The Jesus Double Conspiracy - He is real

Here's my take...Christianity has become the number one world religion despite having the deck so heavily stacked against it from the very beginning. If that isn't proof that it as a religion is onto something, I don't know what is.

reply to post by mentalempire


Hey MS became the biggest IT corporation in the world despite its shody OS so there must be something to it


Just something to think about.

reply to post by Fett Pinkus


Were Jesus Christ or his early followers the sons of privilege that Bill Gates was? Give me any more of that "God that wasn't there" crap and I'm gonna scream.

reply to post by mentalempire


show us how it's crap and we'll stop using it. it's all well cited, well informed information that stands to challenge.

From referenced thread....
"The real story of Jesus is the story of Yeshu ben Pantera and Miriam ben Stada his mother Miriam the hairdresser......"

Oh right, so I find a paragraph off an internet poster called Awfultruth has unravelled 2000yrs of history?!!! You'll excuse me if I wait for something a little more substantial as proof.

Apparently, according to one of the Jesus debunking books, Jesus was a bery common name (or at least its aramiac equivalent), and this has been used to create the argument that the figure Jesus Christ is somekind of montage of many Jesus's. Yet, other sources say that there is no reference to him?! Exactly what I mean, the debunkings debunking themselves.

Anyway back to the point, if the illuminati/nwo/skull & bones/bohemian grove are ruling the world, and are all satanists at the highest level, do you not think that it is even slightly suspicious that Jesus is the only 'entity' of their target - the opposite to satan?

Perhaps the conspiracy is that the satanists want you to believe that Jesus didn't exist to make armageddon easier for themselves? A straw man argument, they create a larger than life representation of Jesus, only to bring the strawman down at the critical time?

I believe that Jesus did exist, I don't know who or what he was, but I think that the message he gave, of loving one another, and that God is everywhere, that Heaven is here is bang on the money.

reply to post by sinthia


alright, you're postulating that jesus exists here... but that's all you have, a postulate that you cannot backup

please, show me where jesus existed.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'm postulating by inference. If, as many do on this forum, you assume that the illuminati are satanists, it stands to reason that there is a purpose to their satanism - an enemy - an enemy in Jesus Christ.

Other evidence exists in not only the gospels, but in the Nag hammadi gospels, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Gospel of Thomas that someone influential called Jesus existed. Now, this 'evidence' might be disputed, but that is the whole fecking point of the thread - that the evidence that Jesus doesn't exist is part of the conspiracy!!

The critical weakness of "The God that was not there" is that it ignores the Jewish community's failure to refute someone that the adherents of this theory allege never existed. If Jesus never existed, would it have not been a slam dunk for the Jews to have refuted his religion?

[edit on 12-11-2007 by chutso_ha]

At this point in the game, it is better to forget all the "names", "labels" and "categories" you learned growing up and stick to picking the wheat from the chaff through your faculty of intuition. Otherwise, your thoughts will be spinning in circles ad infinitum.

reply to post by sinthia


...the dead sea scrolls don't mention jesus at all...
the gospel of thomas is dated to the second century CE
and the canonical gospels date to no older than 55 CE
the Nag hammadi gospels date to 390...

yeah, none of this really shows that a real person existed

reply to post by mentalempire


because there wasn't a significant following in the region at the time?
that seems like the biggest reason.
oh, and the fact that they were too busy being oppressed to care. they didn't refute any of the other claimed messiahs in texts either.........

"...the dead sea scrolls don't mention jesus at all..."
OK
" the gospel of thomas is dated to the second century CE "
Or the late 50s - depending on which source you prefer to quote - but quite a significant difference

"and the canonical gospels date to no older than 55 CE "
Within living memeory

"the Nag hammadi gospels date to 390... "
The papyrus is dated around 390 but some of the writings are obviously older

Anyway in the space of two posts we've gone from no references to at least two good references.

All this is still missing the point though. Who are the illuminati said to worship - satan?
Who/what is the opposite of satan?

reply to post by sinthia



Oh puuleeze! Satanists? Jesus conspiracy? Sure - there are plenty of theories about 'Jesus', mainly because there is so little actual evidence of any kind for the stories in the new testament about him.

Is Revelation actually about israel's ancient struggle with the Roman Empire? Ermm...yes, it is actually. It's the people who tell you that it pertains to modern history who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes All biblical scholars agree on this point. So that's that on that one. The Beast (666 and all that..) was a code for the Roman Emperor....simple. Jews were not allowed to openly criticize the Romans, so they couched their anti-roman writings in codes and analogies - it was either that or death at the hand of the Empire.

Sorry pal - but this reeks of more right-wing christian malarky to me...

Jimbo


[edit on 12-11-2007 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by sinthia
"...the dead sea scrolls don't mention jesus at all..."
OK
" the gospel of thomas is dated to the second century CE "
Or the late 50s - depending on which source you prefer to quote - but quite a significant difference

"and the canonical gospels date to no older than 55 CE "
Within living memeory

"the Nag hammadi gospels date to 390... "
The papyrus is dated around 390 but some of the writings are obviously older

Anyway in the space of two posts we've gone from no references to at least two good references.

All this is still missing the point though. Who are the illuminati said to worship - satan?
Who/what is the opposite of satan?

And most of the New Testament was written several generations AFTER the death of the -so-called messiah. Also, it should be mentioned, much of even this was heavily edited, re-written and censored long ago. The Nag Hamadi, Gospels of St. Thomas et al. are probably simply the original versions - the ones that were later removed by the church of ROme.

J.

reply to post by sinthia

He may well have existed - as did many Messiahs in Israel at the time. But there is basically no historical evidence to back it up. None. Satanists? You want to talk about the Bogey Man? Satanism has never really existed either - other than a handful of delusional losers here and there...

Besides - how do you account for the thousands of years PRECEDING the big JC? Are the gods of millions of hard working, normal ancient peoples irrelevant? Do you really think that they also did not think they were worshiping a 'real' god (or two..)

Jimbo

Originally posted by mentalempire
Here's my take...Christianity has become the number one world religion despite having the deck so heavily stacked against it from the very beginning. If that isn't proof that it as a religion is onto something, I don't know what is.

You know - if not for a small quirk of fate - and the toss of a coin by the Roman emperor Constantine - you and millions of others around the globe would be worshipping Mithras today And I'm sure you'd be telling us that Mithraism 'must have something going for it' as well....

Proof? Look here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Jimbo

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The reason that the "Mythical Jesus" hypothesis is false is that we simply don't have enough time in the historical record for a Jesus myth to crop up. Allow me to explain. According to Tacitus' annals, written in 117, the Christians were blamed by Nero for the Great Fire of Rome in 61. So we know that Christians existed as early as 117 and very probably as early as 61 in Rome (quite a distance from Judea, this shows that the religion had grown a good deal by this time). This account is also corroborated by a shorter but similar narrative by Suetonius, who wrote at roughly the same time. Now, a tempting response to this evidence may be to allege that the Christianity that Tacitus and Suetonius knew was not orthodox Christianity, with a human and historical Christ. But this objection does not stand up, either, as Tacitus clearly states in his work that one "Christ" had been the originator of the faith, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate.

I give up. You win. You don't seem to get it. The big what if is....

What if the fact that there is no evidence for Jesus is because the satanists have destroyed it, and are discrediting what evidence does exists. This idea seems lost on most people though so i'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by mentalempire
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The reason that the "Mythical Jesus" hypothesis is false is that we simply don't have enough time in the historical record for a Jesus myth to crop up. Allow me to explain. According to Tacitus' annals, written in 117, the Christians were blamed by Nero for the Great Fire of Rome in 61. So we know that Christians existed as early as 117 and very probably as early as 61 in Rome (quite a distance from Judea, this shows that the religion had grown a good deal by this time).

ok, so christians exist, no proof of their mythical figure.

This account is also corroborated by a shorter but similar narrative by Suetonius, who wrote at roughly the same time. Now, a tempting response to this evidence may be to allege that the Christianity that Tacitus and Suetonius knew was not orthodox Christianity, with a human and historical Christ. But this objection does not stand up, either, as Tacitus clearly states in his work that one "Christ" had been the originator of the faith, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate.

no, it's "christus"
and he was stating that their LEADER was executed by pontius pilate... jesus could harldy be considered someone's temporal leader at that time if you're following the story.