Bible is jews conspiracy?

JeSOS
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Bible is jews conspiracy?

What is relation of jews to bible, could it be that bible actually jews conspiracy?

 Then how to explain presuit of jews by christians, are church catch up jews plan and slightly changed it to eliminate jews?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Simply: No.

Simply: No.


JeSOS
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
JeSOS wrote: What is

JeSOS wrote:

What is relation of jews to bible, could it be that bible actually jews conspiracy?

Then how to explain presuit of jews by christians, are church catch up jews plan and slightly changed it to eliminate jews?

But you wont deny jesus was jew right?

Also there is film saying tomething similar i am waiting to get my hands on it called Christianity-The First Two Thousand Years


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
We agree! Yours In Christ,

We agree!

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
No, I don't agree.  Jesus

No, I don't agree.  Jesus didn't exist.


Chaz Fox
Chaz Fox's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
No, I don't agree. Jesus didn't exist.

I was honestly waiting for someone to say that. I saw it coming. =D

'I reject your reality and substitute my own!'
Adam Savage, Mythbusters.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm on it, brother.

I'm on it, brother. Eye-wink


JeSOS
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
You completely deny the

You completely deny the possibility of his existance? Then what you belive, that bible is complete myth?

What i trying to say he could exis, but does not mean he was son of god, just simple man who make group of ppl belive that hes son of god, this happens every now and then in our time and 2000 years ago, well juggler could fool ppl and still do could not he with some plan do same?

I dont even say it was his plan, he could be just marionette person for those who planned all this conspiracy, just in case that when in  year 70a.d. when they publish theyr books someone say wtf i lived in (whatever city he jesus lived) and never heard of him.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I believe the Babble is a

I believe the Babble is a complete myth. And read into the Jesus Mythicism thread - there is absolutely no valid evidence he ever existed, and the whole story was stolen from earlier myths.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


JeSOS
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Okay its your business what

Okay its your business what you belive, and i i keep my own opinion for that.

Can someone explain why people who belive in god say jesus was jew?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Because the

Because the Jewish mythology has the idea of a "messiah" who will be savior of mankind - who by definition would have to be a Jew. When the Christian mythology came about, it was a branch-off of Judaism - they wanted Jesus to be the "savior", so they stole a lot from pagan mythologies and pushed the Jesus character into being the Jewish messiah.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Total nonsense. Christ

Total nonsense. Christ existed and there is overwhelming evidence to support that. Further, most scholars, even the most skeptical, clearly accept this. Just take a look at the Jesus Seminar, for starters.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What evidence? Note the

What evidence?

Note the following most definitely does not count:

The Bible

The koran

Josephus, etc.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The Bible counts as pretty

The Bible counts as pretty good evidence in my opinion, not because it says the things it says, but because of those who wrote it and their personal martyrdoms which attested to the truth of the testimony they gave in the Gospels. Also, the testimony of the earliest Christians, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, and St. Clement, who all knew personally the Apostles who claimed these things. It is clear that they never accepted, as Rook likes to believe, that Christ was merely a fictional character in the first place, or a gnostic notion of Christ. The secular authorities like Josephus seem to point to the fact that Christians did exist and that Christ probably existed, though they of course do not recount first-hand knowledge of Christ Himself.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
JeSOS wrote: Okay its your

JeSOS wrote:

Okay its your business what you belive, and i i keep my own opinion for that.

Can someone explain why people who belive in god say jesus was jew?

Uh...because it's in the Bible? Mathew 1:1 says: "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham..."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13031
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The Bible

StMichael wrote:
The Bible counts as pretty good evidence in my opinion, not because it says the things it says, but because of those who wrote it and their personal martyrdoms which attested to the truth of the testimony they gave in the Gospels. Also, the testimony of the earliest Christians, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, and St. Clement, who all knew personally the Apostles who claimed these things. It is clear that they never accepted, as Rook likes to believe, that Christ was merely a fictional character in the first place, or a gnostic notion of Christ. The secular authorities like Josephus seem to point to the fact that Christians did exist and that Christ probably existed, though they of course do not recount first-hand knowledge of Christ Himself.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Your opinion is irrelevant. Facts are what matter. Facts say nothing about a jesus.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I don't think you can call

I don't think you can call The Jesus Seminar a critical voice. They seem to assume that Jesus existed as a fundamental principle, so obviously it's going to be made up of people who think Jesus exists.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
StMichael wrote:
The Bible counts as pretty good evidence in my opinion, not because it says the things it says, but because of those who wrote it and their personal martyrdoms which attested to the truth of the testimony they gave in the Gospels. Also, the testimony of the earliest Christians, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, and St. Clement, who all knew personally the Apostles who claimed these things. It is clear that they never accepted, as Rook likes to believe, that Christ was merely a fictional character in the first place, or a gnostic notion of Christ. The secular authorities like Josephus seem to point to the fact that Christians did exist and that Christ probably existed, though they of course do not recount first-hand knowledge of Christ Himself. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael
Your opinion is irrelevant. Facts are what matter. Facts say nothing about a jesus.

Uh, not exactly. Facts (history of record) don't indicate the existence of a single Jesus, but a few of them. The Levant was always a rebellious region under Roman rule not just because of Jews but because of rebellious remnants of the Mithraic Wars just a generation or so prior to the time that the single Jesus in question was reputed to have walked.

In the first year CE, there was one prior to the Jesus in question, and from what I've read, the Jesus in question might have been the alias of one Simon the Zealot, played up in the New Testament as a rather silent Apostle--but this is just speculation on my part, based solely on the political climate of the region at that time.

The Zealot faction of Jews were a chronic political pain in the ass to Rome, and I remind historians on this thread that the first rebellion in the first century took place a few scant years after Paul's time (70 CE), and the remainder of the Epistles, and the Gospels, were written between the the 70 CE rebellion and the 132 CE rebellion, the latter of which was led by yet another Jesus (that is, some rebel who was characterized as a Messiah).

There were numerous Jesuses between the Mithraic Wars and the 132 CE rebellion, but there were just 3 that were prominent precursors to the pulling off an ACTUAL rebellion. Jesus per se might not have existed as the Jesus in question, but there was somebody just like him who pulled off those rebellions all the same.

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Yes, history records many

Yes, history records many seperate persons named Jesus, as there were many persons named John at that point in time. No news there. However, it does not follow that because other people were named Jesus at the time that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed. Likewise, there were many Messianic figures. But it does not follow that Jesus thus never existed. It likewise is fairly obvious that Christ did not lead a rebellion in Jerusalem against the Temple in 70 AD, because His disciples and apostles clearly believed that He had ascended into heaven. Likewise, the Christians had no apparent role in any of the rebellion, famously abandoning Jerusalem in light of Christ's prophecies about its destruction. If their God and Messaih were leading the rebellion personally, you would think that they would mention it somewheres...

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, Mike, but you're

Sorry, Mike, but your timeline's scrambled. A lot of those beliefs weren't believed by the contemporaries of the Jesus in question at that time. All that claptrap was part of the mythweaving committed by the next generation, like Luke. None of the Gospel writers were Jesus' contemporaries; two of them were of Paul's generation, and the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's letters were.

The first couple of lines of the Gospel of Luke admits up front that he's just relaying what he was told during his investigation into the matter, and that Gospel is just Part I of a 2-part letter of which Acts is the second part.

Luke was a Macedonian physician picked up by Paul on one of his journeys to Greece's neighborhood. Mark was another of Paul's contemporaries--not Jesus'.

Further, the Gospel of John DOES NOT say Jesus ascended into heaven--John says he just went on preaching like he did before.  You really didn't read that book you say you believe in, did you? 

Christians aren't really so much followers of Christ as they are Paulists--followers of Paul.

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


JeSOS
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Come on stop crapping in my

Come on stop crapping in my thread, i dont care whatever jesus was real (swell mob) or not existed at all, whole point = how jews related to christianity or vice versa?

Facts pls. 


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
JeSOS wrote: Come on stop

JeSOS wrote:

Come on stop crapping in my thread, i dont care whatever jesus was real (swell mob) or not existed at all, whole point = how jews related to christianity or vice versa?

Facts pls. 

Your original question was pretty vague. The Old Testament was knowingly taken from the Talmoud, Jewish scripture, so that can't really be considered a conspiracy, and the NT was written by early Christians. Many of the characters (fictional or not) in the Gospels were Jews, including Jesus. And the actual decision about what was in the official canon was made much later by the Council of Nicea much later in 325 CE. I'm not seeing where there could be a Jewish conspiracy. Perhaps you have a more specific idea of a conspiracy that you would care to share?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


JeSOS
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: The Old

rexlunae wrote:
The Old Testament was knowingly taken from the Talmoud, Jewish scripture, so that can't really be considered a conspiracy, and the NT was written by early Christians. Many of the characters (fictional or not) in the Gospels were Jews, including Jesus. And the actual decision about what was in the official canon was made much later by the Council of Nicea much later in 325 CE. I'm not seeing where there could be a Jewish conspiracy. Perhaps you have a more specific idea of a conspiracy that you would care to share?

Well i dont know about Old or New Testament, and have no willing to study it right now, since i know this all is BS in first place, i know bout religion that i read bible when i was child, but now i understand it was bull shit created to control masses and its not came out of no where, it would not spread on its own, someone conspired to push this religion, therefore conspiracy.

Why jewish, well have you heard about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A lot of those

Quote:
A lot of those beliefs weren't believed by the contemporaries of the Jesus in question at that time.

On what grounds do you make this assertion? I showed concrete people from whom we have documents - historical evidence - that such was, in fact, the belief of the Apostles themselves. What do you have?

Quote:

All that claptrap was part of the mythweaving committed by the next generation, like Luke. None of the Gospel writers were Jesus' contemporaries; two of them were of Paul's generation, and the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's letters were.

But, of course, Luke and Mark were both written as a compilation of the apostolic preaching. Mark was written according to Papias and in the greater tradition as a record of the preaching of Saint Peter, for whom Mark was a scribe. Luke uses first-hand sources, not oral traditions passed down from one generation to the next. Further, St. Paul WAS a contemporary of Christ, as were the other apostles. St. Luke and St. Mark were writing very shortly after the ascension/resurrection, with St. Mark's Gospel being dated to, at least, 65 AD.

Quote:
Further, the Gospel of John DOES NOT say Jesus ascended into heaven--John says he just went on preaching like he did before. You really didn't read that book you say you believe in, did you?

No, I did and do. However, you are skewing facts. St. John does NOT say that Christ did not ascend into heaven. It merely ends the Gospel on the note of the author's credibility and the lack of being able to write all the things that Christ did. It never says that Christ just kept on preaching forever. The Gospel of St. John seems in this, and many other ways, to presume the other Gospels. In fact, the last line of the Gospel seems to indicate this intent precisely in the purpose of writing the Gospel - to supplement the already existing accounts.

Quote:

Christians aren't really so much followers of Christ as they are Paulists--followers of Paul.

Of course, your assertion without any reason why this is the case. And even if they did follow Saint Paul, Saint Paul and his preaching was accepted by the Apostles. There is no deviation in doctrine between St. Paul and the Apostles who were confirming his message. Or, if you do claim that there was, you need to provide clear evidence.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Dude StMicheal have you not

Dude StMicheal have you not read the threads in the Jesus Mythisicm forum? Rook pretty much pwns the hell out of the idea of a historical Jesus.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The protocols of the Elders

The protocols of the Elders of Zion was completely made up - though the Nazis used it and some in the mideast still do today. It was actually made by the Russian secret police right around 1900 (not sure of exact year) as an excuse to persecute Jews.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I have read what Rook

I have read what Rook writes; I read everything he has written so far. But it is neither convincing nor supported by fact. Just to put it in context, Rook's opinion, along with the main author he uses to support his contention, are very much in the minority of Biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars the world over do not support Rook's position.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, duh! Bible scholars

Well, duh! Bible scholars are by definition Christians most of the time - if they agreed Jesus was a myth they would no longer be Christians.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Not true. Many prominent

Not true. Many prominent scholars of the Bible are not Christians. The entire Jesus Seminar is not, to my knowledge. Likewise, even some Christian biblical scholars tend to have a rather skeptical view. But my main point is that scholarship in general does not support your views. We are not talking about Christians only; atheists as well reject the view that you take.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
JeSOS wrote:Well i dont

JeSOS wrote:
Well i dont know about Old or New Testament, and have no willing to study it right now, since i know this all is BS in first place, i know bout religion that i read bible when i was child, but now i understand it was bull shit created to control masses and its not came out of no where, it would not spread on its own, someone conspired to push this religion, therefore conspiracy.

Why jewish, well have you heard about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

You ask if the Bible is a Jewish conspiracy, and then don't want to be bothered with the details about the origins of the Old and New Testaments? You realize that the Old and New Testaments are pretty much all there is to the Bible, right?

As for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I agree with those who say it seems like a hoax. In fact, it sounds like antisemitic propaganda.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Arabs are semitic; Jews

Arabs are semitic; Jews from Europe are European.  No religion is a race and I don't give a shit what the dictionary says.  The dictionary can say and say and say till doomsday and Arabs will still be semitic and Europeans will still be Europeans.

NO religion is an ethnicity or race.  NONE. 

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Clara Listensprechen

Clara Listensprechen wrote:

Arabs are semitic; Jews from Europe are European.  No religion is a race and I don't give a shit what the dictionary says.  The dictionary can say and say and say till doomsday and Arabs will still be semitic and Europeans will still be Europeans.

NO religion is an ethnicity or race.  NONE. 

Lovely. I agree that the word 'antisemitic' has a slightly unintuitive meaning, however, I don't think that justifies redefining it. I will continue to use the word as the dictionary defines it, thank you.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


JeSOS
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Well thats public opinion,

MattShizzle wrote:
The protocols of the Elders of Zion was completely made up - though the Nazis used it and some in the mideast still do today. It was actually made by the Russian secret police right around 1900 (not sure of exact year) as an excuse to persecute Jews.
 

Well thats public opinion, supported or forced by jews, have you read em? Even this who say it was fake still say it describes pretty well in details how to conquer the world.

 
rexlunae wrote:
As for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I agree with those who say it seems like a hoax. In fact, it sounds like antisemitic propaganda.

I dont say you should read it and take for truth, just read em and make ur own opinion, because if you go with one public have then theres also no conspiracy in Kennedy death and other stuff...

I think they are to important to pay no attention to them whatever public says, besides theres no proof they were faked. 

What my point is, should read em and try connect dots, and as you know jews are everywhere and us strongly supports them so i think it deserves some attention.

 

rexlunae wrote:
You ask if the Bible is a Jewish conspiracy, and then don't want to be bothered with the details about the origins of the Old and New Testaments? You realize that the Old and New Testaments are pretty much all there is to the Bible, right?

I mean i know bible is just "stuff" used to control ppl, and it is just recently i decided that it could be made up by jews, though its not so important to me at this stage, i just asked out of curiosity, maybe theres more ppl who support this opinion (except skinheads) thats all, currently i have no intention to look futhurer into this.