The 98 and the 2.

[Pr⊕phet]

concerning jesus himself

A. Jesus was a god
B. He was a magician following the Kabala or Hermetics path
C. Philosopher
D. 'Good' Man
E. A mythical (read non-existent) character in a 2000 year old book

now. you place him into a society that has say 98 false messiahs/preachers/persons with another true god/messiah/teacher.

from the normal perspective if you stand all 100 in a line by the eye you can tell who is a god or not.

if they all preach at the same time neither can you tell who is actually telling you the truth.

if you let them all do a wonder - how can you tell who is doing it really or fake from what source.

from all this either as i stated Jesus could have been a true god but couldn't be recognized by the masses from the other 98 persons and was voted and made into a god (in human terms those days), or from he was an ordinary man with some skill in the arcane or not and from his teachings directly made into a god (the dune effect).
================================================== ========

from another point directly to god.

maybe there was a true god and a very simple teaching in the very beginning
which then was perverted into what we have today a multi god system for self gain very gently over the years by people.

or there is really a god amongst the other 98 and due to that its hard and nearly impossible to tell him/her/it apart from the other 98 that is not which was fabricated.

or in retrospect the 98 was there and the other 2 arrived on the scene late ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

some random thought for the day. (if at all this makes some sense)

[cyghost]

you forgot:

E) A mythical (read non-existent) character in a 2000 year old book

There is nothing outside the bible that confirms his existence .. except for one dodgy reference by a a roman historian.

[FlyingPika]

concerning jesus himself

A. Jesus was a god
B. He was a magician following the Kabala or Hermetics path
C. Philosopher
D. 'Good' Man
Could show me where you got B from?


now. you place him into a society that has say 98 false messiahs/preachers/persons with another true god/messiah/teacher.

from the normal perspective if you stand all 100 in a line by the eye you can tell who is a god or not.
The one raising people up from the dead when they have been dead in a tomb for days and have began stinking and rotting. The one healing multitudes. The one who speaks such wisdom with authority like "NO OTHER" had ever done so before. The one who walks on water and commands the storm to be still and it obeys.


maybe there was a true god and a very simple teaching in the very beginning
which then was perverted into what we have today a multi god system for self gain very gently over the years by people.
The god of the bible is not about self gain. The bible tells you if you want to gain life you have to loose it. You have to pick up your cross, deny yourself and follow Him. Thy will be done, thy kingdom come, my kingdom go! The whole bible is about obeying God, following after His righteousness, never about how oneself feels or wants to do. Satanism is the religion of self, Christianity is about putting God FIRST where he belongs!


Mark 8:34-35 (Amplified Bible)
34And Jesus called [to Him] the throng with His disciples and said to them, If anyone intends to come after Me, let him deny himself [forget, ignore, disown, and [a]lose sight of himself and his own interests] and take up his cross, and [joining Me as a disciple and siding with My party] follow [c]with Me [continually, cleaving steadfastly to Me].

35For whoever wants to save his [[d]higher, spiritual, eternal] life, will lose it [the [e]lower, natural, temporal life [f]which is lived only on earth]; and whoever gives up his life [which is lived only on earth] for My sake and the Gospel's will save it [his [g]higher, spiritual life [h]in the eternal kingdom of God].


Galatians 2:20 (Amplified Bible)
20I have been crucified with Christ [in Him I have shared His crucifixion]; it is no longer I who live, but Christ (the Messiah) lives in me; and the life I now live in the body I live by faith in (by adherence to and reliance on and complete trust in) the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Yes the bible warns us about wolfs in sheep's clothing leading many astray. A lot of people judge God by people not following his word.



or there is really a god amongst the other 98 and due to that its hard and nearly impossible to tell him/her/it apart from the other 98 that is not which was fabricated.
Read the the bible and the quran and tell me whether the god in each could possibly be the same person?

[ghoti]

you forgot:

E) A mythical (read non-existent) character in a 2000 year old book

There is nothing outside the bible that confirms his existence .. except for one dodgy reference by a a roman historian.

I would say the statistical probability of their been an enlightened carpenter from Nazareth called Jesus pretty good. Whether he was the son of God is a theological debate, but historically I would say the man Jesus existed. Oh, I wouldn't trust the information about Jesus in those Roman works either. They're either forgeries or vague.

[Pr⊕phet]

FlyingPika - its another Venture..... must i explain that concept again for you ?

starting a Philosophical debate with out pre-made-up-mind or using 'christian safe sources' etc etc

Venture(verb)
To express at the risk of denial, criticism, or censure: "I would venture to guess that Anon., who wrote so many poems without signing them, was often a woman" (Virginia Woolf).

put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation; "I am guessing that the price of real estate will rise again"; "I cannot pretend to say that you are wrong"
================================================== ====

now keeping that in mind, before you go bible beating, judgmental and condemning - put the good book aside and use a moment of silence to ponder on what the threat are about and then on your own words using your own formed opinion, idea or a venture/guess make a reply. ( you are allowed to do this )

[Pr⊕phet]

I would say the statistical probability of their been an enlightened carpenter from Nazareth called Jesus pretty good. Whether he was the son of God is a theological debate, but historically I would say the man Jesus existed. Oh, I wouldn't trust the information about Jesus in those Roman works either. They're either forgeries or vague.

exactly - or maybe...

as you say whether or not he was god or divine - the point is that even for the 'christians' in that time it would have been hard to tell him apart from all the other preachers preaching their tale of salvation - and maybe if he was divine/god still is interesting to note here that that maybe he wasn't at first excepted as the god-truth but later on at say council of necea, but if not then it would be as i guessed/ventured that he could have been an ordinary man with iether good willed intentioned, pack of teachings and philosophies or for that matter of fact to his jew relationships maybe even a magician (in that time as to rabbi's/jew magickal system - and if you have proper knowledge of the Kabala or Hermetics you will know that the Kabala path is the worship of God as it is in bible...).

owell. getting late ;)

[TMoose]

I would say the statistical probability of their been an enlightened carpenter from Nazareth called Jesus pretty good. Whether he was the son of God is a theological debate, but historically I would say the man Jesus existed. Oh, I wouldn't trust the information about Jesus in those Roman works either. They're either forgeries or vague.I watched the (not so good) documentary The God Who Never Was the other day. I'll admit I was a bit disappointed with the thing as a whole, but one of the claims they make is that while Jesus supposedly died somewhere around the year 33, the earliest gospel is that of Mark, and he mentions the destruction of the temple that happened in the year 70. Therefore all the gospels were written at the earliest about 40 years after his death.

What links the two periods together is the appostle Paul (Saul), who claims Jesus visited him in a vision to start spreading the news. Apparently the letters he wrote represents almost all we have about Christianity in the 40 year gap. The problem is that Paul never saw Jesus as a human, who had recently lived on earth. He never mentions anything Jesus did except the crucifiction, resurrection and ascension, which he places in a mythical realm, similar to other saviour deities of the time.

They quote Hebrews 8:4 at this stage
"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."

Now I haven't verified any of this, it's quite possible that they're completely one sided in the documentary. If it's true it makes the story a bit more dodgy though.

[Neo]

I watched the (not so good) documentary The God Who Never Was the other day. I'll admit I was a bit disappointed with the thing as a whole, but one of the claims they make is that while Jesus supposedly died somewhere around the year 33, the earliest gospel is that of Mark, and he mentions the destruction of the temple that happened in the year 70. Therefore all the gospels were written at the earliest about 40 years after his death.

What links the two periods together is the appostle Paul (Saul), who claims Jesus visited him in a vision to start spreading the news. Apparently the letters he wrote represents almost all we have about Christianity in the 40 year gap. The problem is that Paul never saw Jesus as a human, who had recently lived on earth. He never mentions anything Jesus did except the crucifiction, resurrection and ascension, which he places in a mythical realm, similar to other saviour deities of the time.

They quote Hebrews 8:4 at this stage
"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."

Now I haven't verified any of this, it's quite possible that they're completely one sided in the documentary. If it's true it makes the story a bit more dodgy though.

You pretty much got it right. I would also agree with Wiz that there was most probably a historical Jesus but he was just a noticeable character in the times. Jesus himself never claimed to be divine.

All such claims, including all this cr@p about the head and the body and the blood and brides and whatever else were made by people who hijacked Jesus to create their religion. Paul being the foremost culprit.

Have a look at all the biblical quotes we get on this forum on what Christianity is supposed to be (read anything by the unholy trinity) and you'll see they were made by humans who did not even know Jesus. And as you stated, we based Christianity on this nonsense, waffled by a person who never even met Jesus. Now that takes faith!

Necuno is also correct in that, at the times, messiahs were a dime a dozen. And they all claimed similar capabilities, including virgin birth, raising the dead, etc.

I agree with your final quote; If Jesus was around today, he would not have been a Christian. He would tell you he was a good Jew who wanted to get rid of the Romans but realised pacifism is a better way.

[nihilist]

FlyingPika
"The god of the bible is not about self gain. The bible tells you if you want to gain life you have to loose it. You have to pick up your cross, deny yourself and follow Him. Thy will be done, thy kingdom come, my kingdom go! The whole bible is about obeying God, following after His righteousness, never about how oneself feels or wants to do. Satanism is the religion of self, Christianity is about putting God FIRST where he belongs!"

One of the reasons I find Budhism more logical in it's doctrine.

Middle Way

The primary guiding principle of Buddhist practice is the Middle Way which was discovered by the Buddha prior to his enlightenment (bodhi). The Middle Way or Middle Path has several definitions:

1. It is often described as the practice of non-extremism; a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and opposing self-mortification.
2. It also refers to taking a middle ground between certain metaphysical views, e.g. that things ultimately either exist or do not exist.[25]
3. An explanation of the state of nirvana and perfect enlightenment where all dualities fuse and cease to exist as separate entities (see Seongcheol).


from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

[Pr⊕phet]

doesn't Buddhism requires a big belly ?

[fivelza]

doesn't Buddhism requires a big belly ?

LOL....stirrer :D

[Pr⊕phet]

LOL....stirrer :D

aikona !, ek doen niks sulke dinge nie :rolleyes:

[Mr TB]

aikona !, ek doen niks sulke dinge nie :rolleyes:

Let us go from the presupposition that Jesus Christ did indeed live 2000yrs ago...

Those of the forumites opposed to the idea, please advise why you believe there should have been taken plenty of notice of this Man and plenty written about him outside of the Bible...

[cyghost]

Good question Mr TB. And perhaps I am not qualified to answer but I'll venture a possibility.

He was supposed to have walked on water, changed water into wine, healed the sick and the dead and woke up from the dead himself.

The roman empire were pretty meticulous keepers of history and one would expect some records of all these happenings. They had a presence in Israel (Old Pontius and his ilk) and at least the trial of Jesus should have been on record.
Greece was also a nation who kept records in those days. We have nothing.

Here (http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm) and here (http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp03.htm) is some quick further reading if you really want to know.

[Mr TB]

Oh yes, before someone tells me ... because of the miracles ...

Miracles was apparently not that uncommon 2000 yrs ago...
The Western world left the spiritual world behind...

And ... the gospels are four historical records of the man Jesus...
and... there ain't any good reason to write about him outside the Bible...

Unless you can show me the history of every single rabbi that lived 2000 yrs ago and show me that their history was taken down by the Romans and the Greeks...

[cyghost]

You compare Jesus to a simple rabi? wow! I would have agreed but would think that that would not be your stance.

Your assertion that "miracles" were more common back then only holds water if seen in the fact that we had less understanding of the physical world and its intricacies than we do now. What seems miraculous then is merely good science now.

If you actually think that miracles were more common you are very much mistaken.

The gospels were written years after Jesus' death and none of the authors had actually seen with their own eyes any of the things they write about. Hearsay is not good evidence of anything.

[Mr TB]

Unbiased investigation into the times of the writings of the gospels time and time again show that Mark,Matthew and Luke don't have to be dated later than 65 ACE and John at the latest 90 ACE.

Taking into account then a comment like "hearsay" only confirm that gnostic writings can be completely dismissed...

[cyghost]

ACE? I am sorry I don't know that term. And google deserted me. Maybe give me a source for your unbiased investigation and I'll figure it out?

If you completely dismiss the gnostic writings you need to do the same with the bible. And I certainly never claimed any truth to these writings. They are however interesting, in context. Just like the bible is a very interesting book.

[Mr TB]

Due to its christian connotation the international community are trying not to use the abbreviations AD and AC.
An acceptable abbreviation is common era= CE=0 thus
BCE = before and ACE = after, or just CE.
I prefer using the A that clears any uncertainty...

Back then to the original question, scrutinising the gospels to verify there historical value...
Historians will of course be the best to actually provide the tools to test whether the gospels can be accepted as true or not...

As far as I am aware TACITUS is a great roman historian and his work is accepted as reliable...
Based on the scrutiny applied to the work of TACITUS, the gospels passes the test for being true with flying colours....

or

If the same scrutiny that is applied to the gospels to try and disprove that it is indeed the truth....
If that same scrutiny is applied to the works of TACITUS, the works of TACITUS becomes a myth...

[ToxicBunny]

acceptable????!....

Mr TB... its still BC and AD.... they're the internationally accepted abbreviations...

and yes they have "Christian" connotations because the calender is based on a christian concept, no matter what you call it.

[Mr TB]

acceptable????!....

Mr TB... its still BC and AD.... they're the internationally accepted abbreviations...

and yes they have "Christian" connotations because the calender is based on a christian concept, no matter what you call it.

Some admission is it not , what type of character was he not...
They did not even mention him in historybooks... but a a worlds almanac , calander turns on his birth...surely he must be divine...

[ToxicBunny]

No...

Its called a system that would cost too much money now to change, and to re-educate the people on....

Again its one of those simple concepts Mr TB.... its a "standard" of sorts.... you don't just blithely change them because you feel its a good idea to do so.

[cyghost]

You do know they had his birth year wrong by about 6 years? So in actual fact its not based on his birth at all. Its funny how often the divine seem to get it wrong. :p

[Highflyer_GP]

The fact that we use BC and AD does not prove that he existed. It's merely a point of reference in the timeline, making reference to a point in time when he supposedly existed.

We could create Flying Spaghetti Monster in 2007, and reference all future events based on BFSM (Before FSM). Don't get your hopes up dodo, the use of BC and AD doesn't confirm anything.

[Pr⊕phet]

BC is also before the common age



The Common Era, also known as the Current Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 of the Gregorian calendar.

Common or Current Era are alternative names for anno Domini, Latin for in the year of (Our) Lord,[1], also translated of the Christian Era. All of these era names are chronologically equivalent, i.e. the number of any given year is the same no matter which of these era names is used. When using the names Common Era or Current Era early years are described as before the Common Era or before the Current Era. When using the names anno Domini or Christian Era, early years are described as before Christ or before the Christian Era. A year zero is not included with any of these era names (however, the astronomical system and ISO 8601, both based on the system, do).

The short forms for Common Era and before the Common Era are CE and BCE respectively. These short forms are sometimes written with small capital letters, or with periods (e.g. C.E.)

The term Common Era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly Christian AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year, for it still centers on the life of Jesus. Others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness.

The term "CE" is preferred by academics in some fields (e.g., by the American Anthropological Association).

During the 1800s, the phrase "common era", in lower case, was frequently used in a generic sense, not necessarily to refer to the Christian Era, but to any system of dates in common use throughout a civilization. Thus, "the common era of the Jews", "the common era of the Mahometans", "the common era of the foundation of Rome". When it did refer to the Christian Era, it was sometimes qualified, e.g. "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord", or "the common era of the birth of our Saviour".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

[Neo]

Oh yes, before someone tells me ... because of the miracles ...

Miracles was apparently not that uncommon 2000 yrs ago...
The Western world left the spiritual world behind...


Or rather, people were much more gullible then....and some are still today.

Do we still have miracles in the East then? Japanese turning staffs into snakes, Taiwanese turning water into wine or the Koreans raising people from the dead?

[Mr TB]

"The term Common Era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly Christian AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year, for it still centers on the life of Jesus. Others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

The hi-lited sentence was the one I were looking for. Thanks Necuno. So to ensure no flaws drop the A and stick to BCE and CE.