Was 'Jesus' ie; 'Yeshua', really a man of the East?

BilliardsBall · Jun 6, 2018

godnotgod said:
Quite simply, we have accounts of 'Jesus' until 12 years of age, and of his last days. Why the break? Where is the rest of the story?

So the angry crowd chased him several kilometers up a dirt hill while he was wearing his sandals, eh? And then, when they finally arrived, he simply bulldozed his way through the angry crowd, like 'I'm outa here!', and the angry crowd just caved, right?

'Two hamlets' you say? Well that explains it all, of course! And so convenient, just like the Catholic argument that, instead of the traditional story in which Jesus pushed his way back through the angry crowd (not likely), the story they tell is that the Great Lord Jesus simply leapt off of the cliff. (face-palm here).

"On the western slopes of the mountain, in a cave, a large prehistoric settlement was excavated. The archaeological dig unearthed 18 layers. The famous findings was 13 Neanderthal Skeletons from more than 50,000 years ago*. The cave was also used reused in the 6th C by a group of solitary monks. The cave is not open to the public."

That's it! No city, town, village or hamlet here either! Oh, wait! Of course! Those CAVES were Nazareth, right? Now I get it!

"On the peak of the hill is a series of tombs, cisterns, and a 6Mx 10M mosaic was found. In another cave there was an ancient altar."

Mount Precipice, Nazareth

Yes! And the cave with the altar is the synagogue! And from here, it's a stone's throw to the cliff's edge where Jesus, wearing his cape and jet powered sandals, leapt high into the air and away he flew! What an Escape Artist! He must have been an Avatar, he was. Jeez!

Meanwhile, back in Polis #1, life went on as usual. Little did they know that the Son of God himself walked amongst them. Shhhh! The walls have ears! Who knew?

The clever Catholics knew that Jesus could not have pushed his way back through the angry crowd, but by leaping off the cliff (due to his godly powers, of course), he was able to make his 'escape'. Why, that must be it, of course! Just make up a more feasible story and all is solved. How convenient! I can't wait 'til a secret scroll is discovered which explains the 18 yearlong silence, in light of the notion that we have God in the flesh living in a quiet little hamlet (or maybe two) living quietly without notice. Shhhhh! It's Nazareth's Best Kept Secret!.

I think you're seeing double through rose-colored glasses. Two hamlets....that's a good one.

BTW, 'Mt Precipice' is also known as 'Lord's Leap', "Mount of the Leap", "Mount of the Leap of the Lord", LOL.

Yeshua, the Nazarene.

Again, I am not stating his Eastern travels as a fact, but when the Eastern accounts, independent of one another, are considered altogether, we get a more convincing possibility than the highly improbable story of some 'Jesus', already famous in his homeland, living without a single peep from the Christian community. It's just not possible. He'd already established himself in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Don't you recognize a fairy tale when you see one? As I said: this thread is an attempt to separate the real man Yeshua from the myth of 'Jesus'..

*Others date the skeletal remains up to 100,000 years old.

There are 1,000 questions we could ask regarding the silence of the scriptures in different areas, I would say since Jesus's ministry was from age 30-33, and since moderns, not the Bible, emphasize things like the birth of Christ, we should not expect much about Jesus at age 15, 17, 21, etc.

The Bible mentions two hamlets, you are saying they are one, making the Bible self-contradict to say Nazareth is on a hill and also isn't on the hill of The Mount of Precipice. Why would argue about alternative theories to Bible facts with someone who doesn't believe the Bible, especially since your assertion, Jesus in India after age 12, presumes that the biblical Jesus existed including definitive whereabouts unto age 12.

I'm aware of the local traditions that Jesus leapt kilometers off the mountain. However, the Bible you seem to despise says He merely made Himself less visible and stepped away from and through the mob.

godnotgod · Jun 6, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
There are 1,000 questions we could ask regarding the silence of the scriptures in different areas, I would say since Jesus's ministry was from age 30-33, and since moderns, not the Bible, emphasize things like the birth of Christ, we should not expect much about Jesus at age 15, 17, 21, etc.

The Bible mentions two hamlets, you are saying they are one, making the Bible self-contradict to say Nazareth is on a hill and also isn't on the hill of The Mount of Precipice. Why would argue about alternative theories to Bible facts with someone who doesn't believe the Bible, especially since your assertion, Jesus in India after age 12, presumes that the biblical Jesus existed including definitive whereabouts unto age 12.

I'm aware of the local traditions that Jesus leapt kilometers off the mountain. However, the Bible you seem to despise says He merely made Himself less visible and stepped away from and through the mob.

Jesus's birth in Bethlehem is prophesied and recorded by Christian writers;
His teaching in the temple at 12 years old in Jerusalem is recorded;
His return to Nazareth is recorded;
and then: nothing for 18 years. And then suddenly, at age 30, his appearance is once again recorded.

So you are saying that there is nothing unusual about the Son of God himself, who had already established himself as very extraordinary in the eyes of the elders in the synagogue in Jerusalem, simply spent 18 ho-hum years eking out a simple life in some remote village. This is not an account that can be believed. If you believe this, you must be quite naive, or ignorant, or both. Not expect much? How about nothing at all? Not possible when some already knew he was the Messiah; who knew this was an extraordinary child. I would, in fact, say that he began his ministry at age 12. There is something seriously wrong with the 18 year break in the Christian account. Now add to this silence a good number of reports from the East which point to his his whereabouts and activities, and the two coinciding stories begin to make some sense. The East would have no ulterior motive to fabricate such stories.

Show me where two hamlets called 'Nazareth' are mentioned in the Bible.

What is despicable is that we now have two accounts of the story of Jesus being chased by the mob from the 'synagogue'*, both of which smack of pure fabrication, and neither of which are believable. You are saying Jesus ran from the mob in his sandals for a few kilometers to the brow of the hill and then 'merely made Himself less visible and stepped away from and through the mob'. What? 'merely'? What is that? magic? He 'merely' magically made himself less visible and then turned around to face an angry mob, , and then made his way right through the middle of them all? C'mon, use your head! How could Jesus simultaneously 'step away' from the mob and make his way 'through the mob'. You' ve entered the Twilight Zone where you are able to force square pegs into round holes, and then make yourself believe you've actually done that. Ridiculous!

An angry mob would have overcome our hero and pummeled him to death right outside the synagogue doors, with no chance of an escape several kilometers away, either by a leap of faith from the cliff, or via invisibility. You're dreaming and need to wake up.

*There is no archaeological evidence for any such 1st century 'synagogue' existing either in current day Nazareth, nor on Mount Precipice.

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2018

godnotgod said:
Jesus's birth in Bethlehem is prophesied and recorded by Christian writers;
His teaching in the temple at 12 years old in Jerusalem is recorded;
His return to Nazareth is recorded;
and then: nothing for 18 years. And then suddenly, at age 30, his appearance is once again recorded.

So you are saying that there is nothing unusual about the Son of God himself, who had already established himself as very extraordinary in the eyes of the elders in the synagogue in Jerusalem, simply spent 18 ho-hum years eking out a simple life in some remote village. This is not an account that can be believed. If you believe this, you must be quite naive, or ignorant, or both. Not expect much? How about nothing at all? Not possible when some already knew he was the Messiah; who knew this was an extraordinary child. I would, in fact, say that he began his ministry at age 12. There is something seriously wrong with the 18 year break in the Christian account. Now add to this silence a good number of reports from the East which point to his his whereabouts and activities, and the two coinciding stories begin to make some sense. The East would have no ulterior motive to fabricate such stories.

Show me where two hamlets called 'Nazareth' are mentioned in the Bible.

What is despicable is that we now have two accounts of the story of Jesus being chased by the mob from the 'synagogue'*, both of which smack of pure fabrication, and neither of which are believable. You are saying Jesus ran from the mob in his sandals for a few kilometers to the brow of the hill and then 'merely made Himself less visible and stepped away from and through the mob'. What? 'merely'? What is that? magic? He 'merely' magically made himself less visible and then turned around to face an angry mob, , and then made his way right through the middle of them all? C'mon, use your head! How could Jesus simultaneously 'step away' from the mob and make his way 'through the mob'. You' ve entered the Twilight Zone where you are able to force square pegs into round holes, and then make yourself believe you've actually done that. Ridiculous!

An angry mob would have overcome our hero and pummeled him to death right outside the synagogue doors, with no chance of an escape several kilometers away, either by a leap of faith from the cliff, or via invisibility. You're dreaming and need to wake up.

*There is no archaeological evidence for any such 1st century 'synagogue' existing either in current day Nazareth, nor on Mount Precipice.

The same Bible shows multiple confrontations and assaults upon Jesus, but also that "His [cross] time hadn't yet come." Why is it hard for you to trust that God who made this universe can shield someone from angry eyes?

And you can find apocrypha speaking more of Jesus's early years, but I still cannot find documents saying He lived in India. To quote your argument, if He lived in India for 18 years, why can we find only "nothing"?!

godnotgod · Jun 7, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
The same Bible shows multiple confrontations and assaults upon Jesus, but also that "His [cross] time hadn't yet come." Why is it hard for you to trust that God who made this universe can shield someone from angry eyes?

I don't, but now you are in the area of pure belief. This thread is not about Christian doctrine, but about possible historical and/or archaeological evidence. Even so, your 'logic' is quite illogical, as I have pointed out, and it steps over the line into magic. There is no historical nor acrhaeological evidence of a 1st century 'Nazareth', let alone TWO Nazareths. You have not shown me your claim about where the Bible talks about two villages called 'Nazareth'. Where is it?

You cannot simultaneously avoid a mob and walk into its midst.

You cannot leap from a cliff and not injure or kill yourself.

You cannot outrun an angry mob up a dirt hill wearing sandals for several kilometers.

Your argument is pure fantasy.*

And you can find apocrypha speaking more of Jesus's early years, but I still cannot find documents saying He lived in India. To quote your argument, if He lived in India for 18 years, why can we find only "nothing"?!

There are a number of accounts, not only of his presence in India, but in Tibet and Persia as well. But we haven't gotten to that yet. I want to resolve the issue of 'Nazareth' and the 18 missing years before we move on.

So do you have any evidence of a 1st century Nazareth to present?

Do you have any evidence that tells of Jesus's whereabouts during his 18 missing years?

If not, maybe we can move on.

*If God were protecting Jesus, he would have saved him from the Crucifixion. He might have given him the power to fly away, like he did when he leapt from Mt Precipice.

BilliardsBall · Jun 8, 2018

godnotgod said:
I don't, but now you are in the area of pure belief. This thread is not about Christian doctrine, but about possible historical and/or archaeological evidence. Even so, your 'logic' is quite illogical, as I have pointed out, and it steps over the line into magic. There is no historical nor acrhaeological evidence of a 1st century 'Nazareth', let alone TWO Nazareths. You have not shown me your claim about where the Bible talks about two villages called 'Nazareth'. Where is it?

You cannot simultaneously avoid a mob and walk into its midst.

You cannot leap from a cliff and not injure or kill yourself.

You cannot outrun an angry mob up a dirt hill wearing sandals for several kilometers.

Your argument is pure fantasy.*

There are a number of accounts, not only of his presence in India, but in Tibet and Persia as well. But we haven't gotten to that yet. I want to resolve the issue of 'Nazareth' and the 18 missing years before we move on.

So do you have any evidence of a 1st century Nazareth to present?

Do you have any evidence that tells of Jesus's whereabouts during his 18 missing years?

If not, maybe we can move on.

*If God were protecting Jesus, he would have saved him from the Crucifixion. He might have given him the power to fly away, like he did when he leapt from Mt Precipice.

I understand and appreciate your arguments. My responses:

1. I'm not expecting archaeological evidence of a tiny hamlet, nor am I requesting that Israel adopt permits today, to forcibly move persons living in modern Nazareth so they can dig beneath their homes!

2. I've long ago stated the Bible's explanation that Christ did what all human children did in Israel and lived after his pre-teen years at home. This is Occam's razor and normative, further, every gospel and Acts and so on statement has things like, "This is that guy from Nazareth, right?" and not "This is that guy who's been gone for 18 years, right? Wasn't he in India or China or something?"

3. The statement you made of God protecting Jesus from the cross is against hundreds of NT statements, including God honoring Jesus above everything and everyone else in the known universe for His faithfulness in taking the cross, along with what I just said to you in a prior post regarding several Bible statements that when assaulted pre-cross, "His time had not yet come." This time is prophesied unto a specific day in 30 AD, also prophesied in numerous ways to the Passover date!

4. Since none of the 12 NT writers say Jesus experienced oppression that stuck pre-cross, and since both testaments affirm the paschal lamb died for the world's sin on Passover, I reject the apocrypha that speak of nonsense like Jesus striking a small child dead while He himself was small, and . . . the "accounts" of guru Jesus in the Far East.

5. Let's get to the point--I will say Jesus lived in the Far East for 18 years if you agree He died and rose to save you and I from sin. In my opinion, Jesus is Savior, not a Jewish/Indian guru who faked dying on the cross to make a phony religion.

godnotgod · Jun 8, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I understand and appreciate your arguments. My responses:

1. I'm not expecting archaeological evidence of a tiny hamlet, nor am I requesting that Israel adopt permits today, to forcibly move persons living in modern Nazareth so they can dig beneath their homes!

2. I've long ago stated the Bible's explanation that Christ did what all human children did in Israel and lived after his pre-teen years at home. This is Occam's razor and normative, further, every gospel and Acts and so on statement has things like, "This is that guy from Nazareth, right?" and not "This is that guy who's been gone for 18 years, right? Wasn't he in India or China or something?"

3. The statement you made of God protecting Jesus from the cross is against hundreds of NT statements, including God honoring Jesus above everything and everyone else in the known universe for His faithfulness in taking the cross, along with what I just said to you in a prior post regarding several Bible statements that when assaulted pre-cross, "His time had not yet come." This time is prophesied unto a specific day in 30 AD, also prophesied in numerous ways to the Passover date!

4. Since none of the 12 NT writers say Jesus experienced oppression that stuck pre-cross, and since both testaments affirm the paschal lamb died for the world's sin on Passover, I reject the apocrypha that speak of nonsense like Jesus striking a small child dead while He himself was small, and . . . the "accounts" of guru Jesus in the Far East.

5. Let's get to the point--I will say Jesus lived in the Far East for 18 years if you agree He died and rose to save you and I from sin. In my opinion, Jesus is Savior, not a Jewish/Indian guru who faked dying on the cross to make a phony religion.

The notion that Jesus was crucified to redeem man from sin is your religious belief. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus, or rather 'Yeshua' traveled Eastward during those 18 missing years or not.

Please note that in the East, it is customary for young men to leave home and live in the forest or mountains on a spiritual quest. Yeshua was a man of the East, not of the West. We will come to that and evidence for it later on.

BilliardsBall · Jun 11, 2018

godnotgod said:
The notion that Jesus was crucified to redeem man from sin is your religious belief. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus, or rather 'Yeshua' traveled Eastward during those 18 missing years or not.

Please note that in the East, it is customary for young men to leave home and live in the forest or mountains on a spiritual quest. Yeshua was a man of the East, not of the West. We will come to that and evidence for it later on.

No, it's not a "religious" or "faith" belief apart from believing in the reliability of the NT documents over apocryphal documents. What would be lovely is for you to present man of the East documents not labeled apocrypha or pseudopigrapha, meaning "fake writings" in the Greek!

godnotgod · Jun 11, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
No, it's not a "religious" or "faith" belief apart from believing in the reliability of the NT documents over apocryphal documents. What would be lovely is for you to present man of the East documents not labeled apocrypha or pseudopigrapha, meaning "fake writings" in the Greek!

That a 'Jesus' shed divine blood for man's redemption of sin is your belief. It's just doctrine. Where is the reliability of the NT?

godnotgod · Jun 11, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Let's get to the point--I will say Jesus lived in the Far East for 18 years if you agree He died and rose to save you and I from sin. In my opinion, Jesus is Savior, not a Jewish/Indian guru who faked dying on the cross to make a phony religion.

Why should I accept religious belief for various evidences of his Eastern presence?

Yeshua was a Nazarene. Nazarenes did not believe in blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, or the virgin birth. These pagan doctrines were overwritten onto Yeshua's teachings by Paul and Rome, and were not part of original Christianity.

BilliardsBall · Jun 12, 2018

godnotgod said:
That a 'Jesus' shed divine blood for man's redemption of sin is your belief. It's just doctrine. Where is the reliability of the NT?

GREAT question! IMHO, our eternity hinges on the answer.

BilliardsBall · Jun 12, 2018

godnotgod said:
Why should I accept religious belief for various evidences of his Eastern presence?

Yeshua was a Nazarene. Nazarenes did not believe in blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, or the virgin birth. These pagan doctrines were overwritten onto Yeshua's teachings by Paul and Rome, and were not part of original Christianity.

The "originator of original Christianity" said He would give His blood and then rise. The gospels spoke of a virgin birth before and around Paul's time and centuries before Rome. What are you thinking of here?

godnotgod · Jun 12, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
The "originator of original Christianity" said He would give His blood and then rise. The gospels spoke of a virgin birth before and around Paul's time and centuries before Rome. What are you thinking of here?

"Most modern educated theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth. They regard it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century A.D. and was triggered by a Greek mistranslation of the book of Isaiah from the original Hebrew. Its purpose was to make Christianity more competitive with contemporary pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured their founder having been born of a virgin. Without the claim of a virgin birth, many believe it to be unclear whether "Christianity" could have survived."

The Ancient Beginnings of the Virgin Birth Myth

I don't want to get into a doctrinal discussion on this thread, but you can knock yourself out about the virgin birth at the site referenced above. After you read it, come back here and tell me all about the 'virgin birth'.

Yeshua was a Nazarene. A Nazarene is a sub-sect of the Essenes. Essenes were vegetarians and abhorred animal, let alone, human sacrifice. Yeshua taught spiritual, not bodily resurrection. The doctrines of blood sacrifice, virgin birth, and bodily resurrection were overwritten onto the teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene as devices to lure thousands of pagans into the new religion. All of these doctrines preceded Christianity.

The gospels were written over half a century after the death of Yeshua, long after Rome became an empire.

Did you know that Paul was born and raised in Tarsus, a center of the mystery religions, which taught the doctrine of a dying and resurrected god-man?

godnotgod · Jun 12, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
GREAT question! IMHO, our eternity hinges on the answer.

You base your fate upon mere opinion? Isn't that like a blind man leaping into an empty swimming pool?

BilliardsBall · Jun 13, 2018

godnotgod said:
"Most modern educated theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth. They regard it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century A.D. and was triggered by a Greek mistranslation of the book of Isaiah from the original Hebrew. Its purpose was to make Christianity more competitive with contemporary pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured their founder having been born of a virgin. Without the claim of a virgin birth, many believe it to be unclear whether "Christianity" could have survived."

The Ancient Beginnings of the Virgin Birth Myth

I don't want to get into a doctrinal discussion on this thread, but you can knock yourself out about the virgin birth at the site referenced above. After you read it, come back here and tell me all about the 'virgin birth'.

Yeshua was a Nazarene. A Nazarene is a sub-sect of the Essenes. Essenes were vegetarians and abhorred animal, let alone, human sacrifice. Yeshua taught spiritual, not bodily resurrection. The doctrines of blood sacrifice, virgin birth, and bodily resurrection were overwritten onto the teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene as devices to lure thousands of pagans into the new religion. All of these doctrines preceded Christianity.

The gospels were written over half a century after the death of Yeshua, long after Rome became an empire.

Did you know that Paul was born and raised in Tarsus, a center of the mystery religions, which taught the doctrine of a dying and resurrected god-man?

I'm familiar with the similarities between some NT doctrines and pagan doctrines.

I would strongly question whether Jesus was a Nazarene or an Essene, etc. One reason is He cooked and ate a fish breakfast for His team.

Modern historians and experts, secular as well as religious, strongly question the date you give for the gospels. However, Jesus's disciples being young men who weren't scribes, they could have shared the gospels as we know even 50 years later.

Yes, I know that Paul was a center of the mystery religions. So is this forum, but a surprising amount of Bible truth manages to shine here.

BilliardsBall · Jun 13, 2018

godnotgod said:
You base your fate upon mere opinion? Isn't that like a blind man leaping into an empty swimming pool?

The Bible is not "mere opinion" but contains fulfilled predictive prophecy, better describes human psychology than any modern commentator, contains the infinite love of Christ, and makes a logical assertion regarding human souls. As I understand its worldview:

1. Humans would destroy a utopia, since they tend toward making others unhappy
2. Jesus died to morally perfect people, so they can be fit for utopia
3. Anyone trusting Jesus to take their sin, guilt and shame, will someday be ultimately changed, to be morally perfect, fit for utopia
4. Human effort via religion, philanthropy, etc. helps some, but cannot perfect a soul

godnotgod · Jun 13, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I'm familiar with the similarities between some NT doctrines and pagan doctrines.

The pagan doctrines are much earlier. Where do you suppose the NT doctrines came from?

I would strongly question whether Jesus was a Nazarene or an Essene, etc. One reason is He cooked and ate a fish breakfast for His team.

Acts 24:5 ►
For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

What about Fish?
In the 14th chapter of Matthew (verses 13-21) Jesus takes his boat to a remote island. Thousands follow him there. Jesus tells his disciples to feed these people, but the tell him that they only have five loaves of bread and two fish (verse 17). Jesus gave thanks for the food, and it multiplied into enough to feed five thousand people. Now the question is, if Jesus was a vegetarian, why was he giving fish to his followers?

It should be noted that some scholars contend that the Greek word for "fish weed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, and fishweed remains a popular food among Palestinian peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the story (Matthew 14:13) it says Jesus got to this place by boat. These people were right by the sea. If they were out of fish, why not just go on a quick fishing expedition? Surely with 5,000 men present it would not be that hard to go fishing. With this in mind, it further supports the thought that fishweed was being used, not actual fish.

Also, when one considers that the disciples did not even think about trying to catch some fish, this helps explain Matthew 4:18-20, where Jesus gets his first disciples by telling some fishermen to give up their profession and follow him. Jesus even says to them "I will make you a fisher of men". Could this be Jesus was having them give up their barbaric line of work to do something more righteous? It may sound absurd, but it starts to make a little more sense when you take it in the same context as the story of feeding five thousand, where the disciples never even considered trying to catch some fish, despite being beside the sea. Why didn't they go fishing? Did Jesus teach it was wrong to eat fish?

Finally, there is the story of after the resurrection, in Luke 24:42-43, where Jesus eats some fish. This is an interesting story. Some scholars however, have stated that in this verse, the Greek word for fish is "ixous", which happens to be an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today. This argument could go on and on. I would not totally dismiss the concept of Jesus eating fish. Maybe it was possible. There are vegetarians who eat fish, they are called "pesco-vegetarians". Also, it should be noted that in the Catholic church you are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays, but you are still allowed to eat fish. Could this be the result of Jesus' pesco-vegetarian life-style?

More about vegetarian Christianity here:
Vegetarianism in the Bible
*****
Why were some of Jesus’ teachings in the Essene scriptures excluded from or revised in the Bible? Why did Christianity later abandon its vegetarian roots? According to Steven Rosen in his book, Food for the Spirit, “The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible therefore became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down their throats if they were captured.”

At the Root of Christianity Is the Compassion of Vegetarianism

Modern historians and experts, secular as well as religious, strongly question the date you give for the gospels. However, Jesus's disciples being young men who weren't scribes, they could have shared the gospels as we know even 50 years later.

The Gospels were written as late as the 90's and beyond by unknown authors.

"The four canonical gospels, like the rest of the New Testament, were written in Greek, Mark probably c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses."

Gospel - Wikipedia

The disciples and Yeshua most likely only spoke Aramaic amongst themselves. The original content was only an oral Aramaic tradition, then translated by Greek scribes. A single Aramaic word might have 2 or 3 meanings, while the same word in Greek would have just one, the reason some phrases in the Greek NT make little or no sense*. Add to this that the Bible was written in Koine Greek, a common language, and not a scholarly form of Greek, and altogether we have a document that cannot be relied upon for historical or literary accuracy. The disciples may have shared their experiences some 50 years after the fact, but a lot can happen to one's memory in that time span. The four Gospels all differ one from the other as well.

Yes, I know that Paul was a center of the mystery religions. So is this forum, but a surprising amount of Bible truth manages to shine here.

What do you mean? Spiritual truth or historical truth? , both of which can be problematical.

*If you are a serious student of the scriptures, you should avail yourself of the Aramaic Bible, called 'Pesh-itta'. (I had to hyphenate this word due to REF censorship; search without the hypen)

godnotgod · Jun 14, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
The Bible is not "mere opinion" but contains fulfilled predictive prophecy, better describes human psychology than any modern commentator, contains the infinite love of Christ, and makes a logical assertion regarding human souls. As I understand its worldview:

1. Humans would destroy a utopia, since they tend toward making others unhappy
2. Jesus died to morally perfect people, so they can be fit for utopia
3. Anyone trusting Jesus to take their sin, guilt and shame, will someday be ultimately changed, to be morally perfect, fit for utopia
4. Human effort via religion, philanthropy, etc. helps some, but cannot perfect a soul

No, you stated that: "IMHO, our eternity hinges on the answer."

I don't see how Jesus dying has anything to do with morally perfecting people. You're talking magic here. Anyway, you're bleeding over into doctrinal belief again. Steer straight and stick to the historical, please.

BilliardsBall · Jun 14, 2018

godnotgod said:
The pagan doctrines are much earlier. Where do you suppose the NT doctrines came from?

Acts 24:5 ►
For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

What about Fish?
In the 14th chapter of Matthew (verses 13-21) Jesus takes his boat to a remote island. Thousands follow him there. Jesus tells his disciples to feed these people, but the tell him that they only have five loaves of bread and two fish (verse 17). Jesus gave thanks for the food, and it multiplied into enough to feed five thousand people. Now the question is, if Jesus was a vegetarian, why was he giving fish to his followers?

It should be noted that some scholars contend that the Greek word for "fish weed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, and fishweed remains a popular food among Palestinian peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the story (Matthew 14:13) it says Jesus got to this place by boat. These people were right by the sea. If they were out of fish, why not just go on a quick fishing expedition? Surely with 5,000 men present it would not be that hard to go fishing. With this in mind, it further supports the thought that fishweed was being used, not actual fish.

Also, when one considers that the disciples did not even think about trying to catch some fish, this helps explain Matthew 4:18-20, where Jesus gets his first disciples by telling some fishermen to give up their profession and follow him. Jesus even says to them "I will make you a fisher of men". Could this be Jesus was having them give up their barbaric line of work to do something more righteous? It may sound absurd, but it starts to make a little more sense when you take it in the same context as the story of feeding five thousand, where the disciples never even considered trying to catch some fish, despite being beside the sea. Why didn't they go fishing? Did Jesus teach it was wrong to eat fish?

Finally, there is the story of after the resurrection, in Luke 24:42-43, where Jesus eats some fish. This is an interesting story. Some scholars however, have stated that in this verse, the Greek word for fish is "ixous", which happens to be an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today. This argument could go on and on. I would not totally dismiss the concept of Jesus eating fish. Maybe it was possible. There are vegetarians who eat fish, they are called "pesco-vegetarians". Also, it should be noted that in the Catholic church you are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays, but you are still allowed to eat fish. Could this be the result of Jesus' pesco-vegetarian life-style?

More about vegetarian Christianity here:
Vegetarianism in the Bible
*****
Why were some of Jesus’ teachings in the Essene scriptures excluded from or revised in the Bible? Why did Christianity later abandon its vegetarian roots? According to Steven Rosen in his book, Food for the Spirit, “The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible therefore became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down their throats if they were captured.”

At the Root of Christianity Is the Compassion of Vegetarianism

The Gospels were written as late as the 90's and beyond by unknown authors.

"The four canonical gospels, like the rest of the New Testament, were written in Greek, Mark probably c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses."

Gospel - Wikipedia

The disciples and Yeshua most likely only spoke Aramaic amongst themselves. The original content was only an oral Aramaic tradition, then translated by Greek scribes. A single Aramaic word might have 2 or 3 meanings, while the same word in Greek would have just one, the reason some phrases in the Greek NT make little or no sense*. Add to this that the Bible was written in Koine Greek, a common language, and not a scholarly form of Greek, and altogether we have a document that cannot be relied upon for historical or literary accuracy. The disciples may have shared their experiences some 50 years after the fact, but a lot can happen to one's memory in that time span. The four Gospels all differ one from the other as well.

What do you mean? Spiritual truth or historical truth? , both of which can be problematical.

*If you are a serious student of the scriptures, you should avail yourself of the Aramaic Bible, called 'Pesh-itta'. (I had to hyphenate this word due to REF censorship; search without the hypen)

1. You said more than "50 years after" then quote a source to say MUCH earlier than 85 AD. So you've changed your mind?

2. So, when the early Christians used the ICTHUS acronym and said Jesus was a fish and we fish for men and used the fish on tombs and meeting places, they meant seaweed and Jesus was a vegan?

Why are we arguing? Jesus spoke at a last seder where lamb was served, but now you have Jesus giving the "sop" matzo, dipped in the drippings from the meat of the lamb, lamb used for 1,500 years since Moses, to Judah from Kariot--Judas--but it's matzo sopped in the leavings from roasted seaweed?!

3. The rest of your message reads to me as "blah-blah-blah," only idiots trust the NT for accuracy, yet you want me to trust the apocrypha for Jesus's life, when the word means "false writing"! If the NT is distrusted, how do we know this guru Jesus you speak of walked the Earth?!

BilliardsBall · Jun 14, 2018

godnotgod said:
No, you stated that: "IMHO, our eternity hinges on the answer."

I don't see how Jesus dying has anything to do with morally perfecting people. You're talking magic here. Anyway, you're bleeding over into doctrinal belief again. Steer straight and stick to the historical, please.

The necessity to have a utopia is not reform, but moral perfection, as earthly good people would ruin Heaven for others. Jesus offers a logical solution, and since you are with your post discounting the salvation that 12 NT writers spoke of, I cannot take ANYTHING they say as canon, about fish, seaweed, Nazareth or Jesus. So why do you insist Jesus existed--in India or other countries?

godnotgod · Jun 14, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
The necessity to have a utopia is not reform, but moral perfection, as earthly good people would ruin Heaven for others. Jesus offers a logical solution, and since you are with your post discounting the salvation that 12 NT writers spoke of, I cannot take ANYTHING they say as canon, about fish, seaweed, Nazareth or Jesus. So why do you insist Jesus existed--in India or other countries?

There was no such 'Jesus'. There was a man named Yeshua who was a Nazarene, who did not teach the doctrines of blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, nor a virgin birth. These doctrines were overwritten onto Yeshua's teachings by Paul and Rome and modern Christianity was born. Paul brilliantly synthesized three elements to create his new religion: one, Jewish history as backdrop to lend authenticity to the myth; two, the idea of a god-man descending from a heavenly realm as teacher, taken from Gnosticism, and three, the idea of a dying and resurrecting god-man, taken from the mystery religions, in which Paul was immersed in his native Taurus as a child.

"Yeshua (or Yahushua) bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Iesus. The Latin Iesus ("ee-ay-SUS") wasn't pronounced as "Jesus" with a "J" because the letter "j" didn't come into the English language until the middle of the seventeenth century. The King James Bible, written at the beginning of the seventeenth century, has the name Iesous ("ee-ay-sus"), with no "j." So even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until sometime after the middle of the seventeenth century. "

Yeshua before 30 CE

It was the Nazarene named Yeshua who traveled Eastward during those 18 missing years, not 'Jesus'. Yeshua was crucified for the crimes of blasphemy on the one hand and sedition and treason on the other. The doctrines of salvation via blood sacrifice were added later onto the Crucifixion.

The notion of a Last Supper come from Mithraism, in which a Eucharist was held, and the body and flesh of the pagan god Mithra were consumed to gain eternal life.

Mithras was born of a virgin who was given the title of "Mother of God"
Mithras was born on December 25. Before Constantine (a follower of Mithras) changed the date, the birth date Yeshua's followers observed was January 6. However, Yeshua's birth, based on the descriptions, would actually have been in the spring.
Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.
Mithras performed miracles.
Mithras' followers were baptized.
Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.
Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days. (Yeshua rose after a day and a half, but the gospel accounts used the three days to fit with Mithras' story, in spite of the obvious disparity in the timeline.)
Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithras ascended into heaven after finishing his deeds.
Mithras' followers were promised immortality.
Mithras was called “the good shepherd” and identified with both the lamb and the lion.
Mithras was called the “way, the truth and the light,” " logos,” "word," “redeemer,” “savior” and “messiah.”
On the Judgment Day, Mithras would use the keys of heaven to unlock the gates of Paradise to receive the faithful. All the unbaptized living and dead would perish.
Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day” because Mithraism was a sun religion. Yeshua's sacred day was changed from the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, to match Mithras' day.
Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.
Mithras' religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

Since all of these characteristics of Mithras predated Yeshua by fourteen hundred years, Mithraism could not have copied the Yeshua story; it had to be the reverse. These details about Yeshua were not in the earliest sources. They appeared later.

See here for the rest of the story:

Paul and the Mystery Religions

Was 'Jesus' ie; 'Yeshua', really a man of the East?

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Thou art That