Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

How do we know that the person writing the first century document didn't hate the Christians and wrote what he believed to be true. Just because something is in writing means nothing. Some can say that this philosophy can also be used to disprove the bible, but the muslims believe Jesus existed. So do the Alchemists who have records going way back. The Alchemists say the life of Jesus was earlier than we have been led to believe though. Maybe the story of Jesus is partly fabricated and a person with his qualities lived before that, the bible could be based on that.

So I cannot say that the bible is wrong, nor can I say that the Alchemists are wrong. I see nothing wrong with the teachings of Jesus though, how people twisted the words in the bible is another story. I never read that Jesus would back wars in the bible, that is an interpretation of man. Same with Mohammad, he only fought when he had to and he tried peaceful ways when he could. This does not match the practices of terrorists.

Bad men have controlled both religions in the past. The religion itself is not bad, just some people's interpretation of it.

SuperFrog

I agree, let people believe what they want, but (there has to be but

) let's teach kids science, not non-sense. World will be much better place to live, just give it couple of generations...

ok. it's just non-sense for you, I respect that. But (and theres the but here )for me it makes lot of sense. And I hope that I have the grace of applying the teachings that read in the gospel's (Mathew, Luke, John and Mark) in my everyday life. If I could do that, I'm certain that I would be blessed.

Please, take some of your precious time, to read one of the Gospel's. Choose one, and read it w/ an open heart to learn and seek inspiration.

www.theosophy-nw.org...
Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians

Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his day, while his contemporary in Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, in various of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form. Moreover, there are passages of the New Testament that can be understood only if seen against the background of pre-existence of souls as a generally held belief. For instance, Matthew (16:13-14) records that when Jesus asked his disciples "Whom do men say that I am?" they replied that some people said he was John the Baptist (who had been executed only a few years before the question was asked). Others thought he was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or another of the prophets. Later in Matthew (17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah.

John (9:2-4) reports that the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman had sinned or his parents that he had been born blind. Jesus replied that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be fulfilled. Or, as St. Paul phrased the thought: we reap what we sow. The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

The earliest Christians, especially those who were members of one or other of the Gnostic sects, such as the Valentinians, Ophites and Ebionites, included reimbodiment among their important teachings. For them it enabled fulfillment of the law -- karma -- as well as providing the means for the soul to purify itself from the muddy qualities resulting from its immersion in matter and the egoism we have developed in the first stages of our journey through earth life.

Another important point is that the early Christians WHERE GNOSTICS.

It was the controllers, Rome that dumbed it down to a fundamental idea for control humans mutidimensionally, so to be sovereign, free and progressing in Love, with the real Source/God/Goodness, and Love (and this wouldn't exclude the real Christ) you denounce and renounce all their fine print and contracts, and know they're absolute dribble cosmically, for only Love is real and only Virtues are real, Law is from the Dark Side.

Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it

So, from what it's saying, there is no direct confession, merely circumstantial evidence that may just as easily be somebody seeing what they want to see.

Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history.

I think that we can find some pretty clear bias here, and I think it's pretty safe to say that this is going to be an example of somebody seeing what they want to see, much like a good bit of the Zeitgeist religious stuff.

Unity_99
Another important point is that the early Christians WHERE GNOSTICS.

No, they were not.

The earliest Christians were Jews, not Greeks. Gnosticism, which pre-dated Christianity by several centuries, is the religious aspect of Greek Platonism, and which differs significantly from Judaism on a number of points (primarily polytheism and dualism.)

Gnostic Christianity, an attempt to blend these two disparate systems, is a Second Century phenomenon, arising from the teachings of Valentius, a former orthodox Christian Bishop who left the church after being passed up for the position of Pope. The Gnostic Christian mythology was invented by Valentinus and/or his followers, in much the same way that the Scientology mythology was invented by L. Ron Hubbard.

I believe in God and Jesus Christ, and respect people of all religions. This however is a crock. As someone else said in an earlier post, Jesus is one off the most documented people in history. I find it disturbing, people would try and dismiss him as a manufactured person. WOW. Some people on here have said he did not exist, and I say do your research. He did and still does. You do not have to believe he was the Son of God, but give me a break, he was here.

reply to post by adjensen


They certainly were.

The historical Christ was, he was a Nazarene, and that is an Essene. Possibly the head of the Nazerenes, and Paul was gnostic too. The problem with fundamentalism, as the Roman Empire forced the religion to take shape under, over a process of hundreds of years, altering what the early Christians actually believed, is that they took the outer wrapper of the stories and left the meaning behind. They dumbed the world down. The outer wrapper turns Goodness into its opposite, so everyone changed gods, they were forced to switch hats to the demiurge, not Mom/Dad and true Source of Infinite Progressed Consciosuness, which is MORE, not Less, progression, not regression of consciousness, and its only LOVE. For when you are plugged in, and feel everyone, you don't harm. You have more: Understanding, Compassion, Forgiveness, Gentlessness, Self Control, in fact without a badly coded body suit (THE BEAST) to tempt you into harshness and reactions, and greed and lust, you really don't have those lower compulsions. More Goodness.

Love doesnt judge anyone, heals all, its all a giant school.

So everything got switched over, and they have a lot of fine print. However most Christians, do consider God to be the Highest Love and Goodness and strive very much to not judge, and for whatever reasons the masons and nazi's established, its primarily the US that has the fudnamentalism entrenched.

Paul tells us that Baptism was akin to the crossing of the RED SEA.

Use your head, not the preacher's words, to think on what RED SEA, could imply. Because its NOT LITERAL, its truly gnostic. Anger, reaction, war, our impulses to harm others, or ignore them. Being controlled by the beast instead of in the moment and Higher Mind instead, not Primitive Lower Mind/Body.

And Moses told them, Have Faith, Be Still and Know God. In order to drown out the army of impulses that keep you down, lower jungle mentality, and tuned into the world's lies and programs, MEDITATE.

In the religious fundamental version, God murdered an army young men. God smites. God isn't even God, he's the opposite of God, for God doesnt do that.

In the real version, God/Goodness, loves you, the immature "sinner", and works with you every step of the way to help you overcome yourself and the world and develop Higher Mind.

The early Church, was gnostic Christians. Gnostic as in pure gnosticism, not the bad guy dark magicians kind. True spiritual seeking.

Genesis 32 30, there is a city we meet God in. Its in every person's mind.

By the way the dark magicians/mismanagers/royal families leaders, running this world, can't anchor in their bad spells multidimensionally to try and enslave souls, to be recycled constantly without their memories, IF THERE WASN'T A REAL HISTORICAL MAN THEY BASED CHRISTIANITY ON. They have to anchor it.

I believe the real christ was the reincarnation of Adam, as scriptures allude to, in his perfected form, where he went from the son of man, to the Son of God, and told us all to do the same.

voyger2
ok. it's just non-sense for you, I respect that. But (and theres the but here

)for me it makes lot of sense. And I hope that I have the grace of applying the teachings that read in the gospel's (Mathew, Luke, John and Mark) in my everyday life. If I could do that, I'm certain that I would be blessed.

Please, take some of your precious time, to read one of the Gospel's. Choose one, and read it w/ an open heart to learn and seek inspiration.

So, we are not just 'believing all we want', but we have a need to promote our believes, and infest youth's mind with this wild ideas without any proofs?! Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

Religion is very dangerous, we've seen it trough history, being used over and over to suppress all those who were able to think ahead of their times.

I have already said that I read probably too many religious books, and I have to inform you that from start, Bible just does not make any sense. In Genesis you have man and women created in first chapter, then in next there is already different story that contradicts, where man got bored and God created women out of his ribs. This is only for human species, isn't it?

Most biblical scholars contribute this to those part being written by different authors, which kind of takes 'God's words' a bit away from God's mouth. Do you agree?

It all point in religion being used to submit with ease people wills promising them better afterlife. - simple like that.

Can you please explain to me meaning of Genesis 16:8, Genesis 38:9 and Deuteronomy 25:11?

ltheghost
uk.prweb.com...

Ran across this article today. Thoughts? And what are the ramifications if it is true? Or is this just sloppy research or something to discredit an entire religion? [/quote
It's a sloppy OP Where are your thoughts . Lead a discussion. I thought there were rules for starting a thread. Not this hey found this what do you think but real content that leads to discussion of any given topic.

However the coming of the second Adam, to be Christed and rise humanity up may also be allegory, and they may have selected someone to anchor it the wrong way only, for Soul and Spirit and Goodness is already anchored to Family and their Love. We come in with a bungee cord, through our pineal/pituatary/thalamus. Which is why I place the entire thing in the real Highest Love and Goodness/God's hands, and pray to the Highest Love and Goodness in existence, beyond every code and entrapment, in the reality and the truth, and Christ, real or metaphor, according to my defininiton of this, ie Love and Goodness, Hero's and Higher Ups, NOT THEIR DARK CODES. I denounce and renoucne all their laws, rules and fine print that enslaves or puts into debt, any soul/spirit. For nothing of the world matters, and all money is a crime against all souls anyway, and they owe us, we'll be sitting on boards weighing how much counseling they need, for they took all the land and resources of our school, which is not theirs to begin with and belongs to the Good Family and God, and impoverished everyone and used a money symbol for slavery and scarsity.

Their idea of debt and owing is crime not a law, and they're not off any hooks.

reply to post by kurthall


Good for you.

What does 'Most documented' really means? Explain, please?

How do you explain his similarity with for example Krishna or Horus?

According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

* source

reply to post by kurthall


I am more documented than Jesus. I have a state issued birth certificate and a driver's license. He had nothing in the way of documentation. Is he more well known than me ? Sure he is but that's not documentation.

reply to post by adjensen

Gnostic Christianity, an attempt to blend these two disparate systems, is a Second Century phenomenon, arising from the teachings of Valentius, a former orthodox Christian Bishop who left the church after being passed up for the position of Pope. The Gnostic Christian mythology was invented by Valentinus and/or his followers, in much the same way that the Scientology mythology was invented by L. Ron Hubbard.

The earliest Christians were the Nazarenes/Nazoreans. The Nazoreans. the Essene sect of Mount Carmel, were Gnostic.


LINK

In fact, many of the teachings of Jesus himself were Gnostic.

But Jesus had gone even further. In his teachings he revealed the complete cosmology beyond the understanding that Jews had been worshipping demons and Satanists for millennia, but the reasons why human beings were created and by whom.

8.Furthermore, he revealed the secrets of inner knowledge and the nature a universal god in his Gnostic teachings.
one-faith-of-god.org...

Mark 4
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

That's Gnosticism: knowing the inner "kingdom of God" and it's mysteries.

reply to post by SuperFrog


It isn't me that haves to prove. like I said before:

Nobody haves to prove Jesus to anyone. Jesus will prove to everyone, by Himself, when the time comes for you. Read the Gospel of the four Evangelists, Matthew, John, Mark and Luke and feel the presence of Him (Jesus, God) inside you, in your life, in your mistakes and in your hopes and expectations for life.
One day (I truly hope) you will know, that He is the Path, the Truth and the Life.
Let the light of God via the Holy Spirit guide you my friend.

About the bible, I share little of your opinion, about the old testament... I really don't understand it, and i don't need to. But, I understand the Gospel in the new testament. And for me that's the one that count's, the words of Jesus (and by that away God's word, via the Holy Spirit).

I can't help you w/ that (genesis stuff), sorry.

I know that if I want, I can learn and be a better person everyday, just need to practice the teachings of Jesus and pray to God for inspiration and transformation of my life.

reply to post by SuperFrog

According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

reply to post by Logarock

So what are you going to do? Hold Bo to the teaching of his mythical teacher?

Yep. That part you got right.

Anyway you have displayed ample evidence of your contempt even though its couched and decorated to appear as something else.

If it doesn't "appear" to be contempt, it is not contempt. You all have displayed "ample evidence" of contempt for the OP's thread, dismissing out of hand the speaker and his work. As though you have the credentials to do so. - I have spent the last couple of hours looking into Kenneth Humphreys (the jesusneverexisted.com guy), Joseph Atwill, and Robert Eisenman (who co-authored a paper written by Atwill).

While I understand these scholars (and they ARE scholars, credentialed scholars with YEARS of experience) are "controversial" (because people of faith get very, very nervous and nasty when their beliefs are challenged or they are asked to stretch themselves beyond their 'comfort zone') it does not make them "retarded" or "wrong."

The truth is not determined by a show of hands, nor a "committee". The TRUTH stands alone. And the TRUTH is that every moral philosophy and religion has one common theme:

Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

These men have been studying this stuff for a llooooonnnng time. Long time. Long. Long time.

They have FAR more credibility than "Lee Strobel" or any evangelical mega-pastor. They produce texts and papers because that's what academicians are EXPECTED to do. Professors don't get tenured unless they PRODUCE TEXTS and PAPERS.

The claim that the fact that "a book is for sale about it" somehow 'debunks' it, is patently ridiculous. Do you suppose Josephus or Tacitus or any of the "ancient historians" did it for free? No - only Jesus did it "for free" - and he's the main event here.

Scribes and clerks have ALWAYS BEEN PAID or otherwise compensated for their labor, and OFTEN ARE TOLD what to write. No one is telling these scholars what to write. They are doing their share of the work, and coming up with things that, while disputable, are not simple "retarded lies."

It astounds me when you believers pull that stunt. Galileo was right...whether anyone (including the church) believed him at the time, THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN.

And the world isn't flat.

“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”


― Ferdinand Magellan

Magellan, you know, the man BELIEVED to be the first guy to sail all the way around the world. Doesn't mean he did, we discover new things every day.

To think that the church or Christianity of antiquity -- and in particular the NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS Bible writings MANY OF WHICH are widely acknowledged to have been "anonymous" or forgeries, and NOT, in fact, written by eye witnesses --and to think that it contains ALL of the Gospels and early/actual testimonies is silly.

It is obvious the Bible is only a collection of SOME writings from the time, not ALL - the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that - so it is impossible to believe that it contains everything and is "perfectly correct" and wasn't manipulated, tweaked, bent, redirected, or otherwise developed by MEN. It is, in fact, ridiculous. (Worthy of ridicule). The Nag Hammadi find is equally significant. There were over 4,000 Gospels floating around....estimated. We KNOW that many of the Nag Hammadi scrolls were LEFT OUT (hidden away) of the original Bible -

We KNOW THAT.

Oh, and storks don't bring babies. And witches don't fly naked on brooms to have sex with the Devil.

reply to post by Unity_99

The historical Christ was, he was a Nazarene, and that is an Essene. Possibly the head of the Nazerenes, and Paul was gnostic too.

Not another one...

"Nazarene" refers to someone from Nazareth, it is not a religious distinction.

"Nazorean" was a sect of the Essenes, who were Jewish extremists, not Gnostics. The Essenes were so devoted to Torah law that they would fast on the day before the Sabbath because they thought it was blasphemy to have a bowel movement on the Sabbath. Contrast that with Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath ("The Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath") and any rational person would conclude that Jesus was not an Essene, never mind "head of the Essenes", which is beyond ridiculous.

For some reason, people confuse the Dead Sea Scrolls (texts from the Essenes) with the Nag Hammadi library (texts from the Gnostics) -- the two are diametrically opposed, are from different centuries and each bears no insight into the other.

If Jesus was a Gnostic, the first that he would have done is renounced Judaism and the "supposed god" of the Hebrew Bible, because the two beliefs are absolutely incompatible -- to think otherwise is to express a profound ignorance of either Jewish or Gnostic beliefs, or both.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Jesus was either a Jewish extremist (an Essene) or a follower of Greek philosophy (a Gnostic,) and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I didn't know there were unicorns mentioned in the bible. What book chapter and verse? Do I now have to start believing in Unicorns? I don' t have a problem with that because unicorns are lovely creatures but I need to know .

The strait dope

Can we please stop with the sympathy crap. If that claim is as evidence based as the Jesus claim then that guy Atwill may be on to something.

According to the historian Tacitus, Christians during Nero's time (at least) were mainly torn apart by dogs, crucified, or burned alive — no mention of lions. The Romans did throw people to lions on occasion, and Tertullian, writing later, remarks that the Romans were always ready to exclaim "Away with the Christians to the lion!" whenever times got tough. However, Tertullian doesn't claim he witnessed any martyrdoms-by-lion personally, and anyway he was a Christian himself. Fact is, while the Romans evidently fed Christians to animals, and people to lions, we have no source stating directly that they specifically fed Christians to lions. So theoretically it's possible the whole Christians-lions thing was a Christian ploy for sympathy.

Yes - because being, "torn apart by dogs, crucified, or burned alive" were all much more peaceful and civilized ways to die.

No need to feel sorry for any of the people who suffered these fates *rolls eyes*

Nah......I wouldn't feel any sympathy for someone being eaten alive by dogs, they are so cute, after all....

Jesus is the most documented person in History.

reply to post by whyamIhere


This must be sarcasm, surely.