The New Testament - What I Now Know

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

I think the Jesus we've come to know embodies a universal yearning for transcendence of how hard getting along with other people is.

truth

 

[SweetCaroline]

really rickolasnice? haha yeah sooooo I'm still a GreenLighter even though I have 51 posts. What the hell is that bullshit!!

 

[SweetCaroline]

Therefore no, I can't reply to any of your emails. So I'm writing here- and by the way that was thoughtful of you for thinking of me with this idea-

 

[rickolasnice]

Why you in such a rush?

It can take 24 hours for your status to change to bluelighter..

 

[rickolasnice]

Oh wait it doesn't matter.. Here:

Once you have made 50 posts, you will become a Bluelighter and you will be able to PM regularly, store 100 messages and post without restriction. Please note that it can sometimes take up to 24 hours for this change to take affect, so please be patient.

 

[SweetCaroline]

ugh. Im tired. hahaha I don't really care anymore. By the way; this whole thread is crazy i read a little bit of what you wrote. real talent.
My intelligence is that of a potato right now though, I need sleeeep.

talk later-

 

[Vurtual]

Hi again rickolas - as i said before all interesting stuff, but i still don't think you addressed the issue of why the romans persecuted the christians for so long if they invented the religion. I agree that the religion was tailored to the state's benefit when constantine came along, and this bias would have been present in the selection (and probably re-editing) of the four gospels; but before that, the idea that he/his message was a real person/thing that had resonance (for whatever reason) and was then co-opted by various people and their agendas including (eventually) the romans, explains its spread better for me (and just seems to be messy enough to seem more like reality than romans inventing/controlling it from the start).

I personally get the feeling that its early spread was probably because it had some sort of social/revolutionary aspect which appealed to the unwashed masses, like some sort of spartacus element (which would have been quickly whittled out when states got involved) - but i'm biased because that's what i'd want it to be (some bits of the NT do hint at a radical aspect though... like my favourite quote "i come not to bring peace, but fire and the sword" (which i think i read in asterix first - hows that for highbrow). I do think liberation theology is among my favourtie interpretations of christianity (as a non-christian)

 

[rickolasnice]

Aye i said it was pure speculation..

I forgot to add (in this thread, anyway) that I don't truly believe it.. was just an idea.

But it could have been because the future leaders were not aware of the plan / didn't like it? I dunno.. like i say i don't truly believe it.. Just found it interesting how the Apostles of Paul seem to be very pro-Roman and how Titus seemed to be involved within the runnings of the beginning of the Christian church.

And yeah that whole section of Matthew is interesting:

NSFW:

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

 

[swilow]

^If you don't believe your own hypothesis but are attempting to disseminate your ideas regardless, aren't you now the roman empire to us jews?

 

[rickolasnice]

^If you don't believe your own hypothesis but are attempting to disseminate your ideas regardless, aren't you now the roman empire to us jews?

Most of the hypothesis I firmly believe to be true..

It's only the conspiracy theory of Paul that I don't.. It's still highly plausible given the theme of what Paul sometimes talks about.

There is a documentary about it somewhere.. but having done some independent research on some of the things it was claiming, i couldn't find the evidence to back it up.. Some of it is certainly there.. Look it up it's worth a watch.

http://putlocker.is/watch-caesars-m...cy-to-invent-jesus-online-free-putlocker.html

Tromps I would very much like your opinion of this thread..

And everyone else, of course..

 

[rickolasnice]

tl;dr:

Mark wrote the story. Matthew, Mark and John took Marks story, copied it and added in bits that suited their individual agenda.
Paul's Jesus wasn't a man, and never lived the life Mark wrote about. He was metaphorical. Paul Jesus was a religion, not a person.
Paul's Jesus, as well as the religion of Christianity, came before Mark wrote the story.
Mark used the religion as inspiration to write his story, using (copying) ancient Jewish scripture to do so.
Luke added stories from mythological stories from the region.
Matthew focussed more on adding in "fulfilled prophecies" but in doing so added the virgin birth story after wrong mistranslating a verse.

The Christian belief and religion may have been created by the Romans to control the Jewish people.
Josephus Flavius documented Titus marching through Judea. The location of events of the paper happen in the same order as the stories of Jesus.. some of the events even seem to have taken an event from the paper and twisted and changed it into a neat little story for Jesus.

Here is an example of Luke using Josephus'

Acts 11:27-28
At that time prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a server famine over all the world; and this took place during the reign of Claudius. The disciples determined that according to their ability, each would send relief to the believers living in Judea; this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

Antiquities 20.2.5 49-53
Her arrival was very advantageous to the people of Jerusalem; for a famine oppressed them at that time, and many people died for want of money to procure food. Queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of grain, and others of them to Cyprus to bring back a cargo of dried figs. They quickly returned with the provisions, which she immediately distributed to those that need. She has thus left a most excellent memorial by the beneficence which she bestowed upon our nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem.

 

[Tromps]

Have I missed anything?

Reference page?

I skimmed through some of this lengthy thread and I question your source, since some of what you posted is clearly incorrect:

John the Apostle speaks of Jesus, and indeed his writings are dated earlier than Marks, but he mentions nothing to do with Jesus as a man, and especially nothing to do with Jesus as a man that walked the earth not 2 decades earlier. He writes as If he is expecting old prophecies to come true:

[Romans]
[Galatians]

...

When we consider John the apostle to be the earliest known source of Jesus...

Actually, John the Apostle has the latest known writings in the New Testament. Mark is one of the earliest. Furthermore, Romans and Galatians were written by Paul. In the first verses of the first chapter in John's Gospel he speaks of Jesus as God who became a man, he became flesh (human):

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and that life was the light of mankind.
...
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

There are more passages by John, in his Gospel, in his letters, and in Revelation, that indicate Jesus actually was a real person; for the sake of length I won't list every single one, but if you look you will find it.

Also in the letter to the Philippians that Paul wrote he spoke of Jesus as a real person:

Philippians 2:
5 [...] Christ Jesus, 6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

If my (plagiarised) thesis is correct

Tromps I would very much like your opinion of this thread..

I think you should do less plagiarizing and do more researching on your dates, authors, time of events, and claims before we could move forward and discuss this with any real credibility.
At this point I think it's meaningless to try to refute your arguments when there are already key factors that are incorrect.
I see you have put a lot of time into trying to prove the New Testament was somehow ripped from 'Jewish Scripture' and was only meant to be a piece of fiction, as you claim at least for Mark, but I really don't see the overall evidence for it. Mark is believed to have been a companion of Peter, who was one of the first disciples Jesus called making him a reliable eye-witness to Jesus' life.

Hi again rickolas - as i said before all interesting stuff, but i still don't think you addressed the issue of why the romans persecuted the christians for so long if they invented the religion.

Good point.

Explains why he was called Jesus and not Emmanuel

Emmanuel simply translates to "God with us." Jesus was God with us. The Hebrew name for Jesus is Yeshua. Yeshua means "to deliver" or "to rescue." If the story of Jesus was a fictional piece of literature ripped from Jewish Scripture in some conspiracy, they probably wouldn't have forgotten to literally make his name Emmanuel, don't ya' think?

I know Wikipedia can sometimes be a questionable source, but I believe this says it well about Jesus:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi from Galilee who preached his message orally, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer. Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.

So, why do I believe Jesus is the risen Lord? Because of what he has done in my life that I couldn't do. I have been clean from dope for more than a year now, the longest I've been clean, after a 7 year drug addiction, thanks be to God. I tried to quit many other times before, been though secular programs, and have never gotten more than a month sober on my own. It wasn't until over a year ago when I came to the end of myself and realized I couldn't get sober by my own strength. I needed/wanted something more in life other than being messed up day and night on all kinds of drugs, needing a fix to prevent becoming sick, waking up in hospitals from overdoses, being scared to near-death over and over that I was going to die on drugs; yet still going back to it. I was broken and my life was a chaotic mess. There had to be a better quality of life.

In AA and NA they say your higher power can be anything you want, but I took a chance and put my trust in God after hearing life-changing testimonies. I surrendered my own way of doing things, because I knew I was leading myself to death. I put my faith in God to restore me. Ever since I relied on God as my strength, my way to get through the day, my quality of life has been improving drastically over the past year+. I have peace in my days now, not a temporary false peace that brings chaos with it. There is serenity in my life, real joy, I can have fun and laugh without being high, I can feel good and content without needing drugs. Honestly, there are moments of euphoria, rushes of love, and spiritual enlightenment that God has given me; things that I yearned for that I relied on drugs to provide, I have found in God. I couldn't save myself from addiction, I tried too many times before to risk it again, but God saved me, and continues to keep me.

There is a Christianity ministry I am in where I get to see lives transformed. People set free from all kinds of addictions - homelessness. I see God at work in people's lives, restoring families, relationships, lives. I know God is working in my life. There is no doubt in my mind that God is real, because of what he has done, is doing, and believe will do. He has given me a hope for the future, a purpose and meaning in life, as long as I draw near to him and stay mindful of his presence, he will draw near to me and bring me through anything life throws at me. He has shown me who I am, loved, accepted, new, free, no longer a slave to addiction, redeemed, one(won) with Christ, a child of the most high God.

We can debate scripture and/or theology all day, but my relationship with Jesus and the testimony of what He has done in my life is undeniable. There's nothing that will separate me from that. %)

John 10:10
I have come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Anyways, MyDoorsAreOpen had some good posts in here. Spot on.

 

[rickolasnice]

I'll reply to your post properly, Tromps, later..

But the first part yes.. I meant Paul the Apostle, not John.

 

[rickolasnice]

I think you should do less plagiarizing and do more researching on your dates, authors, time of events, and claims before we could move forward and discuss this with any real credibility.
At this point I think it's meaningless to try to refute your arguments when there are already key factors that are incorrect.

I have very much done this.

I see you have put a lot of time into trying to prove the New Testament was somehow ripped from 'Jewish Scripture' and was only meant to be a piece of fiction, as you claim at least for Mark, but I really don't see the overall evidence for it. Mark is believed to have been a companion of Peter, who was one of the first disciples Jesus called making him a reliable eye-witness to Jesus' life.

Historians wrote in a certain way. Story tellers wrote in a different way. Mark's style of writing falls within the latter. Apart from that there is what his story contained, again pointing to a fictional story.

Good point.

I've said many times that the part about Romans inventing Christianity was nothing more than speculation (based on a few bits here and there) so for now I'd like it if we ignored that part.

The rest of what you said has little, if anything, to do with the point of my OP. I'm talking about objective based reading of scripture taking into accounts the points I raise..

..

So the points you've decided to rebuttal was a mistake on my part.. I meant to write Paul, not John, ok? And if Romans invented Christianity why were they persecuted against?

I could answer that now but again that would be speculation to argue for speculation.. I want to skip, for now, everything I said regarding that part of my post.

Is that all you've got? :/

Sorry.. I missed your wiki quote about the historicity of Jesus.

You're right.. wikipedia can be unreliable

http://vridar.org/other-authors/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/

Furthermore, it would appear I need to soundly and thoroughly refute a passage on wikipedia (Seriously, guys?): "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7]". That's a lot of citations, right? Surely some of them might be true, right? Well, actually, the first one is Bart Ehrman. The second citation is by Michael Grant, and quite honestly his book on the matter was mediocre and well summarized by that reviewer. Number three (Sorry, [4]) is Richard, a goddamn priest at a religious university with a Ph.D from the same. [5] is Robert, a religious scholar and publisher of religious works himself. James and Graham are also religious professors in religious universities who devote themselves rather religiously to religion.
What you will note here? A complete, utter, total, and inexcusable lack of empirical data of any sort of consensus. Every single cited consensus statement is by religious leaders, people believing in what they write, or people soundly refuted in accuracy upon inspection. Not only is this an inexcusable attempt to appeal to popularity or authority of an argument, but its conclusion is also incorrect. Let nobody in response, comment or otherwise, dare claim this a valid argument for anything of historical value.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

Josephus (author of Antiquities) never wrote about Jesus Christ. The one passage that does talk about him is believed to have been added in at a later date by someone other than Josephus.

I invite you to read the link above, before trusting Christians on their proof of a historical Jesus.

 

[rickolasnice]

Come on Tromps

 

[anastasius]

So, why do I believe Jesus is the risen Lord? Because of what he has done in my life that I couldn't do. I have been clean from dope for more than a year now...Ever since I relied on God as my strength, my way to get through the day, my quality of life has been improving drastically over the past year+. I have peace in my days now...There is serenity in my life, real joy, I can have fun and laugh without being high, I can feel good and content without needing drugs...rushes of love...

There is a Christianity ministry I am in where I get to see lives transformed. People set free from all kinds of addictions - homelessness. I see God at work in people's lives, restoring families, relationships, lives. I know God is working in my life. There is no doubt in my mind that God is real, because of what he has done, is doing, and believe will do. He has given me a hope for the future, a purpose and meaning in life, as long as I draw near to him and stay mindful of his presence, he will draw near to me and bring me through anything life throws at me. He has shown me who I am, loved, accepted, new, free, no longer a slave to addiction, redeemed, one(won) with Christ, a child of the most high God.

I wonder how many people who after becoming convinced that the Bible is NOT the Word of God can say that they were set free from addiction, experienced a better quality of life, have peace, serenity, joy, fun, contentment, experience rushes of love, had families restored, had hope for the future, experienced knowledge of who they were, knew they were loved, accepted, new, free, and redeemed?

We can debate scripture and/or theology all day, but my relationship with Jesus and the testimony of what He has done in my life is undeniable.

Tromps - it is clear to me who the winner of this debate is.

 

[pmoseman]

I certainly can say all those things, anastius.

It was my mom and dad, brothers and sisters, people who the bible tells us to abandon for Jesus, that have lent me their strength and love that allowed me to be strong and independent and help others, my family included.

Through knowing what seemed like a nonsensical story about magic in a big building where superstitious beliefs are sugar coated with general sensibility remain forever untrue, that there is nothing to fear or lose from letting go of one religions' jealous rules and arbitrarily built hierarchy.

Atheism offers them self guidance in all their lives and true salvation because we are good people for others who are alive and not for selfish reasons dealing with what we will receive from an imagined higher power in the ambiguous afterlife.

Abandoning all of that rubbish early on kept me from being bored on Sunday and feeling stupid. I have a greater sense of responsibility to what I know is important in this life. To live for today and to think for myself. Not to pretend I believe in a book, which says snakes bite people because we don't discriminate our fruit, so I do not disappoint others sense of conformity and control over my thoughts. I have had lucky breaks and issues crop up which I know are not caused by my feelings toward a sky phantom.

A mark of intelligence makes us this way, mind you, not for whatever reason your priest cooked up to convince you that you need Jesus. You won't hear me telling everyone that atheism saved me from myself and made me feel loved by my imaginary friend. I still have the freedom to decide how I feel and I feel pretty good about my life because the choices I make may help others slightly. I do not pray for someone else to do it and I can go off and pray in my closet if I still feel like it or believe in angels, or not. Whatever. I can try not thinking for myself like the church man says and see how that goes and ask myself to be forgiven by Jesus, or not.

I am sure you can be just as happy with religion as I am without it. I am sure your religion does not get in the way of you breathing air and eating food and having a couple kids and driving your car the same as everyone else, or whatever it is you do exactly. Just as atheism does no harm to my life.

 

[bit_pattern]

I wonder if people will be arguing in 2000 years over whether Tyrion Lannister was a real person or not?

This whole forum makes my head spin. And I thought climate science deniers were insane! Dunno how you do it, Rick

 

[rickolasnice]

Christianity from Paganism

Similarities between Pagan and Christian practices

The early Christians and Pagans shared many rituals and practices. Authors Freke & Gandy appear to assume that all of the copying was done by Christians from Pagan sources. 3 However, some might have gone in the opposite direction. During the 3rd century CE, Mithraism and Christianity were the main competitors for the religious affiliation the citizens of Romans. Some Christian practices might have actually been picked up by the Mithraites, rather than vice-versa.

Many early Christians celebrated Jesus' birthday on JAN-6. Armenian Christians still do. In Alexandria, in what is now Egypt, the birthday of their god-man, Aion, was also celebrated on JAN-6.
Christians and most Pagans eventually celebrated the birthday of their god-man on DEC-25.
According to an ancient Christian tradition, Christ died on MAR-23 and resurrected on MAR-25. These dates agree precisely with the death and resurrection of Attis.
Baptism was a principal ritual; it washed away a person's sins. In some rituals, Baptism was performed by sprinkling holy water on the believer; in others, the person was totally immersed.
The most important sacrament was a ritual meal of bread and wine which symbolize the god-man's body and blood. His followers were accused of engaging in cannibalism.
Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.
There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did:
Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.
Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.
Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century.

 

[Journyman16]

Well, I am only part way through but it's a interesting and impressive read. It's Christmas day here so will leave the contribution to the destruction of the Christ for another time :D but I thought you might like this page... http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

This thesis, if correct, entails two things.

First, it undermines the historicity of certain details in the Christ story unique to Luke, such as his account of the Nativity, since these have been drawn from Josephus, who does not mention them in connection with Jesus, and thus it is more than possible that they never were linked with Jesus until Luke decided they were. This does not prove, but provides support for the view that Luke is creating history, not recording it.

Second, it settles the terminus post quem of the date Luke-Acts was written: for in order to draw material from the Jewish War, Luke could not have written before 79 A.D., and could well have written much later since the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow, requiring hand copies made by personal slaves (though at first oral recitations would be more common than written copies); and in order to draw material from the Jewish Antiquities, as he appears to have done, Luke could not have written before 94 A.D., and again could have written much later for the same reason.

Also, it was only something I brushed against years back but the evidence was reasonable that Josephus and Saul/Paul were actually the same person - might help sort some of the issues.

The problem with Paul is he is so ubiquitous and his version of a church became official and so much that might contradict it was lost, but the Pauline Church seems, from other sources, to have very little to do with the Christian church that might have come from the actual teachings.

You might also want to check out Ralph Ellis - guy has done an impressive amount of research on the whole subject of Hebrews/Judaism/Christianity and what fits where according to the real historical records. http://www.edfu-books.com/