Conversation Board - Print Page

Conversation Board
https://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi Forums >> Afterlife Knowledge >> Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude https://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1168222764 Message started by Berserk on Jan 7^th, 2007 at 10:19pm

Title: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 7^th, 2007 at 10:19pm

Dude claims to demonstrate the Jesus never even existed. In another thread I claimed that Dude and Ra were the bobsy twins. I want to apologize for that remark. It is unfair to Ra, who at least knows what he doesn't know and tactically withdraws from a debate beyond his competence. Dude can't even sort out what might be relevant to Jesus' existence from what might be relevant to the question of legendary embellishment of otherwise solid hostorical traditon. Dude is a perfect illustration of what I mean when i refer to the New AGe ghetto. The term refers to those who refuse to expand their horizons by consulting experts in collateral fields relevant to their New Age interests. The Ghetto mentality is decidedly parochial in its reading habits and shows little respect fur an honest and open inquiry that assesses both sides of a debate from acknowledged experts. Thus, Dude's "parallelomania" derives immediately or ultimately from a New Age kook, Acharya S ("The Christ Conspiracy"). Even atheist Bible scholar, Robert Price, is rightly scathing in her dismissal of her sloppy research. Dude claims: "Everything I have written can be found in texts [not iconography] of the religions that I write of.... Therefore, I did not list any sources for my information." His claim implies that he can quote actual ancient texts to defend his interreligious parallels. As we shall see, he can rarely do anything of the sort.

In general, Dude blunders in 3 ways. (1) He overlooks an axiom of research into cultural or religious influence: one must first determine that the alleged influence was a historical possiblity for the locale in question in the relevant period. Every specialist in Palestinian religious backgrounds knows that these Jews know nothing about figures like Horus, Krishna, or Buddha. The schooling of those Jews was minimal and rudimentary. To the degree that they were familiar with Gentile gods, they dismissed them as false deities and had no interest in a syncretistic understanding.

(2) To establish a religious or cultural parallel, one must first determine the extent of alien cultural influences in that land. Neither Dude nor his unacknowledged sources take this essential aspect of research into account.

(3) A prior determination of the dates of each piece of cross-cultural evidence is also essential. Post-Christian texts from other traditions are irrelevant to the formative period of Christianity. I will require Dude to establish the date of his extremely forced parallels. But I realize that he has overlooked this fundamental methodological step. Let me illustrate why this step is so vital. The best parallels between Jesus and a pagan figure derive from traditions about a Greek charismatic, Apollonius of Tyana, who lived a few years after Jesus. But the legendary sources for Apollonius's life are too late to shed light on the formative period of Christianity. The influence is the other way around.

I will develop this thread in 4 stages. (1) I will expose the bogus nature and irrelevance of Dude's interreligious parallels. (2) I will offer proof from non-Christian sources of Jesus' existence. (3) I will show how the Gospel witness can be securely linked with validating eyewitness testimony. (4) I will then tackle the imagined problems of Dude's other biblcal allusions.

Don

P.S. For those anti-Christian bigots who object to an honest and open inquiry into such questions, I remind you that, once again, someone else initiated this topic, not me. And yes, I will make my reply relevant to afterlife issues.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 7^th, 2007 at 11:31pm

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 12:01am

Its funny. I have noticed that when anyone steps up to challenge anything you say, you can't help but throw in an arsenal of personal attacks and belittling and insulting remarks. For example, I am crude, I am incompitant, I have no reading comprehension, I am part of the "New Age Ghetto", among the many other jabs. Answer a few questions for me, and I will be happy. If you can explain these things to me, I will leave this topic alone for good.

There are 15 near-carbon-copies of Jesus far prior to his "life," stemming from ancient cultures and religions. They led the same life under the same circumstances as your Jesus. Or at least a strikingly similar life. I mean, even one extreme similarity is enough to raise some eyebrows. But there are hundreds! How do you explain away this coincidence?

The sun orbits throughout all of the constilations. When the sun enters a constilation, it enters it at the 30th degree. When the sun leaves that constilation, it leaves at the 33rd degree. Jesus began his ministry at 30 years old, and died at 33. How can you explain away this coincidence?

Jesus was "born" on December 25. This is the same day the anciets said the sun came back to life after 3 days of death. Therefore, almost all ancient religions acknowledge this same day to be the birth of their "son of god". How can you explain away this coincidence?

Jesus was born at the start of the age of Pisces. Pisces is symbolized by the two fish. There are so many symbolisms and references to fish in the bible you cannot even begin to count them. When Jesus is asked where he will begin his new kingdom, he says, "when ye are entered into the city, there shall be a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water, follow him into the house where he entereth in." Aqurarious is Symbolized by the man holding a pitcher of water, and has been long before the bible was written. And we all know the age of Pisces is followed by the age of Aquarious. There are endless references to the zodiac all throughout the bible. How do you explain these coincidences?

What possible reason could there have been for Paul and James and the other writers to ignore practically the whole earthly career of Jesus? Does it not raise a presumption that there was no such earthly career? What other possible reason could there have been?

Does it ever make you wonder why there are so many pieces of "evidence" for Jesus' existance that have been forged? If he really did exist, wouldn't there be enough evidence for this that forgeries would be unneccessary? Why were so many ancient documents displaying "proof" for Jesus' existance victim to interpolation? Why would they have to tamper with these documents if they actually did prove His existance?

I would also apprieciate you explaining the short list of quotes I compiled in my thread, and why you believe all of them are false.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 12:13am

Regarding your previous post, you did a so-so job of explaining away 15 of the parallels. Some you simply said, "state where you heard this from because Ive never heard of it", or "that is just a coincidence." But what about the other 30 parallels that I have identified? Even if there were only five parallels that were accurate, that is too much coincidence and calls into quesiton the authenticity and originality of the bible's stories and its main character. There may have been a few mistakes, but that does not mean that the entire list is bogus, because it is clearly not.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Tim F. on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 12:29am

Sorry for stepping into this private conversation. It'll just take a moment....

Hey Dude, I have an idea. You could entertain the possibility in your mind that Jesus might actually exist... and then try to make contact while obe. You might have to relax and let go of any conceptual layers saying it's impossible to do so.

I believe Jesus exists. It would be pretty cool if you could actually see if he does. He might have some interesting rotes to share.

My apologies again for stepping into your debate, Don and Dude.

I have great affection for both of you.

Tim

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 1:16am

Tim, I consider your simple suggestion very compelling and profound. Robert Monroe often encountered Christ or a being like Him during his OBEs, complete with the stereotypical musical fanfare. bob would join the host of inhabitants of spirit planes lying belly-up in reverence. After each episode, it would be realized that a retrieval had occurred. In the New Testament Peter discusses Jesus' performance of such retrievals. Bob rightly asks: "Is this God? Or God's Son?" ("Journeys Out of the Body," 123) I only wish Bob had followed up such encounters by actively eeeking to interview Jesus.

Atheist Howard Storm's NDE encounter with Jesus leads to a lengthy teaching session. I can authenticate this encounter through several subtle nuances in Jesus' teaching that are only obvious from an in depth investigation of the cultural background of Jesus' teaching. I also detect sevreal subtle Aramaic expressions used by this NDE Jesus which Storm could never have concocted.

On the other hand, some of Jesus' teaching about our past and future lives in other worlds in our universe seems decidedly New Agey, especially Jesus' allusion to the fact that some might even reincarnate on Earth. I find some of this teaching mildly threatening, but i cannot just discount it because I know very well that Storm hears Jesus' authentic voice. Such astral conversations with Jesus have great potential for bridging the gap between conventional Chrisitan and New Age perspectives on spirituality. They also have geat potential to open up those of us who have trouble getting unstuck from certain aspects of our belief system..

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 2:37am

Tim. Sounds like a good idea. I actually had a dream about Jesus last night, probably due to all of this discussion. Don, Id apprieciate if you could address those questions I layed out. Those are a few of the main points of controversy in my mind, and I'd like to know how you feel about them. I just want to make something else clear. I have absolutely no problem with people holding the belief of Jesus. I obviously do not share this belief, however I do not have any less respect for those who do.

Don, we obviously have different beliefs concerning everything from Out of Body Experiences to Religion. However, I still love you as I love everyone on this beautiful planet(as crumby as it may seem at times). Everyone will have their unique opinions and set of beliefs, but we still need to show love and respect to all. As heated as our debates may get, I thank you for giving me your time and allowing me to grow and learn, regardless of your motives. Although there is no doubt in my mind that what I believe regarding the subject of Jesus and Religion is the truth, just as you and basically everyone else on Earth does, I am still gaining much from these disscussions with you.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by juditha on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 2:51am

Hi outofbodydude I beleive in my most inner heart and soul that our dear Jesus existed,all the storys of what Jesus did through his life,have been talked about since the time Jesus was born,his love,his miracles and the wisdon and knowledge he gave so lovingly to all in his time and far beyond in our time.The word was spread about him in his time for the future generations to know,such as we know today of his life and works.

Jesus existed as he gave so much to the world and he was the son of God and Mary and through his truly remarkable life and what he said and what he did,no way could this have been a lie,as its been talked about and written down,no ones that good at making things up and it was wittnessed by so many The life of Jesus,look how many written accounts there have been of our dear saviour Jesus.He would not have been talked about and written about so much ,if he had never been around,but he was around with all his love.

I wish i had lived in his time i would have loved to sit on the hillsides listening to everything he had to say and when Jesus died ,the disciples must have felt lost and in tears that this wonderful divine being of love had suddenly left there lives as i would have cryed with them when Jesus died,i love him very much and i love God very much as well and i will always beleive no matter what is thrown at me.

Thanks for being on here Don to write about Jesus.

Love and God bless Love Juditha

Title: People who live in Glass Houses...
Post by Chumley on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 3:09am

Dude claims to demonstrate the Jesus never even existed. In another thread I claimed that Dude and Ra were the bobsy twins. I want to apologize for that remark. It is unfair to Ra, who at least knows what he doesn't know and tactically withdraws from a debate beyond his competence. Dude can't even sort out what might be relevant ...
*****************
I may have trimmed that paragraph a bit short. Because If I'd included the whole thing and replaced "Dude" with "Don" and "New Age" with "Christian" it would have been no less apropos.
Don, Dude is clearly a YOUNG guy. As such, he's like most 19-22 year olds I've known... there is no age group MORE sure that they know everything. That being said, I think he'll grow out of it... AND it must be said that Dude is a pretty smart guy. Right now, he may be a bit more enthusiastic than he is informed, but I see the makings of a genuine scholar in him, unless he loses interest in the subject and goes on to focus on something else, as young guys are wont to do. (Like myself, who changed my major in college about 6 times... but I digress.) He definitely has the will to go digging for the information in any case..!
Much of the above could be said about YOU, Don. Except that you won't grow out of it. You're almost 60 y/o, Don.
My grandpa once had a plaque hanging above the sink in his kitchen which read:
"There is no fool like an OLD fool... you just can't beat experience!!!"
You're afraid of going to "Hell", Don. Like an old Mississippi gator, you've chomped onto this fear and made it the center of your life. And when somebody comes along like Dude, you get defensive and resort to ad hominem attacks. You start calling names, calling people kooks, and what have you. Is it any wonder that a young guy like Dude (who's still got oats a'plenty to feel) might start calling your "guru of gurus" names like "Swedenbarf" or "Retard"..? Or is was that your objective all along, try to pi$$ Dude off (like you did Spitfire) and then offer YOURSELF as the voice of reason?
They say that a cruel "God", makes for a cruel man. (If this holds true, your god must be one ARROGANT so-and-so, Donster...)
You mentioned "tactical withdrawal" in reference to Ra. But isn't
that what YOU'RE doing, Don old boy?
If you can't win the argument in the field, pull back and resort to long-range bombardment. Label and Ridicule!!!
"New Age Kooks/New Age Ghetto"...
"Christians"... do you agree with the use of the term, "Christian children" or "Christian child?" (Answer me THIS one, PLEASE..!!!)
"Baby-Eating Worshippers of Quetzalcoatl..?"
And so on are your thing, because you like to slap labels on things
and on people. You are a CONVENTIONALIST at heart, a linear thinker. I'll bet you thought CLOWNS were funny as a kid. You took to them right away and weren't creeped out by them - as most of the highly intelligent kids tend to be until
their mothers tell them that the big red noses and grease paint and loudness-making-up-for-lack-of-wit are SUPPOSED to be funny, and that they are SUPPOSED to laugh. (Formula thinking 101 anybody???)
I'll bet you also think we can "win the war in Iraq" if we just keep dumping more troops in. And that all we need to stop marijuana use, is more POLICE OFFICERS and TOUGHER PENALTIES! (But once again, I digress...)
Anyway, watch out for that glass house you're living in, Don. If you're gonna chuck rocks, don't be surprised if a few come flying back your way...

B-man

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 10:00am

Funny, Brendan, my brother and I were terrified of clowns as children. We used to have nightmares....but I digress.

First, I would like to say that the debate is likely not to end in everyone being of a unanimous opinion. Be that as it may, I find it disconcerting that despite thousands of hours of meticulous NAZI documentation in phtos, paper and film, that there are deniers of the Holocaust who have conferences about the most inane conspiracies (the latest comical one was that if Hitler had some Jewish blood in him -which has been postulated - than the Holocaust was his deliberate plan to establish the ste of Israel - I would be rolling on the floor laughing if it weren't so absurdly inhumane).

Now follow the thought here. The Holocaust happened in the 20th century, a mere six plus decades ago. If the historical accuracy of this can be brought into question, do you really believe that we will establish the historical accuracy of Jesus' full life 2000 years in the past? Of course not.

I would defend those of faith in their right to believe in him because those who reject him have no solid proof. I am Jewish by upbringing, however I feel strongly that the life, death and resurrection of Christ is a marvelous model and example for those who believe in the afterlife and yes, Don, New Age thought. In a very short period, by common accounts, he experiences tremendous suffering, doubt, (as we all do in life), the fear of being forsaken, followed by acceptance, death, and then the persistence of life beyond death with resurrection. Isn't that what we are all looking for in our search for knowledge about why there is suffering in the world, and what happens when we die?

I have come to my own beliefs over the past year through personal experience and thought; I am open to change as new experiences come my way. I believe our essence stems from conscious awareness. In following this essence I find that much of what is seen as polar opposites in the physical world melts away. Armies of light and darkness, black/white, whatever dualism appears then vanishes. This then leads me to the notion that there is a unity of all things (Don's labeling of me as monistic). We all have experienced this feeling of unity, but perhaps not on a daily basis. If you have ever been out on a perfect summer's day, and experienced pure joy in just "being," then you have glimpsed into this unity.

When looking at the arguments from this perspective, I have to say, I take Tim's view that I love having the D/D debate going on. Pass the popcorn. But just like the yin/yang sign (the place where the black fish starts and the white fish ends, is unknowable), I believe that there is a bigger picture here, beyond the historical reality of JC. Don/Tim alluded to it in saying "OOB Dude, try contacting him yourself when OOB." JC and christianity have been in the hearts and minds of billions of people now. Since, in my monistic model, conscious awareness is our essence, then the love and philosophy of JC have indelibly entered the mind of human consciousness and are part of us. Multiple sources confirm what both Christians and New Agers believe - that love is the driving force behind the godhead and all the planes of existence.

Incidentally, Dude, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Essenes, a group who existed long before Jesus and who some believed JC may have had contact with. They shared many conceptual ideas with christianity, believed in the coming of a messiah, a form of baptism, and well, you get the point - there has been debate about the role of the Essenes for years in early christian thought.

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Cricket on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 12:35pm

The funny thing is that Jesus as a physical man and Jesus as the "spirit in the sky" don't necessarily have to both exist for either to be valid. Millions of people could go OBE and see Jesus, yet he could never have existed in the physical...or existed as repeatedly as Jesus, Mithras, etc. etc. Results would be the same. Since the "rules" of most of those Christ-like figures in the past were pretty much the same, even the results in the physical world wouldn't have to be different. Jesus may have come into the physical as Horus, then Mithras (or vice versa...no memory today), however many others...nobody got the idea, so he came back as Jesus, finally got the right publicist (Paul).

It doesn't matter if Jesus was here in the physical or not, as to his reality and spiritual authority, nor whether any of the others were. It only becomes an issue for the rest of us when those who believe in his physical presence claim it means that no others are valid, and that they should therefore get to set the rules for us, and/or tell us what we can believe. Then the rest of us tend to get touchy.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Chumley on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 7:15pm

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Ra. on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 7:39pm

You have taken the words right out of my mouth chumley ;D

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 11:43pm

B-man,

Sometimes, I think you just don't get what I say, and I think you feel that way about me. Ah well. I did understand your point that the Holocaust deniers were making up an untenable twisting of the facts to deny the Holocaust, and that to you this appears closer to modern christianity than to atheism. I disagree with this, but understand where you are coming from. My point is, that you can take a definite event (like the Holocaust) with definite documentation, but then have a large number of people form untrue conspiracy theories about it (forget about organized relgion for a minute as a quick response). Take a poll in the Arab world, about whether the holocaust was real, and you will find tens of millions of people - even over a hundred million who either deny it happened or link it to a conspiracy to establish a Jewish state. How can that be with photos, written documents and film of the tragedy? The answer is - that even with objective evidence, the veracity of an event is difficult to prove even in modern times, because we color all objective evidence with belief systems.

There are loonies out there, even respected scientists who insist that the US government brought down the Twin Towers. Can you imagine? Tapes from the hijackers, with their testimonies. Tapes of Bin Laden watching the towers come down and admitting it, and yet, thousands of Americans formed their own conspiracy theories, despite photos of the men getting onto their planes and ramming them into the buildings.

I remember an experiment done in a college class on psychology and truth. A woman ran into class screaming about a personal matter. A man followed, there was an arguement. Fake shots were fired. Afterward, people had to write down their accounts of what happened. You would be amazed to see how the accounts varied on what was said and who did what to whom. And all those students were actually in the room at the time of the staged incident.

With all that as a background, look at the title of this thread. Of course we are not going to come to a definite conclusion about the historical reality of Jesus by debate or eyewitness testimony from 2000 years ago alone. But that goes both ways. Dude's refutations or parallels of Christ with Horus, or Krishna do not prove that Jesus did not walk the earth. If JC did, perhaps he had heard of other cultures or philosophies (like the Essenes). Parallels do not disprove the life of JC. Not knowing what JC did prior to age 30 does not mean he did not live.

Where does that leave this thread? Proof one way or the other based on existing documents is unlikely. However, there is both mystical evidence, evidence based on written and eyewitness documentation and NDE evidence to support the existence of JC

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 12:52am

This if for anyone who claims to know their stuff about Jesus and has good reason to say he existed:

If these questions are not answered, I am going to assume noone has answers to them and that I am correct in my belief that Jesus is a phoney baloney!!!

There are 15 near-carbon-copies of Jesus far prior to his "life," stemming from ancient cultures and religions. They led the same life under the same circumstances as your Jesus. Or at least a strikingly similar life. I mean, even one extreme similarity is enough to raise some eyebrows. But there are sooo many! How do you explain away this coincidence? How can a real person live the same exact life of 15 past mythical characters that "He" did not even have knowledge of?

The sun orbits throughout all of the constilations. When the sun enters a constilation, it enters it at the 30th degree. When the sun leaves that constilation, it leaves at the 33rd degree. Jesus began his ministry at 30 years old, and died at 33. How can you explain away this coincidence?

Jesus was "born" on December 25. This is the same day the anciets said the sun came back to life after 3 days of death. Therefore, almost all ancient religions acknowledge this same day to be the birth of their "son of god". How can you explain away the coincidence that Jesus was born on the saaame exact day as these other myths? Do you not acknowledge that there is a good chance this is the reason "Jesus" was "born" on this day?

Jesus was born at the start of the age of Pisces. Pisces is symbolized by the two fish. There are so many symbolisms and references to fish in the bible you cannot even begin to count them. When Jesus is asked where he will begin his new kingdom, he says, "when ye are entered into the city, there shall be a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water, follow him into the house where he entereth in." Aqurarious is Symbolized by the man holding a pitcher of water, and has been long before the bible was written. And we all know the age of Pisces is followed by the age of Aquarious. There are endless references to the zodiac all throughout the bible. Yet, the bible claims that astrology is of the Devil! How do you explain these coincidences? Does it not raise questions as to the motives of the authority figures of Christianity as to conceiling truth of the religion's origins? (Of course it does! Retorical question... but I want to hear you say it!)

What possible reason could there have been for Paul and James and the other writers to ignore practically the whole earthly career of Jesus? Does it not raise a presumption that there was no such earthly career? What other possible reason could there have been?

Does it ever make you wonder why there are so many pieces of "evidence" for Jesus' existance that have been forged? If he really did exist, wouldn't there be enough evidence for this that forgeries would be unneccessary? Why were so many ancient documents displaying "proof" for Jesus' existance victim to interpolation? Why would they have to tamper with these documents if they actually did prove His existance?

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 1:11am

Dude,

Don may take you point for point, but then what? How do you know that the historical Jesus did not encounter the history or myth of another who believed as he did? Many have surmised that there was enough cross cultural exposure there and learning.

The issue of his birthday as December 25 is inane. Many agree that this date was celebrated out of convenience to recruit pagans already celebrating this date, and NOT as a historical fact.

The orbital patterns of the sun and Jesus' ministry? How does that coincidence of information prove or disisprove his existence?

Read your next few paragraphs. Nothing you state addresses the relevant point; namely his walking on the planet, eyewitness testimony, oral and written documentation, or the reality of his ministry or perishing on the Roman cross.

The embellishment of reality by myth is leading you to false conclusions, Dude. Yes, Jesus' story may be strikingly similar to other messianic tales, some that predate his earthly ministry. Yes, Jesus may or may not been aware of the philosophy from these others; he may have even embraced or borrowed from them. Yes, pagan holidays were incorporated as dates into christianity in order to accomodate converts (why do you think Sunday is the christian sabbath and corresponds to the date of worship of the pagan sun god, instead of the Hebrew sabbath which had always fallen on Saturday?)

None of that matters. The question is not whether myth was woven into the reality around JC - (it was). The question is - was JC incarnate in the physical world?

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 1:31am

Acharya has the habit of interpreting vague Egyptian images that may or may not apply to Horus to adduce her parallels. She also ingores the need to date her sources to the pre-Christian era. I will repost my critque a representiative sample of Dude's Krishna and Horus parallels to illustrate why his parallels are bogus. Then I will crtique most of the rest of her Horus parallels and supplement these with a critique of her Buddha parallels.

I have only had time research and refute two of the most important Krishna parallels to illustrate Dude's flawed research. I repost my prior comments:

KRISHNA:
***The moment Chrishna was born, the whole cave was splendidly illuminated::: The moment Jesus was born, there was a great light in the cave
_________________________________________________________________
Nonsense! The Bible locates Jesus’ birth in a stable, not a cave. The baby Jesus is located in a “house” (Matthew 2:11), not a cave. Only later tradition speculates that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem. But that speculation is based on the cave's location, not on influence from the Horus mythology.

***Chrishna was crucified, represented with arms extended hanging on a cross, Jesus was crucified, represented with arms extended hanging on a cross.
__________________________________________________________________No auch event occurred in the Gita or in any recognzed Hindu scripture.
To quote Edwyn Bryant, a Rutgars Professor Hinduism: “There are no crucified gods in Hinduism. Acharya needs to read a `religion 101 course.’ “
There are carvings that porray figures with holes in the foot or breast. But Hindu scholars identify these as chakra symbols, not crucifixion nails. Crucifixion nails are not drilled through the breast. Crucifixion was a Roman means of execution and was unknown in ancient India! In any case, Krishna was unknown in first century Palestine.

HORUS:
***Horus was baptised by water by anup:::Jesus baptised by water by John.
_______________________________________________________________
Hardly! Horus died and was cast in pieces in the water, and his parts were fished out by the crocodile god at the request of Isis. That’s hardly a baptism that resembles Jesus’ simple imnersiion in the Jurdan! In any case, Jewish baptism was simply an outgrowth of Jewish ritual immersions and has nothing to do with Horus!

***Horus born in Annu, the place of bread:::Jesus born in Bethlehem, the house of bread.
______________________

A mere coincidence, especially since "Bethlehem" means "house of bread," not "place of bread." Jesus' family were proud of their descent from David and Bethlehem is the city of David. Jesus' relatives used to travel around Palestine celebrating this fact and explaining the significance of Jesus' Davidic genealogy.
The alleged birthplace of Horus is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ancient Mesisanic prophecy about Bethlehem in Micah 5:2.
"
***Horus the good shepherd with the crook upon his shoulders:::Jesus the good shepherd the with lamb or kid upon his shoulders
________________________________________________
I challenge your claim that Horus is called “the Good Shepherd.” Identify the text and its date. In any case, the Bible never portrays Jesus ‘with a lamb or kid on His shoulder.” That image comes from later Christian art which has no relevance to Horus or the formative period of Christianity. What do you expect a shepherd to do with immobile lambs?

***The seven on board the bark with Horus:::The seven fishers on board the bark with Jesus
_______________
Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee various times with variious numbers of disciples. The fact that 7 others were present on one occasion is insignificant.

***Horus as the lamb::: Jesus as the lamb
_____________________________________
The Bible identifies Jesus as the Passover Lamb. This is based on several parallels between Jesus’ death and Jewish Passover customs. It has nothing to do with Horus.

***Horus as the lion::: Jesus as the lion
__________________________________
The poetic designation of Jesus as the "Lion" from Judah in Revelation 5:5 is based on Genesis 49:9 and has nothing to do with either Horus or the earthly Jesus' self-understanding.

***Horus as the black child:::Jesus as the little black bambino
____________________________________________________
Rubbish! There is no biblical evidence identifying Jesus as “the little black bambino.”

***Horus identified with the tat or cross:::Jesus identified with the cross
___________________________________________________________
Horus was never crucified and the “tat” is not identified with the Roman instrument of crucifixion. Strictly speaking, Jesus is not “identified with the cross’” He was crucified on a Roman cross.

***Horus 30 yrs old at his baptism:::Jesus 30 yrs old at his baptism
_________________________________________________________
Wrong again! Jesus was born before Herod's death in 4 BC. The best estimate is that Jesus was born in 7 BC and baptized in 28 AD. This would make him 34 or 35 at His baptism.

***Two mothers of child Horus who were sisters:::Two mothers of child Jesus who were sisters
________________
Nonsense! Jesus had one mother, Mary.

***The star, as announcer of the child Horus:::The star in the east that indicated the birthplace of Jesus
________________________________
The Bethlehem “star” fulfills Balaam's prophecy of Numbers 24:17 and has nothing to do with Horus. Matthew draws several parallels between Balaam's prophecy and Jesus' birth.

***Horus the morning star:::Jesus the morning star.
____________________________________________
Jesus is nowhere labeled “the morning star” in our Gospels. *

***12 followers of Horus as har-khutti:::12 followers of Jesus as the 12 disciples
__________________________________________________________________One Egyptian source identifies “4 disciples of Horus”. Another source identifies 16 followerss of Horus. But no Egyptian source identifies 12 disciples of Horus!
You are confused by an Egyptian depiction of the 12 zodiac signs.

***Anup and Aan the two witnesses for Horus::: John and John as witnesses for Jesus
_____
Wrong on both counts! For neither Horus nor Jesus are just two “witnesses” distinguished. Jesus has many witnesses.

I have demonstrated the absurdity of invoking the most striking Horus parallels as grounds for rejecting Jesus' existence and Dude has not engaged the specifics of my points. He instead requested my critique of his other parallels. I have had time to research most of the rest and here are my arguments:

***Horus the krst:::Jesus the christ,
______________________________
“Christos” just means “anointed.” and so is not significant unless applied to a latter-day king. In the Bible the title derives from Old Testament messianism, not from Horus. Besides, Acharya can’t even establish this as a title for Horus! Prove me wrong, Dude! At least 50 epithets are applied to Horus. It would be shocking if there were no parallels to the many titles applied to jesus.
.
***Horus the manifesting son of god::: Jesus the manifesting son of god.
______________________________________________________
Jesus’ self-understanding as “the Son of God” is an expression of His descent from King David. As such, the title “Son of God” derives from 2 Samuel 7:14 and has nothing to do with Horus.

***Horus the sower and Set the destroyer in the harvest field:::Jesus the sower of the good seed and satan the sower of tares.
______________________
Seth is the divine benefactor of lower Egypt and is not the equivalent of “Satan,”, a term which means “adversary.” Jesus tells a few seed
parables which are very original and are inspired by rabbinic models, not by Horus!

**Horus the afflicted one:::Jesus the afflicted one. {Aren’t we aall?]
***Horus as the type of life eternal:::Jesus as the type of eternal life.
___________________________________________________.
Too vague and universally appllicable to religious figures to be meaningful.

***Horus who came by the blood, the water, and the spirit::: Jesus who came by the blood, the water, and the spirit.
___________________________________

The expression “came by blood” just means that they were born and hence is worthless as a basis of comparison. Jesus came by water only in the sense of His baptism. Jesus was ritually immersed and Horus was not. The Concept of the Holy Spirit is a distinctly Judaeo-Christian concept. So this comparison is absurd. The relevant New Testament text is 1 John 5:8.

***Horus of the two horizons::: Jesus of the two lands
__________________________________________

this is so sillly. Jesus enters several lands, not just two--Egypt, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Syria, and Perea.

BUDDHA:
***Buddha was born of the virgin Maya who conceived him without intercourse::: Jesus was born of the virgin Mary who conceived him without intercourse.
_________________________________________________________
Wrong! The pre-Christian accounts of Buddha’s ancestry presuppose nothing abnormal about his birth, and speak merely of his being ell born on his parents’ side traceable to 7 generations. Buddha’s mother was not a virgin; she was married before the conception. Only in the post-Christian era do traditions evolve that she had taken vows of sexual abstinence during her marriage, but even then she is abstinent only during the midsummer festival. So this parallel too is irrelevant to the formative period of Christianity.

***When Buddha was an infant, he spoke to his mother and said, I am the greatest among men:::When Jesus was an infant, he spoke to his mother and said, I am Jesus, the son of god.
__________________________________________________________________
Another bogus parallel! In the Bible the infant Jesus never speaks and so makes no such claim.

***Buddha ascended bodily to the celestial regions, when his mission on earth w
fullfilled:::Jesus ascended bodily to the celestial regions, when his mission on earth was fullfilled.
__________________________________________________________________
Jesus rose bodily and eventually “ascended.” In Buddhism, Nirvana is not a “place” nor is “ascension” a relevant concept. The Buddha is said to have teaversed on his death-couch all 9 of the trance levels--twice, and then his body was cremated!

***Buddha is alpha and omega, without beginning or end, the supreme being, the eternal one:::Jesus is alpha and omega, without beginning or end, the supreme being, the eternal one.
__________________________________________________________________
This is just another typical example of how Acharya lies and distorts to concoct her parallels.Greek is not the language of eastern Buddhists. “Alpha” and “omega” are letters of the Greek alphabet.. Besides, the earthly Jesus never claims what this comparison alleges. The New Testament claim that God or Jesus is Alpha and Omega can only be found in the Book of Revelation (e. g. 1:8). But here it is based on Isaiah 41:4, 6; 48:22), not on Buddhiist mythology!

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 1:41am

Being that every major part of Jesus' life, as told by the bible, was simply stories passed down from past cultures and religions, it becomes aparant to me that the Jesus that everyone knows of did not exist. I can entertain the possibility that perhaps there was a man named Jesus that these stories were based on, but this could not possibly be the person that everyone knows and loves. I am saying this with a rational mind. As I have said before, I used to believe in Jesus just as you guys do.

Perhaps if there were only, say one or two, or hell even three, past "sons of god" who's lives mirrored Jesus', then perhaps I could write it off and say, hey maybe this is just a coincidence. But 15!!! I'm sorry, but that is far too many to be a coincidence. Any unbiased rational mind can see that. And perhaps if many of Jesus' teachings, and even events in his life, did not have hidden(and in some cases not so hidden) direct connections to Astrology, then I could entertain the possiblity even further. Everything I have ever known of Jesus I have discovered to be Myth! Everything I have ever known of Jesus I have learned that the same exact things were said about Horus, and Buddha, and Chrishna, and this one and that one and the other one. I am not claiming to know everything about Jesus, and I am not saying every single thing said about him is the same as the others. But I knew a lot. Too much for me to write it off as simply coincidence.

When I die, someone could write a book about me saying that I was born of a Virgin, I was crucified, I performed miracles, I taught great lessons, and I was the son of god. And these will all be lies. You are correct, that does not mean I never existed. But it does mean that the OutOfBodyDude that the people think they know 2000 years after my death, after reading about my "great life", it does mean that THAT person never existed. I did exist. But they dont know me. They only know this dude who's life was blanketed by myth and folklore. And THAT person did not exist.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 2:40am

I will now summarize my six grounds for dismissing Dude's parallels.
(1) Dude clams his parallels were directly based on written texts. Yet he actually quotes a New Age author without acknwledging this. This is important because that author's parallels (Dude's) are totally contrived at lesst half the time. Many are not based on texts, but rather on obscure art in which the details are as hard to identify as the intended referents. That is why I challenge Dude to site the original source, knowing very well that he cannot.

(2) In the 19th century, undisciplined historians collected parallels between Jesus and other savior figures without regard to the question of whether first-century Palestinian Jews were even familiar with these figures. We now have an excellent picture of alien religious influences in Palestine. There is no evidnece that these Jews were familiar with Savior figures (Horus, Krishna, Buddha) cited by Dude and his source. Even if they were, these Jews loathed pagan deities and would never attempt a syncretistic merger with Jesus. This point is axiomatic among academic specialists in the field of religious influence. Dude is practically a biblical illerate who knows nothing about the cultural scene in first-century Palestine. It is arrogant of him to assume he can ignore the findings of the specialists in this field. EVEN MORE ABSURD IS HIS DISMISSAL OF JESUS' EXISTENCE WITHOUT EVEN INVESTIGATING THE NON-CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' HISTORICITY! Thus, Dude is the paradigm of the myopic New Age Ghetto mentality.

(3) 19th century historians also created their Jesus parallels without regard to the question of whether these texts pre-date Jesus. Many of Dude's do not and are thus irrelevant to the question of influence on our picture of the historical Jesus.

(4) As I have demonstrated, Dude's source often warps the terms to express alleged parallels. When the true language behind these parallels is grasped, the legitimacy of the parallels often vanishes.

(5) Many of Dude's parallels are easily explained from a Jewish background, especially the Old Testament, which renders irrelevant the alleged parallel to a foreign savior figure. Christianity is far more thoroughly Jewish in outlook and background than most Christians realize. Prior Christian anti-Semitism might not have been so severe if this simple truth were more widely recognized.

(6) In a future post, I will make the case that the Gospel portrait of Jesus not only establishes His existence, but also His legtimacy.

Freud acknowledged Carl Jung as his best student. Jung was well versed in world mythology and developed an intriguing theory of archetypes to explain the universality of religious and cultural imagery, despite the fact that most of these cultures had never experienced meaningful interaction. Archetypes are the mind's innate tendencies to organize perception around specific images. Jung was a mystic who had many paranormal experienced. He insisted that he didn't BELIEVE in God; rather, he KNEW God through the archtypes that shape our mystical experiences. Jung's theory has great potential to explain the best of interreligious parallels without tne need for direct cultural influence.

ADDENDUM: I just noticed your recent supplementation of alleged paralleles in reply #39 of your thread on Jesus. You originally claimed that you relied on original ancient rather than modern sources. But in fact you rely on discredited New Age pseudo-scholars who demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge of the parameters of cultural options in first-centuiry Palestine. Your new "parallels' are subject to the criticisms I express in this post.

Your parallels are generally contrived, even bogus, and yet, you quote no ancient texts at all. Thus, your research lacks integrity. YOU CANNOT QUOTE THE ANCIENT TEXTS BECAUSE THE ALLEGED PARALLELS GENERALLY DON'T EXIST IN SUCH TEXTS. Prove me wrong! Quote all the ancient texts word for word that imply what your parallels allege and I will reply point by point to your new parallels.

Your googled new Age source claims that there was no first-century Nazareth.
Your naive acceptance of this absurdity just shows how sloppy your research is, not to mention your appalling lack of respect for modern SECULAR scholarship.
We have NON-CHRISTIAN Jewish sources for Nazareth's existence in the first cnentury! For example, the priestly family named Hapizez fled there from Jerusalem after the Roman legions closed in on Jerusalem in 66 AD (Mishmaroth 18). There are many casual references to trips to Nazareth in the first few Christian centuries. Archaeologists have even been able to establish the village's approximate area (60 acres) and population (about 480)! Jesus' hometown of Nazareth is legitimately attested in the Gospels. It was a source of ridicule by Jesus' opponents because of its small and rustic character. If Christians wanted to invent Jesus' hometown, they would have chosen a less embarassing locale.

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 4:19pm

Don,

This debate is getting to be of a strange nature. Bogus reference sources are, unfortunately still regarded as references. This is the problem with Holocaust deniers. A counter literature develops, that may or may not be well researched. Then more and more references are made to the counter literature. If you hold it up to the light, it may be full of holes, yet those who wish to deny (the Holocaust for example), still smile smugly that there is well documented data that supports the bogus views.

In the end, it is difficult to win a debate like this - even if logic and scholarship are on your side. The number of people on this site who could read ancient hebrew or aramaic are.......well I'm not sure but it must be an exceedingly low number. Your challenge to Dude then to go through the ancient texts in the debate is an impossible one.

I feel for you in this argument because, as someone who always quotes sources, and his done scientific research published in peer-reviewed medical journals, I understand the difference between good research and "schlock" research/science.

Matthew

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by betson on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 5:44pm

To take this in another direction for just a moment,

Great spiritual masters such as Jesus have opened or even created channels in in our bodies of subtle energy, allowing us to come closer to the Divine through their uplifting message. If you have activated any sensitivity to your bodies of subtle energies through meditation, prayer, tantra, or whatever, you know you are more than a porous sponge, but have channels where energy can rise with PUL, --or fall, when faced with those influences the world recognizes as negative.

Try doing a retrieval while thinking like Nero. Think Platonic or Socratic thoughts and see if those will get an inner response from your spirit. Try meditating or prayer without love at your center and see if you can feel uplifted by the response of energies around you.

Jesus' message of Love was a new concept for people of that time.
Of course Love existed before his time, but people were made conscious of it more fully by his teachings. Where would we be without it? His ideas took hold at a particular time and inspired some people to challenge the lions of opposing downward forces. Without his message, society was made of slaves and masters; when his message was established by his example of dieing for it, Life changed.
Something happened at that time; to whom are you giving the credit?
(I'm not a Christian according to many congregations of today. Titheing for the pastor's new car or attending 'Bar-B-Qs for Jesus' haven't attracted my involvement either. :) )

Bets

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 6:06pm

Well said, Matthew. When I present the positive evidence that Jesus exists, I will include evidence that He is indeed what He claimed to be, though I will do so only in passing. Still, I freely admit that there is some legitimate and intelligent scholarship from secular academic historians that challenges certain Gospel claims about Jesus and demonstrates that no proof is possible. But these academic skeptics would agree with me that Dude's sources are neither academically respectable nor credible. So on a site like this with divergent religious perspectives, the best I can hope for is to elevate the level of analysis by establishing the need to consult and respect the established experts in each field tangential to afterlife survival.

That said, you bring up the main reason to be passionate about this issue. Dude's wreckless disregard (1) for acknowledged expert opinion and (2) for the actual texts that lurk behind the twisted distortions of his source's reinterpretations follows a precedent that encourages gross immorality. The same mothodology is often used in conspiracy theories that deny the Holocaust either to promote anti-Semitism or to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Conspiracy theories seen to gain credibility with the unthinking masses simply through repetition. People begin to discount the eyewitness testimony of the legion desth camp survivors on the grounds that they have a Jewish axe to grind. Such conspiratorial thought patterns serve as the perfect blueprint for evil.

I still sense in Dude a potential for maturation and critical reflection that might ultimately help him achieve a spiritual breakthrough and develop a more honed spritiual discernment that will upgrade his capacity for producitve astral exploration in a way that helps him separate flights of fancy from sold astral insights. In that respect, I'm hopeful that this polemical exercise might prove developmentally useful for him and others.

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 11:35pm

Don. This is a message from your girl Acharya after she was shown the criticism and critiques you gave to her work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Acharya S <acharya_s@...>
Subject: Fwd: Comment and question acharya_s

Hi there -

Some "Berserker" is obsessively trashing my work on the board:

http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/

If any of you kind listers would like to go there and straighten this guy out, please do so. I don't have the time or inclination to spend on him. The first thing you could point out is that it seems he hasn't
read "Suns of God," which addresses practically all of these shallow criticisms. Another thing is that he spends a great deal of time denigrating me with ad hominems, rather than addressing the facts I
bring up, which is a sign of intellectual weakness. He also has to fall back on the "nobody believes her" argument, which is like "everyone believes Jesus was a real person." A non-argument. His
claim that the first century Palestinian Jews could not know about all these characters is ridiculously ignorant of the vast intercourse of the time between cultures. Gee, there was this HUGE library collected at Alexandria, with books from around the known world. Alexander had thoroughly opened up the lines of communication to India three centuries previously. Also, I don't address the "Palestinian" Jews so much as the Alexandrian Jews and others of the Diaspora (does this know-it-all know about the Diaspora?) Are you trying to tell me that
Jews of Alexandria--who made up about 50% of the population of that city--never went into the library there or attended the university?

It's ridiculous. The other of this smart aleck's arguments can be as easily refuted.

Regardless of the anal nitpicking, the fact will remain that Jesus Christ appears nowhere in the contemporary historical record, despite the repeated claim in the New Testament that he was widely famed. The fact will also remain that much of the gospel story was already in existence long before the Christian era, in bits and pieces, before it was amalgamated into the Christ myth. Also, the sayings that supposedly distinguish a "real guy" were in existence--and can be found in pre-Christian texts--long before Jesus supposedly lived. There is nothing new under this sun (god). Jesus Christ is a mythical character. You can rail against me until the veins pop out of your neck, but nothing will change that fact.......

From my previous BCC to you, perhaps you can tell that I can readily demolish this persons "arguments," which are shallow indeed. Talk about sloppy research! He seems to have gone nowhere further than encyclopedias for his "expertise!"

Do feel free to join my discussion groups, as in the "to" line of the message I bcc'ed to you. In any event, I would heartily recommend that you read "Suns of God," which handily deals with and refutes all of these infantile criticisms. Naturally, I haven't heard from the likes of Price and Licona--perhaps they have eggs on their faces, but I doubt
it, because their egos and arrogance are too big.

My pen name is not "pretentious." I took it mainly because WESTERN WOMEN could never be called "Acharya," as that is a spiritual title reserved for the pious Hindu priests. This angry, ranting berserker cannot understand humor, obviously. Nor does he realize that his reaction to my pseudonym is precisely when I took it.

Again, Suns of God shows that this fool's hostile ranting is completely erroneous

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 2:10am

Dude, Acharya posted this or something similar in an identical debate I had a couple of years ago with a gal named Dora. She posted even more material from Acharya than you did. I replied, but not in the same depth as my replies to you. Acharya's response to my critique was pasted on this site. Believe t or not, i knew it would be pasted here again. I don't mind at all. I just wish you had admitted from the outset that she was your source just as i discerned. i wonder if this is her same response or if she revised it slightly. I notice she distances herself from her first book "The Christ Conspiracy." Thank God for that! Ha! i construe her refusal to debate me as fear. But then since she is infamous for not identifying her sources, it might be hard to dwtermine exactly where her claims are coming from.

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 2:21am

lol Don... I never even heard of Acharya until you brought her name up in your first post on this thread. My initial source for the information was from Jordan Maxwell.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 4:39am

Anyone ever see the Woody Allen movie, "Annie Hall?" In it, if memory serves, W. Allen is on line waiting to see a movie with Diane Keaton (Annie Hall). In front of him is this loud mouthed arrogant intellectual guy, pontificating on an author and the media. He starts blathering about an expert named Macewen. Woody can't take it anymore and looks at the camera, calling the loud mouth out saying he is full of hot air, and just trying to impress his date and should stop pontificating so loud.

The loud guy on line looks at the camera and Woody, and says "oh yeah, I'll have you know that I am a College professor at Columbia where I teach a course on Macewen and the media." Woody then, magically makes the famous author Macewen appear and says "oh yeah, well I have Macewen right here!" At which point Macewen walks up to the professor and says "you totally misrepresent my work; you have no idea what you are talking about!." The end result is Woody looking in the camera again and saying "don't you wish life were really like this." It was....hysterical at in the movie.

Anyway, reading this debate reading Acharya coming in, I just had the flash image of Don doing the same thing. "Well I have Jesus right here, Acharya, and he says....." Dude, Acharya I did exist, and you are totally wrong!" Cue JC.

Doc

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Cricket on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 10:01am

There's a bit in "Up The Down Staircase" where the main character (played by Sandy Dennis in the movie, but I forget her name in the book) talks about having been marked down on some project in college for mis-interpreting something by Frost or Sandburg, one or the other, and she writes to the author, who writes back saying she is absolutely correct. She shows it to her professor, who says the author is wrong!

Can't imagine why that just came to mind... ;)

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 9:45pm

Don and others talk trash on Acharya simply because she goes against their precious belief systems and threaten their very existance. If you would like to see what these "debunkers" have said about her work, check out this link. http://www.truthbeknown.com/kimball.htm Oh yea, for each attempt at "debunking" her work, she lets you know how wrong the debunker is with hardcore facts and evidence. I'd like to see Don take his comments about her work to her website's forum.. Acharya would tear you apart! Hey thats an idea... since you are so confident that you are correct about her being a kook and her work being bogus.. Ill post your comments and critique of her work on her website, and see if she has explanations for the things you have said. I mean, if you are correct, then she won't have anything to say, right? But somehow, I don't think that will be the case...

Don thinks hes big and bad because he has the PhD of the LIEble (bible) under his belt. But lets see what happens when my side of the debate is taken over by someone who really knows what theyre talking about, who has some real experience. She is a true expert on ancient civilizations AND several religions. Don is simply an expert on the Bible(LIEble). If you can't see who the biased one out of these two are, then geez, turn around and talk to your pal Hesus about it.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 12:42am

Dude, listen to this exerpt from Howard Storm's NDE. Then, read his book like Don suggested:

I asked, for example, "What about the Bible?"

They responded, "What about it?"

About the bible, Storm, an avowed atheist questioned his beings of light:

"I asked if it (the bible) was true, and they said it was. Asking them why it was that when I tried to read it, all I saw were contradictions, they took me back to my life's review again – something that I had overlooked. They showed me, for the few times I had opened the Bible, that I had read it with the idea of finding contradictions and problems. I was trying to prove to myself that it wasn't worth reading.

I observed to them that the Bible wasn't clear to me. It didn't make sense. They told me that it contained spiritual truth, and that I had to read it spiritually in order to understand it. It should be read prayerfully. My friends informed me that it was not like other books. They also told me, and I later found out this was true, that when you read it prayerfully, it talks to you. It reveals itself to you. And you don't have to work at it anymore."

Granted, that was his experience. I have already pointed out flaws in your arguments from the bible where a nobleman was quoted in a story, and the quotes appeared barbaric. Your inference was that Jesus was barbaric, which was untrue. The bible either old or new testament has wisdom in it that may be found, as Storm mentions as spiritual truth that can resonate with an open mind. If the bible is picked apart out of context, contradictions will abound a plenty - so what?

Please spare us from bringing Acharya here to further this debunking nonsense. Read Dave's comments carefully. Though intelligent and talented, you still have much to learn, my friend.

M

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 1:09am

Doc. I know the bible contains spiritual truths, good morals, and is overall a very good book. I simply believe that it is a book of myths. Myths can contain spiritual lessons and teach good morals just the same as true stories can. I mean, even the pope called the bible a "fable". But regardless, I am ending my participation in the debate. This is obviously not the place for it. I will futher investigate the matter at hand on my own. My beliefs are definatly not set in stone, however I will not be convinced by the likes of Don, for there is obviously a strong bias influenced by his personal beliefs. I say lets get this forum back on track with the experiences and explorations, and away from the religious topics. Granted religion is going to come up, but it does not need to be the main focus point, for everyone has different beliefs and it tends to become a touchy subject.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 8:37am

When you reach the stage of seeing the bible, the work as a whole as having spiritual truth, and forget Chumley's debate on whether a man on a throne with long white flowing hair wrote it or is running things........when you see the truths in your fellow man who believe in it, and realize that the "debunking" of christianity is both an impossibility and a path toward self-righteous smarminess, then you will be ready to leave the temple, Quai Chang Dude.......after you snatch this pebble out of my hand before it closes!

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Chumley on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 11:51pm

EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' EXISTENCE FROM EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE BIBLE:

My critique of Dude and his source, Acharya, will focus on 6 pieces of evidence.

[Acharya:] ““Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent.”
____________________________________

Easily refuted! Let’s examine thef first century Roman historians. Until the 4th century conversion of Emperor Constantine, Christianity was a minor sect in the Roman empire. The early Roman historians had no interest in minor cults like Christianity. They were parochially interested in emperors, kings, and the history of Rome. Consider why the Jewish philosopher, Philo, and the 7 Roman the first century historians cannot be expected to mention Jesus. Philo lives in Alexandria, Egypt and dies around 40 AD, just ten years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Paul had not yet begun his mission to Gentiles. So it would be surprising if Philo even knew about Jesus! The Roman historian,Livy, died in 17 AD, over a decade before Jesus’ ministery began. Pompeius Torgus’s history focused on pre-Christian Macedonia and Quintus Curtius wrote only a history of Alexander the Great. Neither were interested in Jewish affairs. Valerius Peterclus, Valerius Flaccus, and Julius Florus limited their historical focus to the period before Jesus’ ministry. .

(1) [Acharya:] “In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars [sic!] and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus.”
__________________________________________________________________

Lies! First, no modern scholar challenges the authenticity of Josephus’ description of John the Baptist. Second, modern scholarship universally accepts the authenticity of Josephus’ allusion to James as “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ (Antiquities 20:200).” Columbia U. professor Morton Smith is an atheist who wrote a sarcastic anti-Jesus book called “Jesus the Magician.” Yet even he concedes, “No Christian would forge a reference to Jesus in this style (p. 45).” Josephus was born in 37 AD within 7 years of Jesus’ crucifxion in 30 AD and grew up in Jerusalem. So he is a good witness to the leadership role of Jesus’ brother over the Jerusalem church. Josephus’ report of James’s marytrdon by Annas the high priest derives independent support from another ancient historian, Hegesippus.

True, Josephus’ other allusion to Jesus has been slightly retouched by a Christian hand (Antiquities 18:63f.). Here Josephus mentions Jesus’ role as teacher, miracle worker, and a Messiah who was crucified on Pilate’s orders and allegedly rose again on the 3rd day. The problem here is that, a few interpolated words suggest that Josephus acknowledged Jesus’ messianic status. As a Pharisee, Josephus is unlikely to have been that sympathetic to Jesus. Even Morton Smith acknowledges and accepts the modern scholarly consensus that this text is essentially genuine: “A genuine passage has been christianized by alterantions to the text.” What Smith overlooks is this: the same Greek text has survived in an Arabic form which has not been tampered with by a Christian hand and which does not imply Josephus’s acceptaince of Jesus’ messianic status.

(2) [Archarya:] “Regarding the letter to Trajan supposedly written by Pliny the Younger, which is one of the pitifully few "references" to Jesus or Christianity held up by Christians as evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is but one word that is applicable--"Christian"--and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire letter. Concerning the passage in the works of the historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent scholars as an interpolation and forgery.”
_____________________

Wrong on both counts! I was a teaching fellow in the Harvard classics department. The Tacitus text in question (Annals 15:44) is our primary source for the universally accepted fact that Nero persecuted the (“Chrestians” (= Christians) as scapegoats for the great fire of Rome. The Latin spelling is changed because “Christus” is not a Roman name, but “Chrestus” is a common Roman name. Tacitus refers to Jesus' execution on the orders of Pontius Pilate. No serious classics scholar doubts the authenticity of Tacitus’ witness here to Nero’s persecution of Christians.

(3) [Acharya: ] “Christian defenders also like to hold up the passage in Suetonius that refers to someone named "Chrestus" or "Chresto" as reference to their Savior; however, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the name "Chrestus" or "Chrestos, meaning "useful," was frequently held by freed slaves. Others opine that this passage is also an interpolation.”
____________
An ignorant comment! The Tacitus parallel leaves no doubt that Christ is again the intended referent of “Chrestus.” Suetonius is describing the initial attempls of Jewish Christians to enter Roman synagogues and convert the Jews. The Jews rebel against this proselytizing, but Emperor Claudius in unclear about what is happening, and so, he expels all jews from Rome. This event is independently corroborated by Luke, who mentions, two Jewish Christian missionaries to Rome (Priscillla and Aquilla) who were included in Claudius’ expulsion of Jews (Acts 18:2). Suetonius refers to another persecution of the “Chrestians” in Life of Nero 16:2 and dismisses their “superstition.” .

Acharya seems oblivous to 3 other types of non-biblical evidence for Jesus’ existence. (4) Celsus, a pagan Platonist (170 AD), had access the anti-Christian Jewish sources whose polemic is substantially traceable to the first century. Celsus’ book attacking Jesus is critiqued by Origen who outlines Celsus’ case. For example, we learn the earliest Jewish response to Jesus’ birth. Jesus’ Jewish opponents agree that Jesus was born “too soon,” by insist that Jesus is the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Panthera (Origen, Against Celsus 1:28, 38). This claim about Panthera is traceable to Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a first-century Palestinian rabbi (so several texts in the Tosefta and Babylonian Talmud). Eliezer’s slander can be further traced back to Jesus’ ministry.

During a debate, Jesus’ opponents snap, “[At least] WE are not born of fornication (John 8:41)!” In the Greek the “we” is emphatic and implies Jesus’ illegitimacy. Similarly, Jesus receives a scornful welcome in his first visit to Nazareth since the start of His ministry. The Nazareth residents scornfully ask, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? (Mark 6:3).” In Israel’s
patriarchal culture to insult a man by labelling him the son of his mother is tantamount to labelling his birth illegitmate. Defenders of Jesus’ virgin birth point out that first-century skeptics and believers alike agree on one point: Jesus is not the natural son of Joseph.

Jesus never married, despite the fact that in His culture a Jewish male was sinning if he did not get married by age 30. But a male Jew was forbidden to take a Jewish wife, if his birth was deemed illegitmate. The illegitmacy charge is the best explanation for Jesus' single status.

Prof. Richard Buackham’s book, “Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church,” demonstrates the Jesus’ family members travel around Palestine defending Jesus’ birth and genealogy. These relatives likely learn of the virgin birth from Mary. This hardly constitutes proof for so exotic a claim, but it links the virgin birth to the question of Mary’s integrity.

(5) Justin Martyr describes the standard Jewish view of Jesus in the mid-second century: Jesus was “a magician who led the people astray” and his miracles were “magically produced hallucinations (1Apology 14:5).” It is striking that early believers and skeptics alike agree that if you had watched Jesus in action, it would at least look like He was performing miracles.

How far back can we trace this perspective of skeptical Jews? Quadratus allows us to trace it back to a time when some who had been healed by Jesus were still alive to bear witness to their healing:

“The mighty works of our Savior WERE PERMANENT because they were true--those healed, those risen from the dead, who did not only seem to be healed or risen, but were always present, not only when the Savior was present, ...SOME OF THEM SURVIVED DOWN TO OUR TIMES (Quadratus quoted in Eusebius HE 4:3).”

(6) An inscription dated to the time of Emperor Claudius (40s AD) has been found near Nazareth. In it Claudius applies the death penality to locals who engage in tomb robbing. Ths timing and location of this prohibition seems to respond to the claiims of Jesus’ disciples that Jesus rose bodily from the tomb and was seen by many on several occasions. The skeptical Romans construe such claims as a cover-up for stealing Jesus’ body. The value of Claudius’ warning is this: it implies that the Romans do not know what happened to Jesus’ body. The Jews similarly charged that Jesus’ disciples stole His body (Matthew 28:11-15 etc.). So the Nazareth inscription reduces the most like options to two: either the disciples’ stole Jesus’ body, so create the illusion that He rose from the dead or Jesus rose bodily from the dead. But ask yourself this question: Why would the disciples lie and then seal their testimony with their blood for the message that God raised Jesus from the dead? Admittedly, this is far from proof; but it strengthens the case for the resurrection, which of course depends most heavily on the disciples’ reports of resurrection appearances.
*****************
-I must say, Don, that you give a spirited defense of the notion
that there may well have been an actual living individual whom the
Jesus story is based upon.
However, the evidence you cite is FAR weaker for the "magical"
stuff... the miracles, walking on water, ect. and ESPECIALLY the
resurrection. Those things have to be accepted by FAITH (i.e.,
credulous idiocy.) Especially the Resurrection.
Tell me, Don... how is it possible by ANY stretch of the laws of
physics, that a dead body can reanimate after cellular death?
(Cellular death being true death.) If you deny this, what you
are saying, is that Totality is IRRATIONAL at its core... that
some things cannot be explained mathematically and scientifically.
But if Totality IS irrational... then how can it maintain itself against
disssolution, disorder, and entropy?
In other words, Don... you are advocating the existence of REAL
MAGIC, a'la Harry Potter, Bilbo Baggins, and Mary Poppins. (Even most OCCULTISTS don't do that, Don. They claim to be working with natural, rationally-explainable forces which science has either not yet accepted, explained, or discovered. For instance, right now certain quantum physics concepts seem to be popular among occultists.)
What you are advocating, then, is tantamount to advocating belief
in the Tooth Fairy. You try to scrape up some historical evidence for
the "miracles" in the Jesus narrative, but you end up having to play
fast and loose with what little historical backing you DO have. (That
must be stressful to say the least..!)

B-man

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 12:17am

Here is what Achayra had to say about your refuting of the parallels I presented:

> Not to worry. This ignoramus who pretends to know my work is
> completely oblivious to the fact that a. many of those parallels
> listed below are direct quotes from Albert Churchward and others, not
> me; and b. I have addressed just about every one of his objections in
> "Suns of God" -
>
> http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
>
> Obviously, he hasn't really studied my work, which means that he is
> singularly unqualified to be making critical remarks about it. He
> also throws up a bunch of moronic straw men, such as that Jesus is not
> called the "morning star." Oh really? So, who is that speaking at
> Revelation 22:16:
>
> "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
> churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright
> and morning star."
>
> This idiot doesn't even know his own precious Bible. So who is he to
> be making definitive commentary about my work? It is quite obvious
> who exactly is engaging in "sloppy research."
>
> As concerns Robert Price, again, "Don" ("GakuseiDon" again?) doesn't
> really know much about my work, or he would know that Price has
> removed his review of Christ Con and retracted many of his statements.
> Price has also written a favorable review of "Suns of God" and "Who
> Wass Jesus?" We have appeared on a very cordial radio program
> together, as well. (Infidel Guy in September 2006)
>
> Moreover, Edwin Bryant never read a word of my work. His uninformed
> opinions of me and my work are based on some slop fed to him by the
> Christian apologist Mike Licona, whose claim to fame is his effort to
> "prove" that Jesus really rose from the dead! Wow! Now, that's a
> credible source!
>
> This doofus is just flailing about desperately looking for a life raft
> to keep his puerile beliefs afloat. He had better watch what comes
> out his mouth, however, by calling OTHER people "liars."
>
> "[It is] not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes
> out of the mouth, this defiles a man." Mt. 15:11
>
> For a treasure trove of refutation of inane commentary, please see:
>
> http://www.truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html
>
> "New Age kook?" Riiight. Calling me that will certainly make some
> hidden and long lost evidence that Jesus Christ existed suddenly
> appear out of nowhere!
>
> More confirmation that Christ-inanity creates idiocy.

Title: If you'll pardon my block-headedness here, Dude...
Post by Chumley on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 12:22am

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 12:29am

Who is Acharya S?
Acharya S was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece:

"Founded in 1881, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens is the most significant resource in Greece for American scholars in the fields of ancient and post-classical studies in Greek language, literature, history, archaeology, and art. It offers two major resource libraries: the Blegen, with 70,000 volumes dedicated to ancient Greece; and the Gennadius, with 100,000 volumes dedicated to post-classical Greece. The School also sponsors excavations and provides centers for advanced research in archaeological and related topics at its excavations in the Athenian Agora and Corinth, and houses an archaeological laboratory at the main building complex in Athens. By agreement with the Greek government, the School is authorized to serve as liaison with the Greek Ministry of Culture on behalf of American students and scholars for the acquisition of permits to excavate and to study museum collections."

Acharya S has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe,and she speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese and a smattering of other languages to varying degrees. She has read Euripides, Plato and Homer in ancient Greek, and Cicero in Latin, as well as Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in Middle English. She has also been compelled to cross-reference the Bible in the original Hebrew and ancient Greek.

Acharya S has gained expertise in several religions, as well as knowledge about other esoterica and mystical subjects. She is also the author of several books, including The Christ Conspiracy, Paradise Found and The Aquarian Manifesto: A Handbook for Survival into and a Blueprint for the New Age. Her book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, is an expansion of the themes and thesis of The Christ Conspiracy. Articles by Acharya S have been published in Exposure, Steamshovel Press, Paranoia, as well as other periodicals and ezines.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 12:37am

Brendan,

My last post was mainly devoted to first-century references in non-Christian sources to Jesus' existence. I will provide a better taste of my case for Jesus' legitimacy and miracles in a future post. Comparable miracles to Jesus' resurrection appearances have happened to people I know. A good example is my friend Leonard's expereince which I describe in post #4 of my ADCs vs Memory thread. Leonard's recently killed son Jeff returned from death, drove Len around in his old truck, and provided his Dad with verification in the form of details about all his financial arrangments. What also made his story credible to me was the contrast between the calm way he took the death of Jeff and his family by plane crash and Len's far more intense anguish over the illnesses of his wife brother, and cousin.

I'm sure you remember Roger from this site. He mailed my a book "Lighted Passage" written by a Presbyterian minister, Howell Vincent. Howell is related to one of Roger's co-workers. Howell offers this description of his family's
ADC with his late wife Nellie:

"On at least two occasions this radiant mother had come to Rea [Howell's daughter] in visible, tangible form and talked with her...I was privileged to be present at one of these heavenly visits by Mother Nellie. Together with Rea I talked with Nellie, fully recognizing her face and form and voice. I saw her place he hand on Rea's head in blessing, AND I SAW HER GIVE REA A FLOWER, A CALENDULA, WHICH WE PRESSED AND KEPT. At that time three other members of our family were present..., and they all saw Nellie and talked with her, as Rea and I did. We were all wide awake and walked about the room with Nellie (p, 35)."

I'd love to see a scientific analysis of that flower in Hwwell's album. That flower is not of this world!

Don

Title: Sorry about the DUMB question, BTW...
Post by Chumley on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 12:53am

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 12:54am

Acharya did not address most of Don's posts on the evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the bible. She uses more defamatory words than almost anyone I've seen on this message board. Don has at least tried to control his usual sharp tongue, while refuting the parallels point by point and today providing sources for Christ's existence outside of the New Testament. Don will say "an ignorant comment" and the insults tend to be fewer to a debator's character.

Those open to transcendental experiences go by feeling as well as fact. The vehement dismissal of the life of JC, the venomous remarks by Acharya, all feel wrong to me - plain and simple. An enlightened person may engage in debate without calling those of an opposing view an "idiot," "doofus," "ignoramous" or fool. Don's sources for verification of the mortal existence of JC raise reasonable doubt, at the very least that Acharya's criticisms are wrong. So again, you have a church which likely embellished fact with myth, but there is clearly much evidence for some truth behind the myth. And so it goes.

By now, having heard both sides, it is crystal clear that no one has made the case to disprove completely the existence of JC on the face of the eath. Parallels and archetypes aside, it has, at this point become an exercise in futility.

I truly feel sorry for Acharya. The bitterness, the seething anger which festers and the need to "debunk" christianity, all are signs of an unhappy unsettled soul.

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 1:09am

Quote:

1) [Acharya:] “In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars [sic!] and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus.”
__________________________________________________________________

Lies! First, no modern scholar challenges the authenticity of Josephus’ description of John the Baptist. Second, modern scholarship universally accepts the authenticity of Josephus’ allusion to James as “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ (Antiquities 20:200).” Columbia U. professor Morton Smith is an atheist who wrote a sarcastic anti-Jesus book called “Jesus the Magician.” Yet even he concedes, “No Christian would forge a reference to Jesus in this style (p. 45).” Josephus was born in 37 AD within 7 years of Jesus’ crucifxion in 30 AD and grew up in Jerusalem. So he is a good witness to the leadership role of Jesus’ brother over the Jerusalem church. Josephus’ report of James’s marytrdon by Annas the high priest derives independent support from another ancient historian, Hegesippus.

True, Josephus’ other allusion to Jesus has been slightly retouched by a Christian hand (Antiquities 18:63f.). Here Josephus mentions Jesus’ role as teacher, miracle worker, and a Messiah who was crucified on Pilate’s orders and allegedly rose again on the 3rd day. The problem here is that, a few interpolated words suggest that Josephus acknowledged Jesus’ messianic status. As a Pharisee, Josephus is unlikely to have been that sympathetic to Jesus. Even Morton Smith acknowledges and accepts the modern scholarly consensus that this text is essentially genuine: “A genuine passage has been christianized by alterantions to the text.” What Smith overlooks is this: the same Greek text has survived in an Arabic form which has not been tampered with by a Christian hand and which does not imply Josephus’s acceptaince of Jesus’ messianic status.

Don is the one who lies. Read this to be enlightened.

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE. In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage constitutes the "best proof" of Jesus's existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library comprising the works of dozens of historians, writers, philosophers, politicians and others who never mentioned the great sage and wonderworker Jesus Christ, even though they lived contemporaneously with or shortly after the Christian savior's purported advent.

A False Witness
Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false. (In addition to being repetitious, numerous quotes will be presented here, because a strong show of rational consensus is desperately needed when it comes to matters of blind, unscientific and irrational faith.) The scholars who so conclusively proved the TF a forgery made their mark at the end of the 18th century and into the 20th, when a sudden reversal was implemented, with popular opinion hemming and hawing its way back first to the "partial interpolation theory" and in recent times, among the third-rate apologists, to the notion that the whole TF is "genuine." As Earl Doherty says, in "Josephus Unbound":

"Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it 'a pure Christian forgery.' Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along with others, declared it entirely spurious. Today, most serious scholars have decided the passage is a mix: original parts rubbing shoulders with later Christian additions."

The earlier scholarship that proved the entire TF to be fraudulent was determined by intense scrutiny by some of the most erudite, and mainly Christian, writers of the time, in a number of countries, their works written in a variety of languages, but particularly German, French and English. Their general conclusions, as elucidated by Christian authority Dr. Lardner, and related here by the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled (c. 1842), include the following reasons for doubting the authenticity of the TF as a whole:

"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)

Hence, by the 1840's, when the anonymous author of Christian Mythology Unveiled wrote, the Testimonium Flavanium was already "universally acknowledged to be a forgery."

The pertinent remarks by the highly significant Church father Origen (c. 185-c.254) appear in his Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter XLVII:

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice" (Emphasis added)

Here, in Origen's words, is the assertion that Josephus, who discusses more than a dozen Jesuses, did not consider any of them to be "the Christ." This fact proves that the same phrase in the TF is spurious. Furthermore, Origen does not even intimate the presence of the rest of the TF. Concerning Origen and the TF, Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled ("CMU"), this Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of Josephus's Antiquities lacking the TF is "I. Vossius," whose works appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works. Moreover, the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century.

Church Fathers Ignorant of Josephus Passage
In any event, as G.A. Wells points out in The Jesus Myth, not only do several Church fathers from the second, third and early fourth centuries have no apparent knowledge of the TF, but even after Eusebius suddenly "found" it in the first half of the fourth century, several other fathers into the fifth "often cite Josephus, but not this passage." (Wells, JM, 202) In the 5th century, Church father Jerome (c. 347-c.419) cited the TF once, with obvious disinterest, as if he knew it was fraudulent. In addition to his reference to the TF, in his Letter XXII. to Eustochium, Jerome made the following audacious claim:

"Josephus, himself a Jewish writer, asserts that at the Lord's crucifixion there broke from the temple voices of heavenly powers, saying: 'Let us depart hence.'"

Either Jerome fabricated this alleged Josephus quote, or he possessed a unique copy of the Jewish historian's works, in which this assertion had earlier been interpolated. In any case, Jerome's claim constitutes "pious fraud," one of many committed by Christian proponents over the centuries, a rampant practice, in fact, that must be kept in mind when considering the authenticity of the TF.

Following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.
Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.
Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.
Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.
Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.
Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.
Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.
Arguments Against Authenticity Further Elucidated
When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. In "Who on Earth was Jesus Christ?" David Taylor details the reasons why the TF in toto must be deemed a forgery, most of which arguments, again, were put forth by Dr. Lardner:

"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."
When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus. There is other evidence that the TF never appeared in the original Josephus. As Wells says:

"As I noted in The Jesus Legend, there is an ancient table of contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium. Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the Antiquities, and he finds it 'hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing the work.'" (Wells, JM, 201)

Also, Josephus goes into long detail about the lives of numerous personages of relatively little import, including several Jesuses. It is inconceivable that he would devote only a few sentences to someone even remotely resembling the character found in the New Testament. If the gospel tale constituted "history," Josephus's elders would certainly be aware of Jesus's purported assault on the temple, for example, and the historian, who was obviously interested in instances of messianic agitation, would surely have reported it, in detail. Moreover, the TF refers to Jesus as a "wise man"--this phrase is used by Josephus in regard to only two other people, out of hundreds, i.e., the patriarchs Joseph and Solomon. If Josephus had thought so highly of an historical Jesus, he surely would have written more extensively about him. Yet, he does not. Lest it be suggested that Josephus somehow could have been ignorant of the events in question, the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Flavius Josephus") says:

"... Josephus...was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. As such he established in every city throughout the country a council of judges, the members of which were recruited from those who shared his political views."

Indeed, Josephus was a well-educated Jew who lived in the precise area where the gospel tale was said to have taken place, as did his parents, the latter at the very time of Christ's alleged advent. It was Josephus's passion to study the Jewish people and their history; yet, other than the obviously bogus TF, and the brief "James passage" mentioned by Taylor above, it turns out that in his voluminous works Josephus discussed neither Christ nor Christianity. Nor does it make any sense that the prolific Jewish writer would not detail the Christian movement itself, were Christians extant at the time in any significant numbers.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), which tries to hedge its bet about the Josephus passage, is nevertheless forced to admit: "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." In the same entry, CE also confirms that Josephus's writings were used extensively by the early Christian fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose and Chrystostom; nevertheless, as noted, except for Jerome, they never mention the TF.

Regarding the TF, as well as the James passage, which possesses the phrase James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, Jewish writer ben Yehoshua makes some interesting assertions:

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Yehoshua claims that the 12th century historian Gerald of Wales related that a "Master Robert of the Priory of St. Frideswide at Oxford examined many Hebrew copies of Josephus and did not find the 'testimony about Christ,' except for two manuscripts where it appeared [to Robert, evidently] that the testimony had been present but scratched out." Yehoshua states that, since "scratching out" requires the removal of the top layers, the deleted areas in these mere two of the many copies likely did not provide any solid evidence that it was the TF that had been removed. Apologists will no doubt insist that these Hebrew texts are late copies and that Jewish authorities had the TF removed. This accusation of mutilating an author's work, of course, can easily be turned around on the Christians. Also, considering that Vossius purportedly possessed a copy of the Antiquities without the TF, it is quite possible that there were "many Hebrew copies" likewise devoid of the passage.

continues...

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 1:10am

High Criticism by Christian Authorities
The many reasons for concluding the Josephus passage to be a forgery have been expounded upon by numerous well-respected authorities, so much so that such individuals have been compelled by honesty and integrity to dismiss the Testimonium in toto as a forgery. In The Christ, John Remsburg relates the opinions of critics of the TF from the past couple of centuries, the majority of whom were Christian authorities, including and especially Dr. Lardner, who said:

"A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist (Lardner's Works, vol. I, chap. iv)."

Yet, the TF was overlooked and neglected by early Christian writers. In other words, they never cited it because it didn't exist.

Another authority, Bishop Warburton, called the TF a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." Remsburg further related the words of the "Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England," who stated:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject...."

In addition, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould remarked:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. I, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. I)."

Remsburg also recounts:

"Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious' (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

"The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: 'That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.'"

And so on, with similar opinions by Christian scholars such as Theodor Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas and Dr. Alexander Campbell. By the time of Dr. Chalmers and others, the TF had been so discredited that these authorities understood it as a forgery in toto and did not even consider it for a moment as "evidence" of Jesus's existence and/or divinity. In fact, these subsequent defenders of the faith, knowing the TF to be a forgery, repeatedly commented on how disturbing it was that Josephus did not mention Jesus.

In the modern apologist work The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel relates a passage from a novel published in 1979 by Charles Templeton, in which the author states, regarding Jesus, "There isn't a single word about him in secular history. Not a word. No mention of him by the Romans. Not so much as a reference by Josephus." (Strobel, 101) Strobel then reports the response by Christian professor Edwin Yamauchi, who claimed that Templeton was mistaken and that there was a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Yamauchi's fatuous response ignores, purposefully or otherwise, the previous ironclad arguments about which Templeton was apparently educated, such that he made such a statement. In other words, Templeton was evidently aware of the purported reference in Josephus but had understood by the arguments of the more erudite, earlier Christian authorities that it was a forgery; hence, there is "not so much as a reference by Josephus." In this facile manner of merely ignoring or dismissing the earlier scholarship, modern believers cling to the long-dismissed TF in order to convince themselves of the unbelievable.

For a more modern criticism, in The Jesus Puzzle and his online article "Josephus Unbound," secularist and classicist Earl Doherty leaves no stone unturned in demolishing the TF, permitting no squirming room for future apologists, whose resort to the TF will show, as it has done in the past, how hopeless is their plight in establishing an "historical Jesus." Concerning the use of Josephus as "evidence" of Jesus's existence, Doherty remarks:

"in the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate manoeuverings which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din of astonishing proportions. The obsessive focus on this one uncertain record is necessitated by the fact that the rest of the evidence is so dismal, so contrary to the orthodox picture. If almost everything outside Josephus points in a different direction, to the essential fiction of the Gospel picture and its central figure, how can Josephus be made to bear on his shoulders, through two passages whose reliability has thus far remained unsettled, the counterweight to all this other negative evidence?"

Other modern authors who criticize the TF include The Jesus Mysteries authors Freke and Gandy, who conclude:

"Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice." (Freke and Gandy, 137)

Despite the desperate din, a number of other modern writers remain in concurrence with the earlier scholarship and likewise consider the TF in toto a fraud.

The Culprit: Eusebius (c. 264-340)
In addition to acknowledging the spuriousness of the Josephus passage, many authorities quoted here agreed with the obvious: Church historian Eusebius was the forger of the entire Testimonium Flavianium. Various reasons have already been given for making such a conclusion. In "Did Jesus Really Live?" Marshall Gauvin remarks:

"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room."

Regarding the absence of the TF in the writings of earlier Christian fathers and its sudden appearance with Eusebius, CMU says:

"it has been observed that the famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned or alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, 'when it was first quoted by himself [sic].' The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolutely certain, forged and interpolated by Eusebius, as suggested by Gibbon and others. Even the redoubtable Lardner has pronounced this passage to be a forgery." (CMU, 79-80)

Moreover, the word "tribe" in the TF is another clue that the passage was forged by Eusebius, who is fond of the word, while Josephus uses it only in terms of ethnicity, never when describing a religious sect. Kerry Shirts adds to this particular point:

"Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice."

In Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, Edwin Johnson remarked that the fourth century was "the great age of literary forgery, the extent of which has yet to be exposed." He further commented that "not until the mass of inventions labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed, can the pretended references to Christians in Pagan writers of the first three centuries be recognized for the forgeries they are." Indeed, Eusebius's character has been assailed repeatedly over the centuries, with him being called a "luminous liar" and "unreliable." Like so many others, Drews likewise criticizes Eusebius, stating that various of the Church historian's references "must be regarded with the greatest suspicion." As Drews relates, Swiss historian Jakob Burckhardt (1818-1897) declared Eusebius to be "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." (Drews, 32/fn) Eusebius's motives were to empower the Catholic Church, and he did not fail to use "falsifications, suppressions, and fictions" to this end.

Conclusion: Josephus No Evidence of Jesus
Even if the Josephus passage were authentic, which we have essentially proved it not to be, it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades, long after the purported events. Hence, the TF would possess little if any value in establishing an "historical" Jesus. In any event, it is quite clear that the entire passage in Josephus regarding Christ, the Testimonium Flavianum, is spurious, false and a forgery. Regarding the TF, Remsburg summarizes:

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines...."

The dismissal of the passage in Josephus regarding Jesus is not based on "faith" or "belief" but on intense scientific scrutiny and reasoning. Such investigation has been confirmed repeatedly by numerous scholars who were mostly Christian. The Testimonium Flavianum, Dr. Lardner concluded in none too forceful words, "ought, therefore...to be discarded from any place among the evidences of Christianity." With such outstanding authority and so many scientific reasons, we can at last dispense with the pretentious charade of wondering if the infamous passage in the writings of Josephus called the Testimonium Flavianum is forged and who fabricated it.

© 2006 Acharya S. Excerpted from Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.

Sources:

Anonymous, Christian Mythology Unveiled, 1842
ben Yehoshua, mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
Catholic Encyclopedia, "Flavius Josephus," www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
Charlesworth, James H., www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sources.html
Doherty, Earl, pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle, Canadian Humanist, Ottawa, 1999
Drews, Arthur, Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, Joseph McCabe, tr., Watts, London, 1912
Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter, The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers, NY, 1999
Gauvin, Marshall, www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live_/html
Jerome, www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm
Johnson, Edwin, Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, www.christianism.com/articles/1.html
Josephus, The Complete Works of, Wm. Whitson, tr., Kregel, MI, 1981
Kirby, Peter, home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/josephus.html
Origen, www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm
Oser, Scott, www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
Remsburg, John, The Christ, www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm
Shirts, Kerry, www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/jesusand.htm
Stein, Dr. Gordon, www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html
Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ, Zondervan, MI, 1998
Taylor, David, www.mmsweb.com/eykiw/relig/npref.txt
Wells, G.A., The Jesus Legend, Open Court, Chicago, 1997
Wells, G.A., The Jesus Myth, Open Court, Chicago, 1999

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 1:16am

Quote:

2) [Archarya:] “Regarding the letter to Trajan supposedly written by Pliny the Younger, which is one of the pitifully few "references" to Jesus or Christianity held up by Christians as evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is but one word that is applicable--"Christian"--and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire letter. Concerning the passage in the works of the historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent scholars as an interpolation and forgery.”

Wrong on both counts! .....blah blah blah

The deceit continues. Read this to be enlightened.

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius:
No Proof of Jesus
Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks:

If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society.

Taylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian Serapis per Emperor Hadrian's statement--"and that the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:

The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, whocall themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money.

It is likely that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.

Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis--both popular gods in the Roman Empire--was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was called "Chrestus," long before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived. Significantly, in relating that under Claudius certain "mathematicians" or astrologers were expelled from Italy, individuals who were apparently Egyptian and Egypto-Jewish kabbalists, Drews cites the same Hadrian passage as above, with a different translation. According to him, the original contained the word "Chrestus," not "Christos," and "Chrestiani" instead of "Christiani," important distinctions. Drews relates Hadrian's remarks thus:

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high-priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt."

Drews further states, "Chrestus was not only the name of the god, but, as frequently happened in ancient religions, also of his chief priest."
In his Divine Institutes, Book IV, Church father Lactantius (fl. 4th cent.) discusses the importance of distinguishing between the terms Christos and Chrestus:
for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus.

The word "Chrestus," meaning "good" or "useful," was a title frequently held by commoners, slaves, freedmen, bigwigs, priests and gods alike, prior to the Christian era. "Chrestos," according to Mead, was "a universal term of the Mysteries for the perfected 'saint.'" Followers of any deity called "Chrestus" would be not "Christians" but "Chrestians." Because the Church fathers such as Justin Martyr pun on this word crestoV (chrestos), apologists have haphazardly substituted cristoV (christos) for it. As do other early Church fathers, Justin uses the term "Chrestiani," not "Christiani," to describe his fellow believers.

Johnson considered "Chrestus" a distinction made to separate the "good god" of the Gnostics from the evil god Yahweh. This term, Chrestus, is thus traceable to Samaria, where Gnosticism as a movement took shape and where it may have referred to Simon Magus, whom we have seen to have been a god, rather than a "real person." Hence, these Chrestiani were apparently Syrian Gnostics, not followers of the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. Confirming this assertion, that the first "Christians" were actually followers of the "good god" Chrestus, the earliest dated Christian inscription, corresponding to October 1, 318 CE, calls Jesus "Chrestos," not Christos: "The Lord and Savior, Jesus the Good." This inscription was found above the entrance of a Syrian church of the Marcionites, who were anti-Jewish followers of the second-century Gnostic Marcion. The evidence points to "Jesus the Chrestos" as a Pagan god, not a Jewish messiah who lived during the first century CE.

In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries" One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity" He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.

Also, like the TF, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.

Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian, (c. 56-120 CE)
Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

In any event, the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.

It is a peculiar and disturbing fact that the entire Annals attributed to Tacitus never existed until their discovery by Johannes de Spire, at Venice in 1468, and that this sole copy, purportedly made in the 8th century, was in his possession alone. The history of the Annals begins with the Italian calligrapher, Latin scholar and Papal secretary Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), who, writing in 1425, intimated the existence of unknown works by Tacitus supposedly at a Benedictine monastery in Hersfeld, Germany. "The Annals" was subsequently "discovered" in a copy of Tacitus's Histories at the monastery, in the sixteenth century. This text was not named "Annals," however, until 1544, by Beatus Rhenanus.

In 1878, the "excellent Latin scholar" WJ Ross wrote the book Tacitus and Bracciolini, which evinced that the entire Annals were a forgery in very flawed Latin by Bracciolini in the 15th century. Ross's work was assailed by various clergymen, who claimed the main defect in his argument was that "one of the MSS. [manuscripts] of the Annals is at least as early as the XI century." In reality, the critics had not actually read Ross's book, in which Ross does indeed address this purported 11th century manuscript, which he shows was merely pronounced by dictum to be early. Interested readers are referred to Cutner and Ross's books for further discussion of this debate, which includes, in Ross's dissertation, a minute examination of the Latin of the Annals. Suffice it to say that the evidence is on the side of those who maintain the 15th century date, in that the Annals appear nowhere until that time.

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations." Drews considers the Tacitus passage in its entirety to be one of these forgeries that just suddenly showed up centuries later, and he expresses astonishment that "no one took any notice during the whole of the Middle Ages" of such an important passage. Says he:

No one, in fact, seems to have had the least suspicion of its existence until it was found in the sole copy at that time of Tacitus, the Codex Mediceus II, printed by Johann and his brother Wendelin von Speyer about 1470 at Venice, of which all the other manuscripts are copies.

The reason for this hoax may be the same as the countless others perpetrated over the millennia: The period when the Annals were discovered was one of manuscript-hunting, with huge amounts of money being offered for unearthing such texts, specifically those that bolstered the claims of Christianity. There is no question that poor, desperate and enterprising monks set about to fabricate manuscripts of this type. Bracciolini, a Papal secretary, was in the position to collect the "500 gold sequins" for his composition, which, it has been claimed was reworked by a monk at Hersfeld/Hirschfelde, "in imitation of a very old copy of the History of Tacitus."

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed--to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
Moving through the standard list of defenses, we come to the Roman historian Suetonius. The passage in Suetonius's Life of Claudius, dating to around 110 CE, states that the emperor Claudius "drove the Jews out of Rome, who at the suggestion of Chrestus were constantly rioting." The passage in Latin is as follows:
Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.

Once more, we see that the reference is to "Chresto," not "Christo." In any case, Claudius reigned from 41-54, while Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time. Even such an eager believer and mesmerized apologist as Shirley Jackson Case must admit that Christ himself couldn't have been at Rome then, that the "natural meaning" of the remark is that "a disturbance was caused by a Jew named Chrestus" living in Rome at the time, and that Suetonius's "references to Christianity itself are very obscure."

It is possible that these diasporic Jews--a mixture of Hebrew, Jewish, Samaritan and Pagan descent--revered their god under the epithet of "Chresto." Or, as Eisenman suggests, the incident may record Jews agitating over the appointment of Herod Agrippa I as king of Judea by his friend Claudius in 41 CE. In this regard, Agrippa I is called "chrestos" by Josephus.

In his Life of Nero, Suetonius refers to "Christiani," whom he calls "a race of men of a new and villainous, wicked or magical superstition," who "were visited with punishment." This passage, although establishing that there were people called "Christiani" who were a fairly recent cult in Suetonius's time, obviously does not serve as evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.
Regarding these various non-Christian "references," Count Volney remarks:

There are absolutely no other monuments of the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being, than a passage in Josephus (Antiq. Jud. lib. 18, c.3,) a single phrase in Tacitus (Annal. lib. 15, c. 44), and the Gospels. But the passage in Josephus is unanimously acknowledged to be apocryphal [false], and to have been interpolated towards the close of the third centuryand that of Tacitus is so vague and so evidently taken from the deposition of the Christians before the tribunals, that it may be ranked in the class of evangelical records. It remains to enquire of what authority are these records. "All the world knows," says Faustus, who, though a Manichean, was one of the most learned men of the third century, "All the world knows that the gospels were neither written by Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, but by certain unknown persons, who rightly judging that they should not obtain belief respecting things which they had not seen, placed at the head of their recitals the names of contemporary apostles." See Beausob.a sagacious writer, who has demonstrated the absolute uncertainty of those foundations of the Christian religion; so that the existence of Jesus is no better proved than that of Osiris and Hercules, or that of Fot or Beddou, with whom, says M. de Guignes, the Chinese continually confound him, for they never call Jesus by any other name than Fot

It is evident that by Volney's time (late 18th century) the European intelligentsia had already so demolished the Testimonium Flavianum passage in Josephus that it was "unanimously acknowledged" as a forgery. It should also be noted, once again, that Jesus was deemed "Beddou" or Buddha, called "Fot" in China.

The "German Jew" author of The Existence of Christ Disproved declared that the Tacitus and Suetonius references "cannot be admitted as of a feather's weight in the balance of arguments for or against the existence of Jesus."

Regarding these "references," if they were genuine they would no more prove the existence of Jesus Christ than do writings about other gods prove their existence. In other words, by this same argument we could provide many "references" from ancient writers that the numerous Pagan gods also existed as "real people." In this case, Jesus would be merely a johnny-come-lately in a long line of "historical" godmen.

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 1:28am

[Dude, you accidentally posted the same Acharya reply twice. Please remove one of those posts and I will delete this note. Also ouu are spamming up Bruce's site with too many pasted reams from Acharya's website. You should have simply given us the website and told us how to call up the aritcles you want us to read. My God, Dude, don't you have an original thought? Stop quoting her and share your own ideas in your own words like I do.]

Dude, no, I haven't read her books, only your quotes about her. You have not defended her against any of my points. i want to hear your thoughts, not hers. I don't care where she got her parallels. Neither she nor you have provlded the texts on which these parallels are based. Critical reviews have claimed that over half are bogus. So I expect you to provide translations of the relevant texts, if you're going to claim that these parallels PROVE Jesus never existed! As Natthew points out, she ducks all my main points. Two issues are most crucial: (1) Many of the alleged parallels can more plausibly be explained from the Jewish background. One would expect Jews to be inlluenced by nearby Jews, not by distant pagan mythology. (2) There is no evidence that Horus, Krishna, and Buddha were wven known in first-century Palestine, let alone that devout monotheistic Jews woiuld deliberately sincretize aspects of the myths of pagan gods with that of Jesus.

Acharya insolently claims that my point about the Huros/ Jesus "morning star" parallel demonstrates that "This idiot doesn't even know his precious Bible." Another of her elndless distortions! What I actually said was this: "Jesus is never called `the morning star' in our Gospels." This is correct and Acharya is the idiot because she evidently does not know that Book of Revelation is not a Gospel! Of course, Revelation 22:16 contains a morning star reference. But Acharya's parallel between Jesus (Revelation 22:16) and Horus is misguided for two reasons: (1) The star is a familiar Hebrew symbol for the Msssiah-King (e g. Numbers 24:17). There is no need to invoke a Horus parallel to explain it. (2) Revelation was composed around 90 AD and has nothing to do with the point at issue--whether the historical Jesus existed. So far I haven't even made my case for Jesus' existeince, but will do so in my next two planned posts. It is your reaction to those that most interests me.

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 1:33am

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 1:55am

The point of me posting her work is because it shows that your claims are false. I do not feel the need to summarize it or add my own thoughts. You know what my thoughts are. As you bring on your "evidence," I am going to find sources with more credentials than you that show that your evidence is bogus and simply a poor excuse to try to hold onto your outdated beliefs. She told me that she did not want to waiste her time on pests like you, that your a dime a dozen and therefore did not find you worthy of taking apart your "evidence" point by point. She is leaving this up to the members of her forum who are well familiar with her work.

Please see relpies #38-40 in response to Don's sorry attempt to disprove Achayra(above)

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 2:07am

Dude,

Read your last post. It is horrible. I have read your Acharya retorts and am unimpressed. There are some interesting ideas, but a lot of generalizations such as "all credible sources say....." She dismisses what she wishes to by saying one thing or another is "hardly likely," none of her refutations are proofs in and of themselves.A forum and thread are best served by responding to each other directly and without any adjectives (this means you and Don with references). Your last post and that of your star reference are in poor taste. Despite your promise with your OOB TMI thread, I am beginning to feel more and more that you have too many negative issues, and are substituting what you perceive as brinksmanship (one upping) to an honest spiritual search.

The feeling of myself, and I'm sure many others here on the forum is that this is the place for honest seekers with honest questions. Should you continue to post in this manner, I for one will encourage you to go elsewhere (or I likely will).

Debate is one thing. Mean spirited commentary is quite another. The feelings come loud and clear through Acharya and your words. Respond to the facts, but analyze what has gone on. If Don or Acharya make an air tight case - so be it. If not, one recognizes what is true to the issue, and then moves on. All without personal derogatory remarks. (pest, ignoramous, etc.)

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 2:21am

I appologize. Perhaps you are confusing the words of Acharya with my own? Don stated that she did not comment on any of his refutes, so I simply stated the reason why that was. Those are not my thoughts or words. Don can dish out a lot of insults, so I am sure he can take it like man when the person he insults(Achayra) give some back. But unlike Achayra, I do not and have not insulted Don or anyone for that matter, even when he throws personal jabs at me. If you believe I have, please point out what I have said to make you think that and i will explain, for my intentions never have been to personally attack anyone. This thread is obviously not about a spiritual search, but a debate of opposing "facts." I am, however, engaging in a search to learn the truth about Jesus, not from reading threads or books, but a search from within. I may appear to be stubborn, but I have stated many times that just because I do not believe Jesus never walked the earth does not mean I do not believe he exists spiritually, for I do.

You listed a few insulting remarks from Acharya towards Don. Should I list all of his crude remarks for her? Or perhaps I should list his insults towards me? These are not my remarks, they are hers, I have nothing to do with them. I am sorry she chooses to communicate in such a way, but I clearly do not.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 2:48am

Dude says:

'As you bring on your "evidence," I am going to find sources with more credentials than you that show that your evidence is bogus and simply a poor excuse to try to hold onto your outdated beliefs. She told me that she did not want to waiste her time on pests like you, that your a dime a dozen and therefore did not find you worthy of taking apart your "evidence" point by point.'

If you don't see a problem with your reply, it may just be a sign of the modern generation's "in your face," way of relating to others......I don't know. You state that you are going to find sources with more credentials to show that his evidence is bogus and simply a poor excuse to hold onto his outdated beliefs? And this is not inflammatory or insulting? Dude (still don't know your name), the point is not brinksmanship, it is an honest presentation of facts. This presentation should have no ulterior motives of ill will (i.e. to prove another " bogus" or "outdated"). To mention that this ill-tempered woman then states that she won't waste her time on "pests" like Don is demeaning, and for her to say that she didn't find him worthy of taking apart his evidence (in quotes to demean it) point by point is adding further insult to injury (not to mention turning tail herself). I shouldn't have to tell you this.

I am not an apologist for Don. I have come out against his use of the phrase New Age ghetto, as well as other statements that were over the top. However, once engaged in debate, Don does stick to the issues. While using colorful phrases such as "Wrong again!," or "Lies!" he is fairly careful not to tell anyone that their mother wears army boots, but to address the topic. I do not bring up my last two posts to defend Don, but the tone of the forum. Don, I'm sure can handle himself.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 3:07am

Quote:

This presentation should have no ulterior motives of ill will (i.e. to prove another " bogus" or "outdated").

Lets take a look...

Quote:

In another thread I claimed that Dude and Ra were the bobsy twins. I want to apologize for that remark. It is unfair to Ra. Dude is a perfect illustration of what I mean when i refer to the New AGe ghetto.

Quote:

I will repost my critque a representiative sample of Dude's Krishna and Horus parallels to illustrate why his parallels are bogus.

Quote:

Dude is the paradigm of the myopic New Age Ghetto mentality.

Quote:

Your parallels are generally contrived, even bogus

Quote:

As usual you are clueless.

Quote:

So I must once again rub Dude’s snotty nose in my old challenge

Quote:

Dude tries to compensate for his intellectual myopia

Quote:

all I get from you is mindless bluster

Quote:

Reading comprehension is clearly one of your deficiencies.

With all due respect, Doc, open your eyes!

I could have posted many more, but Im tired and Im sure you get the point.

His goal is clearly to prove my thoughts and beliefs to be bogus, while throwing in some personal jabs every now and then as well to put me in my place. So lets be fair here?

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 6:56am

I never condoned Don's comments (see my reply #46, third paragraph), and in the past he has been forced off the site voluntarily or otherwise for them. However, in general he tends to stay on topic and throw out these love taps at the beginning to goad people. Quite frankly I'm not sure what a new age ghetto is. Bobsy twins? Come on. Snotty nose? Well maybe you had a cold. Sheesh. He certainly does not get to the level of your mentor Achayra.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss evidence - for the existence of JC, no? One should also analyze where one has gone so far along the way. As Chumley pointed out, the evidence against Josephus seems impressive. That was but one of several points Don made. Dude, when you make an argument that Jesus never existed it is like my friend Dave-MBS says, as if you were saying that all crows must be black. Find one white crow, and your theory is toast. There is enough ambiguity in the historical record to have found several white crows by now; so I'm not sure where your thread is going (though I do find the different perspectives interesting).

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 1:45pm

Doc. I am also unsure of where this thread is going. I just wanted to point out that he has been apparently quite rude on more than one occasion, and I found it a little strange that you wish me off the site with the first questionable remark I have ever made. I did not mean for it to sound mean spirited, my point was that I would be gathering my data from sources that have great knowledge in this field and credentials to back up their work, because I obviously do not, I am not even finished school yet! As far as proving his evidence as bogus... that is more or less what this whole thread is about! I bring up my "evidence"... he tries to disprove it. He brings up his "evidence"... I try to disprove it. That is what has been going on since the first post. I don't feel it is innapropriate. But regardless.. I'm loosing motivation for continuing on this thread more and more as the days go by, this is quite the pointless thread. Interesting, yes, but pointless.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 2:01pm

Dare I suggest, Dude a compromise? That if Don makes a good point (and several of his critiques do hold water) that you acknowledge that. I myself am not above admitting that I am learning from someone I'm debating. Nor is Don.

Don and I had a thread on the Light Being with NDEs and visions of the Buddha or Mohammed. When I presented the evidence I was aware of, he rose to the occasion, acknowledged it, and said he would look into it further.

If Don learns from one of your posts, or finds the argument cogent, he should acknowledge it. I think he is less a fan of the "cut an paste" someone else's discussion ideas.

So, I shouldn't have to say it, but the best way to proceed is to discuss your points, and acknowledge when the other side is enlightening.

As to your staying on the site, I do not wish you or anyone off unless the level of dialogue gets and stays down and dirty. I have been impressed with your intelligence and experiences - I've told you that several times. However, no fewer than four threads were created about Jesus and christianity, some of which are downright offensive to christians in their tone. Last night the level of discourse dropped into the sewer - that was what I was saying.

M

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Brian7 on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 8:40pm

Hey Dude, I'm not sure if someone already touched on this....

You mention a comment regarding the same / similar "jesus figures" throughout history in different cultures around the world. I think your intent is to suggest that the Jesus Story is just and adaptation of one of those other stories.

However - I have another plausible possibility. I grew up in a Christian home... my dad a minister. But in my 30's i became a Buddhist. Later, I studied a bit of Hinduism. Later still, occultism. Throughout each study, I found the same/similar "feel" and "sensations" via each "belief system." The Buddhist temple had the same peace that the Christian church had. But how could this be? And what does this have to do with your question?

This is what I'm getting at....

Consider the possibility there is a Divine Source to all. This Divine Source works itself into various cultures differently. So the Hindu may have the Krishna person and the Christian may have the Christ person. Perhaps each, and all, is quite true.

I'd suggest that taking a stand that "this can't be real" or "he couldn't exist" has no real redeeming value. How does that help anyone? Destroying someone's dream is never positive. Destroying someone's value of what's Holy is never positive. Even if you're right, the fact someone says "he's Holy" makes Him (Jesus) Holy - to that person(s). Just like any Holy object. So to tarnish that object/person/concept to the believer is as tarnishing something you value as Holy or precious.

So... what's the point of saying Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna never existed?
To make a name for one's self (i.e. writing a book.)
To prove people wrong.

But isn't all of that Ego?

Try and meditate on "How can Ego hurt me?"

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by AhSoLaoTsuAhhOmmra on Jan 13^th, 2007 at 2:45pm

Kind of syncronistic, a Yeshua issue/conversation came up with another friend of mine via email.

I just started writing this, felt compelled to write it, and i would like to share it here.

I guess i call it an Ode to our friend and the longest and hardest working Retriever on the team, Yeshua.

It was in the garden, Yeshua knew that he would be betrayed soon and then arrested. He knew this arrest would lead to his physical death. He told his friends, the 12 apostles this, but they chose not to hear him because they still misunderstood him and his mission.

He couldn't sleep, the last of his human ego self was freaking out and rebelling against his destiny and against the physical pain he would have to go through. He had overcome every other test and trial, and still he must know the pangs of death.

The strain and stress was great, so powerful that some of the blood vessels in his forehead burst in blood. He was in mental and emotional agony, and the worst part was that he had none of his friends to comfort him, to stay awake with him and keep him company in his last hours with them. They all fell asleep, and even though he tried to wake Peter, James and John, they would not wake. And he felt lonely, so unbelievably lonely, he felt abandoned by those whom he held close and thought that they loved him as he loved them and was always there for them in their difficult times.

Yet he rose above his false self, and in prayer and meditation he gained the strength necessary to fulfill his purpose which was not for himself, but for others. He transcended and regenerated the very last of his weak and separated human self. He became filled up with Source consciousness which is strength, surety, joy, and centeredness. In the raging tempest he found a peacefullness that surpasses understanding. When the time came, he met his accusers and betrayers with self detachment and with complete compassion and forgiveness, he left his friends with compassion and forgiveness. He felt and became nothing but Love incarnate and personaified. There was only life in him, though he knew he would die soon and since he was so filled up with the very essence of life even physical death had no hold over this powerful and beautiful child of Source who revivified his body, the temple, with pure Life and Source energy.

Did he not tell his accusers much earlier, "This temple will be completely torn down, but in 3 days time i will have rebuilt it". They did not understand what he had meant, that he was not talking about the temple of Jerusalem, they were deaf and blind to the inner truth he spoke and so not understanding him, they mocked him, called him a crazy and unbalanced fool.

He accomplished this not just for his individual self, but for all of us, to set the ultimate example which would go down in history.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 1:44am

Dude et al,

This thread contains my detailed critique of Acharya S. as relayed by Dude. Both Dude and Acharya have ducked all my main refutatons. I just discovered 2 devastating reviews of "The Christ Conspiracy" by Mike Licona. Licona consults scholars like N. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, who, among other things, presents a convincing refutation of her methodology with respect to ancient astronomy and astrology. I doubt that anyone who reads both reviews will want to read her new book "Suns of God." I am now looking for a good review of that book by a credible scholar.

To read both of Licona's reviews, consult the website, "Answeringinfidels.com and then press "Answering Skeptics" and you will see Acharya's name.

Dude accuses me of refusing to read books by qualified skeptics. He has no conception of what academic study of the highest levels involves. In fact, most of my academic training has involved reading books by skeptics. But I don't have time for kooks like Acharya who are deservedly ignored by real scholars.

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 1:56am

As expected, you scouted for the bad reviews so could invent an excuse to avoid reading her book. For every 1 bad review of her work there are 9 good reviews for it. Of course, you probably searched for "achayra kook bad review scholar christian apologist"

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 2:05am

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 2:26am

Don

I am not responding to your refutations because I have gotten over this silly debate. You can summarized them for me if you like, although it will be quite unneccessary and a great waiste of your time. Not only because I clearly grasped what you said the first time around, but because I am no longer engaging in this debate. My view of things at this point is that you can have your beliefs and I can have mine, and we can be happy for eachother because we are both one with god. So lets just be happy for eachother, k? I've realized that proving someone wrong in a case such as this has no positive effects for any parties involved. Especially because we both seem to be so darn stubborn!

So this is my official statement: I do not care to disprove your theory of Jesus' existance, and also do not care if you prove my theory wrong or not. If you continue trying to do so, thats great. You can give the Christians on this site a stronger feeling of security that their beliefs are true. However, the ones on the site who are on the opposite spectrum will probably not take you too seriously due to the circumstantial amount of evidence in opposition to your point. So let Jesus live on in your hearts for eternity, for the rest of us, on our search may go to find the truth!

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 2:38am

Dude,

C'mon, ditch this posturing and just read Licona's two reviews.
Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 2:45am

Don

I happen to be very very happy with my decision to leave this topic alone! lol You crack me up. Regardless of whether or not you believe I am fronting, I feel my decision is true to me and will not abandon what I feel is right to satisfy your hunger for dominance in the Hesus game! Feel free to do all the refuting you want though, I will not and can not stop you. Don, your a good guy, no matter what Achayra says.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 3:21am

Don

I hope this will motivate you to read Suns of God. This was written by the author concerning the "devastating reviews" that you claim prevent you from reading it.

"I refuted Licona - even in one of my recent missives concerning this
frantic fool. Licona is not a credible source, and he did NOT present
my work to anyone with any degree of accuracy. Edwin Bryant for one
admitted as such - Licona read him a couple of sentences, and he
responded, without having read one word of my work. We have no idea
what Licona actually told the guy, but none of the scholars that
Licona interviewed had read any of my work, so their opinions are
entirely irrelevant, as is Licona's, whose claim to fame is attempting
to "prove" that a Jewish man really rose from the dead 2,000 years
ago. As I've said before, he is not a credible source, nor is he an
honest person, as his methodology has demonstrated. I easily refuted
the first of his "devastating" (not) critiques here:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

I couldn't be bothered to do likewise with his second, as it is simply
more of the same inane sophistry.

My book "Suns of God" is in large part a response to these various
shallow criticisms brought forth by people like this Don person,
who honestly believes that a Jewish man is THE god of the cosmos.
Before he goes calling others "kooks," he should examine his own glass
house. He can foam at the mouth over me and my work until the cows
come home but the bottom line is that HE HAS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS
CHRIST EVER EXISTED. Waving his hands around and making frantic
insults of my person will NOT make that fact go away. I've said that
before.

I have also provided an ENORMOUS amount of FREE material online that
clearly demonstrates the depth of my scholarship, such that even a
Christian conservatist like this one could easily be put in his place, since
HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT MY WORK. HE IS THEREFORE ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED
TO MAKE A COMMENTARY ABOUT IT. But, like all Christian loudmouths, he
merely insults and talks over his opponents, attacking them personally
while demonstrating his own murky thinking in blindly believing the
most absurd and ridiculous suppositions, such as a Jewish man born of
a virgin who walked on water, rose from the dead and ascended into the
sky. Wow! If THAT'S not kooky, then nothing is, including me. Let
the blathering man PROVE those moronic beliefs, and then we will
entertain his opinions.

Here again are my voluminous resources:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html

Note that the article "Bone Box No Proof of Jesus" was published in
"Secular Nation" after being recommended by DR. ROBERT PRICE. Price,
by the way - repeating myself again - retracted certain of his
derogatory comments, took down his negative review of "The Christ
Conspiracy," wrote a favorable review of "Suns of God" for inclusion
in "The Journal of Higher Criticism" and gave it a mention in the
bibliography of his latest book, "The Pre-Nicene New Testament."
Price has also gone on the air calling me a "scholar equal" and has
appeared on a radio program with me that was very respectful and
informative. Dr. Price has further written a favorable review of my
ebook "Who Was Jesus?" which can be found here:

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

There are MANY people within academia who have read my works and who
have written to me with positive impressions. Most of them are not
within the comparative religious field, and their opinions would no
doubt be ignored and their persons insulted by these mealymouthed
apologists."

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by horrifiedheartland on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 5:29am

Quote:

(4) Celsus, a pagan Platonist (170 AD), had access the anti-Christian Jewish sources whose polemic is substantially traceable to the first century.

What a sneaky pompous protagonist of fraud you are. I have been reading your posts and they are riddled with suppositions such as the above. You cannot provide ANY reliable source of anti-Christian Jewish sources that date back to the 1st century. You and the other theological contortionists you cite wallow in a sea of suppositions and declarations that cannot be supported by reliable evidence. Some of us appreciate that testimonies about gospel events by early patristic apologists could easily have been foisted into the literature of the early Dark Ages to buttress the emerging dogmatic authority of the day and obliterate the remnants of any other surviving belief paradigm in Europe. None of the autographs of the early literature survive and earliest manuscripts are often centuries after subjectively interested theological exegetes allege them to have been originally composed.

In consideration of the topic of early Christianity, Churchill's caveat applies well: "History is written by the winners." Pity the poor soul who is not acutely conscious of this aphorism where Christianity and its derivation is concerned. A hypocrite such as yourself is hardly in a position to label anyone else "kook" or "New Ager". This is the bottom line of evidence where you and your "theologian" cronies are concerned and you all frequently try to weasel out of it with your weak arguments about oral traditions and "obscure rabbi" arguments (that flagrantly contradict NT scripture) -- there is no extra-gospel evidence for Jesus of Nazareth as having existed contemporary to his alleged lifetime: no nativity, no ministry, no resurrection, nothing, nada, nyet !!!

The only reason theology is taught at Harvard, there is Yale Divinity School, a Union Theological Seminary, seminaries anywhere is because there are still so many millions in our population who are captive to this metaphysical, supernatural archaic belief paradigm. Too many deluded believers would be offended if they shut these falsely venerable operations down. So you can continue on to be a parasite to pointless education and instruction.

Go ahead and be dismissive of others who may pose either valid or invalid arguments that detract from your position. But where rationality is concerned, from the the standpoint of evidentiary inquiry and scholarship, everyone has good reason to dismiss you.

- Horrified Heartlander

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Steve_ED on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 5:40am

Perhaps we should add the USA First Ammendment to the Bible. :D

Anyway, we're fighting on emotional grounds. Attempting to disprove won't do Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John for those types. Let them have their life the way they want it! ;)

(And don't judge them too harshly, we all are learning. Y'all know what I mean?)
[In fact, Judgementalism is generally not my thing at all.]

[Remember the land of F27 where people must follow only one rule: Do not Impose or Force anything upon anyone.]

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by horrifiedheartland on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 8:02am

Quote:

(1) Many of the alleged parallels can more plausibly be explained from the Jewish background. One would expect Jews to be inlluenced by nearby Jews, not by distant pagan mythology. (2) There is no evidence that Horus, Krishna, and Buddha were wven known in first-century Palestine, let alone that devout monotheistic Jews woiuld deliberately sincretize aspects of the myths of pagan gods with that of Jesus.

Acharya insolently claims that my point about the Huros/ Jesus "morning star" parallel demonstrates that "This idiot doesn't even know his precious Bible." Another of her elndless distortions! What I actually said was this: "Jesus is never called `the morning star' in our Gospels."

Wow, where do I start? Are you familiar with Eisenman, or for that matter, Philo of Alexandria? How are you so certain that any of the NT was written in Palestine, with an audience intended initially to be just Palestinian Jews? The gospels frequently were in error about place names an locations, offering some evidence that at least some of the NT was not written in Palestine. None of the recipient churches of the Pauline epistles were in Palestine. Someone with sound theological training I would presume would be well aware of Hellenistic Jews from the pre-Maccabean era to throughout Greco-Roman times who would be well aware of the religious beliefs and maxims of their pagan neighbors (hardly distant). Are you aware that over a third of all Alexandrians were Jews? Are you aware that one of the earliest synagogues excavated revealed a zodiac, complete with Greco-Roman iconography for the 12 constellations? Saul/Paul was allegedly from Tarsus and an ongoing Diaspora posited Jews throughout the Greco-Roman world, or perhaps you were unaware of this information?

Are you aware that the Hebrew Bible was regarded with some esteem by pagan Gentiles for its eschatological content, so much so that Jews were granted a reprieve from observance of pagan ritual sacrifice once a year on behalf of the Emperor? Why did Paul so strenuously argue in favor of faithful Gentiles being reprieved from observing lawful circumcision and dietary laws? Under these circumstances, is it entirely remote to you that the gospels and Acts of the Apostles were written to evangelize also to pagan Gentiles?

Your argument that syncretization from other pagan traditions could not be a contributing factor to the composition of the gospels does not pass muster.

This quibble about the morning star and your little "catch" qualification about it not being in the gospels is a transparent diversion. Wherever it is, it could well have been both an iconographic reference to both Judaic scriptural and Egyptian (or even other) traditional culture. Dr. Robert Price (of the Jesus Seminar) and Randel Helms write of the duality of both pagan and Jewish midrashic parallels in the composition of the NT in more than one of their books.

-Horrified, as usual to these panderings to supernatural myths as literal truth

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 9:34am

Welcome Acharya. Being a new member, at least you should sign your "Nome de Guerre," if not your true name like Donald and myself.

Matthew

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 10:10am

Incidentally, Horrified,

I find your prose and command of the English language to be very well developed in a venomous sort of way. Still, none of your arguments disprove the earthly existence of Jesus, so much as to raise doubts. I do freely admit that your point of view is interesting, and informative. When going over your last two posts, I don't see definitive proof against the earthly existence of Jesus. In none of the parallels mentioned about other saviours is definitive evidence to be found. So what is one to make of it all? As I said to Dude, I believe that there is a fair amount of evidence that you and others have given to support the embellishment of historical fact about JC with myth. Is there church created myth? Yes. However, the definitive proof against the physical existence of JC has yet to be presented. My own conclusion, after reading this thread is that no such absolute evidence is to be found.

Matthew

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 3:20pm

Doc

HorrifiedHeartland is not Achayra. It is a member of Achayra's Christ Conspiracy Yahoo Group. His email is Neophite1212, which is the same name as his screen name for the group. I thought it may have been Acharya at first too, although I did not think she would waiste her time attempting to disprove one of her many refuters. HorrifiedHeartland is simply a dude who knows his stuff! Keep up the good work Horrified. Your timing is perfect, because I have recently decided to withdraw my contributations to this debate. You obviously know far more than I do, so go get 'em tiger.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 7:59pm

Dude,

First, you ignore the main points of my refutations. Then you refuse the read the critical review of Acharya that I drew to your attnention in the hope you would respond. Then you disengenuouslly and repeatedly whined that you want to bring this Jesus debate to an end to encourage a focus on the main purpose of this AK board. So I started thinking about how to wind this topic down, and yet, keep my promise. But then you reveal your posturing and bring this Acharya groupie here, who has no stated interest in the board's subject. I will have to start yet anther polemical Jesus thread to deal with him. And finally, you make it obvious that you have no intention of keeping your promise to read Malachi Martin. Where is yoiur integrity?

As I told you, I have no interest in reading Acharya's books. I joined this board to seek knowledge about the afterlife. Since yoiu claim to have OBEs, I wanted to challenge your silly claim that you can prove Jesus never existed. I hoped you might seek astral contact with him. But yoiu quickly proved incapable of developing your own position and instead goggled Acharya materla and tastelessly pasted reams of it on Bruce's site, when a simple set of guided references to her website would have sufficed. So I responded to these pastings and will continue to do so. New Jesus threads, thanks to you!

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by DocM on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 8:14pm

Don,

I'd leave the debate to a few rebuttals only with this ill tempered, loqacious acolyte/neophyte of Acharya. The purpose of this website is knowledge of the afterlife, and most of us do not believe that the other side can disprove the existence of JC. They may counter that you can not prove his earthly existence, but I doubt much will come of it. Many on this board believe in Jesus, and there ample examples of astral contact with him (and contact during near death experiences). The other side can not provide irrefutable evidence that disproves his earthly existence. Nor can you substantiate through perfect nonfalsifiable documentation of his earthly life.

Matthew

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 14^th, 2007 at 11:49pm

Don

I did not ignore the main points of your refutations. I read them all. I also read the "critical review" of Acharya. And I did respond, I responded with evidence that the reviewer did not even read Acharya's work, and his review was easily refuted by her. I don't know why you are getting mad at me? You are right, I did say that I was ending my contributations to the Jesus subject, and I was not lying. I did not bring anyone here. I don't even know who the guy is. Perhaps your just a little mad/worried that you now have a worthy debating opponent.

I never promised you that I would read The Devils Advocate. Or whatever its called. Show me where I promised that I would read it, and I'll read it. Sike!!! Oh.. here it is, I found where I promised to read it...
Quote:

And I will also read Hostage to the Devil, as soon as I finish reading Hostage to the Easter Bunny.

It was obviously a joke, Don. Putting my integrity under question is quite inappropriate. I don't see how you can blaim me for YOU starting a new JESUS THREAD. Do I control what you do? I've only started one Jesus thread, and that was only because YOU asked me to! So if anyone is to blaim, its the main man Donatello. You can continue with these threads if you feel your ego is on the line, but thats 100% your choice. Good luck with them.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Tim F. on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 1:03am

Please!

End the one-upmanship!

Don't you recognise the tone of your own posts?

Who cares whether Christianity or buddhism or Whatever (?!) ultimately "wins" ?

I'm rooting for Reality!!!

Yeah, there will swiftly be the end of all 'isms'... and at the end of all that... don't be surprised if there's a Mother that's behind the 'cosmic curtain'.

These Anti-Christian threads are not the point of this web-site. This site is meant to explore heartfelt questions about the afterlife and actual experiences that relate to such questions..

I did a gateway workshop with Robert Monroe. Someone asked him a question about 'his' cosmology. He answered by asking his friend Jose Gastenega to speak, to answer for him...

Jose told us about a recently published trilogy called 'the Course in Miracles'.

I got the set and worked with it.

I gave a set to my Zen teacher. He loved it.

He gave sets of the course to his other students and suggested they work with the material too.

The course was told in the voice of the being called Jesus.

We were all Buddhists.

It didn't threaten us to work with a being called Jesus.

Reality is Reality, no matter what name is given to it.

It's recognised by how it feels.

If it feels right, I respond.

It doesn't matter if I'm responding to Christ or Buddha.

What's appropriate is the Real responding to the Real.

Names are arbitrary.

I love you brother,
Tim F.

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Berserk on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 1:21am

Tim, thanks for the interesting information about Rboert Monroe and ACIM. I suspect that if we could pose our most vexing questions directly to Jesus via OBE, we would get some surprising answers not found in our Goepels. That has already proven true in atheist Howard Storm's lengthy conversations with Jesus. I wish astral explorers like Dude and Bruce Moen would take my suggestion and seek out such an astral contact with Jesus.

OK, Dude I thought you had promised to read Martin, but your quote does suggest you are not serious about your pledge. But I'm sure you misunderstand the review I have in mind. Licona's 2nd review responds in detail to aspects of Archarya's book that I never knew about. Since you choose to duck these issues, i will raise them on this thread in due time. So you ask me to believe that it is just a coincidence that we are discussuing Acharya here and this Acharya groupie just happens to show up. you'll recall that you identified your prior connection with him. Oh well, but please don't spam up my new Jesus thread with Acharya stuff. Keep that here. i want my new thread to respond to Shirley request and to quickly focus on the relevance of Jesus to astral retrievals.

Don

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by Chumley on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 2:47am

Dude,

You will do practically anything to avoid the hard work of critical thinking. Assess the reviews in terms of their contents, not their presumed provenance. A bad review by a competent scholar outweighs 10 good reviews by unqualified stooges. Besides, I myself have decisively refuted her and you are just upset because you cannot competently reply to my point by point critique--and neither did she, as I have demonstrated. I guess I need to summarize all my refutations so you can grasp their significance and more easily eespond.

Don
*****************
Oh, like you're SUCH a PARAGON of critical thinking yourself,
Don.
Get down off your high horse. (Or are your ankles too weak to
hold up your weight if you do..?)
I have yet to see an irrefutable argument from you. (I'm just
too lazy to answer all the "arguments" you put together in your
verbose postings... shame on me I guess.)
So you are a critical thinker, eh?
Then answer me this.
Jesus' resurrection can be taken symbolically, or literally. You
take it literally. In other words, you believe in walking, re-animated
corpses, for no other reason than ANOTHER PERSON told you so (and
threatened you with eternal torture if you dared to doubt the existence of walking dead guys.)
Do you believe in werewolves and dragons too, then? (BTW, I
believe dragons are mentioned in the OT as well as Revelation. If
you know of their existence, make sure and say hi to Puff for me, Donster!!!)

B-man

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by OutOfBodyDude on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 2:58am

Don

Your thread will be safe from spam, you have my word. In fact, I don't believe Ill be making any posts at all. This Jesus business has gotten out of hand, I believe it has very little to do with Afterlife Knowledge and everything to do with Religion. As we will all see one day, these two things have very little in common. I encourage everyone to get over trying to prove or disprove Jesus and to focus on more important and relevant topics.

Love to all

Title: Re: Jesus' Legitimacy: A Reply to Dude
Post by augoeideian on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 6:41am

Quote:

This Jesus business has gotten out of hand, I believe it has very little to do with Afterlife Knowledge and everything to do with Religion.

Excuse me while i choke on my morning tea with this statement which lacks dire understanding.

The Spirit of Christ has been with the world since we stepped our grubby feet upon the soil eons ago.