It's a big ol' file... takes a while to load.
'Tis why I broke it down in parts...
if you've watched the first part, here's part 2:
http://heebiejeebie2012.wix.com/eaddhalloweenpart2
-
🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
European & African
Drug Discussion
Welcome Guest!
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules -
EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari
EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus
- Thread starter Raasyvibe
- Start date
- Status
It's a big ol' file... takes a while to load.
'Tis why I broke it down in parts...
if you've watched the first part, here's part 2:
http://heebiejeebie2012.wix.com/eaddhalloweenpart2
brimz
Bluelighter
Rass have you heard of this guy , he uses loads of Biblical References in his work
[video=youtube_share;jWwMatBr5xk]http://youtu.be/jWwMatBr5xk[/video]
It's fukin deep .
[video=youtube_share;jWwMatBr5xk]http://youtu.be/jWwMatBr5xk[/video]
It's fukin deep .
erm LOL i think, but youre a nutjob, and an outofdate with info one at that.
OTW and i get on alright (as far as I'm aware) 'cept for one key issue really.
B- for appreciated effort for thee lulz tho. i mean that too
fucksake brimz, i thought this is one thread you COULDN'T invade with hip-hop youtube links, but you've outdone yourself.
Now hush boy, else i'll start posting snippets from songs of praise. Or some ICP. Whichever winds you up most.
marmalade said:
Damn, I was relying on you to keep your relationship in a state of enmity. You've ruined my movie now. Fucking forgiveness; who do you think you are a Christian or summit?
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Josepheus was a Jewish man who got in with the leaders of Rome, and helped them create a religion.. Josepheus was responsible for documenting the Roman campaigns.. mostly killing Jews. Compare his writings to the New Testament. 8( Oh me oh my.. The Flavians should be the most famous people in history.. How has it taken 2000 years for someone to spot this.
Well worth the watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2KONcLKQU
Seriously..
Watch it.
Then read this:
http://altbibleschol.freehomepage.com/Josephus Parallels.html
Well worth the watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2KONcLKQU
Seriously..
Watch it.
Then read this:
http://altbibleschol.freehomepage.com/Josephus Parallels.html
I'm just the forgiving and understanding type Raasmond. And Christian? PFFFT! The lord may not take credit for my awesomeness. That can be acredited to my personal dedication to evolving my own consciousness. kthnx
pinkpapaver
Bluelighter
^ too true. Me and the universe are at one with each other. Has anyone read Northern Lights? Kids book that was made into the golden compass film. Film is bad but the book is good. Very interesting ideas in that book I must say . The aleithiometer thing is like the tarot. Christianity says that the tarot is evil but it isn't. What is the need for all the different branches of chritianity? as I go about my daily business i notice all these churches and places of worship and you can tell what branch of christianity it is by the style of the building. i had the seventh day adventists try a nd rope me in a couple of months back. Told me that they met at 10 am and did some shring of experience and then at 12 they got "the message" then they would have rice and peas. i told him it sounded like aa with all this sharing business. But seriously, why are there over 20 000 different forms of chritianity? There's a lot of stuff I like in the bible. (new testament, I''m not too familiar with the old) there are some nice words in it that do stick with me but sadly there is too much muck.
anyway, I like fairy tales better and they can help people with morality. I really must find my brothers grimm book. My mom got it for me. I'm rambling as I've been away for a while.
anyway, I like fairy tales better and they can help people with morality. I really must find my brothers grimm book. My mom got it for me. I'm rambling as I've been away for a while.
lol... Rickolasnice is Tempo banned.. how did that happen? haha Paying for his sins.
Ricko has a very sharp inclination against religion and feeds it on articles and memes found over the Internet which are usually pretty easy to debunk. Ricko never looks into debunking them himself, because they serve his bias.
I'd happily debunk the latest one but the link isn't loading
Well it was God who gave you all the faculties to evolve your consciousness remember. The memory/thought process etc But Christianity has always taught that individual is responsible for what they do with their minds; namingly the choice of free will. We're given the faculties, now it is up to us to put them to good use.
Remember it's worldwide -
So for the Catholic church for instance, there are hundreds of denominations under that title -
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Belarusian Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Byzantine Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
EDIT - Sorry missed tis
Mmmmm... dark magic, eh.
You cannot say tarot cards aren't evil like it's fact. That's just your opinion.
I personally think these things play on lack of faith in God and yourself, so are subsequently are needless. Suffice to say the forces you are messing with aren't necessarily good ones.
Yes, no doubt you have heard of many people who claim to have received positive experiences and mediums that claim they do it to see joy in people.
in response to those experiences; I will quote from the bible.
Ricko has a very sharp inclination against religion and feeds it on articles and memes found over the Internet which are usually pretty easy to debunk. Ricko never looks into debunking them himself, because they serve his bias.
I'd happily debunk the latest one but the link isn't loading
Well it was God who gave you all the faculties to evolve your consciousness remember. The memory/thought process etc But Christianity has always taught that individual is responsible for what they do with their minds; namingly the choice of free will. We're given the faculties, now it is up to us to put them to good use.
PinkPapaver said:
Remember it's worldwide -
So for the Catholic church for instance, there are hundreds of denominations under that title -
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Belarusian Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Byzantine Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
EDIT - Sorry missed tis
PinkPaver said:
Mmmmm... dark magic, eh.
You cannot say tarot cards aren't evil like it's fact. That's just your opinion.
I personally think these things play on lack of faith in God and yourself, so are subsequently are needless. Suffice to say the forces you are messing with aren't necessarily good ones.
Yes, no doubt you have heard of many people who claim to have received positive experiences and mediums that claim they do it to see joy in people.
in response to those experiences; I will quote from the bible.
NSFW:
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Yeah.. sins.
Don't know why you've written a small biographical paragraph about me but.. sure ok..
You haven't debunked a damn thing. Every "debunking" has been a bs "maybe" or your interpretation of things.. I dislike religion for many reasons but none of them are meme's i found on the internet.. I dislike religion mainly because of facts and statistics.
I'll return the favour.
raas has a belief in Jesus and Yahweh (but no other gods) which leads him to defend it by "debunking" information which contradicts his blind faith with unfounded ramblings about his own interpretation.
Here is another link to the documentary.. It is poorly made which makes it scream "conspiracy theory nut jobs" but if you look up the information for yourself it's *mostly* there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN9ATGqLNo8
NSFW:
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
That video (which you blatantly didn't even bother watching) does make a lot of theories based on possibilities with not much evidence.. So don't even bother watching it..
I put it to you that 3 of the 4 gospels were rip off's of the first, that the first was written using Jewish scripture (or the ye olde testament) and that the original was never meant to be taken literally, it was meant to read as an allegorical fiction.
OK.
Luke is not written as an eye-witness account, so it makes sense it wasn't the first.
Mark, Matthew and Luke are all pretty the same stories, jumbled up with some small additions depending on the agenda of the author. The gospels of John also contains the same events but his writings are a lot more intelligent and eloquent. It is clear that Johns gospels were written after all 3 of the others.
Mark is the shortest but more importantly it contains nothing of the virgin birth. This is obviously not a part of the story that someone is going to miss out. It's generally accepted among New Testament scholars that Mark's is the original. From wiki: "Such observations have been taken by most scholars as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship.[11] The hypothesis favored by most experts is Marcan priority, that Mark was composed first and that Matthew and Luke each used Mark and incorporated most of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels."
So Mark was the original text. All others used Marks to write their own.
Matthew, Luke and John are all written in opposition of each other. They build upon Marks writings but introduce theological differences and enhancements they wish to add depending on their agenda. Matthews contribution is the forcefully cramming in "prophecy fulfilments" while Luke seemed to be trying to make the story friendlier for nearby nations (by relating the story of Jesus to Palestinian and roman history as well as contemporaneous churches.. he was basically trying to gain followers and / or make christianity seem more legit / less threatening. John's agenda seems to be giving a ..!.. to the Jews.. Always portraying them negatively, referring to them as 'the Jews', filling his works with stories of miracles and signs and then at the end saying after all of that, they still didn't believe he was the messiah. We'll come to Marks agenda at the end
Now..
Almost every detail of Jesus comes straight from the Old Testament in 3 types of ways; explicitly referencing hebrew scripture, using hebrew scriptures for underlying theme and quoting or paraphrasing hebrew scripture without indicating that they had..
Type 1 example:
Type 2: Isaiah 13 is basically the underlying theme of Jesus' life
Type 3:Read these passages from the Old Testament in this order.. Notice anything?
And then there are loads of one for word (or very close to) copies from the OT to the New.. here are a few:
There are fuckin loads.. but seeing as you keep telling me to read the bible I'm sure you must have.. Did you notice the others?
Before you say: "Yeah that's because Jesus was fulfilling prophecies" stop. And think. Most of the parallels between Jesus and the OT aren't prophecies.. And even if you managed to perform your grade A mental gymnastics to believe that, how do you explain the prophecy that was never told?
The virgin birth.
You should get yourself one of these bad boys.. Seems the greek translation of the hebrew scripture wasn't very accurate.
So why did Mark write the gospels in the first place?
The gospels of Mark were written as a work of fiction, the stories within are metaphorical. Jesus is the authors personification of his idea of God in a metaphorical sense, not a literal sense. Why do i say these terrible things? Writings had different structures depending on what they are, as they do now - compare a news article to a work of fiction to a text book, or even writing formally or unformally, you follow?
The gospel of Mark (or indeed, any of them) are written in such a way that you would write a fictional story. It is written in a narrative fashion and makes no claim to be a historical account. Historical works had a table of contents, were written formally and the writer identified themselves, You can see this if you read some texts like The War or the Jews by my man Josephus Flavius, History of Rome by Livy (30 BCE), The Histories by Tacticus (109CE).. Mark develops characters and has a plot, with scenes, suspense, and a climax.. Historical facts don't work like that.
The crucifixion happening on passover only makes sense if looked at as if a metaphor. The Sanhedrin had a set of very strict rules which include;No criminal session was allowed at night. No Sanhedrin trial could be heard at any place other than the Temple precincts. No capital crime could be tried in a one-day sitting and no criminal trial could be held on the eve of a Sabbath or festival. On passover, however, there would be many animal sacrifices.. I'll let my man Josephus explain:
Hmmm.. A lamb that is sacrificed for sins.. Wasn't Jesus referred to as a lamb, oh i dunno, 100 times throughout the bible?
So why did Christianity become so popular so quickly? Could it have been a perfectly executed ploy by the Romans to gain control of a troublesome area, or maybe they realised the power religion held over people and wanted some of the action, maybe they wanted to build an empire than would never fall, and always gain wealth.
So we have 3 gospels all copying one but adding their own twist on things but all in the end the original story of Jesus was nothing more than an allegorical fiction using Jewish scripture for inspiration and plagerism.
So raas, based on the evidence presented, I bid to you;
Jesus never existed.
Please, tell me why or how I'm wrong.. or are the facts i've presented a biased interpretation fuelled by a deep seeded hate for religion?
I put it to you that 3 of the 4 gospels were rip off's of the first, that the first was written using Jewish scripture (or the ye olde testament) and that the original was never meant to be taken literally, it was meant to read as an allegorical fiction.
OK.
Luke is not written as an eye-witness account, so it makes sense it wasn't the first.
Mark, Matthew and Luke are all pretty the same stories, jumbled up with some small additions depending on the agenda of the author. The gospels of John also contains the same events but his writings are a lot more intelligent and eloquent. It is clear that Johns gospels were written after all 3 of the others.
Mark is the shortest but more importantly it contains nothing of the virgin birth. This is obviously not a part of the story that someone is going to miss out. It's generally accepted among New Testament scholars that Mark's is the original. From wiki: "Such observations have been taken by most scholars as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship.[11] The hypothesis favored by most experts is Marcan priority, that Mark was composed first and that Matthew and Luke each used Mark and incorporated most of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels."
So Mark was the original text. All others used Marks to write their own.
Matthew, Luke and John are all written in opposition of each other. They build upon Marks writings but introduce theological differences and enhancements they wish to add depending on their agenda. Matthews contribution is the forcefully cramming in "prophecy fulfilments" while Luke seemed to be trying to make the story friendlier for nearby nations (by relating the story of Jesus to Palestinian and roman history as well as contemporaneous churches.. he was basically trying to gain followers and / or make christianity seem more legit / less threatening. John's agenda seems to be giving a ..!.. to the Jews.. Always portraying them negatively, referring to them as 'the Jews', filling his works with stories of miracles and signs and then at the end saying after all of that, they still didn't believe he was the messiah. We'll come to Marks agenda at the end
Now..
Almost every detail of Jesus comes straight from the Old Testament in 3 types of ways; explicitly referencing hebrew scripture, using hebrew scriptures for underlying theme and quoting or paraphrasing hebrew scripture without indicating that they had..
Type 1 example:
NSFW:
Type 2: Isaiah 13 is basically the underlying theme of Jesus' life
NSFW:
Type 3:Read these passages from the Old Testament in this order.. Notice anything?
NSFW:
And then there are loads of one for word (or very close to) copies from the OT to the New.. here are a few:
NSFW:
There are fuckin loads.. but seeing as you keep telling me to read the bible I'm sure you must have.. Did you notice the others?
Before you say: "Yeah that's because Jesus was fulfilling prophecies" stop. And think. Most of the parallels between Jesus and the OT aren't prophecies.. And even if you managed to perform your grade A mental gymnastics to believe that, how do you explain the prophecy that was never told?
The virgin birth.
NSFW:
You should get yourself one of these bad boys.. Seems the greek translation of the hebrew scripture wasn't very accurate.
So why did Mark write the gospels in the first place?
The gospels of Mark were written as a work of fiction, the stories within are metaphorical. Jesus is the authors personification of his idea of God in a metaphorical sense, not a literal sense. Why do i say these terrible things? Writings had different structures depending on what they are, as they do now - compare a news article to a work of fiction to a text book, or even writing formally or unformally, you follow?
The gospel of Mark (or indeed, any of them) are written in such a way that you would write a fictional story. It is written in a narrative fashion and makes no claim to be a historical account. Historical works had a table of contents, were written formally and the writer identified themselves, You can see this if you read some texts like The War or the Jews by my man Josephus Flavius, History of Rome by Livy (30 BCE), The Histories by Tacticus (109CE).. Mark develops characters and has a plot, with scenes, suspense, and a climax.. Historical facts don't work like that.
The crucifixion happening on passover only makes sense if looked at as if a metaphor. The Sanhedrin had a set of very strict rules which include;No criminal session was allowed at night. No Sanhedrin trial could be heard at any place other than the Temple precincts. No capital crime could be tried in a one-day sitting and no criminal trial could be held on the eve of a Sabbath or festival. On passover, however, there would be many animal sacrifices.. I'll let my man Josephus explain:
NSFW:
Hmmm.. A lamb that is sacrificed for sins.. Wasn't Jesus referred to as a lamb, oh i dunno, 100 times throughout the bible?
So why did Christianity become so popular so quickly? Could it have been a perfectly executed ploy by the Romans to gain control of a troublesome area, or maybe they realised the power religion held over people and wanted some of the action, maybe they wanted to build an empire than would never fall, and always gain wealth.
NSFW:
So we have 3 gospels all copying one but adding their own twist on things but all in the end the original story of Jesus was nothing more than an allegorical fiction using Jewish scripture for inspiration and plagerism.
So raas, based on the evidence presented, I bid to you;
Jesus never existed.
Please, tell me why or how I'm wrong.. or are the facts i've presented a biased interpretation fuelled by a deep seeded hate for religion?
Last edited:
OK, someone's in need of a double spanking
It's 5am and I'm brain dead, so not tonight. As stated previously, to put the effort in to answering these posts properly takes lot's of time. Being a little busy at the mo - hard for me to find.
But, fear not, I will not overlook this one for the sake of my busy pre-Christmas schedule.
I will get a full response to you shortly, consider it your Christmas present
It's 5am and I'm brain dead, so not tonight. As stated previously, to put the effort in to answering these posts properly takes lot's of time. Being a little busy at the mo - hard for me to find.
But, fear not, I will not overlook this one for the sake of my busy pre-Christmas schedule.
I will get a full response to you shortly, consider it your Christmas present
NightsEpiphany
Bluelighter
This is like a present. All of it. You really need to read all of it.
29 Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the remainder of the elders who were carried away captive—to the priests, the prophets, and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon. 2 (This happened after Jeconiah the king, the queen mother, the eunuchs, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen, and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem.) 3 The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to Babylon, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, saying,
4 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon:
5 Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will have peace. 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams which you cause to be dreamed. 9 For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them, says the Lord.
10 For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.
15 Because you have said, “The Lord has raised up prophets for us in Babylon”— 16 therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, concerning all the people who dwell in this city, and concerning your brethren who have not gone out with you into captivity— 17 thus says the Lord of hosts: Behold, I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad. 18 And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence; and I will deliver them to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth—to be a curse, an astonishment, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them, 19 because they have not heeded My words, says the Lord, which I sent to them by My servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; neither would you heed, says the Lord. 20 Therefore hear the word of the Lord, all you of the captivity, whom I have sent from Jerusalem to Babylon.
21 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, who prophesy a lie to you in My name: Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he shall slay them before your eyes. 22 And because of them a curse shall be taken up by all the captivity of Judah who are in Babylon, saying, “The Lord make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire”; 23 because they have done disgraceful things in Israel, have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and have spoken lying words in My name, which I have not commanded them. Indeed I know, and am a witness, says the Lord.
24 You shall also speak to Shemaiah the Nehelamite, saying, 25 Thus speaks the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: You have sent letters in your name to all the people who are at Jerusalem, to Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, and to all the priests, saying, 26 “The Lord has made you priest instead of Jehoiada the priest, so that there should be officers in the house of the Lord over every man who is demented and considers himself a prophet, that you should put him in prison and in the stocks. 27 Now therefore, why have you not rebuked Jeremiah of Anathoth who makes himself a prophet to you? 28 For he has sent to us in Babylon, saying, ‘This captivity is long; build houses and dwell in them, and plant gardens and eat their fruit.’”
29 Now Zephaniah the priest read this letter in the hearing of Jeremiah the prophet. 30 Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: 31 Send to all those in captivity, saying, Thus says the Lord concerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite: Because Shemaiah has prophesied to you, and I have not sent him, and he has caused you to trust in a lie— 32 therefore thus says the Lord: Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite and his family: he shall not have anyone to dwell among this people, nor shall he see the good that I will do for My people, says the Lord, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord.
Tutty bye
29 Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the remainder of the elders who were carried away captive—to the priests, the prophets, and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon. 2 (This happened after Jeconiah the king, the queen mother, the eunuchs, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen, and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem.) 3 The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to Babylon, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, saying,
4 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon:
5 Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will have peace. 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams which you cause to be dreamed. 9 For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them, says the Lord.
10 For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.
15 Because you have said, “The Lord has raised up prophets for us in Babylon”— 16 therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, concerning all the people who dwell in this city, and concerning your brethren who have not gone out with you into captivity— 17 thus says the Lord of hosts: Behold, I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad. 18 And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence; and I will deliver them to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth—to be a curse, an astonishment, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them, 19 because they have not heeded My words, says the Lord, which I sent to them by My servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; neither would you heed, says the Lord. 20 Therefore hear the word of the Lord, all you of the captivity, whom I have sent from Jerusalem to Babylon.
21 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, who prophesy a lie to you in My name: Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he shall slay them before your eyes. 22 And because of them a curse shall be taken up by all the captivity of Judah who are in Babylon, saying, “The Lord make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire”; 23 because they have done disgraceful things in Israel, have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and have spoken lying words in My name, which I have not commanded them. Indeed I know, and am a witness, says the Lord.
24 You shall also speak to Shemaiah the Nehelamite, saying, 25 Thus speaks the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: You have sent letters in your name to all the people who are at Jerusalem, to Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, and to all the priests, saying, 26 “The Lord has made you priest instead of Jehoiada the priest, so that there should be officers in the house of the Lord over every man who is demented and considers himself a prophet, that you should put him in prison and in the stocks. 27 Now therefore, why have you not rebuked Jeremiah of Anathoth who makes himself a prophet to you? 28 For he has sent to us in Babylon, saying, ‘This captivity is long; build houses and dwell in them, and plant gardens and eat their fruit.’”
29 Now Zephaniah the priest read this letter in the hearing of Jeremiah the prophet. 30 Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: 31 Send to all those in captivity, saying, Thus says the Lord concerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite: Because Shemaiah has prophesied to you, and I have not sent him, and he has caused you to trust in a lie— 32 therefore thus says the Lord: Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite and his family: he shall not have anyone to dwell among this people, nor shall he see the good that I will do for My people, says the Lord, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord.
Tutty bye
Sammy G
Ex-Bluelighter
Ave Satanas.
pinkpapaver
Bluelighter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kjgJvsSLWE
good old peace perfect peace . if you know your hymns, you'll know this one. merry Christmas Jesus lovers and Jesus haters everywhere and jesus don't carers. did anyone see that strange episode of mrs brown's boys last night?
good old peace perfect peace . if you know your hymns, you'll know this one. merry Christmas Jesus lovers and Jesus haters everywhere and jesus don't carers. did anyone see that strange episode of mrs brown's boys last night?
Vurtual
Bluelighter
Great post - however, i don't think the amount of confusion, varying stories and allegorical stuff necessarily affect the question of whether jesus existed - my hunch has generally been (thinking of occams razor) there was probably an actual geezer considering how many stories/fuss generated (don't forget there were loads of different gospels about before the council of nicea).
As to what he actually thought/did who can really know (except by "faith"), but it was certainly not like christianity as we know it (he was jewish for a start). Most likely just a figure representing a jewish faction which got widened out to gentiles (then or retrospectively) for political reasons. I've always veered towards some sort of revolutionary figure - there are hints in the gospels (eg "i come not to bring peace, but fire and the sword"); and it would explain the efforts to rebrand him later by the various authorities; this is probaly just what i'd prefer though; similarly, i'd sort of hope that he was a bit of a gnostic too (cos they're more wacky and interesting). Difficult to know though as there were lots of messiahs knocking around (eg that herod agrippa in i clavdivs)
If you're a christian though (i'm not), i don't think it should really matter either way - you could treat the gospels more like stories to teach a lesson (ie a myth, or one big parable) than some objective history (maybe how hindus think of krishna?).
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
There were a good handful of historians that would have been around the same area at the same time as Jesus yet there is not one mention of him..
Jesus would have been a very common name, sure, but if the son of God was walking around for that long performing miracles then someone like Philo of Alexandria, Pliny the Elder or Seneca the Younger (not full list) would have mentioned him.
Josephus Flavius, the author of War of the Jews, a historical document about Emporer Titus and his campaign to quell the Jewish rebellion which runs almost perfectly parallel to the life of Jesus, mentions two people called Jesus in all his works (although this would have been written after Jesus supposedly walked the earth) and one of them was the leader of a jewish militia.. He died. The other was some other guy that had little to no importance to anything.
The letters from the apostle Paul don't even mention anything about Jesus' life and it can be said that Paul didn't consider Christ to be a literal man, there are loads of texts that suggest this.. in fact.. most of his stories suggest this. Jesus spoke through him, Paul was waiting for Jesus (with no mention of him coming back), in fact.. he never mentions Jesus ever being a man on earth and his writing would have only been written 15 years after his death.
The earliest mention of the concept of Jesus being a man appeared with the gospels of Mark, and it's obvious that all other accounts stem directly from them.
I think to most Christians it would matter a lot.. As they believe Jesus is God, if you take away the literalness of it then they have no God, although true.. they could still consider Jesus to be God or the truth and read the gospels a works of metaphorical personifications of God (There is good read to believe Mark intended his work to be just that) .. but it aint gonna have the same affect
NightsEpiphany.. Did you read my post?
I don't see what those bible passages have anything to do with.
He it took me about 4+ hours to complete that post.. i haven't slept either so i know how you feel.
Bring it on. My logic (for the most part) is flawless And danke.. I'll reply to your reply with your christmas present
Jesus would have been a very common name, sure, but if the son of God was walking around for that long performing miracles then someone like Philo of Alexandria, Pliny the Elder or Seneca the Younger (not full list) would have mentioned him.
Josephus Flavius, the author of War of the Jews, a historical document about Emporer Titus and his campaign to quell the Jewish rebellion which runs almost perfectly parallel to the life of Jesus, mentions two people called Jesus in all his works (although this would have been written after Jesus supposedly walked the earth) and one of them was the leader of a jewish militia.. He died. The other was some other guy that had little to no importance to anything.
The letters from the apostle Paul don't even mention anything about Jesus' life and it can be said that Paul didn't consider Christ to be a literal man, there are loads of texts that suggest this.. in fact.. most of his stories suggest this. Jesus spoke through him, Paul was waiting for Jesus (with no mention of him coming back), in fact.. he never mentions Jesus ever being a man on earth and his writing would have only been written 15 years after his death.
The earliest mention of the concept of Jesus being a man appeared with the gospels of Mark, and it's obvious that all other accounts stem directly from them.
I think to most Christians it would matter a lot.. As they believe Jesus is God, if you take away the literalness of it then they have no God, although true.. they could still consider Jesus to be God or the truth and read the gospels a works of metaphorical personifications of God (There is good read to believe Mark intended his work to be just that) .. but it aint gonna have the same affect
NightsEpiphany.. Did you read my post?
I don't see what those bible passages have anything to do with.
OK, someone's in need of a double spanking
It's 5am and I'm brain dead, so not tonight. As stated previously, to put the effort in to answering these posts properly takes lot's of time. Being a little busy at the mo - hard for me to find.
But, fear not, I will not overlook this one for the sake of my busy pre-Christmas schedule.
I will get a full response to you shortly, consider it your Christmas present
He it took me about 4+ hours to complete that post.. i haven't slept either so i know how you feel.
Bring it on. My logic (for the most part) is flawless
And danke.. I'll reply to your reply with your christmas present
Last edited:
Vurtual
Bluelighter
i agree it doesn't look good (though to be fair there is a mention in tacitus (thanks clavdivs)) - i just think it more likely it started out from an actual person thinking about the way human bullshit works (usually a grain of truth at the heart makes stories go further). Hindus think krishna's an incarnation of god (among many others), but seem to still handle the mythical nature of the stories. Unlikely with western christians maybe, but not unheard of (eg quakers are often unconcerned with the historical jesus)
Sammy G
Ex-Bluelighter
I'm pretty sure he mentions more than one Jesus in his writings actually, but there are just the two in The Antiquities of the Jews. One of whom does indeed die 'on the cross'.
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Aye there is a mention of Jesus Christ but it's accepted by scholars to be a fake..
He does mention early Christians, one group i found interesting were a bunch that would basically have the bare minimum but share what they did have with eachother.. If they had more than they needed they would pass it on.. sometimes one or more would walk into another town and meet up with the group from there.. he basically referred to them as looking like tramps.
Haven't been able to find the text about them since i orginally read it though.
He does mention early Christians, one group i found interesting were a bunch that would basically have the bare minimum but share what they did have with eachother.. If they had more than they needed they would pass it on.. sometimes one or more would walk into another town and meet up with the group from there.. he basically referred to them as looking like tramps.
Haven't been able to find the text about them since i orginally read it though.
Sammy G
Ex-Bluelighter
It's still hotly debated, but there's certainly evidence of Christian interpolations, aye.
It's highly likely that somebody called Jesus was crucified, but the whole 'Christ' thing is definitely the work of a Christian scribe.
- Status