The Jesus Invention

[Amos]

http://www.covertmessiah.com/

It is of course something I have known about for many years. The presentation of Jesus in the gospel stories as a living, historic entity was never meant to be read literally.

The gospel writers simply personified the messianic subconscious mind into a character called Jesus, like in a play. After all, God is simply the personification of the most powerful force in the Universe - The singularity that is the Unconscious Mind.

Amos

[Michael]

Post by Amos
http://www.covertmessiah.com/
It is of course something I have known about for many years. The presentation of Jesus in the gospel stories as a living, historic entity was never meant to be read literally.
The gospel writers simply personified the messianic subconscious mind into a character called Jesus, like in a play. After all, God is simply the personification of the most powerful force in the Universe - The singularity that is the Unconscious Mind.
Amos

Rubbish. The Romans's invented CHRIST only because it was a code-word to imply
this or that person needs to be killed. This is common knowledge to Christian scholars. So there is no suprise, only delinquincy on the part of the covert crowd.

Jesus never called himself' 'the Christ.' Get it? The Romans' did!

Most scholars already debunked the peeps u are promoting in covert... website.

Paul was originally a Romam agent, so he was familar with these terms, already in use -- but that does not mean he made it up.

Meanwhile the left wants all references to God out of every private home, and this reflects the Bible's teachings toward the apok -- so the Bible, yet wins again. Tant pis.

[Amos]

Post by Michael

Post by Amos
http://www.covertmessiah.com/
It is of course something I have known about for many years. The presentation of Jesus in the gospel stories as a living, historic entity was never meant to be read literally.
The gospel writers simply personified the messianic subconscious mind into a character called Jesus, like in a play. After all, God is simply the personification of the most powerful force in the Universe - The singularity that is the Unconscious Mind.
Amos

Rubbish. The Romans's invented CHRIST only because it was a code-word to imply
this or that person needs to be killed. This is common knowledge to Christian scholars. So there is no suprise, only delinquincy on the part of the covert crowd.
Jesus never called himself' 'the Christ.' Get it? The Romans' did!
Most scholars already debunked the peeps u are promoting in covert... website.
Paul was originally a Romam agent, so he was familar with these terms, already in use -- but that does not mean he made it up.
Meanwhile the left wants all references to God out of every private home, and this reflects the Bible's teachings toward the apok -- so the Bible, yet wins again. Tant pis.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

From your source:

[quoting] Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin
as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of
propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman
Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting
for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of
violent insurrection during the first century," he explains.

"When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing
rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised
that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary
activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the
'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring
warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and
encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to
Rome." [end quote]

Why would the Romans invent a "competing belief system", and then
spend 300+ years persecuting and publicly executing believers
of their new "competing belief system"? It doesn't seem like a
very efficient way to motivate people into adopting their new
belief system, does it? Can you explain that, please?

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

[quoting] Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin
as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of
propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman
Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting
for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of
violent insurrection during the first century," he explains.
"When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing
rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised
that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary
activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the
'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring
warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and
encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to
Rome." [end quote]
Why would the Romans invent a "competing belief system", and then
spend 300+ years persecuting and publicly executing believers
of their new "competing belief system"? It doesn't seem like a
very efficient way to motivate people into adopting their new
belief system, does it? Can you explain that, please?

Good question..

Maybe because the Romans were not persecuting the followers of a non-existent Jesus, but were persecuting the Jewish Messianic cults, who they referred to as Christians.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

[quoting] Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin
as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of
propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman
Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting
for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of
violent insurrection during the first century," he explains.
"When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing
rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised
that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary
activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the
'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring
warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and
encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to
Rome." [end quote]
Why would the Romans invent a "competing belief system", and then
spend 300+ years persecuting and publicly executing believers
of their new "competing belief system"? It doesn't seem like a
very efficient way to motivate people into adopting their new
belief system, does it? Can you explain that, please?

Good question..

Thank you. Are you going to the symposium in London? If so, I hope
someone asks that question of the author. If that happens, I'd enjoy
knowing his answer as well.

Post by Amos
Maybe because the Romans were not persecuting the followers of a
non-existent Jesus, but were persecuting the Jewish Messianic
cults, who they referred to as Christians.

No, the Jews were given special exemptions. It's the newly formed
Christians who were followers of Jesus who were persecuted by the
Roman Empire -- which supposedly invented the religion they were
persecuting. The author's theory makes no sense.

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

[quoting] Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin
as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of
propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman
Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting
for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of
violent insurrection during the first century," he explains.
"When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing
rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised
that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary
activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the
'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring
warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and
encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to
Rome." [end quote]
Why would the Romans invent a "competing belief system", and then
spend 300+ years persecuting and publicly executing believers
of their new "competing belief system"? It doesn't seem like a
very efficient way to motivate people into adopting their new
belief system, does it? Can you explain that, please?

Good question..

Thank you. Are you going to the symposium in London? If so, I hope
someone asks that question of the author. If that happens, I'd enjoy
knowing his answer as well.

Unfortunately I have other commitments, but I'm sure the answers to such questions will become available..

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Maybe because the Romans were not persecuting the followers of a
non-existent Jesus, but were persecuting the Jewish Messianic
cults, who they referred to as Christians.

No, the Jews were given special exemptions.

Do you have an independent (non Christian) source for that?

Because as far as I am aware this only applied to the Romanised Jews who recognised Caesar as their king, not the Jews that did not (the messianic Jewish cults).

70 AD
Roman Army destroyed Jerusalem. Over 1 million messianic Jews killed and 97,000 taken into slavery and captivity, many others scattered.

132 AD
The Bar Kochba Rebellion, (Bar Kochba failed as the Jewish Messiah) caused the deaths of 500,000 Jews; thousands were sold into slavery or taken into captivity. Judaism no longer recognized as a legal religion. Israel as a nation was totally destroyed.

135 AD
Serious Roman persecution of the messianic Jews began. They were forbidden from practicing circumcision, reading the Torah, eating unleavened bread at Passover, etc.

315 AD
Constantine the Great published the Edict of Milan, which extended religious tolerance to the followers of Jesus (the newly created religion). Romanised Jews lost many rights with this edict.

325 AD
The Council of Nicea – the first edict in favor of the “Venerable Day of the Sun” (Sunday) was made at the Council. Sabbath worship and other Jewish observances became heretical to the newly formed Christian faith. Also, Christianity was now the official religion, and Jews could no longer have Roman citizenship.

Post by Steven Douglas
It's the newly formed
Christians who were followers of Jesus who were persecuted by the
Roman Empire -- which supposedly invented the religion they were
persecuting. The author's theory makes no sense.

Hopefully it will make more sense in time..

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

[quoting] Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin
as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of
propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman
Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting
for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of
violent insurrection during the first century," he explains.
"When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing
rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised
that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary
activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the
'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring
warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and
encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to
Rome." [end quote]
Why would the Romans invent a "competing belief system", and then
spend 300+ years persecuting and publicly executing believers
of their new "competing belief system"? It doesn't seem like a
very efficient way to motivate people into adopting their new
belief system, does it? Can you explain that, please?

Good question..

Thank you. Are you going to the symposium in London? If so, I hope
someone asks that question of the author. If that happens, I'd enjoy
knowing his answer as well.

Unfortunately I have other commitments, but I'm sure the answers to
such questions will become available..

I'm a bit surprised that he hasn't already answered such an obvious
question.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Maybe because the Romans were not persecuting the followers of a
non-existent Jesus, but were persecuting the Jewish Messianic
cults, who they referred to as Christians.

No, the Jews were given special exemptions.

Do you have an independent (non Christian) source for that?

Here's one that tells of the Jews' exemptions under Caesar:

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~ciccone/html/history%20of%20the%20revolt.htm

Here's one that tells of the persecution of Christians during
the early years of Christianity:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml

Post by Amos
Because as far as I am aware this only applied to the Romanised
Jews who recognised Caesar as their king, not the Jews that did
not (the messianic Jewish cults).

I am not aware that Jews were given classifications for what type
of Jews they were. Do you have some documentation of that?

Post by Amos
70 AD
Roman Army destroyed Jerusalem. Over 1 million messianic Jews
killed and 97,000 taken into slavery and captivity, many others
scattered.

Yes, this was after Caesar and brought on by a Jewish rebellion
in Judea. Meanwhile, Christians were being persecuted in Rome.

Post by Amos
132 AD
The Bar Kochba Rebellion, (Bar Kochba failed as the Jewish Messiah)
caused the deaths of 500,000 Jews; thousands were sold into slavery
or taken into captivity. Judaism no longer recognized as a legal
religion. Israel as a nation was totally destroyed.

Meanwhile, Christians were being persecuted in Rome.

Post by Amos
135 AD
Serious Roman persecution of the messianic Jews began. They were
forbidden from practicing circumcision, reading the Torah, eating
unleavened bread at Passover, etc.

Note that they were not Christians, but Christians were being
persecuted in Rome.

Post by Amos
315 AD
Constantine the Great published the Edict of Milan, which extended
religious tolerance to the followers of Jesus (the newly created
religion).

Christianity was 300+ years old by that time (a point I mentioned in
my original response to you).

Post by Amos
Romanised Jews lost many rights with this edict.
325 AD
The Council of Nicea – the first edict in favor of the “Venerable
Day of the Sun” (Sunday) was made at the Council. Sabbath worship
and other Jewish observances became heretical to the newly formed
Christian faith.

But it wasn't newly formed. It was already 300+ years old.

Post by Amos
Also, Christianity was now the official religion, and Jews could
no longer have Roman citizenship.

Post by Steven Douglas
It's the newly formed
Christians who were followers of Jesus who were persecuted by the
Roman Empire -- which supposedly invented the religion they were
persecuting. The author's theory makes no sense.

Hopefully it will make more sense in time..

That a religion supposedly invented by the Roman Empire would be
persecuted by the same empire for 300+ years?
No, that will never make sense.

[Amos]

***Snipped for brevity***

Post by Steven Douglas
I am not aware that Jews were given classifications for what type
of Jews they were. Do you have some documentation of that?

http://www.oneforisrael.org/index.php/blog/81-messianic-judaism

Quote
***
Messianic Jews came under attack from both Jews and Christians. Although the Jews originally viewed them as a sect of Judaism, they were rejected by the Jewish establishment after the Bar Kochba revolt against the Romans (132-135 AD). When that revolt began, the Messianic Jews supported it, but when Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba to be the Messiah, the Messianic Jews withdrew from the struggle. The result was that after the revolt was crushed, the surviving Jews branded the Messianics as deserters and traitors, and they were thereafter treated as outcasts.
***

Anyway, you need to ignore both the primary and secondary biblical sources, since it is these sources that are being questioned - to not do so would be circular reasoning.

So let's start with the fact that not a single historian, who lived at the alleged time of Jesus, or within 100 years of it, mentioned Jesus, other than a supposed account by Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which is almost certainly an insertion by Eusebius of Caesarea, for the purposes of giving credibility to the foundation of the Christian religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

So by extension, do we have non-biblical proof that the Roman term 'Christian' was exclusively used to describe the followers of a man called Jesus and not any of the other Messianic sects prevalent at the time?

I suspect not and also suspect that the term 'Christian' only became exclusively used to describe the followers of Jesus at a later date.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
***Snipped for brevity***

Post by Steven Douglas
I am not aware that Jews were given classifications for what type
of Jews they were. Do you have some documentation of that?

http://www.oneforisrael.org/index.php/blog/81-messianic-judaism
Quote
***
Messianic Jews came under attack from both Jews and Christians.
Although the Jews originally viewed them as a sect of Judaism,
they were rejected by the Jewish establishment after the Bar
Kochba revolt against the Romans (132-135 AD). When that revolt
began, the Messianic Jews supported it, but when Rabbi Akiva
declared Bar Kochba to be the Messiah, the Messianic Jews
withdrew from the struggle. The result was that after the
revolt was crushed, the surviving Jews branded the Messianics
as deserters and traitors, and they were thereafter treated
as outcasts.
***

The context of my question was based on your statement that the
Roman Empire put Jews into different classifications. We were
discussing the treatment of Jews under Julius Caesar, during
which time Jews were given special exemptions. Your source
does not document your statement that Jews were put into
different classifications by the Roman Empire at that time.

Post by Amos
Anyway, you need to ignore both the primary and secondary
biblical sources, since it is these sources that are being
questioned - to not do so would be circular reasoning.

I have not mentioned any Biblical sources. I am not trying to
get you to believe what I believe, I am questioning your
attempt to get me to believe what you believe. So far you
have fallen short.

Post by Amos
So let's start with the fact that not a single historian, who
lived at the alleged time of Jesus, or within 100 years of it,
mentioned Jesus, other than a supposed account by Flavius
Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which is almost
certainly an insertion by Eusebius of Caesarea, for the
purposes of giving credibility to the foundation of the
Christian religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Let's also acknowledge that there is very little recorded
history of anything that happened in that part of the Roman
Empire during that time (other than the Gospels, of course).

Pontius Pilate is barely mentioned in historical documents
(really just Josephus and the Gospels), yet it's known that
he lived and presided as prefect (or governor) in that part
of the Roman Empire during the time of Jesus.

The use of oral tradition was prevalent during that time,
which is how Josephus learned much of the history he later
recorded.

Post by Amos
So by extension, do we have non-biblical proof that the
Roman term 'Christian' was exclusively used to describe
the followers of a man called Jesus and not any of the
other Messianic sects prevalent at the time?

The Messianic sects to which you refer were in Judea, while
there were Christians being persecuted in Rome.

Post by Amos
I suspect not and also suspect that the term 'Christian' only
became exclusively used to describe the followers of Jesus at
a later date.

Later than what? Christians were already being persecuted in
Rome during the first century. You haven't convinced me that
the Roman Empire wrote the Gospels, which is a point made by
the author you originally cited. You haven't convinced me that
the Roman Empire invented Christianity. In fact, you really
haven't answered my question -- why would the Roman Empire
invent a religion, and then spend 300+ years persecuting the
followers of that religion?

[Amos]

Not a single historian, who lived at the alleged time of Jesus, or within 100 years of it, mentioned him, other than a supposed account by Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which is almost certainly an insertion by Eusebius of Caesarea, for the purposes of giving credibility to the foundation of the Christian religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. After all, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Then there are the interpolations and forgeries within the later works of Pliny the Younger and the historian Tacitus. However, due to the efforts of modern science, these are now recognised as forgeries by most secular scholars.

Also, the belief that very little history was recorded, other than the Gospels, at the alleged time of Jesus, couldn’t be further from the truth. Listed below is just a sample of historians, many highly reputed for their works. They all lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time that Jesus is said to have lived, but none mentioned him.

Arrian, Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Pater Calus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Lucian, Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Quintilian, Forus Lucius, Lucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Alulus Geuius, Statius, Ptolemy, Columella, Diochry Sostom, Hermogones, Lysias, Valerius Maxiimus, Cornelius, Titus Livius, Cluvius Rufus, Publius Petronius (the Roman consul) who lived in Jerusalem. All these heard nothing, not a word was written about Jesus.

Then there are the Dead Sea scrolls, discovered in caves at Khirbet Qumran, with many written around the alleged time of Jesus by various Jewish groups. Yet not one of these scrolls mentions Jesus, nor do they mention any of his followers described in the New Testament.

And what of the term ‘Christian’?

It was around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews, yet he mentions nothing about there being a Christian sect, nor the use of the term. He does however mention the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes and a fourth sect of philosophy to whom Judas the Galilean was author.
In fact, the term 'Christian' was not even in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews.
The label 'Christian' itself only appears in the 2nd century book of Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26).

And the idea that emerging ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. For one thing, it was only much later towards the end of the first century, after the Great Jewish revolt, (AD 66-70) that the so called Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism.

So, are there clues left by the Gospel writers that Jesus was created to exist only inside our heads?

Absolutely!

Luke: And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.

After all, with a lot of Faith, the singularity that is the Unconscious Mind, the most powerful force in the Universe, can move mountains for you. All you need to do is close your eyes and pray from the depths of your heart and the hermetic process will begin.

http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English/DrillDown/Tacitus.htm
http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-jesus-myth-tacitus/


Amos

[Curtis Eagal]

Post by Amos
Not a single historian, who lived at the alleged time of Jesus, or within 100 years of it, mentioned him, other than a supposed account by Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which is almost certainly an insertion by Eusebius of Caesarea, for the purposes of giving credibility to the foundation of the Christian religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. After all, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.
Then there are the interpolations and forgeries within the later works of Pliny the Younger and the historian Tacitus. However, due to the efforts of modern science, these are now recognised as forgeries by most secular scholars.
Also, the belief that very little history was recorded, other than the Gospels, at the alleged time of Jesus, couldn’t be further from the truth. Listed below is just a sample of historians, many highly reputed for their works. They all lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time that Jesus is said to have lived, but none mentioned him.
Arrian, Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Pater Calus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Lucian, Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Quintilian, Forus Lucius, Lucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Alulus Geuius, Statius, Ptolemy, Columella, Diochry Sostom, Hermogones, Lysias, Valerius Maxiimus, Cornelius, Titus Livius, Cluvius Rufus, Publius Petronius (the Roman consul) who lived in Jerusalem. All these heard nothing, not a word was written about Jesus.
Then there are the Dead Sea scrolls, discovered in caves at Khirbet Qumran, with many written around the alleged time of Jesus by various Jewish groups. Yet not one of these scrolls mentions Jesus, nor do they mention any of his followers described in the New Testament.
And what of the term ‘Christian’?
It was around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews, yet he mentions nothing about there being a Christian sect, nor the use of the term. He does however mention the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes and a fourth sect of philosophy to whom Judas the Galilean was author.
In fact, the term 'Christian' was not even in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews.
The label 'Christian' itself only appears in the 2nd century book of Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26).
And the idea that emerging ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. For one thing, it was only much later towards the end of the first century, after the Great Jewish revolt, (AD 66-70) that the so called Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism.
So, are there clues left by the Gospel writers that Jesus was created to exist only inside our heads?
Absolutely!
Luke: And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.

Golgotha, meaning the Place of the Skull, referred to the skull of Adam, which was brought by Sem to that location according to instructions issued by Adam on his deathbed in texts that were translated into English in the 1920s. It was needed onboard the Ark, since it was to be where Redemption was initiated, by the Crucifixion.

Adam also predicted the band of angels he had known in Eden would return as the Magi when God incarnated after the great five and a half days, meaning 5500 years, a calculation Nicodemus records being confirmed when Jesus was crucified, and supported by Nostradamus (though he uses two conflicting chronologies).

Interpreting these passages requires basic background knowledge, it is not conducive to whatever pops into an ill-informed head.

Post by Amos
After all, with a lot of Faith, the singularity that is the Unconscious Mind, the most powerful force in the Universe, can move mountains for you. All you need to do is close your eyes and pray from the depths of your heart and the hermetic process will begin.
http://youtu.be/2UgO8fAJVVM
http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English/DrillDown/Tacitus.htm
http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-jesus-myth-tacitus/
Amos

[Amos]

Post by Amos
Not a single historian, who lived at the alleged time of Jesus, or within 100 years of it, mentioned him, other than a supposed account by Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which is almost certainly an insertion by Eusebius of Caesarea, for the purposes of giving credibility to the foundation of the Christian religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. After all, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.
Then there are the interpolations and forgeries within the later works of Pliny the Younger and the historian Tacitus. However, due to the efforts of modern science, these are now recognised as forgeries by most secular scholars.
Also, the belief that very little history was recorded, other than the Gospels, at the alleged time of Jesus, couldn’t be further from the truth. Listed below is just a sample of historians, many highly reputed for their works. They all lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time that Jesus is said to have lived, but none mentioned him.
Arrian, Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Pater Calus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Lucian, Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Quintilian, Forus Lucius, Lucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Alulus Geuius, Statius, Ptolemy, Columella, Diochry Sostom, Hermogones, Lysias, Valerius Maxiimus, Cornelius, Titus Livius, Cluvius Rufus, Publius Petronius (the Roman consul) who lived in Jerusalem. All these heard nothing, not a word was written about Jesus.
Then there are the Dead Sea scrolls, discovered in caves at Khirbet Qumran, with many written around the alleged time of Jesus by various Jewish groups. Yet not one of these scrolls mentions Jesus, nor do they mention any of his followers described in the New Testament.
And what of the term ‘Christian’?
It was around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews, yet he mentions nothing about there being a Christian sect, nor the use of the term. He does however mention the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes and a fourth sect of philosophy to whom Judas the Galilean was author.
In fact, the term 'Christian' was not even in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews.
The label 'Christian' itself only appears in the 2nd century book of Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26).
And the idea that emerging ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. For one thing, it was only much later towards the end of the first century, after the Great Jewish revolt, (AD 66-70) that the so called Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism.
So, are there clues left by the Gospel writers that Jesus was created to exist only inside our heads?
Absolutely!
Luke: And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.
After all, with a lot of Faith, the singularity that is the Unconscious Mind, the most powerful force in the Universe, can move mountains for you. All you need to do is close your eyes and pray from the depths of your heart and the hermetic process will begin.

The Place of The Skull, or 'Golgotha', is a site which has never been satisfactorily pinpointed by historians or archaeologists, and while the traditional spot within the city walls is marked today by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, all investigators concede that the location remains highly questionable. A second choice of location, known as Gordon's Calvery, has the necessary requirements mentioned in the Gospels - a garden tomb and a road nearby (Matt 27)- but cannot be unreservedly designated as the correct spot.

The truth is that the *tomb*, or *cave*; the *garden* and *Golgotha* are ficticious necessities invented to portray the Hermetic process, and looking for them as real places will be as rewarding as searching for the Ark of the Covenant.

Gesthemene is the name of the garden, a term which was used centuries earlier by the Hermetic initiates to indicate the inner mind. Right in the beginning of Genesis, we read how Adam and Eve (early personifications of the Subconscious and the Conscious minds) were in the Garden of Eden - another locality that archaeologists will never discover in the physical world.

Thus, Jesus's agony in the garden, was never a moral torment, but symbolises the effort of concentration required for successful meditation - and it follows that Gesthemene is the garden in which the mythical Jesus (Neophyte) will be finally crucified (undertake and finish the process).

Amos

[Curtis Eagal]

Post by Amos
The Place of The Skull, or 'Golgotha', is a site which has never been satisfactorily pinpointed by historians or archaeologists, and while the traditional spot within the city walls is marked today by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, all investigators concede that the location remains highly questionable. A second choice of location, known as Gordon's Calvery, has the necessary requirements mentioned in the Gospels - a garden tomb and a road nearby (Matt 27)- but cannot be unreservedly designated as the correct spot.

When Jerusalem was destroyed, the Ark of the Covenant ("the Law of the Jews") was taken and has not been found since. How do you expect an ancient revered skull fragment to have survived this destruction? If you reject common knowledge, do you also believe there were no Ten Commandment tablets (since we cannot produce them today)?

Post by Amos
The truth is that the *tomb*, or *cave*; the *garden* and *Golgotha* are ficticious necessities invented to portray the Hermetic process, and looking for them as real places will be as rewarding as searching for the Ark of the Covenant.

This is a Gnostic view: be aware a lot of gnostic writings were merely the product of meditation, something you claim to be arguing against!

Post by Amos
Gesthemene is the name of the garden, a term which was used centuries earlier by the Hermetic initiates to indicate the inner mind. Right in the beginning of Genesis, we read how Adam and Eve (early personifications of the Subconscious and the Conscious minds) were in the Garden of Eden - another locality that archaeologists will never discover in the physical world.

As explained in Henochian texts, a return to Eden is the salvation Christ was promising, and the intermediary stage is the Millennial Reign period, where again, as before the Deluge associated with Noah, people will have a lifespan of around a thousand years. Notice from Noah to Abraham the average lifespan is reducing with each subsequent generation until stabilizing around one hundred. Henoch explains that the odor from the trees in Eden must enter the bones of humans for this extensive lifespan, a step towards a new eternal life. Eden is an astral location currently being tended by a fleet of angels, until such time as the worthy are selected (the "good seed" of Adam); to be cast outside the gates is simply Hell – a place with rivers of fire illuminating a dark landscape full of demonically administered torments without relief.

You cannot locate Eden because it exists in another dimension: there must be a transitional period of at about 1000 years during which it can be affect people before it can be entered, or perceived as you wish. Mind you, when the worthy are having their long life, those deemed wicked will be somehow asleep or dormant instead, before awakening to their quite different destiny.

Post by Amos
Thus, Jesus's agony in the garden, was never a moral torment, but symbolises the effort of concentration required for successful meditation - and it follows that Gesthemene is the garden in which the mythical Jesus (Neophyte) will be finally crucified (undertake and finish the process).
Amos

My belief about Christ's Agony after research is that two paths for the future were possible at that point. The current Emperor Tiberias was ill, and had heard of the healer among the Jews; Tiberias was the grandfather of Pilate's wife, Procla, whose premonitory dream about the Crucifixion caused her to urge her husband to avoid the case. It is not inconceivable that clairvoyant Jesus knew of a courier from Rome whose arrival never became part of history, and that supplemental prayer from the core three Apostles at that critical time could have somehow allowed an intervention towards the more benign outcome.

As I explained in my post with the ebook excerpt, we have better evidence of the story of Christ than anything else in the entire Bible, since the historical account is perfectly synchronized with verifiable movements of celestial bodies in that timeframe, apparently recorded in the instances of the Nativity and Crucifixion without the authors being entirely aware of what was being implied.

Look up the line of totality of the 24 November 29 AD total solar eclipse, and try to tell yourself people in Jerusalem would have observed nothing unusual.

Loading Image...

We may have the story of the Nativity because the Sanhedrin received supernatural reports and dispatched someone to investigate for the record.

Pilate was apparently recalled to Rome and beheaded for having presided over the execution of a living god. Nero, born after the Crucifixion era, blamed the Christians for having set fire to Rome, while he himself was the actual arsonist, seeking inspiration for a song he was composing for lyre about such an event.

There was a recent televised special about the time of Jesus while in India during the so-called "Lost Years" from age thirteen to thirty: a drawing was shown of the holy figure they called Saint Issau. The story is that Jesus spoke against the caste system and had to eventually flee.

The otherworldly was accepted as commonplace in these ancient times: one gospel speaks of an angel expected to periodically visit a pool, replenishing its healing powers.

What advantage would anyone have from nullifying the historical existence of Jesus, without having to even consider what name He would have actually been using (similar to Joshua [perhaps Yeshua], some had said surnamed "ben Pantera")? Most of the fundamentalists who invoke His name do so to actually enforce Hebrew Law from the Old Testament, which in many cases Jesus can be shown to oppose.

And why would the Roman Empire, which absorbed both conquered cultures and their deities into the Pantheon, invent a holy figure in an already subjugated region? Especially one who was clairvoyant and spoke in riddles, which even John Lennon in one of his final interviews claimed to be attempting to comprehend. Many statements by Jesus hold humanity to an incredibly high standard, others are simply mysterious by virtue of relating to apocalyptic prophecy.

Here a little personal story may be helpful. I determined how parts of Revelations have been coming true in our time long before posting on the internet, and disclosed some of my findings to a family member, who agreed my theory was plausible but urged me to "burn it." Later, I began having a recurrent dream where someone had me restrained, displayed a geometric representation of my family dynamics, and how they would realign once this unseen figure plucked out the family member. Then I was played a recording of the hysterical reaction when the news of the death arrived, which became real (every iota of the sounds of grieving voices) one awful morning. Precisely six months later, this late family member comes to me in a dream, urging me to sign an astral document since he 'could not rest' without it – after I did so, the spirit of my family member departed from me, leaning back as if finally able to recline in the grave. I would not make up a story like that. A child in my family who lived near the relative involved had also had recurring dreams before the sudden unexpected death, of a shadowy figure lurking around the door.

A related story about the late family member was that much earlier dabbling with a Ouija board in a group, they had gotten the message to continue the session outdoors; when they asked why, the reply came, "I' m afraid of Jesus" – the group received a collective chill when they realized there had been a crucifix in the room.

So getting true spiritual information is a gift which can either be used towards great reward, or rejected at one's peril.

Eagal

[Michael]

snip the off - topic stuff.

Look! back on topic. the British archives have docs from Jesus's time that are not of the Bible nor of Josephus, they mention Jesus.

So there are other first hand accounts linked to Roman Courts that Jesus existed.

But that is about it. How do you know anyone existed.

Eagal

[Curtis Eagal]

Post by Michael
snip the off - topic stuff.
Look! back on topic. the British archives have docs from Jesus's time that are not of the Bible nor of Josephus, they mention Jesus.
So there are other first hand accounts linked to Roman Courts that Jesus existed.
But that is about it. How do you know anyone existed.

Eagal

Spiritualism is extremely on-topic when one is considering whether Christ is "real."

Any documentation that can be provided can also be disputed, even if authentic.

[Michael]

Post by Curtis Eagal

Post by Michael
snip the off - topic stuff.
Look! back on topic. the British archives have docs from Jesus's time that are not of the Bible nor of Josephus, they mention Jesus.
So there are other first hand accounts linked to Roman Courts that Jesus existed.
But that is about it. How do you know anyone existed.

Eagal

Spiritualism is extremely on-topic when one is considering whether Christ is "real."

You mock Christ and the Deciples. The header title says Jesus invension = atheist academic term, Jesus did not exist.

Post by Curtis Eagal
Any documentation that can be provided can also be disputed, even if authentic.

as well as your mockaries in here too on Jesus? It hard to follow a point of topic when you have none. It is rather hard for you to argue the facts when you do not know them, and cut-and-past assumpition arguments, mainly from so-so- websites.

[Curtis Eagal]

Post by Michael

Post by Curtis Eagal
Spiritualism is extremely on-topic when one is considering whether Christ is "real."

You mock Christ and the Deciples. The header title says Jesus invension = atheist academic term, Jesus did not exist.

You seem to be addressing this towards me, but this is an occasion when I did not compose the initial post or create the title.

If I had an option to change it there would have been no point; I simply participated because I found the premise egregiously absurd.

Post by Michael

Post by Curtis Eagal
Any documentation that can be provided can also be disputed, even if authentic.

as well as your mockaries in here too on Jesus?

My point was that vaguely mentioning the existence of conclusive texts was unlikely to end this debate, meaning the efforts of atheists to disprove Jesus are more emotionally-based than rational.

Being chided for keeping the debate (pseudo-)academic is playing into the hands of those denying spirituality, by taking it off the table in a religious argument.

I would not be so foolish as to mock either God or Christ, but people such as yourself might not be so respectful of the Divine Plan when it is revealed - and *that* mockery would be damning.

Post by Michael
It hard to follow a point of topic when you have none. It is rather hard for you to argue the facts when you do not know them, and cut-and-past assumpition arguments, mainly from so-so- websites.

My point here was limited to the scope of the discussion about how we can know whether Jesus really existed.

I did not start the thread to make a point, I was debunking someone else's theory.

You should realize that if you cannot understand prophetic texts, neither would you necessarily be capable of appreciating the truth about them even if adequately explained.

Thus there is the rule not to cast pearls of wisdom before swine: insightful attitudes anger the ignorant, creating an inevitable backlash from the deity, who indeed sends messengers, knowing beforehand how they will be rebuffed. The Plan is too complex for culture to immediately absorb, and in fact society apparently would rather go in another direction than the first step. I have faith that will change for some in the near future, and that new cultural movement (people of the new leaven) will allow the next stage to occur, where the current incarnation of Christ will be identified (this will usher in a chain of events I can catalogue but do not yet fully understand).

I explained who the Christ must now be to a relative; of course I was secretly disbelieved – until later told when the thought I was wrong was entertained a massive peal of thunder was heard incredibly close by, on a clear and cloudless day. I might have doubted it, but I was in the same house at the time and experienced it myself.

As Shakespeare wrote, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies...

[Michael]

whoops, yeah the title and topic was not you.

My point here was limited to the scope of the discussion about how we can know > whether Jesus really existed.

But if not from rational science, academic, then only spiritual = no physical proof, right?

There are gospels, Josephus and some letters from Roman courts that are real that mention Jesus. The spiritual is everything ' unknown' which would place it in the academic dept, as not real, just a belief.

If you use Spiritualism, then you are correct. There are billions who believe in a God or a higher power, and to Christians perhaps 2 Billion worldwide, different denominations.

that is proof of a spiritual. So if you do argue this way you will win more often. If the academics says, well there are 2 Billion ( believers) insane or confused people then that is more argument that Jesus did exist. He is a threat to them.

[Michael]

and most of my responce was to Amos, but my eyes got mixed up. OK?
about a month to many months after the crucifiction, a mass movement began to which people laid down their lives. These things do not happen if one reads a batman comic book. So the academics believe Jesus did in fact exist. They just do not have enough textual lit. to make a clear observation . Also, most academics are no longer schooled in theology. They learn how to construct arguments to keep the money into the rich person's hands.

[Curtis Eagal]

Post by Michael
snip the off - topic stuff.
Look! back on topic. the British archives have docs from Jesus's time that are not of the Bible nor of Josephus, they mention Jesus.
So there are other first hand accounts linked to Roman Courts that Jesus existed.
But that is about it. How do you know anyone existed.

William Shakespeare was only researched into immortality a century after his death, and disputes remain about his identity; this was during the same era when the King James Bible was put together.

I know of several apocryphal texts to which you may be referring. People should realize the King James Bible was created in the post-Elizabethan era rushing towards a strictly imposed deadline; not only were existing texts from oral traditions translated and compiled, they were also edited, paraphrased and otherwise altered from the existing texts. The purpose was to simplify religious study by consolidating the profusion of available material into a single source intended to be comprehensive – it was neither complete nor perfect, as the apocryphal texts often give more credible, complete conflicting versions of certain stories.

As far as "first-hand" knowledge of Christ, this cannot be had through documents, which are all we have once the witnesses have expired: obviously this in itself does not make them more suspect than historic.

My previous personal story had a moral that what we say now can have repercussions we did not anticipate once on the other side; the Ouija board story was hearsay, which I had no reason to disbelieve. There was a paranormal element to my recurrent dream (wherein the entity resisting being seen told me it planned to defeat my exposure of the meaning of Revelations), because sounds and events from the future were revealed to me.

As far as personally experiencing the power of Christ, I can say that has also happened decades ago in a way, but disbelievers would call it mass hypnosis: I attended the event of a famous faith healer, and stood in line for what turned out to be a light fingertip brushing across the temples, inexplicably inducing joy too extreme to allow for standing – ushers were waiting to catch participants. I am not a good hypnosis subject, and was not expecting to feel anything.

[Michael]

Post by Curtis Eagal

Post by Michael
snip the off - topic stuff.
Look! back on topic. the British archives have docs from Jesus's time that are not of the Bible nor of Josephus, they mention Jesus.
So there are other first hand accounts linked to Roman Courts that Jesus existed.
But that is about it. How do you know anyone existed.

William Shakespeare was only researched into immortality a century after his death, and disputes remain about his identity; this was during the same era when the King James Bible was put together.

Here Curtis,

yes after the printing press, Spain, England, Rome tried to get Erasmus but did not, France all were working new Bible versions from various fragments of Greek origin, some latin in the Spanish version(s). This led to hasty work, who would be first was the prize. So yes, KJV like the others was rushed but this version is very nice to read if you know the language.

Post by Curtis Eagal
I know of several apocryphal texts to which you may be referring. People should realize the King James Bible was created in the post-Elizabethan era rushing towards a strictly imposed deadline; not only were existing texts from oral traditions translated and compiled, they were also edited, paraphrased and otherwise altered from the existing texts. The purpose was to simplify religious study by consolidating the profusion of available material into a single source intended to be comprehensive – it was neither complete nor perfect, as the apocryphal texts often give more credible, complete conflicting versions of certain stories.
As far as "first-hand" knowledge of Christ, this cannot be had through documents, which are all we have once the witnesses have expired: obviously this in itself does not make them more suspect than historic.
My previous personal story had a moral that what we say now can have repercussions we did not anticipate once on the other side; the Ouija board story was hearsay, which I had no reason to disbelieve. There was a paranormal element to my recurrent dream (wherein the entity resisting being seen told me it planned to defeat my exposure of the meaning of Revelations), because sounds and events from the future were revealed to me.
As far as personally experiencing the power of Christ, I can say that has also happened decades ago in a way, but disbelievers would call it mass hypnosis: I attended the event of a famous faith healer, and stood in line for what turned out to be a light fingertip brushing across the temples, inexplicably inducing joy too extreme to allow for standing – ushers were waiting to catch participants. I am not a good hypnosis subject, and was not expecting to feel anything.

So in a way you were an unbeliever until you had a first hand experiance?

try atheist academic "Elaine Pagels!" she came to UC berkeley to give a speech on revelations, you know academics saying it was mass hysteria by some dude named John. She is from Princeton University .

Book: 'Revelations: Visions, Prophecy and Politics in the Book of Revelation'

She showed slides to the audiance and when she showed Operation Shock and Awe, she laughed nervously, and stated, well this was predicted in Revelations 2000 years ago. So that was a suprise. I do not believe she put that in her book. However, I was there it was facinating. She helped transcribe some Dead Sea Scrolls, a part ofher Ph.D. degree.

she does follow popular sentiment snd makes some good observations and some as incorrect.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/07/148125942/the-book-of-revelation-visions-prophecy-politics

when reading Pagels rememeber she does not believe in reincarnation nor Jesus rose from the dead.

[Amos]

Post by Curtis Eagal

Post by Amos
The Place of The Skull, or 'Golgotha', is a site which has never been satisfactorily pinpointed by historians or archaeologists, and while the traditional spot within the city walls is marked today by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, all investigators concede that the location remains highly questionable. A second choice of location, known as Gordon's Calvery, has the necessary requirements mentioned in the Gospels - a garden tomb and a road nearby (Matt 27)- but cannot be unreservedly designated as the correct spot.

When Jerusalem was destroyed, the Ark of the Covenant ("the Law of the Jews") was taken and has not been found since. How do you expect an ancient revered skull fragment to have survived this destruction? If you reject common knowledge, do you also believe there were no Ten Commandment tablets (since we cannot produce them today)?

Post by Amos
The truth is that the *tomb*, or *cave*; the *garden* and *Golgotha* are ficticious necessities invented to portray the Hermetic process, and looking for them as real places will be as rewarding as searching for the Ark of the Covenant.

This is a Gnostic view: be aware a lot of gnostic writings were merely the product of meditation, something you claim to be arguing against!

Post by Amos
Gesthemene is the name of the garden, a term which was used centuries earlier by the Hermetic initiates to indicate the inner mind. Right in the beginning of Genesis, we read how Adam and Eve (early personifications of the Subconscious and the Conscious minds) were in the Garden of Eden - another locality that archaeologists will never discover in the physical world.

As explained in Henochian texts, a return to Eden is the salvation Christ was promising, and the intermediary stage is the Millennial Reign period, where again, as before the Deluge associated with Noah, people will have a lifespan of around a thousand years. Notice from Noah to Abraham the average lifespan is reducing with each subsequent generation until stabilizing around one hundred. Henoch explains that the odor from the trees in Eden must enter the bones of humans for this extensive lifespan, a step towards a new eternal life. Eden is an astral location currently being tended by a fleet of angels, until such time as the worthy are selected (the "good seed" of Adam); to be cast outside the gates is simply Hell – a place with rivers of fire illuminating a dark landscape full of demonically administered torments without relief.
You cannot locate Eden because it exists in another dimension: there must be a transitional period of at about 1000 years during which it can be affect people before it can be entered, or perceived as you wish. Mind you, when the worthy are having their long life, those deemed wicked will be somehow asleep or dormant instead, before awakening to their quite different destiny.

Post by Amos
Thus, Jesus's agony in the garden, was never a moral torment, but symbolises the effort of concentration required for successful meditation - and it follows that Gesthemene is the garden in which the mythical Jesus (Neophyte) will be finally crucified (undertake and finish the process).
Amos

My belief about Christ's Agony after research is that two paths for the future were possible at that point. The current Emperor Tiberias was ill, and had heard of the healer among the Jews; Tiberias was the grandfather of Pilate's wife, Procla, whose premonitory dream about the Crucifixion caused her to urge her husband to avoid the case. It is not inconceivable that clairvoyant Jesus knew of a courier from Rome whose arrival never became part of history, and that supplemental prayer from the core three Apostles at that critical time could have somehow allowed an intervention towards the more benign outcome.
As I explained in my post with the ebook excerpt, we have better evidence of the story of Christ than anything else in the entire Bible, since the historical account is perfectly synchronized with verifiable movements of celestial bodies in that timeframe, apparently recorded in the instances of the Nativity and Crucifixion without the authors being entirely aware of what was being implied.
Look up the line of totality of the 24 November 29 AD total solar eclipse, and try to tell yourself people in Jerusalem would have observed nothing unusual.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSEmap/0001-0100/29-11-24.gif
We may have the story of the Nativity because the Sanhedrin received supernatural reports and dispatched someone to investigate for the record.
Pilate was apparently recalled to Rome and beheaded for having presided over the execution of a living god. Nero, born after the Crucifixion era, blamed the Christians for having set fire to Rome, while he himself was the actual arsonist, seeking inspiration for a song he was composing for lyre about such an event.
There was a recent televised special about the time of Jesus while in India during the so-called "Lost Years" from age thirteen to thirty: a drawing was shown of the holy figure they called Saint Issau. The story is that Jesus spoke against the caste system and had to eventually flee.
The otherworldly was accepted as commonplace in these ancient times: one gospel speaks of an angel expected to periodically visit a pool, replenishing its healing powers.
What advantage would anyone have from nullifying the historical existence of Jesus, without having to even consider what name He would have actually been using (similar to Joshua [perhaps Yeshua], some had said surnamed "ben Pantera")? Most of the fundamentalists who invoke His name do so to actually enforce Hebrew Law from the Old Testament, which in many cases Jesus can be shown to oppose.
And why would the Roman Empire, which absorbed both conquered cultures and their deities into the Pantheon, invent a holy figure in an already subjugated region? Especially one who was clairvoyant and spoke in riddles, which even John Lennon in one of his final interviews claimed to be attempting to comprehend. Many statements by Jesus hold humanity to an incredibly high standard, others are simply mysterious by virtue of relating to apocalyptic prophecy.
Here a little personal story may be helpful. I determined how parts of Revelations have been coming true in our time long before posting on the internet, and disclosed some of my findings to a family member, who agreed my theory was plausible but urged me to "burn it." Later, I began having a recurrent dream where someone had me restrained, displayed a geometric representation of my family dynamics, and how they would realign once this unseen figure plucked out the family member. Then I was played a recording of the hysterical reaction when the news of the death arrived, which became real (every iota of the sounds of grieving voices) one awful morning. Precisely six months later, this late family member comes to me in a dream, urging me to sign an astral document since he 'could not rest' without it – after I did so, the spirit of my family member departed from me, leaning back as if finally able to recline in the grave. I would not make up a story like that. A child in my family who lived near the relative involved had also had recurring dreams before the sudden unexpected death, of a shadowy figure lurking around the door.
A related story about the late family member was that much earlier dabbling with a Ouija board in a group, they had gotten the message to continue the session outdoors; when they asked why, the reply came, "I' m afraid of Jesus" – the group received a collective chill when they realized there had been a crucifix in the room.
So getting true spiritual information is a gift which can either be used towards great reward, or rejected at one's peril.
Eagal

Indeed, the power of the Unconscious Mind has no bounds and is certainly a reality, but as the Gospel writers well knew, their stories are composed almost wholly of cunningly devised fables.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
Indeed, the power of the Unconscious Mind has no bounds and is
certainly a reality, but as the Gospel writers well knew, their
stories are composed almost wholly of cunningly devised fables.

Since you seem to be under the misguided impression that the
Roman Empire invented Christianity, maybe you can have the
intellectual honesty to answer a question Curtis Eagal asked
you:

[quoting Curtis Eagal] "And why would the Roman Empire, which
absorbed both conquered cultures and their deities into the
Pantheon, invent a holy figure in an already subjugated
region?" [end quote]

Please answer that question. If you're able. I'd really like to
try to understand your thinking on this.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
Not a single historian, who lived at the alleged time of Jesus,
or within 100 years of it, mentioned him, other than a supposed
account by Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which
is almost certainly an insertion by Eusebius of Caesarea, for
the purposes of giving credibility to the foundation of the
Christian religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. After
all, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until
the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

If the Roman Empire invented Christianity, why did they wait until
325 to do what you say they did? Why didn't they do it three
centuries earlier, which would have been the time you say they
invented the religion?

Post by Amos
Then there are the interpolations and forgeries within the later
works of Pliny the Younger and the historian Tacitus. However,
due to the efforts of modern science, these are now recognised
as forgeries by most secular scholars.

Since you think the Roman Empire invented the religion, why didn't
they just get those historians to write what they wanted them to
write at the time? Why did they wait until centuries later to
alter their work?

Post by Amos
Also, the belief that very little history was recorded, other
than the Gospels, at the alleged time of Jesus, couldn’t be
further from the truth.

Uh, I specifically made it about "that part of the Roman Empire"
in my post above, to which it seems you just referred. There is
very little documented history from that part of the Roman
Empire at that time.

Post by Amos
Listed below is just a sample of historians, many highly
reputed for their works. They all lived and wrote during the
time or within a century after the time that Jesus is said to
have lived, but none mentioned him.

Are you under the impression that Jesus was a known superstar
during the time he lived?

Post by Amos
Arrian, Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) Dion Pruseus, Pliny the
Elder, Pater Calus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran, Martial,
Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Lucian,
Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Quintilian, Forus Lucius,
Lucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Alulus
Geuius, Statius, Ptolemy, Columella, Diochry Sostom, Hermogones,
Lysias, Valerius Maxiimus, Cornelius, Titus Livius, Cluvius Rufus,
Publius Petronius (the Roman consul) who lived in Jerusalem.
All these heard nothing, not a word was written about Jesus.

What makes you think they should have taken note of Jesus? Oh,
and can you show me the works of Publius Petronius, and why you
think he should have written about Jesus?

Post by Amos
Then there are the Dead Sea scrolls, discovered in caves at
Khirbet Qumran, with many written around the alleged time of
Jesus by various Jewish groups. Yet not one of these scrolls
mentions Jesus, nor do they mention any of his followers
described in the New Testament.

Why would they? They were mainly copying Old Testament texts to
preserve them. The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed the accuracy
of Biblical texts that had relied on later copies. The group
that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls would have not have believed
Jesus was the Messiah, so what makes you think they should have
written about him?

Post by Amos
And what of the term ‘Christian’?
It was around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to
investigate the sects among the Jews, yet he mentions nothing
about there being a Christian sect, nor the use of the term.

Christians of that time still considered themselves Jews, so
there would have been no mention of "Christian" prior to 53 AD.

Post by Amos
He does however mention the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the
Essenes and a fourth sect of philosophy to whom Judas the
Galilean was author.
In fact, the term 'Christian' was not even in use during the
reign of Nero

Isn't that odd, since you told me it was the Roman Empire who
invented Christianity? Why wouldn't they use the name they
invented?

Post by Amos
and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are
speaking of Jews.

Go ahead and narrow it down to Nero if you'd like, but there
were two more centuries of Roman persecution of Christians
before 325 AD. Do you care to address that, and explain why
the Roman Empire would persecute a religion they supposedly
invented?

Post by Amos
The label 'Christian' itself only appears in the 2nd
century book of Acts – with the story that the term 'began
in Antioch' (11.26).

And how were Christians being treated by the Roman Empire in
the 2nd century?

Post by Amos
And the idea that emerging ‘Christianity’ immediately faced
persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an
utter nonsense. For one thing, it was only much later towards
the end of the first century, after the Great Jewish revolt,
(AD 66-70) that the so called Christ-followers emerged as a
separate faction from mainstream Judaism.

Whatever. You're still ignoring the 2nd and 3rd (and into the
4th) century of Roman persecution of the religion you say they
invented.

Post by Amos
So, are there clues left by the Gospel writers that Jesus was
created to exist only inside our heads?
Absolutely!
Luke: And when they came to the place which is called The Skull,
there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and
one on the left.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Post by Amos
After all, with a lot of Faith, the singularity that is the
Unconscious Mind, the most powerful force in the Universe,
can move mountains for you. All you need to do is close your
eyes and pray from the depths of your heart and the hermetic
process will begin.
http://youtu.be/2UgO8fAJVVM
http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English/DrillDown/Tacitus.htm
http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-jesus-myth-tacitus/

You may (or may not) have noticed that I gave you the University
of Southern California and the BBC as sources (above in my
previous posts), while you give me some guy in his basement
and a couple of blogs written by who knows what?

[Curtis Eagal]

Post by Amos
***Snipped for brevity***

Post by Steven Douglas
I am not aware that Jews were given classifications for what type
of Jews they were. Do you have some documentation of that?

http://www.oneforisrael.org/index.php/blog/81-messianic-judaism
Quote
***
Messianic Jews came under attack from both Jews and Christians. Although the Jews originally viewed them as a sect of Judaism, they were rejected by the Jewish establishment after the Bar Kochba revolt against the Romans (132-135 AD). When that revolt began, the Messianic Jews supported it, but when Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba to be the Messiah, the Messianic Jews withdrew from the struggle. The result was that after the revolt was crushed, the surviving Jews branded the Messianics as deserters and traitors, and they were thereafter treated as outcasts.
***
Anyway, you need to ignore both the primary and secondary biblical sources, since it is these sources that are being questioned - to not do so would be circular reasoning.
So let's start with the fact that not a single historian, who lived at the alleged time of Jesus, or within 100 years of it, mentioned Jesus, other than a supposed account by Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which is almost certainly an insertion by Eusebius of Caesarea, for the purposes of giving credibility to the foundation of the Christian religion at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
So by extension, do we have non-biblical proof that the Roman term 'Christian' was exclusively used to describe the followers of a man called Jesus and not any of the other Messianic sects prevalent at the time?
I suspect not and also suspect that the term 'Christian' only became exclusively used to describe the followers of Jesus at a later date.
Amos

Perhaps a couple of paragraphs from my commentary on Revelations would be helpful here. Despite the ultimate topic being determining a credible comprehensive end-times scenario, early on I dealt with the issue of reconciling biblical text information with astronomical data towards establishing the veracity of the Jesus story. This evidence is quite complex and focuses on elements that were quite beyond Roman intervention.

{Excerpt from "The First Twelve" - prologue edition:}

Attempts to reconcile archaeological evidence with scripture sometimes seem fraught or desperate. There was a hoax about a NASA computer calculating a retrograde Sun circa 1024 BCE, to coincide with Joshua's 'lengthened day' during battle. A Sumerian tablet recording a meteor bore astronomical indications this occurred 29 June 3123 BCE: it was determined this meteor struck Austria, exploding just before impact: yet it was further postulated its low-angled trajectory potentially caused the rain of lethal fire upon the doomed Middle Eastern villages of Sodom and Gomorrah – except that would be over a thousand years earlier than contemporary Abraham is figured to have lived. Another 'great discovery' was associating the total solar eclipse on 19 March of year 33 with the Crucifixion, having several problems: that eclipse was definitely not visible in the Middle East – its central point of totality was south of Madagascar (maximal path not striking mainland); and if the Hebrews were on their proper lunar calendar, the Passover would have been the time of a Full Moon, when only a lunar eclipse is possible. The actual 'Crucifixion Eclipse' obviously took place on 24 November in year 29, quite visible in Jerusalem since its maximum was in Saudi Arabia (near the current capital of Riyadh): the line of totality beginning in the North Sea included what would become the German-Polish border (flashpoint of the Second World War), western Romania, Turkey, Syria, the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, curving out from the Arabian peninsula towards central India, into northern Bangladesh, and ending not very far into China. This November date was not in the proper month for Passover because as a Roman territory, occupied countries had their calendars antedated to render the Emperor's birthday the commencement of the year; Romans had deviated from the lunar calendar by the time of Christ. Thus when Pilate announced it was the time of the Jewish feast there was an irony in that Roman custom and caprice was influencing how the Passover date was derived rather than Hebrew tradition. Atheists and other detractors can deliberately obscure truth through misapplication or misrepresentation of science, as when instead of doing carbon-dating tests on three different sections of the Shroud of Turin, only the portion known to be have been added after damage from a Medieval-era fire was analyzed three times, with the biased researchers ignoring historical data about the herringbone fabric type, identifying marks in earlier artistic depictions of the artifact, spore analysis tracing it to the Middle East (including spores of Gundelia Tournefortii, a plant that produces formidable thorns, suitable for fashioning into a crown for torture of the condemned). Medieval artists (during the derived period of 1260-1390), not yet having been introduced to the Renaissance's resurgence of Greek physical ideals, were unlikely to create anatomically convincing depictions, though the Shroud shows wounds in the wrists, where the nails had to be for support (not the palms, as was common in artwork); the Shroud image is not pigment, but results from a mysterious three-dimensional radiation effect on the surface of cloth fibers; incidental blood is present, with a high bilirubin content, indicating extreme trauma (difficult to believe authenticity on that level was sought by a Medieval hoaxer); images of coins placed over the eyes have been identified – over the right eye the Shroud image matches a coin called a lepton from the era of Pontius Pilate (which could have been the same as the "widow's mite"), over the left there is congruency with what has been called Pilate's "Julia Lepton," minted only in 29 A.D.; and when photography was invented, a clear negative image emerged that no one prior to the new technology could have designed in anticipation of it being discovered later.

The best date for the Nativity (in the summer, when shepherds oversaw grazing flocks) is circa 6 BCE. The astronomical events which would have induced the Magi to expect a Divine King to be born among the Hebrews involved Jupiter, as the 'star' denoting kingship, and the sign of Aries, associated with the Jews. When Jupiter in Aries was occulted (eclipsed) by the Moon on 17 April in 6 BCE, this otherwise common incident was given significance since 'Jupiter in the East' (i.e., at the Ascendant) was an auspicious time for coronations (thus Jupiter and the Moon had visually conjoined 'in the East' on 17 April), and it manifested a doubled occultation, since a similar event had occurred a month prior on 20 March when Jupiter was in Pisces; the Sun was also in the first sign Aries, enhancing the exaltation symbolism. The Magi inquired of King Herod, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him" (Matt. 2:2). This startled the royal court in Jerusalem, so Herod had a private meeting with them: "Then Herod, when he had secretly called the Wise Men, determined from them what time the star appeared" (Matt. 2:7) – Herod was interested in learning about the exact timing of the 17 April condition because the Magi were convinced it marked the actual birthdate of Christ. Of course Herod's concern was in estimating the general age of the child, so he could instruct his soldiers towards eliminating an unwelcome threat to his station. The Wise Men had already publicly declared the birthplace was Bethlehem, a suburb about five miles south of Herod's palace in Jerusalem: the Magi paraphrased Micah 5:2 to Herod, "But you, Bethlehem Ephrata, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings are from of old, from everlasting." Literally meaning "House of Bread," the Bethlehem birthplace probably related to Jesus saying, "I am the bread that came down from heaven" (John 6:41). Herod sent the Magi to find the Christ Child in Bethlehem, planning to force them to reveal His precise location upon their return. But after their departure from Herod's court, the Magi observed the heavens again, realizing something that confirmed their belief the prophecy had been fulfilled: at the beginning of August, the 'regal star' Jupiter began to undergo retrograde motion, reversing after having slowed to a standstill in late July; it would slowly resume moving forward again in late December, ending the gradual backwards shift of about five degrees. The discovery of Jupiter's retrograde motion at that time was cause for enthusiastic celebration amongst the Magi, who tried to explain to less technically advanced people that the critical star (Jupiter) seemed to be halted in the heavens, in symbolic celestial adoration of the Kingly Child they had yet to actually find. The traditional account thus became recorded, "The star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy" (Matt. 2:9,10). A warning from a dream saved the Magi from a tragic return to Herod, after presenting their gifts to Infant Jesus, whose existence ultimately justified their faith; discovering the Magi had deceived him by evading his treachery, Herod resorted to commanding the death of all male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem – the Slaughter of the Innocents is usually religiously commemorated around 29 December (the actual date is unknown). Herod is thought to have died circa 4 BCE, from one account shortly after a lunar eclipse: the most dramatic lunar eclipse visible in the Middle East during that period would have been the total lunar eclipse on 15 September 5 BCE, whose maximum point was east of Africa, south of Oman (a prior total lunar eclipse on 23 March 5 BCE had the Middle East receiving a diminished view, since it was maximized for the more eastern regions of India and China).

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008YRI8NW

[Michael]

Find all interveiews of Glen Kimball ( not a huge fan of his other works, but on Jesus, he had a partner, he is from Harvard University, OK. Ancient manuscrips feild.

He has sources, Roman, other than the Bible that reference Jesus personally, and these sources exist today in archives.
The Jesus was an invention theme goes back 2000 years and it has never been proven, there does not exist any docs stating this, so what is your point and agressive idiocy?

Post by Amos

Post by Michael

Post by Amos
http://www.covertmessiah.com/
It is of course something I have known about for many years. The presentation of Jesus in the gospel stories as a living, historic entity was never meant to be read literally.
The gospel writers simply personified the messianic subconscious mind into a character called Jesus, like in a play. After all, God is simply the personification of the most powerful force in the Universe - The singularity that is the Unconscious Mind.
Amos

Rubbish. The Romans's invented CHRIST only because it was a code-word to imply
this or that person needs to be killed. This is common knowledge to Christian scholars. So there is no suprise, only delinquincy on the part of the covert crowd.
Jesus never called himself' 'the Christ.' Get it? The Romans' did!
Most scholars already debunked the peeps u are promoting in covert... website.
Paul was originally a Romam agent, so he was familar with these terms, already in use -- but that does not mean he made it up.
Meanwhile the left wants all references to God out of every private home, and this reflects the Bible's teachings toward the apok -- so the Bible, yet wins again. Tant pis.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm
Amos

[Saint Isidore - Patron Saint of the Internet]

Post by Amos
http://www.covertmessiah.com/
It is of course something I have known about for many years. The presentation of Jesus in the gospel stories as a living, historic entity was never meant to be read literally.
The gospel writers simply personified the messianic subconscious mind into a character called Jesus, like in a play. After all, God is simply the personification of the most powerful force in the Universe - The singularity that is the Unconscious Mind.
Amos

Christianity is a 2000 year old plus driving force based on one human being that can't even be proven to ever have been real.

Tom

[Amos]

Post by Saint Isidore - Patron Saint of the Internet

Post by Amos
http://www.covertmessiah.com/
It is of course something I have known about for many years. The presentation of Jesus in the gospel stories as a living, historic entity was never meant to be read literally.
The gospel writers simply personified the messianic subconscious mind into a character called Jesus, like in a play. After all, God is simply the personification of the most powerful force in the Universe - The singularity that is the Unconscious Mind.
Amos

Christianity is a 2000 year old plus driving force based on one human being that can't even be proven to ever have been real.
Tom

Precisely! And you cannot prove the existence of someone who never in fact existed, unless you have resorted to fraud.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Saint Isidore - Patron Saint of the Internet

Post by Saint Isidore - Patron Saint of the Internet
Christianity is a 2000 year old plus driving force based on one

human being that can't even be proven to ever have been real.
Precisely! And you cannot prove the existence of someone who never
in fact existed, unless you have resorted to fraud.

Congratulations on successfully preaching to the choir. You have
convinced someone who already agrees with you, but you haven't
convinced me of anything.

[Saint Isidore - Patron Saint of the Internet]

Post by Amos
http://www.covertmessiah.com/
It is of course something I have known about for many years. The presentation of Jesus in the gospel stories as a living, historic entity was never meant to be read literally.
The gospel writers simply personified the messianic subconscious mind into a character called Jesus, like in a play. After all, God is simply the personification of the most powerful force in the Universe - The singularity that is the Unconscious Mind.
Amos

Who holds the patent on this invention?

[Amos]

Flavius Josephus - The inspiration behind the Jesus myth.

The Messiah that never was shall become a *myth to the world*.

To begin seeing the satire within the Gospel stories one has only to understand the Jewish tradition of roasting a lamb at Passover and the story of a mother’s sacrifice at Jerusalem during the Great Jewish Revolt, as told by Flavius Josephus.


John 6:53 - 56
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.


From the War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)

*********
There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the house of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this woman had been already seized upon, such I mean as she had brought with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into her house for that purpose.

This put the poor woman into a very great passion , and by the frequent reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food, while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in. She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight, when she said to them, "This is mine own son, and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice , as I have eaten the one half, let the rest be reserved for me also." After which those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother. Upon which the whole city was full of this horrid action immediately; and while everybody laid this miserable case before their own eyes, they trembled, as if this unheard of action had been done by themselves. So those that were thus distressed by the famine were very desirous to die, and those already dead were esteemed happy, because they had not lived long enough either to hear or to see such miseries.
***********

Perhaps some of you will even begin to appreciate the supreme irony of Peter (another mythical character) when he avers to being an eye witness to the transfiguration of Jesus:

2 Peter 1.16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

After all, the Romans not only invented satire, but were very good at it!

There is so much more of this, it is quite incredible!!

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
Flavius Josephus - The inspiration behind the Jesus myth.
The Messiah that never was shall become a *myth to the world*.
To begin seeing the satire within the Gospel stories one has only
to understand the Jewish tradition of roasting a lamb at Passover
and the story of a mother’s sacrifice at Jerusalem during the Great
Jewish Revolt, as told by Flavius Josephus.
John 6:53 - 56
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my
flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Are you under the impression that the disciples actually cooked and
ate the body of Jesus? And drank his blood?

Post by Amos
From the War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
*********
There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary;
her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the
house of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and
had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was
with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this
woman had been already seized upon, such I mean as she had brought
with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured
up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also
carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into
her house for that purpose.
This put the poor woman into a very great passion , and by the frequent
reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she
had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out
of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of
commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found
any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself;
and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food,
while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also
her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she
consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in.
She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who
was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for
whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As
to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves.
This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us.
Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on;
be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth
to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities
of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then
roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her
concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the
horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her

<snip>

What does any of this have to do with Jesus?

Post by Amos
Perhaps some of you will even begin to appreciate the supreme irony of
Peter (another mythical character) when he avers to being an eye witness
2 Peter 1.16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known
unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were
eyewitnesses of his majesty.
After all, the Romans not only invented satire, but were very good at it!

Uh, Peter said the did NOT follow cunningly devised fables. There
must have been people of the time who accused the disciples of
having created cunningly devised fables. I'm not sure what point
you think you've made with this. Maybe you can explain it.

Post by Amos
There is so much more of this, it is quite incredible!!

Yes, you certainly are full of it.

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Flavius Josephus - The inspiration behind the Jesus myth.
The Messiah that never was shall become a *myth to the world*.
To begin seeing the satire within the Gospel stories one has only
to understand the Jewish tradition of roasting a lamb at Passover
and the story of a mother’s sacrifice at Jerusalem during the Great
Jewish Revolt, as told by Flavius Josephus.
John 6:53 - 56
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my
flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Are you under the impression that the disciples actually cooked and
ate the body of Jesus? And drank his blood?

If there was no Jesus, then by extension there were no disciples! Get it!! So why would I be saying that the disciples cooked and ate the body of Jesus?

The Gospels were simply a satirical account of the experience and events of the Great Jewish Revolt. Pro-Roman, but anti-semitic in nature. Rather than accept the Roman Emperor Caesar as their Son of God (Messiah), the messianic Jews resorted to cannibalism followed by mass suicide.

So basically, by satirizing the events of the Jewish Revolt, the Romans invented a passive version of the Sicarii in the form of Christianity - So in some way it could be said that the *pig-headed* Sicarri (Matthew 8:31) received their just desserts.

****
Severus, Sacred History, Book II/Chapter 30
The Jews, meanwhile, being closely besieged, as no chance either of peace or surrender was allowed them, were at length perishing from famine, and the streets began everywhere to be filled with dead bodies, for the duty of burying them could no longer be performed. Moreover, they ventured on eating all things of the most abominable nature, and did not even abstain from human bodies, except those which putrefaction had already laid hold of and thus excluded from use as food.     
****

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
From the War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
*********
There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary;
her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the
house of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and
had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was
with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this
woman had been already seized upon, such I mean as she had brought
with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured
up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also
carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into
her house for that purpose.
This put the poor woman into a very great passion , and by the frequent
reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she
had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out
of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of
commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found
any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself;
and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food,
while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also
her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she
consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in.
She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who
was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for
whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As
to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves.
This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us.
Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on;
be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth
to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities
of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then
roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her
concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the
horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her

<snip>
What does any of this have to do with Jesus?

Post by Amos
Perhaps some of you will even begin to appreciate the supreme irony of
Peter (another mythical character) when he avers to being an eye witness
2 Peter 1.16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known
unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were
eyewitnesses of his majesty.
After all, the Romans not only invented satire, but were very good at it!

Uh, Peter said the did NOT follow cunningly devised fables. There
must have been people of the time who accused the disciples of
having created cunningly devised fables. I'm not sure what point
you think you've made with this. Maybe you can explain it.

SATIRE!!

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
There is so much more of this, it is quite incredible!!

Yes, you certainly are full of it.

On the contrary, it is not I who is full of it. It is the Gospel stories!

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Flavius Josephus - The inspiration behind the Jesus myth.
The Messiah that never was shall become a *myth to the world*.
To begin seeing the satire within the Gospel stories one has only
to understand the Jewish tradition of roasting a lamb at Passover
and the story of a mother’s sacrifice at Jerusalem during the Great
Jewish Revolt, as told by Flavius Josephus.
John 6:53 - 56
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my
flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Are you under the impression that the disciples actually cooked and
ate the body of Jesus? And drank his blood?

If there was no Jesus, then by extension there were no disciples!
Get it!! So why would I be saying that the disciples cooked and
ate the body of Jesus?

I'm wondering why you're talking at all about someone in which
you have no belief. But you refuse to say.

Post by Amos
The Gospels were simply a satirical account of the experience
and events of the Great Jewish Revolt. Pro-Roman, but

anti-semitic in nature. Rather than accept the Roman Emperor
Caesar as their Son of God (Messiah), the messianic Jews
resorted to cannibalism followed by mass suicide.

But there is nothing in the Gospels about cannibalism, which
is why I asked you the question I asked above -- and you did
not answer.

Post by Amos
So basically, by satirizing the events of the Jewish Revolt,
the Romans invented a passive version of the Sicarii in the
form of Christianity -

And yet again, there is a question you have refused to answer.
Curtis Eagal asked you (and I repeated it after you failed to
answer it the first time), ""And why would the Roman Empire,
which absorbed both conquered cultures and their deities into
the Pantheon, invent a holy figure in an already subjugated
region?"

Why are you having such difficulty with this?

Post by Amos
So in some way it could be said that
the *pig-headed* Sicarri (Matthew 8:31) received their just
desserts.
****
Severus, Sacred History, Book II/Chapter 30
The Jews, meanwhile, being closely besieged, as no chance either
of peace or surrender was allowed them, were at length perishing
from famine, and the streets began everywhere to be filled with
dead bodies, for the duty of burying them could no longer be
performed. Moreover, they ventured on eating all things of the
most abominable nature, and did not even abstain from human bodies,
except those which putrefaction had already laid hold of and thus
excluded from use as food.     

What does any of this have to do with the Gospels? Please explain
it if you're able. If you're not able, I'm sure you'll just
ignore the question. You've shown yourself to be very good at
ignoring questions for which you have no answers.

Post by Amos
****

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
From the War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
*********
There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary;
her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the
house of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and
had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was
with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this
woman had been already seized upon, such I mean as she had brought
with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured
up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also
carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into
her house for that purpose.
This put the poor woman into a very great passion , and by the frequent
reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she
had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out
of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of
commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found
any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself;
and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food,
while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also
her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she
consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in.
She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who
was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for
whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As
to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves.
This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us.
Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on;
be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth
to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities
of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then
roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her
concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the
horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her

<snip>
What does any of this have to do with Jesus?

Of course you have no answer. Why is that? Do you have any
idea what you're talking about, or are you just parroting
things you've read, with no real comprehension?

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Perhaps some of you will even begin to appreciate the supreme irony of
Peter (another mythical character) when he avers to being an eye witness
2 Peter 1.16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known
unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were
eyewitnesses of his majesty.
After all, the Romans not only invented satire, but were very good at it!

Uh, Peter said the did NOT follow cunningly devised fables. There
must have been people of the time who accused the disciples of
having created cunningly devised fables. I'm not sure what point
you think you've made with this. Maybe you can explain it.

SATIRE!!

The only satire I see is in your laughable conclusions.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
There is so much more of this, it is quite incredible!!

Yes, you certainly are full of it.

On the contrary, it is not I who is full of it. It is the Gospel stories!

You'll have to do a lot better than you've done if you want to
convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. But I don't
think you're capable of doing better, because it appears that you
really don't understand the arguments you're trying to make.

[Amos]

What you choose to believe is your prerogative not mine. If like many a child, a belief in Father Christmas is important for your moral behaviour and mindset, then please continue to do so.

The treasure (the myth of Jesus) was buried at Golgotha - the place of the skull (the garden that is the subconscious mind) – X marks the spot!

John 8:23
And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

A Myth to the World

Rome had a long tradition of absorbing the religions of its opponents. This enabled them to neutralize their enemy’s religion by making it their own. However, Judaism, which was based upon monotheism and faith, would not permit its God to be just one among many, and so the Jews rebelled against their conquerors.

However, having put down the initial Jewish revolt, the Romans still faced a potential threat from the Zealots and the Sicarii (militant messianic cults), as deeply impressed upon their subconscious minds was the belief that their God would send a Messiah, a son of David, who would lead them against their enemies. Therefore in order to infiltrate this rebellious mindset the Romans employed a group of Hermetic ghost writers to invent a Messiah who would predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the son of god (Titus as son of the roman emperor Vespasian).

They accomplished this elaborate ruse by writing the four Gospel stories, a satirical retelling of the ‘History of the Destruction of Jerusalem’ by Flavius Josephus. Part of the ruse was to give the name Mary (Heb: Rebellion) to all of the female rebels, in order to conceal the fact that the sole Mary in the ‘History of the Destruction of Jerusalem’, whose son’s flesh was eaten as a Passover lamb, so that the rebels may live, was central to the story.

John 6:53-55
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

The War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
"O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews."

A cruel joke no doubt enjoyed by the Flavians and their inner circle.

Indeed, Titus Flavius was the only individual in history to have fulfilled the prophecies of this mythical Jesus. He came to Jerusalem within a generation of the crucifixion, encircled Jerusalem with a wall, and had the temple completely demolished.

Matthew 24:2-5
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and they will lead many astray.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
What you choose to believe is your prerogative not mine.

Yes, I know, but you're making an effort here to change minds,
but your case is weak.

Post by Amos
If like many a child, a belief in Father Christmas is
important for your moral behaviour and mindset, then please
continue to do so.

How interesting that you feel the need to insult two billion
Christians. It's all right, though, because Jesus told all
two billion of us that we should be like a child in our hearts.
This does not mean we're to be childish, but child-like in our
hearts.

Post by Amos
The treasure (the myth of Jesus) was buried at Golgotha - the
place of the skull (the garden that is the subconscious mind) –
X marks the spot!
John 8:23
And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You
are of this world; I am not of this world.

It becomes even more clear that you have no idea what you're
talking about.

Post by Amos
A Myth to the World
Rome had a long tradition of absorbing the religions of its
opponents. This enabled them to neutralize their enemy’s
religion by making it their own. However, Judaism, which was
based upon monotheism and faith, would not permit its God to
be just one among many, and so the Jews rebelled against
their conquerors.
However, having put down the initial Jewish revolt, the Romans
still faced a potential threat from the Zealots and the Sicarii
(militant messianic cults), as deeply impressed upon their
subconscious minds was the belief that their God would send a
Messiah, a son of David, who would lead them against their
enemies. Therefore in order to infiltrate this rebellious
mindset the Romans employed a group of Hermetic ghost writers
to invent a Messiah who would predict the destruction of
Jerusalem and the coming of the son of god (Titus as son of
the roman emperor Vespasian).
They accomplished this elaborate ruse by writing the four
Gospel stories, a satirical retelling of the ‘History of the
Destruction of Jerusalem’ by Flavius Josephus. Part of the
ruse was to give the name Mary (Heb: Rebellion) to all of
the female rebels, in order to conceal the fact that the sole
Mary in the ‘History of the Destruction of Jerusalem’, whose
son’s flesh was eaten as a Passover lamb, so that the rebels
may live, was central to the story.

Except there is nothing in the Gospels that says anyone ate
the actual flesh of Jesus. Just another example of your utter
lack of knowledge on a topic in which you're trying to appear
knowledgeable.

Post by Amos
John 6:53-55
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks
my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the
last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true
drink.

And then he gave them bread and wine, and told them to eat
that. Who are you trying to kid? The only people who will
believe your BS are people who are as ignorant of the Bible
as you are.

Post by Amos
The War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
"O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee
in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war
with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be
slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that
slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more
terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and
be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth to the
world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the
calamities of us Jews."
A cruel joke no doubt enjoyed by the Flavians and their
inner circle.

You show the words of a woman quoted by Josephus, but present
them here as his own words. That's either dishonest of you, or
yet another example that you have no idea what you're talking
about. I don't believe you're dishonest, but I do believe
you're ignorant of the topic you're doing your best (but
failing miserably) to present here.

Post by Amos
Indeed, Titus Flavius was the only individual in history to
have fulfilled the prophecies of this mythical Jesus. He came
to Jerusalem within a generation of the crucifixion, encircled
Jerusalem with a wall, and had the temple completely demolished.
Matthew 24:2-5
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples
came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he
answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to
you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that
will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives,
the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when
will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming
and of the close of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See
that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name,
saying, “I am the Christ,” and they will lead many astray.

What's your point in citing this particular scripture?

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
What you choose to believe is your prerogative not mine.

Yes, I know, but you're making an effort here to change minds,
but your case is weak.

Says you!

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
If like many a child, a belief in Father Christmas is
important for your moral behaviour and mindset, then please
continue to do so.

How interesting that you feel the need to insult two billion
Christians. It's all right, though, because Jesus told all
two billion of us that we should be like a child in our hearts.
This does not mean we're to be childish, but child-like in our
hearts.

Precisely! The purity of a child’s mind makes them the perfect receptacle for the Roman deception. So unless you become like a child and cleanse your mind of all fixed belief constructs, you cannot enter this Never-Never land.

But in all seriousness it was one of the many literary devices used by the Romans to change the fixed and uncompromising mindset of the Jewish Zealots of the time. The kingdom of course was not of this world (real), because it was an imaginary place in the subconscious.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
The treasure (the myth of Jesus) was buried at Golgotha - the
place of the skull (the garden that is the subconscious mind) –
X marks the spot!
John 8:23
And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You
are of this world; I am not of this world.

It becomes even more clear that you have no idea what you're
talking about.

On the contrary, you can only say this because you appear to have no understanding of how satire works.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
A Myth to the World
Rome had a long tradition of absorbing the religions of its
opponents. This enabled them to neutralize their enemy’s
religion by making it their own. However, Judaism, which was
based upon monotheism and faith, would not permit its God to
be just one among many, and so the Jews rebelled against
their conquerors.
However, having put down the initial Jewish revolt, the Romans
still faced a potential threat from the Zealots and the Sicarii
(militant messianic cults), as deeply impressed upon their
subconscious minds was the belief that their God would send a
Messiah, a son of David, who would lead them against their
enemies. Therefore in order to infiltrate this rebellious
mindset the Romans employed a group of Hermetic ghost writers
to invent a Messiah who would predict the destruction of
Jerusalem and the coming of the son of god (Titus as son of
the roman emperor Vespasian).
They accomplished this elaborate ruse by writing the four
Gospel stories, a satirical retelling of the ‘History of the
Destruction of Jerusalem’ by Flavius Josephus. Part of the
ruse was to give the name Mary (Heb: Rebellion) to all of
the female rebels, in order to conceal the fact that the sole
Mary in the ‘History of the Destruction of Jerusalem’, whose
son’s flesh was eaten as a Passover lamb, so that the rebels
may live, was central to the story.

Except there is nothing in the Gospels that says anyone ate
the actual flesh of Jesus. Just another example of your utter
lack of knowledge on a topic in which you're trying to appear
knowledgeable.

The Gospel stories are a parody of the Great Jewish War (66 – 73CE), a time when cannibalism was rife within the besieged walls of Jerusalem. That is why the following statement in John 6:63-56 was satirizing the Jewish uprising and the destruction of Jerusalem and promoting anti-Semitism: -

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
John 6:53-55
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks
my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the
last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true
drink.

And then he gave them bread and wine, and told them to eat
that. Who are you trying to kid? The only people who will
believe your BS are people who are as ignorant of the Bible
as you are.

No his flesh he called bread and his blood he called wine. Here the Gospel story writers were satirizing the grim “feast” of the starving Passover celebrants who were trapped inside Jerusalem.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
The War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
"O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee
in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war
with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be
slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that
slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more
terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and
be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth to the
world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the
calamities of us Jews."
A cruel joke no doubt enjoyed by the Flavians and their
inner circle.

You show the words of a woman quoted by Josephus, but present
them here as his own words. That's either dishonest of you, or
yet another example that you have no idea what you're talking
about. I don't believe you're dishonest, but I do believe
you're ignorant of the topic you're doing your best (but
failing miserably) to present here.

Believe what you want to believe – It concerns me not..

I present the words of Mary as recorded by Josephus and demonstrate the satire within the Gospel story. What Josephus records in history as having come to pass, the mythical Jesus, son of Mary predicts in the Gospels.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Indeed, Titus Flavius was the only individual in history to
have fulfilled the prophecies of this mythical Jesus. He came
to Jerusalem within a generation of the crucifixion, encircled
Jerusalem with a wall, and had the temple completely demolished.
Matthew 24:2-5
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples
came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he
answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to
you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that
will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives,
the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when
will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming
and of the close of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See
that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name,
saying, “I am the Christ,” and they will lead many astray.

What's your point in citing this particular scripture?

There is no point in explaining this to you. The Gospel story was designed as an intelligence test when read in conjunction with Josephus’ War of the Jews. You are obviously not up to the task, so must remain a Christian for the time being.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
What you choose to believe is your prerogative not mine.

Yes, I know, but you're making an effort here to change minds,
but your case is weak.

Says you!

Actually, your case is a joke.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
If like many a child, a belief in Father Christmas is
important for your moral behaviour and mindset, then please
continue to do so.

How interesting that you feel the need to insult two billion
Christians. It's all right, though, because Jesus told all
two billion of us that we should be like a child in our hearts.
This does not mean we're to be childish, but child-like in our
hearts.

Precisely! The purity of a child’s mind makes them the
perfect receptacle for the Roman deception. So unless you
become like a child and cleanse your mind of all fixed
belief constructs, you cannot enter this Never-Never land.

That's not what he meant.

Post by Amos
But in all seriousness it was one of the many literary
devices used by the Romans to change the fixed and
uncompromising mindset of the Jewish Zealots of the time.
The kingdom of course was not of this world (real), because
it was an imaginary place in the subconscious.

That's not it, either.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
The treasure (the myth of Jesus) was buried at Golgotha - the
place of the skull (the garden that is the subconscious mind) –
X marks the spot!
John 8:23
And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You
are of this world; I am not of this world.

It becomes even more clear that you have no idea what you're
talking about.

On the contrary, you can only say this because you appear to
have no understanding of how satire works.

No, I say it because you have no understanding of what Jesus
meant when he said he is not of this world. You're making an
effort to put it in an entirely different context, which is
an example of why your case is weak.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
A Myth to the World
Rome had a long tradition of absorbing the religions of its
opponents. This enabled them to neutralize their enemy’s
religion by making it their own. However, Judaism, which was
based upon monotheism and faith, would not permit its God to
be just one among many, and so the Jews rebelled against
their conquerors.
However, having put down the initial Jewish revolt, the Romans
still faced a potential threat from the Zealots and the Sicarii
(militant messianic cults), as deeply impressed upon their
subconscious minds was the belief that their God would send a
Messiah, a son of David, who would lead them against their
enemies. Therefore in order to infiltrate this rebellious
mindset the Romans employed a group of Hermetic ghost writers
to invent a Messiah who would predict the destruction of
Jerusalem and the coming of the son of god (Titus as son of
the roman emperor Vespasian).
They accomplished this elaborate ruse by writing the four
Gospel stories, a satirical retelling of the ‘History of the
Destruction of Jerusalem’ by Flavius Josephus. Part of the
ruse was to give the name Mary (Heb: Rebellion) to all of
the female rebels, in order to conceal the fact that the sole
Mary in the ‘History of the Destruction of Jerusalem’, whose
son’s flesh was eaten as a Passover lamb, so that the rebels
may live, was central to the story.

Except there is nothing in the Gospels that says anyone ate
the actual flesh of Jesus. Just another example of your utter
lack of knowledge on a topic in which you're trying to appear
knowledgeable.

The Gospel stories are a parody of the Great Jewish War
(66 – 73CE), a time when cannibalism was rife within the
besieged walls of Jerusalem.

There is no cannibalism in the Gospels. This is why I keep
telling you that you don't even understand the arguments
you're trying to make. You seem to be under the mistaken
impression that there is cannibalism in the Gospels, and
there isn't.

Post by Amos
That is why the following statement in John 6:63-56 was
satirizing the Jewish uprising and the destruction of
Jerusalem and promoting anti-Semitism: -
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

And then, as the Gospels say of the Last Supper, he gave
them bread and wine to eat in remembrance of him. They did
not actually eat his flesh, do you understand that? Or not?
It appears not.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
John 6:53-55
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks
my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the
last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true
drink.

And then he gave them bread and wine, and told them to eat
that. Who are you trying to kid? The only people who will
believe your BS are people who are as ignorant of the Bible
as you are.

No his flesh he called bread and his blood he called wine.

Yes, but it was bread and wine. There was no cannibalism at
the Last Supper. Do you understand that? Or not? It appears
not.

Post by Amos
Here the Gospel story writers were satirizing the grim
“feast” of the starving Passover celebrants who were
trapped inside Jerusalem.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
The War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
"O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee
in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war
with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be
slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that
slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more
terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and
be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth to the
world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the
calamities of us Jews."
A cruel joke no doubt enjoyed by the Flavians and their
inner circle.

You show the words of a woman quoted by Josephus, but present
them here as his own words. That's either dishonest of you, or
yet another example that you have no idea what you're talking
about. I don't believe you're dishonest, but I do believe
you're ignorant of the topic you're doing your best (but
failing miserably) to present here.

Believe what you want to believe – It concerns me not..

Then who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

Post by Amos
I present the words of Mary as recorded by Josephus and
demonstrate the satire within the Gospel story.

The Mary quoted by Josephus has nothing to do with the virgin
Mary. The Mary quoted by Josephus actually ate her baby. The
virgin Mary did not. Nor did anyone else.

Post by Amos
What Josephus records in history as having come to pass,
the mythical Jesus, son of Mary predicts in the Gospels.

What Josephus recorded in that quote has nothing to do with
Jesus.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Indeed, Titus Flavius was the only individual in history to
have fulfilled the prophecies of this mythical Jesus. He came
to Jerusalem within a generation of the crucifixion, encircled
Jerusalem with a wall, and had the temple completely demolished.
Matthew 24:2-5
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples
came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he
answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to
you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that
will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives,
the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when
will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming
and of the close of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See
that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name,
saying, “I am the Christ,” and they will lead many astray.

What's your point in citing this particular scripture?

There is no point in explaining this to you.

It's more that you're unable to explain it, because you're
cutting and pasting arguments on a topic for which you
have very little understanding.

Post by Amos
The Gospel story was designed as an intelligence test
when read in conjunction with Josephus’ War of the Jews.

No, those are two distinct and different things.

Post by Amos
You are obviously not up to the task, so must remain a
Christian for the time being.

Which gives me the idea that you expect me to not be a
Christian at some point in the future. What do you have
against the Christian philosophy? Would you prefer that
Christians were more like Muslims? Or atheists (such as
the atheistic society that was imposed on the Soviet
Union, for example)?

[Michael]

Post by Steven Douglas
You show the words of a woman quoted by Josephus, but present
them here as his own words. That's either dishonest of you, or
yet another example that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

I'm confused too, I have no idea what he is trying to say.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Michael

Post by Steven Douglas
You show the words of a woman quoted by Josephus, but present
them here as his own words. That's either dishonest of you, or
yet another example that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

I'm confused too, I have no idea what he is trying to say.

He should have made it clear that the words he posted and
attributed to Josephus were actually the words of a woman
who was being quoted by Josephus. I think he had to look
it up to figure that out, because he's obviously cutting
and pasting things he doesn't really understand very well.

[Amos]

Post by Michael

Post by Steven Douglas
You show the words of a woman quoted by Josephus, but present
them here as his own words. That's either dishonest of you, or
yet another example that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

I'm confused too, I have no idea what he is trying to say.

Jesus was just a character invented by hermetic writers to personify a dead child, as if it had lived - who they go on to characterise as an Oracle for the destruction of Jerusalem. That is the basis of the anti-semitic Roman satire that is the Gospel story!!

Bethlehem means: House of Meat/Bread
Mary means: Bitter and Rebellious
Jesus: Saviour and Bread of Life

Bethlehem only came into being as a place of refuge for the Jews, when Jerusalem was under siege by the Romans. It did not exist prior to the Jewish wars (66-70AD). The place name was simply used by the Hermetic writers as an an analogy for the feast of unleavened bread and the child (the son of Mary) whose flesh was eaten on Passover by the bitter and starving rebels, so that they may live.

And the Star of Bethlehem that everyone likes to have an opinion on, was simply one of the (recorded) signs that preceded the coming of the son of man (Titus) and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

*******
Josephus War of the Jews Book VI - 5.3
Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.
******


Let's quote the whole Mary passage again for context

******
The War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the house of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this woman had been already seized upon, such I mean as she had brought with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into her house for that purpose.

This put the poor woman into a very great passion , and by the frequent reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food, while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in. She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight, when she said to them, "This is mine own son, and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice , as I have eaten the one half, let the rest be reserved for me also." After which those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother. Upon which the whole city was full of this horrid action immediately; and while everybody laid this miserable case before their own eyes, they trembled, as if this unheard of action had been done by themselves. So those that were thus distressed by the famine were very desirous to die, and those already dead were esteemed happy, because they had not lived long enough either to hear or to see such miseries.
******

Many people often wonder why the tomb of Jesus was empty. If you can follow the satire then you will know why!

Amos

[Amos]

Post by Amos

Post by Michael

Post by Steven Douglas
You show the words of a woman quoted by Josephus, but present
them here as his own words. That's either dishonest of you, or
yet another example that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

I'm confused too, I have no idea what he is trying to say.

Jesus was just a character invented by hermetic writers to personify a dead child, as if it had lived - who they go on to characterise as an Oracle for the destruction of Jerusalem. That is the basis of the anti-semitic Roman satire that is the Gospel story!!
Bethlehem means: House of Meat/Bread
Mary means: Bitter and Rebellious
Jesus: Saviour and Bread of Life
Bethlehem only came into being as a place of refuge for the Jews, when Jerusalem was under siege by the Romans. *It did not exist prior to the Jewish wars (66-70AD). The place name was simply used by the Hermetic writers as an an analogy for the feast of unleavened bread and the child (the son of Mary) whose flesh was eaten on Passover by the bitter and starving rebels, so that they may live.

*Correction - That should read "It was not occupied at the time given for the birth of Jesus".

http://archive.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html

In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth - it was Nazareth that only came into being at the time of the Jewish wars (66-70 AD).

Post by Amos
And the Star of Bethlehem that everyone likes to have an opinion on, was simply one of the (recorded) signs that preceded the coming of the son of man (Titus) and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
*******
Josephus War of the Jews Book VI - 5.3
Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.
******
Let's quote the whole Mary passage again for context
******
The War of the Jews – Book VI – 3.4 (Flavius Josephus)
There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the house of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this woman had been already seized upon, such I mean as she had brought with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into her house for that purpose.
This put the poor woman into a very great passion , and by the frequent reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food, while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in. She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a myth to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight, when she said to them, "This is mine own son, and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice , as I have eaten the one half, let the rest be reserved for me also." After which those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother. Upon which the whole city was full of this horrid action immediately; and while everybody laid this miserable case before their own eyes, they trembled, as if this unheard of action had been done by themselves. So those that were thus distressed by the famine were very desirous to die, and those already dead were esteemed happy, because they had not lived long enough either to hear or to see such miseries.
******
Many people often wonder why the tomb of Jesus was empty. If you can follow the satire then you will know why!
Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Why? Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth. Jesus grew up in
Nazareth.

I was born in one town, but grew up in another. I consider
the town where I grew up to be my hometown, not the town
where I happened to be born while having little else to
do with it.

Our Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone,
but considers himself to be an American. Do you think he
should be forced to be known as a Panamanian because that's
where he happened to be born?

Post by Amos
it was Nazareth that only came into being at the time of
the Jewish wars (66-70 AD).

You don't know this, but you take it on faith because it
fits a narrative you'd like to believe. For all you know,
Nazareth was a small town with very few residents, and
there would have been no reason for any historian to
mention it prior to the Gospels.

Again, you have proven nothing. I'm not asking you to
believe what I believe, but you are asking me to accept
your beliefs. Well, I don't. You have no made your case.

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Why? Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth. Jesus grew up in
Nazareth.

Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the entire Old Testament, and ancient historians don’t cite it before the fourth century AD. Even Josephus doesn’t mention it – in spite of mentioning at least 45 other cities and villages of Galilee.

And Archaeology informs against the Nazareth of the gospels, as Frank R. Zindler writes: ‘The oldest buildings found seem to date from the last half of the third century, and there is no information to indicate what the inhabitants of those buildings called their village.’

Post by Steven Douglas
I was born in one town, but grew up in another. I consider
the town where I grew up to be my hometown, not the town
where I happened to be born while having little else to
do with it.

Well good for you. However, in those ancient of days local names were given to men from the place of their birth, and not from the place in which they lived.

Post by Steven Douglas
Our Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone,
but considers himself to be an American. Do you think he
should be forced to be known as a Panamanian because that's
where he happened to be born?

Post by Amos
it was Nazareth that only came into being at the time of
the Jewish wars (66-70 AD).

You don't know this, but you take it on faith because it
fits a narrative you'd like to believe.

This is absolute rubbish! I examine the available evidence without allowing religous notions get in the way of them.

Post by Steven Douglas
For all you know,
Nazareth was a small town with very few residents, and
there would have been no reason for any historian to
mention it prior to the Gospels.

I seriously doubt that!

Nevertheless in spite of this belief of yours, recent archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was a town built as a refuge for the Jews fleeing the violence and destruction in Jerusalem during the Great Revolt (66-70 AD).

Post by Steven Douglas
Again, you have proven nothing. I'm not asking you to
believe what I believe, but you are asking me to accept
your beliefs. Well, I don't. You have no made your case.

You're being dishonest here, since I have never asked you to accept my beliefs. This is an open forum where everyone can express their views. I look at the evidence and form a conclusion based on known facts.

My conclusions may not be a popular, but the truth rarely is.


Amos

[Amos]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Why? Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth. Jesus grew up in
Nazareth.

Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the entire Old Testament, and ancient historians don’t cite it before the fourth century AD. Even Josephus doesn’t mention it – in spite of mentioning at least 45 other cities and villages of Galilee.
And Archaeology informs against the Nazareth of the gospels, as Frank R. Zindler writes: ‘The oldest buildings found seem to date from the last half of the third century, and there is no information to indicate what the inhabitants of those buildings called their village.’

**Addendum**
In late 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced the discovery of a modest dwelling in Nazareth, close to the latterday Church of the Annunciation.
Naturally, many Christians were thrilled when the archaeology was assigned to the early Roman period (40 BC to 70 AD). However, the excavation’s director, Yardenna Alexandre, never actually placed the excavated site in the time of Jesus. In fact, when speaking of an adjacent hewn pit, he stated it was probably cut ‘during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE.’ 

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
I was born in one town, but grew up in another. I consider
the town where I grew up to be my hometown, not the town
where I happened to be born while having little else to
do with it.

Well good for you. However, in those ancient of days local names were given to men from the place of their birth, and not from the place in which they lived.

Post by Steven Douglas
Our Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone,
but considers himself to be an American. Do you think he
should be forced to be known as a Panamanian because that's
where he happened to be born?

Post by Amos
it was Nazareth that only came into being at the time of
the Jewish wars (66-70 AD).

You don't know this, but you take it on faith because it
fits a narrative you'd like to believe.

This is absolute rubbish! I examine the available evidence without allowing religous notions get in the way of them.

Post by Steven Douglas
For all you know,
Nazareth was a small town with very few residents, and
there would have been no reason for any historian to
mention it prior to the Gospels.

I seriously doubt that!
Nevertheless in spite of this belief of yours, recent archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was a town built as a refuge for the Jews fleeing the violence and destruction in Jerusalem during the Great Revolt (66-70 AD).

Post by Steven Douglas
Again, you have proven nothing. I'm not asking you to
believe what I believe, but you are asking me to accept
your beliefs. Well, I don't. You have no made your case.

You're being dishonest here, since I have never asked you to accept my beliefs. This is an open forum where everyone can express their views. I look at the evidence and form a conclusion based on known facts.
My conclusions may not be a popular, but the truth rarely is.
Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Why? Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth. Jesus grew up in
Nazareth.

Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the entire Old
Testament, and ancient historians don’t cite it before
the fourth century AD. Even Josephus doesn’t mention it –
in spite of mentioning at least 45 other cities and
villages of Galilee.

I wonder how many others he didn't mention? Just the fact
that little Nazareth was overlooked by Josephus does not
prove that it didn't exist.

Post by Amos
And Archaeology informs against the Nazareth of the
gospels, as Frank R. Zindler writes: ‘The oldest buildings
found seem to date from the last half of the third century,
and there is no information to indicate what the
inhabitants of those buildings called their village.’

Maybe it was in a different place.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
I was born in one town, but grew up in another. I consider
the town where I grew up to be my hometown, not the town
where I happened to be born while having little else to
do with it.

Well good for you. However, in those ancient of days local
names were given to men from the place of their birth, and
not from the place in which they lived.

So you're saying Jesus would have had no choice but to be
known however others wanted him to be known, and not by
the way he wanted to be known?

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Our Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone,
but considers himself to be an American. Do you think he
should be forced to be known as a Panamanian because that's
where he happened to be born?

Post by Amos
it was Nazareth that only came into being at the time of
the Jewish wars (66-70 AD).

You don't know this, but you take it on faith because it
fits a narrative you'd like to believe.

This is absolute rubbish! I examine the available evidence
without allowing religous notions get in the way of them.

You're practicing your own form of religious thinking by
taking some of the cut & paste material you're relying on
as fact.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
For all you know,
Nazareth was a small town with very few residents, and
there would have been no reason for any historian to
mention it prior to the Gospels.

I seriously doubt that!

Why?

Post by Amos
Nevertheless in spite of this belief of yours, recent
archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was a
town built as a refuge for the Jews fleeing the
violence and destruction in Jerusalem during the
Great Revolt (66-70 AD).

So maybe you can explain why people who were alive at
the time the Gospels became known did not say the
Gospels were wrong? Why did it take 2000 years for
geniuses like you to suddenly figure out that they
were wrong?

Of course I expect you to ignore this question, just
as you've ignored other tough questions I've asked you.
I doubt you have the cut & paste material required to
answer a question such as that.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Again, you have proven nothing. I'm not asking you to
believe what I believe, but you are asking me to accept
your beliefs. Well, I don't. You have no made your case.

You're being dishonest here, since I have never asked you
to accept my beliefs.

You really need to do a better job keeping track of your
own dishonesty. You see, you've already admitted that you
only expect me to remain a Christian for "the time being",
which implies that you expect me to no longer be a
Christian at some point in the future.

Post by Amos
This is an open forum where everyone can express their
views.

Of course. I just want to make it clear that it's you who
is here trying to make a case that Jesus never existed,
so the burden of proof is on you to make that case. You
are continuing to fail.

Post by Amos
I look at the evidence and form a conclusion based on
known facts.

No, you form a conclusion based on your cut & paste
material, whether that material is factual or not.

Post by Amos
My conclusions may not be a popular, but the truth
rarely is.

Feel free to come up with some truth whenever you find it.

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Why? Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth. Jesus grew up in
Nazareth.

Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the entire Old
Testament, and ancient historians don’t cite it before
the fourth century AD. Even Josephus doesn’t mention it –
in spite of mentioning at least 45 other cities and
villages of Galilee.

I wonder how many others he didn't mention? Just the fact
that little Nazareth was overlooked by Josephus does not
prove that it didn't exist.

If it was such a little place, then why is it so difficut to find any archaeological remains of the synagogue where Jesus was said to have preached?

I tell you why! Because Nazareth simply did not exist at the time.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
And Archaeology informs against the Nazareth of the
gospels, as Frank R. Zindler writes: ‘The oldest buildings
found seem to date from the last half of the third century,
and there is no information to indicate what the
inhabitants of those buildings called their village.’

Maybe it was in a different place.

Or maybe it didn't exist!

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
I was born in one town, but grew up in another. I consider
the town where I grew up to be my hometown, not the town
where I happened to be born while having little else to
do with it.

Well good for you. However, in those ancient of days local
names were given to men from the place of their birth, and
not from the place in which they lived.

So you're saying Jesus would have had no choice but to be
known however others wanted him to be known, and not by
the way he wanted to be known?

If that is what you want to believe then you're welcome to it!

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Our Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone,
but considers himself to be an American. Do you think he
should be forced to be known as a Panamanian because that's
where he happened to be born?

Post by Amos
it was Nazareth that only came into being at the time of
the Jewish wars (66-70 AD).

You don't know this, but you take it on faith because it
fits a narrative you'd like to believe.

This is absolute rubbish! I examine the available evidence
without allowing religous notions get in the way of them.

You're practicing your own form of religious thinking by
taking some of the cut & paste material you're relying on
as fact.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
For all you know,
Nazareth was a small town with very few residents, and
there would have been no reason for any historian to
mention it prior to the Gospels.

I seriously doubt that!

Why?

You say it was a small town with very few residents.

Yet in Luke’s gospel it is recalled that Jesus returned to Nazareth to preach in the synagogue, but enraged the populace with his ‘blasphemy’.

That doesn't give me the impression of being a small town with few residents.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Nevertheless in spite of this belief of yours, recent
archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was a
town built as a refuge for the Jews fleeing the
violence and destruction in Jerusalem during the
Great Revolt (66-70 AD).

So maybe you can explain why people who were alive at
the time the Gospels became known did not say the
Gospels were wrong? Why did it take 2000 years for
geniuses like you to suddenly figure out that they
were wrong?

It’s not a tough question at all, because it is a downright lie. People have noticed for centuries that the Gospel stories are full of irregularities, contradictions and regurgitated myths (although the myths in themselves have spiritual qualities). And you can pretty much ignore much of the period before Constantine, as no one at that time had a Bible. Come to think of it, other than the fact that most people were illiterate prior to the 16th century, only the clergy were authorised to read or explain the Scriptures in public and even then it was in Latin!!

Post by Steven Douglas
Of course I expect you to ignore this question, just
as you've ignored other tough questions I've asked you.
I doubt you have the cut & paste material required to
answer a question such as that.

I just did!

Now if you have a tough and honest question that is relevant to the subject then I will try to answer it, but if it is an attempt to troll, or it doesn’t deserve to be answered then I will treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Again, you have proven nothing. I'm not asking you to
believe what I believe, but you are asking me to accept
your beliefs. Well, I don't. You have no made your case.

You're being dishonest here, since I have never asked you
to accept my beliefs.

You really need to do a better job keeping track of your
own dishonesty. You see, you've already admitted that you
only expect me to remain a Christian for "the time being",
which implies that you expect me to no longer be a
Christian at some point in the future.

You are obviously attempting to troll. Carry on like this and I will soon be adding you to my kill file.

You seem to like projecting your dishonesty onto me. My exact words were “Hopefully it will make more sense in time.” And this was in direct response to you saying “The author's theory makes no sense.”

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
This is an open forum where everyone can express their
views.

Of course. I just want to make it clear that it's you who
is here trying to make a case that Jesus never existed,
so the burden of proof is on you to make that case. You
are continuing to fail.

So far it is you who has failed.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
I look at the evidence and form a conclusion based on
known facts.

No, you form a conclusion based on your cut & paste
material, whether that material is factual or not.

My conclusions are based on a lot more material as yet unseen in this newsgroup.

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
My conclusions may not be a popular, but the truth
rarely is.

Feel free to come up with some truth whenever you find it.

I already have and I will continue to do so as I feel fit.

Amos

[Michael]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:09:58 PM UTC-8, Amos wrote:


Nazareth came into its name when Jesus was a child, so years city was there by civil legal recognition. Please learn history before you rant-off disinfo please!

[Amos]

Post by Michael
Nazareth came into its name when Jesus was a child, so years city was there by civil legal recognition. Please learn history before you rant-off disinfo please!

And your historical source is?

Amos

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas
You really need to do a better job keeping track of your
own dishonesty. You see, you've already admitted that you
only expect me to remain a Christian for "the time being",
which implies that you expect me to no longer be a
Christian at some point in the future.

Ah! I see that you are actually referring to the following statement!

You said: "What's your point in citing this particular scripture?"

I said: "There is no point in explaining this to you. The Gospel story was designed as an intelligence test when read in conjunction with Josephus’ War of the Jews. You are obviously not up to the task, so must remain a Christian for the time being."

Well since you brought it up, I don't see anything dishonest about it, other than your dishonest perception of it, as I truly believe that "Time" is on my side.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
You really need to do a better job keeping track of your
own dishonesty. You see, you've already admitted that you
only expect me to remain a Christian for "the time being",
which implies that you expect me to no longer be a
Christian at some point in the future.

Ah! I see that you are actually referring to the following
statement!
You said: "What's your point in citing this particular
scripture?"
I said: "There is no point in explaining this to you. The
Gospel story was designed as an intelligence test when
read in conjunction with Josephus’ War of the Jews. You
are obviously not up to the task, so must remain a
Christian for the time being."
Well since you brought it up, I don't see anything
dishonest about it,

What's dishonest is that you deny you're trying to change
minds, yet you say I will only remain a Christian for
"the time being". Why can't you just acknowledge what
you're trying (and failing) to do with this thread?

Post by Amos
other than your dishonest perception
of it, as I truly believe that "Time" is on my side.

For what purpose would time be on your side? Please
explain.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Why? Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth. Jesus grew up in
Nazareth.

Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the entire Old
Testament, and ancient historians don’t cite it before
the fourth century AD. Even Josephus doesn’t mention it –
in spite of mentioning at least 45 other cities and
villages of Galilee.

I wonder how many others he didn't mention? Just the fact
that little Nazareth was overlooked by Josephus does not
prove that it didn't exist.

If it was such a little place, then why is it so difficut to
find any archaeological remains of the synagogue where Jesus
was said to have preached?

Why is it so difficult for archaeologists to find any of the
synagogues that existed during the time of Jesus? Here's an
article about one that was found just this year:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-01-07/archaeologists-israel-discover-synagogue-dating-time-jesus

Why do you think that synagogue was so difficult to find for
all those years? Of course, as the article points out, many
others were simply built over in the ensuing years.

Post by Amos
I tell you why! Because Nazareth simply did not exist at
the time.

Not necessarily.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
And Archaeology informs against the Nazareth of the
gospels, as Frank R. Zindler writes: ‘The oldest buildings
found seem to date from the last half of the third century,
and there is no information to indicate what the
inhabitants of those buildings called their village.’

Maybe it was in a different place.

Or maybe it didn't exist!

Or *maybe* it just hasn't been found. The fact is, you really
don't know, as your own "maybe" indicates. Thank you for that
acknowledgement.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
I was born in one town, but grew up in another. I consider
the town where I grew up to be my hometown, not the town
where I happened to be born while having little else to
do with it.

Well good for you. However, in those ancient of days local
names were given to men from the place of their birth, and
not from the place in which they lived.

So you're saying Jesus would have had no choice but to be
known however others wanted him to be known, and not by
the way he wanted to be known?

If that is what you want to believe then you're welcome
to it!

Is it possible that there was another Jesus of Bethlehem, at
that time, and Jesus of Nazareth preferred to have his own
identity?

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Our Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone,
but considers himself to be an American. Do you think he
should be forced to be known as a Panamanian because that's
where he happened to be born?

Post by Amos
it was Nazareth that only came into being at the time of
the Jewish wars (66-70 AD).

You don't know this, but you take it on faith because it
fits a narrative you'd like to believe.

This is absolute rubbish! I examine the available evidence
without allowing religous notions get in the way of them.

You're practicing your own form of religious thinking by
taking some of the cut & paste material you're relying on
as fact.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
For all you know,
Nazareth was a small town with very few residents, and
there would have been no reason for any historian to
mention it prior to the Gospels.

I seriously doubt that!

Why?

You say it was a small town with very few residents.

I specified nothing about any particular number of residents.

Post by Amos
Yet in Luke’s gospel it is recalled that Jesus returned to
Nazareth to preach in the synagogue, but enraged the
populace with his ‘blasphemy’.
That doesn't give me the impression of being a small town
with few residents.

There could have been a hundred residents -- or even two
or three hundred residents -- and it would have been a
small town.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
Nevertheless in spite of this belief of yours, recent
archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was a
town built as a refuge for the Jews fleeing the
violence and destruction in Jerusalem during the
Great Revolt (66-70 AD).

So maybe you can explain why people who were alive at
the time the Gospels became known did not say the
Gospels were wrong? Why did it take 2000 years for
geniuses like you to suddenly figure out that they
were wrong?

It’s not a tough question at all, because it is a
downright lie. People have noticed for centuries that
the Gospel stories are full of irregularities,
contradictions

Show me something from the time of the origin of the Gospels
that contradicts the Gospels.

Post by Amos
and regurgitated myths (although the myths in
themselves have spiritual qualities). And you can pretty
much ignore much of the period before Constantine, as no
one at that time had a Bible.

It is widely accepted that the Gospel stories were written
down in the first century. Where are the contemporaries of
the Gospel writers to say the Gospels had their facts
(such as Nazareth, etc.) wrong?

Post by Amos
Come to think of it, other than the fact that most people
were illiterate prior to the 16th century, only the clergy
were authorised to read or explain the Scriptures in public
and even then it was in Latin!!

The Gospels were originally transcribed in Greek.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Of course I expect you to ignore this question, just
as you've ignored other tough questions I've asked you.
I doubt you have the cut & paste material required to
answer a question such as that.

I just did!

You didn't answer my question, you answered some questions
you chose for yourself.

Post by Amos
Now if you have a tough and honest question that is relevant
to the subject then I will try to answer it,

You've ignored several in the thread already.

Post by Amos
but if it is an attempt to troll, or it doesn’t deserve
to be answered then I will treat it with the contempt it
deserves and ignore it.

In another post, you said the Gospels make no mention of
Jesus having been born in Bethlehem, but that is just
factually incorrect. When I asked you about your "truth",
you ignored the question.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Again, you have proven nothing. I'm not asking you to
believe what I believe, but you are asking me to accept
your beliefs. Well, I don't. You have no made your case.

You're being dishonest here, since I have never asked you
to accept my beliefs.

You really need to do a better job keeping track of your
own dishonesty. You see, you've already admitted that you
only expect me to remain a Christian for "the time being",
which implies that you expect me to no longer be a
Christian at some point in the future.

You are obviously attempting to troll.

No, I'm attempting to have a discussion with you, but you
have this habit of showing falsehoods as "truth".

Post by Amos
Carry on like this and I will soon be adding you to my
kill file.

Incredible. Go ahead, kill file me. I'll still respond
to your falsehoods and show them for what they are.

Post by Amos
You seem to like projecting your dishonesty onto me.

Give an example.

Post by Amos
My exact words were “Hopefully it will make more sense
in time.” And this was in direct response to you saying
“The author's theory makes no sense.”

The author's theory does make no sense, but this isn't the
point to which I referred. I referred to you saying I will
only remain a Christian for "the time being", which you
apparently don't remember saying to me. That's what I
meant about you doing a better job keeping track of your
own dishonesty, because you obviously haven't.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
This is an open forum where everyone can express their
views.

Of course. I just want to make it clear that it's you who
is here trying to make a case that Jesus never existed,
so the burden of proof is on you to make that case. You
are continuing to fail.

So far it is you who has failed.

I'm not trying to prove anything, so there is nothing for
which I can fail in this thread. This is your thread, you
started it, and it's you who has been trying to prove a
point ever since. You have failed, badly.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
I look at the evidence and form a conclusion based on
known facts.

No, you form a conclusion based on your cut & paste
material, whether that material is factual or not.

My conclusions are based on a lot more material as yet
unseen in this newsgroup.

So far you've shown that you have reached several
conclusions that are just factually incorrect. I
can't wait to see all the other errors you're
preparing to post.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Amos
My conclusions may not be a popular, but the truth
rarely is.

Feel free to come up with some truth whenever you find it.

I already have and I will continue to do so as I feel fit.

When you post real errors -- such as your claim, for example,
that the Gospels don't mention that Jesus was born in
Bethlehem -- you have lost all credibility.

[Michael]

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Nope, it is always where a person spends their most time when a child, so the ascription to Naz. is correct. That is basic historical writings, and applies to people all around the world in history.

[Amos]

Post by Michael

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Nope, it is always where a person spends their most time when a child, so the ascription to Naz. is correct. That is basic historical writings, and applies to people all around the world in history.

On the contrary. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would, according to the Jewish custom, have been called "Jesus of Bethlehem".

And besides this, there is not a word in the Four Gospels to confirm the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Michael

Post by Michael

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Nope, it is always where a person spends their most time

when a child, so the ascription to Naz. is correct. That is
basic historical writings, and applies to people all around
the world in history.
On the contrary. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would,
according to the Jewish custom, have been called "Jesus of
Bethlehem".

Regardless of where his parents lived? What is your source
for this?

Post by Michael
And besides this, there is not a word in the Four Gospels
to confirm the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Hmm, your cut & paste material has really failed you this
time. What was that you were saying about "truth"?

[Amos]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Michael

Post by Michael

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Nope, it is always where a person spends their most time

when a child, so the ascription to Naz. is correct. That is
basic historical writings, and applies to people all around
the world in history.
On the contrary. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would,
according to the Jewish custom, have been called "Jesus of
Bethlehem".

Regardless of where his parents lived? What is your source
for this?

Source: Bible for Learners, (Vol. III, pp. 39, 40).
"The primitive tradition declared emphatically that Nazareth was the place from which Jesus came. We may still see this distinctly enough in our Gospels. Jesus is constantly called the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth. This was certainly the name by which he was known in his own time; and of course such local names were given to men from the place of their birth, and not from the place in which they lived, which might constantly be changing. Nazareth is called in so many words his own, that is his native city, and he himself declares it so"

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Michael
And besides this, there is not a word in the Four Gospels
to confirm the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Hmm, your cut & paste material has really failed you this
time. What was that you were saying about "truth"?

Amos

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Michael

Post by Michael

Post by Amos
In fact had a man called Jesus been born there he would have
been called Jesus of Bethlehem and not Jesus of Nazareth -

Nope, it is always where a person spends their most time

when a child, so the ascription to Naz. is correct. That is
basic historical writings, and applies to people all around
the world in history.
On the contrary. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would,
according to the Jewish custom, have been called "Jesus of
Bethlehem".

As I said elsewhere, there may have already been a "Jesus
of Bethlehem", so Jesus of Nazareth chose to have his own
identity. There is also the fact that his earthly father,
Joseph, was known as "Joseph of Nazareth". It makes sense
that Jesus would want to have the same identity as his
earthly father, doesn't it?

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas
Regardless of where his parents lived? What is your source
for this?

Source: Bible for Learners, (Vol. III, pp. 39, 40).
"The primitive tradition declared emphatically that Nazareth
was the place from which Jesus came. We may still see this
distinctly enough in our Gospels. Jesus is constantly called
the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth. This was certainly the
name by which he was known in his own time; and of course
such local names were given to men from the place of their
birth, and not from the place in which they lived, which
might constantly be changing. Nazareth is called in so
many words his own, that is his native city, and he
himself declares it so"

He, himself, declared it so. That's good enough for me.

Post by Amos

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by Michael
And besides this, there is not a word in the Four Gospels
to confirm the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Hmm, your cut & paste material has really failed you this
time. What was that you were saying about "truth"?

No response. I'm not surprised.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by Amos
Many people often wonder why the tomb of Jesus was empty.
If you can follow the satire then you will know why!

The person you're copying and pasting created the satire where
there is none. The tomb was empty for the reason stated in
the Gospels. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe,
but you are asking believers to not believe.

Why are you attacking Christianity? What is your motive?