Jesus was a communist
- This topic has 218 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
roman wrote:Marcos wrote:Therefore, you are contradicting the Bible because it said that he was educated by Gamaliel, ( a Pharisee ) and there is not any evidence that Paul was educated by the Apostles, unless he was able to have speak with ghosts, and spirits, because they never existed either, the twelve apostles were taken from the Zodiac, there are Christian historians who have said that he never met with the so called apostles of Jesus and that Christian is contradicting the claim made by the Jehovah witnessess. Your sources are not definitive because one Christian source contradicts the others sources. The whole thing about Christianity is full of distortions and contradictions like the Bible itself, and they are very ambiguous, it is a real mess and lie prevail. The Bible contains more than two thousands contradictionsI did not say that the concept of resurrection did not exist before that ( you are misreading the idea or to desperate in your conclusions ) the concept was inserted in the so called Christianity, and in that time the whole world believed in reincarnation including many Hebrew who copied the same concept from the Babylonian and the Egyptians, and the concept was Jehovah was also copied from the Babylonians. The Christians from Rome did not believe in the resurrection because they copied their conceptions from the Egyptians and the Egyptian never supported the concept of ressurrection.You ask me to read one or two sources, and I can ask you to read hundred of sources who will negate your allegations
I don't care what I'm contradicting, I care about historical research.he was educated by Gamaliel … and he also (later) meet with the apostles to have discussison and recive traditions. You claim the apostles were taken from the Zodiac … evidence? That there was a group of 12 people is multiply attested, as is the fact that Paul met them The fact that sources contradict each other in other things doesn't say ANYTHING about the historicity of what is being described … what it says is that they were not relying on each other as a source. EVERY historical account that is attested in mroe than one source will have discrepencies in those sources …The WHOLE WORLD believed in reincarnation??? really?I read ACTUAL scholarship, it seams like you're just reading conspirasy theories.If you're pissed at religion that's fine, but don't pretend you're doing actual history.
I do not care either. No Mangiare con Jesus. The book of Santerias, the book of Voodoo, the book of Paleros, and the Papa l Vul they are historical too, and they have their scholarship and scholars. Papa Livorio was sent by god, he was a prophet, a messiah, a Christ, he was an anti-imperialists, and he wants all the peasant to posses all the lands in common. He was killed by the Christians. The book of Paleros is a historical book and these prophets of gods they make miracles, and they cure diseases
Vin wrote:After some research I have unearthed documentary and historical evidence that Jesus was undoubtedly a 'communist'. He certainly kept company with some very dodgy characters. Could that be Vol One in front of him? Or perhaps the Communist Manifesto?Vin, probably you have not seen the church of Saint Ernesto Guevara built in Bolivia by the catholic church and the followers of the liberation theology. He was locally cannonized as a communist saint. There are Quakers in Venezuela teaching the natives how to become a Christian communist
ALB wrote:I fail to see why analysis of the texts has become outdated unless of course there has been some further tampering with them by christian pious fraudsters, that is.Ok, I was wrong about Jesus being supposed to have been born in Nazareth: according to the myth, he was only supposed to have been brought up there.You may not be able to confuse "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" (but I see you introduce a third variant "Nazarean", presumably to avoid this) but those who wrote the "gospels" were and so were some of their translators. According to JM Robertson's ancient work, one uses "Nazarene" (Mark), another "Nazarite" (John), a third both (Luke) (he must be refrring to early, un-redacted versions). I must confess I'm confused too. I think "Nazarite" is supposed to refer to a Jewish sect (or monastic movement), "Nazarene" to someone from Nazareth (your "Nazarean")? Apparently, references to either of them in the early original versions have been changed in Latin and Greek to be "Nazarene" and translated as "of Nazareth".With all your vast knowledge of the matter can you confirm this?It would be updated because of further work, new archeological finds, new texts, new work on textual criticism, new sociological theories and exegetical methods, as well as advances in linguistics, and knowledge of oral societies and so on. In physics it's not like Einstein had more data than past physicists, it's that there was more work done and more analysis, in NT and early Christianity studies there ARE more data and more work done.The is no historical data about Jesus' birth, matthew and Luke record two different traditions about Jesus being born in bethleham, and they are likely based on an oral tradition, but most scholars see that as not being historically reliable, I tend to agree.Jesus was a Nazarene, meaning from Nazareth, we can only assume he was born there also.Nazarite IS a monastic movement in Judaism, a quite old one, you see it laid out in Numbers 6. (Nazirite) (it's not transliterated in the LXX, it's just rendered as "he who vows").Nazarene almost alwasy refers to the place, a person from Nazareth, it's spelled slightly different in different places (Mark uses forms of Nazarene, Matthew and Luke uses Nozorene, I don't think John ever uses Nazarite … Although many have argued that John the Baptist was a nazirite, even though the word isn't used.The reason the spelling is different is becuase of different sources being used, also it wasn't a greek word, they were transliterating a semetic word, when you do that you're going to get different spellings. But they always refer to the place.The one place it get's a little sketchy is Matthew 2:23 where Jesus being from Nazareth is tied to some prophesy to him being called a "Nazorean" … there is no such prophesy, However what Matthew is probably doing is wordplay using the Hebrew term "sprout" (which in Hebrew can sound rather like Nazori") in Isaiah 11:1 – this fits with Matthews overall picture of Jesus, especially in the introduction of Mattthew, of making Jesus the New King David, or the ultimate King David.The fact that Matthew is spinning the fact that he is from Nazareth to try and fit some kind of prophesy, resorting to word play to make it fit, is pretty damn good evidence that he was actually from there,.As far as the "unredacted" version, the Nestle Alaand is THE critical text, that's basically 99% of the original text, textual critical work has been done a ton on the NT, and very little is disputed. Unless you're talking about the pre-gospel sources, (Q, special M, Special L, signs gospel and so on) which are all hypothetical reconstructions based on the critical text.But there is no "un-redacted" version, other than the actual critical text.
roman wrote:ALB wrote:I fail to see why analysis of the texts has become outdated unless of course there has been some further tampering with them by christian pious fraudsters, that is.Ok, I was wrong about Jesus being supposed to have been born in Nazareth: according to the myth, he was only supposed to have been brought up there.You may not be able to confuse "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" (but I see you introduce a third variant "Nazarean", presumably to avoid this) but those who wrote the "gospels" were and so were some of their translators. According to JM Robertson's ancient work, one uses "Nazarene" (Mark), another "Nazarite" (John), a third both (Luke) (he must be refrring to early, un-redacted versions). I must confess I'm confused too. I think "Nazarite" is supposed to refer to a Jewish sect (or monastic movement), "Nazarene" to someone from Nazareth (your "Nazarean")? Apparently, references to either of them in the early original versions have been changed in Latin and Greek to be "Nazarene" and translated as "of Nazareth".With all your vast knowledge of the matter can you confirm this?It would be updated because of further work, new archeological finds, new texts, new work on textual criticism, new sociological theories and exegetical methods, as well as advances in linguistics, and knowledge of oral societies and so on. In physics it's not like Einstein had more data than past physicists, it's that there was more work done and more analysis, in NT and early Christianity studies there ARE more data and more work done.The is no historical data about Jesus' birth, matthew and Luke record two different traditions about Jesus being born in bethleham, and they are likely based on an oral tradition, but most scholars see that as not being historically reliable, I tend to agree.Jesus was a Nazarene, meaning from Nazareth, we can only assume he was born there also.Nazarite IS a monastic movement in Judaism, a quite old one, you see it laid out in Numbers 6. (Nazirite) (it's not transliterated in the LXX, it's just rendered as "he who vows").Nazarene almost alwasy refers to the place, a person from Nazareth, it's spelled slightly different in different places (Mark uses forms of Nazarene, Matthew and Luke uses Nozorene, I don't think John ever uses Nazarite … Although many have argued that John the Baptist was a nazirite, even though the word isn't used.The reason the spelling is different is becuase of different sources being used, also it wasn't a greek word, they were transliterating a semetic word, when you do that you're going to get different spellings. But they always refer to the place.The one place it get's a little sketchy is Matthew 2:23 where Jesus being from Nazareth is tied to some prophesy to him being called a "Nazorean" … there is no such prophesy, However what Matthew is probably doing is wordplay using the Hebrew term "sprout" (which in Hebrew can sound rather like Nazori") in Isaiah 11:1 – this fits with Matthews overall picture of Jesus, especially in the introduction of Mattthew, of making Jesus the New King David, or the ultimate King David.The fact that Matthew is spinning the fact that he is from Nazareth to try and fit some kind of prophesy, resorting to word play to make it fit, is pretty damn good evidence that he was actually from there,.As far as the "unredacted" version, the Nestle Alaand is THE critical text, that's basically 99% of the original text, textual critical work has been done a ton on the NT, and very little is disputed. Unless you're talking about the pre-gospel sources, (Q, special M, Special L, signs gospel and so on) which are all hypothetical reconstructions based on the critical text.But there is no "un-redacted" version, other than the actual critical text.
The so called prophecy ( mythology ) said that he was going to be born in Belen of Ephraft. During the first century, Nazarteh did not exist, the territory was used as a cemetery to bury the dead from a massacre made by the Roman. it is the same lie as the wall of Jericho
i For what it matters. I think the theory that JC wasn’t from Nazareth is possible. He could have been a nassorite or whatever like someone could be a Newtonian. And some bods not that familiar with stuff might interpreted than as from a place called Newton a found one. There is a massive problem with names of places eg Bombay and Mumbai and Peking and all the variants. It can obviously spill over into other things like the rope thing, which is a on the face of it a ‘Greek’ problem. It is interesting from a class analysis thing to sort of apologise for becoming a bit anal? Apparently the Georgian and Armenian versions all have rope as do the most of the Syriac ones? It is a special kind of rope by the way; a thick one used by sailors for anchor cables. But it might not have just been a Greek originated split as apparently Aramaic words for this kind of rope and camel are similar as they are in Arabic? Also switching to another argument it may have been an Aramaic pun as Camel ‘sounds’ a bit like vermin or louse/gnat. There is interest here as JC mentioned camels and gnats elsewhere when attacking organised religion as lackeys of the ruling class etc; Matthew 23:24 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blindguides!You strain outa gnatbutswallowa camel.25Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.… That would be an another example of several identified examples Aramaic puns in the JC material? So it starts to look like a bit of a very clever triple pun in Aramaic then with a camel like jumbo jet flying through a keyhole that is also a thick rope and vermin as well. Aramaic puns give it a bit of contemporary historical legs as opposed to the Greek creationist theory.I think Origen queried the camel thing in his commentary on Luke of Matthew? He could be OK Origen; he didn’t seem to like the census of Quirinus thing in Luke as if he realised it must be bollocks. Assuming JC babbled away in Aramaic which would be reasonable.
Some linguistics have discovered that there was a language older than the Aramaic. The Hebrew learned to read and write in Babylon, and that was the first language used to write the Bible and its writer were polytheists, and the Tetragram is the combination of four Babylonian pagan gods. It has also been confirmed by the Rosicrucian ( which are scholars too )
In the news this week:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4911972/Bible-passage-banning-women-speaking-added-later.htmlPious fraudsters at work again?
ALB, if you really want to learn about textual criticism, go to a University, or Seminary Library, and look up some textual criticism on Paul's Epistles, you don't go to the daily mail writing about a guy who looked at one codex … these silly news stories are plenty and cheap, go to real scholarship.
roman wrote:ALB, if you really want to learn about textual criticism, go to a University, or Seminary Library, and look up some textual criticism on Paul's Epistles, you don't go to the daily mail writing about a guy who looked at one codex … these silly news stories are plenty and cheap, go to real scholarship.The biggest biblical liars come out from the divinity schools and the religious seminary., one of the biggest biblical liars was PaulThe Bible is full of statements which indicate that the first one who rejected women is the so-called god of Israel.Many of the epistles were not written by Paul, He suffered from syphilis and he was not able to write, and he uses opium to stand the pain, and opium produce hallucinationIn the Congregations of the Jehovah Witness women are the more active one doing door to door preaching and working for the organizations, and men have all the privileges, men are allowed to talk standing up, but women must sit on a table, they must obey their husbands like slaves, According to the New Testaments women were the first one to see Jesus after his resurrection, and according to the Bible the apostles of Jesus were the ones who were able to be witness of his resurrection, therefore, they had the same privileges as men, but Paul one of the founders of the Catholic church changed everything.
Dave B wrote:I didn’t think Josephus mentioned the Nasoreans or Nazzoreans.No, but he does mention the "Nazarites". Just checked, as taking time off from selling Socialist Standards and pamphlets at the West London Peace Fair yesterday I bought a copy of The Works of Josephus, a 19th century reprint (1875) of William Whiston's classic 1737 translation in a local bookshop for only £9. So, I'm equipped to re-enter the fray.Here's the notorious passage (from Antiquities, Book XVIII, chapter 3) where some pious fraudster has made Josephus write:
Quote:Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, — a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him ; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.Josephus was writing around 93/94 AD (as the christians put it). The tampering with what Josephus might originally written (some reference to the christians and their beliefs perhaps) is blatant. A religious Jew such as Josephus would never have called Jesus "the Christ" (the Greek for Messiah) nor doubted that he would have been a man.Only a christian would have, so giving away that one of them had tampered with the text. Whiston himself, in an appendix entitled "The Testimonies of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, and James the Just vindicated", concedes the point that it could only have been written by a christian, and uses this as evidence that Josephus himself must have secretly been "a Nazarene or Ebionite Jewish Christian". I don't think Roman's "modern scholars" set much credence to this theory (do they?)
ALB wrote:Dave B wrote:I didn’t think Josephus mentioned the Nasoreans or Nazzoreans.No, but he does mention the "Nazarites". Just checked, as taking time off from selling Socialist Standards and pamphlets at the West London Peace Fair yesterday I bought a copy of The Works of Josephus, a 19th century reprint (1875) of William Whiston's classic 1737 translation in a local bookshop for only £9. So, I'm equipped to re-enter the fray.Here's the notorious passage (from Antiquities, Book XVIII, chapter 3) where some pious fraudster has made Josephus write:
Quote:Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, — a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him ; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.Josephus was writing around 93/94 AD (as the christians put it). The tampering with what Josephus might originally written (some reference to the christians and their beliefs perhaps) is blatant. A religious Jew such as Josephus would never have called Jesus "the Christ" (the Greek for Messiah) nor doubted that he would have been a man.Only a christian would have, so giving away that one of them had tampered with the text. Whiston himself, in an appendix entitled "The Testimonies of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, and James the Just vindicated", concedes the point that it could only have been written by a christian, and uses this as evidence that Josephus himself must have secretly been "a Nazarene or Ebionite Jewish Christian". I don't think Roman's "modern scholars" set much credence to this theory (do they?)
The Nazarites are mentioned on Judges 13.5 of the Old Testament, and they were the peoples dedicated to God who had long hairsJudges 13:5New International Version (NIV)5 You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”And then Mathew changed it to indicate that he was from Nazareth ( a city that did not exist at that time )Matthew 2:23American Standard Version (ASV)23 and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, [a]that he should be called a Nazarene.. Original prophecy said that he was going to be born in BelenMicah 5:2New International Version (NIV)2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The Bible is a book full of craps and contradictions. They contradict each other. it does not make any difference if the teaching come from university or seminary and the best universities are owned by Jesuits, Salesian and Dominicos many of them have a doctorate degree in Theology and doctoral degree in Medicine, Psychology, Sociologist and Economics. Those 3 congregations are called the Doctors of the Church. There were many sects in Israel who tried to be the real Christians and follower of Judaism, there was a group of Christrian who rejected the teaching of Paul Evyionim-Nosrim establish themselves in the region known as Nazareth, and they called it the city of the poor, because they had a bow of poverty, like the Trapenses in Spain
Quote:Remains of Prince Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha or the “awakened one", who founded Buddhism and is believed to have lived around 566-486 BCE, may have been foundNow, what would happen if JC's body was discovered in some tomb and no ascension to heaven?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.