Myth: More Evidence for Jesus Than Julius Caesar

Alright, deal. Being this is myth by christians, I'll take the second one.


Edit:

I sent the request, still waiting for the update.

[edit on 11/4/2008 by Good Wolf]

Yes, it does give that specificity you require. I'm not (only) being pedantic but I think saying "some Christians believe this myth therefore it's Christian" is like saying "some muslims are terrorists therefore it's Muslim" an undistributed middle.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Wrong.

This myth is widely spread among Christian apologists.
I've heard it dozens of times, so have many others.
You will find it cited on many fora.
Here are some examples :...

1/2 dozen examples in a minute or two.

(That YOU haven't heard it proves nothing much - apart from the fact that you haven't heard it.)

K.
[edit on 4-11-2008 by Kapyong]

Fear not I dislike that kind of ignorance as much as yourself (probably).
I would suggest, however, that the fact you have heard it proves nothing much - apart from the fact you have heard it - certainly not that it's a "Christian myth", a myth believed in by some Christians according to evidence but not a Christian myth. I, and many of my peers, don't believe it - wouldn't even consider it as belonging to the realm of belief.

Originally posted by Supercertari
Yes, it does give that specificity you require. I'm not (only) being pedantic but I think saying "some Christians believe this myth therefore it's Christian" is like saying "some muslims are terrorists therefore it's Muslim" an undistributed middle.

No. If terrorism was only ever found in Muslim then it would be, but it's not. This myth is only something that christians postulate and believe. So it is christian, 'fraid to say.



[edit on 11/4/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Eleleth
Now, how about settling that "Zeitgeist challenge" once and for all?

What do you mean? What's the zeitgeist challenge?

No, he created a big role. Emperor. And that runs the Catholics to this day. Bent w**k*r.

reply to post by redled


The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) runs the Catholics.

That position is not the same as Emperor and never has been.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by redled

 

The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) runs the Catholics.

That position is not the same as Emperor and never has been.

That's just historical toss. The first Emperor to run the Catholic Church was Constantine. Then Justinian was both, shut down the Greek Philosphical Schools, led to the dark ages. The whole thing is bent mate.

reply to post by redled


While i agree that its bent,the Catholic church existed a cpl of 100yrs before Constantine was born.And Saint Peter is seen as the very 1st Bishop of Rome.There were about 30 others before Constantine's conversion to the faith.Miltiades,Sylvester I and Mark(saint) were B of R during Constantine's lifetime.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by jakyll]

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by Eleleth
Now, how about settling that "Zeitgeist challenge" once and for all?

What do you mean? What's the zeitgeist challenge?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Really looks like the blind leading the blind with this one. I really don't know where to start...

reply to post by Eleleth


Thanks for that, I was really frustrated that Zeitgeist didn't put up a page of sources and cites for its claims, so I can understand people wanting to quantify the information.

Zeitgeist, while being overall a good movie on it's greater message, was wrong on a few things that I researched. They were right to say only one single piece of historic evidence exists pertaining to Jesus and they were right to bring up it's questionable genuineness, but they were wrong to say outright that it was a forgery [interpolation] since debate between scholars and historians still continue on that possibility, likely being non-genuine but still inconclusive.

One thing I don't understand is why they didn't mention Trinity Parallels. Amun-Ra, Osiris and Horus are a perfect match in every conceivable way.

The makers of the movie made a book too which I need to get my hands on.

What's you take?

[edit on 11/5/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf


My take was investigating it and making a thread about it. Jesus did exist but he was a mortal man, the product of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra (self proclaimed virgin mother Isis) named Caesarion or Esau (Son of Isis) who was also known as Jesus (because Jesus is also the Egyptian name for Esau). Jesus Christ, son of Caesar, Caesaurion, the last pharoah of Egypt AKA Ptolemy XV and the founder of the holy roman empire and the greatest lie ever told.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by 12.21.12]

reply to post by 12.21.12


I'm not totally taken on that theory, but it seems to have merit. I must research.

Even as a christian I never believed that he was divine. He talked to God in the 2nd person and about God in 3rd person, was lead once to a location he wasn't he didn't know, by God. He also said that he was more limited than every one else in potential as he could only ever be a teacher rather than a do-er.

It never rang divine to me.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by 12.21.12

 

I'm not totally taken on that theory, but it seems to have merit. I must research.

Even as a christian I never believed that he was divine. He talked to God in the 2nd person and about God in 3rd person, was lead once to a location he wasn't he didn't know, by God. He also said that he was more limited than every one else in potential as he could only ever be a teacher rather than a do-er.

It never rang divine to me.

All the more reason you should read and review the llinks I posted in the thread, it will clear up your confusion I promise you. The first link in the thread is part one of twenty nine. Watch all of them all it will take 5-6 hours and check the other links they do not all agree, but do include important alternatives to let you look at it from other perspectives.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 5-11-2008 by 12.21.12]

Originally posted by Simplynoone
from other countries ...where they would not have been killed at the mere mention of his name ....

you keep saying this simply where exactly in the world was bieng a christian a capital offence?

ive not heard the ceaser one up unitl now its usually been Alexander the great

and some bizzare claim the first written evidence comes 400 years after the fact

ahh those crazy religeous folk* what will they make up next




*Disclaminer: not all religeous folk are crazy just the crazy ones that make up this kind of crazyness or spread it around. if your not one of these then your probably not crazy but in cases of dought please seek psychological help just to be safe ^_^

reply to post by Good Wolf


what will be said about this I wonder?

[edit on 5-11-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by noobfun
ceaser

A new record !

4 errors in a 6 letter name.



K.




[edit on 5-11-2008 by Kapyong]

reply to post by Kapyong
hahaha

-_- thats funny i count 2

ceaser change to a

ceasar

ceaser switch with the e

caesar

tra-dar 2

and in no way does it effect my point i type fast i dont spell check i still amke a dam good point get over it ^_^

reply to post by noobfun


He wasn't countering your point, I don't think. He's been this threads official spell checker so far.

reply to post by Good Wolf

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Sorry if I've made a mistake, out of interest can you show us who did?

I'm not exactly sure, but I do know that the Greeks at least had their monarchs on their coins (you might recall having seen an Alexander the Great coin). China has a long history with coins too, but I'm not sure if they started the monarch thing.

Rome DID however (not sure if it was Caeser or before) set the standard for the head-tails setup most coins have today.