Julius Caesar walked this earth around the same time as the alleged Christ. Many people who where alive when Julius Caesar was alive wrote about this amazing man.
No one contemporary to Jesus Christ has bothered to write about the raising of the dead, water into wine, walking on water, the rolling back of the stone, etc.
Discussions of Jesus by Josepheus are dubious at best.
People could read and write in Jesus's time, why no record?
Before I reply with specifics I wanted to ask you to hold on a second cause it will take me a second to write this. I'll be back.
While I do this, though, why do you feel that the "discussions of Jesus by Josephus are dubious at best"? Josephus would never have written in great detail about Jesus because he was Jewish and based on his Judaic faith would not agree that any human could be the son of God. Hence, in his eyes, Jesus was just a man who was "claiming" to be Jesus. Josephus even gies as far as to question whether Jesus could be considered a man. He didn't mean this in a godly fashion, he meant this in an insulting fashion, almost like saying Jesus was a dog. In conclusion, why would Josephus even mention Jesus, and later, his brother, unless they were making some form of impact on the Jewish community of the time. What Josephus' statements demonstrates is that within the first century of Jesus' death, enough people were being tortured and killed because they claimed to have either seen Jesus, or believed the accounts of those who claimed to have seem him. This is evidence that a historical man called Jesus did in fact exist during the time stated in the Bible. I'll be back in a second. Probably with just some comments though cause I have to work tomorrow.
For time's sake, I will only mention one writing that is a non-Christian source and dated around the time of the first century of Jesus's death. These are intended to confirm that there is historical evidence behind the existence of a man called Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, claimed to have risen from the dead, and who had a large following of either witnesses or people who believed the accounts of the first hand witnesses that spoke to them.
Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian called the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Most famous writings include the Histories and the Annals which covers the death of Augustus in AD 14 through to the death of Nero and Domitian in AD 96.
Speaking about Nero he writes "Hence to surpress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. CHRISTUS, THE FOUNDER OF THE NAME, WAS PUT TO DEATH BY PONTIUS PILATE, PROCURATOR OF JUDEA IN THE REGION OF TIBERIUS..." (Annals XV. 44)
I have to go to sleep cause it's late. I'm on the east coast. Feel free to email me for further examples and questions. michaelrosero@sprintpcs.com.
Vithant, I'm sorry to correct you, though it's a minor point. Christ was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar, not Julius. Augustus held the throne of Rome a long time, and the birth of Christ was in the waning years of his reign.
since these threads are supposed to be addressed to jim, I hope the other posters are aware of this minor formality. Since he poses as an expert, at a kigher level than jim. Its obvious vithant has 1st hand knowlege of life 2,000 years ago, what its like to be hunted down and persecuted like a common criminal just for your personal beliefs. Vithant obviously lived in catacombs in Rome his entire live to avoid being thrown to the lions, not knowing who might infiltrate the group and betray it, just like situation Anne Frank family found itself in. Vithant obviously experienced the daily existence of Jews depicted in Schindlers List, Guys like Vithant know how easy it is to obtain writing materials 2,000 years ago under these conditions and could go out on city streets of Rome selling his texts openly without fear of reprisal. Vithant had his own broadband 'Net connection 2,000 years ago to surf the latest Cameron hype.
Its incredible naivite´like this, hallmark of a gnostic indoctrinated robot spouting out this propaganda with no concept of reality. The more I see this old, tired, worn out, used and abused gnostic mantra that surfaces generation after generation appear on these posts I am witnessing info breakdown not info enlightenment. The gainsaying debunking that passes for intellectual comment like Vithant is evidence of this brainwashing. I doubt he is capable of seeing his enslavement to that cult. Posters who agree with vithant give me cause to not only consider thecause and agenda, its to wonder who is pushing the buttons on these robots. I see no difference between a gnostic and a manchurian candidate when it comes to reading thru their litany thread after thread.
Actually Vithant spent his time 2,000 years ago meticulously hunting down the followers of the purported king of the Jews. Vithant was given all of the paper and writing materials he needed by the Romans and the Elders of the Temple. I carefully chronicled all of the miracles preformed by the Messiah and my observations were carefully bound into a very nice book, which is in the Vatican archives. You see, people who were not followers of the divine one could read and write also.
Yes, I agree. The reason I sited Julius Caesar instead of Augustus was, there are theories that the Christ figure was based on Julius Caesar. The amazing thing about the Christ's ministries was the concept of compassion, a very radical concept at the time. This has also been attributed to Julius Caesar
Jim, I wonder if interchanges like these are de rigeur in your classroom? There is supposition but no definition. I will use the following scenario as an example of 'eye witness' description that will only get gainsay negation from the gnostic crowd. If somebody wanted to know what it was like to walk the streets of Jerusalem and go into the original tomb, would somebody accept vithants glib retort of being there, even though his being there is crass sarcasm. I mean pious devoted positive devotional writing with no hidden agenda, I refer to Catherine Emmerich's description of Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Mel Gibson read this account, it inspired him to make his Passion movie.
I will make another observation from the biological and medical world and contrast it to how I perceive the gnostic method of approach to anything, about the concept of obligate parasite, like fungi, to viri(plural of virus), to cancer, who need it to survive. Gnostics had 2,000 years to establish a sturdy, self-reliant, nourishing society and after all this time there is no nation or society on earth composed solely of gnostics, how come? Jesus came to earth to redeem sinners of the world from a deadly cancer so they can be cleansed and join Him in Heaven, What super-duper cancer healer have gnostics provided mankind after 2,000 years?
Just 'cuz someone is a skeptic debunking doubter does not make that person a healer, savior for mankind like Jesus is for believers. All this gnostic inspired smoke screen distraction like debating how many angels can sit on the tip of a needle, makes no connection to the relevance of Cameron's dog and pony show fraud.
jake: YOU ARE WONDER-FULL! spoken like a true Son of God! A million blessings upon you from a living witness to the power and glory of our Super Duper Cancer Healer - among many other miracles. Very well done indeed and I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, like the authors of Sacred Scripture before you, were divinely inspired.
Jake, how come your incredible cancer healer God never told his followers about Germs? That and how to wash your hands before preparing or consuming a meal would have saved millions. Washing of hands before assisting in child birth would have save millions of lives. Washing and cleansing would have contained all of the plagues in Europe.
Washing in the middle ages was considerd unchristian.
vithant, its not my style to go out of my way to insult folks' intelligence when the info stares them in the face. The cancer I made reference to is the only kind of cancer that replicates itself in every generation, that don't automatically kill off its host. I am talking about the burden of apostasy of the original sin that required a redeemer, this sin is a cancer to every soul that is not redeemed. If you and all the rest of the gnostics want to denounce this redemption and tell Jesus to get out of your soul, that's your problem to deal with. True believers in Jesus are so thankful for that redemption they can go thru life and take the abuse gnostics love to dish out and it don't phase them a bit.
Are you sure you didn't throw out the baby with the wash water? I am dealing with a sacrosanct sacred spiritual phenomenon when I describe this part of the persona of Jesus. I am talking about why He came to earth to suffer for folk like you and me, and you trivialize his act of redemption on the same level as washing your hands. I have addressed these logic flaws of gnostics in every topic and threads and see that the grace of God has not penetrated your soul, that is your problem to deal with not mine, nor of any true believer.
YOU have predictably brought out the cath-o-lic denizens, LINtGAL and her petulant apologist side-kick JAKALabc... a proverbial match made in their illusory heaven.
THERE are other sister-threads on "the believability of the NT" and "whether jesus really existed" which contains volumes regarding the deafening silence of the historical records. I researched this topic years ago and have bloged about it on more "progressive" sites. I wrote a synopsis of my findings, along with many quotes from authorities... much of which i have posted on those other threads.
HAVING been indoctrinated into the protestant, christian church as a child... even to the point of being a youth minister", i still had a small voice of doubt whispering to me... even as i proselytized others. AS i began to fall away from "organized religion", which as an adult, seeing the rank hypocrisy, was easy to do, i still had not faced those disquieting voices and considered myself a "believer".
PERHAPS it was unavoidable, but finally i embarked on the journey and i was basically blown away not only by the evidence that exposed the bible as literary fiction and jesus as "messiah" as pure mythos... but terribly shaken at the perversity of the early "church fathers" who were motivated by a political-power agenda and were ruthless in their persecution and suppression of opposing views.
FROM my essay:
What then did the many historians & scribes say of this jesus fellow... working his miracles... followed by "multitudes" (Mt. 4:24: known throughout "all of Syria")... this "son of the living god"? Surely, there is a solid, historical record as this was a very literate time, with at least thirty or forty noted pagan writers during the alleged time of jesus. Among all these writers, who works were voluminous, we only have meager, tenuous references from just three: Pliny, Seutonius & Tacitus, who wrote at the beginning of the second century, long after the alleged god-man's death. Let's take a look, shall we?
PLINY the younger: a governor in asia minor... wrote a very short memo to the Emperor Trajan (112 CE) regarding how to best deal with unruly, agitating 'christians' ...but alas, no historical references to a unique jesus or christ.
SUETONIUS (Life of the Ceasars): merely documents around 120 CE the Emperor Claudius (41-54 CE) expelled the Jews from Rome: "since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of CHRESTUS, he expelled them from Rome". However, one very large problem for apologists: there is absolutely no evidence putting jesus in Rome! Futhermore, 'Chrestus' in not a misspelling and means "The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "the Messiah"...and of course, many Jews of that era claimed this status. Thus, we just have another account of unruly jews (not christians) causing problems for the Roman state.
TACITUS (55-12-CE): in his extensive 30 volume history, Annals of Imperial Rome, only this terse account (vol. 15, chapter 44) of the fire in Rome (64 CE), regarding Nero blaming the christians: "Nero fabricated as scapegoats, and punished with every refinement, the notoriously depraved christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, one Christus, has been executed in Tiberius' reign by the PROCURATOR of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital".
Tacitus was, like Pliny, an imperial governor, and clearly familiar with the troublesome christians, is writing at least 70 years hence (after 117CE). His report was temporally remote & could only reflect what he has in turn heard, or mere (biased, from christians?) hearsay. It is hightly doubtful that Nero would need a scapegoat for a fire he almost certainly did not initiate. Also, it is unthinkable that the Imperial Tacitus would refer to jesus as "christus" or messiah, as this would make sense only to christian readers. The passage goes on to allege that there were an enormous multitude of christians in Rome at the time of the fire, which is absurd, as there was not such a multitude in any locale, even Judea. The Romans kept extensive and detailed legal records, and yet, there was NO such record of a trial or execution under Pontius Pilate! What is most interesting, is the error of refering to Pilate as the 'procurator' of Judea, when in fact, he was the Roman PREFECT! The title procurator refered to a Roman administrative office in the second-half of the first century, a bit suspect to say the very least, and clearly reveals that no official Roman records were consulted, as none exist. Perhaps the most notorious christian apologist, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica" (325 CE) inexplicably does not include this passage among his "pagan" references to christ.... not to mention the fact that Tertulian, who often quoted Tacitus, nor any other apologist seems to be aware of its existence.
Finally, read what scholar Dr. Gordon Stein wrote in 1982: "Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing." Even the Catholic University scholar John P. Meier allows that Tacitus and Pliny do not help to establish Jesus' historicity: [they] "reflect what they have heard Christians of their own day say", and so are not "independent extracanonical sources" (art. in Biblica, vol. 80 (1999), p. 466)
Of course, writers like: Seneca (4BCE-65CE) among Rome's most prolific writers; Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE), Quintilian (39-96CE), Plutarch (46-119 CE), Epictetus (55-135 CE), Apollonius, Lucanus, Ptolemy, Hermogeones, Columella...Valerius Flaccus & Valerius Maximus, among others, were absolutely silent on the alleged 'god made flesh'...astounding!
Tacitus, as well as Josephus (below), also wrote of Hercules, the most famous mythic god-man of the Greeks, with "believers", dedicated temples, and whose "life" parallels to some degree that of the alleged jesus, as if he and other mythic godmen were "real" historical figures. A rational person is left to conclude, much like Albert Schweitzer after his exhaustive search, that this alleged god-man jesus, never had any real historical existence.
The JEWISH HISTORIANS:
PHILO Judaeus (20BCE - 50CE): a Greek speaking jewish philosopher and theologian who lived near Jerusalem & would have been a contemporary of the alleged jesus... was a prolific writer, perhaps the greatest Jewish-Greek historian... relates much about Pontius Pilate, but NEVER MENTIONS JESUS, the Christ! The fact that a jesus figure is utterly absent from his writings, which included matters spiritual and many themes reflected in the NT, is absolutely crushing to those hoping some credible evidence of a jewish god-man actually exists. ["Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not." -John E. Remsburg, "The Christ : A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence", 1909.]
JUSTUS of Tiberius (1st century): importantly, Justus lived near Capernaum in Galilee, where jesus allegedly visited often, and like Philo does not spare a single word for a resurrected messiah, in his lengthy history of his time... back to that of Moses! Though his writings have been lost in time, his works were referenced by the 9th century scholar, Photius the christian patriarch of Constantinople (Bibleotheca, Code 33) in the late 9th century: "of the advent of Christ, of the things that befell him one way or another, or of the miracles that he performed, (Justus) makes absolutely no mention."
Flavius JOSEPHUS (Antiquities 93 CE): a native of Judea, a Pharisee and governor of Galilee... writting about the same time as other (unknown) gospel writers, noted every important event and person in Palestine through 70 CE. However, he has but one isolated paragragh, often quoted by desparate Christian apologists, searching for their ephemeral, historical jesus. This paragraph was a clear interpolation, a forgery, as it is completely intrusive into the narrative and it is not written in the author's style. This interpolation has this orthodox Jewish author dutifully summarizing Jesus' life & teaching ...his status as the Messiah...his crucifixtion & resurrection...and the 'tribe of Christians'...in essence the whole mythology of christianity crammed into just ONE paragrapgh (Testimonium Flvainum), but then unexplicably, follows that narrative with: "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..."! Of course, removing the passage, allows the original narrative to flow logically, which was indeed a series of harrowing stories which have befallen the Jews. Further, it is utterly illogical for Jesephus to compare the christ narrative to "another sad clamity which put Jews into disorder", since that sort of sentiment would only make sense to a christian propagandist!!
[Dr. Nathaniel Lardner (in 1838), a very capable christian apologist, quotes Bishop Warburton in his scholarly "Works", Vol. I, chap. iv: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too"]
Additonal strong evidence that the good Pharisee, Josephus, would have never written such an account, comes from the early church father, Origen, a meticulous scholar, who acknowledged that Josephus did NOT believe in Jesus as 'the Christ'. In fact, the pro Roman sympathizer, Josephus, did not believe in ANY jewish messiahs (& there were various ones about), but accepted the Roman Emperor Vespasian as the prophesied one, because he was declared Emperor, when in Judea! Further, Origen was known to have used quotes from "Antiquities" in his debates on the merits of christianity with Celsus, but never quotes the "Testimonium", which indicates the passages were added later.
Futhermore, the early apologist Clement of Alexandria, would have certainly utilized this alleged 'historical' passage from Josephus's Antiquites, but of course, since it was inserted later, he never does. It suddenly appears in the 4th century, when Bishop Eusebius (a notorious church propagandist and close ally of Constantine) obtains a manuscript of Antiquities in which the "Testimonium" miraculously appears! Strangely, other copies of the Antiquities do NOT contain this discredited passage. A scholar named Vossius, in the sixteen century, had a manuscript of Josephus, in which the passage was absent! In fact, not a single apologist writing before the 4th century like Clement above or Justin Martyr, Jerome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and others, seems to be aware of this "blockbuster" passage in "Antiquities"! Eusebius freely admits his penchant for embellishment: In his "Evangelical Demonstration", after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss. if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book III, p. 124).
The only other mention in Antiquities, refers to the killing of "James, the brother of Jesus , him called Christ', and his trial before the Sanhedrin. There is good reason to believe that the reference was modified, as Josephus would have likely referred to a (generic) "James, the Brother of the Lord". Also, it may have refered to "James the Just" (an historical figure), who had the title: "Brother of the Lord". Further, the phrase "him called Christ" typified christian, not jewish, authors and appears in Matthew (1:16) and John 4:25-26! There are also some manuscripts where this passage is absent as well.
As telling as the above, is the glaring omission in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, which despite detailing the reign of King Herod, especially the many brutalities, somehow neglects to even mention the gospel account (Matt 2:16) of the King's horrific "slaughter of innocents" by his legions: the systematic killing of all male infants in or around Bethlehem of 2 years or less. Of course, the gospel writers set the stage for the "divine" sparing of the christ child. This massively brutal event is corroborated by not a single historian, and is truly inexplicable, unless the event was completely fictional. Clearly a "rehash" of the midrashic OT fable of Moses' "providencial" sparing from the infanticidal pharoah.
NOW, based on the above alone, who could possibly argue for an "historical jesus" on the one hand, while claim sanity on the other?
ECONOMIST asserted a "the correct" time of the ephemeral jesus's birth... BUT consider the following:
JESUS also could not even predict the time between his alleged death and resurrection, in Matt 12:40, he declares 3 days, but according to the other synoptic gospels, it was only half that time... perhaps the out-of-body experiences were so upseting, they lost track of time?
EVEN worse, are the contradicting geneologies of jesus in Matt and Luke, desparately attempting to link him to the "house of David" as required by OT messianic prophesy, while ignoring the illogical absurdity of a "virgin birth".
THESE contrived and conflicted family trees are transparent attempts to satisfy jewish messianic expectations. In Matt's account Joseph is the son of Jacob, while Luke asserts Heli to be Joseph's father... and the lineages couldn't be more different, with Luke confabulating past David to a fictional "Adam" and "god", just for good measure!
THE alleged dates of jesus's birth are even no better than at least a 10 year discrepancy: Matt 2:1 (during Herod, who died 4 B.C.E.) versus Luke 2:2 (during Quirinius, Prefect of Judea, after 6 C.E.)!
IT is essentially true that the "jesus legend" is are the mystery cults in jewish, messianic garb.
AGAIN, an excerpt from my essay:
According to the scholarly authors Freke and Gandy in the acclaimed "The Jesus Mysteries", the early church propagandists were so concerned regarding the obvious parallels between the Osiris-Dionysus legends and their christ, they sought to discredit the Pagan Mystery religions by claiming it was somehow the work of the "devil": a "diabolical mimicry"!
The authors quote the philosopher Celsus (see below) who takes the christians to task for claiming their god-man legend superior: "Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed?... In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."
The church fathers were literally grasping at straws and standing logic on its head when they baldly asserted that the evil-genius-devil had set in motion, through unwitting pagans, these myths in sly anticipation of the coming of the "real savior", as a massively devious plot to mislead gullible humans. Tertullian whines mcuh like LINtGAL and JAKEabf): "The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacrements. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and therby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine." This quote from one one of the most recognized church fathers is the proverbial "smoking-gun" of the lengths these "ends justify the means" unethical apologists would go to establish their literalist religion.
It also points to the obvious pagan roots of the christ myth. Suffice it to say, there is not one aspect of the christ-myth which was not wholly prefigured by the pagan mystery religious cults.
IT thus becomes clear, these fragmented, illogical accounts which comprise the New Testament, only makes sense as a mythic, allegorical construct of a god-man jesus-myth, in much the same way as the pagan mystery religions that came before and heavily influenced how all people of this time viewed "reality".
THE god-men of the mystery religions included: Osiris (Egypt), Dionysus (Greece), Bacchus (Italy), Mithras (Persia), Attis (Asia Minor), Adonis (Syria), among others. Knowledge of a (Pauline) 'christ', which existed before time, comes from knowledge through the word ("logos") of the "inner mystery" teachings, just as with the influential pagan Mysteries.
THE jesus-myth was simply the inevitable result of a partial introduction of the vulnerable Diaspora jews to the various pagan mystery god-men, set in a messianic OT context, after the annilation of Jerusalem (64-70CE). The cult of Dionysus ("the true vine", see John 15:1) was influential, but was ultimately rejected by them and instead seized upon by the untutored masses and twisted into an historical account to satisfy fanatics, some of whom martyred themselves.
THIS simplistic, fundamentalist mentality was clearly encouraged by the bishops to secure the power of the emerging church, under the aegis of Imperial Rome. The ruthless Emperor Constantine shrewdly utilized the blind followers of the growing cult to solidify power and unify his disparite empire (321CE)... culminating in his edict to the literalist bishops to concoct an "official" authoritative christian doctrine at the Council of Niceae (325CE).
JAKE wrote: [quote]Gnostics had 2,000 years to establish a sturdy, self-reliant, nourishing society and after all this time there is no nation or society on earth composed solely of gnostics, how come? Jesus came to earth to redeem sinners of the world from a deadly cancer so they can be cleansed and join Him in Heaven, What super-duper cancer healer have gnostics provided mankind after 2,000 years?Gnostics had 2,000 years to establish a sturdy, self-reliant, nourishing society and after all this time there is no nation or society on earth composed solely of gnostics, how come? [/quote]
Anyone ever heard of Constantine I, the ROMAN EMPIRE and the first Council of Nicea?
It took over 1200 years for Protestants to finally hack off a good portion of the original version of the Roman Bible. The Romans did a fine job of putting down the Gnostics and other non-Roman believers but didn't finish the job. They left too many manuscripts floating around to show how the Gnostics believed.
Just as Roman roads are still in use and Roman aqueducts still stand, the NT remains a fine bit of Roman propoganda to this day. The Romans were well versed in the power of State Religions and Constantine, while remaining a pagan until his dying breath, saw that the Roman cause would best be sustained by riding the wave of god-man worship that was most widely practiced in Mathric worship and, with the help of Saul of Tarsus, transformed into the practices that would create the framework for Christian dogma and doctrine.
spin-oza, What is the date today? You are about 2,000 years too late to make a difference, history is called history 'cuz its all over, just like last weeks sports event. To go thru these re-hashes of re-hashes which were re-hashed in every century, won't make what happened 2,000 years ago come back to life. There isn't a gnostic on the planet who can duplicate what Jesus accomplished.
The only reason gnosticism has been around so long is that something has to be a warm up act to intro antichrist to the world stage, are you trying to be casted as the false prophet? Do you come to these threads looking for supporters who share this fatalistic compulsion to speed up the demise of the planet?
I assume you are upset with me is 'cuz I tripped over your marbles in the sandbox and they ran out with the sands of time never to re-surface again. You have lost your marbles and you will never be the same again, you poor bay-bee. I can get you a replacement set, buy they ain't tarnished with a gnostic patina to them like the ossuaries. You made a fatal gaffe´when you assumed Cameron's bones are legit, when the bone picker crowd of archaeologists all denounce that dog and pony show as a fraud.
Nobody ever said you couldn't have an opinion, everybody has an opinion, just like everybody has a nether sphincter, in your case and the gnostic crowds' case you folk pack in more detritus to dump as effluvia on the world in order to raise as much stink as possible with your gnostic spin in order to get attention. You have regressed so far back and remain bogged down in this primordial state you are dwelling in it would meet Freuds notion of a person who regressed to their a--l retentive stage of development, I have to couch it this way so I won't get censored.
I go out objectively from your demonstrated performance, even to your childish retorts, have you forgotten what young kids say when they experience this cockroach level mentality, 'sticks and stones, etc..I don't need to label you, you do that all by yourself, I am just functioning as a messenger to folk perusing these threads to inform them of what kind of mine field they are entering.
zaphod, I am perplexed by your response. Are you saying gnostics are incompetent parasites? Do you actually believe there isn't a chunk of earth where gnostics could migrate to and remain undisturbed. Look at Africa, Australia, South America, Canada they have huge expanses of nearly people free areas that could be re-settled. Why can't there be an aliya for gnostics to go to this utopia like there is an aliya for Jews to migrate to Israel? The only thing I see stopping this utopia is gnostics themselves, they are friable, not viable. They 1st have to create a strong self-sustaining core for the rest of these parasitic gnostics to survive. The rest of the world would not even know you folk were gone from civilized society. I dare say when the rest of the world found out gnostics were creating their own homeland they would get tons of money thrown at them, with the proviso they remain in their utopia. Do honestly think Christian believers will storm your utopia like the King of France did at Montsegur.
It is a different story altogether if you create this utopia with the intention of overthrowing every society that disagress with gnosticism. You say clipping out some words from a book emasculated gnostics forever more and reduced you to being eunuchs? if you don't mean that, just what do you mean? What you say has to be interpreted to fit into todays' world, not what happened 1,500 years ago, nobody lives that long not even Methusalah.
