World Affairs Board - View Single Post

entropy · 09-10-2007, 06:27 AM

Glyn is correct. Jesus said completely different things than what is stated in the Bible. If one studies the book closely, he resembles a Buddhist monk more than a Christian figure. Something he probably was.

The 4 Evangelians were possibly not even present at the time when Jesus lived. Some of them are letters, written to convince someone (a certain Theofile, in one case) and others are written according to rumors. Marcus is the only one who is believed to have seen Jesus in person and follow him, but it is uncertain.

As for the cross, the story was "retrofitted" with the crucifix symbolics for a reason. Ancient correspondence shows us that the death on the cross wasn't any spectacular. So did one wrote (can't recall his name, but he wrote the history of the fires of Rome during Nero's time as well): There was one man in Galilea, Jesus from Nasareth, which gained a large crowd of followers and then was crucified by Pontius Pilatus.

A death on the cross was something only slaves received, so the Catholic Church had to cover it up quite quickly. So instead of making the death only one episode in the life of Christ (as well as eradicating the true teachings of Jesus, such as the gnostics, the Cathars and the like) they wrote a story in which the death of Jesus on the cross was the climax of the story, and made up a story where he died for our sins.

Roman traditions required a special sort of religion, one where there was a commercial deal between deity and worshipper. This is how the catholic church was born. They eradicated many works and many sects of Christians, so the original message has been lost. What you read in the Bible is an early example of totalitarist propaganda.

09-10-2007, 06:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
entropy Senior Reader *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-19-07 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,628 Country:	Glyn is correct. Jesus said completely different things than what is stated in the Bible. If one studies the book closely, he resembles a Buddhist monk more than a Christian figure. Something he probably was. The 4 Evangelians were possibly not even present at the time when Jesus lived. Some of them are letters, written to convince someone (a certain Theofile, in one case) and others are written according to rumors. Marcus is the only one who is believed to have seen Jesus in person and follow him, but it is uncertain. As for the cross, the story was "retrofitted" with the crucifix symbolics for a reason. Ancient correspondence shows us that the death on the cross wasn't any spectacular. So did one wrote (can't recall his name, but he wrote the history of the fires of Rome during Nero's time as well): There was one man in Galilea, Jesus from Nasareth, which gained a large crowd of followers and then was crucified by Pontius Pilatus. A death on the cross was something only slaves received, so the Catholic Church had to cover it up quite quickly. So instead of making the death only one episode in the life of Christ (as well as eradicating the true teachings of Jesus, such as the gnostics, the Cathars and the like) they wrote a story in which the death of Jesus on the cross was the climax of the story, and made up a story where he died for our sins. Roman traditions required a special sort of religion, one where there was a commercial deal between deity and worshipper. This is how the catholic church was born. They eradicated many works and many sects of Christians, so the original message has been lost. What you read in the Bible is an early example of totalitarist propaganda. __________________ If memory serves...