Origins of 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' Begin to Emerge

[theminister]

Jesus was perhaps was even less than a minor annoyance to the Roman authorities but a huge hit with the populace. Hence the first-hand accounts.

I think there's something that convinced them that they were Krishna. Don't know if it was human or something spiritual, though.

Just like I believe that there was something that lead to the Jesus account... whether it was one person or a collection of personages who had stories attributed to them amalgamated into one.

What I was saying is that there is every bit as much evidence that Krishna was real as there is Jesus. Jesus' effect on the world in his life was minimal if he was real.

Unless you accept writings that were published after his death.... you know... the original topic of the OP discussion. You can't have it both ways.

The amount of Christians in the world is not evidence that he was a living person.

[Putgolzin]

I was being generous.

The point of my statement is that there is no historical context aside from the bible. There are no contemporaneous accounts and no verifiable artefacts.

Hence... no proof.

This is an excerpt of the writing of Josephus that skeptics don't mention because there isn't debate among Biblical scholars.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

The Festus mentioned here is who the Apostle Paul met in Acts 25, but Albinus isn't mentioned in the Biblical record. James the brother of Jesus is mentioned throughout the New Testament and is commonly believed to have written the Book of James (Catholics sometimes try to give different takes on how Jesus could have had brothers, but the Biblical record mentions James and other brothers).

To be fair, there isn't really debate among actual Biblical scholars on the more important part of Josephus' writing either, but I believe we've covered that pages ago...

[theminister]

This is an excerpt of the writing of Josephus that skeptics don't mention because there isn't debate among Biblical scholars.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

The Festus mentioned here is who the Apostle Paul met in Acts 25, but Albinus isn't mentioned in the Biblical record. James the brother of Jesus is mentioned throughout the New Testament and is commonly believed to have written the Book of James (Catholics sometimes try to give different takes on how Jesus could have had brothers, but the Biblical record mentions James and other brothers).

To be fair, there isn't really debate among actual Biblical scholars on the more important part of Josephus' writing either, but I believe we've covered that pages ago...

I won't wade into it's authenticity.

Josephus lived after Jesus was supposed to... you are aware of that, I know. A man writing about a story that had grown in the decades afterwards is not verification by any stretch.... as he was simply noting a tale he had been told about a time before him. He wasn't there. It only provides context to the same time when the gnostics were enlarging the story daily. By the time the scheister Paul got to it he blew it up to ridiculous proportions. If the source that Josephus is using traces at all to Paul then it should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The man was an inveterate liar and charlatan, as well as a religious power monger.

The essence is that the claims against the dates of the document in the OP are every bit as translatable to Josephus' writings. It doesn't matter if it was 40 years or 800. All they do is provide insight to the world of early Christendom and their beliefs at the time.

It is more likely that Josephus was a unknowing victim of the fog of history. He may have believed it but that doesn't make it more true or verifiable than everything Herodotus wrote. It's simply an account of things he had heard about the world.

[thejazz97]

I won't wade into it's authenticity.

Josephus lived after Jesus was supposed to... you are aware of that, I know. A man writing about a story that had grown in the decades afterwards is not verification by any stretch.... as he was simply noting a tale he had been told about a time before him. He wasn't there. It only provides context to the same time when the gnostics were enlarging the story daily. By the time the scheister Paul got to it he blew it up to ridiculous proportions. If the source that Josephus is using traces at all to Paul then it should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The man was an inveterate liar and charlatan, as well as a religious power monger.

The essence is that the claims against the dates of the document in the OP are every bit as translatable to Josephus' writings. It doesn't matter if it was 40 years or 800. All they do is provide insight to the world of early Christendom and their beliefs at the time.

It is more likely that Josephus was a unknowing victim of the fog of history. He may have believed it but that doesn't make it more true or verifiable than everything Herodotus wrote. It's simply an account of things he had heard about the world.

Care to expand?

[theminister]

Care to expand?

I take it you've read the whole NT, right?

Paul's Christendom was vastly different than what MML&J wrote. He made things up that contradict those books and enforced them with zeal.

Saul was essentially a cult leader in my mind. He knew as much about early Christianity as anyone and exploited it. He saw there was a movement without a leader and made a claim to have talked to their fallen saviour. He then claimed to be a changed man and be an 'apostle,' which he was not. He gained seeking, lost followers needing spiritual direction and punished those that didn't agree with 'his' church.

The only evidence for what Paul claimed was himself and, up until his 'conversion,' Saul was a piece of crap. I believe he maintained being a piece of crap and what he preached was crap. All dogma and no doctrine as the words of Jesus. He was full of hate and a master manipulator. The fall of the philosophy of Christianity, and all the bad that followed afterwards, is directly attributable to Paul.

He made Christianity big and popular.... by making it not Christianity at all. He wasn't concerned with following it and preserving it... he was only concerned with selling it and he sold it out. Those books attributed to him should be ignored. You want a false prophet? Paul was that first, and most dangerous, one.

[Putgolzin]

I won't wade into it's authenticity.

Josephus lived after Jesus was supposed to... you are aware of that, I know. A man writing about a story that had grown in the decades afterwards is not verification by any stretch.... as he was simply noting a tale he had been told about a time before him. He wasn't there. It only provides context to the same time when the gnostics were enlarging the story daily. By the time the scheister Paul got to it he blew it up to ridiculous proportions. If the source that Josephus is using traces at all to Paul then it should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The man was an inveterate liar and charlatan, as well as a religious power monger.

The essence is that the claims against the dates of the document in the OP are every bit as translatable to Josephus' writings. It doesn't matter if it was 40 years or 800. All they do is provide insight to the world of early Christendom and their beliefs at the time.

It is more likely that Josephus was a unknowing victim of the fog of history. He may have believed it but that doesn't make it more true or verifiable than everything Herodotus wrote. It's simply an account of things he had heard about the world.

So, the people who were eyewitnesses to the story and wrote about it don't count cause they actually believed what they saw and therefore were biased (or more likely didn't actually exist themselves).

And the non-biased historian who wrote about it doesn't count - because his work has been doctored, & any part that hasn't been doctored doesn't matter anyway because he wasn't right there.

So what would count?

If I can find a Jesus signed bust chiselled by a member of the Sanhedrin in real time in Gethsemane, does that work?!

[theminister]

So, the people who were eyewitnesses to the story and wrote about it don't count cause they actually believed what they saw and therefore were biased (or more likely didn't actually exist themselves).

And the non-biased historian who wrote about it doesn't count; a) because his work has been doctored, any part that hasn't been doctored doesn't matter anyway because he wasn't right there.

So what would count?

If I can find a Jesus signed bust chiselled by a member of the Sanhedrin in real time in Gethsemane, does that work?!

It would.

As would an outside account of any administrative function either from Rome, the Galilee, or from Judea. They don't exist.

The problem with the 'eye witnesses' of MML&J is that A) they had a dog in that fight so they can't be trusted, and B ) they contradict each other numerous times. That makes the authenticity of their stories dubious.

And the end all being... it shouldn't matter... if the lessons are good. There's no need to deify or prove the personage of Jesus. We should take what it is... a way to gain insight into the self. The rest of it is pointless and an abstraction... Paul's legacy.

[thejazz97]

I take it you've read the whole NT, right?

Paul's Christendom was vastly different than what MML&J wrote. He made things up that contradict those books and enforced them with zeal.

Saul was essentially a cult leader in my mind. He knew as much about early Christianity as anyone and exploited it. He saw there was a movement without a leader and made a claim to have talked to their fallen saviour. He then claimed to be a changed man and be an 'apostle,' which he was not. He gained seeking, lost followers needing spiritual direction and punished those that didn't agree with 'his' church.

The only evidence for what Paul claimed was himself and, up until his 'conversion,' Saul was a piece of crap. I believe he maintained being a piece of crap and what he preached was crap. All dogma and no doctrine as the words of Jesus. He was full of hate and a master manipulator. The fall of the philosophy of Christianity, and all the bad that followed afterwards, is directly attributable to Paul.

He made Christianity big and popular.... by making it not Christianity at all. He wasn't concerned with following it and preserving it... he was only concerned with selling it and he sold it out. Those books attributed to him should be ignored. You want a false prophet? Paul was that first, and most dangerous, one.

Give me specific examples. I've looked at the what the internet has compiled and I see nothing that says he was full of hate, a master manipulator, or otherwise. Give me specific reasons to ignore him.

The problem with the 'eye witnesses' of MML&J is that A) they had a dog in that fight so they can't be trusted, and B ) they contradict each other numerous times. That makes the authenticity of their stories dubious.

Again, care to expand?

[theminister]

Give me specific examples. I've looked at the what the internet has compiled and I see nothing that says he was full of hate, a master manipulator, or otherwise. Give me specific reasons to ignore him.

Again, care to expand?

You have a bible?

Read it yourself.

See how the message and tone changes as soon as Paul starts writing.

Edit: you didn't know MML&J contradicted each other?!? Wow. You need to study more.

[CanuckGAME]

Jesus is to adults what Santa Clause is to children.

[Putgolzin]

It would.

As would an outside account of any administrative function either from Rome, the Galilee, or from Judea. They don't exist.

The problem with the 'eye witnesses' of MML&J is that A) they had a dog in that fight so they can't be trusted, and B ) they contradict each other numerous times. That makes the authenticity of their stories dubious.

And the end all being... it shouldn't matter... if the lessons are good. There's no need to deify or prove the personage of Jesus. We should take what it is... a way to gain insight into the self. The rest of it is pointless and an abstraction... Paul's legacy.

While I obviously disagree with you on most of these points (contradictions, Paul, historicity of Jesus) it seems you've at the very least read the Bible a time or two, unlike most people who speak loudly about stuff they learned from skeptic's movies and backed up by those same skeptic's websites during a 10 minute google search.

I do agree with you to some extent, and was my original purpose behind involvement in the discussion; that although there is a whole bunch of horror that can be directly attributed to people who claim to follow God, if one can get beyond all the garbage (as most people can't) there is truth and beauty to be found.

[Shift-4]

Jesus is to adults what Santa Clause is to children.

Jesus H Christ!!!

Where's my god damn presents???!!!!

[thejazz97]

You have a bible?

Read it yourself.

See how the message and tone changes as soon as Paul starts writing.

Edit: you didn't know MML&J contradicted each other?!? Wow. You need to study more.

I know the tones change. Doesn't mean his points don't have merit. If you can't give me examples why not to accept it, I have no reason to stop applying what he's said to the rest of my life.

The gospels don't contradict each other btw.

[DonLever]

Amazing there is 6 pages arguing one alleged fictional story (1200 years ago) vs another alleged fictional story (2000 years ago).

[TheAce]

You are being reasonable so far but it is my experience that at some point in the conversation reason and logic will be foregone in favour of faith in your own personal beliefs.

I would like to hear your explanation of the fact that many elements of the christians myths are exactly the same as the elements in the Isis/Osis/ Horus allegory

Ive read much about this topic on the internet and seen many debates and ive never seen anyone provide the original source for the comparisons. Its either quoted from Bill Maher or Gerald Massey . Most of the so called similarities are complete nonsense or a stretch. So please do post the original sources for your claims that Horus and Jesus are the same

[theminister]

I know the tones change. Doesn't mean his points don't have merit. If you can't give me examples why not to accept it, I have no reason to stop applying what he's said to the rest of my life.

The gospels don't contradict each other btw.

Your decision to follow Paul's teachings and not Jesus' is your call as a Christian. I'm not going to ucover that for you.

They absolutely do, in timeline and omission. There is no debate about that.

[theminister]

While I obviously disagree with you on most of these points (contradictions, Paul, historicity of Jesus) it seems you've at the very least read the Bible a time or two, unlike most people who speak loudly about stuff they learned from skeptic's movies and backed up by those same skeptic's websites during a 10 minute google search.

I do agree with you to some extent, and was my original purpose behind involvement in the discussion; that although there is a whole bunch of horror that can be directly attributed to people who claim to follow God, if one can get beyond all the garbage (as most people can't) there is truth and beauty to be found.

Long story short... IMO if you want to be a Christian you only need MML&J. The rest is pish.

[thejazz97]

You're decision to follow Paul's teachings and not Jesus' is your call as a Christian. I'm not going to ucover that for you.

They absolutely do, in timeline and omission. There is no debate about that.

Who said I'm not following both? Be like the Bereans, see if what Paul says in his letters matches up with what Jesus teaches. The tone may be different, but the message is the same.

And as far as timeline goes, Paul's letters aren't in chronological order either. And Job should be stuck in Genesis before chapter 5. In memoirs, stories aren't always chronologically correct either.

As far as omission goes, John wrote that Jesus did so much that if the skies were paper and the sea was ink, that we would still not have enough room to record all the great things that Jesus did.

[theminister]

Who said I'm not following both? Be like the Bereans, see if what Paul says in his letters matches up with what Jesus teaches. The tone may be different, but the message is the same.

And as far as timeline goes, Paul's letters aren't in chronological order either. And Job should be stuck in Genesis before chapter 5. In memoirs, stories aren't always chronologically correct either.

As far as omission goes, John wrote that Jesus did so much that if the skies were paper and the sea was ink, that we would still not have enough room to record all the great things that Jesus did.

Uh-huh. If you say so.

Your call to believe what you want.

It's also your call to investigate it yourself beyond the Internet.

[LaBamba]

God is an alien, and all these religions are different cultures way of interpreting it.

The story of Adam and Eve is an account of the aliens giving us intelligence. That is why there is no missing link.

What else..

Noah's ark is a DNA bank, and the great flood was ecological rebalancing.

Dinosaurs were destroyed to start this experiment.