up" the same thing and keep it 'contexually' correct.

agreed.


Preaching at the Sea of Galilee wasn't exactly an underground event. Feeding 10 000 wasn't an underground event. These things profoundly affected a 'small' crowd who spread the word. Over time these events were transferred to written text.
agreed, but i am talking about the persecution many christians faced after Christ's death. Some of his disciples were imprisoned and some put to death (I may be wrong about the death part)


The fact that Christs coming is foretold in the OT, a text far older than the time of Christ (how long, foretold a 1000 years before?) + the fact he is rejected as foretold. Have to realise this is almost contradictory in the sense why reject someone that is foretold. They do it almost against their better judgement thus 'making the text (contextually) true'.

agreed, hence his famous words: forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

But what made people spread the news of him? So strong and powerful to a point where dates are divided because of his existence and death?

[Xarog]

Try to bear in mind that there were two groups of Christians before the Council of Nicea - one group regaded him as a divine being, the others merely regarded him as an exceptional (but mortal person). I guess now it's rather obvious which faction won. However, this was not a clean victory, as the divinists (for lack of a better word) threatened many of those who just believed he was a man with death if they attended. The result was that when it came to vote the Divinists outnumbered the Mortalists and the rest is history.

[nocilah]

The same way that Santa lives on in the minds of kids. You're merely a kid to the higher powers that be ;)

Get with the times dude it is the easter bunny now :P

[Nanfeishen]

To the teeming millions who have died or suffered in the name of ignorance and religion
Read the following article, and decide for yourselves the validity of much of what we think we know:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/sok/sok-04.html

[kilo39]

:D Why are we having this conversation? :)


But what made people spread the news of him? So strong and powerful to a point where dates are divided because of his existence and death?The roman empire became converted through a few key figures. This is the equivalent of the fall of the berlin wall. The romans spread the word not christs followers per se.

[nocilah]

Try to bear in mind that there were two groups of Christians before the Council of Nicea - one group regaded him as a divine being, the others merely regarded him as an exceptional (but mortal person). I guess now it's rather obvious which faction won. However, this was not a clean victory, as the divinists (for lack of a better word) threatened many of those who just believed he was a man with death if they attended. The result was that when it came to vote the Divinists outnumbered the Mortalists and the rest is history.

And those closest to him regarded him as devine, more vehemently after he appeared to them after his death. ie resurrected.

Still wouldn't mind meeting the man and having a conversation with him... albiet my Aramaic suxors.

[Xarog]

And those closest to him regarded him as devine, more vehemently after he appeared to them after his death. ie resurrected.

Still wouldn't mind meeting the man and having a conversation with him... albiet my Aramaic suxors.
That's what the texts say now - how do you know they weren't edited after the Council of Nicea?

[Highflyer_GP]

Get with the times dude it is the easter bunny now :P
Haha :D

In all honesty I'm not questioning whether he existed or not (because I really don't know). I'm questioning whether (if he did exist) he really was the son of "God". Regardless, many people have much to learn from the message that he tried to spread (again if he did exist) - not any of the divine messages but indeed our behaviour towards our fellow humans.

[kilo39]

Try to bear in mind that there were two groups of Christians before the Council of Nicea - one group regaded him as a divine being, the others merely regarded him as an exceptional (but mortal person). I guess now it's rather obvious which faction won. However, this was not a clean victory, as the divinists (for lack of a better word) threatened many of those who just believed he was a man with death if they attended. The result was that when it came to vote the Divinists outnumbered the Mortalists and the rest is history.Once again I'm not a theologian but...

There were/are more than one church, talking "original" religion, Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople) for instance. The 'true' divinists were the Gnostics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostics) whose work is largely unknown. (Some would say the true teaching of christ.)

[Neo]

halicon, there are many good books on the subject and you should read up a bit. Or else start on Wikipedia. It's an interesting topic but be warned, some of the pre-conceived ideas you have might be shaken up a bit. :)

As already pointed out there is no evidence that the historical J esus even lived. The Gospels (the only documents naming J esus) were written well after he would have died and were obviously not written by anyone contemporary with J esus. Some of the gospels even state this. Do yourself a favour and read the Gospel according to Thomas. Depicts quite an playful J esus as a child.

The history of the early church is a lesson in how a religion can get constructed. After 2000 years, one can hardly believe it started so easily but that's how these things happen.

My personal feel is that he did actually live and probably did cause enough havoc to be remembered by some people. Kinda like Nelson did before he was locked up, i.e. a freedom fighter, freedom from oppression and the religion of the day.

You should watch 'Life of Brian'. It's actually quite insightful (and historically correct, at least about the times and the Romans) apart from being very funny.

[kilo39]

Haha :D

In all honesty I'm not questioning whether he existed or not (because I really don't know). I'm questioning whether (if he did exist) he really was the son of "God". Regardless, many people have much to learn from the message that he tried to spread (again if he did exist) - not any of the divine messages but indeed our behaviour towards our fellow humans.This is non-logical. The concepts came from somewhere, supposedly from christ. The concepts are too large for the time. Therefore they were originated, more than likely by one person (they are consistent.) Therefore he must have existed. As to "Son of God" this is also illogical: the teachings of christ whom you've just agreed by the above logic definitely existed taught he was the son of god (all embodied in one) therefore if the man and his teachings/concepts existed how can you doubt the story: it is his story.

[Aqua_lung]

You should watch "The Secret Bible" on National Geographic or rent the DVD it answers your questions pretty well, in short the Romans are responsible

[nocilah]

To the teeming millions who have died or suffered in the name of ignorance and religion
Read the following article, and decide for yourselves the validity of much of what we think we know:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/sok/sok-04.html

great read with alot of scriptures taken out of context which was the first mistake.

But the more the article went on the more i realised it had that familiar 'conspiracy theory' feel behind it. As usual a small minority who know the real truth and a powerful ruling being suppressing the real truth.

Anyway i would like to point out a mistake in the article:

from your article:

JOSEPHUS (A.D. 37-105) the historian does not mention *****.

about the historian who did not mention j3sus.

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, ***** is mentioned twice.

and same dude: Joesephus writes:


About this time came *****, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[32]

anyway when an article smells like a conspiracy theory and then make up stuff on the spot i usually ignore it. so sorry, nice read but i think it holds less substance then the bible they are trying to say has been rewritten to suit the powers that be. what were you saying about ignorance again?

[kilo39]

As already pointed out there is no evidence that the historical J esus even lived. The Gospels (the only documents naming J esus) were written well after he would have died and were obviously not written by anyone contemporary with J esus. Some of the gospels even state this. Do yourself a favour and read the Gospel according to Thomas. Depicts quite an playful J esus as a child.But here I've just posted a link to the Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople) church... and if you read the text it says:

It is headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, who has the status of "first among equals" among the world's Orthodox bishops. According to tradition, it has its roots in the preaching of the Apostle Andrew in Constantinople (then Byzantium) in AD 38

Point: these are concurrent times. Yes 'they' were contemporary with je sus.

[Neo]

But here I've just posted a link to the Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople) church... and if you read the text it says:

It is headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, who has the status of "first among equals" among the world's Orthodox bishops. According to tradition, it has its roots in the preaching of the Apostle Andrew in Constantinople (then Byzantium) in AD 38

Point: these are concurrent times. Yes 'they' were contemporary with je sus.

According to tradition, Noah built a ship that could house all the species on the planet.....
According to tradition, the world is 6000 years old.....
According to tradition, Santa will bring you a nice present if you were good....

etc.

[kilo39]

According to tradition, Noah built a ship that could house all the species on the planet.....
According to tradition, the world is 6000 years old.....
According to tradition, Santa will bring you a nice present if you were good....

etc.I don't understand your argument. Are you saying the apostle andrew didn't exist? Illogical captain.

That would have to be a very big conspiracy, an impossible conspiracy especially considering the times.

[nocilah]

According to tradition, Noah built a ship that could house all the species on the planet.....
According to tradition, the world is 6000 years old.....
According to tradition, Santa will bring you a nice present if you were good....

etc.

according to tradition man went to the moon. ;)

[Highflyer_GP]

This is non-logical. The concepts came from somewhere, supposedly from christ. The concepts are too large for the time. Therefore they were originated, more than likely by one person (they are consistent.) Therefore he must have existed. As to "Son of God" this is also illogical: the teachings of christ whom you've just agreed by the above logic definitely existed taught he was the son of god (all embodied in one) therefore if the man and his teachings/concepts existed how can you doubt the story: it is his story.
Believe it or not there are many Christ-like figures in various cultures and religions with similar teachings and messages. My point wasn't the existence or non-existence of this figure, but rather humans learning from the message itself - wherever it originated from.

[Neo]

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying the apostle andrew didn't exist? Illogical captain.

That would have to be a very big conspiracy, an impossible conspiracy especially considering the times.

I was wondering why the quote you provided did not state it as a fact, but as "according to tradition"? Sounds like there is cause for doubt.

@ halicon, point taken, but of course it's much easier to prove / disprove events that happened in your own time period (the 60's / 70's) than events that happened 2000 years ago.

[kilo39]

I was wondering why the quote you provided did not state it as a fact, but as "according to tradition"? Sounds like there is cause for doubt.

@ halicon, point taken, but of course it's much easier to prove / disprove events that happened in your own time period (the 60's / 70's) than events that happened 2000 years ago.Sorry I misquoted. According to tradition in this context is not questioning his existence: 'according to tradition,' ie, the tradition of the church at that time, or the law. Nothing to do with whether the man existed.

If you read a bit further (before jumping to conclusions) it says "Christianity in Byzantium existed from the time of the Twelve Apostles"

It was contemporary. He was contemporary. He was an apostle.

[Nanfeishen]

The bits highlighted about Josephus on J sus, are well stated , but this is still disputed, and has been for almost 300 years,
See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_*****#Testimonium_Flavianum
Then again can we trust that the documents we have today are real or forgeries made out to say what would be convenient?
http://www.new-tradition.org/classical.htm

[kilo39]

according to tradition man went to the moon. ;)... some of us are truly lost... :D

[Neo]

Sorry I misquoted. According to tradition in this context is not questioning his existence: 'according to tradition,' ie, the tradition of the church at that time, or the law. Nothing to do with whether the man existed.

If you read a bit further (before jumping to conclusions) it says "Christianity in Byzantium existed from the time of the Twelve Apostles"

It was contemporary. He was contemporary. He was an apostle.

Will read. Your quote just kinda jumped at me with the 'tradition' bit.

Not quite convinced yet, but will first read and then comment.

[kilo39]

The bits highlighted about Josephus on J sus, are well stated , but this is still disputed, and has been for almost 300 years,
See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_*****#Testimonium_Flavianum
Then again can we trust that the documents we have today are real or forgeries made out to say what would be convenient?
http://www.new-tradition.org/classical.htmNanfeishen without reading your link (I will.) There is no doubt "the documents" have been 'sanitised' and made to present a certain point of view/version of reality. (But the core is stll there.) This goes to my earlier link of the Gnostics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostics) (the true teachings, unadulterated.)

Similar to the book of judas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_judas)[-]just found[/-] or rather "just translated."

[Nanfeishen]

@ Kilo, the original topic was about J sus, the one most people refer to as Christ, 3 links i provided, (See both posts), question the historical figure of J sus the man, and whether or not he existed as is claimed by the bibliophiles and the religious, plus they put forward some very good points on the idea of misrepresentation of the "goodness" of the church and its teachings, as well as suggesting that historically the church has interfered in the advancement of new ideas, suppressed scientific knowledge, hidden and destroyed many books manuscripts, teachings and practices it considered in opposition to its ideas of the society it was trying to "guide" to suit its own purpose.
Your link to the Gnostics, was interesting reading, but and i must say but, it is directed more towards the idea of religious variation, than whether or not J sus or the Christ, existed as claimed.
Gnostisism, is another monotheistic belief, with an unseen all powerful deity, a saviour, good guys bad guys, and the usual party line and arrows all pointing in the same direction saying "this is the way"

[simple_simon]

But what made people spread the news of him? So strong and powerful to a point where dates are divided because of his existence and death?

the romans needed only one religion in the empire, its easier to control the masses if they all have the same beliefs. so they voted on *****'s divinity and 4 of the 26 or so gospel to be canonised. began the editing process of the 4 gospels "accepted" and then proceeded to eradicate anyone who did not agree with their religion.

[Nick333]

If there was one person I could meet it would be J3sus Christ.

Things that still baffle me about him according to history that i think most of us can agree on.

He was born in a village, and traveled in a space smaller then most of us travel in our lives. He lived till about 30 something. He apparently never owned a home and never reached a higher education. He was poor and by the sounds of it never owned a home.

Was never in an election or chose to become a leader of sorts, and popular opinion at the time was against him (much like now). He was crucified like a common thief among thieves by the town dump.

And when he died they had to bury him in a borrowed grave.

Now for 2000 years there have been hundreds of leaders and empires yet this person has somehow existed through history... and yes i am sure the church ruling like an iron fist for a while helped, not to mention the powerful Vatican City.

But how can someone who ultimately seemed no more significant then a town bum still live on today in many peoples lives. Not only that, but if he had only 12 disciples who faced much persecution to spread the word of christ in their life time, some of them imprisoned or killed, how on earth did his message spread like wildfire?

Anyway. Yes another religious thread. Sorry.

I haven't read past the first post yet, but I would just like to say that most of what you have just said could be said about the Buddha.

Secondly claiming that popular opinion is against JC at the present is a ridiculous statement. The majority of people in this country are Christian.

[nocilah]

Secondly claiming that popular opinion is against JC at the present is a ridiculous statement. The majority of people in this country are Christian.

I am talking about this forum... not the country.

also i am NOT talking about Buddha, I am talking about J3sus.

So thanks but what is your point. Doesnt change what i have said?

[nocilah]

The bits highlighted about Josephus on J sus, are well stated , but this is still disputed, and has been for almost 300 years,
See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_*****#Testimonium_Flavianum
Then again can we trust that the documents we have today are real or forgeries made out to say what would be convenient?
http://www.new-tradition.org/classical.htm

We can debate any person in history and the reality of their existence or actions. Did the Egyptians build the pyramids? Because they are in Egypt we assume they did.

I don't believe for a second that J3sus did not live or walk the earth. As Kilo suggested earlier, it is too big of a conspiracy theory.

And why all of a sudden after J3sus' death would people scheme that this might be a religion to 'rule' the world with.

Something after J3sus' death must have been so strong to cause the chain reaction that happened. Something of his miracles must hold some value that his messages (altered or not) spread from a small land across the globe.

And don't get me wrong. This is not about the church, because the church, vatican, ect ect ect have done plenty bad things.

I am simply talking about the man.

I can not deny he existed because before his words and actions became religion he must have said and done some pretty powerful things for people to start spreading his word for it to become what it is today.

Whether it has been altered or not is irrelevant. That is even more reason to wonder why particularly that man. A nobody turned into a somebody.

Anyway I am interested in the decade after his death, not after that.

But i think most of can agree. He must have lived at one stage.

[Nick333]

I am talking about this forum... not the country.

also i am NOT talking about Buddha, I am talking about J3sus.

So thanks but what is your point. Doesnt change what i have said?

Well I think you'd be wrong on that account as well, perhaps a quick survey would clear it up.

What I mean is that the fact that a myth built around an actual person has survived and thrived doesn't necessarily say anything about the actual person. All it tells us is that the myth is appealing.

Also, while I'm here: persecution and martyrdom generally helps a cause grow, especially amongst a disgruntled populace. Its a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just look at the growing support for Palestine. Is it because people really give a **** or because people who are growing less and less fond of the US see it as another thing to hate the US for?

[nocilah]

the romans needed only one religion in the empire, its easier to control the masses if they all have the same beliefs. so they voted on *****'s divinity and 4 of the 26 or so gospel to be canonised. began the editing process of the 4 gospels "accepted" and then proceeded to eradicate anyone who did not agree with their religion.

are these the same romans who named the days of the week after Roman and Norse Gods?

The same Roman's whose empire lasted a thousand years, with 753 of those years being prior to J3sus' birth?

thats 75% of their empire from birth to expansion before J3sus was born. According to sources on this forum, Christianty only became mainstream 200 years after his death which means it played a part in the Roman Empire for maybe 100-150 years? 10% of their empire time?

Your argument holds little substance if it was used to control the countries they ruled, because they seemed to be doing pretty well for 700 years without using this unified religion.

Are you maybe thinking of Roman Cathlics :P

[simple_simon]

I haven't read past the first post yet, but I would just like to say that most of what you have just said could be said about the Buddha.

Secondly claiming that popular opinion is against JC at the present is a ridiculous statement. The majority of people in this country are Christian.

what is a christian?

[nthdimension]

You are implying that Jesus was somehow special. Unique in the history of the world. Neither the mythology nor his ideas were unique.

He may have existed or the ideas of many people may have been combined and attributed to a single source that never existed. There is no conspiracy theory in the notion that this individual may not have actually existed. People find it easier to follow a figurehead than ideas alone.

This religion has always targeted and appealed to the downtrodden. It's initial appeal would have been obvious. Once it became the state religion it was guaranteed growth.

Using the religion to rule the world would have come later.

We can't know whether this religion would have died out if it had not ultimately been imposed on people.

[simple_simon]

You are implying that Jesus was somehow special. Unique in the history of the world. Neither the mythology nor his ideas were unique.

He may have existed or the ideas of many people may have been combined and attributed to a single source that never existed. There is no conspiracy theory in the notion that this individual may not have actually existed. People find it easier to follow a figurehead than ideas alone.

This religion has always targeted and appealed to the downtrodden. It's initial appeal would have been obvious. Once it became the state religion it was guaranteed growth.

Using the religion to rule the world would have come later.

We can't know whether this religion would have died out if it had not ultimately been imposed on people.

this is exactly my point........this is what the christ energy is,the christ energy encarnated many times on the planet....buddah, mohamed, krishna....they were all encarnations of the christ energy just had different names.

[simple_simon]

are these the same romans who named the days of the week after Roman and Norse Gods?

The same Roman's whose empire lasted a thousand years, with 753 of those years being prior to J3sus' birth?

thats 75% of their empire from birth to expansion before J3sus was born. According to sources on this forum, Christianty only became mainstream 200 years after his death which means it played a part in the Roman Empire for maybe 100-150 years? 10% of their empire time?

Your argument holds little substance if it was used to control the countries they ruled, because they seemed to be doing pretty well for 700 years without using this unified religion.

Are you maybe thinking of Roman Cathlics :P

i don't think we can really even concieve of a 100 - 150 years as we have not lived this long to gage the experience, but me thinks 100 - 150 years is more than enough time to instill control through religion. considering the average lifespan of the population wasn't more than 40 yrs if that.....thats three complete generations atleast to endoctronate the populations completely

[GamerGirl]

I don't think the existence/non-existence of Christ should be the question.
But more why the deeds of 1 man and his cronies, essentially managed to change the face of religion/religious-politics across the globe. By this I don't mean Christ but Constantine. http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm

'Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible.'

The whole book known as the bible was selectively chosen by him, and yet wars and human atrocities across the globe for centuries occur in the so-called words of God.

[Mr TB]

the romans needed only one religion in the empire, its easier to control the masses if they all have the same beliefs. so they voted on *****'s divinity and 4 of the 26 or so gospel to be canonised. began the editing process of the 4 gospels "accepted" and then proceeded to eradicate anyone who did not agree with their religion.

If i may comment on this idea, the early christians were indeed persecuted by the Romans because they did not acknowledge ceasar as "LORD", for the king of the empire to stand to control the masses? Does not make sense...

[Highflyer_GP]

*sigh* The dodo found this thread too. Guess I'm also out of this one now. No time to read bull****.

One thing before I leave - GamerGirl that's spot on, but somehow isn't acknowledged by most Christians I know. The scripture they follow so closely was put together by a man who randomly chose which books should form a part of it.

[Mr TB]

I don't think the existence/non-existence of Christ should be the question.
But more why the deeds of 1 man and his cronies, essentially managed to change the face of religion/religious-politics across the globe. By this I don't mean Christ but Constantine. http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm

'Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible.'

The whole book known as the bible was selectively chosen by him, and yet wars and human atrocities across the globe for centuries occur in the so-called words of God.

GAMEGIRL i believe the very first fact you state is wrong... Constantine was at war, with the heretic Aranius. At the Council of Nice 325AD Aranius with a vote 318/2 was declared a heretic and destroyed, no decision made concerning the content of the bible... In 381AD there was a Council again but i think Constantine was then dead and buried.. not even a converted christian i think...

[Mr TB]

Constantine did not try to eliminate scripture as indicated in the passage...

[simple_simon]

what i find that is interesting and probably the most important aspect that came out of the whole da vinci code craze.....was that the general public were made aware of the council of nice.

i just love the way the church and their zombies are scrambling to explain this and that about it.

i think this is dan browns greatest achievement.

carry on dodo, for your thinking is also heading towards extinction just as your namesake did

[simple_simon]

GAMEGIRL i believe the very first fact you state is wrong... Constantine was at war, with the heretic Aranius. At the Council of Nice 325AD Aranius with a vote 318/2 was declared a heretic and destroyed, no decision made concerning the content of the bible... In 381AD there was a Council again but i think Constantine was then dead and buried.. not even a converted christian i think...

its not about belief, its about fact....and the wonderfull world of beauracracy that started so many thousands of years ago. the original works by early christians were systematically "edited" or destroyed until we have today...the virtual complete loss of the orignal teaching of christ.

[simple_simon]

Constantine did not try to eliminate scripture as indicated in the passage...

really....come one, fess up. you're secretly ray mackauly aren't you. don't want to lose the millions you make every year from zombies

[GamerGirl]

try Googling .... anything like 'the making of the bible and constantine' or 'constantine and the bible'

... there is alot of debate on it yes... so perhaps it is opinion again... but nevertheless... there is nothing pointing to the book being the actual 'words of God' and yet we manage to create such chaos out of something that supposedly comes out of love??

so whether Christ existed or not, to me isn't the issue... all the religious texts get manipulated by man in order to maintain power or 'rightness'

[Ekhaatvensters]

btw.. How come nobody was Christian if the Christian God (assuming you believe the Bible and are Christian) created the first two people on the earth?

You would think that they would be Christian is they spoke with God when he said bla bla dont eat from that tree bla bla... Yet a few thousand years later, nobody is Christian anymore, just Pagan or Jewish or Muslim.

(Okay well that comes from the OT, so it was written by Jews I guess, but its weird how Christians just adopt that and it doesn't even make sense to have the original people on Earth as Christians.)

So now God has to send his Son to Earth and tries to convert people (He had the power to create the universe right?) by splitting up bread and fish... probably the lamest story ever, ever.

EDIT: Sorry I'm very uneducated on these Bible facts and what who believes :/

[Mr TB]

try Googling .... anything like 'the making of the bible and constantine' or 'constantine and the bible'

... there is alot of debate on it yes... so perhaps it is opinion again... but nevertheless... there is nothing pointing to the book being the actual 'words of God' and yet we manage to create such chaos out of something that supposedly comes out of love??

so whether Christ existed or not, to me isn't the issue... all the religious texts get manipulated by man in order to maintain power or 'rightness'

It is important, it is one of the first lies that come squirming out of the writer DAN BROWN's pen in order to give credit to his novel "THE DA VINCI CODE!"

The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival. Eusebius of Caesarea and his two abbreviators, Socrates and Sozomen, as well as Rufinus and Gelasius of Cyzicus, report no details of the theological discussions. Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius. (For the part played by the Eusebian third party, see EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA. For the Creed of Eusebius, see EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA.) St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence. The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord ***** Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C. H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.
Other matters dealt with by this council were the controversy as to the time of celebrating Easter and the Meletian schism. The former of these two will be found treated under EASTER CONTROVERSY; the latter under MELETIUS OF LYCOPOLIS.

[jarr]

...One thing before I leave - GamerGirl that's spot on, but somehow isn't acknowledged by most Christians I know. The scripture they follow so closely was put together by a man who randomly chose which books should form a part of it.good point, but remember that christians see the bible as divinely inspired, ie god didn't physically write the different books, people did, but as they were 'moved' by god. also, all through the old testament there are examples of people being used as the 'agents' of god to accomplish his will, even though they were completely unaware of it.

so by the same token (and of course all the above reasoning is done from a christian point of view), would it really be all that strange if god used one person to assemble the bible the way he wanted it done, even if that was not his (constantine's) intention? just a thought... ;)

[simple_simon]

pardon?

//this was intended for dodo's last post

[GamerGirl]

douwdouw these 'facts' have been around alot longer than Dan Brown. He just re-highlighted them... so climb off the soap-box pls.... clearly your opinions are just different to others.
none of us have ABSOLUTE proof, because strangely enough all the PROOF disappeared at the same time as the missing scrolls.

and jarr, i completely agree... these words could be 'inspired' into one man, at the hands of god himself. we are all free to choose which side of the coin we wish to look at. but do we have to murder and condemn and war over all these opinions???

[simple_simon]

so by the same token (and of course all the above reasoning is done from a christian point of view), would it really be all that strange if god used one person to assemble the bible the way he wanted it done, even if that was not his (constantine's) intention? just a thought... ;)

oh deary. one can justify anything regardless of contradicting evidence.

these religious debates are so pointless.

even when you point out that the bible is severly edited to serve the people of power. to keep them there, you still get those that even when presented with this evidence continue in denial........it must be to much effort to think for one self apparently

[LoneGunman]

so if I've been inspired and moved by what feels very much like God, to hunt down douwdouws with a 10 ton truck of donkey sewerage, I should do it?
:P

[kilo39]

(belated post, made directly after Highflyer #47.)(And I agree with Highflyer)

To cover some ground (and for the 3rd time I say I am not a professional.)

GamerGirl (and others on this thread) have mentioned Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. Also been discussed is the extent of text changes and any representation of the text towards a certain view (or law.)

To be clear: there is only one church, ie, one religion. Buddha and 'these guys' (and girls) going back in time did not teach the same thing. They may have taught different aspects, different perspectives but their teachings were not the teachings of christ. Christ's teachings are unique. If anything he may have 'encompassed' teachings from 'other religions' for instance Far Eastern but his presentation/credo is unique. "Turn the other cheek, and love your fellow man" is essentially eastern however the dovetailing of his teachings within the greater Judaic tradition gives him a unique place in history. He or rather his followers formed >one< religion/philosophy based on these teachings (and their incorporation within the larger tradtion of Judaism.)

Also we should remember that the romans were dominant at that time, it was their empire. They were essentially animist before becoming christian, and due to the conversion of key figures spread this 'religion' or belief through the world. Having said this we also need keep in mind the other great forces in the world at that time, the Byzantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium) empire which was considered barbarian (essentially eastern), ie, not believing in Christ, "essentially pagan."

We then have a split in this "religion." What the peeps on this thread refer to as "The Council of Nicaea," the influence of Constantine. The dude who decided what was going to be in the book and what not.

Constantine and his minions (to an extremist) are not christian :D In other words the "Teachings of Christ" have become split. Both branches recognise each other (they were once one) and to a western peep this can be confusing. Also 'for me' to state 'they' are 'non-christian' is blasphemous from their point of view. In fact the way it stands is the church of the east, essentially constantine has become diminished. In other words when people look at a subject like christianity they look to the church (thinking that the plethora of churchs is 'christianity.') On many levels it is, but fundamentally it is not. There is only one church, one religion: this religion was called "christian" or a substitute word "catholic." However whether we use the word 'catholic' or 'christian' we should understand they do not necessarily cleave to the teachings of Christ.

Further (to be even more extreme) the splinter churchs, for instance, 'Protestant' or 'Dutch Reformed' or whatever are not 'christianity' per se. They are political manifestations, 'solutions to a problem (of that time'.) So, to take us back to the core we have one church, ie, the catholic church. This church became split through the efforts of Constantine and his political maneuverings. One cannot point to the other (the other church, the split) without acknowledging each (but the plethora of other churchs that call themselves 'christianity' are almost 'bye the bye'.) Okay, let's go back to the core: the one church before it became split: into the "Orthodox" church and the RC church.

Further 'this plethora of churches,' Protestant for instance are divergences from the RC church (and the authority of Rome) not the Orthodox church which has become almost a "shadow." Still there, still very powerful, bowed down to by Rome (in this latest incarnation I discover) but not the one true faith, ie, the teachings of Christ, ie, the RC church (founded on the apostle Peter, ie, Je sus's right hand man.)

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with an adulterated text, some/much political (some would argue it bows down to Judaism.) It also leaves us with an RC church diluted at its core by the machinations of Constantine, things it incorporated due to political expediency. What does this mean? It means the 'greater teachings of christ' as perceived by the outside world are in fact "incorrect." Further the machinations of Constantine have left a political stain within the teachings of the core faith (ie, Roman Catholicism.) Of course when you add in the effects of the 'splinter churches' this becomes even more extreme with the end affect that few can recognise the teachings of christ.

[Mr TB]

douwdouw these 'facts' have been around alot longer than Dan Brown. He just re-highlighted them... so climb off the soap-box pls.... clearly your opinions are just different to others.
none of us have ABSOLUTE proof, because strangely enough all the PROOF disappeared at the same time as the missing scrolls.

and jarr, i completely agree... these words could be 'inspired' into one man, at the hands of god himself. we are all free to choose which side of the coin we wish to look at. but do we have to murder and condemn and war over all these opinions???

Funny enough you did not notice what i said CONSTANTINE did not make any decisions concerning the books in the bible, you have typed a blatant lie if you wish me then give it straight in the face to you... Check the facts on the council again you will notice no decision concerning bible books...

O, yes the soap box... you are not going to mind it people tell blatant lies about your parents...fair enough...

[kilo39]

Funny enough you did not notice what i said CONSTANTINE did not make any decisions concerning the books in the bible, you have typed a blatant lie if you wish me then give it straight in the face to you... Check the facts on the council again you will notice no decision concerning bible books...The incorporation of books into the bible "over time" is political. It has nothing to do with the core faith "and is by definition un-christian."

[LoneGunman]

actually dodo, Constantine clearly did make decisions regarding the books of the 'bible' - as at Nicea they had to take the first step of deciding whether or not Jeezus was the son of God or not - thats how arbitrary and confused things were. Once they decided by a vote that Jeezus was 'holy' - the madness continued and escalated from that point.
They ignored evidence of Jeezus' brothers and sisters, as detailed. Decided that 'God' was responsible. Thomas Acquinas eventually even argued that mary was impregnated 'aurally' (through her EAR!!!) by God..

so get a grip, fairytale believer, if this degree of insanity was being argued and debated, forget any 'divine' intervention in decisions re what books to turn into the accepted 'bible'..

[noxibox]

To be clear: there is only one church, ie, one religion. Buddha and 'these guys' (and girls) going back in time did not teach the same thing. They may have taught different aspects, different perspectives but their teachings were not the teachings of christ. Christ's teachings are unique. If anything he may have 'encompassed' teachings from 'other religions' for instance Far Eastern but his presentation/credo is unique. "Turn the other cheek, and love your fellow man" is essentially eastern however the dovetailing of his teachings within the greater Judaic tradition gives him a unique place in history. He or rather his followers formed >one< religion/philosophy based on these teachings (and their incorporation within the larger tradtion of Judaism.)
He combined ideas from far eastern religions with those of Judaism. He was not the only person in history to combine ideas therefore he is not unique. New age followers do exactly this every day. The result might well be unique, but Jesus was just doing what people do.


good point, but remember that christians see the bible as divinely inspired, ie god didn't physically write the different books, people did, but as they were 'moved' by god. also, all through the old testament there are examples of people being used as the 'agents' of god to accomplish his will, even though they were completely unaware of it.

so by the same token (and of course all the above reasoning is done from a christian point of view), would it really be all that strange if god used one person to assemble the bible the way he wanted it done, even if that was not his (constantine's) intention? just a thought... ;)
You can basically justify anything this way. It is the god moves in mysterious ways cop-out.

The Bible being inspired and not actually written by god is given as an excuse for why it contains problems. You'd think a perfect god could manage some perfect inspiration.

On the other hand if we take it as given that this god did manipulate Constantine we could use the results to investigate this god's true intentions.

Perhaps the Vatican's evil deeds throughout history are also all god at work.

[teraside]

If there was one person I could meet it would be J3sus Christ.

Things that still baffle me about him according to history that i think most of us can agree on.

He was born in a village, and traveled in a space smaller then most of us travel in our lives. He lived till about 30 something. He apparently never owned a home and never reached a higher education. He was poor and by the sounds of it never owned a home.

Was never in an election or chose to become a leader of sorts, and popular opinion at the time was against him (much like now). He was crucified like a common thief among thieves by the town dump.

And when he died they had to bury him in a borrowed grave.

Now for 2000 years there have been hundreds of leaders and empires yet this person has somehow existed through history... and yes i am sure the church ruling like an iron fist for a while helped, not to mention the powerful Vatican City.

But how can someone who ultimately seemed no more significant then a town bum still live on today in many peoples lives. Not only that, but if he had only 12 disciples who faced much persecution to spread the word of christ in their life time, some of them imprisoned or killed, how on earth did his message spread like wildfire?

Anyway. Yes another religious thread. Sorry.


I have not read the entire thread, but I guess it's been derailed :D

You summed up Jesus in a way that I think most Christians have trouble with. Being a Christian there is one requirement, reading your post makes think of nothing less than that requirement. This man, this God, needed one thing from us. He wanted us to believe in Him, although He had nothing, that's what He wanted.

So who is Jesus? Why not believe in Him and find out?

[kilo39]

He combined ideas from far eastern religions with those of Judaism. He was not the only person in history to combine ideas therefore he is not unique. New age followers do exactly this every day. The result might well be unique, but Jesus was just doing what people do.New age followers are not "exactly part of history" unless you would lke to argue the gypsies.

And no, 'where is it written he combined ideas from eastern religions?' Where/how did he access this knowledge (to such a high degree.) Show me the writing. You can't, therefore he did not (in terms of written history) and is therefore 'unique.'

[LoneGunman]

ewwwww..now this thread is back in offtopic - cant one make a special 'Fictional Heroes' subforum, so Harry Potter and various incarnations of an apparent carpenter can be debated endlessly? Along with the gospels of Gnostics at Hogwarts, of course..

[noxibox]

And no, 'where is it written he combined ideas from eastern religions?' Where/how did he access this knowledge (to such a high degree.) Show me the writing. You can't, therefore he did not (in terms of written history) and is therefore 'unique.'
A big part of his life is not documented in the Bible, therefore he could easily have travelled to the east. People did travel. Combining ideas is not unique even if the resulting combination is unique, so no he was not unique for combining ideas. Nor were his non-Judaic ideas unique. Even if he came up with them independently they were pre-existing in eastern cultures.

[kilo39]

A big part of his life is not documented in the Bible, therefore he could easily have travelled to the east. People did travel. Combining ideas is not unique even if the resulting combination is unique so no he was not unique.You are making assumptions (never a good thing when debating "written" history.) Therefore 'in this context' he is unique. Further you make the assumption that "he did do these things therefore is not unique." Prove that he did (travel) before trying to prove "he is not unique."

ie, your loop is contradictory

[noxibox]

I am not trying to prove he was not unique, merely stating that no evidence has been provided to prove his uniqueness, i.e. that he did something no-one has ever done before or since. You claim he is unique. What proof do you have that he came up with all this on his own? You assume he was isolated from all outside influence. We have no definite evidence that he did not combine ideas he picked up from others just as many others had done before him. Especially since similar ideas arose elsewhere hundreds years earlier.

There is no requirement that ***** travelled to the east since knowledge from the east could easily have made its way to Palestine, either directly due to travellers from those locations or indirectly via knowledge picked up by the Romans. Such movements of culture are fairly common, even in those times.

When someone claims they came up with something similar to someone else's idea all on their own they'd have to demonstrate they had no contact with the other person's ideas.

[kilo39]

What proof do you have that he came up with all this on his own?Prove he didn't. The argument is fallacious.

//and you are making a 'definite' statement "he is not unique."

You have nothing to base it on. It is illogical.

[nocilah]

i don't think we can really even concieve of a 100 - 150 years as we have not lived this long to gage the experience, but me thinks 100 - 150 years is more than enough time to instill control through religion. considering the average lifespan of the population wasn't more than 40 yrs if that.....thats three complete generations atleast to endoctronate the populations completely

sure... 100-150 years is a long time and religion (regardless of religion) will always play a part.

even today religion plays a part, but i would think by then the romans had other methods of effective control. unifying their empire through religion - i am not sure. using religion as a control mechanism, perhaps. And it is an interesting concept, but i will be honest most of my questions have been answered with some really good posts. Lets realise this thread had nothing to do with religion, but more so about a man who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago.

[GamerGirl]

Funny enough you did not notice what i said CONSTANTINE did not make any decisions concerning the books in the bible, you have typed a blatant lie if you wish me then give it straight in the face to you... Check the facts on the council again you will notice no decision concerning bible books...

O, yes the soap box... you are not going to mind it people tell blatant lies about your parents...fair enough...

In regarding the 'facts' about Constantine's involvement in the bible, as posted earlier, i said google... there is ALOT of debate on the issue. All proof to the agreement or contrary of your 'facts' have been distorted/lost over time.

I don't blatantly believe just anything, I have a stronger mind than that, so I like to make up my own mind and not follow like a 'lamb'...

and pray tell, how are people telling lies about my parents??? Im VERY confused on that point

[nocilah]

really....come one, fess up. you're secretly ray mackauly aren't you. don't want to lose the millions you make every year from zombies

:D that was funny.

[nocilah]

so if I've been inspired and moved by what feels very much like God, to hunt down douwdouws with a 10 ton truck of donkey sewerage, I should do it?
:P

but LG that would be wrong - when do other people get to join the party?

[nocilah]

Anyway i think this thread has gone off topic. I dont really care how the bible came to be, or should i rather say the new testament.

Fact is it came to be. No one on earth can deny that there is no bible. Who decided what, when and how is also superfluous. There is common thread within all translations and versions of the bible and that is a character who may or may not have existed.

But as some people have suggested it may not be whether he existed or not but what exactly did he say as opposed to what was recorded. It would be interesting to know the truth but that has been lost through time.

Just a question: I thought the dead sea scrolls pretty much proved the authenticity of the bible through the ages? (i may be wrong - I was told this once and havent researched it)

Anyway whatever the reasons, the truths, the lies and deception. J3sus seems to be a pivotal character through time since his death. He must have been more amazing then not. Anyway thats my opinion.

[noxibox]

but i would think by then the romans had other methods of effective control. unifying their empire through religion - i am not sure. using religion as a control mechanism, perhaps. And it is an interesting concept, but i will be honest most of my questions have been answered with some really good posts. Lets realise this thread had nothing to do with religion, but more so about a man who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago.
I would think that faced with an unwieldy, and perhaps crumbling empire, they would use any means they thought might be effective. It can be very effective for a religion to be propagated by the state both for the religion, by it gaining members, reluctant or otherwise, and for the state, by unifying people and the rules by which they are expected to live.

We still don't know whether there really was a person called Jesus or what this person did for most of their life. The Bible documents part of his childhood and a short period at the end of his life.

[nocilah]

I would think that faced with an unwieldy, and perhaps crumbling empire, they would use any means they thought might be effective. It can be very effective for a religion to be propagated by the state both for the religion, by it gaining members, reluctant or otherwise, and for the state, by unifying people and the rules by which they are expected to live.


http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

great link that details how Christianity became part of the Roman Empire. It appears Constantine had a dream of seeing the cross or some christian symbol, but it appears they were persecuted and considered a threat to national security (they sound like USA) until Constantine took charge. 300 and something AD.

So I don't think it was used as a control mechanism, it was a more a force that needed to be dealt with and it seems in the end they decided to integrate it into their society and empire.

[jarr]

so if I've been inspired and moved by what feels very much like God, to hunt down douwdouws with a 10 ton truck of donkey sewerage, I should do it?
:Pyes, well, um, consider that inspiration is available very readily from the wrong side of the spiritual tracks, as well... ;)

[Debbie]

A book that just happened to come my way this morning-

Herrin, Judith, The Formation of Christendom (1987) [paperback from Phoenix Press, 2001]


The formation of Christendom addresses both the Christian and the Muslim inheritors of the Roman Empire and asks how it was that they came to define their world solely in religious terms.

Author is a former Princeton professor of Byzantine history.

I have not read it, but I have flipped through it and it looks packed with infomation.

[simple_simon]

just to throw something else into the mix

http://web.archive.org/web/19970112020957/http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.html

[LoneGunman]

for what its worth, karen armstrong's 'History of God' is a good read, for a fairly authoritative academic look at the underlying history..

[Neo]

for what its worth, karen armstrong's 'History of God' is a good read, for a fairly authoritative academic look at the underlying history..

Yes, a good read, especially on the OT god. But it goes much further than the topic of this thread. For a book directly related to the question posed in this topic read Ian Wilson's 'J esus: The Evidence'.

The evidence is well presented, in a logical way and allows you to form your own deductions and conclusions. Mine differ from the author.

[ghoti]

The stories told about Osiris-Dionysus will no doubt sound familiar. He is the Son of God who is born to a virgin on the 25th of December before three shepherds. He is a prophet who offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism. He is a wonderworker who raises the dead and miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony. He is God incarnate who dies at Easter, sometimes through crucifixion, but who resurrects on the third day. He is a savior who offers his followers redemption through partaking in a meal of bread and wine, symbolic of his body and blood. The ***** story is a synthesis of the Jewish myth of the Messiah Joshua (in Greek *****) with these Pagan myths of the dying and resurrecting Godman.

Some interesting reading : http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/*****mysteries.html

[kilps]

Firstly to try and answer halicon's original question ... the way I look at it is that if you can accept that ***** existed then you must assume that his legacy somehow made it to those who put together the Bible. So disregarding any debate as to the accuracy of the Bible he must have at least been a person who made a big enough difference in people's lives that we still know about him today.

Of course this could not be the sole reason why he 'still live[s] on today in many peoples lives' as people today have learned of him through the means which this thread is now debating.

I think that how he became so well known is simple (he made some sort of a difference) - which is why we are in a way debating what that difference was.


Also jews reject j3sus as being the son of god, well i think the fact that they got him crucified is a sign that they disliked him at the time. :P
I think that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*****#Judaism.27s_view in a way answers why the Jews reject him, simply because they do not think his actions and their results fulfill the prophesies.


btw.. How come nobody was Christian if the Christian God (assuming you believe the Bible and are Christian) created the first two people on the earth?

You would think that they would be Christian is they spoke with God when he said bla bla dont eat from that tree bla bla... Yet a few thousand years later, nobody is Christian anymore, just Pagan or Jewish or Muslim.

(Okay well that comes from the OT, so it was written by Jews I guess, but its weird how Christians just adopt that and it doesn't even make sense to have the original people on Earth as Christians.)

So now God has to send his Son to Earth and tries to convert people (He had the power to create the universe right?) by splitting up bread and fish... probably the lamest story ever, ever.

EDIT: Sorry I'm very uneducated on these Bible facts and what who believes :/
Christianity is supposed to be an extension of the Jewish faith - ie Christians and Jews are the same up to the point of Christ were they differentiate on if he is the true Son of God. So it is not a matter of how God made people but what they believed later on

You can basically justify anything this way. It is the god moves in mysterious ways cop-out.

The Bible being inspired and not actually written by god is given as an excuse for why it contains problems. You'd think a perfect god could manage some perfect inspiration.

On the other hand if we take it as given that this god did manipulate Constantine we could use the results to investigate this god's true intentions.

Perhaps the Vatican's evil deeds throughout history are also all god at work.
Ok - firstly God managing 'perfect inspiration' implies complete control - which goes against [at least my] the idea of consciouses choice ... Secondly why do people keep bringing up the actions of the Church in the past? Perhaps these actions were the accepted norms of the time (war on terrorism? - just a thought)
- but these were the actions of humans who believed they were doing God's will, so it says nothing about the religion but of those people ... besides - I think most modern day Church's are reasonably tolerant

It's still an interesting idea - are we practicing the 'correct' form of Christianity? It's one of the reasons I don't like the idea of taking the Bible completely literally (ie how do we know the Bible allowing for the death penalty was not simply because of the norms of the time?) - if you don't take things too literally I think it boils down to are the so called values the true ones of Christ

I still want to do more reading on this ...

[noxibox]

firstly God managing 'perfect inspiration' implies complete control
So the entire book could be totally faulty bearing little or no resemblance to what was really said.

Perfect inspiration has nothing to do with control. It is merely a reflection of this god's skill at communicating with these things it supposedly created, or in this case it's lack thereof.


why do people keep bringing up the actions of the Church in the past
These were god's agents acting as a force for evil, but where is this benevolent god? Taking a lunch break? Having another day off?

[kilps]

So the entire book could be totally faulty bearing little or no resemblance to what was really said.

Perfect inspiration has nothing to do with control. It is merely a reflection of this god's skill at communicating with these things it supposedly created, or in this case it's lack thereof.

No - what I am saying is that because of human faults we should not take everything exactly as it is presented but rather look at the underlying meanings as such. Control does have everything to do with it - if there was a perfect Bible then we probably would be 'inspired' to live exactly by it which goes against choosing God etc. Basically I look at the Bible as a way of getting out ideas and not as a perfect little instruction booklet - of course that in itself is debatable

This god's agents acting as a force for evil, but where is this benevolent god? Taking a lunch break? Having another day off?
Well how do we know that was God's wish? If he was to simply prevent it from happening then he would be controlling these people ...

[noxibox]

If the Bible is faulty we cannot know how faulty it is. To what degree has the message been garbled?

If the message had been sent properly it would have no bearing on the effort necessary to adhere to the requirements. Except we would not have to waste time and energy on recovery of data that has been corrupted to an unknown extent. Given God's inability to transmit information accurately the information we have may bare no resemblance to the original message.

If God can never act to prevent evil, then God is effectively impotent. Free will is an extremely weak excuse for a failure to act.

[nocilah]

If the Bible is faulty we cannot know how faulty it is. To what degree has the message been garbled?

it is faulty to some flawless for others


If the message had been sent properly it would have no bearing on the effort necessary to adhere to the requirements. Except we would not have to waste time and energy on recovery of data that has been corrupted to an unknown extent. Given God's inability to transmit information accurately the information we have may bare no resemblance to the original message.

if you are assuming the bible is faulty then why are you bringing God into the equation? perhaps a fault with your logic?



If God can never act to prevent evil, then God is effectively impotent. Free will is an extremely weak excuse for a failure to act.

but God has been purported to have acted against evil many times in the bible.

Off the top of my head the exile of adam and eve from the garden of eden was his first act against evil.

[noxibox]

if you are assuming the bible is faulty then why are you bringing God into the equation?
God is no longer believed to be the author/to have inspired the Bible?


but God has been purported to have acted against evil many times in the bible.
Purported.

[Mr TB]

GAMEGIRL in reply to your remark...

I don't blatantly believe just anything, I have a stronger mind than that, so I like to make up my own mind and not follow like a 'lamb'...

YES, that is why I know on the thrown sits the LION OF JUDA..., following like a "lamb" means just I trust His voice..., not be strongminded follow my way just to be devoured by the one that roars like a lion...

[Mr TB]

God is no longer believed to be the author/to have inspired the Bible?


Purported.

The Bible is the inspired word of god, no doubt. Nothing is said about the translators of such word being inspired causing the obvious problems in the bible today...

Threadmembers arguing this point are just to obtuse accepting reality...

[Neo]

The Bible is the inspired word of god, no doubt...
Proof?

I'd strongly suggest you actually read up on the history of how the bible got put together. Nothing divine in that, just humans trying to construct a scripture to back up their views.

Large parts of the OT was blatantly copied from other religions. Fact. Been debated / discussed / proven on this forum often enough.

The NT was a construct by Paul and the early church in Rome, (with a little help from the Roman Emperors). Fact. Been debated / discussed / proven on this forum often enough.

But you must have strong proof with a statement like "no doubt".

Quite keen to hear it.

[Mr TB]

Proof?

I'd strongly suggest you actually read up on the history of how the bible got put together. Nothing divine in that, just humans trying to construct a scripture to back up their views.

Large parts of the OT was blatantly copied from other religions. Fact. Been debated / discussed / proven on this forum often enough.

The NT was a construct by Paul and the early church in Rome, (with a little help from the Roman Emperors). Fact. Been debated / discussed / proven on this forum often enough.

But you must have strong proof with a statement like "no doubt".

Quite keen to hear it.

You are also one of those who keep on about discrepancies and contradictions, read this verse:

2 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

2 Peter 3:16 (New International Version)
16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

If I look at this i am sure there were already people in the first century trying to distort the teachings in Paul's letters,... like you maybe?

[Neo]

You are also one of those who keep on about discrepancies and contradictions, read this verse:

2 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

2 Peter 3:16 (New International Version)
16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

If I look at this i am sure there were already people in the first century trying to distort the teachings in Paul's letters,... like you maybe?

Do you actually know who Paul was and his differences with Peter and James (who was the true leader of the early church after his boet disappeared)?

Why do you think Paul acted so paranoid? He had no clue who or what J esus was and ended up arguing with everyone on this, including James but especially Peter.

[Mr TB]

Strong words?... check the words used denying the bible without proof in other threads, so please...

And then judging, how many times have you non-believers judged god?
Then if you are apparently judged you ran of crying...
You judged without having the real facts at hand...mmmm....

Like the one guy said the 10 commands was in any case put in place for men by god as a standard god will use to judge men and for men to know that standard..., not for men to judge god...

[Mr TB]

Do you actually know who Paul was and his differences with Peter and James (who was the true leader of the early church after his boet disappeared)?

Why do you think Paul acted so paranoid? He had no clue who or what J esus was and ended up arguing with everyone on this, including James but especially Peter.

I tried to explain grace to you which you are to hard-headed to understand...
If you can tell me why Paul took TITUS a greek with him when he went to jerusalem and you are correct...

Then i will tell you what Paul's mission was and what the mission of Peter was.
Untill such time you do not unferstand anything... you only think you do...

[ID10T]

OK I read up to page 2 in the half. Then everything got very confusing.

I am not learned in religion, so I will not argue or anything.

I just know that I will be a Christian and not question what I Believe.

[nocilah]

God is no longer believed to be the author/to have inspired the Bible?


Purported.

but you have assumed it is faulty? so it should end there?

[Neo]

I tried to explain grace to you which you are to hard-headed to understand...
If you can tell me why Paul took TITUS a greek with him when he went to jerusalem and you are correct...

Because Paul was not a pukka Jew and did not know anyone....


Then i will tell you what Paul's mission was and what the mission of Peter was.
Untill such time you do not unferstand anything... you only think you do...

Why are you avoiding my questions?

Because you have no proof for the divine inspiration of the bible and you obviously don't know about the issues between Paul, James and Peter?

I'm the first to admit I understand very little (but I try), can only base my understanding on studying as many different sources as possible.

Working with facts (and not what someone brainwashed into you) is a bitch, I agree, it really distorts things. We should just do away with all facts, they're just a nuisance, ask Paul.

So lets ignore all relevant facts and rather just make up what we want to believe. Wait a minute, we've been there, was called the Dark Ages.... :rolleyes:

[kilps]

Large parts of the OT was blatantly copied from other religions. Fact. Been debated / discussed / proven on this forum often enough.

Do you mind pointing out the thread? I'm not sure what you are referring to ... thanks

[Mr TB]

Because Paul was not a pukka Jew and did not know anyone....


Why are you avoiding my questions?

Because you have no proof for the divine inspiration of the bible and you obviously don't know about the issues between Paul, James and Peter?

I'm the first to admit I understand very little (but I try), can only base my understanding on studying as many different sources as possible.

Working with facts (and not what someone brainwashed into you) is a bitch, I agree, it really distorts things. We should just do away with all facts, they're just a nuisance, ask Paul.

So lets ignore all relevant facts and rather just make up what we want to believe. Wait a minute, we've been there, was called the Dark Ages.... :rolleyes:

NEO, you do not understand grace and if you do not understand grace you will never understand a single one of Pual's teachings. It is indeed because of grace that he rebuked Peter and Peter knowing that he was wrong accepted it... but you , you are ignorant and want your way to be the right way...

And you , if god disappears what disappear?, a distrinction between right and wrong, you can do as you like no rsponsibility that's why all of you are hanging onto this so-called proven theories, it releases you of responsibilty...

[Mr TB]

Do you actually know who Paul was and his differences with Peter and James (who was the true leader of the early church after his boet disappeared)?

Why do you think Paul acted so paranoid? He had no clue who or what J esus was and ended up arguing with everyone on this, including James but especially Peter.

PETER was a JEW used to the LAW, although with his MASTER he learned it to be a guideline not a rulebook.
PETER was designated to preach the GOSPEL to the JEWS, once filled with the Holy Spirit he indeed followed that mission.

PAUL on the other hand also a JEW, but a well drilled Pharisee was persecuting the early church, then had an encounter with CHRIST, changing him completely... He was designated to preach the GOSPEL to the heathen which he did...PAUL was schooled by CHRIST for this mission...

PAUL and PETER Will therefore sometimes differ in opinion until PAUL can explain, using his knowledge of The Tora what CHRIST and GRACE are about.

[Mr TB]

PETER was designated to preached the GOSPEL to the JEWS.

and

PAUL was designated to preach the GOSPEL to the heathen.
Why are you crying about leadership?... Christ is head of the CHURCH.

Where the "i", the selfish me, pride, turns up... Christ doesn't come along...

[Claymore]

And you , if god disappears what disappear?, a distrinction between right and wrong, you can do as you like no rsponsibility that's why all of you are hanging onto this so-called proven theories, it releases you of responsibilty...

So, if I understand you correctly, only Christians (Jews and Muslims too?) have a sense of right and wrong?

Sadly, statistics of prisoners in jail in the US does not bear this idea out at all; in fact, quite the contrary.

[kilo39]

I am not trying to prove he was not unique, merely stating that no evidence has been provided to prove his uniqueness, i.e. that he did something no-one has ever done before or since. You claim he is unique. What proof do you have that he came up with all this on his own? You assume he was isolated from all outside influence. We have no definite evidence that he did not combine ideas he picked up from others just as many others had done before him. Especially since similar ideas arose elsewhere hundreds years earlier.

There is no requirement that ***** travelled to the east since knowledge from the east could easily have made its way to Palestine, either directly due to travellers from those locations or indirectly via knowledge picked up by the Romans. Such movements of culture are fairly common, even in those times.

When someone claims they came up with something similar to someone else's idea all on their own they'd have to demonstrate they had no contact with the other person's ideas.To go back aways: I was arguing the east from the perspective of the far east. Somewhere (this thread?) it was discussed middle, near, far east.

After an extensive rereading of the texts :D I come to the following conclusion:

The story of the 3 kings at the birth: "Matthew also tells of the "Wise Men" or "Magi" who brought gifts to the infant ***** after following a star which they believed was a sign that the Messiah, or King of the Jews, had been born"
***** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*****)

The best known Magi are the "Wise Men from the East" in the Bible, whose graves Marco Polo claimed to have seen in what is today the district of Saveh, in Tehran, Iran.
-
It's also believed by some Christians that the Jewish prophet Daniel was "rab mag" and entrusted a Messianic vision (to be announced in due time by a "star") to a secret sect of the Magi for its eventual fulfillment (Daniel 4:9; 5: 11)
-
Later they accepted the Zoroastrian religion, not without changing the original message of its founder, Zarathustra (Zoroaster),
Magi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi)

According to Herodotus i.101, the "Magi" were the sixth tribe of the Medians (until the unification of the Persian empire under Cyrus the Great, all Iranians were referred to as Mede or Mada by the peoples of the Ancient World), who appear to have been the priestly caste of the Mesopotamian-influenced branch of Zoroastrianism today known as "Zurvanism", and who wielded considerable influence at the courts of the Median emperors.
-
In the 1st century CE, the magi were known as astrologers and they appear as such in a nativity story of *****.
-
Zoroastrianism is uniquely important in the history of religion because of its possible formative links to both Western Abrahamic and Eastern dharmic religious traditions.
-
According to Mary Boyce "Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed credal religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly or indirectly, than any other single faith... some of its leading doctrines were adopted by Judaism, Christianity and Islam". (Boyce, 1979, pg 1) Zoroastrianism has been proposed as the source of some of the most important post-Torah aspects of Judaic religious thinking, which emerged after the Babylonian captivity, from which Jews were liberated by Cyrus the Great.

This is also a view put forward by King and Moore, who wrote in The Gnostics and Their Remains that

it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion... the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ... the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme. (King, 1887)
Many traits of this ancient religion can be traced back to the culture and beliefs of the proto-Indo-Iranian period, and Zoroastrianism consequently shares some elements with the Vedic faiths that also have their origins in that era. In fact, in many ways, although Zoroastrianism presents a similar philosophy as the Vedic faiths, it tends to present an "alternate viewpoint" that seems influenced primarily by a difference in perception. However, Zoroastrianism was also strongly affected by the later culture of the Iranian Heroic Age (1500 BC onwards), an influence that the Indic religions were not subject to. Nonetheless, scholars have used evidence from the texts of both religious systems to reconstruct the earlier stage of proto-Indo-Iranian beliefs and culture. This has also formed attempts to characterise the even earlier Proto-Indo-European religion, and so determine the process by which Dyeus became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr.
Zoroastrianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism)

Modern Hinduism grew out of the knowledge described in the Vedas. The earliest of these, the Rigveda, centers on worship of deities such as Indra, Varuna and Agni, and on the Soma ritual. The early Indo-Aryans would perform fire-sacrifices, called yajña (????), with the chanting of the Vedic mantras, but they built no temples, idols or icons. Probably animals were also sacrificed in larger yajñas, as claimed by Buddhist and Jain texts. The most ancient Vedic traditions exhibit strong similarities to Zoroastrianism, as well as to other Indo-European religions.
Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism)
-
-
So essentially we are dealing with the aspects of one religion: the knowledge of the tribes (passed down through time, much of it oral.)

No doubt (though I make an assumption) christ was given the teachings of Zoroastrianism which in themselves is tied into Hinduism. We are actually discussing our very roots as human beings and the knowledge we have learnt over thousands of years, ever since we walked erect. Our first separation of self from the environment. And in fact the 'first religions' are synomous with mans first conscious thoughts, ie, cave paintings, efforts to record and control the environment.

Seems we walked the wrong way and only found the sea at the mediterranean.

... and having said all the above I still argue ***** was unique. Walked on water (though I hear this is common in india :p ) Brought the dead to life. Performed miracles, is/was this not unique.

Further: got to say we have available much of the secret texts of the old religions. Powerful stuff. Out there on the internet. Should we even be discussing it?

//and really absurdity rises to new levels: here we are with our own sub-section on religion/faith but Je3us is still banned!! :mad: HTF are we supposed to have a discussion if we can't even post a url! :mad:

[nocilah]

The story of the 3 kings at the birth: "Matthew also tells of the "Wise Men" or "Magi" who brought gifts to the infant ***** after following a star which they believed was a sign that the Messiah, or King of the Jews, had been born"
***** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*****)


they were never mentioned as kings ever. they were wise men or travelers.

[bk.ru]

they were never mentioned as kings ever. they were wise men or travelers.


We three kings of Orient are;
Bearing gifts we traverse afar,
Field and fountain, moor and mountain,
Following yonder star.

:)

[nocilah]

:)

i always admire the perserverance of stupid people.

no where in the BIBLE are they mentioned as Kings.

songs we learned in preschool are just that. songs we learned in preschool

[bk.ru]

i always admire the perserverance of stupid people.

no where in the BIBLE are they mentioned as Kings.

songs we learned in preschool are just that. songs we learned in preschool

I also love stupid people :) No where in my post did I say the bible mentions kings. I simply quoted a song, your aggressive religious mind did the rest.

[nocilah]

Actually no where in the Bible does it mention a number of wise men. we assume this from the gifts they bore.

so we have wise men which through ghastly songs and nativity scenes have been turned into 3 kings?

[nocilah]

I also love stupid people :) No where in my post did I say the bible mentions kings. I simply quoted a song, your aggressive religious mind did the rest.

love? where do i say love?

not religious at all ;)

[bk.ru]

That`ll teach me.

[kilo39]

Sorry my typo: kings is irrelevant to my post, meant magi. Came from here:

Matthew also tells of the "Wise Men" or "Magi" who brought gifts to the infant ***** after following a star which they believed was a sign that the Messiah, or King of the Jews, had been born (Matthew 2:1-12)
wikipedia/je3us

and here:

The best known Magi are the "Wise Men from the East" in the Bible, whose graves Marco Polo claimed to have seen in what is today the district of Saveh, in Tehran, Iran.
wikipedia/magi

touchy :p

[nocilah]

That`ll teach me.

yeah! :D

[nocilah]

Sorry my typo: kings is irrelevant to my post, meant magi. Came from here:

Matthew also tells of the "Wise Men" or "Magi" who brought gifts to the infant ***** after following a star which they believed was a sign that the Messiah, or King of the Jews, had been born (Matthew 2:1-12)
wikipedia/je3us

and here:

The best known Magi are the "Wise Men from the East" in the Bible, whose graves Marco Polo claimed to have seen in what is today the district of Saveh, in Tehran, Iran.
wikipedia/magi

touchy :p

just pointing out a common mistake. which is 3 kings.

[JTerry]

What shall one say about all you have written.

Apparently what you believe to be true you have written in opposition to who might have say what. That is not my quarrel.

The thing that is important is this.

Why is it that Jesus_Christ is the one they (mainly the west) are trying to marginalize. The focus from the critics are not on religion but on Christianity.

For you would not find any evidence of the existence of _Christ and his Godliness for _Christ himself said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

And like Thomas of old: John 20:24 24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

The end of the matter is this. Jesus never ever forced anyone to believe in him. The ancient powers that be bid many things in _Christ name but did it for there own sake (money).

If you don't believe in him, why wast your energy hating something you don't believe in. For you can not hate something you don't believe to be true.

For believe are what Christianity revolves around. If you believe in Jesus_Christ my saviour you are a Christian and if you don't, you are not.

For the Devil will try to degrade _Christ and Christianity for he knows his time is limited. For the elect of Jesus_Christ will never waver under all lies being mastered against his Holy Name.

My prayer are that all will see this, but I know that only 'n few (relative term) will see God's Kingdom.

For I don't try to degrade any other religion for I believe it to be false, but only trough the Truth (_Jesus) will people believe.

The Holy Ghost is the power that drive people like myself to speak up and are the power on earth that made Christianity grow.

Go and read the Bible, and if it's to long, only read the 4 Gospels and if you are of the elect, something inside you (Holy Ghost)will move you to think an believe in Jesus_Christ my savior.

Why did _Jesus said the following "2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said,Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Because, a little child do believe in something without he being able to see it. For he who ponders only on the Scientific side of Christianity will not be able to believe in Him for it will be impossible since he can't verify His existence with solid tangible evidence.

[Mr TB]

What shall one say about all you have written.

Apparently what you believe to be true you have written in opposition to who might have say what. That is not my quarrel.

The thing that is important is this.

Why is it that Jesus_Christ is the one they (mainly the west) are trying to marginalize. The focus from the critics are not on religion but on Christianity.

For you would not find any evidence of the existence of _Christ and his Godliness for _Christ himself said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

And like Thomas of old: John 20:24 24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

The end of the matter is this. Jesus never ever forced anyone to believe in him. The ancient powers that be bid many things in _Christ name but did it for there own sake (money).

If you don't believe in him, why wast your energy hating something you don't believe in. For you can not hate something you don't believe to be true.

For believe are what Christianity revolves around. If you believe in Jesus_Christ my saviour you are a Christian and if you don't, you are not.

For the Devil will try to degrade _Christ and Christianity for he knows his time is limited. For the elect of Jesus_Christ will never waver under all lies being mastered against his Holy Name.

My prayer are that all will see this, but I know that only 'n few (relative term) will see God's Kingdom.

For I don't try to degrade any other religion for I believe it to be false, but only trough the Truth (_Jesus) will people believe.

The Holy Ghost is the power that drive people like myself to speak up and are the power on earth that made Christianity grow.

Go and read the Bible, and if it's to long, only read the 4 Gospels and if you are of the elect, something inside you (Holy Ghost)will move you to think an believe in Jesus_Christ my savior.

Why did _Jesus said the following "2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said,Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Because, a little child do believe in something without he being able to see it. For he who ponders only on the Scientific side of Christianity will not be able to believe in Him for it will be impossible since he can't verify His existence with solid tangible evidence.

Thanking you JTERRY for certain you have brought to mind... Thomas not willing to believe unless he puts his fingers in the holes in his hands......
and
The child... if we are not willing to believe like little children we will not see the kingdom of heaven....

These two verses clears up the madness surrounding "evidence".

[phenom]

The New Testament was written on 5600 ancient found copies of which have 99.5%% accuracy

Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, it is a very very trustworthy historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below

Author1 Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span Between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies

Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, closer in time span from original writing, and better regarding textual reliability.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/trustbible.htm

[Mr TB]

Just for the record concerning the name of christ j esus attacked in either this or one of the other threads...

QUOTE:
"My point here is simple. Let’s not get so hung up on our pronunciation of
Hebrew terms that we become snobs -- or worse -- gnostics! For those
raised with the Latin-based alphabet in English speaking countries, His
Name is Jesus Christ - and it is good!


Shalom to you... and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you."

[LoneGunman]

*wipes off the sanctimonous superior holier-than-thou spittle from the drooling douwdouw*

[Mr TB]

BTW the flimsy reference to the chart concerning the NT:

"1. This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.
2. (Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.)"

[The Cosmos]

So how did he become such a figure. Its not like other figures in history who conquered this or did that. If you think of it most characters in history are known for all the bad things they did.

Everyone expected a Saviour, according to the prophets of the OT. Here came a man, He defied all odds. He said He is from God, and the Son of God. People believed Him, and others rejected Him. He said, believing and having faith in Him, would save them, and give them eternal life.

The jews expected a messiah. He was not their messiah. Christ rejected them, and they rejected Him.
That's the story of Christ for me. You either except Him or reject Him.

[bk.ru]

Where does the word "Jesus" come from? Can anyone show me an original document with the word "Jesus" on it.

[The Cosmos]

It's a greek word and is derived from Iesous.

[bk.ru]

So Christians just decided to rename him one day?

[The Cosmos]

Well, all names in the OT, were Hebrew. Then suddenly because in NT times, Greek became the international language of those areas, and then suddenly they (whoever they are) decided to make a NT in greek, and viola, the proper name, Yahshua, became Jesus. :rolleyes:

[Mr TB]

Well, all names in the OT, were Hebrew. Then suddenly because in NT times, Greek became the international language of those areas, and then suddenly they (whoever they are) decided to make a NT in greek, and viola, the proper name, Yahshua, became Jesus. :rolleyes:

Lookout mate these fellas intentions ain't good...:sick:

[The Cosmos]

Thanks, DD. I'll be on the lookout ! :p

[ghoti]

I love it when people talk to themselves :D