9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: greyer

So what is the translation of the scriptures by Jesus in the dead sea scrolls? Keep in mind Jesus was a common name. There was another Jesus who helped with the book of Wisdom (which is not in the Bible anymore).

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the True Word of God. The bible is canonized by the 'white man,' who lied to the world with a foaming mouth of wickedness so that pathetic humans with not enough integrity and knowledge believe that the murderous polytheistic men of power wrote down the Word of God. If you do not detest the evil in man for taking away the pureness of the Jews, which they had to develop for more than 1,000 years in a time when religion in the world held more precedence than we can imagine, than you are either living in sin, or you do not understand the nature of human ego in relationship to world power, world control, and world domination. All of you who decide to ignore those facts are deliberately slapping Jesus in the face.

I understand that all of your books and gospels have references of truth to them but in whole they are all a lie. There is only one reason for this. They were all written by the white men (Gentiles). These modern Christians seem to forget that the Law comes from the Jews, not the Greek or Romans. Is it because the pride in their hearts cannot stand to give credit to the truth?

Now in the righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for the purpose of all holy righteousness, they never referenced to names in history but gave nicknames as if they were writing a story. You have heard terms such as the Righteous Teacher, the Wicked Priest, and the Spouter of Lies. People think this goes back to King Jannaeus, because the scrolls started being developed around that time. But when you read all gospels, and read all the OT, and all the letters of Paul, and all the Dead Sea Scrolls, you can start to understand how each group writes scripture. From the way of writing it is easy to distinguish if the letter is from Paul in 30 AD, or from an Essene in 180 BC, or is from a Jewish Essene around the time of Jesus. They all had different writing techniques. A few scholars think that some of these scrolls are referencing Jesus, but just because the mainstream think they are from the time of King Jannaeus (180 BC) does that make you think the mainstream is right? Remember the mainstream, the type of information like headline news that says a UFO crashed in Roswell and then denies it a day later, is hardly ever the truth! But it is a systematic form of lying to the general population to the keep them under control, that is how wicked our generation is, and if you simply don't believe that the whole powers these days are corrupt and liars than you are not educated.

No scholar agrees with these references, but some like Robert Eisman are a voice crying in the desert saying, "Yes, these are New Testament!" But you have to be familiar with the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in that they were covered up, I can right an extensive OP to prove this. Why were they covered up? Specifically, why were they covered up by the Catholic religion? It is because if the full truth was told, we wouldn't even have a Pauline Catholic religion, it would all be exposed as not a lie, but treachery. They took what the Essenes created, what John the Baptizer and Jesus created, and ran with it. Remember that Jesus was not named Jesus historically. Jesus was even named Joshua. The evidence says that he was named Judas, and his sons were named Simon Peter and James, not his brother. Why did they attempt to hide those facts? One reason: To make Jesus a divine incarnation, something the religious Jews disagreed with and condemned.

Now in some of my other posts I have explained how the scrolls in full are not provided on the internet. In most cases the best parts of the scrolls are not there, although they claim to have the translation, it is just a part of it.

There are about 70 teachings of Jesus that are teachings in the Scrolls, they directly correlate, and provide matching detailed information, such as an explanation for why Jesus spoke in parables.

from the day of the gathering in of the unique Teacher until the consuming of all the men of war
who returned with the Man of Falsehood is about forty years.4

The consuming of all men of war was around 70 AD. The Man of Falsehood was Paul, a Roman citizen, who didn't stop persecuting the Jews as he claimed, but as we read further, he was regarded as an 'Enemy' and 'Liar.'

Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who pursued after the Teacher of Righteousness to
swallow him up in his hot fury

With much studying, we can come to understand the Wicked Priest as Caiaphas. More scripture of the Scrolls say that the Teacher of Righteousness will arise in the End Days and save all those who follow his teaching and believe in him.

Its interpretation concerns the [Wi]cked Priest: because of the [e]vil done to the Teacher of
Righteousness and the men of his council

One thing you may not know is that from cross correlating scripture we can understand that the 12 disciples were the council of 12, because Barnabas has to 'replace' Judas in the council to fulfill the number of 12. There were only two sects of the ancient Jews which had priests - the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Sadducees had a council of 71, the Essenes had a council of 12.

Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who was called by the name of truth when first he
arose, but when he ruled in Israel his heart was exalted and he forsook God, and dealt treacherously with the ordinances for the sake of wealth.

All historical references say that the Sadducees plundered their own people over greed and wealth.

God will condemn him to destruction even as he plotted to destroy the poor.

The Poor were the Ebionites, or the first Jewish Christians. Many Essenes who were followers of John the Baptizer evolved into the Ebionites around the time of Jesus.

Its interpretation concerns the last priests of Jerusalem, who pile up wealth and unjust gain from the plunder of the peoples, but in the latter days their wealth with their plunder will be given into the hand of the army of the Kitti’im

Again this is referencing the Roman war, this had to be written in AD.

Accordingly the charge was investigated but not sustained, and the wise men of Israel departed in anger. Then Eleazar son of Po'irah said to King Jannaeus: 'O King Jannaeus,... Eleazar the son of Po‘irah: all the wise men of Israel were massacred, and the world was desolate until Simeon the son of Shetach came and restored the Law to its former glory.

Here you have scripture from the time of King Jannaeus, why don't we see the same nicknames? It is because the nicknames are what happened in the New testament, decades after King Jannaeus.

I have never seen such a scholarly debate over history. You have dozens of scholars all disagreeing with each other over this, and they dig so deep to provide evidences, all in the meaning to deny the most obvious evidence, because they know the world as a whole cannot except the truth and it all comes down to money at the end, not truth, but how many books sold.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
In short Born Again means indwelling of The Holy Ghost in place of your soul. Very few understand this radical truth.

This condition results in a true Christian, which Newton was not.
a reply to: Wolfenz

Define True Christian ... Please ..

Here in the USA when you here Born Again Christian its usually Someone that got off the band Wagon after loosing their faith in God Jesus doing all kinds of Troubles of Sin then Got Back On from what ever Reason.. of Seeking Help..to be Saved from Going to HELL.. More Recognized in the Southern States in the USA from Baptist ..

For Saying Newton isn't a True Christian ? Newton Went for One of the Earliest Types of Christianity before major Change was brought out from the Cause From The King James Bible Version..
You May want to Read ... these Links

Arianism ( Newtons Religion )
en.wikipedia.org...

Christian denomination
en.wikipedia.org...

List of Christian denominations
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Nochzwei
In short Born Again means indwelling of The Holy Ghost in place of your soul. Very few understand this radical truth.

This condition results in a true Christian, which Newton was not.
a reply to: Wolfenz

Define True Christian ... Please ..

Here in the USA when you here Born Again Christian its usually Someone that got off the band Wagon after loosing their faith in God Jesus doing all kinds of Troubles of Sin then Got Back On from what ever Reason.. of Seeking Help..to be Saved from Going to HELL.. More Recognized in the Southern States in the USA from Baptist ..

For Saying Newton isn't a True Christian ? Newton Went for One of the Earliest Types of Christianity before major Change was brought out from the Cause From The King James Bible Version..
You May want to Read ... these Links

Arianism ( Newtons Religion )
en.wikipedia.org...

Christian denomination
en.wikipedia.org...

List of Christian denominations
en.wikipedia.org...

True Christian is one who has the indwelling Holy Ghost that, you receive only thru The Shed Blood of Jesus together with His mighty Grace.Its exactly same in usa where I became a Born Again Christian after belonging to entirely different religion.
What you describe is something to do with lost sheep.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Nochzwei
In short Born Again means indwelling of The Holy Ghost in place of your soul. Very few understand this radical truth.
...

True Christian is one who has the indwelling Holy Ghost that, you receive only thru The Shed Blood of Jesus together with His mighty Grace.Its exactly same in usa where I became a Born Again Christian after belonging to entirely different religion.
What you describe is something to do with lost sheep.

What, exactly is the Holy Ghost and exactly where does it "indwell"? I'm asking for specific answers not vague aphorisms.

  originally posted by: Nochzwei

True Christian is one who has the indwelling Holy Ghost that, you receive
only thru The Shed Blood of Jesus together with His mighty Grace ...

Eh? Are you saying that the Blessings are reserved only for the baptised?

  originally posted by: Tangerine

What, exactly is the Holy Ghost and exactly where does it "indwell"?

Ask of the Holy Spirit in sincere prayer. If you do not
receive an answer then you are not ready to know.

In the meanwhile, here are some words of wisdom...

O' Lord, you have searched me and you know me.

~ King James Bible

The gifts come by prayer, faith, and works, according to God’s will.

~ Doctrine and Covenants

By the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things.

~ Moroni

Salvation cannot come without revelation.
It is in vain for anyone to minister without it.

~ Joseph Smith

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be
forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

~ Matthew 12:31-33

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound,
but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.
So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

~ John 3:6-8

 

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
  originally posted by: Nochzwei

True Christian is one who has the indwelling Holy Ghost that, you receive
only thru The Shed Blood of Jesus together with His mighty Grace ...

Eh? Are you saying that the Blessings are reserved only for the baptised?

  originally posted by: Tangerine

What, exactly is the Holy Ghost and exactly where does it "indwell"?

Ask of the Holy Spirit in sincere prayer. If you do not
receive an answer then you are not ready to know.

In the meanwhile, here are some words of wisdom to help you...

] 

Why didn't you just say you don't have a clue and are unable to answer the question I asked?

If I want to read the Bible I can find any number of versions online. I don't read posted scripture.

originally posted by: Tangerine

Why didn't you just say you don't have a clue and are unable to answer the question I asked?

If I didn't have a clue then I wouldn't have posted at all.

You asked what the Holy Spirit is and it answered. If you were not willing to understand the message then don't ask in the first place.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

originally posted by: Tangerine

Why didn't you just say you don't have a clue and are unable to answer the question I asked?

If I didn't have a clue then I wouldn't have posted at all.

You asked what the Holy Spirit is and it answered. If you were not willing to understand the message then don't ask in the first place.

No, you did not. You told me to "ask of the Holy Spirit in prayer". I am not going to entertain delusions by pretending to have them.

If you regard prayer as a delusional practice then you are clearly in no place to question the pertinence of the Holy Spirit.

Life is like a brick wall;

I either walk into it or fall off, and
sometimes I even try talking to it.

 

SMH another bible argument.. what a waste of time...

I see nothing on ats worth a sh1t...

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
If you regard prayer as a delusional practice then you are clearly in no place to question the pertinence of the Holy Spirit.

 

Prayer is simply an attempt to manifest will just like saying, "Let there be a parking spot. Let there be a parking spot." I have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is claims of fact unsupported by testable evidence.

You mentioned the Holy Spirit so I asked a question about it. You couldn't answer and got into a snit. Why don't you just say you don't know what it is and be done with it? That I could respect.

originally posted by: Astyanax


The 'facts in the paper you cited' are worse than useless. No study is needed to predict that when societies are in crisis, popular religiosity increases. But which is the cause, and which the effect?

Also, that paper only compares prosperous and highly functional rich-world societies, all but one of them culturally Christian, with one another. That tells us nothing about the effect of Christianity on society whatsoever.

That is quite a shallow critique of said paper, to say the least. It only uses countries for which there is good, reliable data (hence modern 1st world). There are other studies trying to look at developing world afaik, but it is difficult due to this. It seems somewhat irrefutable that religion and negative societal conditions are found together, they correlate so strongly. In fact one of the hypotheses of the author is that the proliferation of religion is a natural human reaction to adverse societal conditions. As Marx so eloquently put it "the sigh of the oppressed creature".

This, at best, makes religion a symptom of of an unhealthy society. A delusion that people cling to in adverse sociological circumstances. That's a good thing? Surely, instead of clinging to religion and building it up (in a rather biased way), wouldn't it be better to look into the cause?

Then again, no one has really been able to demonstrate this pov as a fact. I know of one sociologist who wrote a paper (which many were eagerly awaiting) to this effect, yet in the end didn't submit it for publication. This is because he found too much that would implicate religious belief itself, as a cause of societal dysfunction.

One example (among many).

In the US, incidence of the more common venereal diseases in a certain younger age group are literally hundreds of times higher than in Nordic Europe. Unwanted/teen pregnancy and (ironically enough) abortion rates are also much higher. As is usual, this correlates well with religious belief/ observance. At regional levels we find the same correlation. In the bible belt it seems horrific, for a long time these very common (and easily controlled) diseases have been in epidemic proportions.

Yet in the more secular societies their frequency is so low that in some countries they are considered "eradicated". Unwanted/ teen pregnancy and abortion rates are also considerably lower. Again, correlating well with religion (Christianity).

The difference? Secular societies have good science based education about this topic as a whole. In fact, they usually consider it a basic human right that their young people be so informed. In the bible belt such things are often shunned in favour of religious based "abstinence". Somehow parents feel they can defeat billions of years of evolution via the fear of god/love of jesus, take your pick. An understanding of biology somewhat irrelevant anyway because they usually don't believe evolution happened.

Would a fanatical old women with a "suffering for jesus" fetish (which she didn't seem to extend to herself) going around the world spruiking against the very things that would halt this (not to mention the spread of disease and msery in poorer parts of Africa), based on primitive religious "morals" derived thousands of years ago, be a good thing? It seems many think so, sadly enough.

There are many other factors that appear more complicated. It isn't enough to simply claim "sigh of the oppressed creature". This could be wrong. At any rate, it offers little in the way of understanding.

Why do incarceration rates climb commensurately with religion? In the US they are spiralling out of control. When we look further we find it heavily weighted to Christians (when adjusted for population) and heavily weighted negatively to atheists? Why would this be, if both groups live in the same society?

What of the massive failure of welfare based on good ol' Christian caritas (charity)? Compared to secular countries that implement such things via legislation? Not to mention the relatively poor record of foreign aid to the less privileged parts of our planet.

Wealth distribution? In secular Europe top executives earn 15-45 times the wage of their average employee. This rises also commensurate with religious observance. In the 1st world's most religious nation it is more like 465 times...Which prompted one US based social commentator to wonder if camels really do fit through the eye of a needle?

It might also be good one day to have a thread about the history of Christianity and whether it benefits us. I can think of entire populations for whom their culture is not even really a memory, that would have benefitted immensely if they were modernised by secularists (IMO). Would be interesting to look into the reason this eclectic religion was adopted to begin with (was Constantine really a Christian etc) and it's effects since.

Though I feel we shouldn't leave out certain things, a few of which could include parallel cultures, the plight of the "Cathars", the tortures, burnings, wars, renaissance, reformation, age of science (which it still largely opposes), effects on a certain populace (via Luther) before the holocaust, the right wing factions and splinter groups, the large and powerful anti intellectual groups set on disproving evolution, attempts to over ride science in classrooms etc. Not to mention the lingering marginalisation of certain sections of society that has it's roots in religion.

It seems you are stuck in viewing the renaissance era through rose coloured religious glasses and could be overlooking other factors. Such as modern institutions and ideas that can be traced to the Greeks, for instance (which have nothing really to do with later religions)?

You don't see world leaders asking jesus whether or not it is right to mobilise forces, a bit of a worry?
Not at all. I would be worried if they didn't — unless, of course, they were declared atheists.

Hard to fathom this one. There can be many sound reasons to mobilise forces. The only one that is never acceptable is "a mission from god". This is no different in any way to the fanatical jihadists from the middle east.

Have you any idea what the Roman Empire was like before Christianity became its state religion?

I have an avid (amatuer) interest in a certain area of history.

Imagine if they had cluster bombs and depleted Uranium?

Religion seems the very thing that is trying to keep us in the middle ages. I don't accept what you propose so far, because you offer nothing other than your personal pov. At least I offer something factual. Whether you hand wave it, being another matter entirely.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Nochzwei
In short Born Again means indwelling of The Holy Ghost in place of your soul. Very few understand this radical truth.
...

True Christian is one who has the indwelling Holy Ghost that, you receive only thru The Shed Blood of Jesus together with His mighty Grace.Its exactly same in usa where I became a Born Again Christian after belonging to entirely different religion.
What you describe is something to do with lost sheep.

What, exactly is the Holy Ghost and exactly where does it "indwell"? I'm asking for specific answers not vague aphorisms.

Its the Holy Spirit that indwells in the entire body.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Hear! Hear! I commend you on an excellent post.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
  originally posted by: Nochzwei

True Christian is one who has the indwelling Holy Ghost that, you receive
only thru The Shed Blood of Jesus together with His mighty Grace ...

Eh? Are you saying that the Blessings are reserved only for the baptised?

 

Yes and its available to all.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The source is wrong and it is just another blind sided nasty attack on Christian faith.

A Nazarene unto god would not Cut his hair though the Roman's may have cut it with a knife when they beat and tortured him to humiliate him.

Where is the proof outside of Fictional story's like the Davinci Code - (Which brown later admitted he had made up it was a work of fiction, a mediocre story only lent fame because of it's controversial subject) - that Jesus was married but in reality it was tradition like Joseph and Mary (joseph was a grown man with his own business as carpenter and Mary only 15) for an older man to marry a younger woman so Jesus was unlikely to have married and indeed started ministering at about the same time he would otherwise have been getting married so no he was probably not and he serves God first though this did not stop a group of kings in France century's after Rome fell from claiming descent from Jesus though it was a lie much like when the norman king's and even Henry the eighth claimed to be descended from king Arthur, the difference it that Arthur was a legend and not a real man though a roman soldier by the name of Arturius may have indeed been real in north wales.

His name is Yeshua Ha Meshiach not Joshua and Jesus the Messiah - Christ in Greek is the Latin version of the Greek version of that name, Messiah mean's anointed of God or King and Emanuel means something different, God among us or God incarnate, the God of Israel by the way is YA not EL, El means God but Yahweh is from "I am that I am".

There are several site's that claim to be the birth place of Jesus and none are a house, there is more than one Bethlehem for instance, there are actually two and the other also has a cave that was used as a stable but the bible states which one it was and of course this is about denying the word of the bible not interpreting it.

The number of Apostles are twelve and nothing to do with Astrology that is new age sorcery driven nonsense that has no basis in fact, there were twelve tribes of Israel as there were twelve son's of Jacob called Israel.

His prophecy's are still going on today with many spiritual Christian's receiving them and as for remembered, of course he remembered them GOD is above time and all of it is known to him from the beginning to the end so his earliest prophecy's are the most powerful as they do come to pass.

What quotes are uncertain, please elaborate as that is a totally wacked out lie.

And the New Testament is older than most modern historical revisionists Who usually have an agenda either based in another faith that opposed Christian teaching or are simply atheists would like to accept.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.dailymail.co.uk... funeral-dress.html
metro.co.uk...
www.ibtimes.co.uk...

Mostly over time the bible has been misinterpreted by those who seek to use if for power but once it became open they lost that power to a great degree and since the 1700's at least there have been esoteric movement's and even satanic organizations who have sought to undermine and even remove the bible from people's lives.

Today many see it as irrelevant but that could not be further from the truth.


The majority of the data used to claim these fallacies against Christ are right is taken from shaky ground, take the story of Pantera a roman soldier who supposedly raped Mary, this was written just short of a thousand years after the expulsion of the Jew's form the holy land by a central European Jewish scholar who probably had no basis for his claim but even his story has been twisted again and again and quoted as fact by atheist and anti Christian's, then take Islam they claim he did not die on the cross as was not even crucified but there words come from after 650 AD also and are based in the mouth of a rival religion that would not want to accept Christ is the way and the life and the resurrection.

What is gotten from attacking faith in a human religion at the time it is going through a reawakening and rebirth shedding the corruption of the past and who stand's to gain from this attack.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
I dunno, I do believe there's some truth in this somewhere. If so then it has certainly been twisted so far out of proportion that it'll look like the wreck of Princess Diana's car. Thing is, I had never concerned myself with this stuff until very recently so much of it is very new in my mind, but whatever the problem might be there is clearly something which somebody doesn't want anybody knowing about. Maybe it's Christ's head in a cave, maybe it's the cure for cancer, maybe it's ayleuns, maybe it's a missing glyph... I dunno really but nothing is going to be resolved any time soon going by the current predicament.
 

That's a very reasonable post (IMO). Once you mention the magic words "I believe" then there seems far less argument to the contrary available. I know many intelligent people who "believe" that jesus existed. He might have, who really knows? The only problem I have is when certain "academics" claim it as a certainty (and are parroted endlessly). It is far from that.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
I dunno, I do believe there's some truth in this somewhere. If so then it has certainly been twisted so far out of proportion that it'll look like the wreck of Princess Diana's car. Thing is, I had never concerned myself with this stuff until very recently so much of it is very new in my mind, but whatever the problem might be there is clearly something which somebody doesn't want anybody knowing about. Maybe it's Christ's head in a cave, maybe it's the cure for cancer, maybe it's ayleuns, maybe it's a missing glyph... I dunno really but nothing is going to be resolved any time soon going by the current predicament.
 

That's a very reasonable post (IMO). Once you mention the magic words "I believe" then there seems far less argument to the contrary available. I know many intelligent people who "believe" that jesus existed. He might have, who really knows? The only problem I have is when certain "academics" claim it as a certainty (and are parroted endlessly). It is far from that.

I, too, have no problem with people who say, "I believe....". It's those who make claims of fact they can not support with testable evidence who are the problem. The point at which someone says, "I believe..." a dialogue can begin. But a dialogue is impossible with a person incapable of reasoning critically and distinguishing between belief and fact.

originally posted by: Tangerine

What I have a problem with is claims of fact unsupported by testable evidence.

You have a problem with asking people to provide evidence of something which has been documented for thousands of years.

Why don't you just say you don't know what it is and be done with it? That I could respect.

Seriously, if I was so unacquainted then I would not have advised you to pray to it. I gave you the answer you needed and it's up to you whether or not you take it into consideration. If you cannot do that then questioning the existence of the Holy Spirit or my connection with it might sound rather daft.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

That is quite a shallow critique of said paper, to say the least.

No, it is entirely pertinent and valid. Sorry if you don't like it.

Why are you arguing so fervently against religion with two people who are not in the least religious? You may choose to doubt Lucid Lunacy's unbelief, but I have met him many times on these threads and I am perfectly satisfied that he is as Godless as I. Or you, for that matter — but there seems to be a difference, doesn't there, between you and the two of us?

I'll tell you what I think that difference is. You have not yet outgrown the prison of faith. You have declared yourself an unbeliever, but the emotions generated by faith still have you in thrall. Your anger against religion is evident, and anger is just another way of manifesting fear. You're afraid of religion.

Someone like Lucid Lunacy, on the other hand, can see the benefits and the beauty of faith even as he deplores its drawbacks and ugliness. He can give credit where credit is due.

Religious belief is the apparent cause of many evil and ugly things. More accurately, it is made the excuse for many evil and ugly human acts. That has absolutely nothing to do with my thesis; you may say the same for any belief system — political and cultural beliefs are made use of in just the same way. The point is, in spite of all that, Christianity brought forth and propagated an idea that has genuinely changed human relationships and institutions for the better. You're not seeing that. How can you? You're too busy bashing religion.

Faithheads — yes, a pejorative term — are idiots or worse. We all know that. But the neurotically religious are not religion itself. Belief systems differ but nearly all of them have some ethical merit in them somewhere. There is also a great deal in them that is deleterious to human welfare, but to blame religion itself for the insanely evil behaviour of Mother Theresa, the superstition of born-again Americans and the selfishness of churchgoing right-wing politicians is to fail to see the wood for the trees.