Christianity a fake! - new shit has come to light!

[meekon5]

Caesar's Messiah: "Christianity was invented by a little known family of Roman Caesars, the Flavians; and they left us documents to prove it"

Try this on for size:

http://www.covertmessiah.com/

http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/

[DigitalBuddha]

Dead religion.....

[Bullett00th]

I'm sorry but I find it ironically funny when someone calls a religion 'fake'. What do you put in the word 'fake'? As in, artificial? Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people.

I'm gonna take a good look at this later on, thanks. Also, Jesus seems like a very chilled out dude. Which is why all the dogmas and rules of christianity don't dound like something he would preach, IMO.


P.S. It feels amazing to openly discuss my views on the matter that on any other social communication portal would have been either taboo or a reason for flaming. This is indeed a dudely place.

[LotsaBadKarma]

I guess I stand somewhere toward the agnostic side of this whole argument. As far as Jesus is concerned I, personally, have no problem with believing that Jesus once walked the earth spreading his philosophy any more than I have a problem believing that Abraham Lincoln or George Washington walked the earth at one time as well. I've also wondered whether Jesus, the Buddha, and Mohammed were one and the same and the written word of their visits changed according to where in the world one happened to be during the reading.

As far as a holy ghost is concerned, well, I find that concept a little more difficult. There's a question that I've asked a few Christians when they started to explain why they're so sorrowful that I haven't accepted Jesus Christ as my eternal lord and savior and assured myself a place in the kingdom of heaven which, according to them is the ultimate paradise that we should all aspire to. When this shit starts I usually ask them if heaven is such a great place and one should work toward getting a spot there then why do they look both ways before crossing the street? I mean if God's will dictates when we're going to be taken up and if heaven is the greatest of all things then why are they so afraid to go there? In a way their actions in terms of crossing the street and wearing seat belts belies their own lack of the faith that they insist everyone else should have. That was kind of a long winded way of saying that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to do the one thing that's necessary to get there.

Maybe I'm being too hard on them.

[Hominid]

Caesar's Messiah: "Christianity was invented by a little known family of Roman Caesars, the Flavians; and they left us documents to prove it"

Try this on for size:

http://www.covertmessiah.com/



http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/

Been hearing rumblings about this.  Makes sense to me, as it seems no one is able to actually prove Jesus existed.

[DigitalBuddha]

Caesar's Messiah: "Christianity was invented by a little known family of Roman Caesars, the Flavians; and they left us documents to prove it"

Try this on for size:

http://www.covertmessiah.com/



http://disinfo.com/2013/10/christianity-ancient-roman-psy-op/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/

Been hearing rumblings about this.  Makes sense to me, as it seems no one is able to actually prove Jesus existed.

I think he existed, but what many people claim about him is nonsense.  That's just like my opinion, man.

[Caesar dude]

There is not on shred of historical evidence to prove that Jesus walked on this planet. He is an allegory a made up man.

[DigitalBuddha]

There is not on shred of historical evidence to prove that Jesus walked on this planet. He is an allegory a made up man.

Well, dude, we just don't know...........

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93-94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.

It don't matter to Jesus! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[meekon5]

What do you put in the word 'fake'? As in, artificial? Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people...

Prove that statement conclusively please.

(please don't think I am disagreeing with you, but if you are going to make a statement as broad as that I'm sorry but I believe you have to back it up).

[meekon5]

There is not on shred of historical evidence to prove that Jesus walked on this planet. He is an allegory a made up man.

There is a mention in the Dead Sea Scrolls actually.  So I'm led to believe, but even this may be dodgy.

[Hominid]

Josephus' accounts of Jesus were not in his original writings; they were forged in at a later date (4th century, by Catholics).  And - Josephus wasn't born till 37 AD, so he wasn't even an "eye witness".  This reference to Jesus is the ONLY secular reference to his existence, so in my books, he's a fake. So many other detailed historical references are made to countless other occurrences from that era, and yet all they can find about Jesus is one small shred of evidence, which itself is highly suspect?  Doesn't cut the mustard for me!

[meekon5]

If you look at the early christian church there was as many versions of the "faith" as there were disciples. In fact multiple versions of the multiple versions.

Also it is generally accepted that most of the new testament was not written until about eighty years after the fact, and usually reported third party not first person from the desciples.

It's only through some very clever elimination by the Romans that the Roman (and Orthodox, both Greek and Russian, being branches of the same) version of the christian doctrine became the dominant flavour. If you look at their destruction of the Coptic, and Arian churches, and any of the other smaller versions, in a bid to become dominant

Also there are the letters of St. Stephen that prescribe which texts will make up the new testament, excluding some in favour of others. Do also see the list of texts from the dead sea scrolls, a collection of Coptic Church texts, and witness the reference to the gospel according to Mary Magdalene and the gospel according to Thomas the doubter. Excluded as heretical by later "Editors" of the bible.

[Bullett00th]

What do you put in the word 'fake'? As in, artificial? Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people...

Prove that statement conclusively please.

(please don't think I am disagreeing with you, but if you are going to make a statement as broad as that I'm sorry but I believe you have to back it up).

I can't.
Same as none can prove that their religion was given to them by a deity or multiple deities. It's often either a messiah or just astronomical knowledge with personified celestial bodies.

[Rev Paddy Cakes]

There are always different realities. I am not talking about different dimensions or anything like that. What I am talking about is, at this point, it doesn't really make a huge difference whether Jesus was "real" or an allegory. Really, at this point, he is an allegory because of his representations in texts (many texts, rewritten and translated, selectively quoted, made to fit pre-existing political and religious agendas, etc) as are major figures in the mythology of other religions, political movements, and peoples' histories. One text is never the whole story, something that is impossible to achieve anyways.

If you adopt the stance of belief in many truths instead of one Truth, ignorance, and the abiding with the fact that no one is ever "right" or "wrong," there are big steaming piles of freedom and liberation you can jump into and play with. One of the reasons I love Dudeism so much, in spite of largely concentrating on one figure (our own sandaled, long haired "prophet"), it is not the type of ethos that says you may only look at one text, a Logos, that determines everything. I look for Dudely moments in everything: newspaper articles, movies, fiction and non-fiction (and the grey areas between), any and all religious texts, etc. And I may be doing the exact same thing that Christian authors may have done, but if you just say "fuck it" and Abide... we return to those big steamy piles we jumped into earlier.

And in spite of the generalizations of the statement ...

Well all of them are. Each and every one of them was made up, written down and distributed for and by other people.

... I am inclined to agree to an extent. Even if there were some sort of divine inspiration, every religion shifts with every person who embraces it, writes about it, talks about it. M5, I would like to know what you think about when you consider the alternatives of man-made religion.
And I'll close off the old rambling here.

[DigitalBuddha]

Josephus' accounts of Jesus were not in his original writings; they were forged in at a later date (4th century, by Catholics).  And - Josephus wasn't born till 37 AD, so he wasn't even an "eye witness".  This reference to Jesus is the ONLY secular reference to his existence, so in my books, he's a fake. So many other detailed historical references are made to countless other occurrences from that era, and yet all they can find about Jesus is one small shred of evidence, which itself is highly suspect?  Doesn't cut the mustard for me!

BULLSHIT! He was recently spotted preaching to the people on the lanes...