The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Undo, that makes perfect sense. But I think the discussion here should be modified thusly:

The applience of godliness to events that are not inherantly supernatural isn't logical. And, in the case of Jesus specifically, which is what my major qualm is, there is no evidence outside of biblical text, and religious texts following, that shows that he lived in the time written, in the manner written, and with the devinity written.

Jesus
Roman Historians - Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger

JOSEPHUS
Roman Version
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64). (the words in caps, are said to have been added because of the copy of josephus from the 10th century arabic library, which was different than the roman one)

JOSEPHUS
Arabic Version
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

so let's take the caps out of the roman one:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonders, He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. (when caps removed, big gap here) and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

I dont find this version offensive at all, afterall, Josephus was a jew, and would not have acknowledged Christ as the messiah unless he was converted at the time, which doesn't sound likely based on the rest of the Antiquities. But the roman version and arabic version, suggest Jesus was wise, virtuous, a doer of wonders, had followers who believed he was the messiah, was crucified by Pilate


[edit on 30-11-2006 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Jesus
Roman Historians - Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger
[edit on 30-11-2006 by undo]

TACITUS circa 56 CE – 117 CE
Born well after the supposed death of jesus

JOSEPHUS circa 37 CE – 100 CE
Born after jesus supposedly died

LUCIAN circa 120 CE – 180 CE
Born after the death of both tacticus and josephus

SUETONIUS circa 69 CE – after 130 CE
Another man born after the supposed death of jesus

PLINY THE YOUNGER circa 63 CE – 113 CE
The final historian, also did not live in the time jesus supposedly walked the earth

madness,

the date of their births is not even a contested issue, unless i missed one. josephus, for example, is describing the sacking of jerusalem that took place before the HRE (holy roman empire) in his histories, but well after the death of Christ (else how could the pharisees still enter the Temple and do their thang, if the temple had already been sacked?). of course they would speak of Christ in the past tense, as he was gone from this planet, already, when they wrote about him. perhaps there's another one in the list that you refer to?

undo,

my point is that there are 0 contemporary accounts of jesus' birth, life, and death
there isn't even documentation of his crucifixion
and those romans were notoriously good record keepers

I still don't see what Sumerian texts pre-dating Christianity has to do with the biblical Adam & Eve. Unless ofcourse you're saying that The Bible's Adam & Eve is a stolen legend? In which case that creates more problems with the validity of the biblical version. Hence, the biblical Adam & Eve cannot be historical figures, but rather a stolen idea, of which was a concept first concieved by Sumerians.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I still don't see what Sumerian texts pre-dating Christianity has to do with the biblical Adam & Eve. Unless ofcourse you're saying that The Bible's Adam & Eve is a stolen legend? In which case that creates more problems with the validity of the biblical version. Hence, the biblical Adam & Eve cannot be historical figures, but rather a stolen idea, of which was a concept first concieved by Sumerians.

It isn't likely a case of stolen history since they were all there at the same time. The variations appear to arise in that one was mainstream (the mainstream sumerians of akkadia preferred Enki, who, in most of their stories, was more indicative of the Satan character) and the other was an oral history, passed down by geneologies from Adam, who would've represented the first "king" or human of Sumer, depending on who you talk to, and who would've fallen into and out of the good graces of his Satanic Majesty at some point, as it appears the hebrew lineages are, for the most part, followers of someone other than Enki.

The initial reading leads one to believe they followed Enlil after and prior to the short stint with Enki. Then it seems like Anu, and then it seems like none of the above, but rather some older than sumer figure, called Yahweh or Jehovah in their later texts but who's characteristics vacillate from seeming Enlil-like to Anu-like to seemingly completely unaccounted for in sumerian-akkadian texts.

The impression I get is the lines were blurred along the way in the mainstream, probably as an early act of ecumenism.

madness,

Well there you have a point. I have no explanation for it, either, because I've never studied contemporary judaic or roman records of the time of Christ, other than the bible. I find it hard to believe, however, that all those people were lying or that such a huge lie could be perpetrated on so many people without the benefit of mass media and other modern devices of mass mind control.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
undo,

my point is that there are 0 contemporary accounts of jesus' birth, life, and death
there isn't even documentation of his crucifixion
and those romans were notoriously good record keepers

Yep.........use your head Maddness. Why would the Romans that did everything to kill all the Christians and the truth, document what they were trying to destroy?

When they couldn't kill the Christians they formed the Catholic Church and took over the movement. Worship was changed to SUNday. Think man.....THINK.

They were followers of the sun..........Satan.

"From the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence." This is when I believe Satanic reign began.

The catholic church was and is a mixture of pagan ritual and Christianity.

The victor always wrote his account, what we call history. The documents that support the existence of Caesar were written by man also. The words of Jesus are just as true today as they were in yesteryear. That in itself is proof. What they did to Jesus they do to the remnant. Most people do not know because they do not live by His words. By leading peoples minds astray their spirit followed.

The battle is:

1) Good vs. evil
2) Truth vs. lie
3) Right vs. wrong

What could be simpler than "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Why did Rome feed the Christians to the lions? That is documented history. If there were Christians (followers of Christ), then there was Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by undo
You asked for evidence outside the bible. What did you expect me to quote, the Declaration of Independence?

*wipes the tears* Thanks undo for feeling the pain too. No good using the Declaration of Independence, it wasn't ACTUALLY written by the forefathers (if your saying it was, were you THERE to see it?), but was rather translated over several years, edited and is part of a conspiracy to control the world through brainwashing. *nods* And, you cannot impose your beliefs of the Declaration of Independence on others because of the evil empire it represents. Remember the genocide of native americans? The imperialistic destruction of the spanish, french and dutch? The nuking of Japan and countless wars it has started? All in the name of life, liberty, justice, and freedom. What hypocrisy! It is not a valid document since it is not referenced outside of itself during the time period of its inception and you cannot prove it is authentic. Next up...the Magna Carta. Sorry, carry on, good discussion and would like to hear more.

Originally posted by undo
Biblical Characters Whose Existence has been confirmed from Archaeological or secular Historical Sources

And that's just the letter "A"

You have voted undo for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Nice homework, I'd like to learn more about it too.

Originally posted by Siren
The words of Jesus are just as true today as they were in yesteryear. That in itself is proof.

A good point. There is a way of testing if something is true and that is by application. What did Christ say? Does what he said work? If it does (and it does) then one can move further to see what else he had to say and if it is true. As Paul said, "Test everything." If I had a book on how to fix a car, followed it, and the car is now fixed, what does that say about the book?

Originally posted by Siren
Why did Rome feed the Christians to the lions? That is documented history.

This is a good point and I believe Sun Matrix mentioned this as well. Romans had good motivation to NOT record the "rebellious uprising" details that challenged caesar. What roman in their right mind would record they think this Christ came from God if it meant their crucifixion as well? The few who did were included in the Bible. And, it is a matter of record that they destroyed things that were Christ-based...beginning with Christ of course. By their law this religion challenged their authority.

Another reminder, the topic is "The Anti-Christian conspiracy". It is great proof that there is one between the people who have admitted it (both believers and non-believers) and those who love to dodge the subject or ignore evidences.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
(Declaration of Independance) It is not a valid document since it is not referenced outside of itself during the time period of its inception and you cannot prove it is authentic. Next up...the Magna Carta. Sorry, carry on, good discussion and would like to hear more.

S4G,

That is factual error if I ever saw it. The DoE was a document written and signed by men who have been documented in many cases throughout history, as was the Magna Carta.

Jesus was only documented in the Bible, and after that, only in documents that use te Bible as reference. I don't think you understand what that means, so I'm not going to explain it over and over. I'm just hoping that it wil click with you at some point.

If Jesus was referenced in the in Roman court records (which he should have been as he was tried in the Roman courts) or in some other record of his time (not something written 60-100 years after his death) then it would be a different story.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
That is factual error if I ever saw it.

Thank you for getting my point. Apologies for having to make one in order to illustrate it. Thank you also for being willing to adhere to the truth in this case. By the way, the Declaration of Independence does not mention Christ but it does mention God:

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
www.archives.gov...

There's also more to address in my statement besides that one line...but I guess those will go ignored conveniently.


[edit on 1-12-2006 by saint4God]

Again, I thik you missed my point.

The Bible is the only source of evidence for Jesus's existance, and it is an unreliable source. Because of that, there is no evidence of Jesus's existance

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Again, I thik you missed my point.

The Bible is the only source of evidence for Jesus's existance, and it is an unreliable source. Because of that, there is no evidence of Jesus's existance

I've learned my lesson about doing homework for those who dismiss it. Rather, I'll compliment and point to undo for his/her work and ask that data to be addressed. I believe part of believing is doing the homework for oneself. This is why I think although very impressive, I'm afraid undo's work is for naught. A bang-up effort though and have learned a thing or two myself.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Again, I thik you missed my point.

The Bible is the only source of evidence for Jesus's existance, and it is an unreliable source. Because of that, there is no evidence of Jesus's existance

I've learned my lesson about doing homework for those who dismiss it without serious consideration. Rather, I'll compliment and point to undo for his/her work and ask that data to be addressed. I believe part of believing is doing the homework for oneself. This is why I think although very impressive, I'm afraid undo's work is for naught. A bang-up effort though and have learned a thing or two myself.

So, how about that Anti-Christian Conspiracy eh?

[edit on 1-12-2006 by saint4God]

Aww, thanks, Saint.

Here's the letter B, just cause you liked the letter A:

Balaam Num. 22:5 - The son of Beor; called by Balak, King of Moab, to curse Israel An inscription found in 1967 at a temple at Deir >Alla (Biblical Succoth) contains an Aramic inscription that contains messages of doom and curses from Balaam, son of Beor. He is also called a seer of the gods.
Inscription dated to 700 B.C.

Baalis Jer. 40:14 - King of the Ammonites
A seal impression found in 1984 at Tel el-Umeiri by the Andrews University excavation team.

Baruch Jer. 32:12 - Scribe of Jeremiah the prophet; son of Neriah
1. Bulla bought in Jerusalem antiquities market in 1975
2. Bulla in the collection of Shlomo Moussaieff. This bulla actually shows a fingerprint on the back.

Belshazzar
Daniel 5 - King of Babylon Cuneiform tablet - Yale Babylonian collection

Ben Hadad I 1 Kings 15:18 - Son of Tabrimmon, Son of Hezion, King of Syria (Aram)
1. Stone monument of treaty with King Pygmalion of Tyre.
2. Stele dedicated to god, Baal Melqart found at Aleppo bears an Aramaic inscription that mentions Barhadad, son of Tabrimmon, son of Hezion, King of Aram.

Ben Hadad II (May be same person as Ben Hadad I) 1 Kings 20:1 - King of Syrian (Aram) Called Hadadezer in Assyrian records from 853 B.C. that records the battle of Qarqar with Shalmaneser III.

Ben Hadad III 2 Kings 13:24-25 - King of Syria (Aram); Son of Hazael Zakir King of Hamuth relates that Barhadad, the son of Hazael, fought against him.

Bernice Acts 25:13 - Oldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I; accompanied brother (lover) Agrippa II when Paul appeared before him.
1. Roman records including Suetonius and Dio Cassius
2. Josephus
3. Monumental stone inscription found in Beirut mentions King Agrippa and Bernice.

Okay,

Old testiment mythology has basis in fact. We've agreed to that . People and places are real (in some cases)

Still bypassing the real question of whether or not Jesus was a real person, or just a mythological charecter. Since there has been no evidence to show otherwise, Jesus is most likely a myth.