The Mystery of Jesus Christ. (Page 80)
ghostgeek: Paul talks of James being the brother of Jesus and so does Josephus in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. So two sources, one biblical and one not, agree with each other on this issue. Why, therefore, should one doubt that there was a Jesus who was crucified?
GeraldtheGnome: Look at the site Ghostgeek instead of going on with any further Paul this and Paul that. Even your bit about a James and Jesus bit you have down as a matter of fact, as if they existed. You believe that they did exist therefore according to you they did exist, all of which you have no proof of or even shown any demonstrated possibility that it is true is really very much like a religious way of thinking. You are showing religious bias and confirmation bias. As I found out in the past, even about what I formerly thought was true demonstrated that no one has to be religious in order to show religious bias.
Each religious god is imaginary, each son of a god in religious stories is a made up god. More than one supernatural entity in any religious story is about at least two gods or two goddesses or one god and one goddess. Greek mythology was also about many gods and goddesses, including any demigod or the female equivalent of that (if there was even one example of that). For example the son of Zeus who had a Human mother was a demigod, a god in a sense, one who basically was a Human with superhuman strength. The Christ in any Christ religion is depicted these days as the son of a god, his mother was a Human, unlike my Greek mythology example he is depicted in religious books as having many supernatural abilities. I don’t see that as a demigod, I see it as being about a god who has a father who is a god according to the mythology. Each religious god and goddess are made up. Each god and goddess away from being tied into any religion is one that no one has proven or disproven to be around anywhere right now at all.
Any god or goddess becomes a religious one when any claim that can be disproven is made about that one.
GeraldtheGnome: At present you have a claim that The Book of Acts contains nothing but lies. I and anyone else can without proof agree with you or find out if that is true.
ghostgeek: Paul mentions Jesus in his epistles, says the man was a brother of James and was crucified. Was Paul lying, was he mistaken or was he telling the truth? Well consider the fact that Josephus, the Jewish historian, confirms that James existed and had a brother who was named Jesus. That seems to establish what Paul said, so it's my contention that Jesus was an actual person and was executed sometime in the first century AD. Of course, if anyone can refute this with evidence, I would very much like to see what they have to offer.
ghostgeek: There is plenty of proof that the Book of Acts is lies, all lies and nothing but lies. All you have to do is compare what Paul had to say about himself and what Acts tells us.
GeraldtheGnome: You don’t seem to realize that maybe there isn’t even anything that was ever written by the the one you claim did exist. Paul is also a modern name and you are using English as well. There is not even one thing that proves what the name of the author was, also no one mentioned anyone name Jesus that far back because no one was named Jesus that far back. You have used English names on here anyway. It’s quite possible that each original claimed name was about people who never existed and are still just a figment of people’s imagination. Where are the actual claimed to be true words by Josephus to back up your claims ? You haven’t shown them yet. Refute means the same word as the word disprove, a word that you and some others avoid using. Is the word disprove a forbidden word for you to use ? Surely it is not so.
Well I told you about a website that goes against what you think, you decided not to look st it. If you want to go against those with religious bias and confirmation bias then you too have to go against your own religious bias and confirmation bias. It is no good going against them whilst doing something sito them after all. As for every religious god, including the Christ of mythology, well they are all made up. Unless there is an audio recorded voice of the claimed to have existed Paul then the claimed to have existed Paul said nothing,
ghostgeek: I use English because that's what I speak and because this site requires me to do so. And as for Paul's writing, somebody wrote it.
ghostgeek: AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, 1 who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. 2 Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
[ Josephus: Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. ]
Zanjan: Josephus would not have used the name "Jesus". There seems to be a problem with translation.
Scholars have good reason to think his narratives have been tampered with. In a few spots, it's obvious Christians have done that.
Personally, I discount most of it because, aside from the burning of the Temple, Josephus never cited his sources; he got all his Non-Roman information via hearsay.
(Edited by Zanjan)
ghostgeek: Scholars are very fond of saying that texts have been nobbled. Hell, it might turn out that once in a while they're right.
GeraldtheGnome: Things that you or I or anyone else more often than not find out that what we think or wish to be true is not true at all. Most often what is believed to be true ends up being false and disproven.
GeraldtheGnome: It makes a difference as to how something is translated, I prefer to see the actual earliest account of anything religious or scientific or whatever before even trying to work out if it is true or not. Using modern day names and words is often not very helpful. Think of it this way, if I saw the words 'I live in New York' by someone that once lived in what was then named New Amsterdam then I could not tell you that it is the original source or even an exact copy of the original source. Instead I would wonder if what I was reading was possibly or even certainly made up.
You are going off what is not proven there Ghostgeek. It's the 'there was a rumour that a certain guy was around' kind of story again. Here's another thing, even the story about the temple is not proven, your only saving grace there is that it's also not disproven either. It still most likely never was there at all ever.
(Edited by GeraldtheGnome)
ghostgeek: The Romans back in the day thought they'd done something special in 70 AD, so they built the Arch of Titus to tell the world about it:
The Arch of Titus is a Roman Triumphal Arch which was erected by Domitian in c. 81 CE at the foot of the Palatine hill on the Via Sacra in the Forum Romanum, Rome. It commemorates the victories of his father Vespasian and brother Titus in the Jewish War in Judaea (70-71 CE) when the great city of Jerusalem was sacked and the vast riches of its temple plundered. The arch is also a political and religious statement expressing the divinity of the late emperor Titus.
[ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/499/the-arch-of-titus-rome/ ]
Seems they thought there was a temple in Jerusalem, until they flattened it.
Zanjan: Yes, it's quite graphic but no image of the Ark of the Covenant. Do you suppose all that time the priests were just faking their job? I'm surprised you haven't jumped on that.
After all, there's no account of the Jews finding the Ark after their return from Babylon. You'd think that would be major news, especially since it was hidden in a secret place in a mountain. There should have been tremendous ceremony. Not a peep.
I've always thought there was something weird about not letting anyone except the high priest see it in the Temple. I mean, one could just stand at the doorway and peer in but noooo. If there is show bread, who is the priest showing it to? God can see everything.
(Edited by Zanjan)
GeraldtheGnome: Sheer speculation by you again. They celebrated what they did in Jerusalem, I have literally been to the arch, it still isn’t proof of a certain temple, Vikings for example that raided a place of worship is not an example that they raided a certain Cathedral if there is no undeniable proof that any claimed Cathedral that was claimed to be raided was raided. God is anything anyone wishes him to be because he is made up.
ghostgeek: The Ark of the Covenant? Isn't it in Ethiopia?
They were slaughtered trying to stop real-life raiders of the lost ark — an artifact so powerful and holy they were forbidden from ever seeing it.
The harrowing mass-murder of at least 800 people at an Ethiopian church in Tigray highlighted the apparent whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant, one of the biggest mysteries in religion and the stuff of movie legend.
The ark — a large, gold-covered wooden chest said to hold Moses’ Ten Commandments — was held at the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem for centuries, but vanished after Jerusalem was sacked in 586 or 587 BC, according to the Old Testament.
Since then its whereabouts have remained unknown — with rumors including it being stolen by the Knights Templar and hidden in a rebuilt French cathedral, as well as it being buried alongside Alexander the Great in Greece.
However, Ethiopia’s Orthodox Christians have long maintained that the ark has been held in a chapel at the Church of St. Mary of Zion in the holy northern city of Axum.
According to legend, the ark was brought to Ethiopia in the 10th century BC after being stolen by the staff of Menelik, the son of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon of Israel — who deemed the theft was permitted by God because none of his men were killed.
The ark is said to be so dangerous it was always covered while moved — and in Axum, only virgin monks ordained to be its keeper are allowed to look at it.
[ https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/christians-in-ethiopia-never-saw-ark-of-the-covenant-they-died-for/ ]
GeraldtheGnome: You have seen too many movies, I suggest that you stay away from the Indiana Jones movies in particular just in case you think that they are all based on true stories. You’re already half way there on being converted to some religion. So which one will you choose if the opportunity arises for you ? A lot of imagined and real accounts of people dying over imagined and real relics have happened over the years. Nothing highlights any fanatical form of religious tourism than a religious con. Should I consider that the television show Roar was based on a true story ? Look it up and you will see that it is about something that was so sought after that King Charlemagne of the Franks in The Feudal Age thought that he possessed it and the claimed by some not to be a Christian Adolf Hitler went out of his way to get people to find it. That was of course in The Atomic Age in the last century.Yes, in a sense it’s a story that’s basically about Easter.
Why would anyone think that someone tortured to death was a good thing ? Yes, all of those Christians that now wear a symbol of torture and murder would instead be wearing an AK47 off a chain if they thought that an AK47 was around during the time of their imagined true story of the death of Christ. If the false claim was instead that he was put on some other sort of torture device to torture him and kill him then would that instead be the symbol of torture and death displayed in and on places of worship and at least also with jewellery ? Christianity is the only religion that constantly has a torture and execution device proudly displayed, so many Christians show it off in many ways very proudly. Worse still, some denominations have the very creepy imagined crucifix with the imagined Christ on there, usually displayed as the deceased Christ. Then of course the imagined resurrection three days later is also celebrated as well. Even Easter in the past was disagreed about and it still is.
There was no need for those hyphens in your message. Anyway apart from the imaginary Ark of the Covenant and other con job objects of religion there is the imaginary Temple of Solomon and the highly unlikely that it was ever there other temple. Sure there is something to show that one claimed to be there temple was there, that’s it though, not even that in regards to the actual siege of that city back in The Bronze Age in regard to the claimed to have been built First Temple. Maybe some temple that is not either of the claimed temples of The Bible was there or there is some stone or unknown to everyone form of proof that is yet to be found. I will not hold my breath waiting for it.
ghostgeek: Gerald, why would you think that Jerusalem, of all the ancient cities, wouldn't have a temple?
Zanjan: Ghost, I find that article misleading. There wasn’t a mass murder; there was fighting between soldiers and rebels. The Ethiopian civil war, which lasted 2 years, was over who should rule the country. War crimes had been committed by all sides with extrajudicial killings throughout the region, including in a refugee camp. As a result of the war and economic devastation, the region is now suffering widespread famine.
The Ethiopian claim for the Ark is bogus. If anyone had the privilege of protecting the Ark, it would have been the Jews, as per the promise of God. If there were Jews in Ethiopia, they would never have handed it over to Christians.
The Prophet Jeremiah hid the Ark in a cave on Mount Nebo just before the Babylonian attack. The Way there was unknown.
Anyone could build a fake Ark; many have. I can’t think of a single reason to keep it around because it was a physical object.
It’s the religious significance that’s important and this plays a role in Islam and the Baha’i faith. We don’t need material props for encouragement. Jeremiah wrote that, in the future, the Ark would no longer be talked about or used again.
I like what Rashi said about that:
“"The entire people will be so imbued with the spirit of sanctity that God's Presence will rest upon them collectively, as if the congregation itself was the Ark of the Covenant."
ghostgeek: Zanjan, what makes you think the prophet Jeremiah was any more truthful than those Ethiopians?
Religion Chat Room 26 People Chatting