The mirrored lives of Horus + Jesus [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

cpwill

06-08-2004, 06:35 AM

a brief description of Horus:

"In ancient Egypt there were originally several gods known by the name Horus, but the best known and most important from the beginning of the historic period was the son of Osiris and Isis who was identified with the king of Egypt. According to myth, Osiris, who assumed the rulership of the earth shortly after its creation, was slain by his jealous brother, Seth. The sister- wife of Osiris, Isis, who collected the pieces of her dismembered husband and revived him, also conceived his son and avenger, Horus. Horus fought with Seth, and, despite the loss of one eye in the contest, was successful in avenging the death of his father and in becoming his legitimate successor. Osiris then became king of the dead and Horus king of the living, this transfer being renewed at every change of earthly rule. The myth of divine kingship probably elevated the position of the god as much as it did that of the king. In the fourth dynasty, the king, the living god, may have been one of the greatest gods as well, but by the fifth dynasty the supremacy of the cult of Re, the sun god, was accepted even by the kings. The Horus-king was now also "son of Re." This was made possible mythologically by personifying the entire older genealogy of Horus (the Heliopolitan ennead) as the goddess Hathor, "house of Horus," who was also the spouse of Re and mother of Horus.
"Horus was usually represented as a falcon, and one view of him was as a great sky god whose outstretched wings filled the heavens; his sound eye was the sun and his injured eye the moon.

http://www.tektonics.org/osy.html

earth

06-08-2004, 06:52 AM

I had thought that you of all people would have been open and not defensive cpwill. After all this is more an affirmation that the ideal of Christ is more universal than once thought. The only thing that would annoy Christians is the idea that Christ may not be theirs alone. Is that really so much of a scary premise than any idea + facts backing up such an idea are to be devalidated?

cpwill

06-08-2004, 06:58 AM

i'm hardly defensive; i'm more amused:)

the idea that "Christ is not mine alone" i not only am unafraid of, but i cherish and truly hope for. the day when Christ is shared with all will truly be a great one.

however, that doesn't mean that i'm willing to simply declare anything to be "Christ", and neither am i willing to dramatically alter Christ in order to make him more palatable to others.

if the teachings of Osiris or Horus are similar to those of Christs'; good for the egyptians; it means they had a decent moral order (and yes, that is also evidence of a God from whom we get our sense of right and wrong), however, that doesn't mean that the Historical Figure of Jesus was actually a warped souped-up member of the egyptian parthenon; it just means the egyptians had some moral teachings in their religions.

this is similar to the claim that Ronald Reagan was a conservative who spoke english, i am a conservative who speaks english; i must be ronnie reagan.;)

cpwill

06-08-2004, 06:59 AM

incedentally: "narnia"?

you reading cs lewis on the sly, here, earth?;)

MikeD4o7

06-08-2004, 09:17 AM

i'm hardly defensive; i'm more amused

Do you find it all odd that the founding church fathers weren't quite as amused? You're right in that the vast majority of evidence that would indicate direct links between christianity and various pagan religions is more or less nowhere to be found. We can thank that to the burning of the library of Alexandria primarily as well as other scroll burnings and whatnot.

However, the one thing that does definitely seem to indicate that there was a link that we DO have is not anything that any pagans said or anything like that... but rather what early church fathers said in response to these accusations (which were around within the first couple centuries).

For example... this is from Justin the Martyr's first apology. 156CE

"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirits put forward many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvellous tales, like the things that were said by the poets."

and...

"And that this may now become evident to you that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof--we shall bring forward the following proof."

Justin the Martyr's entire First Apology
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

It's not just Justin the Martyr either. This exact defense is mirrored in the writings of Tertullian...

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."

Tertullian's full apology
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian01.html

This is Justin the Martyr's, Tertullian's, and others' explanation of why the myths of some of the pagan gods and the story of Jesus are so similar. Now at this point in history, they were certainly knowledgeable about the specifics of pagan myths, how long they had been around, etc etc etc. So the tricky part is to explain to me why these men, not known for being ignorant or stupid, would resort to blaming the devil and demons for causing these "illusions" that were so similar to Christ's story to make people not believe... why wouldn't they just tell us as modern apologists do... that the similarities are so insignificant that they can just be discarded? Obviously Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, and the other early apologists didn't think it was so silly.

Also, an early critic of christianity, Celsus, wrote (178CE)

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians -- and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."

Not so surprisingly, all of Celsus' work is long gone... nowhere to be found, probably burned. Luckily, the Christian apologist Origen thought Celsus' work was such a threat to Christianity, that he wrote an entire book as a counter-argument to Celsus' work... which is where that quote comes from.

The full text for Origen's entire book, Contra Celsus, can be found here.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html

earth

06-08-2004, 09:29 AM

incedentally: "narnia"?

you reading cs lewis on the sly, here, earth?;)

I put Narnia because I recently remembered the Family Guy episode where Peter is doing the laundry and "Tumtus" is in the dryer stealing socks. haHA.

earth

06-08-2004, 09:31 AM

I will say it sickens me concerning the burning of the Library of Alexandria, as well as others (partly the reason I want the book, they explain what was done by Christianity to disavow the Pagan beliefs). They were, in essence, acting upon the same primal angers + fears as Hitler did against the Jews in WW2. They could not disprove the claims of the Pagans, they could only slander them and burn them away. Yet another low point in religion.

earth

06-08-2004, 09:33 AM

As well I don't know if people know but the Library of Alexandria is once again open.

Michele

06-08-2004, 10:24 AM

interesting discussion, particularly the defense if Jesus Christ. I guess CPWILL doesn't appreciate the defilement of his own prophets - eh?

MrAmerica

06-08-2004, 10:37 AM

Michele

06-08-2004, 10:44 AM

oh you mean he isn't a myth. Was he a sexual pervert? LOL... I just love the irony here.

Michele

06-08-2004, 10:47 AM

The early Jewish historian Josephus verifies the existence of Jesus and his followers, so does the Koran..

oh so the Koran in this case is to be consulted? By all means please...would you like to pull the verses from the Koran which substantiate the existence of Jesus for us? Or will those verses be harder to find, in comparison to all the other countless verses we now have here with us on forum?

ukangel

06-08-2004, 11:37 AM

oh so the Koran in this case is to be consulted? By all means please...would you like to pull the verses from the Koran which substantiate the existence of Jesus for us? Or will those verses be harder to find, in comparison to all the other countless verses we now have here with us on forum?

The Qur’an

‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam

Jesus’ true name, according to the Qur’an, was ‘Isa. His message was pure Islam, surrender to Allah. (Âl 'Imran 3:84) Like all the Muslim prophets before him, and like Muhammad after him, ‘Isa was a lawgiver, and Christians should submit to his law. (Âl 'Imran 3:50; Al-Ma’idah 5:48) ‘Isa’s original disciples were also true Muslims, for they said ‘We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered. We are Muslims.’ (Al-Ma’idah 5:111)

‘The Books’

Like other messengers of Islam before him, ‘Isa received his revelation of Islam in the form of a book. (Al-An’am 6:90) ‘Isa’s book is called the Injil or ‘gospel’. (Al-Ma’idah 5:46) The Torah was Moses’ book, and the Zabur (Psalms) were David’s book. So Jews and Christians are ‘people of the Book’. The one religion revealed in these books was Islam. (Âl 'Imran 3:18)

As with previous prophets, ‘Isa’s revelation verified previous prophets’ revelations. (Âl 'Imran 3:49,84; Al-Ma’idah 5:46; As-Saff 61:6) Muhammad himself verified all previous revelations, including the revelation to ‘Isa (An-Nisa’ 4:47), and so Muslims must believe in the revelation which ‘Isa received. (Al-Baqarah 2:136) However, after ‘Isa the Injil was lost in its original form. Today the Qur’an is the only sure guide to ‘Isa’s teaching.

The biography of ‘Isa

According to the Qur’an, ‘Isa was the Messiah. He was supported by the ‘Holy Spirit’. (Al-Baqarah 2:87; Al-Ma’idah 5:110) He is also referred to as the ‘Word of Allah’. (An-Nisa’ 4:171)

‘Isa’s mother Mariam was the daughter of ‘Imran, (Âl 'Imran 3:34,35) — cf the Amram of Exodus 6:20 — and the sister of Aaron (and Moses). (Maryam 19:28) She was fostered by Zachariah (father of John the Baptist). (Âl 'Imran 3:36) While still a virgin (Al-An’am 6:12; Maryam 19:19-21) Mariam gave birth to ‘Isa alone in a desolate place under a date palm tree. (Maryam 19:22ff) (Not in Bethlehem).

‘Isa spoke whilst still a baby in his cradle. (Âl 'Imran 3:46; Al-Ma’idah 5:110; Maryam 19:30) He performed various other miracles, including breathing life into clay birds, healing the blind and lepers, and raising the dead. (Âl 'Imran 3:49; Al-Ma’idah 5:111) He also foretold the coming of Muhammad. (As-Saff 61:6)

‘Isa did not die on a cross

Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html

If you accept that Horus is Jesus, which he isnt for the reasons CP explained then you lose Islam by defintion. Islam does not make any sense without Jesus (Isa). Which is why in all the Islamic literature you are currently conuming Michelle you will not find the Jesus = Horus argument.

Michele

06-08-2004, 11:57 AM

‘Isa spoke whilst still a baby in his cradle. (Âl 'Imran 3:46; Al-Ma’idah 5:110; Maryam 19:30) He performed various other miracles, including breathing life into clay birds, healing the blind and lepers, and raising the dead. (Âl 'Imran 3:49; Al-Ma’idah 5:111) He also foretold the coming of Muhammad. (As-Saff 61:6)

‘Isa did not die on a cross

Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html

If you accept that Horus is Jesus, which he isnt for the reasons CP explained then you lose Islam by defintion. Islam does not make any sense without Jesus (Isa). Which is why in all the Islamic literature you are currently conuming Michelle you will not find the Jesus = Horus argument.

I am not accepting anything with regards to all this religious and mythological stuff. That is what people aren't getting. I wouldn't even look for the Jesus=Horus argument UKAngel. Can't you see that even pre-bible and pre-koran civilization is replete with all kinds of myths and discourse o them.

I just piped up because of the irony of the whole thing. But I don't expect that will be understood. Corrupting Islam is understood in any cause every single negative thing written...by some here I was just being sarcastic. I tend to believe Jesus existed, nor am I all at the ready to jump on the bandwagon with regard to all the slurs that have been written on Mohammed. What I found so funny. Is we have all these quotes from the koran... people jumping in with all sorts of ugly things to say.

I already proved some of the quotes those who were so fast to pull speaking as authorities, some were not even full verses, but all who pulled them were at the ready with their analysis. I found it funny in defense of Jesus now comes some one using the Koran (that evil religions book) to verify the existence of Jesus Christ. So I guess when convenient the Koran comes in handy-eh?

Where were all the posters to drop forth those aspects of the qur'an wherein righteousness exists?

I was being sarcastic. The point being unless you know this stuff inside and out along with the myths going back to the myths of the Sumerians who's texts were said to hold scientific knowledge regarding the solar system BTW well before old world europe insisted the world was flat, it is all just discourse. Actually based on the sumerian texts, it is in all likelihood some of the Scientists that made claims about the evidence of there being scientific savvy within the qur'an might actually be solid claims, but for that one site who questioned it, so I guess that one site must be true right? don't you see you can take any religion and find smear or rebuttals to them all. What does that mean we believe everything with NO QUESTION, depending on who falls out of favor. OUR CIVILIZATION IS FILLED WITH MYTHLOGICAL MYSTERIES. SOME OF IT IS CALLED HISTORY.

No I am not one to read any one thing once and immediately believe it not where myths and religion is concerned that is for sure. At the same time I am not going based on what one site says bad or good believe it definitely either. But compassionate discourse is always interesting.

How funny, you actually thought I was arguing in defintive terms? No, I was merely being sarcastic. I don't tend to believe the Christains and their bible corners any markets on truth... nor do the Muslims or the Jews, apparently they all believe they have the definite, word on it, down to the sophomoric vilificatoin of each other. OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ALL NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. IT IS DOCUMENTED THE VAST MANIPULATION OF THE BIBLE FROM THE GENEVAL TO THE KING JAMES.

obviously when SO MUCH descrepancy is evident... people not so reverent will entertain mythos like the one in this book. You do realize that the gnostic believe the have texts that the christains excluded entirely. do you have any doubt that the word was manipulated (JC aside)?

Don't worry, I do not expect to be understood. Afterall I am NOT a Christian.

yes I am being ironic and sardonic.

All that said, the premise of the book Earth placed is interesting though... whether JC was a mythological rip off ... I have no opinon on that I lke the teachings of Christ... but it seems the book DOES hold other interesting aspects of history as well. Afterall we do know there is a crossover between the greek gods and the roman gods... what is so difficult to believe as far as there being a similarity between and Egyptian diety and JC, without going so far as to say JC was a myth.

It is all just speculative discourse, when one bounces around these mysteries. and with all the conquering, whoever was the conquerors did defile the words and the works of whom they conquered. So much documentation lost and then revised to suite the history of the whomever conquered. It is all complex and assinine all in the same breathe. Wondrous when one approaches it WITHOUT marrying each and every word.

INTERPRETATION IS THE OPERATIVE WORD. Look at the parables... may well be just morality plays... Did Jesus turn water into wine? Did mary realy have an immaculate conception or are these metaphors?

MikeD4o7

06-08-2004, 12:12 PM

The early Jewish historian Josephus verifies the existence of Jesus and his followers, so does the Koran. Archeological evidence has been found confirming the governorship of Pontius Pilot in Judea at the time of the crucifixion.

Do you really think that all of those thousands of early Christians would have allowed themselves to be martyred for what they knew was a lie?

Actually, Josephus does NOT verify the existence of Jesus... and considering Josephus was the most prominent historian that lived in the area that definitely WOULD have recorded numerous things about Jesus is a very big hole that Christians need to explain. Which is exactly why Eusebius under Constantine forged that part of Josephus' Antiquities in the 4th century. The passage is probably one of the poorest forgeries in history and you'll be hard pressed to find any respected CHRISTIAN scholars that deny it... much less anyone else. If you don't believe me I urge you to go read the passage in question yourself. It doesn't take any sort of scholar to see that the passage is completely out of context with the paragraphs that precede it and follow it... not to mention the fact that Josephus died a devout Jew... the things that passage states are very contrary to what Josephus would have recorded unless he had converted.

The fact that Pontius Pilot fits into the story correctly really doesn't prove anything. That would be the equivalent of saying that the plot of Dances With Wolves really happened because the Civil War really happened.

Also, just so to know where I'm coming from... I don't doubt that Jesus existed, and that the gospel stories may in some way be loosely based around him. I just don't believe that we really know who he was or what he did... and I'm pretty confident that the majority of his life story, or what's told of it, consists of myths. It fits far too many reocurring patterns of pagan myths.

If you accept that Horus is Jesus, which he isnt for the reasons CP explained then you lose Islam by defintion. Islam does not make any sense without Jesus (Isa). Which is why in all the Islamic literature you are currently conuming Michelle you will not find the Jesus = Horus argument.

This is just on a side-note and isn't in direct reply to your comment... but I'd just like to point out that the idea isn't that Jesus = Horus, but that Horus was one of the many pagan gods that the myths surrounding Jesus were borrowed from.

Michele

06-08-2004, 12:20 PM

and on the possible of there being scientific knowledge in the Koran...look at the pyramids....

obviously way back in the stone age in that corner of the world there was knowledge of many things...

the phenicians built navigations...

this raping and theiving from one empire to the next confused knowledge and people wish to tell me of all the mysterious only one religion has the dope on it all.

that is so funny... but what is not funny is all the wonder that people cheat themselves of so at the ready to verify one line of religious thought.

Michele

06-08-2004, 12:21 PM

This is just on a side-note and isn't in direct reply to your comment... but I'd just like to point out that the idea isn't that Jesus = Horus, but that Horus was one of the many pagan gods that the myths surrounding Jesus were borrowed from.

yes that is a good point. which gets lost when people inundate themselves in the literal.

Michele

06-08-2004, 12:30 PM

‘Isa did not die on a cross

Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)

ooooh look the koran says Isa did not die on the cross. Look see it is a whole different story...they feel they have the story straight. what now am I suppose to just believe that particular verse with no question? of course not and neither do I believe the claims of the Judeo Christianity without question.

But this book sounds interesting in that what is so hard to believe that Jesus mirrors a diety from centuries before? In the analogies one comes to wisdom in any case. UNLESS THEY ARE SWALLOWING ALL OF THIS STUFF AS DEFINITIVE, IMO.

ukangel

06-08-2004, 12:40 PM

Michele

06-08-2004, 12:42 PM

Actually, Josephus does NOT verify the existence of Jesus... and considering Josephus was the most prominent historian that lived in the area that definitely WOULD have recorded numerous things about Jesus is a very big hole that Christians need to explain. Which is exactly why Eusebius under Constantine forged that part of Josephus' Antiquities in the 4th century. The passage is probably one of the poorest forgeries in history and you'll be hard pressed to find any respected CHRISTIAN scholars that deny it... much less anyone else. If you don't believe me I urge you to go read the passage in question yourself. It doesn't take any sort of scholar to see that the passage is completely out of context with the paragraphs that precede it and follow it... not to mention the fact that Josephus died a devout Jew... the things that passage states are very contrary to what Josephus would have recorded unless he had converted.

The fact that Pontius Pilot fits into the story correctly really doesn't prove anything. That would be the equivalent of saying that the plot of Dances With Wolves really happened because the Civil War really happened.

Ahh another descrepancy you say Josephus the main historian does not verify the existence of JC? Your logic makes sense. For hmmm I ask myself... having read that... why would he have not recorded this monumental occurance in the NT?

Did he omit it for political purposes? or is there more to it than that? In any event they all have alot of explaining to do...like we are NOT suppose to notice the gaps and the holes and the descrepancies. Dare we question any one of the historical recordings of this time in history which we are clearly still experiencing blowback from. I say to save us the grief it behooves all these MEN OF THE WORD to sit down and reconcile and come up with a working record. It would help significantly in terms of reconcilation... oh wait ... we don't like to do that do we... NO MATTER WHAT JC'S MESSAGE OR ALLAH OR MOHAMMED noooooo reconcile the books... Bite my tongue. Why because there is only ONE WORD? One side of the story? No we have to wait for the Messiah AND a second coming before we can straighten it out amongst the MORTAL geniouses OF theology.

That I ask these questions does it mean I throw away the message of the cruxificion whether it occurred or not?

I wouldn't because the message itself is profound and I have taken a great deal from the message so it works for me (without all the mutters about who killed who when why and all that political BS).

The message works. It fills me.

But clearly something went down around that time that screwed us all. For the blowback from just this very time is significant. They really do all have to get their acts together.

In the arguments between the three...some of the most profound messages fall on deaf ears, anyway. Someone is hiding something? Is it all of them? Is it just one of them?

ukangel

06-08-2004, 12:47 PM

ooooh look the koran says Isa did not die on the cross. Look see it is a whole different story...they feel they have the story straight. what now am I suppose to just believe that particular verse with no question? of course not and neither do I believe the claims of the Judeo Christianity without question.

But this book sounds interesting in that what is so hard to believe that Jesus mirrors a diety from centuries before? In the analogies one comes to wisdom in any case. UNLESS THEY ARE SWALLOWING ALL OF THIS STUFF AS DEFINITIVE, IMO.

The point is to prove that the Koran mentions the life of Jesus (Isa) of course they are not historicaly the same. If they were then Jesus would be God incarnate to the Muslims and there would hardly be a point to Mohammed.

Michele

06-08-2004, 12:52 PM

The point is to prove that the Koran mentions the life of Jesus (Isa) of course they are not historicaly the same. If they were then Jesus would be God incarnate to the Muslims and there would hardly be a point to Mohammed.

oh but you are such a pragmatist... I understand of course they are not the same.... don't you feel the blowback...

but there would still be a point to mohammed because they liked Jesus and if he was god incarnate...JC I mean... mohammed would still have spoken on his behalf for isn't mohammed speaking for god in some instance?

ukangel

06-08-2004, 12:59 PM

Actually, Josephus does NOT verify the existence of Jesus... and considering Josephus was the most prominent historian that lived in the area that definitely WOULD have recorded numerous things about Jesus is a very big hole that Christians need to explain. Which is exactly why Eusebius under Constantine forged that part of Josephus' Antiquities in the 4th century. The passage is probably one of the poorest forgeries in history and you'll be hard pressed to find any respected CHRISTIAN scholars that deny it... much less anyone else.

I dont think its quite as simple as that firstly there is no proof that its a forgery, secondly Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute. This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things. Nevertheless, though there may be some Christian insertions into the text, we can still reconstruct what may have been the original writing

Two researchers (Edwin Yamauchi and John P. Meier)1 have constructed a copy of the Testimonium with the probable insertions in brackets and underlined. The following paragraph is Yamauchi's:

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

Though this may be a correct assessment of the Testimonium, we should note that an Arabic version (10th Century) of the Testimonium (translated into English) is in basic agreement with the existing Josephus account:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."2

The Arabic version was copied from a Greek version. What is not known is which one? But if you notice the comparison below, if the Arabic version was a direct translation of the Greek, then why the differences? Nevertheless, what is important in the Arabic Version is that the resurrection of Christ is maintained.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/Josephus_Jesus.htm

Michele

06-08-2004, 01:10 PM

Your original question was "would you like to pull the verses from the Koran that substaniate that existense of Jesus" Which I did, it was that I am was responding too.

The wider problem is that these are complex issues, I wouldnt deny Earths point that there are parrelels between the story of Horus and the life Jesus.

But what does that ultimately prove? It only becomes an issue if you can present evidence that Christian writers borrowed this information and incorporated into the life of Jesus. And ask yourself this. Why would they do this? When one of the main themes of the old testament was that God was far more powerful than the old mythic gods of Egypt.

for me Uk angel ... I really don't care... I can see there are things to prove... where the religion and books are concerned especially with the NT I don't need to know... I love them all...even with the questions... the whole burden of prove thing is a loophole for those that profess to be telling it like it is (even if they are not)... those who are the most poweful don't need to prove much of anything even with all of the gaps....

soooooo as long as I do not adher to any one of them... they all are so fascinating and just the fascination alone.... just that my mind questions and interprets something godly... and teachings of good among men for those men really need those teachings of good that is for sure...of course they don't all adhere to their own teachings... and because of all the vitriol between them... and the fact that there are indeed questions to answer.... perhaps this is why I don't need proof.... for guess what?

even if came the proof... and it rocked the big mortal men ... with all their truth... they would vilify that proof and if they couldn't they would kill the messenger... the mortal men like the status quo ... it works for them...

the record hasn't reconciled in all these centuries... but do not ask me to speak of one over the other... perhaps when I begin to fill in more of the history from the Muslim side and read all the different books.... I will feel differently as it is I was raised in a Judeo Christain country....

and I get loud in clear that is the truth and that is the end of the questioning... but since reading the koran... I must tell you this... because their record is so different.... I love them.... because purely from the record... all these new thoughts and questions have come into my mind.

the word for me has never been definitive ... it is a mystery... that feeds the mind and since we are entertaining goodliness that is the way one pursues the record in pursuit of goodliness.... of course it is filled with much conspiracy as well ... but it is in engaging with it... toward goodliness that it has its merits .... not necessarily all the facts ....

However, you don't have the whole story lest you read through the koran that is for sure as their perspective is very different... not that I have the whole story now for all I know the whole thing from all sides is a bad joke...

but .... they all set one up to ponder an almighty being between them all.... I am not even sure how good this being is himself... but I am told he is good... and this I believe so pondering him is good...

now an atheist wouldn't agree... which is interesting for in my whole life I have never tried the experiment of not pondering a God.... for that is an interesting ponderance as well...

with all the arguing amongst the MEN OF GOD... I can undertand why anyone would say hey forget about god already... and let's play poker.

ukangel

06-08-2004, 01:14 PM

mohammed would still have spoken on his behalf for isn't mohammed speaking for god in some instance?

The question is though has waht Mohammed said been accurately transmitted into the modern era, perhaps Mohammed was speaking about God, the same God.

=====================

An article with that title on Newsweek's Web site deals with a new interpretation of Islam's holy book by a German scholar of Semitic languages, who uses the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg.

He argues that the language of the Quran has been misinterpreted and that in verses detailing the rewards of heaven the text's original word, meaning "white raisins," was mistaken for the word "houris," or dark-eyed virgins, the article says. He also questions Islamic rulings that women cover themselves and says the Quran was originally a Christian document, the article says.

Ahmed, whose ministry oversees publication and distribution of newspapers and magazines, refused to comment on the article, saying only, "Very strange things have been written about the Quran."

Most of Pakistan's 140 million people are Muslims. Under Pakistan's blasphemy law, it is an offense punishable by death to offend Islam, its prophet or its holy book.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/world/main565035.shtml

http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/group/soc.religion.islam/messages/112706.html

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001519.html

Michele

06-08-2004, 01:18 PM

I dont think its quite as simple as that firstly there is no proof that its a forgery, secondly Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute. This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things. Nevertheless, though there may be some Christian insertions into the text, we can still reconstruct what may have been the original writing

Two researchers (Edwin Yamauchi and John P. Meier)1 have constructed a copy of the Testimonium with the probable insertions in brackets and underlined. The following paragraph is Yamauchi's:

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

Though this may be a correct assessment of the Testimonium, we should note that an Arabic version (10th Century) of the Testimonium (translated into English) is in basic agreement with the existing Josephus account:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."2

The Arabic version was copied from a Greek version. What is not known is which one? But if you notice the comparison below, if the Arabic version was a direct translation of the Greek, then why the differences? Nevertheless, what is important in the Arabic Version is that the resurrection of Christ is maintained.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/Josephus_Jesus.htm

the arabic was copied from a greek version who copied it from where?

Michele

06-08-2004, 01:21 PM

The question is though has waht Mohammed said been accurately transmitted into the modern era, perhaps Mohammed was speaking about God, the same God.

=====================

An article with that title on Newsweek's Web site deals with a new interpretation of Islam's holy book by a German scholar of Semitic languages, who uses the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg.

He argues that the language of the Quran has been misinterpreted and that in verses detailing the rewards of heaven the text's original word, meaning "white raisins," was mistaken for the word "houris," or dark-eyed virgins, the article says. He also questions Islamic rulings that women cover themselves and says the Quran was originally a Christian document, the article says.

Ahmed, whose ministry oversees publication and distribution of newspapers and magazines, refused to comment on the article, saying only, "Very strange things have been written about the Quran."

Most of Pakistan's 140 million people are Muslims. Under Pakistan's blasphemy law, it is an offense punishable by death to offend Islam, its prophet or its holy book.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/world/main565035.shtml

http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/group/soc.religion.islam/messages/112706.html

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001519.html

wow "white raisins"? I find it so interesting. Jesus we mustn't question his word... mohammed we have a field day with... I think since the language is so important... why is a german interpreting for us?

cpwill

06-08-2004, 01:37 PM

:shrug: germans historically have often led the way in biblical research, why not in islamic literature.

ukangel

06-08-2004, 01:39 PM

MikeD4o7

06-08-2004, 01:52 PM

I dont think its quite as simple as that firstly there is no proof that its a forgery, secondly Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute. This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things. Nevertheless, though there may be some Christian insertions into the text, we can still reconstruct what may have been the original writing

There is all of the empirical proof of a forgery that you could hope for. For one, I believe it was Justin the Martyr that cited Josephus in one of his apologies to substantiate the existence of Jesus. The only problem is that Justin the Martyr didn't cite the passage you quoted, which is the forged one, but he cites a one-line passage which seems to describe Jesus' brother James. Considering the passage you posted would have certainly been a more convincing passage to cite had Josephus actually written it, it is more than odd that Justin the Martyr chose to use the other passage which doesn't even mention Jesus specifically. Add on top of that the fact that NOBODY cited the forged passage in Josephus until Eusebius (a known liar and forger) cited it in the 4th century. That alone stands as a pretty blatant sign of forgery in my opinion. If that passage had been in existence in any form before the 4th century, it inevitably would have been cited by just about every early christian apologist that ever wrote anything, considering how notable Josephus was even back then.

Did he omit it for political purposes? or is there more to it than that? In any event they all have alot of explaining to do...like we are NOT suppose to notice the gaps and the holes and the descrepancies. Dare we question any one of the historical recordings of this time in history which we are clearly still experiencing blowback from.

There's really no political reason that I know of why Josephus would have purposefully omitted mentioning Jesus. The much simpler, and much more reasonable explanation is that Jesus wasn't significant enough in Judea to write about. Had Jesus done half of what the Gospels say he did, Josephus definitely would have written extensively about Jesus. Josephus wrote volumes upon volumes of books on his contemporary history. There were entire chapters devoted to historical figures that wouldn't have been a fraction as significant as Jesus.

There is one story in the Bible that Josephus omits that it's pretty ridiculous to say Josephus would have omitted had it actually happened. Before Jesus was born, Herod supposedly ordered for all of the male children in Judea under age 2 to be slaughtered because he feared Jesus, and the Bible says this was carried out. There is no way that Josephus would not have recorded an instance of mass infanticide like this. Adding on top of the fact that Josephus was very meticulous, he also hated Herod with a passion... and wrote a ton about Herod's unjust actions... this would have definitely topped the list... yet Josephus doesn't peep a word about it.

Michele

06-08-2004, 02:01 PM

There's really no political reason that I know of why Josephus would have purposefully omitted mentioning Jesus. The much simpler, and much more reasonable explanation is that Jesus wasn't significant enough in Judea to write about. Had Jesus done half of what the Gospels say he did, Josephus definitely would have written extensively about Jesus. Josephus wrote volumes upon volumes of books on his contemporary history. There were entire chapters devoted to historical figures that wouldn't have been a fraction as significant as Jesus.

There is one story in the Bible that Josephus omits that it's pretty ridiculous to say Josephus would have omitted had it actually happened. Before Jesus was born, Herod supposedly ordered for all of the male children in Judea under age 2 to be slaughtered because he feared Jesus, and the Bible says this was carried out. There is no way that Josephus would not have recorded an instance of mass infanticide like this. Adding on top of the fact that Josephus was very meticulous, he also hated Herod with a passion... and wrote a ton about Herod's unjust actions... this would have definitely topped the list... yet Josephus doesn't peep a word about it.

I wasn't arguing... I thought it interesting myself regarding Jesephus omitting mention of all the things recorded in the NT. And considering the miracles, that is odd. The truth is you know way more of this history than I do and I am glad someone is here to offer the opposing view as articulately as you have. I dont' have much more to say on the subject but to listen to you and Ukangel have a discussion.... please both of you continue... it is all verying interesting to me. I don't find it difficult to ponder that perhaps the record is off concerning Jesus.

MikeD4o7

06-08-2004, 02:07 PM

I wasn't arguing... I thought it interesting myself regarding Jesephus omitting mention of all the things recorded in the NT. And considering the miracles, that is odd. The truth is you know way more of this history than I do and I am glad someone is here to offer the opposing view as articulately as you have. I dont' have much more to say on the subject but to listen to you and Ukangel have a discussion.... please both of you continue... it is all verying interesting to me. I don't find it difficult to ponder that perhaps the record is off concerning Jesus.

I know you weren't arguing :) This very very particular subject is just something I always seem to come across when I read about Jesus ... and you asking the question was a good way for me to add some more thoughts about it.

There's a great online resource about Jesus also that's available.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

That site has the actual text from just about every early christian document you could want to read. Most documents have multiple translations also along with the original language the text was written in.

Michele

06-08-2004, 02:08 PM

Luxenberg is a professor of languages, it would be impossible for him to be based in an Islamic country because he could be executed. Even based in Germany he has to use a pseudonym else he follows Salman Rushdie and get a fatwah placed on him.

We can question the word of Jesus I believe you and Mike are doing that free of sanction, likewise I have the right to defend it.

Of course you do... and I am enjoying mostly the discussion between you and Mike. The point is taken people aren't as free to discourse within this realm in the Middle East... but that is not the topic.

I only mentioned that about the German... because quite frankly most of the discourse that comes up concerning the Koran and its application throughout the ages (as well as perhaps its misinterpretation) has been from everyone other than an Arabic Muslim Theologian. That is the only reason I mentioned it. Not to negate his views. Ukangel. I tend to read most everything placed on forum.... certainly not all, but I do read enough of both sides... Discusion in the religion forum only came up for the reasons I have already stated. Religion is hardly my strong subject. I have already learned so much just in the last several posts.

With regard to our crisis here, I get frustrated for want of the Muslim and/or Arab voice on these topics... Particularly when it comes to interpretation as well as some of the more ignorant postings on the subject. It is clear to us all the repression is extreme, as once it was within most cultures.

But continue on with your discussion with Mike, I am enjoying the both of your points of view.

MrAmerica

06-08-2004, 02:33 PM

Actually, Josephus does NOT verify the existence of Jesus... and considering Josephus was the most prominent historian that lived in the area that definitely WOULD have recorded numerous things about Jesus is a very big hole that Christians need to explain. Which is exactly why Eusebius under Constantine forged that part of Josephus' Antiquities in the 4th century. The passage is probably one of the poorest forgeries in history and you'll be hard pressed to find any respected CHRISTIAN scholars that deny it... much less anyone else. If you don't believe me I urge you to go read the passage in question yourself. It doesn't take any sort of scholar to see that the passage is completely out of context with the paragraphs that precede it and follow it... not to mention the fact that Josephus died a devout Jew... the things that passage states are very contrary to what Josephus would have recorded unless he had converted.
Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning. Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

I do not make the argument that Josephus acknowledged Jesus as being the Christ, only that he makes mention of him as having existed and was thought by some to be the Christ. It is of historical value only. I don't know if this is the text that you claim was forged. If so, do you have evidence of that?

Also, just so to know where I'm coming from... I don't doubt that Jesus existed, and that the gospel stories may in some way be loosely based around him. I just don't believe that we really know who he was or what he did... and I'm pretty confident that the majority of his life story, or what's told of it, consists of myths. It fits far too many reocurring patterns of pagan myths.

I can respect that. The reason I am convinced is because the timeline prophecies that could not possibly have been forged, because we have found the ancient dead sea scrolls which are older than any known manuscripts, and yet they vary only slightly and not enough to alter the meaning. I would share them with you, but I detect you probably would not be interested.

This is just on a side-note and isn't in direct reply to your comment... but I'd just like to point out that the idea isn't that Jesus = Horus, but that Horus was one of the many pagan gods that the myths surrounding Jesus were borrowed from.

That might be credible if it were not for the fact that the bible was put together by several different authors who lived sometimes centuries apart, yet the theme in the whole bible is consistent. I really doubt that a grand conspiracy to use some vague Egyptian God as a pattern for all of their theme's was passed down through the centuries from prophet to prophet and conveniently just happened to fit the apostles agenda. And it does not explain why so many early Christians were willing to die violent deaths in order to perpetuate the "lie."

How did the Apostle Paul profit from spreading this "Lie?" He traversed the globe, endured all sorts of hardships, was stoned, imprissoned and finally killed. For what? The book of Acts makes a good point about it; "for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God." Acts 5:38, 39.

Judging by the way Christianity has taken hold all over the world in spite of persecution and attempts to kill it, I would say God is at work.

Michele

06-08-2004, 02:37 PM

I am just going to throw this out as a hypothetical... with the rise of Christianity and its great power over the centuries... of course at one time we know pagans, heretics, witches, and so on were killed, the the non-believers.

Now it is evident there was manipulation in record. It is also evident that somewhere in here the Jews fell out of favor, even by BC. And there are criticism with regard to the orthodox practice of Judaism from both the Christians and the Muslims...

Here is discouse regarding just how the Koran explains the Jews lost sight of the word during the period of degeneration.

At Makkah the Quran generally addressed the mushrik Quraish who were ignorant of Islam, but at Al- Madinah it was also concerned with the Jews who were acquainted with the creed of the Unity of Allah, Prophethood, Revelation, the Hereafter and angels. They also professed to believe in the law which was revealed by Allah to their Prophet Moses (Allah's peace be upon him), and in principle, their way was the same (Islam) that was being taught by Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him). But they had strayed away from it during the centuries of degeneration and had adopted many un- Islamic creeds, rites and customs of which there was no mention and for which there was no sanction in the Torah. Not only this : they had tampered with the Torah by inserting their own explanations and interpretations into its text. They had distorted even that part of the Word of God which had remained intact in their Scriptures and taken out of it the real spirit of true religion and were now clinging to a lifeless frame of rituals. Consequently their beliefs, their morals and their conduct had gone to the lowest depths of degeneration. The pity is that they were not only satisfied with their condition but loved to cling to it. Besides this, they had no intention or inclination to accept any kind of reform. So they became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every such effort. Though they were originally Muslims, they had swerved from the real Islam and made innovations and alterations in it and had fallen victims to hair splitting and sectarianism. They had forgotten and forsaken Allah and begun to serve mammon. So much so that they had even given up their original name "Muslim" and adopted the name "Jew" instead, and made religion the sole monopoly of the children of Israel.

This was their religious condition when the Holy Prophet went to Al-Madinah and invited the Jews to the true religion. That is why more than one third of this Surah has been addressed to the children of Israel. A critical review of their history, their moral degeneration and their religious perversions has been made; side by side with this the high standard of morality and the fundamental principles of the pure religion have been put forward in order to bring out clearly the nature of the degeneration of the community of a prophet when it goes astray and to draw clear lines of demarcation between real piety and formalism, and the essentials and non-essentials of the true religion.

Now as you can see that is one mighty judgment upon the Jews with regard to truth. For argument sake, as a hypothetical, and not exclusive to solely this chapter of the Koran, while considering that it appears Islam has come under the gun, placed on the defensive (I mean in terms of the questions of the corruption in their text as it has been handed down throughout the centuries. Let us also pull in to the hypothetical the nag hammadi which the gnostics base their discourse on wherein it is said there are several gospels revealed that the Christian theologians rejected.

WHAT IF after all is said and done, even in light of the extreme repression that exists still within the ME today. WHAT IF... we were to find out without a doubt ... the history as recorded in the Koran (or the most of it) was the real truth (the backward nature of how it is practiced today aside for that I do believe is a symptom of something else which does not hinge upon the Koran per se)....

Than what... what if most of the western world has based its religious premise on what was revealed to be mostly a ruse. A political sham?

I offer this as a hypothetical only because I am aware (even if some do not believe it) that the historic record we follow in the Israel Palestinian conflict is replete with omission as well as debunked myths and distortions. Therefore this is an example of just how distorted record can be... and there are countless instances of this in anyone's doctrinal record, not just exclusive to the orthodox telling of the Israeli history.

With that in mind it is conceivable that because the power of the world did fall into the hands more so of the Judeo Christians, with the Christain really at the top of the totem, it is conceivable that they are the most guilty of distortion in an effort to justify their moral imperatives, be them godly or exploitive.

What if that were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and all the paradigms and dogmas and doctrines many cling to ( not me ) were found to be primarily based on distortion with the Koran's telling the closest to the truth?

cpwill

06-08-2004, 03:00 PM

Michele

06-08-2004, 03:06 PM

if one builds an argument on unprovable assumptions, and then asks "what if all these assumptions were true" then of course the natural conclusion will be what the investigator is trying to say.

however, that in no way makes the argument more realistic nor in any way factually based.

I built the premise on the judgment I pulled from the Koran's introduction to Chapter 2. I am not making any assumptions... Are you saying there is no factual basis for the History as recorded in the Koran...within those two paragraphs that I pulled?

Mike we need your input here!

as to proof, any thing that is indoctrinated by the power that presides... is near to impossible to overturn. I base the hypothetical on the fact that there are vast disparities evident in the biblical record... and the criticism as far as the Jews are concerned does not exist solely within Muslim religious or biblical discourse either... I have heard the same judgment made by Evangelicals I have encountered on other forums in the last year or so as well.

but don't worry CPW... I knew you would be the one to jump in and actually say exactly what you did. :)

ukangel

06-08-2004, 03:10 PM

MrAmerica

06-08-2004, 03:12 PM

What if the Koran was right, and Jesus really was a prophet? Can a prophet lie?

Michele

06-08-2004, 03:15 PM

It is a common feature of the Islamic cannon that all the other religions have had thier holy works either deliberately or accidentially falisified.

When you think about though this is the inescapable logic of thier position, if you believe that Mohammed is the prophet and that his words where divinely inspired then everything else must be by defintion incorrect in as much as it contradicts the message of the Quaran. Therefore as the Quaran follows on from the Old and New Testament (to use the Christian terminology) they must have been altered it is the only way you can explain away the incongruencies.

This determination to discredit the previous works is an absolute nessescity if the Quaran is to take precedence. This is a classic example of what came first the chicken or the egg? It did not evolve out of scholarship but out of nessescity. And only works if your a devout Muslim and believe the Koran is correct in which case all the other faiths must by defintion be wrong.

So Jesus was actually called Isa, when there is no evidence for that anywhere else outside the Koran, and Jews used to call themselves Muslims! That is literally the first time I have ever heard that.

So is it conceivable that the Koran is correct and all the other faiths are wrong and were deliberately falisfied to bring them out of parity? Yes but it is highly unlikely, it would been that the religous books of the too main faiths were deliberately altered later than AD800 to wholly change thier meaning.

What would have been the point?
What would thier worshippers have felt?
Could this massive undertaking be accomplished without any record?

yes but the point is that Judeo christians are operating under the same premise. Judgments and manipulations such as you describe are not exclusive to Islam... and of course they are also suspect of this very form of distortion, but so are the Christains and their text as are the Jews and theirs. That is the point. What I am saying is that those of the three that have risen to the highest power dictate what the most ultimate truth is... via their interpretations of those aspects of scripture they chose to include over those gospels they chose to reject. It is the power (politically speaking) that the "truths" or the words are being dictated through not necessarily in sync with the word... for that has been obviously manipulated by the three monotheistic religions, for the purposes of governing the masses. All operate within the same premise.

I have to go now... I will come back later...

earth

06-08-2004, 04:26 PM

How can any person, beyond a reason of a doubt, say that Jesus existed? That's utter BS and any sane person knows that. There is no way to prove a mans existance 2000+ years ago.

I use as example. My aunt has a family tree that dates back 500 years in scotland. On her family tree is a Duncan, Banquo + Ross around the same time as the existance + story of MacBeth. Does that prove the existance of MacBeth? No.

All I was trying to point out, and the reason I want to read this book, is that there is the idea that religion is a cyclic process.

Jesus was not as much a person as he was an idea.

One day, should Christianity fall out of favour, as Egyptian mythology did, the ideal of Jesus will carry on.

How hard is it to admit that Religious plagery could have happened 5000+ years ago? Especially considering, as I mentioned earlier, that the Jews were enslaved to the Egyptians + Judaism is the original derivement of both the Qu'ran + the Bible.

Plus, you can look at the evolution of the human being outside of religion. Humans came from Africa, pushed up to Egypt and from there spread across Asia + Europe.

The ideas are not farfetched. All it takes is the humility to admit that perhaps... perhaps... Jesus didn't exist. Perhaps he was an idea created to stand the test of time. Perhaps he is to be our moral compass as humanity.

After all, in closing, humans are just that... Humans. They're mortal. Now ideas... Ideas last a long time.

Why even bother to try and prove the existance of Jesus now, some 2000 years later? Will that solve anything? Will that strengthen ones faith? Could it be that more people are hanging on to the idea as "Jesus the man" instead of "Jesus the idea"?

This is a prime example of why I'm not a religious man. I refuse to put my hope in any one man, book or building. That is selling myself short. Maybe more Christians should start asking themselves "What does the physical existance of Jesus mean to me? What does it ultimately prove?" Maybe more Christians should be focusing on the story of the Bible instead of the players. This goes for all religions.

After all, these religions may have all derived from the same story....

earth

06-08-2004, 04:29 PM

After all, these religions may have all derived from the same story....

Much as a Shakespearean Macbeth. The actors + characters may have changed over the years, but the story still remains true to ourselves.

Michele

06-08-2004, 04:34 PM

I agree with your thoughts here. I think it becomes a matter of mindset. For those that follow the scripture as whole truth, it becomes more difficult for them to ride with your form of existentialist theorizing. They have chosen to adhere to ideas as laws and definitive truths, rather than understanding that all written word is vulnerable to manipulation.

Those the fall under the most orthodox premise it seems to me, and I am generalizing, also seem to have difficulty criticizing any of their own orthodox doctrines, be them nationalistic, ideological or religious. It seems one of the main reasons so few pick up any of the propaganda the US is guilty of. It may even be a matter of identity. It being relient, not upon faith really for adherence to a definitive truth because someone says so in the face of all the descrepancy I am not sure has much to do with faith... faith enters into the picture only when one allows there to be an unknown without having to name it, but instead the reliance is upon these words said to be truths which in turn defines their existence... as well as the meaning in their lives... it then becomes difficult to free fall with the ideas you have just express.... for when one does if their identity is reliant solely upon what is known or tangible the risk is a complete identity crisis. I am speculating.

For me if Judeo Christianity would fall out of vogue would not be an utter crisis, nor would it insult my identity. Of course if it happened as a matter of conquest from an outside more backward governance... that in and of itself would wreck havoc with my identity, especially if I was made to embrace devout religious practice of any kind.

ukangel

06-08-2004, 04:36 PM

How do you know anyone existed? From that time period?

Michele

06-08-2004, 04:40 PM

How do you know anyone existed? From that time period?

well their have been devised scientific, archeological, anthropological, etc measures that humans existed and the remains of ancient civilizations left behind and as human beings we are the prove of that. But what makes up their biographies can be another matter.

ukangel

06-08-2004, 04:42 PM

All of which works for Jesus, in fact the historical evidence for him is way stronger than for other historical events that are regarded as fact.

Michele

06-08-2004, 04:54 PM

All of which works for Jesus, in fact the historical evidence for him is way stronger than for other historical events that are regarded as fact.

according to who? Although I am not sure the question is whether or not he existed at all, as Mike pointed out. The question seems to be whether he lived his life as it was recorded.

MrAmerica

06-08-2004, 05:05 PM

How can any person, beyond a reason of a doubt, say that Jesus existed? That's utter BS and any sane person knows that. There is no way to prove a mans existance 2000+ years ago.
Maybe not. Religion is a matter of faith. As for me, I have my own evidences as in how my life has changed as a result of my beliefs, and also from the positive things I have experienced as a result of obedience to the Word. "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psalm 119:105.

I was an alcoholic and a drug addict for 20 years. I could not stop to save my own life. I called on God as a last resort, and put my faith in His Word, and I have been blesssed abundantly ever since. The reason that AA is the only effective treatment for alcoholism is because of the 12 steps. If you replace the word "alcohol" in the 12 steps with "sin," and replace "higher power" with "Jesus," you would have the gospel in a nut shell.

What I don't understand is why some people are so intent on trying to prove that Jesus is not real, or that the bible is not true. Considering you are the ones who want people like Christians to stop trying to convert you, you sure like to do a lot of atheistic proselytizing yourselves.

I refuse to put my hope in any one man, book or building. That is selling myself short. Maybe more Christians should start asking themselves "What does the physical existance of Jesus mean to me? What does it ultimately prove?" Maybe more Christians should be focusing on the story of the Bible instead of the players.
If a person honestly believes that "that one person" is the human incarnation of the Creator; how would that be selling himself short? It seems to me that if you are going to put your hope in anything, it should be something big. And I can't think of anything bigger than God.

Believe it or not, I have very good reasons (which are IMHO proof) to believe that not only did Jesus exist, but that He was indeed God in the flesh. The reasons are detailed, and I'm sure you would not want to hear them, but if you want I will outline them. But don't just assume that based on your own limited understanding and lack of faith, that no one else should believe any more than you.

Michele

06-08-2004, 05:27 PM

earth

06-08-2004, 05:33 PM

Maybe not. Religion is a matter of faith. As for me, I have my own evidences as in how my life has changed as a result of my beliefs, and also from the positive things I have experienced as a result of obedience to the Word. "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psalm 119:105.

I was an alcoholic and a drug addict for 20 years. I could not stop to save my own life. I called on God as a last resort, and put my faith in His Word, and I have been blesssed abundantly ever since. The reason that AA is the only effective treatment for alcoholism is because of the 12 steps. If you replace the word "alcohol" in the 12 steps with "sin," and replace "higher power" with "Jesus," you would have the gospel in a nut shell.

What I don't understand is why some people are so intent on trying to prove that Jesus is not real, or that the bible is not true. Considering you are the ones who want people like Christians to stop trying to convert you, you sure like to do a lot of atheistic proselytizing yourselves.

If a person honestly believes that "that one person" is the human incarnation of the Creator; how would that be selling himself short? It seems to me that if you are going to put your hope in anything, it should be something big. And I can't think of anything bigger than God.

Believe it or not, I have very good reasons (which are IMHO proof) to believe that not only did Jesus exist, but that He was indeed God in the flesh. The reasons are detailed, and I'm sure you would not want to hear them, but if you want I will outline them. But don't just assume that based on your own limited understanding and lack of faith, that no one else should believe any more than you.

Did you ever once think about admitting to yourself that you were the reason you quit your road to distruction of being an alcoholic + drug addict? Where's the faith in yourself over the faith in another person?

The question I asked was this. Why do we put more faith in Jesus being a living human being than we do the ideas that he represented?

Are you telling me that Jesus, as a human + son of God, means more to you than the beliefs + morals that he represented or that you would feel less about your Christian beliefs if there was no "Jesus" to personify them?

Are you telling me that you, as a human being, need to have a physicality to your faith because believing in a formless idea is too vague + open for interpretation?

I'm not dissing the existance of Jesus. Some man may have existed that was thrown into this role as "son of God". However, maybe the idea of Jesus has been around for thousands of years before Christianity. Maybe that idea of a morally autruistic being is something we, as humans, have always been striving towards.

Jesus is just another shell on our faith as human beings.

Michele

06-08-2004, 06:01 PM

However, maybe the idea of Jesus has been around for thousands of years before Christianity. Maybe that idea of a morally autruistic being is something we, as humans, have always been striving towards.

most certainly GOD was... just look at the spoken folklore of tribal cultures. They have a whole cosomology based in a GOD being... along with underling deities. That Christain seems to believe they have found the one and only god being in all its minute definition ... let them believe that... but pushing forth their ideas on all, because they are supposedly backed up by this book. that is another whole kettle of fish.

MikeD4o7

06-08-2004, 06:05 PM

MrAmerica

06-08-2004, 06:25 PM

Did you ever once think about admitting to yourself that you were the reason you quit your road to distruction of being an alcoholic + drug addict? Where's the faith in yourself over the faith in another person?

Step 1: admitted we were powerless over alcohol and that our lives were unmanageable.
"Powerless" seems to eliminate the idea of faith in self.

STEP 2: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
"A power greater than ourselves", is not US.

STEP 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as I understood him.

If we could just rely on ourselves to stop destructive behavior such as this, we would be lost. As I stated earlier, and you can check me out on this; AA, is the only proven effective method for substance abuse.

The question I asked was this. Why do we put more faith in Jesus being a living human being than we do the ideas that he represented?
Because you can't separate the man from His words. Ideas are a human product. They originate from a human mind. But just because I believe in the man, does not mean that I do not believe in the ideas He expressed; and why should it?

Are you telling me that Jesus, as a human + son of God, means more to you than the beliefs + morals that he represented or that you would feel less about your Christian beliefs if there was no "Jesus" to personify them?
If there was no personal Jesus, there would be no beliefs representing Him. It takes a human voice to speak words.

Are you telling me that you, as a human being, need to have a physicality to your faith because believing in a formless idea is too vague + open for interpretation?
Am I telling you that I do not believe in the religion of moral relativism? Yes. I believe in right and wrong. I believe there is a standard by which human behavior is judged. And I believe that the bible says He lived and will return. Why should I believe in a form of Christianity that has no basis in the scriptures from where the religion was formed?

I'm not dissing the existance of Jesus. Some man may have existed that was thrown into this role as "son of God". However, maybe the idea of Jesus has been around for thousands of years before Christianity. Maybe that idea of a morally autruistic being is something we, as humans, have always been striving towards.
Maybe God's Spirit was working in places where Jesus never set foot, and before He ever was born. But I also believe that God came down here as one of us, because that is the only way He could comunicate with us directly and demonstrate His character and love by self sacrifice and service.

MikeD4o7

06-09-2004, 12:30 AM

Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning. Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1

I do not make the argument that Josephus acknowledged Jesus as being the Christ, only that he makes mention of him as having existed and was thought by some to be the Christ. It is of historical value only. I don't know if this is the text that you claim was forged. If so, do you have evidence of that?

Yes.. it is possible that the passage you cited was forged considering that it's widely accepted that other parts of Josephus antiquities were later forged... but you're right in the fact that there's no particular reason to call this passage a forgery. If it is one, it definitely is a much better and more subtle forgery than Eusebius' other one that we've been debating.

If the passage you quoted is genuine, which I think is probable, then the only thing it truly signifies is the lack of Jesus' importance. Josephus dedicates several paragraphs to John the Baptist, but only a couple lines to Jesus. The stories the gospels tell us seem to indicate a massive interestin in Jesus in Judea... especially with how much of an impact Jesus had on the Sanhedrin. The lack of detail in Josephus implies to me that the Gospel stories are greatly exaggerated in more ways than one.

I can respect that. The reason I am convinced is because the timeline prophecies that could not possibly have been forged, because we have found the ancient dead sea scrolls which are older than any known manuscripts, and yet they vary only slightly and not enough to alter the meaning. I would share them with you, but I detect you probably would not be interested.

I'm aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I'm certainly interested in any and all documents on this subject. The debate abuot forgery was only in respect to the passage in Josephus, not the Gospels. I made no argument that the Gospels were changed in a later century.

That might be credible if it were not for the fact that the bible was put together by several different authors who lived sometimes centuries apart, yet the theme in the whole bible is consistent.

But it can easily be argued that you can trace more or less all of the writings in the NT back to the same oral tradition and a few documents. The Q that the gospels relied heavily upon, Paul's letters, etc. It shouldn't be surprising that the theme is consistent... none of these authors were living in isolation from the source material.

I really doubt that a grand conspiracy to use some vague Egyptian God as a pattern for all of their theme's was passed down through the centuries from prophet to prophet and conveniently just happened to fit the apostles agenda. And it does not explain why so many early Christians were willing to die violent deaths in order to perpetuate the "lie."

How did the Apostle Paul profit from spreading this "Lie?" He traversed the globe, endured all sorts of hardships, was stoned, imprissoned and finally killed. For what? The book of Acts makes a good point about it; "for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God." Acts 5:38, 39.

Judging by the way Christianity has taken hold all over the world in spite of persecution and attempts to kill it, I would say God is at work.

It's no conspiracy. It was the deification of a man with loyal followers. It's not so surprising once you learn that even the mathematician Pythagoras received a similar treatment. Shortly after his death, Pythagoras' biographers wrote about him healing the sick, raising the dead, levitating, and talking with animals. The idea that Jesus' followers, or more specifically the followers of his followers, would embrace oral traditions depicting miracles and magic is not absurd... it's not even unique. It was no conspiracy, just mysticism.

Michele

06-09-2004, 01:25 AM

What I don't understand is why some people are so intent on trying to prove that Jesus is not real, or that the bible is not true. Considering you are the ones who want people like Christians to stop trying to convert you, you sure like to do a lot of atheistic proselytizing yourselves.

I am not sure the issues is an either or issue. It is not a matter of not being true. Certainly within the bible resides truths, and truism, however it is not definitive. What I don't understand is why should it be definitive truth in a universe that is so vast. God's message is not in word... it is in deed. And his message can be found in other books as well. It is not hard to decipher a message of goodliness no matter what form or word the message comes from. Granted we need guidelines for goodliness and I do feel a belief in a higher power has it's benefits, even if it is solely for the purposes of clarifying within oneself humility.

Our imaginations provide us so much power as well.They need to be active and inquiring and curious not for sameness but for difference. I have learned so much while participating on forum regarding the benefits of difference. Believe me I could write a tome on the benevelence of difference. It teaches us tolerance. Yet I don't follow any one word. Certainly likeminds help as that gives us reassurance but it is those not of like mind that teach us tolerance. It is those not of like mind where our ability to follow guidance is tested and that is the practice of tolerance. Engaging with the other. It is a trial, it is a challenge, it is one of life's lessons, and not an easy one to learn without practice. Cherish the other it provides us our practice. any one group who wish to make anything the domain of one thing for one thing only hasn't a clue what tolerance is. Without the other. Without the difference. There is no tolerance.

The ultimate cultivation is to cultivate a power within yourself that is conditional based on your deeds not your words. Words are CHEAP they can be bought and sold and nickeled and dimed. But the power of goodliness of an esteem for a power greater than you... is a kind of trick of the mind to have you be as close to that greatness as you can.

This process can occur in many ways... Understanding good from evil and right or wrong is not only served by Christians. And just because there is truth in the bible does not mean manipulation and distortion does not exist. But it does not discount what good is in the bible either, why throw the good away.. yes... take the good, as good will feed you no matter where you reap it from your inspiration, but question the non truths heed the descrepancies... they exist in all three books... the descrepancies are part of the lesson as well. What is the meaning of life? What is our purpose? What is our service? These are ponderances of philosophy not just religion. All religions all people all cultures ponder the same questions.

we say our service is to god or to good. And the greatest law is loving this god or this good. Now take it to the street down here on earth... the law is meant to develop what... Love for something other than yourself something greater than yourself in an effort to learn how to love yourself ...it appears before we understand that we practice love for the other.

love is the most misunderstood virtue there is. It is not born within us. Or if it is depending on ones familia environment it can be stamped right out of us to love is an acquired virtue it takes viligance and patience and self control... woooo I went off on a tangent.

the point is the bible lays down a path... a guideline... all the books do... not just the bible... love your neighbor as yourself... who is god? while powerful is he not but your neighbor... love your god as you love yourself.

What is that but the universal law of cause and effect... parables... morality plays... is it literal... the point is seeking is part of the path it is not only christianity that offers this guidance. Open your eyes how can it be that only that which is christain holds the truest word? I don't understand how anyone can believe it does with no question? While clearly it offers a guidance for those who can truly hear it it also cultivates an exclusivity which says all must come to god/good through christainity, but not only that by a very set interpretation and the very negation of the other. Well... it can not be true there is only one way to god. it is not just the literal word it is the deed.

If you negate the other who can you forfill the second greatest law. loving the other as yourself. what cultivates tolerance? Not that the other must be yourself, but that the other is to be loved as the other certainly we hope seek good rather than evil, unfortunately not all do. but that is not because of any book for even without the book we are born to seek our goodness. And then we tithe unto others our goodness to reap more goodness.

that is a universal law. it has little to do with jesus but that he become the outside focus of a your higher self.

once you get into the who is the most and which book is the truest you tempt intolerance... what is the use for cultivating tolerance if you wish everyone to follow your word as you came to your path in search of your goodness that is your journey we reap our lives and lessons through our individual journeys... I wouldn't need to practice tolerance if you said and did exactly as I pleased. That there are others that have different paths is a god or good thing as that enables one to practice tolerance....

okay the point is there is no one way... but the way that works for you. your way is not mine... yet I seek the same destination. goodliness.

all my relations.

I haven't a clue where that came from!

Michele

06-09-2004, 01:52 AM

... and look at the message of the cruxificion (whether it occured or not is irrelevant) it is a message this passion play. We have a prophet with a teaching. That we only seem to get in retrospect. He brings a message... contrary to the beliefs of that day...why was he not heard?

One reason might well be because the masses had their own indoctrination. therefore those indoctrinated could not hear his message. Look at the message of the crucificion. Jesus was the other. His message did not come of the familiar. So the lesson is that it is, perhaps, the other who may bring the message... to hear the message we can not be deafened by one book and one word and one interpretation. Or stuck on any one end. That is blindness... and left so deaf and blind we risk not recognizing the message in the other who might well be the christ figure... love the other as thyself.

what was the message? not love only christains and judge the other in comparison to only christians. love the other as thyself...

okay... beats me why this tangent, but for I do not follow one word I practice following two universal laws... cause and effect...karma... what you reap you sow...judge lest you be judged ... cause and effect... doesn't take one book or one word... even the eastern philosophy has one mediate on the other... God is the other.

Michele

06-09-2004, 02:00 AM

and anyway.... who was it that said the devil is in the words?

cpwill

06-09-2004, 04:48 AM

i thought they said it was in the details;)

MikeD4o7

06-09-2004, 08:43 AM

They also said

"God dwells in the details"
-- Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969)

So I guess that means pretty much everything is in the details. :p

MrAmerica

06-09-2004, 10:39 AM

If the passage you quoted is genuine, which I think is probable, then the only thing it truly signifies is the lack of Jesus' importance.
Just the fact that Josephus acknowledges that Jesus was known as "The Messiah" by His followers shows that others placed a great deal of importance on Him, whether Josephus did or not.

Josephus dedicates several paragraphs to John the Baptist, but only a couple lines to Jesus. The stories the gospels tell us seem to indicate a massive interestin in Jesus in Judea... especially with how much of an impact Jesus had on the Sanhedrin. The lack of detail in Josephus implies to me that the Gospel stories are greatly exaggerated in more ways than one.
All that you are implying is that Josephus was most likely not a believer in Jesus as the Messiah. It is very evident that many of the Jews were not, after all a good number of them were instrumental in having Him crucified. If Jesus were the Messiah it would mean that many of their hopes and expectations were unfounded. It was a difficult thing for them to accept. They wanted a powerful Massiah who would break the bonds of Rome and lead the Jewish nation back to political and military dominance. They were not expecting someone who spoke about loving your enemies or turning the other cheek. They looked at the prophecies of the Messiah's second coming relating to end of the world, and they applied them to His first coming. They did not understand the prophecies about the suffering servant. They thought that those applied to themselves.

I'm aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I'm certainly interested in any and all documents on this subject. The debate abuot forgery was only in respect to the passage in Josephus, not the Gospels. I made no argument that the Gospels were changed in a later century.
The most important thing about the discovery of the scrolls, is that it validated the O.T. translations which we had already.

But it can easily be argued that you can trace more or less all of the writings in the NT back to the same oral tradition and a few documents. The Q that the gospels relied heavily upon, Paul's letters, etc. It shouldn't be surprising that the theme is consistent... none of these authors were living in isolation from the source material.
That might hold water if it was no more than "some oral tradition and a few documents." But the whole gospel story needed to coincide with the whole O.T. which would have been a monumentous literary accomplishment. There are literally hundreds of parallels between the O.T. and the book of Revelation alone, and then between Revelation and the Gospels. It is very easy to suggest such a possibility, but to anyone who has the studied the bible extensively as I have, it is obvious that it would be almost impossible to make this stuff up.

It's no conspiracy. It was the deification of a man with loyal followers. It's not so surprising once you learn that even the mathematician Pythagoras received a similar treatment. Shortly after his death, Pythagoras' biographers wrote about him healing the sick, raising the dead, levitating, and talking with animals. The idea that Jesus' followers, or more specifically the followers of his followers, would embrace oral traditions depicting miracles and magic is not absurd... it's not even unique. It was no conspiracy, just mysticism.
Similar? The only thing Pythagoras is remembered for is a geometry equation. Hardly comparable.

Michele

06-09-2004, 11:02 AM

i thought they said it was in the details;)

Yes, I think you are correct. I remembered incorrectly.

At the beginning of this year I read the Pivac's book --- the kazar dictionary -- it tells the story regarding who converted the Kazars. Islam? Christianity? or Judaism? Actually now that I know more about the history, I should read it again. The story of who convinced the Kazar's to convert is literally told three times. We have the Christian version, the version from the Islam side and the Judaic side. Of course all three are different. I am not sure any of it has much to do with reality, because at one point in passing I had a conversation with this very read Jewish guy. He noticed the book and before I finished explaining the book he said the Khazars were Jewish. Apparently there is a descrepancy. For I also came upon this long dissertation on the internet explaining that the history with regard to the Khazars that says they are Jewish was a Hoax.

Believe me I don't know which version is true between all three and quite frankly I do not care, but for the fact that there seems to be three versions of the story. The Author Milorad Pavic is a Serb. I coined the phrase from this book: "The devil is in the details." It was the first time I had heard the expression, but it was said within one of the stories within all three versions of the Khazar story. "The devil is in the details."

Who originally coined the phrase?

MrAmerica

06-09-2004, 11:15 AM

Michele, I will not answer you quote by quote, but just address the main point of your post #61.

I agree with you that there are many good things taught by other religions, and that you do not need to be a Christian in order to be a good person. In fact, I know a few non-believers who put many Christians to shame when it comes to integrity and kindness. However, you are missing the point. The main tenent of Christianity is not to teach people how to be good (although it does that too), it is that the entire human condition which we are born into is a condition of sin which has corrupted the entire race like a disease since the fall of man. This can be demonstrated by the fact that a baby learns to lie almost as soon as he/she begins to talk. As beautiful and sweet as they are, babies can be selfish and cruel to other babies. Who taught them that?

It sounds a little self flagulating to some that we ask for forgiveness of our sins. But this entails much more than just forgiveness for our occassional misdeeds. It includes absolution from our sinful nature, which is bestowed on us at birth at no fault of our own. This does not mean that we feel humans are "bad", or "unworthy." On the contrary, Christ would not have made such an enormous sacrifice if He did not place the highest value on us. And even though we recognize our defective nature, we also recognize the potential that God has given each one of us to be "sons of God."

Christianity teaches that the natural result of this fallen, sinful condition is eternal death, and that the only way to reclaim our original immortal state is by the removal of our sinful nature through the intercession of a Savior who paid the penalty of death for the entire race, which was inevitably ours, and makes His own eternal life available to those who accept His sacrifice. The "conversion" or transformation occurs when a person realizes what kind of sacrifice was made by God on our behalf, and the heart is broken and softened.

This is what constitutes a true Christian, not whether or not one believes in right to life, or prayer in school, or views on homosexuality. Politics and Christianity do not mix, even though some try to make it do so. Don't confuse right wing political movements with true Christianity. Jesus said; "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were, then would my servants fight." And; "Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar's, and render unto God the things which belong to God." :angel:

MrAmerica

06-09-2004, 11:28 AM

... and look at the message of the cruxificion ...why was he not heard?...Jesus was the other. His message did not come of the familiar...what was the message?

Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
And they made His grave with the wicked--
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah 53

Michele

06-09-2004, 12:02 PM

that is very nice but holds no real meaning for me, though when I have more time to spare, as I have to get ready for work, I will read it again. I guess my interpretion is meaningless to you? Yet it carries a great guidance for me. Not the doctrinal interpretations or the exact words as written.... but my interaction with the words as I have come to understand it.

I guess my thoughts on the matter were of no worth to you... you have your own words... which you have pulled verbatim out of the book. I will read them again... however in regard to how I interact with words from any of these books what is most important is my interaction ...

Jesus was the other. His message was not heard (regardless of his promise to god). The very reason it was not heard is part of the message of the worth of the other as I already contributed...for in this very case IT WAS THE OTHER WHO WAS THE CHRIST attempting to break through the indoctrination of that time... he was kills probably people had their own book and that was all the could see and hear... that is how I view it. The doctrine is not the message.

I am not sure why you placed the passage from Isaih. They are not your words, nor have you given us your interpretation.

MrAmerica

06-09-2004, 12:58 PM

I guess my thoughts on the matter were of no worth to you...
My post (#68) was addressing your thoughts in post #61.

Jesus was the other. His message was not heard (regardless of his promise to god).
His message was not heard? Is that why He is the most influential figure in history? Is that why our measurement of time is based on His birth and death (B.C. & A.D.)?

The very reason it was not heard is part of the message of the worth of the other as I already contributed...for in this very case IT WAS THE OTHER WHO WAS THE CHRIST attempting to break through the indoctrination of that time...
So, who is this "Other?" If he was the true Christ, then God did not see fit to allow him to be known. I guess God is happy to allow the conterfeit Christ to get all of the credit and attention?

I am not sure why you placed the passage from Isaih. They are not your words, nor have you given us your interpretation.
My post of the passage from Isaiah is in response to your post #62, where you said He was not heard, and your statement that; "Look at the message of the crucificion. Jesus was the other. His message did not come of the familiar."
That is an extremely vague and ambiguous statement, and I am forced to assume an interpretation for it. But the point of Isaiah 53 is that it was prophesied long before that He would be rejected and "not heard." He was to be treated like a common criminal. It was all of part of God's plan. Your failure to comprehend how a messiah could be treated in such a way, is the same reason why most of the Jews could not either. It is a paradox. "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14.

MikeD4o7

06-09-2004, 04:13 PM

All that you are implying is that Josephus was most likely not a believer in Jesus as the Messiah. It is very evident that many of the Jews were not, after all a good number of them were instrumental in having Him crucified. If Jesus were the Messiah it would mean that many of their hopes and expectations were unfounded. It was a difficult thing for them to accept. They wanted a powerful Massiah who would break the bonds of Rome and lead the Jewish nation back to political and military dominance. They were not expecting someone who spoke about loving your enemies or turning the other cheek. They looked at the prophecies of the Messiah's second coming relating to end of the world, and they applied them to His first coming. They did not understand the prophecies about the suffering servant. They thought that those applied to themselves.

No, it implies far more than that. If Jesus had the effect on the general population that the gospels claim he had, Josephus surely would have mentioned it. If Jesus had really got the Sanhedrin in such a fuss, Josephus would have mentioned it. Josephus would have recorded more about Jesus whether he believed what his followers were saying or not if Jesus had really made any sort of impact on society in Judea. The fact that Josephus says virtually nothing about Jesus' impact on society implies that Jesus was a nonfactor.

That might hold water if it was no more than "some oral tradition and a few documents." But the whole gospel story needed to coincide with the whole O.T. which would have been a monumentous literary accomplishment. There are literally hundreds of parallels between the O.T. and the book of Revelation alone, and then between Revelation and the Gospels. It is very easy to suggest such a possibility, but to anyone who has the studied the bible extensively as I have, it is obvious that it would be almost impossible to make this stuff up.

Considering all of the gospel authors undoubtedly had access to the writings of the OT, why WOULDN'T the gospels coincide with it? I don't understand what kind of link between the NT and OT would prove anything. Please explain.

Similar? The only thing Pythagoras is remembered for is a geometry equation. Hardly comparable.

Just because we're not worshipping Pythagoras doesn't negate the similarity. The myths surrounding Pythagoras' divinity died off, the myths surrounding Jesus divinity didn't. It still shows that a normal human receiving a mythological biography from his own followers did happen. Not because the biographers were liars or conspirators, but because that's how stories were often told.

MrAmerica

06-09-2004, 05:18 PM

No, it implies far more than that. If Jesus had the effect on the general population that the gospels claim he had, Josephus surely would have mentioned it. If Jesus had really got the Sanhedrin in such a fuss, Josephus would have mentioned it. Josephus would have recorded more about Jesus whether he believed what his followers were saying or not if Jesus had really made any sort of impact on society in Judea. The fact that Josephus says virtually nothing about Jesus' impact on society implies that Jesus was a nonfactor.
Jesus' impact on society was not entirely evident right away. Even He compared it to a tiny mustard seed that grows into a huge tree that fills the earth (Matt. 13:31, 32). And it seems to have done just that. But Josephus' opinion of Him (or lack of one) is not all that relevant. He was born shortly after Christ's death, and being raised a Jew, he was no doubt taught to dismiss the new Christian sect as a small group of heretics. And small they were at the time. Hardly a world wide force to be reconed with at the time.

Considering all of the gospel authors undoubtedly had access to the writings of the OT, why WOULDN'T the gospels coincide with it? I don't understand what kind of link between the NT and OT would prove anything. Please explain.
This can only be explained by studying it for yourself. There are countless parallels in revelation, the gospels and the letters to the OT. It may seem like no big deal to someone until you see just how much of it is in there. Many of the references are so subtle that you would never even recognize them unless you had thoroughly studied them yourself. Collectively, the OT is a massive literary work in and of itself. To create another (NT) continuation created by multiple authors, all of who hold together the same grand theme, is an enormous accomplishment, especially considering that they did not have the benefit of modern media devices like computers or faxes or even typewriters. Also, the "access" that they had to the OT was limited. All of the books were in separate scrolls. They did not have a single bound volume like we do today. Niether were they conveniently indexed in book form like our bibles are. It would have taken A LOT of work to sift through the text and pick out the pertinent portions. Possible? Maybe, but with such precision and cohesion? Highly improbable