Lineage of Jesus

ok well the linage of jesus really is irrelavent, because he really didn't exist He was based on a scholar of the first century and of ancient religions and heros.here is a small history on the creation of the church and the christian religion.
In 325 ad Emperor Constantine gave the Nicene Council the task of creating a religion that would encompass the whole of the Roman Empire. Ok lets go over the last 200+ since the passing of the mythical man Jesus.What Historian of that time mentions him? None. No mention of a man called Jesus Christ is in history untill 325 ad. In 325 ad the Nicene Council came out with the Bible. Emperor Constantine created the Church and killed anyone that said anything against the church. This is how Christianity came to be. In the fourth century Hierocles had charged the Church of plaglarizing the works of Apollonius of Tyana. The Church realized it had been found out and acted fast, all of Hierocles work was destroyed and he was scilenced. This is the Church's modus operandi. Archbishop Chrysostom happily said in the fith century ad "Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has now vanished from the face of the earth". This of course would make the Church very happy for any knowledge of where they had stolen their religion from was thought to be gone. Paulinus the first Archbishiop of York in 622, stated that he was the first translator of the scriptures from Gallic into the Saxon tounge had said "I subsituted, as did Eusebius, Jesus Christ of Judea for Apollonius of Tyana" to make "them correspond with Eusebius' version." (Antiquity Unveiled p.544)I don't know if this is proof for you that The man Jesus never existed, but the truth is Christianity was created some 250+ years after the man Jesus was suppose to have lived. IT was created based on diffrent religions and diffrent teachings of a scholar named Apollonius. I dont know what proof you need to see that The Nicene Council had made the religion up it should be so easy to see. Its in the history unfortunalty the Roman Catholic Church had over a thousand years to supress what ever information anyone had on the truth. IT wasnt until the 1600's and the advent of the printing press (which the church tried to stop ) that the works of Appolonius had been made in mass productions and therefor the church could not destroy them all. Also the Bible finaly became set in its form then, instead of being changed over the years. So in actuality the bible as we know it is only roughly 400 years old. An interesting fact.------------------
--ignorance is humankinds worst enemy--[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-26-2003]

May I ask how you are sure that the historical refrences you speak of that mention Jesus are not ficticious themselves? Why did the church have to forcibly make people belive? In the inquisitions the church tortured any who would preach the old philosophies and kill those who would not recant their claims. It seems odd to me that a religion would have to do that if it indeed was true. Might you be able to explain to me then what the reason behind the Inquisition is please? Thanks for your information I'll will look into what you have said.oh one more thought. With the invention of the printing press (which the church sought to stop) the bible could be massed produced. In mass producing the bible, it was no longer easy to change things in the bible. As far as you my claims of the bible being only roughly 400 years old in it present form being false I would have to disagree.
Through out the years the bible has been translated and re-translated, and re written, but instead of like it is in modern times where we just make copies using machines, scribes would painstakenly write by hand copies and translations. Much of the time things get changed in the translation, and as times change so do the interpretations that the scribes get from the original scriptures, or original manuscripts as to witch they are coping. I hope this will clear up as to why I belive that the bible in its present for is around 400 years old.
check back in day or 2 and I will tell you what I have found on your historical refrenses. thanks for your ideas agian.------------------
--ignorance is humankinds worst enemy--[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]

Isn't the idea of god speculative itself? Sorry if my missing a apostophe offended you I will have to fix that. All I was asking is what makes them so sure that their historical evidence is true. I thought this was a valid question. Meaning what makes one sure that information he gets is valid. Im Not trying to prove anything only seeking as many veiws on the subject as I can, because at the moment I don't have all the facts nor do I pretend to. I just question the validity of the information avilable today. Considering the Church was in control of the majority of the world for so long is it not possible to assume that its possible that their recording of history is biased?
For instance today goverments engage in the use of propaganda to influence people,and the veiws of a news story can vary from source to source as well. I hope you understand what im driving at.[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003][This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]

Percy wrote:
"This made it seem like you were questioning whether there were really such people as Ignatius and Irenaeus, and if so whether they really wrote the works attributed to them. That they existed and wrote these works is pretty much a settled issue, while the acuracy and historicity of the contents of these works is certainly open to debate."
If the historictity and accurcy of the works are in question then wouldn't that mean they could be fictitious?He he I never said I was not included in humanity I realize I am an ignorant person, which is why I ask questions. By the way how do you put the quotes in a box like that (see im still ignorant lol )[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]

Thank you for this information, although I would be skeptical as to the vericity of the Historical refrences, one thing seems obvious. Where is Jesus mentioned in history when he actualy lived?Quote: "There is NO MENTION anywhere in the Nicean writings about the books of the Bible"Ok I was wrong to say the Council wrote the bible, the church set up by Emperor Constintine had compiled the bible, but the Council set up by Constintine helped confirm it as a religion.
Quote:
"The New Testament and the Nicene Creed are deeply entangled with each other. The wording and the concepts in the Nicene Creed come from the New Testament”in fact, one of the most important debates at the Council of Nicea concerned whether it is proper to include a word in the Nicene Creed that does not occur in the New Testament. On the other hand, at the time that the Church issued the official canon of the New Testament, it customarily compared writings to the Nicene Creed to determine if they were orthodox. So you are correct if you say that the Nicene Creed proceeds from the New Testament, and you are correct if you say that the New Testament is certified by the Nicene Creed." (http://www.kencollins.com/bible-c1.htm)If the Nicene creed is based off of the New Testament it would stand to reason they had the New Testament present at the Council. The fact that there is no refrence to the New Testament in the writings rasies a red flag to me. Again I would like to point out that The Emperor Constintine Set up Both the Council and the Church.
I am assuming then that the council was set up to justify the bible.
So the Nicene Council was set up to help "prove" to the Roman people that the New Testament was about the christian religion according to the Church and at the same time the Church came out with the bible That was confirmed by the Nicene Creed. The fact that both the Council and the Church were set up by the Emperor Constintine and that each reinforced each other still leaves me with the question of accuracy. Its a pattern with the church througout time, enforcing its self with its own works. I belive that one could reason that the Emperor set up both the Council and the Church to Insert into history the religion.I appriciate your effort to enlighten me.------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--

Thanks

Well the validicity of the work of Josephus is contested but the consensus is that its is at least doctored.(unfortunately, the text as we have it in extant copies of Josephus' Antiquities appears to have been dramatically re-written from a Christian point of view." Testimonium Flavianum)
As for Tacitus, Percy said its thuoght to be a Chrisitan insertion as well.
For Suetonius
Quote:
"Slingerland proceeds to take on the notorious crux in Suet. Claud. 24.4: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma [Claudius] expulit. His treatment, although unnecessarily prolix, argues quite powerfully against the widespread conviction that "Chrestus" is Christ. As Slingerland points out, more fully than any predecessor, the name appears with reasonable frequency in the epigraphic evidence, encompassing persons of freedman or free born status, some of lowly origin, some of relatively prominent station. Nothing suggests Jesus Christ here. The passage indeed implies that Chrestus the impulsor was in Rome when these events transpired. And it will not do to save the Christian hypothesis by postulating Suetonius' ignorance. Nor does Acts 18:1-3 help the cause, for its reference to Jews expelled from Rome who joined Paul in Corinth does not suggest that they were Christians when they left Rome. Orosius' interpretatio christiana rests on no evidence independent of Suetonius. Slingerland reaches a proper and salutary conclusion: the burden of proof rests with those who wish to identify Chrestus with Christ, not those who distinguish them (pp 169-217).
http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8080/...8/1998-07-02.htmlSo I don't know I still don't see the historical refrences here. thanks for the information------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--

An english teacher gives a class an assignment to write a story. Two students hand in a paper, that are simular in context, but the names and some basic details have changed. The teacher upon reading this knows that one or both of them have cheated. Its found that the one student had dramaticaly re-writtin some parts of his classmates story. Upon further review the teacher noticed he or she has done this in the past as well. From that point on anything and everything that that student writes will be highly suspicious. It would stand to reason that the student will try to do it again, has done it in the pass, and probably copied or cheated on almost everything he or she has did. This is way I feel about the christian historical documents that the Church and other christians claim as the big proof. Its known that many of the documents are pious frauds. Its is known many of the documents have been rewrittin or translated buy christians, who took poetic license to add in Jesus instead of ______ or just plain add what ever they wanted. If this is the case then I find all and any work that the christians present, highly suspicious at best and at worst utter works of fiction.
Translation is something I have a problem with. Lets say I have an acient greek scroll here. ITs about the life of scholar who lived around the 1st century ad. Lets say his greek name was Appolo. But lets say im a Jew so I change Apollo to Saul or if im a christian I chance it to Paul. Lets say Apollo one day came upon a man who has just been pulled from the water. Apollo sees the man is not breathing.
Apollo then hits him in the chest a few times and the man coughs up the water and gets up. Now word travels from there on the lips of all who saw it to a historian of the day. Like the game you played in school If you whisper a statement to one person and that person tells another and so on, by the time it gets back to you the sentence has changed. By the time this gets to the greek historian it might sound like 'Apollo made a dead man rise again'. So if I were a Jew I might translate that into "Saul came to a man who had died and made him rise again' or if I was a christian I might say 'Jesus came across a man who was dead and made him riseth again'. It would be too easy to interpret and translate what you think is true from the actual fact. I know this is not proof of anything at all, but one can draw some conclusions from it. We all know that diffrent sides of the story use diffrent ways of presenting the same facts in order to make their side look right. This is why there is so much debate on whether Jesus ever existed or if he was modeled after someone(s) else.------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--

By restating my posisition and giving some analogies I was hoping to show how many if not all the works we have today that mention Jesus are most likely a fabrication. One can not weigh the evidence if said evidence is in question. I was hoping by writing this, that all who read it, may re-look at all the information already given at this point, and understand why I question the evidence. As far as adressing the evidence, again I was trying to show that the evidence has been tampered with in some way, therfore it no longer can be considered as evidence. In a court of law if evidence of any sort has been tampered with, that evidence is thrown out. I was also trying to give a basis for a line of arguing, mainly that the works of Christian History, and history in general can not be complety trusted, even known facts are colored by those who teach the facts. In school The facts presented about the native indians were so biased that it caused me to argue with the teacher that we were not being taught the facts, mearly a biased version of them. I did win that argument, although it really did not change things. So I was summing up what I already know and setting a base for future argument in that area, hehe I felt a need to make it clear so I can proceed. Thanks for your imput.------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--

Can you provide proof that the bible is not a work of half fiction half fact? Can you prove that nothing was added to the bible after it was origianly written? Can you prove that Jesus and the bible are not stolen ideas from the many prior and much older religions? Can you prove that the verses you have quoted are really talking about what you think they do? Can you prove that the man Jesus exisisted, with out using any questionable material, like the bible, Josephus and others, that have been shown to have been doctored? It is hard for one to accept the bible and other material as proof, when it has been shown that much of it has been tampered with. The burden of proof does not fall on the one who questions it, it falls to who ever made the claim. Its very hard to disprove something that doesnt exist in the first place.....------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--