JAD_333

You are on the verge of discovering that all the great religions contain essentially the same message. The differences are mostly in how they convey the message, since each must adapt its message to the communication and symbols of the culture in which they arise.

The papacy for all its faults is just part of the organization, not the religion itself. Organizations built to convey religious teachings are subject to all the weaknesses of men. They do their bit; they get the message to you down through time. If you reject the message solely on account of the organization, you did not get it to start with.

When it comes to the message of the great religious teachers, the medium is NOT the message.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Kansas Bear

I was thinking salt in one hand, slowly spilling to the floor and a Guinness in the other. Forget mixing!

Expat Canuck

I just am a history nut and who doesn't like a good conspiracy theory? Honestly though the time of Jesus had a lot going on and bible stories are great stories. Then you hear of something that supports or puts into question parts of the bible which make it even more exciting.

I was always suspect about the whole Jesus story anyway. I bet he really was a great man otherwise why the hell would anyone bother writing about him? I bet God did choose him as something special but am I not also Gods son?

If he did fake his death as this little article suggests I like Jesus even more! How very clever to get away.

I really don't see how anyone debunking stories about Jesus should shatter anyones faith. The way I see it you should only admire him more as he maybe didn't have devine help the way you think and the fact that his story has carried on for over 2000 years, well now that IS something special.

I'm also a bit suspect of the way Jesus is worshipped, he is a man not god. I watched the Ten Commandments and I think idle worship was a no no and to me seeing people bow to the cross up front looks like idle worship.

See questiosn questions questions. Long story short I know SFA and neither does anyone else. We where not there and there are too many conflicts to ever know the truth and until someone makes a time machine no one will.

It also makes sence that as a Jewish man he could survive. I was under the thinking that the Jewish people where the early doctors? Correct any part that is incorrect here, I'm not a historian after all.

zraver

Expat,

People worship Jesus because that is what he wanted. Roman records I already listed show conclusively that early Christians who knew him and the apostles were willing to die for thier belief that he was God.

zraver

Jesus was worshiped because that is what he wanted. Roman records from the time of those who knew him and the apostles show a belief that he was divine, and they would hold this belief unto death.

Also no one survived a crucification, when the Roman broke the thieves legs they suffocated and died of heart failure. Because Jesus was already dead, but had died early they pierced his side going up under the ribs and through a number of vital organs, you don't survive these types of wounds without 21st century medical care and even today your chances are not good.

tankie

I read somewhere that the bible was not written until about 60 years after his death , now if thats true , its wide open to distortion of facts ?

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

entropy

It is true, the Evangelians have probably not even met Jesus.

__________________
If memory serves...

zraver

Is it really? It was written by people who knew Jesus or who knew the apostles.

entropy

Marcus is the only one who might have known Jesus.

zraver

The Apostle John not only wrote his books, but before his death was able to verify the other books we have in canon via Silvanus the Scribe who worked with Peter, Paul, and John. Paul had his doctrine confirmed in Jerusalem by the Aposltes there. Paul, Peter, and John all met and worked together. Peter confims the Pauline doctrine as scripture and thus Pauls words pass that blessing onto Luke.

Peter and John knew Jesus, and confirmed Pauls vision on the road to Damscus.

Its seems as if Mark was a disciple of Peter (Jerome and Ireanius)

Mathew knew Jesus, if you subscribe to the early view as I do. A post AD 70-79 date without refrence to the destruction of Jerusalem is hard to buy.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

ArmchairGeneral

Glyn, we've been over this one before. No, no, no, and again, absolutely no.

1) The Dead Sea Scrolls do NOT mention Joseph of Arimathea. He is mentioned in the New Testament. The DSS contain various writings, including parts of the Old Testament, not of the New Testament.

2)The vast majority of the DSS were written in Semitic tongues, mostly Hebrew. Not Greek, except for a few texts.

3) "Yussuf, rama Theo" is not Greek. It's not Hebrew. You might call it "Greebrew" or "Greemaic" perhaps. Yussuf is a Hebrew name. Rama? Well, it ain't Greek. IIRC, it's similar to an Aramaic word for love, or something. Theo is the root of the Greek for God. So the the phrase is half Semitic, half Greek. I highly doubt it is found in the DSS, or any ancient text.

A spectacularly incompetent monk, indeed: Mistranslating a non-existent phrase in a non-existent language in a non-existent text is quite a feat.

I have been unable to find any mention of this theory online except for some random Myspace page. I'm curious as to who thought it up- it's very ingenious, although completely nonsensical to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible and Biblical languages.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

entropy

Oh yes, the believers always think that the Bible says that the marriage is sacred. It isn't.

Hieronymus, the monk who translated the books from Hebrew and Arameic into Latin, used the Latin word sacramentum to describe marriage. It does mean a secret, something peculiar, hard to fathom. It does have a second meaning as a sacrament, but the original Hebrew word is that of a peculiarity. In the Bible, the marriage is referring to as something hard to understand (they probably had husband-and-wife jokes in their time too), and countless of believers made it into a "no sex before marriage" thingy.

This is one of the countless examples my theology teacher presented me. He speaks all languages in which the original Bible books were written (Hebrew, Arameic, Greek and Latin) so I take him as a credible source. There is a huge lot in the Bible which isn't correctly translated, yet is taken by the Pat Robertson-crowd for granted.

glyn

zraver

That is nonsensical, the early Christians made it a point of faith not to deny Christ or their relationship with him. The Apostles and their disciples taught and traveled openly.