Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on November 16, 2008, 11:59:54 AM
-
Some comments from gotquestions.org
Question: "Who is the antichrist?"
Answer: There is much speculation about the identity of the antichrist. Some of the more popular targets are Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Pope Benedict XVI. In the United States, former President Bill Clinton, current President George Bush, and president-elect Barack Obama are the most frequent candidates. So, who is the antichrist, and how will we recognize him?
The Bible really does not say anything specific about where the antichrist will come from. Many Bible scholars speculate that he will come from a confederacy of ten nations and/or a reborn Roman empire (Daniel 7:24-25; Revelation 17:7). Others see him as being a Jew since he would have to be in order to claim to be the Messiah. It is all just speculation since the Bible does not specifically say where the antichrist will come from or what race he will be. One day, the antichrist will be revealed. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 tells us how we will recognize the antichrist: "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
It is likely that most people who are alive when the antichrist is revealed will be very surprised at his identity. The antichrist may or may not be alive today. Martin Luther was convinced that the pope in his time was the antichrist. Others who have lived in the past few hundred years have been equally sure as to the identity of the antichrist. So far, they have all been incorrect. We should put the speculations behind us and focus on what the Bible actually says about the antichrist. Revelation 13:5-8 declares, "The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Resource: Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware
-
The "Antichrist" referred to in the Book of Revelations is either of the Roman Emperors Caligula or Nero... depending on when the text was written.
Here's a section of a post of mine from the "Anything original in the Jesus story?" thread which explains it rather succinctly:
The earliest copies of the Book of Revelations (written during Caligula's pogroms) refer to "the number of the Beast" being the number of a man, and that number being 661... if you write out Gaius Ceasar (Caligula was only his nickname) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 661, this is known as Gemmatria code and was common practice among Jewish Kabbalist mystics.
Later, during the reign of Nero, this number was changed to 666... if you write out Ceasar Nero (as he was known) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 666, using Gemmatria code. Claudius openly tolerated Christians and dismissed their refusal to swear allegiance to him, his number is not in any extant copy of Revelations.
...end-of-thread.
The Luke
-
The "Antichrist" referred to in the Book of Revelations is either of the Roman Emperors Caligula or Nero... depending on when the text was written.
Here's a section of a post of mine from the "Anything original in the Jesus story?" thread which explains it rather succinctly:
...end-of-thread.
The Luke
Hi The Luke!
I find it interesting that you seem to be very confident in your knowledge of the bible when previously I've asked you to state scripture you've referenced and you can't seem to find it.
Not a flame, just a question: Do you base your knowledge of the bible upon reading the bible itself or classes or other books or other people's viewpoints and interpretations?
Also, when you say "Book of Revelations" to what are you referring?
-
Also, when you say "Book of Revelations" to what are you referring?
...perhaps I should ask you how you deem me unable to quote scripture when you yourself don't know what the Book of Revelations is? (not a flame either)
It should be obvious to those who have read the description of the Antichrist that it refers to the Roman Empire (albeit in a coded way).
The Luke
-
"The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months."
The anti-christ is my ex-boss. :-[
Not having to do with this thread, hope your life is good and doing well STells... :-*
-
...perhaps I should ask you how you deem me unable to quote scripture when you yourself don't know what the Book of Revelations is? (not a flame either)
Luke, there is no "S" at the end of (The Book of) Revelation in the bible. Just making sure that is what you are talking about or not.
The anti-christ is my ex-boss. :-[
Not having to do with this thread, hope your life is good and doing well STells... :-*
Deedles!!!!! :D
I'm fine thanks! Hope you are well too!! :-*
How about some boss stories on the Open Talk board ;D
-
"ANTI Christ" or against Christ refers to Anyone "ANTI Christ"
Thanks, come again.
-
Luke, there is no "S" at the end of (The Book of) Revelation in the bible. Just making sure that is what you are talking about or not.
...that's a matter of translation.
Too many American Evangelicals, (not a flame if you are one) people like McWay and Loco on this board, tend to quote new translations of the gospels. Which of course leads to the question whether a text originally written in Hebrew; Greek or Aramaic, then translated to either Greek or Latin, then translated to Middle English, then translated to Eighteenth Century English, then translated/updated to modern colloquial English can still be considered the LITERAL unquestionable truth.
Let me give you a few examples that might explain why discussions of the Antichrist's identity are moot.
Mistranslations in the Bible:
-the "band of men" who arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemene; it's actually a "garrison": 600 men
-James, the "man whom Jesus loved"... need I say more?
-Bethlehem: no such town till the 4th century... it means "House of Bread" and is the Hebrew name for the constellation of Virgo (also known as "The Virgin")
-Barabbas... it's actually "Bar-Abba": the son of the father, he's not a real person. Pilate asks the crowd whether he should prosecute Jesus as the son of god (blasphemy) or as the son of man (a common insurrectionist). This dichotomy is explained in the Gospel of Judas.
-Judas Iscariot: no such surname... it translates as "knife man"
-Adam (the first man) means: "Red Clay"... he is a symbol/metaphor for the Third Race, a common mythological allegory
-the references to "creating man in OUR own image" and "let there be light" etc etc... Who is God talking to? Well obviously, based on the grammar and syntax, most language experts agree with the folklorists who assert Yahmeh is speaking to both his feminine consort Astarte and the other Elohim (Zodiac constellations)... later excised by monotheists.
-Jerubaal, one of the Judges, actually means "Glory of Baal" just as Hercules means "Glory of Hera"... this highlights the role of Yahweh as a localised "boxed" djinn rather than a supreme being. The Hebrew clans were openly worshiping Baal when away from Yahweh's magic tent.
-"Moses" means lawgiver, just as "Tothmoses" means "Lawgiver of Thoth"; "Ramses" means "Lawgiver of Ra", "Amon" the Egyptian god whose name ends each prayer: "Amon let it be so" is the origin of the phrase "Amen" etc
...it's pointless to speculate as to the identity of the Antichrist without considering the "prophecies" in their original language; original political context and original colloquialisms.
The Antichrist is either Caligula or Nero... both men are long dead, as is the Empire they ran.
The Luke
-
Agreed The Luke they were both antichrist
-
Agreed The Luke they were both antichrist
...I think you are playing wordgames.
The Luke
-
...I think you are playing wordgames.
The Luke
or word games ;D
-
Deedles!!!!! :D
I'm fine thanks! Hope you are well too!! :-*
I'm good, just popping in and out. :)
How about some boss stories on the Open Talk board ;D
I'd be spamming the board ;D but it is a good topic. Everyone's worked with the antichrist I think!!
-
hey guys
serious questions here:
what exactly will happen when the anti christ is revealed? will that mean the end of the world?
i keep hearing stuff about 2012 being the end of the world-kinda freaking me out
is it possible the anti christ might not know that he is the anti christ?
Gene
-
Too many American Evangelicals, (not a flame if you are one) people like McWay and Loco on this board, tend to quote new translations of the gospels. Which of course leads to the question whether a text originally written in Hebrew; Greek or Aramaic, then translated to either Greek or Latin, then translated to Middle English, then translated to Eighteenth Century English, then translated/updated to modern colloquial English can still be considered the LITERAL unquestionable truth.
The Luke
Get your facts straight, young Skywalker!
I'm not an American.
I read the Bible daily, sometimes in one English translation, some times in another English translation, some times in one Spanish translation and some times in another Spanish translation. They all say the same thing, just in different languages.
I tend to quote from the New International Version(NIV) because it is a modern English translation which is easier to read and understand by modern English speaking people than the old King James English is. There is nothing wrong with that.
The NIV is a completely new translation of the Bible made by 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars. The translation took ten years and involved a team up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Mennonites, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Wesleyan and more. That they were from so many different denominations helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.
-
Loco,
Read the Nag Hammadi texts; the Dead Sea Scrolls and read the documents supporting the hypothesis that the Jesus story is a myth. (Gandy and Freke's excellent book lists all of these)
A quality translation of limited documents gives a false sense of consistency.
The entire Christian canon has been rewritten several times.
The Luke
-
Loco,
Read the Nag Hammadi texts; the Dead Sea Scrolls and read the documents supporting the hypothesis that the Jesus story is a myth. (Gandy and Freke's excellent book lists all of these)
A quality translation of limited documents gives a false sense of consistency.
The entire Christian canon has been rewritten several times.
The Luke
That is already being discussed in a different thread. I was simply responding to your post above.
-
Who is the antichrist?
A figment of your imagination...
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
Good question.
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
Bump for answer.
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
...'cos it says so in Santa's Bumper Book of Jewish Fairytales?
The Luke
-
Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."
"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
-
Thanks to both The Luke and loco for replying, especially loco, very interesting reference.
Will look into that more.
But my question was for the thread starter.
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
Thanks for taking the time to answer:)
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
Thanks for taking the time to answer:)
Stella is nice enough but she doesn't even take a smidgen of time to question her beliefs or answer questions that would rub her faith the wrong way.
-
Luke is right. Either Caligula or Nero was the Anti Christ. Or more generally Rome itself.
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
Because of what is written in the bible about him. Yes, I have faith that the bible is true.
-
STella, what makes you think there even is an anti-Christ in the first place?
Thanks for taking the time to answer:)
lol, sorry I was out of town for the last few days...real life got in the way of getbig ;D
-
Because of what is written in the bible about him. Yes, I have faith that the bible is true.
Are you willing to believe on good evidence that the 'anti-christ' was a then contemporaneous figure such as Nero or even more abstractly Rome itself? Most biblical scholars agree on this point.
-
Are you willing to believe on good evidence that the 'anti-christ' was a then contemporaneous figure such as Nero or even more abstractly Rome itself? Most biblical scholars agree on this point.
He was the beast? He made everybody take his mark, 666, on their hand or on their forehead?
-
He was the beast? He made everybody take his mark, 666, on their hand or on their forehead?
Once again reading the Bible in a totally literal way... ::)
The historical-critical method treats Revelation as a text and attempts to understand Revelation in its first century historical context within the genre of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.
This approach considers the text as an address to seven historical communities in Asia Minor. Under this view, assertions that "the time is near" are to be taken literally by those communities. Consequently the work is viewed as a warning not to conform to contemporary Greco-Roman society which John "unveils" as beastly, demonic and subject to divine judgment. There is further information on these topics in the entries on higher criticism and apocalyptic literature.
The acceptance of Revelation into the canon is itself the result of a historical process, essentially no different from the career of other texts. The eventual exclusion of other contemporary apocalyptic literature from the canon may throw light on the unfolding historical processes of what was officially considered orthodox, what was heterodox, what was even heretical. Interpretation of meanings and imagery are anchored in what the historical author intended and what his contemporary audience inferred; a message to Christians not to assimilate into the Roman Imperial Culture was John's central message. Thus, his letter (written in the apocalyptic genre) is pastoral in nature, and the symbolism of Revelation is to be understood entirely within its historical, literary and social context. Critics study the conventions of apocalyptic literature and events of the 1st century to make sense of what the author may have intended.
During a discussion about Revelation on 23 August 2006, Pope Benedict XVI remarked: "The seer of Patmos, identified with the apostle, is granted a series of visions meant to reassure the Christians of Asia amid the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century."
Anyway...
Dismissal
Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books".[29] Thomas Jefferson omitted it entirely from the Bible he edited, and wrote that he "considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[30] "Martin Luther found it an offensive piece of work" and "John Calvin had grave doubts about its value."[31]
-
He was the beast? He made everybody take his mark, 666, on their hand or on their forehead?
Diffferent scholarly interpretations...talkin g about ancient people not magic devils or the like...
Interpretations
[edit] Name
One interpretation is that 666 encodes the letters of someone’s name or title, identifying the Antichrist.
Nero
Scholars who believe that the Book of Revelation refers to historical people and events argue that the number represents Nero. In Hebrew gematria, every letter has a corresponding number. Summing these numbers gives a numeric value to a word or name. The Greek spelling, “Nerōn Kaisar,” transliterates into Hebrew as “נרון קסר” or “nrwn qsr”. Adding the corresponding values yields 666, as shown:
Resh (ר) Samekh (ס) Koof (ק) Noon (נ) vav (ו) Resh (ר) Noon (נ) TOTAL
200 60 100 50 6 200 50 666
By contrast, the Latin title for Nero is spelled simply “Nerō Caesar,” which transliterates to “נרו קסר” or “nrw qsr” and has a value of 616, which may explain that variation.[17]
Resh(ר) Samekh (ס) Koof (ק) vav (ו) Resh (ר) Noon (נ) TOTAL
200 60 100 6 200 50 616
The hypothesis that 666 or 616 is a code for a Roman emperor seems to have historical support. The emperors were noted for their oppression of both Jews and Christians. Both communities were known to use numerology, codes and symbols (such as the Ichthys) when living under Roman rule to avoid persecution.
Caligula
David Parker, professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham said that the correct number, 616, refers to the emperor Caligula[18]. Caligula's attempt to erect his statue in the Temple in Jerusalem may have inspired the author of Revelation to speak against the Roman Emperor.[4] In Hebrew, Gaius Caligula Caesar is גסקלגסקסר (gsqlgs qsr). Adding the values yields 616.
Resh Samekh Qoph Samekh Gimel Lamed Qoph Samekh Gimel TOTAL
200 60 100 60 3 30 100 60 3 616
In Greek, "Gaios Kaisar" also yields 616
Γ α ι ο σς Κ α ι σς α ρ TOTAL
3 1 10 70 200 20 1 10 200 1 100 616
Domitian
The German Protestant theologian Ethelbert Stauffer, arguing that gematria had been the most popular form of numerology not only among Jews but also in the Graeco-Roman world (Pergamon, Pompeii)[19], conceived a Greek gematrical procedure to explain the number 666. Judging from the precise information that the Book of Revelation gives about the person behind the number 666[20], Stauffer concluded that the "beast" can in general only refer to a Roman emperor and argued that this Emperor must be Domitian, because he had reigned during the proposed time of origin of the Apocalypse and supposedly was called "The Beast" as a "secret derisive nickname" by Romans, Greek, Christians and Jews.[21] Stauffer computed the Number of the Beast using the short form of Domitian's five titles and names A KAI ΔOMET ΣEB ΓE, as derived from the abbreviations on coins and inscriptions.[22] Domitian's official title in Latin was Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus. This was rendered as Autokrator Kaisar Dometianos Sebastos Germanikos for his Greek-speaking subjects. And in turn, for their coins, this abbreviated to A.KAI.DOMET.SEB.GE which totals 666 in Greek Gematria.
Α Κ Α Ι Δ Ο M Ε Τ Σ Ε Β Γ E TOTAL
1 20 1 10 4 70 40 5 300 200 5 2 3 5 666
Robert Graves suggested that DCLXVI, 666 in Roman numerals, is an abbreviation for the Latin sentence “Domitianus Caesar Legatos Xti Violenter Interfecit”, or “The Emperor Domitian violently killed the envoys of Christ”.[23]
Papacy
Some Protestant Bible commentators have equated the "beast" of Revelation chapter 13 with the Papacy.[24] To this end, the letters of a title of the Pope used from 8th - 16th century, Vicarius Filii Dei (Vicar of The Son of God), are summed to total 666 in Roman numerals. The earliest extant record of a Protestant writer on this subject is that of Professor Andreas Helwig in 1612 in his work Antichristus Romanus. The title was contained in the Donation of Constantine, a forged document falsely claiming to come from the Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church.[25] However, this title was never an official title of the Pope.
V I C A R I V S F I L I I D E I TOTAL
5 1 100 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 50 1 1 500 0 1 666
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the "mark of the beast" (but not the number 666) refers to a future, universal, legally enforced Sunday-worship. “Those who reject God’s memorial of creatorship — the Bible Sabbath — choosing to worship and honor Sunday in the full knowledge that it is not God’s appointed day of worship, will receive the ‘mark of the beast.’”[26] "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast."[27]
Some fundamentalists believe that the mark of the beast refers to the Catholic practice of making the sign of the cross. [28]
Martin Luther wrote in a footnote to Rev 13:15-18: "Spirit means / that it is active / and not a dead image / but that it has its rights and offices in its womb. These are six hundred and sixty and six years. So long the earthly papacy remains." During the Reformation, Martin Luther noted that "Benediktos" added up to 666 in Greek gematria, and he thought it might refer to a Pope named Benedict or to Benedictine monks.
Β ε ν ε δ ι κ τ ο σς TOTAL
2 5 50 5 4 10 20 300 70 200 666
Luther has many comments and theories against the papacy in the footnotes to his translation of the Book of Revelation.
[edit] Lateinos, Euanthas, Teitan
Please wikify this article or section.
Help improve this article by adding relevant internal links. (June 2008)
Irenaeus suggested that the number indicates that the beast is the sum of all apostasy committed over the course of six thousand years.[29] Irenaeus suggested that 666 might refer to Lateinos (The ancient Greek word for "Latin man"), Euanthas or Teitan. Irenaeus wrote:
It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshiped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed "Titan" by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name "Titan" has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called "Titan."[30]
L A T E I N O S TOTAL
30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 666
T E I T A N TOTAL
300 5 10 300 1 50 666
E U A N TH A S TOTAL
5 400 1 50 9 1 200 666
[edit] Other suggested names
Andrew of Caesarea in his Commentary on Revelation gives seven names: Lampetis (the lustrous one), Teitan, Palaibaskanos (an ancient sorcerer), Benediktos (blue bastard), Kakos Odegos (bad guide), Alethes Blaberos (really harmful), and Amnos Adikos (unjust lamb) each of which gives a total of 666. Most of these names are repeated by Arethas of Caesarea, who in his Commentary adds Teitan from Irenaeus and O Niketes (the winner).[31]
Victorinus of Pettau gives the names Teitan, Antemos (opponent), Diclux (double-dealer) and Genserikos; the last he calls Gothic. As it is plainly Genseric, the Vandal king, who captured Rome in 455 AD., the passage as a whole can not go back to Victorinus, who belonged to the third century. It is not, however surprising that the commentary should be brought up to date, after Genseric became notorious through the sack of Carthage or of Rome. Of the other names in Victorinus only Diclux needs mention. It is said to be the Latin counterpart of Teitan and by reckoning each letter at its value in Roman numerals, the total of 666 is again given.[31]
Venerable Bede gives three names: Teitan, Antemos (opponent), and Arnoyme (I deny).
Beatus, a Spanish monk, gives eight names among which are Damnatus (Damned), Antichristus (Antichrist), and Acxyme (for aichime or achine=666). The numerical interpretation of Antichristus is based on the order of letters in the Latin alphabet, a=1 to x =300, but the accusative must be taken and spelled Antechristum.
-
Are you willing to believe on good evidence that the 'anti-christ' was a then contemporaneous figure such as Nero or even more abstractly Rome itself? Most biblical scholars agree on this point.
Most biblical scholars agree? That seems like quite a claim but maybe you have a list of all biblical scholars and a list of the ones that agree w/your assertion?
I do believe that Nero can be seen as a type of anti-christ...as well as Hitler.
But "the" anti-christ I'm talking about will be the one that:
"causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, and he provides that no one should be able to buy or sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)
-
Question: "Who is the antichrist?"
What do you think of this, STella?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
And would you say that is the exact same thing as the biblical concept of an AntiChrist or a parallel concept? And FYI, anyone who has claimed to be Kalki so far are lying.
-
The "mark" being referred to is a brand or tattoo (usually a stamp brand or ring seal brand) which most slaves would have burned into their skin... either on their right hand or on heir forehead.
How do you think Romans could identify a slave? Why do you think slaves didn't simply run away and proclaim themselves free men?
The author of Revelations was making the point that Caligula/Nero was going to eventually make ALL people slaves and tax all transactions: "No one can buy or sell"... etc
All the other "Antichrist-spotting" bullshit is just that... millenarianist bullshit.
Remember, the Church has already declared a few people the Antichrist, both officially and unofficially:
-Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler, Dracula "Son of the Dragon") actually officially declared the Antichrist by the Orthodox Church
-Oliver Cromwell (genocidal zealot) who helped dismantle Christian orthodoxy
-Genghis Khan, pillage the Church's tax base and that's what you get
-Mohamed... 'nuff said
-Charles Darwin, only declared the Antichrist by some nutty Christian sects... but excommunicated officially by "Book and Candle" ceremony by the Vatican
The Luke
-
The "mark" being referred to is a brand or tattoo (usually a stamp brand or ring seal brand) which most slaves would have burned into their skin... either on their right hand or on heir forehead.
How do you think Romans could identify a slave? Why do you think slaves didn't simply run away and proclaim themselves free men?
The author of Revelations was making the point that Caligula/Nero was going to eventually make ALL people slaves and tax all transactions: "No one can buy or sell"... etc
All the other "Antichrist-spotting" bullshit is just that... millenarianist bullshit.
Remember, the Church has already declared a few people the Antichrist, both officially and unofficially:
-Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler, Dracula "Son of the Dragon") actually officially declared the Antichrist by the Orthodox Church
-Oliver Cromwell (genocidal zealot) who helped dismantle Christian orthodoxy
-Genghis Khan, pillage the Church's tax base and that's what you get
-Mohamed... 'nuff said
-Charles Darwin, only declared the Antichrist by some nutty Christian sects... but excommunicated officially by "Book and Candle" ceremony by the Vatican
The Luke
These people have been deeply indoctrinated and there is no reaching them. Remember Stella is a fundamentalist and believes that the Bible in its entirety is an accurate historical document. To my knowledge she has never even read anything that does NOT come from the fundamentalist camp.
-
These people have been deeply indoctrinated and there is no reaching them. Remember Stella is a fundamentalist and believes that the Bible in its entirety in an accurate historical document. To my knowledge she has never even read anything that does NOT come from the fundamentalist camp.
...Christ. That's just sad.
The Bible is so flawed it's not even funny.
Just consider the stuff that has been edited out of the Old Testament:
-the Book of Enoch... Enoch is Noah's grandfather, who travels to the north pole and then Ireland lead by the Archangel Uriel to be shown the geodesic evidence that a climatic catastrophe is on the way (the Flood). It was excised from the Bible long before Jebus' time because no one understood the metaphors involved: albino giants and clockwork pyramids etc etc
-the Book of Jasher... Jasher was the king of the Jews who sent Moses to repatriate the Egyptian contingent of the Hibiru (Hebrews) to the homeland in the valley of Petra (in Jordan). Jasher ruled the Jews after Moses' death , and his daughter took over after him. All excised from the bible when the Israelites went to war with Petra, except they forgot to delete Solomon's statement "For is it not written in the Book of Jasher".
There's more... but I don't want to bore anyone.
Every fundie should at least be aware that both these books were part of the Old Testament for about a thousand years... and only redacted relatively recently for political reasons.
The Luke
-
What do you think of this, STella?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
And would you say that is the exact same thing as the biblical concept of an AntiChrist or a parallel concept? And FYI, anyone who has claimed to be Kalki so far are lying.
Interesting Kiwi! And no, it doesn't really seem parallel to me.
-
The "mark" being referred to is a brand or tattoo (usually a stamp brand or ring seal brand) which most slaves would have burned into their skin... either on their right hand or on heir forehead.
How do you think Romans could identify a slave? Why do you think slaves didn't simply run away and proclaim themselves free men?
The author of Revelations was making the point that Caligula/Nero was going to eventually make ALL people slaves and tax all transactions: "No one can buy or sell"... etc
The Luke, where did you get this information and why do you accept it as true?
Also can you tell me a little bit about your understanding of slavery back in those days? Thanks!
Remember, the Church has already declared a few people the Antichrist, both officially and unofficially:
What church? If it's the Roman Catholic church I don't subscribe to their thinking.
-
These people have been deeply indoctrinated and there is no reaching them. Remember Stella is a fundamentalist and believes that the Bible in its entirety is an accurate historical document. To my knowledge she has never even read anything that does NOT come from the fundamentalist camp.
::)
...Christ. That's just sad.
The Bible is so flawed it's not even funny.
Just consider the stuff that has been edited out of the Old Testament:
-the Book of Enoch... Enoch is Noah's grandfather, who travels to the north pole and then Ireland lead by the Archangel Uriel to be shown the geodesic evidence that a climatic catastrophe is on the way (the Flood). It was excised from the Bible long before Jebus' time because no one understood the metaphors involved: albino giants and clockwork pyramids etc etc
-the Book of Jasher... Jasher was the king of the Jews who sent Moses to repatriate the Egyptian contingent of the Hibiru (Hebrews) to the homeland in the valley of Petra (in Jordan). Jasher ruled the Jews after Moses' death , and his daughter took over after him. All excised from the bible when the Israelites went to war with Petra, except they forgot to delete Solomon's statement "For is it not written in the Book of Jasher".
There's more... but I don't want to bore anyone.
Every fundie should at least be aware that both these books were part of the Old Testament for about a thousand years... and only redacted relatively recently for political reasons.
The Luke
What years were they a part of the OT?
-
3,000 BC till about 900 BC (the founding of Jerusalem and subsequent power struggle with the main Hebrew authority in Petra).
The problem with modern Christianity (shown daily on this board) is one of chronic ignorance...
-the 76 "lost" gospels are dismissed in favour of the canonical gospels
-the literary traditions from which most of the Bible stories are lifted is unknown (to Christians)
-the astrological allegories used are not understood
-the Bible itself is selectively quoted for moralizing purposes: Evangelicals are anti-abortion and anti-gay despite having no problem with things expressly forbidden by the very same texts: divorce; charging interest; owning engravings; eating shellfish; eating pork; not being circumcised; not paying dowries etc
I would say to any true believer (in any faith) that if you really feel it is literally true; then you either don't know enough about the text or are a moron.
At least Muslims understand the teachings of their faith... they're just morons.
The Luke
-
3,000 BC till about 900 BC (the founding of Jerusalem and subsequent power struggle with the main Hebrew authority in Petra).
Where did you learn this information?
-the 76 "lost" gospels are dismissed in favour of the canonical gospels
-the literary traditions from which most of the Bible stories are lifted is unknown (to Christians)
And this?
-the astrological allegories used are not understood
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you're referencing here.
-the Bible itself is selectively quoted for moralizing purposes: Evangelicals are anti-abortion and anti-gay despite having no problem with things expressly forbidden by the very same texts: divorce; charging interest; owning engravings; eating shellfish; eating pork; not being circumcised; not paying dowries etc
Are you talking about Jewish people that observe certain Mosaic Laws or Christian Evangelicals?
Could you please reference New Testament scriptures that forbid owning engravings ( ??? ), eating shellfish and pork and not being circumcised?
What do you mean by engravings ???
The Luke, where did you get this information and why do you accept it as true?
Also can you tell me a little bit about your understanding of slavery back in those days? Thanks!
Not sure but you may have missed this post?
-
Stella!
I write a detailed post explaining that Evangelicals are by and large chronically ignorant of their own religion, and your answer is to ask me to explain each and every line of the post because you don't have a clue about any of it?
It's called Google... use it.
The Luke
PS... this post is to be read with a tone of exasperation, rather than an irate one.
-
I write a detailed post explaining that Evangelicals are by and large chronically ignorant of their own religion, and your answer is to ask me to explain each and every line of the post because you don't have a clue about any of it?
It's called Google... use it.
The Luke
PS... this post is to be read with a tone of exasperation, rather than an irate one.
Luke, I'm sorry but it looks like you can't back up your position and it looks like it's because you really don't know what is in the bible.
From what I infer, you get your information from an outside source and don't have any (or much) real knowledge of the bible. That's fine in general but do you see the problem when you say something is in there and cannot back up your claims by posting the verse(s)? Maybe it is in there and I don't know. All you have to do is direct me to the passage.
Just to make it simple how about you just give me the New Testament Scriptures that forbid not being circumcised OR eating shellfish OR eating pork.
(I'm not irate either, we're just conversing...I don't mean to make you upset :) )
-
Just to make it simple how about you just give me the New Testament Scriptures that forbid not being circumcised OR eating shellfish OR eating pork.
...it's not in the New Testament, and I never claimed it was.
Dig up the Old Testament imprimatur on male homosexuality (I know all you Evangelicals have that bookmarked), then read the entire passage for a change.
From what I infer, you get your information from an outside source and don't have any (or much) real knowledge of the bible.
...yes, I have read other books. Try it.
The Luke
PS-your knowledge of the Bible is pretty sparse Stella.
-
...it's not in the New Testament, and I never claimed it was.
You said:
-the Bible itself is selectively quoted for moralizing purposes: Evangelicals are anti-abortion and anti-gay despite having no problem with things expressly forbidden by the very same texts: divorce; charging interest; owning engravings; eating shellfish; eating pork; not being circumcised; not paying dowries etc
What Evangelicals are you talking about?
Also, please give the verse(s) in the Old Testament that forbid owing engravings.
-
What Evangelicals are you talking about?
...I was mistaken. All American born-again Christians are pro-choice and pro gay rights.
Also, please give the verse(s) in the Old Testament that forbid owing engravings.
...that would be one of the Ten Commandments.
You gotta read the literal academic translations rather then the touchy-feely colloquialisms that pass for translations these days:
"I am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other god before me. Thou shalt have no graven images."
...I'm pretty sure that includes engraved coins.
The Luke
-
...I was mistaken. All American born-again Christians are pro-choice and pro gay rights.
hehehe. Some are, but we were talking about forbidding circumcision, and eating shellfish and pork that you said applies to Evangelicals. It doesn't.
...that would be one of the Ten Commandments.
You gotta read the literal academic translations rather then the touchy-feely colloquialisms that pass for translations these days:
"I am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other god before me. Thou shalt have no graven images."
...I'm pretty sure that includes engraved coins.
The Luke
Oh! You meant graven image!
Doesn't graven image pertain to an object that is made to be worshipped? I suppose some people do worship money ;D
-
hehehe. Some are, but we were talking about forbidding circumcision, and eating shellfish and pork that you said applies to Evangelicals. It doesn't.
...why not.
The anti-homosexual stuff is in the same list as the dietary proscriptions.
The Luke
-
...why not.
The anti-homosexual stuff is in the same list as the dietary proscriptions.
The Luke
An Luke, as I said, debating with Stella is much the same as with MCWAY. Archaeological, exegetical and other forms of evidence are routinely rejected. Faith heads don't believe the things they do because they have sound reasons but because they want to believe...at all costs...remember R. Prices' words:
Holding argues that “Christianity ‘did the wrong thing’ in order to be a successful religion” and that thus “the only way Christianity did succeed is because it was a truly revealed faith -- and because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection.” Here he serves notice that we will be asked to "admit" that miracles are the only way to account for the rise and success of Christianity. In any other field of inquiry this would be laughed off stage. I am thinking of a cartoon in which a lab-coated scientist is standing at the chalkboard, which is full of integers, and he is pointing to a hollow circle in the midst of it all, saying, "Right here a miracle takes place." Appealing to miracles as a needful causal link is tantamount to confessing bafflement. But in fact, there will be no need for this.
-
...why not.
The anti-homosexual stuff is in the same list as the dietary proscriptions.
The Luke
Luke, I think may be confused about Mosaic Law and how it pertains (or doesn't) to believers in Christ.
Here are some New Testament Scriptures:
(Food)
Mark 7:14
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
(circumcision)
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
This may help too:
Galatians 3:21-25
Faith or Observance of the Law
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
-
Obama
-
Luke, I think may be confused about Mosaic Law and how it pertains (or doesn't) to believers in Christ.
...I'm sorry, did American Evangelical Christians suddenly become pro-gay?
Or are they still practising their true religion: hypocrisy... selectively deciding which bits of a contradictory history of temperal-lobe epilepsy in the ancient middle east are "literally" true, and which they can dismiss.
The Luke
-
...I'm sorry, did American Evangelical Christians suddenly become pro-gay?
Or are they still practising their true religion: hypocrisy... selectively deciding which bits of a contradictory history of temperal-lobe epilepsy in the ancient middle east are "literally" true, and which they can dismiss.
The Luke
If you take out the temperal-lobe epilepsy part, probably the hypocrisy one ;D
Hey Luke, interesting way to discuss a subject. You have seen that you have Mosaic Law confused with Grace and Faith in Christ. You ignore it and then go on the "attack" from a different standpoint. Oh well :-\
-
Hey Luke, interesting way to discuss a subject. You have seen that you have Mosaic Law confused with Grace and Faith in Christ. You ignore it and then go on the "attack" from a different standpoint. Oh well :-\
...just joshing.
But I think my point is valid. If Jesus never said jack-shit about homos (and was probably a homo himself), then why do Hypochristians latch on to outdated obsolete Mosaic Law so fervently in this particular case.
The Luke
-
...just joshing.
Oh! Sorry :)
But I think my point is valid. If Jesus never said jack-shit about homos (and was probably a homo himself), then why do Hypochristians latch on to outdated obsolete Mosaic Law so fervently in this particular case.
The Luke
Actually homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament (ROmans, I think) but I don't ever recall reading Jesus saying anything about it specifically pinpointing and naming it.
Luke, I know a guy (who eventually got saved)that used to reject God specifically because he had gay friends and was angry that they were "condemned to hell" because of it.
The guy was exposed to a bunch of idiot-teachings like the Westboro Church of D-Bags that have the Godhatesfags website.
THese people do not represent the God of the Bible. God loves homosexuals. That being said I do not agree w/your assertion that Christ was one.
In any case, the fact that homosexuals engage in homosexual activity, according to the bible is a sin but so is lying or getting blasted or even gluttony!
Those WEstboro nuts came to my town and some of them were obese!
God even loves those nuts.
I don't know why some "hypochristians" as you call them seem so obsessed w/them. Maybe it's because they are more visible....who knows?
In any case God loves them :)
-
THese people do not represent the God of the Bible. God loves homosexuals. That being said I do not agree w/your assertion that Christ was one.
...that same god who is a psychopathic genocidal monster throughout the Old Testament, only to send a thoroughly decent bloke on a suicide mission in the New Testament, then failed to intervene when literalist morons destroyed most of human culture in his name?
That asshole?
By the way, if someone introduced you to a 33 year-old virgin Jewish man, who still lived with his mother; palled around with slutty female "friend" he WASN'T banging, but mostly spent his time traveling around with twelve sailors... what would you think?
By the way, there supposedly was an early Christian cult dedicated to the secret homosexual teachings of Jebus.
Just saying... secret gospels of Mark and all that... just saying... the "young man whom Jesus loved"... just saying... the young naked guy wrapped in a tablecloth meeting Jesus in a public park at night... just saying... maybe there was a reason he didn't go out of his way to condemn queers... just saying, is all...
The Luke
-
By the way, if someone introduced you to a 33 year-old virgin Jewish man, who still lived with his mother; palled around with slutty female "friend" he WASN'T banging, but mostly spent his time traveling around with twelve sailors... what would you think?
The Luke
Jesus said "I and The Father are one."
You expect a father to bang his own daughters? You accuse a father of being a homo for not banging his own daughters? Don't you think that sick and twisted of you?
-
Jesus said "I and The Father are one."
You expect a father to bang his own daughters? You accuse a father of being a homo for not banging his own daughters? Don't you think that sick and twisted of you?
...I asked a hypothetical question about a hypothetical Jewish man.
You assumed I was referring to your personal zombie space daddy Jebus... quite a leap there. The kind of leap that some might consider a non-sequitur... some might even infer a chronic inability to differentiate context and subject from such a poor comprehension of context... some might infer such an IQ deficit, not me per say, but some might.
Can't you admit that most reasonable people would assume such a hypothetical Jewish man to be a ho-mo-sex-ual?
Can't you admit you might just be a little uncomfortable with your own saviours social demographic?
Not saying that statistically speaking it is far more likely such a hypothetical Jewish man is much more likely to be a commoner garden variety queer than the one and only physical embodiment of the one and only all powerful space daddy... not saying that, per say... but some might.
The Luke
-
The Luke, where did you get this information and why do you accept it as true?
Also can you tell me a little bit about your understanding of slavery back in those days? Thanks!
What church? If it's the Roman Catholic church I don't subscribe to their thinking.
But the Roman Catholic Church is the first Christian religion.
They are the people who put your Bible together in it's entirety in the first place.
How can you say you don't subscribe to their thinking when their thinking is the book you quote from?
-
...I asked a hypothetical question about a hypothetical Jewish man.
You assumed I was referring to your personal zombie space daddy Jebus... quite a leap there. The kind of leap that some might consider a non-sequitur... some might even infer a chronic inability to differentiate context and subject from such a poor comprehension of context... some might infer such an IQ deficit, not me per say, but some might.
Can't you admit that most reasonable people would assume such a hypothetical Jewish man to be a ho-mo-sex-ual?
Can't you admit you might just be a little uncomfortable with your own saviours social demographic?
Not saying that statistically speaking it is far more likely such a hypothetical Jewish man is much more likely to be a commoner garden variety queer than the one and only physical embodiment of the one and only all powerful space daddy... not saying that, per say... but some might.
The Luke
You've got some funky information going The Luke!
But the Roman Catholic Church is the first Christian religion.
If you mean first Christian religion as in first Christian "faith," I tell ya, I don't agree.
How can you say you don't subscribe to their thinking when their thinking is the book you quote from?
The Roman Catholic church tends to rely on tradition etc. (and their traditions can change) and/or whatever they deem as true at a particular moment in time over and above believing the bible as truth.
Just a couple examples the Roman Cath. church advocates which are in direct contrast w/scripture including:
Praying to dead people (an abomination according to the bible)
Mary as co-redeemer (not scriptural) ............this one jacks with the Gospel Message...can't get much more wrong than that
Perhaps not all Catholic churches teach these inconsistencies though! I hope not!....
-
Why the identity of a storybook figure is important today is beyond me.
Is everyone aware that Bruce Wayne is Batman?
B/c of religion, as embodied in didactic parables in those books, we have seriously demented people out there. But for the nonsense of those books, there is no middle east problem b/c there is no 'sacred' land.
Some people don't know where the story ends and life begins.
You want the identity of the anti-christ, ok...here he is:
&feature=related
-
You've got some funky information going The Luke!
If you mean first Christian religion as in first Christian "faith," I tell ya, I don't agree.
The Roman Catholic church tends to rely on tradition etc. (and their traditions can change) and/or whatever they deem as true at a particular moment in time over and above believing the bible as truth.
Just a couple examples the Roman Cath. church advocates which are in direct contrast w/scripture including:
Praying to dead people (an abomination according to the bible)
Mary as co-redeemer (not scriptural) ............this one jacks with the Gospel Message...can't get much more wrong than that
Perhaps not all Catholic churches teach these inconsistencies though! I hope not!....
Disagree if you want, but the history of the Catholic church is the longest history of the Christian faith. Time = Origin.
Also, The Catholic church put together the Bible... They picked and chose what books to join together to create it... How can you say you don't subscribe to their belief when the Bible you are quoting was created by them?
-
Disagree if you want, but the history of the Catholic church is the longest history of the Christian faith. Time = Origin.
Also, The Catholic church put together the Bible... They picked and chose what books to join together to create it... How can you say you don't subscribe to their belief when the Bible you are quoting was created by them?
Word.
-
Also, The Catholic church put together the Bible... They picked and chose what books to join together to create it... How can you say you don't subscribe to their belief when the Bible you are quoting was created by them?
...excellent point.
When Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, he pretty much locked all the Christian patriarchs in a room till they came to some kind of agreement.
This compromise result was the New Testament as we know it today.
But consider what they discarded... 76 alternate gospels, some of which have been recovered via the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Library, Cathar/Bogomil/Albigensian/Aryan literature, the Quumran texts etc etc:
-the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (in which the Magdalene is Jesus' wife/secret apostle/successor)
-the Gospel of Thomas (where Jesus survives the crucifixion only to retire in Pakistan)
-another Gospel of Thomas (in which Thomas is Jesus' twin brother)
-the Gospel of Pontius Pilate (in which Pilate was a Christian true believer)
-the Gospel of Judas Iscariot (in which Judas is ordered by Jesus to betray him)
-the "Secret" Gospel of Mark (for higher initiates, detailing supposedly homosexual rituals)
None of these gospels are self-consistent, most can't even agree on the names of the twelve disciples... and that's not including the wealth of associated midrash literature.
If you choose to distance yourself from Vatican thinking despite it's history as the main branch of Christian thought (as some of the apologists here insist upon doing), you have to be very, very careful of the company you're keeping... traditionally those Christians who had access to the full canon of texts and adhered to the teachings of such texts differed significantly from Vatican thinking.
These "True Christians": The Aryans; Bogomils and Cathars (practically the same group), Albigensians, Old Believers and Hibernian Church, while thoroughly Christian in their attitude and conduct, being far more charitable, tolerant, egalitarian and observant of Christ's message... they didn't necessarily believe in:
-the virgin birth
-the immaculate conception
-Jesus being celibate
-Jesus being god
-Jesus being the "son of god"
-Jesus rising from the dead
-Jesus being crucified
-Jesus being assumed bodily into heaven
-Jesus being a real historical person
-Jesus being anything other than an allegorical example for humankind
...so if you believe the canonical gospels to be LITERALLY true, then it ought give you pause that the majority of Christians throughout Christian history were far better informed regarding the nature of the Jesus, and the vast majority of them had come to the conclusion that Jesus was mythological.
The Luke
-
The neverending discussion.............. .................. i wish i never posted this thread, it won't go away from my "new replies.." list. Like all religious discussions, the points have all been made no one is changing their minds, please stop now...
-
The neverending discussion.............. .................. i wish i never posted this thread, it won't go away from my "new replies.." list. Like all religious discussions, the points have all been made no one is changing their minds, please stop now...
Blame it on the fundies...
-
Now for an interesting question, or rather... lets say hypothetical situation, for those of you who believe there is an Anti-Christ:
There is a new-born baby, and you would get information that made you absolutely sure, no doubts in the world, that the baby was the Anti-Christ.
You happen to know where the baby is, and you also have free access to it.
And have the tools to kill it.
You know that once the baby grows up, the chance is gone.
Would you kill the baby?
-
Now for an interesting question, or rather... lets say hypothetical situation, for those of you who believe there is an Anti-Christ:
There is a new-born baby, and you would get information that made you absolutely sure, no doubts in the world, that the baby was the Anti-Christ.
You happen to know where the baby is, and you also have free access to it.
And have the tools to kill it.
You know that once the baby grows up, the chance is gone.
Would you kill the baby?
I am sure this is a real dilemma for these nutters.
-
I am sure this is a real dilemma for these nutters.
What if Roe v. Wade has already killed or will kill the Anti-Christ... what about that?
-
What if Roe v. Wade has already killed or will kill the Anti-Christ... what about that?
...haha!
The real question is... seeing as Jebus Christ essentially destroyed world culture and replaced it with the unenlightened anti-intellectual anti-knowledge literalist dogma of Christianity which in turn lead to the Inquisition; Dark Ages; suppression of alchemy; suppression of critical thought; suppression of science and stifling of human progression, only to repay us with a paradigm of brutality, guilt and sexual repression...
Considering all this... shouldn't we be hoping for the Antichrist?
The Luke
-
Actually, I think the question is a pretty interesting one.
There are quite a few aspects on it as well for the Christian faithful.
-
...haha!
The real question is... seeing as Jebus Christ essentially destroyed world culture and replaced it with the unenlightened anti-intellectual anti-knowledge literalist dogma of Christianity which in turn lead to the Inquisition; Dark Ages; suppression of alchemy; suppression of critical thought; suppression of science and stifling of human progression, only to repay us with a paradigm of brutality, guilt and sexual repression...
Considering all this... shouldn't we be hoping for the Antichrist?
The Luke
::)
Christianity played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization, abolishing slavery in the west, the invention of the printing press, promoting literacy around the world, and much much more.
-
::)
Christianity played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization, abolishing slavery in the west, the invention of the printing, promoting literacy around the world, and much much more.
By default it shaped the West; no one had a choice but to listen to the Church.
Abolishing slavery? You are concocting something there...
None of the other things you mention has anything whatsoever to do with Christianity...I am starting to doubt your sanity Loco.
-
By default it shaped the West; no one had a choice but to listen to the Church.
Abolishing slavery? You are concocting something there...
None of the other things you mention has anything whatsoever to do with Christianity...I am starting to doubt your sanity Loco.
Are you saying these Christians had nothing to do with abolishing slavery?
America:
John Brown
Frederick Douglass
Abraham Lincoln
Britain:
William Wilberforce
Granville Sharp
Thomas Clarkson
Contribution to World Literacy
There are Christian organizations which send missionaries to parts of the world where these missionaries translate the Bible into the locals' language and then teach them how to read it. They also go into parts of the world where people have a spoken language, but no written language. These organizations learn the spoken language, create a written language from it, then translate the Bible into this new written language, and finally teach these people their new written language. Wycliffe Bible Translators is one of these Christian organizations.
I'm surprised that you, Deicide, of all people have never heard of them, given your skills and career choice!
The Printing Press and its contribution to the rapid development in the sciences and art
Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press with replaceable/moveable wooden or metal letters in 1436 (completed by 1440). This method of printing can be credited not only for a revolution in the production of books, but also for fostering rapid development in the sciences, arts and religion through the transmission of texts.
Johannes Gutenberg is also accredited with printing the world's first book using movable type, the 42-line (the number of lines per page) Gutenberg Bible.
-
Are you saying these Christians had nothing to do with abolishing slavery?
America:
John Brown
Frederick Douglass
Abraham Lincoln
Britain:
William Wilberforce
Granville Sharp
Thomas Clarkson
Contribution to World Literacy
There are Christian organizations which send missionaries to parts of the world where these missionaries translate the Bible into the locals' language and then teach them how to read it. They also go into parts of the world where people have a spoken language, but no written language. These organizations learn the spoken language, create a written language from it, then translate the Bible into this new written language, and finally teach these people their new written language. Wycliffe Bible Translators is one of these Christian organizations.
I'm surprised that you, Deicide, of all people have never heard of them, given your skills and career choice!
The Printing Press and its contribution to the rapid development in the sciences and art
Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press with replaceable/moveable wooden or metal letters in 1436 (completed by 1440). This method of printing can be credited not only for a revolution in the production of books, but also for fostering rapid development in the sciences, arts and religion through the transmission of texts.
Johannes Gutenberg is also accredited with printing the world's first book using movable type, the 42-line (the number of lines per page) Gutenberg Bible.
Of course I know these men but you are claiming that their actions were explicitly Chrisitian in nature, which I dispute.
And btw, whilst Wycliff was getting owned by the Catholic Church for his good deeds...all Christians...anyway, it just doesn't follow that Christianity per se had anything to do with this. As I said, by default all people could hear about in the 14th (Wycliffe) and 15 centuries (Gutenberg) was the stupid Bible and the moronic preachings of the Church.
-
Disagree if you want, but the history of the Catholic church is the longest history of the Christian faith. Time = Origin.
Also, The Catholic church put together the Bible... They picked and chose what books to join together to create it... How can you say you don't subscribe to their belief when the Bible you are quoting was created by them?
Today Catholic churches (possibly not all?) teach things in direct opposition to what the bible teaches.
tu_, what are your thoughts on the Apocryphal books? Do you consider them part of your bible?
Now for an interesting question, or rather... lets say hypothetical situation, for those of you who believe there is an Anti-Christ:
There is a new-born baby, and you would get information that made you absolutely sure, no doubts in the world, that the baby was the Anti-Christ.
You happen to know where the baby is, and you also have free access to it.
And have the tools to kill it.
You know that once the baby grows up, the chance is gone.
Would you kill the baby?
That is an interesting question! Some things to be considered would be if you would be interfering w/God's plan to kill the baby.
Even if all of your scenario was true, I don't know that I'd be able to kill a baby lying there.
What if Roe v. Wade has already killed or will kill the Anti-Christ... what about that?
Along those lines, what if it killed the person w/the cure for cancer
-
Even if all of your scenario was true, I don't know that I'd be able to kill a baby lying there.
...of course you would. Why deny it?
If history has thought us anything it is that religion, and the delusional extremist thinking associated with it, is the very best method by which normally moral people can be convinced to act immorally.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens:
There is no good deed any believer has ever done that could not have been done by an atheist... but there is a long list of atrocious acts committed in the name of imaginary friends.
If you insist upon convincing yourself the patently irrational is literally true, then you can be convinced of anything.
The Luke
-
...of course you would. Why deny it?
Oh brother lol. Glad you know me so well ::)
If you insist upon convincing yourself the patently irrational is literally true, then you can be convinced of anything.
The Luke
How's the hunt for Bigfoot coming along?
See, you think Christians are irrational. Some people may think that your obsession w/Bigfoot is irrational. To each his own but at least we are not obsessed w/your obsession.
-
Oh brother lol. Glad you know me so well ::)
How's the hunt for Bigfoot coming along?
The idea of Bigfoot is a hell of a lot more realistic than some self-ressurecting cosmic zombie and I am not a Bigfoot believer.
-
How's the hunt for Bigfoot coming along?
...quite well. We're up to a partial DNA profile!
Jane Goodall just threw her weight behind the cause.
The Luke
-
Today Catholic churches (possibly not all?) teach things in direct opposition to what the bible teaches.
how so?
-
l
how so?
Hi ATHEIST :)
Not sure that all Catholic churches teach these things so we'll say Some Catholic Churches.....
Some Catholic Churches: teach that water baptism saves or rituals given by a priest
Bible: Salvation comes by grace through faith (belief) in Christ as Savior
SCC: You can lose your salvation
Bible: Salvation is secure
SCC: Pope can be considered infallible
Bible: All people are fallible/sinful
SCC: Purgatory
Bible: No mention of Purgatory
SCC: Teach that Mary is a co-redeemer w/Christ.
Bible: Belief in Jesus only.
SCC: Prayer to "saints" and Mary are accepted and encouraged.
Bible: Pray only to God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Attempted contact w/the dead is an abomination
-
thanks for that, i always questioned why they prayed to Mother Mary or other Saints. isnt that worshipping a false idol? how do they justify that being its in the 10 commandments?
-
thanks for that, i always questioned why they prayed to Mother Mary or other Saints. isnt that worshipping a false idol? how do they justify that being its in the 10 commandments?
So is praying to Jesus too then though... Right?
Jesus is not God.
-
From the time of Christ till the early fourteenth century, a sizable contingent (possibly a majority) of Christians believed things that would be considered non-Christian today.
The Cathars; Old Believers; Bogomils; Albigensians; Carpocratians; Mandeans; Johannites; Hibernians and Gnostics were all at odds with the (current) beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.
Many Christians, for many centuries, firmly believed some mix of the following:
-Jesus was an ordinary man
-Jesus was a twin. His identical twin brother Judas went on the cross in his place.
-Jesus was a twin. His identical twin brother Thomas (Hebrew for "twin") went on the cross in his place.
-Jesus was a ghost
-Jesus never died but survived the crucifixion and retired in the east
-Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
-Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary were the same person
-Jesus' father was a Roman legionnaire
-Jesus' father was a Roman legionnaire client of his mother, a prostitute
-Jesus was the reincarnation of Elijah
-Mary Magdalene was the successor of Jesus and the first true pope
In fact, when you include the Aryan Church... then a case could be made that throughout the Dark Ages the majority of Christians did NOT believe in the resurrection.
To this day there is a small sect of Christians who firmly believe that Jesus never ascended into heaven, but survived the crucifixion, healed up and escaped to the east... where he died an old man and was buried. They do have some evidence on their side... a miracle worker named Issa (Jesus?) returned to Kashmir (a disputed region between Pakistan and India) after being crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem on the orders of Pilate in the early first century. His tomb is a tourist attraction to this day... and first century inscriptions of Issa's teachings included Issa's claim to be the person Christians know as Jesus.
But most interesting... and most pertinent to this discussion... there are at least two longstanding sects who firmly believe Jesus himself was the Antichrist.
The followers of Simon Magis still believe that he, the creepy sex-magician was the true Christ messiah. They do have a point, there is fuck all difference between the teachings of Simon Magis and the the teachings of Christ... it's just that Simon Magis was more pro-sex and pro-Gnosticism (personal communion with god without an intermediary). He had twelve male disciples and a thirteenth consort/disciple who was a redeemed prostitute (sounds familiar?), he performed miracles, healed the blind; healed the lame; healed the possessed, walked on water, raised the dead etc etc.
The best evidence that they may be on to something is the fact that John the Baptist did not leave his ministry to Jesus... after an intermediary administration by a caretaker disciple while he traveled back to Jerusalem, Simon Magis, the named and preferred heir to John the Baptist took over the ministry.
They believe Jesus to be the Antichrist who falsified history in order to usurp the true Christ: Simon Magis.
The Mandeans of Iraq (the so-called "Swamp Kurds"), despite their public declarations to be "People of the Book", are rumored to secretly be the longest continuous Johannite religion on Earth. They worship John the Baptist as the Christ, and believe Jesus to be the usurper who ordered the death of the true messiah John the Baptist through Mary Salome, sister of his concubine Mary Magdalene.
Jesus the usurper then established a false ministry offering the empty promise of a non-existent salvation through belief in him: the Antichrist. Jesus convinced the gullible by using the enthralled captive ghost of John the Baptist to perform miracles on his behalf, because Jesus had the Baptist's head and the owning of an important bodypart enslaved a spirit (a common mid-eastern belief).
So, surprisingly... Jesus might be the Antichrist.
The Luke
-
So is praying to Jesus too then though... Right?
Jesus is not God.
they are taught to be one in the same according to western Christianity, or at least i was. The Holy Trinity.
-
Some comments from gotquestions.org
Question: "Who is the antichrist?"
Answer: There is much speculation about the identity of the antichrist. Some of the more popular targets are Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Pope Benedict XVI. In the United States, former President Bill Clinton, current President George Bush, and president-elect Barack Obama are the most frequent candidates. So, who is the antichrist, and how will we recognize him?
The Bible really does not say anything specific about where the antichrist will come from. Many Bible scholars speculate that he will come from a confederacy of ten nations and/or a reborn Roman empire (Daniel 7:24-25; Revelation 17:7). Others see him as being a Jew since he would have to be in order to claim to be the Messiah. It is all just speculation since the Bible does not specifically say where the antichrist will come from or what race he will be. One day, the antichrist will be revealed. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 tells us how we will recognize the antichrist: "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
It is likely that most people who are alive when the antichrist is revealed will be very surprised at his identity. The antichrist may or may not be alive today. Martin Luther was convinced that the pope in his time was the antichrist. Others who have lived in the past few hundred years have been equally sure as to the identity of the antichrist. So far, they have all been incorrect. We should put the speculations behind us and focus on what the Bible actually says about the antichrist. Revelation 13:5-8 declares, "The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Resource: Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware
Well, Sarah Palin was going to be. :-X FAIL.
-
they are taught to be one in the same according to western Christianity, or at least i was. The Holy Trinity.
Not exactly... Some see him as God... Some the son of God... Some see him as God made man.
So there are subtle differences.
-
thanks for that, i always questioned why they prayed to Mother Mary or other Saints. isnt that worshipping a false idol? how do they justify that being its in the 10 commandments?
Seems like it would be worshipping a false idol. I have had a Catholic school teacher tell me that they don't worship Mary though but they "honor" her. She couldn't really describe what she meant by that so I'm not sure.
So is praying to Jesus too then though... Right?
Jesus is not God.
Not exactly... Some see him as God... Some the son of God... Some see him as God made man.
So there are subtle differences.
they are taught to be one in the same according to western Christianity, or at least i was. The Holy Trinity.
Christians do believe that Jesus is God and so yes we pray to Him (and the Holy Spirit as well.)
There are people that consider themselves Christian that do not believe Jesus is God...I think Mormons consider themselves Christian and possibly Jehova's Witnesses also.
-
Seems like it would be worshipping a false idol. I have had a Catholic school teacher tell me that they don't worship Mary though but they "honor" her. She couldn't really describe what she meant by that so I'm not sure.
they are taught to be one in the same according to western Christianity, or at least i was. The Holy Trinity.
Christians do believe that Jesus is God and so yes we pray to Him (and the Holy Spirit as well.)
There are people that consider themselves Christian that do not believe Jesus is God...I think Mormons consider themselves Christian and possibly Jehova's Witnesses also.
The Holy Trinity is a Catholic creation... Just so you know.
The "Holy Spirit" as an entity was invented by those damn Catholics.
-
The Holy Trinity is a Catholic creation... Just so you know.
I hadn't heard that before.
The "Holy Spirit" as an entity was invented by those damn Catholics.
Are you saying the Catholic church wrote the bible?
tu_holmes are you Catholic? I didn't mean to offend you. If I did, I apologize!
-
I hadn't heard that before.
Are you saying the Catholic church wrote the bible?
tu_holmes are you Catholic? I didn't mean to offend you. If I did, I apologize!
The Catholics did in effect write the Bible... Haven't we already spoken of this before?
No, they didn't write each individual book at it's core, but let's say they did edit it to the way they saw fit.
The Catholic Church over time recognized and decided the canon of the New and Old Testaments in A.D. 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419)
My mother is Catholic, so by birth, I guess you could say I am as well, but I do not consider myself a practicer of catholicism or any other religion.
I am not really a person of faith... I have a lot of upbringing to fall back to.
-
The Catholics did in effect write the Bible... Haven't we already spoken of this before?
No, they didn't write each individual book at it's core, but let's say they did edit it to the way they saw fit.
The Catholic Church over time recognized and decided the canon of the New and Old Testaments in A.D. 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419)
Check it Tu!
CANON OF SCRIPTURE
I. Introduction
A. English word "canon"
A. Derived from Greek word kanon meaning "measure, rule,
standard, norm." Later meant "list" or "collection."
B. Greek word derived from Hebrew word qaneh meaning "reed."
C. Greek word kanon not used of standard collection of Scripture until
4th century.
B. Greek word kanon used in New Testament
1. II Cor. 10:13,15,16 - "a measure"
2. Gal. 6:16 - "walk by this rule"
3. Phil. 3:16 - "living by that standard" (not in best MSS)
C. Distinguishing between
1. Revelation
2. Inspiration
3. Enscripturalization
4. Preservation
5. Authoritization
6. Canonization
D. Criteria for canonization? Determined from early Christian sources.
1. Early dating
2. Apostolic origin
3. Divine inspiration
4. Divine authority
5. No contradiction to accepted teaching, "rule of faith."
6. Relevance and value to church at large
E. Some regard study of the canonization of Scripture as a threat to their faith
in the Bible.
II. Canon of the Old Testament.
A. Hebrew writings of Jews were progressively divided into three parts:
1. Law - Torah - Pentateuch - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy.
2. Prophets
a. Former prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel (I,II), Kings (I,II)
b. Latter prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 prophets
3. Writings - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah, Chronicles (I,II).
B. Later Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah to cause
sum of books to be 22, corresponding to number of letters in Hebrew
alphabet.
C. The Hebrew O.T. writings that Jesus was familiar with were likely
collected in one of the foregoing ways. Matthew 23:35 tends to illustrate this.
D. Josephus, Jewish historian, c. 100 A.D., wrote that Jews had 22 books
containing the history of all time.
E. Canonization process was gradual. Divisions due both to content and
chronology of acceptance as canonical.
F. Councils of Jamnia, 90, 118 A.D., Jewish rabbis discussed canon of O.T.
G. Septuagint (LXX), Greek translation of O.T. employed different order and
included apocryphal literature. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation used
LXX.
H. Roman Catholic Bibles include O.T. apocrypha - Tobit, Judith, Wisdom,
Sirach, Baruch, I,II Macabees, and additions to Esther and Daniel.
III. Canon of the New Testament
A. Early Christian writings gradually collected. Gospels. Paul's writings -
(II Peter 3:16).
B. Marcion, Gnostic heretic, (139 A.D.) determined list of writings. Rejected
O.T., revised Luke's gospel, ten Pauline epistles. Restricted list.
C. Montanus claimed divine revelation. Expanded list.
D. Church responded to these attempts to expand or restrict.
E. Irenaeus, 180 A.D. cites 22 writings as acceptable: 4 gospels, Acts, 13
Pauline epistles, I Peter, I,II John and Revelation.
F. Muratorian list - named after Italian Muratori (1740) who discovered such.
Fragment dated late 2nd to 4th century. 22 books plus Apocalypse of Peter.
Hebrews, I,II Peter, III John and James omitted.
G. Tertullian (150-230) - 22 books accepted: 4 gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline
epistles, I Peter, I John, Jude, Revelation.
H. Origen (185-255). Three categories of writings:
1. Acknowledged: 4 gospels, 13 Pauline epistles, I Peter, I John, Acts,
Revelation.
2. Disputed: II Peter, II,III John, Hebrews, James and Jude; also
Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache.
3. Heretical: Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc.
I. Eusebius (260-340).
1. Acknowledged: 4 gospels, 14 Pauline epistles (Hebrews included), I
Peter, I John, Acts
2. Disputed: James, Jude, II Peter, II,III John, Revelation. Spurious:
Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Acts of Paul.
3. Heretical: Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Acts of Andrew etc.
J. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century). 27 books plus Epistle of Barnabas and
Shepherd of Hermas.
K. Council of Laodicea (363) - 26 books. Revelation omitted.
L. Athanasius (367) - first time list includes the 27 books of present N.T.
M. Jerome's Vulgate included 27 books of N.T.
N. Augustine (397), 3rd Council of Carthage, accepted 27 books of N.T.
O. Martin Luther. Put Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation at back of His
German N.T. as inferior writings.
IV. Questions
A. Was Christianity ever intended to be a religion of Scripture?
1. II Cor. 3:6
2. Anchor Bible Dict. I, 853 - "Christianity was not originally a
Scriptural religion in the same sense as Judaism. The faith of the
earliest Christian community was evoked by and centered on a
person, Jesus of Nazareth."
B. Is the Bible intended to be the basis of authority for Christians?
1. Matt. 28:18
2. "Word of the Lord" - I Cor. 7:10; 9:14; 11:23; I Thess. 4:15
C. What if the New Testament had never been written, preserved, or collected?
D. Is the Bible the infallible Word of God?
E. Did the Church put the Bible together?
F. Is canonicity God-given or Church-conferred? ...or combination of both?
G. Did God determine what writings should be in the Bible, and then
Christians in the Church recognized and affirmed these as the normative
and authoritative standard?
-
And FYI,
This is what happened at the Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
This is what happened at the Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
This is what happened at the Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
-
Are you saying the Catholic church wrote the bible?
It would be more correct though to say that the Catholic Church were the editors of the Bible, ie decided what was allowed to be in it.
The Catholic Church is after all the original Christianity.
-
It would be more correct though to say that the Catholic Church were the editors of the Bible, ie decided what was allowed to be in it.
The Catholic Church is after all the original Christianity.
Wasn't Christianity around for 300 years or so before the Roman Catholic church emerged?
As for the Old Testament, it was Jewish scholars who came up with the cannon, Tanakh, accepted by Protestant churches. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Septuagint as the Old Testament cannon, but Jews and Protestants do not.
-
Wasn't Christianity around for 300 years or so before the Roman Catholic church emerged?
As for the Old Testament, it was Jewish scholars who came up with the cannon, Tanakh, accepted by Protestant churches. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Septuagint as the Old Testament cannon, but Jews and Protestants do not.
No.
Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome, and from there the Catholic Church developed.
-
No.
Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome, and from there the Catholic Church developed.
Yeah, according to who, the Roman Catholic Church? How convenient for them! Not according to the Bible, not even the "Catholic" Bible.
-
Yeah, according to who, the Roman Catholic Church? How convenient for them! Not according to the Bible, not even the "Catholic" Bible.
Just for the record...
Catholicism is not the original version of Christianity... that would be Gnosticism.
Peter was NOT the first bishop of Rome... he couldn't have been, he is a fictitious person... he never existed. Neither did any of the disciples... they are allegorical metaphors representing the zodiac constellations.
Paul, (Saul of Tarsus) was probably the closest thing to being the first Christian bishop.
James the Just is sometimes noted as the first Christian bishop, but it is important to differentiate that although James collected tithes from early Christians on the authority of his being Jesus' surviving brother, James the Just himself was never a Christian.
He was the leader of the Quumran Essenes, an ascetic Jewish fundamentalist apocalyptic cult... Jesus never existed as a real historical human being, he was an invention of the Jerusalem/Quumran Essenes. The Jesus myth is a Hebrew version of the common Middle Eastern solar-deity dying-resurrecting godman Mystery Religion.
The Quumran Essenes used the Jesus myth as a fundraiser for their war effort against the Romans, they collected tithes on the authority of James supposedly being Jesus brother (they were completely destroyed by the Romans under Titus in 70 AD). This was considered acceptable as they were merely utilizing a non-illuminated literalist (no hidden teachings) Jewish version of the Mystery Religion to swindle Gentiles out of coin.
As happened with Scientology when L Ron Hubbard died, the scam outlived the founder.
So, I suppose you could say that Paul/Saul, although he wasn't really the first pope or bishop... he was at least the David Miscavige to James the Just's L Ron Hubbard.
The Luke
-
Just for the record...
Catholicism is not the original version of Christianity... that would be Gnosticism.
Peter was NOT the first bishop of Rome... he couldn't have been, he is a fictitious person... he never existed. Neither did any of the disciples... they are allegorical metaphors representing the zodiac constellations.
Paul, (Saul of Tarsus) was probably the closest thing to being the first Christian bishop.
James the Just is sometimes noted as the first Christian bishop, but it is important to differentiate that although James collected tithes from early Christians on the authority of his being Jesus' surviving brother, James the Just himself was never a Christian.
He was the leader of the Quumran Essenes, an ascetic Jewish fundamentalist apocalyptic cult... Jesus never existed as a real historical human being, he was an invention of the Jerusalem/Quumran Essenes. The Jesus myth is a Hebrew version of the common Middle Eastern solar-deity dying-resurrecting godman Mystery Religion.
The Quumran Essenes used the Jesus myth as a fundraiser for their war effort against the Romans, they collected tithes on the authority of James supposedly being Jesus brother (they were completely destroyed by the Romans under Titus in 70 AD). This was considered acceptable as they were merely utilizing a non-illuminated literalist (no hidden teachings) Jewish version of the Mystery Religion to swindle Gentiles out of coin.
As happened with Scientology when L Ron Hubbard died, the scam outlived the founder.
So, I suppose you could say that Paul/Saul, although he wasn't really the first pope or bishop... he was at least the David Miscavige to James the Just's L Ron Hubbard.
The Luke
Fictitious is what your posts are. :)
-
Fictitious is what your posts are. :)
...miracles are fictitious.
...your miraculous Jewish zombie godman is fictitious.
The Luke
-
Just for the record...
Catholicism is not the original version of Christianity... that would be Gnosticism.
Peter was NOT the first bishop of Rome... he couldn't have been, he is a fictitious person... he never existed. Neither did any of the disciples... they are allegorical metaphors representing the zodiac constellations.
Paul, (Saul of Tarsus) was probably the closest thing to being the first Christian bishop.
James the Just is sometimes noted as the first Christian bishop, but it is important to differentiate that although James collected tithes from early Christians on the authority of his being Jesus' surviving brother, James the Just himself was never a Christian.
He was the leader of the Quumran Essenes, an ascetic Jewish fundamentalist apocalyptic cult... Jesus never existed as a real historical human being, he was an invention of the Jerusalem/Quumran Essenes. The Jesus myth is a Hebrew version of the common Middle Eastern solar-deity dying-resurrecting godman Mystery Religion.
The Quumran Essenes used the Jesus myth as a fundraiser for their war effort against the Romans, they collected tithes on the authority of James supposedly being Jesus brother (they were completely destroyed by the Romans under Titus in 70 AD). This was considered acceptable as they were merely utilizing a non-illuminated literalist (no hidden teachings) Jewish version of the Mystery Religion to swindle Gentiles out of coin.
As happened with Scientology when L Ron Hubbard died, the scam outlived the founder.
So, I suppose you could say that Paul/Saul, although he wasn't really the first pope or bishop... he was at least the David Miscavige to James the Just's L Ron Hubbard.
The Luke
I think I've heard this theory before. Pretty interesting.
-
I think I've heard this theory before. Pretty interesting.
...what we know now is that James the Just (the supposed brother of Jesus) seems to have been a real historical person, and apparently, right up until his death (killed in a Temple riot) he was the leader of the Quumran Essenes.
The library of Essene thinking: hundreds of documents covering everything from Buddhism to Gnosticism, thousands of words... contains NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF JESUS.
Why weren't the Essenes Christian, if their leader was Jesus' brother and possibly even an apostle too?
Why would James the Just (supposedly) declare himself the messiah in the Jerusalem Temple?
Because Christianity is a fundraiser religion. Simple. Nothing more. A common dying-resurrecting solar-deity Mystery Religion, just with a Jewish name and the story is based in Jerusalem, and aimed at Hellenized Jews and Gentiles.
No different that Scientology.
The Luke
-
Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As
Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus
into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the
high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the
report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man;
for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high
priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long
time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high
priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you
already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper,
and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23)
who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of
the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus
was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper
opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was
called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some
of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but
as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and
such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa],
desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for
that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey
from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for
Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24)
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in
anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to
punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and
made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus - Book 20, Chapter 9
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=648
-
Isn't the Josephus reference widely regarded as a hoax?
I know apologists really like dragging it up... but wasn't the oldest known copy of Josephus found in some monastery in Serbia somewhere just recently? This older "Slavic Josephus" has no reference to Christ at all.
Therefore we can assume that the reference to Christ/Jesus is a later addition.
Sorry to be harsh Loco, but your side has been rewriting and falsifying history for more than two thousand years... it wears on your credibility after a couple of millennia.
Either way, that reference, even if genuine (which it isn't) does not make Jesus a historical person... neither does it explain why the Quumran Essenes of whom James was the leader never made one single reference to Jesus either during his supposed lifetime or in the 40 years after his death (Essenes were crushed in 70 AD).
If my brother was God, I'd think it more important to record that fact than the vagaries of Buddhist mysticism (which the Essenes did record) or the rituals surrounding personal hygiene (which the Essenes made copious references to).
James the Just wasn't even a Christian... he was an Essene (Jewish fundamentalist with Buddhist/Gnostic leanings).
Just some facts... make of them what you will.
The Luke
-
Isn't the Josephus reference widely regarded as a hoax?
I know apologists really like dragging it up... but wasn't the oldest known copy of Josephus found in some monastery in Serbia somewhere just recently? This older "Slavic Josephus" has no reference to Christ at all.
Therefore we can assume that the reference to Christ/Jesus is a later addition.
Sorry to be harsh Loco, but your side has been rewriting and falsifying history for more than two thousand years... it wears on your credibility after a couple of millennia.
Either way, that reference, even if genuine (which it isn't) does not make Jesus a historical person... neither does it explain why the Quumran Essenes of whom James was the leader never made one single reference to Jesus either during his supposed lifetime or in the 40 years after his death (Essenes were crushed in 70 AD).
If my brother was God, I'd think it more important to record that fact than the vagaries of Buddhist mysticism (which the Essenes did record) or the rituals surrounding personal hygiene (which the Essenes made copious references to).
James the Just wasn't even a Christian... he was an Essene (Jewish fundamentalist with Buddhist/Gnostic leanings).
Just some facts... make of them what you will.
The Luke
Nope.
Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.
-
Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.
...I think you are a couple of years behind in your research. Google "Slavic Josephus".
Even if the quotation is TRUE... it still doesn't make Jesus any more historical than Ovid's Pyramus or Thisbe.
The real question is why Jesus' brother/disciple wasn't a Christian?
Why did he declare himself the messiah? Why didn't his group even once write a single word about Jesus?
The Luke
-
...I think you are a couple of years behind in your research. Google "Slavic Josephus".
Even if the quotation is TRUE... it still doesn't make Jesus any more historical than Ovid's Pyramus or Thisbe.
The real question is why Jesus' brother/disciple wasn't a Christian?
Why did he declare himself the messiah? Why didn't his group even once write a single word about Jesus?
The Luke
Nope. Actually, my research is more up to date than most atheists', at least the ones who bring up Josephus on this board.
Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.
But besides that, the poor, persecuted early Christians had no access to Josephus' texts. And though the later, powerful, Roman Catholic Church did have access to Josephus' Antiquities, they could not have possibly added the above quotation because the Roman Catholic church denies that James was the brother of Jesus. They deny that Jesus had any brother and insist that Mary was a virgin all of her life on this earth. Plus by then, the passage had already been mentioned in several places by the earlier Origen.
As for the controversial Testimonium Flavianum:
Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate
Judging from Dr. Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:
Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Dr. Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416
This proves the historisity of Jesus, and it proves your above statement false.
-
2003 won't do it... I believe the Slavic Josephus was found in 2005 or later.
Do the research.
The Luke
-
2003 won't do it... I believe the Slavic Josephus was found in 2005 or later.
Do the research.
The Luke
::)
The present position of the Slavic Josephus question, by Robert Eisler (Unknown Binding - 1928)
Out of Print--Limited Availability
Orpheus The Fisher by Robert Eisler (Paperback - Mar 1997)
Product Description
Christianity is permeated with powerful symbolism! This book reveals hundreds of symbols, their origins, and meanings. Essential reading for mystics and Christians who seek a path to the roots of Christianity.
ISBN-10: 1564590291
Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) by Flavius Josephus, H. Leeming, and K. Leeming (Hardcover - April 2003)
ISBN-10: 9004114386
ISBN-13: 978-9004114388
-
No... I was referring to the newly discovered copy of Josephus which seemingly predates all other extant copies of Josephus and doesn't mention the word "Jesus".
Your pitiful Google-Fuing only illustrates your low IQ.
The Luke
-
No... I was referring to the newly discovered copy of Josephus which seemingly predates all other extant copies of Josephus and doesn't mention the word "Jesus".
Your pitiful Google-Fuing only illustrates your low IQ.
The Luke
...I think you are a couple of years behind in your research. Google "Slavic Josephus".
2003 won't do it... I believe the Slavic Josephus was found in 2005 or later.
Do the research.
The Luke
::)
The present position of the Slavic Josephus question, by Robert Eisler (Unknown Binding - 1928)
Out of Print--Limited Availability
If the "Slavic Josephus" was found in 2005 or later, why is some guy writing about it in 1928? Now you are saying there is another one. ::)
I give you legitimate scholars, and you give me either nothing most of the time, or when you do, you give me conspiracy theories.
The Luke, ever get tired of your own self ownage?
-
Bible scholars (and authors) Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler and Kenneth Humphreys all challenge the second reference to Jesus in it's entirety.
I'll see if I can dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.
What I don't understand, is why you are so sure I must be wrong when the Testonmonium Flavianum (first reference to Jesus) is roundly damned as a forgery/interpolation... the Donation of Constantine has likewise been denounced as a provable forgery...?
As it stands now, there is no evidence whatsoever of a historical Jesus.
Yet you Christians cling to the canon decided upon in 329 at Nicea... while simultaneously dismissing source documents such as the Gnostic gospels which clearly have better providence all because you don't like what they say about your fairytale hero.
The Luke
-
Bible scholars (and authors) Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler and Kenneth Humphreys all challenge the second reference to Jesus in it's entirety.
I'll see if I can dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.
What I don't understand, is why you are so sure I must be wrong when the Testonmonium Flavianum (first reference to Jesus) is roundly damned as a forgery/interpolation... the Donation of Constantine has likewise been denounced as a provable forgery...?
As it stands now, there is no evidence whatsoever of a historical Jesus.
Yet you Christians cling to the canon decided upon in 329 at Nicea... while simultaneously dismissing source documents such as the Gnostic gospels which clearly have better providence all because you don't like what they say about your fairytale hero.
The Luke
Bump for The Luke to dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.
-
Bump for The Luke to dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.
...I'm sorry I've actually made a mistake here, seems my memory isn't as reliable as I thought it was.
I'm generally just stirring the shit here, so I don't Google-fu or copy-and-paste my opinions like McWay and his cronies.
So I was wrong, the "Slavic Josephus" I referred to is actually more generally known as the Slavonic Josephus or "The Old Josephus". I'm not sure when it was actually discovered (another mistake of mine) but it was actually verified and exhaustively compared to traditional versions of Josephus in 2003... that's where my confusion arose. None of this research was published before 2003.
This older version of Josephus refers to a character known as "Judas of Galilee" instead of Jesus and places the nativity story during 25 BC. Among many other differences.
It is now clear that ALL of Josephus' references to Jesus are obvious forgeries/interpolations... and the case for a historical Jesus now has NO BASIS IN FACT. Jesus is a fictional character... as we should assume of any person who's life conforms to the astrological metaphor of the dying/resurrecting godman.
You can read all about it here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm
Apologies...
The Luke
-
...I'm sorry I've actually made a mistake here, seems my memory isn't as reliable as I thought it was.
I'm generally just stirring the shit here, so I don't Google-fu or copy-and-paste my opinions like McWay and his cronies.
So I was wrong, the "Slavic Josephus" I referred to is actually more generally known as the Slavonic Josephus or "The Old Josephus". I'm not sure when it was actually discovered (another mistake of mine) but it was actually verified and exhaustively compared to traditional versions of Josephus in 2003... that's where my confusion arose. None of this research was published before 2003.
This older version of Josephus refers to a character known as "Judas of Galilee" instead of Jesus and places the nativity story during 25 BC. Among many other differences.
It is now clear that ALL of Josephus' references to Jesus are obvious forgeries/interpolations... and the case for a historical Jesus now has NO BASIS IN FACT. Jesus is a fictional character... as we should assume of any person who's life conforms to the astrological metaphor of the dying/resurrecting godman.
You can read all about it here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm
Apologies...
The Luke
No.
The Slavonic Josephus is not older than the Greek and Arabic versions of the Antiquities of the Jews. And guess what, all three, the Greek, the Arabic and the Slavonic versions mention Jesus Christ, not just once but twice.
H. Leeming, K. Leeming: Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) by Flavius Josephus (Author). Brill Academic Publishers (April 2003) ISBN-10: 9004114386
Dr. Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416
The Luke, I challenge you to produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
-
The Slavonic Josephus is not older than the Greek and Arabic versions of the Antiquities of the Jews. And guess what, all three, the Greek, the Arabic and the Slavonic versions mention Jesus Christ, not just once but twice.
...eh, yes, but it's an interpolation. Added in by Christian scribes later on.
Most experts seem to agree that the interpolations probably started when the references to Judas the Galileean were "corrected" to refer to Jesus. This is what the Slavonic Josephus shows.
The Luke
-
Damien Thorn is the antichrist! Didn't you fools see The Omen????
-
...eh, yes, but it's an interpolation. Added in by Christian scribes later on.
Most experts seem to agree that the interpolations probably started when the references to Judas the Galileean were "corrected" to refer to Jesus. This is what the Slavonic Josephus shows.
The Luke
No.
Josephus mentions both, Judas the Galilean and Jesus Christ as two different people. Likewise, the New Testament mentions both Jesus Christ, and in Acts 5:37 Judas the Galilean. They are clearly two different people.
Besides, Judas the Galilean did not pay taxes to Rome and encouraged other Jews to do the same. Jesus Christ paid his taxes and clearly taught us numerous times to pay our taxes(Matthew 17:23-27; Mark 12:15-17). And Jesus picked a tax collector as one of his 12 apostles.
-
No.
Josephus mentions both, Judas the Galilean and Jesus Christ as two different people. Likewise, the New Testament mentions both Jesus Christ, and in Acts 5:37 Judas the Galilean. They are clearly two different people.
Besides, Judas the Galilean did not pay taxes to Rome and encouraged other Jews to do the same. Jesus Christ paid his taxes and clearly taught us numerous times to pay our taxes(Matthew 17:23-27; Mark 12:15-17). And Jesus picked a tax collector as one of his 12 apostles.
...Jesus is a fictional character, he didn't actually DO anything.
The Luke
-
...Jesus is a fictional character, he didn't actually DO anything.
The Luke
Yeah sure, and Blaise Pascal was an atheist too, according to you. ::)
I have just shown you that Jesus Christ is a historical character, in addition to everything the Gospels say that He is.
-
I have just shown you that Jesus Christ is a historical character, in addition to everything the Gospels say that He is.
...using Josephus?
Josephus also claims that Octavian/Augustus was a god. So I'll happily accept tampered-with-copies of Josephus as evidence of Jesus' historicity... if YOU accept the Roman Emperor Augustus as a god.
Deal?
The Luke
-
...using Josephus?
Josephus also claims that Octavian/Augustus was a god. So I'll happily accept tampered-with-copies of Josephus as evidence of Jesus' historicity... if YOU accept the Roman Emperor Augustus as a god.
Deal?
The Luke
Ah, you finally accept defeat, by now discarding Josephus. After arguing that Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ, now you throw Josephus out the window.
Josephus was a non-Christian, 1st century historian, who mentioned Jesus Christ twice.
And what about my challenge?
I challenge you to produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all...remember?
-
Ah, you finally accept defeat, by now discarding Josephus. After arguing that Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ, now you throw Josephus out the window.
Josephus was a non-Christian, 1st century historian, who mentioned Jesus Christ twice.
And what about my challenge?
I challenge you to produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all...remember?
...yeah, but the mentions of Jesus were added later by Christian scribes copying the books. Experts agree on this.
By that reasoning Jesus was a pro-abortion; atheist; transgender homosexual liberal... because I have a copy of one of the gospels in which I added such an admission by Jesus. It's a nonsensical argument.
Interpolations don't count... the Testimonium Flavianus is dismissed by experts because it definitely wasn't in the original written by Josephus. Likewise the Donation of Constantine is a forgery.
In fact, every single historical reference to Jesus has similarly turned out to be a fake/forgery/interpolation. There is now NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS EVER HAVING EXISTED.
Which should come as no surprise to those who understand that Jesus conforms perfectly to the astrological dying-resurrecting solar-deity godman metaphor... he is a metaphorical story device.
The Luke
-
...yeah, but the mentions of Jesus were added later by Christian scribes copying the books. Experts agree on this.
By that reasoning Jesus was a pro-abortion; atheist; transgender homosexual liberal... because I have a copy of one of the gospels in which I added such an admission by Jesus. It's a nonsensical argument.
Interpolations don't count... the Testimonium Flavianus is dismissed by experts because it definitely wasn't in the original written by Josephus. Likewise the Donation of Constantine is a forgery.
In fact, every single historical reference to Jesus has similarly turned out to be a fake/forgery/interpolation. There is now NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS EVER HAVING EXISTED.
Which should come as no surprise to those who understand that Jesus conforms perfectly to the astrological dying-resurrecting solar-deity godman metaphor... he is a metaphorical story device.
The Luke
No. You are taking us in circles here.
Nope.
Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.
Nope. Actually, my research is more up to date than most atheists', at least the ones who bring up Josephus on this board.
Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.
But besides that, the poor, persecuted early Christians had no access to Josephus' texts. And though the later, powerful, Roman Catholic Church did have access to Josephus' Antiquities, they could not have possibly added the above quotation because the Roman Catholic church denies that James was the brother of Jesus. They deny that Jesus had any brother and insist that Mary was a virgin all of her life on this earth. Plus by then, the passage had already been mentioned in several places by the earlier Origen.
As for the controversial Testimonium Flavianum:
Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate
Judging from Dr. Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:
Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Dr. Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416
This proves the historisity of Jesus, and it proves your above statement false.
-
I think I've already answered this nonsense earlier in this thread.
James the Just was NOT a Christian. James the Just was an Essene, and he declared HIMSELF the Messiah.
The Essenes never wrote ONE SINGLE WORD about Jesus... never mentioned his name. If your leaders brother was god, wouldn't that warrant a mention more so than the details of how to wash your hands (which they did record).
Besides, a mention of Jesus or his followers does NOT prove the historicity of Jesus... if you are going to accept that, then you would also have to accept the Gnostic Gospels; Nag Hammadi Library and Dead Sea Scrolls (better provenance)... all of which show beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional/mythological character.
If you accept a Josephus reference to someone called "Lord" ("Christos") then why not accept the testimony of the Mandeans (the "Swamp Kurds") who have been insisting Jesus was the Antichrist since the beheading of John the Baptist?
The Luke
-
I think I've already answered this nonsense earlier in this thread.
James the Just was NOT a Christian. James the Just was an Essene, and he declared HIMSELF the Messiah.
The Essenes never wrote ONE SINGLE WORD about Jesus... never mentioned his name. If your leaders brother was god, wouldn't that warrant a mention more so than the details of how to wash your hands (which they did record).
Besides, a mention of Jesus or his followers does NOT prove the historicity of Jesus... if you are going to accept that, then you would also have to accept the Gnostic Gospels; Nag Hammadi Library and Dead Sea Scrolls (better provenance)... all of which show beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional/mythological character.
If you accept a Josephus reference to someone called "Lord" ("Christos") then why not accept the testimony of the Mandeans (the "Swamp Kurds") who have been insisting Jesus was the Antichrist since the beheading of John the Baptist?
The Luke
I'm giving you secular scholars, and you're giving me conspiracy theories. ::)
James was the brother of Jesus Christ. Both the Gospels and the non-Christian, 1st century historian, Josephus mention it. Scholars agree as I have shown. You can believe whatever and whoever you want to believe.
-
James was the brother of Jesus Christ. Both the Gospels and the non-Christian, 1st century historian, Josephus mention it. Scholars agree as I have shown. You can believe whatever and whoever you want to believe.
So what...?
Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and chief disciple, then the first Christian pope ...according to the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Pontius Pilate was a believing Christian who executed Jesus only to fulfill prophecy, was beheaded by the Christian Roman Emperor, then ascended into heaven (with his wife) in the arms of the Archangel Gabriel, witnessed by the entire Roman court... according to the Gospel of Pontius Pilate.
Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus because Jesus asked him to do so in order to fulfill prophecy, which Judas did because such was his role as chief disciple... according to the Gospel of Judas.
Judas was Jesus' identical twin brother who selflessly took Jesus' place on the cross... according to the Gnostic Gospels (and Cathar; Bogomil; Albigensian; Aryan and Old Believer traditions).
Thomas, "Doubting Thomas", met an elderly Jesus at a wedding in Kashmir ('twixt India and Pakistan) around 80 AD which denies Jesus' supposed bodily ascension into Heaven... according to the Gospel of Thomas.
Jesus was a transcendentalist Buddhist who separated his Daemon (holy spirit or heavenly twin) from his Eidelon (bodily manifestation) in order that only his body (Eidelon twin) was crucified... Jesus' Daemon manifestation watched the crucifixion from afar laughing all the time, as now he would no longer be reincarnated but ascend to Heaven... according to the Gnostic Gospels (and Cathar; Bogomil; Albigensian; Aryan and Old Believer traditions).
Jesus was the Antichrist, who asked his wifes sister (Mary Magdalene's sister Salome, step daughter of Herod) to arrange the execution of the true Christ John the Baptist, and then took delivery of the Baptist's head... using the Baptist's head to keep the true Christ's (John the Baptist's) spirit in thrall, he forced the Baptist's spirit to perform miracles, for which the Antichrist (Jesus) took credit. The subsequent religion which grew up around this Satanic figure (Jesus) is the method by which the Antichrist damns all souls to Hell... according to the Gospels of the Mandean Swamp Kurds of Iraq.
Between the Nag Hammadi texts; Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic Gospels there are something like 16 different disciples. These texts can't even agree on the twelve disciples names.
Sometimes Judas is Jesus' twin brother.
Sometimes Thomas is Jesus' twin brother.
Sometimes Judas takes Jesus' place on the cross.
Sometimes Thomas takes Jesus' place on the cross.
Sometimes Jesus' body is crucified, but his spirit separates from his physicality and survives.
Sometimes Jesus rises from the dead, sometimes he doesn't.
Sometimes Jesus is taken off the cross before he dies and merely recovers, then goes into exile.
Sometimes Jesus ascends into heaven, sometimes he doesn't.
Sometimes Jesus is the Antichrist, and John the Baptist is the true Christ.
Sometimes Mary Magdalene is Jesus' wife, she even ascends into heaven daily for a conjugal visit.
Sometimes Mary Magdalene is the chief disciple.
Sometimes Buddha is crucified.
Sometimes Jesus is the reincarnation of Buddha.
ALL of these texts have the same or better provenance than ANY of the canonical gospels... they can't all be right.
The Luke
-
So what...?
Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and chief disciple, then the first Christian pope ...according to the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Pontius Pilate was a believing Christian who executed Jesus only to fulfill prophecy, was beheaded by the Christian Roman Emperor, then ascended into heaven (with his wife) in the arms of the Archangel Gabriel, witnessed by the entire Roman court... according to the Gospel of Pontius Pilate.
Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus because Jesus asked him to do so in order to fulfill prophecy, which Judas did because such was his role as chief disciple... according to the Gospel of Judas.
Judas was Jesus' identical twin brother who selflessly took Jesus' place on the cross... according to the Gnostic Gospels (and Cathar; Bogomil; Albigensian; Aryan and Old Believer traditions).
Thomas, "Doubting Thomas", met an elderly Jesus at a wedding in Kashmir ('twixt India and Pakistan) around 80 AD which denies Jesus' supposed bodily ascension into Heaven... according to the Gospel of Thomas.
Jesus was a transcendentalist Buddhist who separated his Daemon (holy spirit or heavenly twin) from his Eidelon (bodily manifestation) in order that only his body (Eidelon twin) was crucified... Jesus' Daemon manifestation watched the crucifixion from afar laughing all the time, as now he would no longer be reincarnated but ascend to Heaven... according to the Gnostic Gospels (and Cathar; Bogomil; Albigensian; Aryan and Old Believer traditions).
Jesus was the Antichrist, who asked his wifes sister (Mary Magdalene's sister Salome, step daughter of Herod) to arrange the execution of the true Christ John the Baptist, and then took delivery of the Baptist's head... using the Baptist's head to keep the true Christ's (John the Baptist's) spirit in thrall, he forced the Baptist's spirit to perform miracles, for which the Antichrist (Jesus) took credit. The subsequent religion which grew up around this Satanic figure (Jesus) is the method by which the Antichrist damns all souls to Hell... according to the Gospels of the Mandean Swamp Kurds of Iraq.
Between the Nag Hammadi texts; Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic Gospels there are something like 16 different disciples. These texts can't even agree on the twelve disciples names.
Sometimes Judas is Jesus' twin brother.
Sometimes Thomas is Jesus' twin brother.
Sometimes Judas takes Jesus' place on the cross.
Sometimes Thomas takes Jesus' place on the cross.
Sometimes Jesus' body is crucified, but his spirit separates from his physicality and survives.
Sometimes Jesus rises from the dead, sometimes he doesn't.
Sometimes Jesus is taken off the cross before he dies and merely recovers, then goes into exile.
Sometimes Jesus ascends into heaven, sometimes he doesn't.
Sometimes Jesus is the Antichrist, and John the Baptist is the true Christ.
Sometimes Mary Magdalene is Jesus' wife, she even ascends into heaven daily for a conjugal visit.
Sometimes Mary Magdalene is the chief disciple.
Sometimes Buddha is crucified.
Sometimes Jesus is the reincarnation of Buddha.
ALL of these texts have the same or better provenance than ANY of the canonical gospels... they can't all be right.
The Luke
::)
Way to avoid my challenge after all your arguing about Josephus.
Produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
-
Produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
...they all mention Jesus, but the mentions of Jesus are interpolations.
The Luke
-
...they all mention Jesus, but the mentions of Jesus are interpolations.
The Luke
And as I have shown, scholars disagree. And as for the James brother of Jesus Christ text, I've shown you that Christians could not have done that.
-
And as I have shown, scholars disagree. And as for the James brother of Jesus Christ text, I've shown you that Christians could not have done that.
...why not?
Please quote the reference you are referring to and why Christians couldn't have written it. (Because I know you are wrong).
The Luke
-
...why not?
Please quote the reference you are referring to and why Christians couldn't have written it. (Because I know you are wrong).
The Luke
Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.
But besides that, the poor, persecuted early Christians had no access to Josephus' texts. And though the later, powerful, Roman Catholic Church did have access to Josephus' Antiquities, they could not have possibly added the above quotation because the Roman Catholic church denies that James was the brother of Jesus. They deny that Jesus had any brother and insist that Mary was a virgin all of her life on this earth. Plus by then, the passage had already been mentioned in several places by the earlier Origen.
-
-
Well, Well!!!
It's been nearly a YEAR, and Luke has yet to answer Loco's challenge about a copy of Josephus' Antiquities that DOES NOT make a reference to Jesus Christ.
This pretty much shoot to pieces yet another claim of his, as well as his silly assertion that there exists no historical evidence for Jesus Christ.
-
Well, Well!!!
It's been nearly a YEAR, and Luke has yet to answer Loco's challenge about a copy of Josephus' Antiquities that DOES NOT make a reference to Jesus Christ.
This pretty much shoot to pieces yet another claim of his, as well as his silly assertion that there exists no historical evidence for Jesus Christ.
...the Slavonic Jesus (the oldest copy of it) lacks one of the references (proving it to be an interpolation), the other is only a reference to "the Anointed": a title common to dozens of gods and people.
I think I've answered this three times already. Can't you guys read? Or do you just dislike the answers?
The Luke
-
...the Slavonic Jesus (the oldest copy of it) lacks one of the references (proving it to be an interpolation), the other is only a reference to "the Anointed": a title common to dozens of gods and people.
I think I've answered this three times already. Can't you guys read? Or do you just dislike the answers?
The Luke
No. We already had this discussion, remember? You failed to substantiate your bold, baseless claims:
...I'm sorry I've actually made a mistake here, seems my memory isn't as reliable as I thought it was.
I'm generally just stirring the shit here, so I don't Google-fu or copy-and-paste my opinions like McWay and his cronies.
So I was wrong, the "Slavic Josephus" I referred to is actually more generally known as the Slavonic Josephus or "The Old Josephus". I'm not sure when it was actually discovered (another mistake of mine) but it was actually verified and exhaustively compared to traditional versions of Josephus in 2003... that's where my confusion arose. None of this research was published before 2003.
This older version of Josephus refers to a character known as "Judas of Galilee" instead of Jesus and places the nativity story during 25 BC. Among many other differences.
It is now clear that ALL of Josephus' references to Jesus are obvious forgeries/interpolations... and the case for a historical Jesus now has NO BASIS IN FACT. Jesus is a fictional character... as we should assume of any person who's life conforms to the astrological metaphor of the dying/resurrecting godman.
You can read all about it here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm
Apologies...
The Luke
No.
The Slavonic Josephus is not older than the Greek and Arabic versions of the Antiquities of the Jews. And guess what, all three, the Greek, the Arabic and the Slavonic versions mention Jesus Christ, not just once but twice.
H. Leeming, K. Leeming: Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) by Flavius Josephus (Author). Brill Academic Publishers (April 2003) ISBN-10: 9004114386
Dr. Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416
The Luke, I challenge you to produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
...eh, yes, but it's an interpolation. Added in by Christian scribes later on.
Most experts seem to agree that the interpolations probably started when the references to Judas the Galileean were "corrected" to refer to Jesus. This is what the Slavonic Josephus shows.
The Luke
No.
Josephus mentions both, Judas the Galilean and Jesus Christ as two different people. Likewise, the New Testament mentions both Jesus Christ, and in Acts 5:37 Judas the Galilean. They are clearly two different people.
Besides, Judas the Galilean did not pay taxes to Rome and encouraged other Jews to do the same. Jesus Christ paid his taxes and clearly taught us numerous times to pay our taxes(Matthew 17:23-27; Mark 12:15-17). And Jesus picked a tax collector as one of his 12 apostles.