Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

MamaJ
reply to post by Joecroft

 

Read all you can get your hands on regarding Melchezedek and let me know what you think. Reincarnation was pretty much known and taught and is in our ancient texts. When you apply it to Jesus then his story makes sense.

I always wondered why all the drama but then I realized its not drama... its evolution of the soul.

Hermes and Enoch when read as the same soul as jesus.. again... makes so much sense.

You've been mislead christianity never involved reincarnation where you got this from was a man named Origen of Alexandria. He was a gnostic bishop with the church. He believed that christ's resurrection proved reincarnation.He would draw together let us just say unrelated scripture to make his point. Most of his ideas actually came from greek wisdom as he called it. Basically what he meant was greek mythology. This started a major debate in christianity from about 250 to 553 AD. Mostly the Gnostic community who believed in reincarnation. The debate was ended in the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and Origen was finally officially condemned. Bottom line is this was an attempt to bring greek mythology in to Christianity and it failed.

defcon5

3NL1GHT3N3D1
How do we know the copies before the 4th century even resembled the ones legalized? They don't exist anymore.

Fragments still exist, and Irenaeus's works still exist. Irenaeus quoted from almost all the new testament books in “Against Heresies” which was written around 180ad. Irenaeus's teacher was Polycarp, who was a student of John the Apostle. There are other early church fathers who also similarly wrote on various topics, several of whom were also taught directly by the Apostles themselves.

Very true and with the dead sea scrolls we also saw that scripture has been unchanged since about 60 AD the time when those works were created. Which would put them to within a decade or two after jesus death.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

Do you agree that man has free will? If so, then you must also agree that they have the free will to edit the bible just as with history. Is paper documentation reliable or not? You seem to be setting a double standard in that area.

Yet the Roman authorities ended up with the copies that eventually made it into the bible. Do you really think an empire such as Rome would EVER legalize the actual truth? If so, you are naive and biased.

The romans had zero input into scripture this is why they fight it so hard though later use christianity to save the empire. Or more specifically charlemagne does. He has always been one of my favorite people in history truly a remarkable man.

dragonridr
Or more specifically charlemagne does. He has always been one of my favorite people in history truly a remarkable man.

Seems like a great guy.

Massacre of Verden

The Massacre of Verden, Bloodbath of Verden, or Bloody Verdict of Verden (German Blutgericht von Verden) was a massacre of 4,500 captive rebel Saxons in 782. During the Saxon Wars, the Saxons rebelled against Charlemagne's invasion and subsequent attempts to Christianize them from their native Germanic paganism. The massacre is recorded as having occurred in what is now Verden in Lower Saxony, Germany.

reply to post by dragonridr


The Jewish authorities may have had a hand in it as well, they were under Roman authority you know. Paul was a Jewish Pharisee who persecuted Christians before his supposed conversion and he wrote over half of the NT, that screams Jewish intervention to me.

For all we know Rome was persecuting the true Christians while the Jews were rewriting Jesus' doctrine through Paul's teachings. Once they diluted the Christian community enough through persecution, they put Paul's new, Jewish-centric doctrine into circulation as the "true" message.

The history of the NT just doesn't add up for me personally and I know personally without a doubt that the official NT scripture is only a shadow of the true teachings of Jesus.

reply to post by defcon5


The original Greek version of Against Heresies no longer exists, the earliest copy is written in Latin which happened to be the official language of, you guessed it, the Roman empire. We can't know if what is contained in it is 100% reliable and original. Rome was famous for taking others ideas and converting them into their own, that's how they survived for so long. It's called cultural and religious diffusion, two things that Rome was very good at.

There is also a method of writing called Dionysian imitatio.

Dionysian imitatio is the influential literary method of imitation as formulated by Greek author Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the first century BCE, which conceived it as the rhetorical practice of emulating, adapting, reworking and enriching a source text by an earlier author. It is a departure from the concept of mimesis which only is concerned with "imitation of nature" instead of the "imitation of other authors."

I believe it's possible that Against Heresies could have suffered from this.

daskakik

dragonridr
Or more specifically charlemagne does. He has always been one of my favorite people in history truly a remarkable man.

Seems like a great guy.

Massacre of Verden

The Massacre of Verden, Bloodbath of Verden, or Bloody Verdict of Verden (German Blutgericht von Verden) was a massacre of 4,500 captive rebel Saxons in 782. During the Saxon Wars, the Saxons rebelled against Charlemagne's invasion and subsequent attempts to Christianize them from their native Germanic paganism. The massacre is recorded as having occurred in what is now Verden in Lower Saxony, Germany.

Yes in war he could be brutal but so were the Saxons in their raids dont think widukind was innocent either.Did he overreact probably but most of that was because he hated Widukind and desperately wanted to draw him out. As the old saying goes war is hell and in the case of Charlemagne you didnt want to see him on the other side of the battle field.He was Brutal in fact thats an understatement. But again you have to look at what he accomplished as well. Militarily he was a genius. In fact some of his battle tactics are still studied and west point. He also managed to form an empire against all odds. He revived science and literature and even changed the economy which still affects Europe to this day.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Why would they have any reason to change it . The Bible still to this day says " Call no man Father , for your Father is in Heaven " . That would be a real good one to delete for the Roman Catholic Church . Also the abstaining from eating meats , chanting prayers and the part about strong drink and unnatural affections would be good . Fish only on Friday , Father whoever , The Catholic church and alcohol, forbidding to marry . I don't see any changes and again there were other letters and gospels written before 70 AD and disseminated through out and there was no big differences found according to the study I found .
I do know that their is a whole lot of effort to destroy Christianity these past years with Laws and Literature and Ridicule . There is a close nit alliance behind that effort and it is succeeding with our youth .

reply to post by SimonPeter


Yet priests of the RCC are constantly called father by Catholics, the pope is called father. You really stepped in it here.

It's easy to contradict what you claim to support when you can get your followers to make excuses for you all the way.

And why would they need to change it? Look at the church today in its extravagance and wealth, that's the reason. The billions of people who adhere to every word they say is another reason. Wealth and power are your answers, they have both in abundance.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The Jewish authorities may have had a hand in it as well, they were under Roman authority you know. Paul was a Jewish Pharisee who persecuted Christians before his supposed conversion and he wrote over half of the NT, that screams Jewish intervention to me.

For all we know Rome was persecuting the true Christians while the Jews were rewriting Jesus' doctrine through Paul's teachings. Once they diluted the Christian community enough through persecution, they put Paul's new, Jewish-centric doctrine into circulation as the "true" message.

The history of the NT just doesn't add up for me personally and I know personally without a doubt that the official NT scripture is only a shadow of the true teachings of Jesus.

Well Saul definitely rewrote scripture about half the books are his.He didnt do it for romans but more for himself in my belief. Many christians dont truly realize the impact he had both good and bad.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

My problem with the idea that Rome reworked the bible is that they seemed unable to justify their abuses throughout history against the bible. That's why the RCC doctrines are based on “tradition and the bible” not just the bible alone. If it had been in their ability to rewrite it to their pleasure, then we would not have libraries of Catholic religious law, papal decrees, etc... There would have been no protestant reformation, as Luther could not have argued that the Catholic Church was violating the word of God. The Luther Bible is another thorn in the side of the theory that “Rome wrote the Bible”...

reply to post by dragonridr

OK, but what could that say about his ruthlessness in regards to the topic on hand?

SimonPeter
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Why would they have any reason to change it . The Bible still to this day says " Call no man Father , for your Father is in Heaven " . That would be a real good one to delete for the Roman Catholic Church . Also the abstaining from eating meats , chanting prayers and the part about strong drink and unnatural affections would be good . Fish only on Friday , Father whoever , The Catholic church and alcohol, forbidding to marry . I don't see any changes and again there were other letters and gospels written before 70 AD and disseminated through out and there was no big differences found according to the study I found .
I do know that their is a whole lot of effort to destroy Christianity these past years with Laws and Literature and Ridicule . There is a close nit alliance behind that effort and it is succeeding with our youth .

Well Roman catholics didnt need to alter what jesus said only its interpretation. But if you want to discuss that make a thread and email e be happy to discuss.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

John the Apostle seems to have been just as, if not more, active with the early Church fathers then Paul. So, its difficult for me to believe that Paul was responsible for writing/altering the Bible. I am sure that folks like John and his disciples would have raised the red flag if this was going on.

daskakik
reply to post by dragonridr

 

OK, but what could that say about his ruthlessness in regards to the topic on hand?

Nothing were discussing an earlier time period i only mentioned him in regard to the roman empire. Lets just say he continued the traditions of rome they weren't nice either.Yet things started in Rome still affects life today.

reply to post by defcon5


I see the protestant reformation or the creation of any new denomination of Christianity as a divide and conquer tactic. Even Christiams are divided between themselves and that serves those in power better than everyone having the same doctrine and beliefs.

Rome had the most to gain from legalizing Christianity and they gained every bit of it with the Byzantine empire which is one of, if not THE, richest empire in the history of the world. They created the most powerful church in the world as well, justifying their conquests through the faith they claimed to be working for.

defcon5
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

John the Apostle seems to have been just as, if not more, active with the early Church fathers then Paul. So, its difficult for me to believe that Paul was responsible for writing/altering the Bible. I am sure that folks like John and his disciples would have raised the red flag if this was going on.

Peter, John, and James the Just did not get along with Paul.Paul claimed to be receiving special revelations from Jesus and the Spirit, argued against the historical disciples of Jesus, challenged their authority, and questioned the correctness of their teaching about Jesus and the "Gospel." Paul seemed to be in continuous conflict with the Jewish communities of the Diaspora and with agents of the Apostles and the Jerusalem authorities sent to the Diaspora to oppose him.There was a major battle on the course Christianity should take this is one reason you hear me call him Saul alot. Because people like to say the apostle Paul but in my view if he never met Jesus i cant see how he got that title.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't see that, and the RCC tried like crazy to silence Luther. You do know that Luther never set out to cause a schism in the church, but rather to right abuses that he saw within the church, right? Luther's argument was that the Church was doing things that were unscriptural for control and money. If the RCC had the ability to rewrite the bible, why didn't they go ahead and include or alter topics to say: “there is a purgatory”, “prayer to saints is allowed”, “salvation is through both works and grace”, etc... Instead they had to rely on religious law and papal decrees to justify their actions as opposed to the word itself. Understand what I mean?

dragonridr
Lets just say he continued the traditions of rome they weren't nice either.

That is what I meant.

As 3NL1GHT3N3D1 said romans had that nack. Whose to say what was adjusted to keep the empire in power?

reply to post by dragonridr

You're absolutely correct. I believe that he got into a pretty bitter argument with Peter, and finally Peter had to admit that Paul was correct. I almost pointed this out in the post above, as a matter of fact, because it goes to further point out that the Apostles didn't trust Paul, and so anything he did to undermine Christianity would have been screamed to the highest heavens by the apostles.

The fact that Irenious, who was a second generation disciple of John, was quoting from Paul's works, says that those early patriarchs must have accepted Paul’s writings as part of the early cannon.