Who was Jesus really? (page 5)

LittleToe

Skyman:
Regardless of however much they burn, the record is eternally accessible by all. It's not as far off as you might imagine...

I allmost wish the Roman Chatholic Chruch would of done a better job covering everthing up. My struggle is excatly that there is a record ieternally accessible. WOW life would have been alot easier if the had done a better job.

Jake99

And when the life of Christ is exposed to you again, will you look at the evidence that lies before you, or call him a madman and nail him to the cross? He is who you say he is, and does what you say he does, and he leaves a tremendous trail to follow this time. Are you smart enough to look at the facts of this Christ, or do you continue to research the last one?

JamesThomas

Dear Ross, I see you as a brother of the dearest kind, and could not harbor ill will towards you if I tried. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding.

Strangely, I kind of sense that every new posts may be my last, and so cut to the chase, so to speak.

I agree some posts can seem arrogant, but I am not pointing to me or acting as if i have something you don't, but rather pointing strongly to whoever is reading. There is the most valuable gift sitting right here that we miss because it is difficult for us to shift our gaze from our presumed brokenness and isolation, and have a strong habit of placing supreme-significance seperate from where or what we truly are, right now.

I have found that much clarification has arisen in those times when there arose hurt or offence. So please do not just shrug it off if there was some. Look and see what dynamics are unfolding. Perhaps there are layers of the onion being raised or torn up. No one said it would be painless. That said, only the false illusion of self can be hurt or wounded, our actual Self, is always pristine and untouchable.

j

skyman

Jake please inlight me alittle more. I would to understand what you just said

Spectrum

Skyman,
Thanks for that. Very facinating. But is it just another wacky theory or does it stand up to strong scholarly scrutiny?

"In your link above how does the author Know this?"
I think by reading the bias of the text you can tell who it is aimed at if aimed at anyone at all.
Narkissos is good at this stuff. I think in his posts he alluded to this kind of knowledge so it's not so far fetched.

"That is total conjecture he don’t know what the author is doing is leading you to a point of his choosing."
The above is a very important point that you make. I really despise it when I am manipulted by peoples argument only to find out later that I have been mislead and my brain filled with nonsense. It's happened to ne in the past and I resist that strongly now as a consequence I sometimes throw the baby out with the bath water.
Judas Khrestus - Never heard of this guy what do the Romans say about him. Would he not be big news in Christendom? I don't think that the Romans would concern themselves with the real Christ because they had an Empire to run. Internal jewish religious affairs even if they understood them probably didn't interest them.

Regarding Thomas, are you talking about the apocrypha. It's because it wasn't in agreement that it was left out. It just didn't fit in with the vision of the bible and NT.

skyman

You should all listin to this Bible reaseacher to hear what he say's about how accurate the gospels

click by Terry Gross

here is the link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

skyman

Clicking on listin does not work so just go to the link page and then click on listin from there

Narkissos

I have research the claim that portions of Mark was found in the dead see scrolls and I think it probably does

This is Thiede's claim on the micro-fragment 7Q5 and I find it unconvincing to say the least: http://divinity.mcmaster.ca/pages/jgrchj/volume2/JGRChJ2-2_Forster.pdf

The Romans talk in depth about him but he did not have the name Jesus, his name was Judas Khrestus.

Which Romans? By googling "Judas Khrestus" I find nothing but a highly controversial book by a certain Tony Bushby. What are the ancient sources to back it up (apart from the famous reference to "Chrestus" in Suetonius, which is way too far and too late to prove anything about the early 1st century)?

Josephus writing about Jesus does not make sense because no Roman would write such a glamorous article about a Jewish dog.

Josephus was a pro-Roman Jew.

Thomas was Jesus brother according to the Bible we have today.

Not really. This is just a popular yet dubious assumption from the meaning of his name (= Didymos, "twin").

Thomas book is older than the manuscripts of the other gospels making it the authority book or the closest to Jesus.

I don't think so. While some fragments in the Oxyrynchus papyrii attest, at least, a 2nd-century date, this doesn't make it (and even less the complete copy found in Nag Hammadi) earlier than the canonical Gospels -- although its independence can certainly help to figure an earlier form of many Jesuanic sayings. Btw the Gospel of Thomas can be read here, with interesting comments: http://www.gospelthomas.com/

Hellrider

Noone can ever know what Jesus really said. The testimony is the documents that have been included in the Bible, and there are also the documents that were not included in the Bible. All of them are religious (one way or the other) and they all build on each other, and use other texts as sources. There are no non-religious, independent sources about Jesus. He is not mentioned in Roman contemporary documents, but he is mentioned briefly in Roman texts from many decades after his death. Jesus made a very little splash while he lived, outside Palestine, noone took notice of him. Palestine was a small, shitty, insignificant place the Romans couldn`t care less about, so no wonder they never mentione him.

Who was Jesus really?

Share this