Jesus did not have a twin in the context of sibling.
Jesus had a Twin Proof!!!
by skyman 68 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
skyman
I had the same questions as you Leolaia. The scholar that lives here had nothing at all to do with Bushby nor does he know him. I questioned him and asked why I can't I find a Google search on alot of this? He said try to find a Google search about the cross that quotes Catholic books and then gives the whole book to you on a download, Then imagine the chruch not wanting you to know what the book say's. You never find it an Google only by buying the book or going to the source. He said the sources of Bushby and his sources are quotes from can't just find and then copied by every Tom, Dick and Hairy. So the man showed me his personal copies. He copied whole books and then had them hard binded So if you want to proove Bushby wrong you need to go and look at Bushby's refferences and not use GOOGLE searches. He showed me copies of old texts saying what The Book by Bushby of prooving The man showed me records from the Utah lybrary that shock the world that I know.. He says with out a doubt that Bushby is correct. Bushby's thinking has come from bushby life long study into the bible. Here is a quot from an other historian named Robert Adams Robert says he has never read the book by Bushby
"Constantine saw in this developing system of belief the opportunity to make a combined state religion and protect it by law. The first general church council was thus convened and the year was 325. On 21 June, the day of the Summer Solstice, (and under those cult conditions) a total of 2048 "presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered at Nicaea to decide what Christianity really was, what it would be, what writings were to be used and who was to be it's God. Ancient church evidence established that a new 'god' was to be approved by the Roman Emperor and an earlier attempt (circa 210) to deify either Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus (or somebody else) had been 'declined'. Therefore, as late as 325, the Christian religion did not have an official god. After a long and bitter debate, a vote was finally taken and it was with a majority show of hands that Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God (161votes for and 157 votes against)."
The Emperor effectively joined elements of the two individual life stories of the twin brothers into a singular creation . I can see that you are an passonate person I hope your passion serve you well. But Logic tells me at least I smell something wrong with the story of the Jesus of the bible
-
Shining One
>Nor is there evidence that Jesus was one historical person. What we have is layers of tradition by competing sects editing the story.
I'd be interested in seeing this assertion proven. Also, if this is more "jesus seminar' rot then there is very little truth and a whole lot of speculation. The evidence of the the personhood of Jesus of Nazareth is not in question except in the fringe sensationalists that you are trashing here.
Rex -
hibiscusfire
Are you talking to me Rex?
-
sinis
Even the Society admidts that there is a problem with the date of Harods death and Jesus birth. You see Hellrider King Harod was dead years before Jesus of the bibles birth. Such an impertant bible story is not mentioned in any of the other Gosples more than likely the reason is it did not happen. This is another exsample I am talking about.
Since when has the Society gotten anything correct? Luke's account shows that the Christ was born around 8 B.C. during the reign of Augustus and his second census (Quirinius was governor of Syria - According to E.M. Blaiklock, however, evidence has been found that shows that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour of duty, right around the time that Christ was born. He wasn't there as governor but in some other leadership capacity. Therefore, it is possible that Luke is alluding to this in 2:2. ). This fits as most scholars tend to believe that Christ was born around 7-4 BC. Not sure where you are getting that Herod died before Christ was born, considering he died around 4 BC.
-
Shining One
Acadian,
>Skyman your on the right track, keep up the good work.
With this bunch of lunatic assertions?
>It's funny that people put so much faith in a book (the Bible) when the facts/history show that the early Roman church change much of the meaning of Jesus words for their own agenda.
Really, where did you get that notion? What group of writers make this presumption and what are their qualifications?
>The fact that many writings are not included in the NT is because they are against church policy.
Again, if this is provable please give us some evidence.
>It's hard to have control of people when they know the truth, so lets, change, re-word, remove, and make it up as we go, so the people will never understand what Jesus really said.
What's the motive for doing that when a Roman judge is getting ready to crucify you and the rest of your family?
>And it ain't what the churches teach today.
And you have no idea what you are talking about.
>Your right on Skyman !!!
LOL
No Regards,
Shining One -
Hellrider
Even the Society admidts that there is a problem with the date of Harods death and Jesus birth. You see Hellrider King Harod was dead years before Jesus of the bibles birth. Such an impertant bible story is not mentioned in any of the other Gosples more than likely the reason is it did not happen. This is another exsample I am talking about.
I know that Herod died sometime before year 0. Most scholars agree that Jesus wasn`t born this year, but that he was born sometime between year 4 and 7 BC, which would also explain the astronomical phenomenon of the bright shining star over that stable (which was possibly a cluster of stars) - there is no astronomical data that suggests such a constellation of stars in the year 0, but there were phenomenons like these a few years earlier. The first few centuries of christianity as a cult, and later on, as a major religious movement, had no knowledge of these things, and so they missed a few years on their datings. It`s no big deal, and no big mystery. You should listen to what Leolaia`s trying to explain you.
-
skyman
If Jesus of the bible is true he also had to be married. Why would I say that, because he was a Rabi don't say it just means teacher as the society says for a answer. The jewish leaders called him Rabi they never would of called him by that Tittle if he was not an offical RABI that went to the schools of higher education. To be a Rabi a Isrealite must be married. Period, end of discussion, he was married if the Jesus of the bible is correct. Jew's at age twelve was betroved a wife, Jesus was of Royal blood and was in line to be King if the Romans departed do think for one moment this futher leader of the Jew did not get a wife betroved to him.
-
Leolaia
You never find it an Google only by buying the book or going to the source.
Right, that's why I asked for the sources that Bushby cites. Surely you have the book, right?
He said the sources of Bushby and his sources are quotes from can't just find and then copied by every Tom, Dick and Hairy.
I have no idea what you mean here.
So the man showed me his personal copies. He copied whole books and then had them hard binded
Right, just let me know what the sources are. I have full access to early patrological sources. I have read this stuff for years and I can assure you that Bushby's claims are totally off the wall compared to what I know from primary sources. Just give me original sources so we can discuss it.
So if you want to proove Bushby wrong you need to go and look at Bushby's refferences and not use GOOGLE searches.
My point about "Presbyter Albius Theodoret" is that every single reference to him on google is found in references to the Bible Fraud. That's not a good sign. There is already a tremendous amount of patristic and reference material online and such a person is found nowhere. This is not proof, but it is evidence that "Albius Theodoret" is an invention of Bushby (or whatever fringe source he is using). Since Bushby has also presented fictional stories about "Judas Khrestus" and the council of AD 325 as historical "fact", I find his reference to "Albius Theodoret" to be similarly dubious. Why don't you give me Bushby's reference, so I can fact-check it for you.
Again, I don't object at all to a critical investigation of the evidence of early Christianity; I indulge in it quite a bit. What I find highly objectionable is the fabrication of evidence itself. Having endured the intellectual dishonesty of the WTS, I am a bit sensitive to this. The Bible Fraud is looking more and more like a fraud.
He showed me copies of old texts saying what The Book by Bushby of prooving The man showed me records from the Utah lybrary that shock the world that I know.. He says with out a doubt that Bushby is correct.
Great. Just name me the sources and "old texts". I would sincerely doubt any Nicene scholar would find Bushby's claims about AD 325 as anything other than laughable.
Here is a quot from an other historian named Robert Adams Robert says he has never read the book by Bushby
"Constantine saw in this developing system of belief the opportunity to make a combined state religion and protect it by law. The first general church council was thus convened and the year was 325. On 21 June, the day of the Summer Solstice, (and under those cult conditions) a total of 2048 "presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered at Nicaea to decide what Christianity really was, what it would be, what writings were to be used and who was to be it's God. Ancient church evidence established that a new 'god' was to be approved by the Roman Emperor and an earlier attempt (circa 210) to deify either Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus (or somebody else) had been 'declined'. Therefore, as late as 325, the Christian religion did not have an official god. After a long and bitter debate, a vote was finally taken and it was with a majority show of hands that Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God (161votes for and 157 votes against)."
LOL....you're kidding, right? This is from a review of The Bible Fraud by Robert Adams (see http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm); why are you presenting this as an independent account by a "historian" (who says he's a historian?) who had not read Bushby's book? What is more, Adams' "review" is plagiarized from the book itself, as Margaret Churchill, admin at thebiblefraud.com notes, that it "was taken from the book with no acknowledgement of the source" (http://www.rense.com/general30/straight.htm). Compare what you posted with what Churchill presented as having been written by Bushby himself:
Constantine saw in this developing system of belief the opportunity to make a combined state religion and protect it by law. In the declining years of the Roman Empire, the power over the people thus passed from the state to the church! The first general church council of the Catholic Church was convened in the year 325. On 21 June, the day of the Summer Solstice, (and under those occult conditions) a total of 2048 "presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered at Nicaea to decide what Christianity really was, what it would be, what writings were to be used and who was to be it's God. They were described as "a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing". After a long and bitter debate, a vote was finally taken and it was with a majority show of hands that Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God (161 votes for and 157 votes against). The Emperor effectively joined elements of the two individual life stories of the twin brothers into a singular creation.
-
sinis
If Jesus of the bible is true he also had to be married. Why would I say that, because he was a Rabi don't say it just means teacher as the society says for a answer. The jewish leaders called him Rabi they never would of called him by that Tittle if he was not an offical RABI that went to the schools of higher education. To be a Rabi a Isrealite must be married. Period, end of discussion, he was married if the Jesus of the bible is correct. ; Jew's at age twelve was betroved a wife, Jesus was of Royal blood and was in line to be King if the Romans departed do think for one moment this futher leader of the Jew did not get a wife betroved to him.
This is a good article to read: http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/scripture/was_jesus_married.htm