Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Who killed Jesus? Posted: 17-Jan-2013 at 13:11 |
For centuries, Christians have blamed the Jews for Christ's death and suspected them of conspiring to destroy the church. The Romans have also been blamed for carrying out the execution and persecuting the early church. However, following their conversion to Christianity, the blame shifted to the Jewish priests either conspiring with Pilate to kill Christ, or forcing him to carry out the execution to appease an angry crowd. Or does the blame rest with an individual, like Judas, whose betrayal enabled the Jews and Romans to arrest Christ?
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Mountain Man
General
Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2013 at 13:34 |
Originally posted by Nick1986
For centuries, Christians have blamed the Jews for Christ's death and suspected them of conspiring to destroy the church. The Romans have also been blamed for carrying out the execution and persecuting the early church. However, following their conversion to Christianity, the blame shifted to the Jewish priests either conspiring with Pilate to kill Christ, or forcing him to carry out the execution to appease an angry crowd. Or does the blame rest with an individual, like Judas, whose betrayal enabled the Jews and Romans to arrest Christ?
|
Jesus did, according to the recently recovered Gospel of Judas. Jesus had to die in order to complete the resurrection plan; therefore, he engineered his own death beginning with Judas' fake "betrayal". Had Jesus lived, the whole purpose and promise of Christianity would have been lost. Great religions require equally great martyrs.
Edited by Mountain Man - 17-Jan-2013 at 13:35
|
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2013 at 13:40 |
If ya an adherent of the gnostic's it works.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2013 at 16:28 |
Originally posted by Mountain Man
Jesus did, according to the recently recovered Gospel of Judas. Jesus had to die in order to complete the resurrection plan; therefore, he engineered his own death beginning with Judas' fake "betrayal".
|
It would have been difficult for Jesus to engineer his death as the decision of the individual with ultimate authority over him (Pilate) was very hard to predict.
Though one could say that Jesus deliberatly answered Pilate's questions in such a way that Pilate had no choice but to execute him, Christ's claims during the interrogation were the same claims that he had been making for at least three years.
In short, Christ did not add anything during the interrogation that he had not claimed before. For me, this reduces the possibility that Christ was trying to provoke Pilate into executing him.
Originally posted by Mountain Man
[QUOTE=Nick1986]Had Jesus lived, the whole purpose and promise of Christianity would have been lost. Great religions require equally great martyrs.
|
Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism have millions of followers and were not founded by a martyr. In contrast, Islam was founded by somebody who purportedly made a triumphant entry into heaven on a winged horse.
Jesus could have been tortured, but then released. The suffering from the torture would have fullfilled most of his predictions. Though the death and resurrection of Christ aided Christianity, I dont think they were truly needed for Christianity to "work" as a religion.
Edited by Cryptic - 17-Jan-2013 at 16:41
|
|
Mountain Man
General
Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2013 at 17:25 |
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis
If ya an adherent of the gnostic's it works. |
Edited by Mountain Man - 17-Jan-2013 at 17:26
|
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
Mountain Man
General
Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2013 at 17:25 |
Originally posted by Mountain Man
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis
If ya an adherent of the gnostic's it works. |
I think you mean if I give as much credence to Judas' words as I do to the ones that the Christian council approved in their massive censorship session...yes, I do.
Gnostic is an ancient Greek word meaning "Not approved by the Christian spinmeisters".
In order for the entire "Christ is the resurrection" thing to work at all, he had to die.
|
|
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2013 at 18:42 |
All of it should be examined ole dog....and you and I are to old to worry about whether it meets with anyones approval or not. Does that mean we are required to support one over another? Only if we choose. I always like St James on that myself. 19 Remember this, my dear brothers: everyone
should be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to human anger; 20 God's
saving justice is never served by human anger; 21 so do away with all impurities
and remnants of evil. James Chp 1. I try to do that I really do.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 17-Jan-2013 at 18:42
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2013 at 08:26 |
Originally posted by Mountain Man
Originally posted by Mountain Man
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis
If ya an adherent of the gnostic's it works. |
I think you mean if I give as much credence to Judas' words as I do to the ones that the Christian council approved in their massive censorship session...yes, I do.
Gnostic is an ancient Greek word meaning "Not approved by the Christian spinmeisters".
In order for the entire "Christ is the resurrection" thing to work at all, he had to die.
|
|
Yeah Gnosticism was a lot more widespread back in the early days of Christianity, more than people like to admit. Some Gnostics, at least the ones who wrote the Gospel of Judas, viewed the crucifixion as an engineered plan that had to be carried out for Jesus to bring salvation and atonement to his followers. It's funny how this Gospel paints Judas not as the traitor but as Jesus' closest friend and confidant. Also common back then was the belief in ''Docetism'' that Jesus was actually not crucified in any physical form but that a phantom of his was. According to the Gospel of Peter, it was Herod who was ultimately responsible for the crucifixion, not Pilate or the Jews.
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2013 at 11:03 |
Bad&Unclear political circumstances in Jerusalem&Rome those days,I suppose here,killed Jesus those days.
|
|
Mountain Man
General
Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2013 at 14:36 |
Originally posted by Cryptic
Originally posted by Mountain Man
Jesus did, according to the recently recovered Gospel of Judas. Jesus had to die in order to complete the resurrection plan; therefore, he engineered his own death beginning with Judas' fake "betrayal".
|
It would have been difficult for Jesus to engineer his death as the decision of the individual with ultimate authority over him (Pilate) was very hard to predict.
Though one could say that Jesus deliberatly answered Pilate's questions in such a way that Pilate had no choice but to execute him, Christ's claims during the interrogation were the same claims that he had been making for at least three years.
In short, Christ did not add anything during the interrogation that he had not claimed before. For me, this reduces the possibility that Christ was trying to provoke Pilate into executing him.
Originally posted by Mountain Man
[QUOTE=Nick1986]Had Jesus lived, the whole purpose and promise of Christianity would have been lost. Great religions require equally great martyrs.
|
Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism have millions of followers and were not founded by a martyr. In contrast, Islam was founded by somebody who purportedly made a triumphant entry into heaven on a winged horse.
Jesus could have been tortured, but then released. The suffering from the torture would have fullfilled most of his predictions. Though the death and resurrection of Christ aided Christianity, I dont think they were truly needed for Christianity to "work" as a religion. | Actually, current thinking is that Mohammed was poisoned. And since Christianity was based on a promise of eternal life and resurrection, yes - it was necessary. Religion is about salesmanship, not ideology. Christianity is so far removed from the alleged original concept that Jesus supposedly preached that it might as well be an entirely different religion. According to the Bible, Jesus had to die and be resurrected because that was "God's plan". You might look up Jesus' plea in the garden of Gesthemane. (Don't you hate it when an agnostic knows all this stuff? )
Hinduism, BTW, is ALL about resurrection and moving upwards in the cycle of the next life by accumulating "good kharma" in the current one. I worked with a Hindu colleague for several years, and we often discussed religions as a means of passing time between patients.
Buddhism is not a religion - it is a philosophy.
|
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2013 at 21:09 |
Originally posted by Mountain Man
Hinduism, BTW, is ALL about resurrection and moving upwards in the cycle of the next life by accumulating "good kharma" in the current one. |
It may well be, but the core point in regards to your claim is that Hinduism was not founded by a martyr.
Originally posted by Mountain Man
\ Buddhism is not a religion - it is a philosophy.
|
Actually, it depends on the practioner. To my knowledge, The Buddha never refuted theism. Rather, he said that particular theistic beliefs were not required per se to be his follower. Tens of millions of Buddhists today believe that gods demons, demigods etc. exist. Even the account of the Buddhas enlightnment under the Bodhi tree invovled him being tempted by demons.
Originally posted by Mountain Man
According to the Bible, Jesus had to die and be resurrected because that was "God's plan". You might look up Jesus' plea in the garden of Gesthemane. |
That plea seems to refer to a cup of suffering, not death per se. Do you have source from one of the gospels (not a letter or Acts) where it states that Jesus must die for Christianity to be realized?
Edited by Cryptic - 18-Jan-2013 at 21:22
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2013 at 08:34 |
A lot of people wanted to kill Jesus at the time. He probably knew he was going to die and sought to boost his credibility by predicting his own execution
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Mountain Man
General
Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2013 at 15:27 |
Originally posted by Cryptic
It may well be, but the core point in regards to your claim is that Hinduism was not founded by a martyr.
[QUOTE=Mountain Man] \
Not a key point at all, because my statements were about Christianity. Others brought in the rest of the religions in an attempt to distract from the actual argument, which was that Christianity required the death of Christ in order to work. Also, another poster told us that Hinduismn was not about resurrection, and of course, it is, as any Hindu will tell you.
That plea seems to refer to a cup of suffering, not death per se. Do you have source from one of the gospels (not a letter or Acts) where it states that Jesus must die for Christianity to be realized? | If that wasn't the plan, why was he executed? His father was God, correct? He could simply have been taken back into Heaven, but his appeal for his life - that "bitter cup" you refer to - was rejected by his father, meaning he had to die on the cross. His father was God; therefore his father knew what was planned for him, including the crucifixtion.As I said before, religions have to be sold, especially Christianity which set out to suppress and supplant all previous pagan religions, which required the virgin birth, the miracles, the cures, the constant words of wisdom and the ultimate sacrifice to prove victory over death and the power of life eternal that lived up to promises made, all of which were additions to the original religious concept by those who sought to control it. Comparable claims exist for a majority of the gods associated with many pagan and modern religions, including Islam and Judaism.If you prefer the simpler argument, if Jesus did not have to die then why did God allow mere men to kill him? Of course, the logical explanation is that God did not exist, and Jesus was, in fact, a political radical guilty of treason against the Roman Empire which lead to his being crucified, a punishment reserved for the worst criminals. No other explanations fit the known "facts" about this mythical man. but we now know for a "fact" that Judas did not betray him, but was ordered by Jesus himself to do so, which brings us back to the necessity for his death and from there back to my response - it was the plan to sell the religion that required his death.
I would suggest at this point that all other religions get their own thread, so that we separate them and keep them separate, but it is no coincidence at all that all of the Big Three modern religions follow the same essential history and beliefs. Plagiarism is not confined to authors.
Here is a simple test for all of you:
Start a new religion right now, in your head. Knowing what the religious landscape is in the 21st century, decide how uyou will persuade (sell to others) others that your religious revelation is genuine and that you represent a real deity? What qualities will your diety have to possess in order to successfully compete? (Hint: Deities must have god-like powers, so you might have to start there. You'll also have to "speak" to your deity, or at least hear his wishes, so experiencing "visions" might be another place to go. )
Edited by Mountain Man - 19-Jan-2013 at 15:34
|
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
Venkytalks
Knight
Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2013 at 14:18 |
If as historians we look at Jesus as a man, then he could not have predicted his own death and so could not have made any grand plan of resurrection. His prediction was based on the probability of betrayal and the probability of execution.
If we believe that Jesus was son of God, then he knew the future and went to the cross. In that case Judas was his friend. And Jesus would know that. Hence his warning about betreyal would probably be for Peter. The cock crowing, the thrice denial etc by Peter mark him. Of course betrayal would only come in the future. So Jesus could only warn his followers.
Jesus actually failed in his mission to redeem the Jewish people and bring them back on track. And it mostly came about because Peter changed the direction of Jesus message. It was Peter who believed Ananias that Paul had seen the light. It was Peter who allowed paul the apostle of the Gentiles to gain power.
All his life, Jesus said preach only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. But peter allowed Paul to change track. And so Jesus was betrayed, as he predicted all his life.
I of course don't believe in magic powers. But if I did, I would definitely see Peter as the betrayer about whom Jesus repeated warned. Not judas.
One reading of acts was enough for me to see this. I wonder why the Christians miss it.
|
Venky
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jan-2013 at 16:25 |
Venkytalks, have you heard about the apocryphal "Judas gospel"? It claims Christ ordered Judas to betray him to the authorities http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2006/04/0406_060406_judas.html
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jan-2013 at 19:48 |
Originally posted by Venkytalks
If as historians we look at Jesus as a man, then he could not have predicted his own death and so could not have made any grand plan of resurrection. His prediction was based on the probability of betrayal and the probability of execution.
If we believe that Jesus was son of God, then he knew the future and went to the cross. In that case Judas was his friend. And Jesus would know that. Hence his warning about betreyal would probably be for Peter. The cock crowing, the thrice denial etc by Peter mark him. Of course betrayal would only come in the future. So Jesus could only warn his followers.
Jesus actually failed in his mission to redeem the Jewish people and bring them back on track. And it mostly came about because Peter changed the direction of Jesus message. It was Peter who believed Ananias that Paul had seen the light. It was Peter who allowed paul the apostle of the Gentiles to gain power.
All his life, Jesus said preach only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. But peter allowed Paul to change track. And so Jesus was betrayed, as he predicted all his life.
I of course don't believe in magic powers. But if I did, I would definitely see Peter as the betrayer about whom Jesus repeated warned. Not judas.
One reading of acts was enough for me to see this. I wonder why the Christians miss it. | Jesus said to only preach to Jews? Please show me where it says that in the NT.
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
TheAlaniDragonRising
AE Moderator
Spam Fighter
Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jan-2013 at 19:53 |
Originally posted by Baal Melqart
Jesus said to only preach to Jews? Please show me where it says that in the NT.
|
Matthew 15:24
|
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
|
|
Venkytalks
Knight
Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2013 at 03:05 |
Originally posted by Baal Melqart
Jesus said to only preach to Jews? Please show me where it says that in the NT.
|
In his Gospel Testament of Jesus's teachings, Mathew has said in Ch 10 about
what Jesus COMMANDED his disciples to do
10/5 - These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them saying "Go not
into the way of the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10/6 - But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Such a clear injunction is not mentioned by Mark, Luke or John. But the import
is clear even in each and every Gospel - Jesus wanted to preach to the Jews.
And only to the Jews.
Everything Jesus wanted to say was restricted to the Jews alone. And so he COMMANDED his disciples, as the most faithful of his disciples has spoken.
Even his healing and performance of miracles Jesus restricted to the Jews alone
Matthew 15/22: And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of thr same coasts and
cried unto him saying have mercy one me O Lord thou son of David, my daughter
is seriously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him
saying Send her away; for she crieth after us
24. But he answered and said I am not sent BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE
OF ISRAEL
25. Then came she and worshipped him saying Lord help me
26.But he answered and said It is not meet to take the childrens meat and cast
it to dogs
27. And she said Truth Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from
their masters table
after which JEsus heals her daughter seeing how great her faith was. Even his
miracles were restricted to the Jews alone, with only an occasional exception
like this woman of the Centurion Matthew 8/5.
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come
to destroy but to fulfill
etc
19 Whosoever shall break the LEAST commandment and teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven etc.
The general import of each of the four Gospels is also very clear that Jesus
came to redeem the Jews.
Now,
it was Simon Peter who first said it was alright to preach to the Gentiles. He
said he saw a vision which meant it was alright to do so. What was this vision?
Acts 10/11And saw heaven opened and a certain vessel descending unto him as it
had been a great sheet knit at the four corners and let down to the earth.
12. Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth and wild beasts
and CREEPING THINGS and fowls of the air
13. And there came a voice to him Rise Peter kill and eat
14.But Peter said not so Lord, for I have never eaten any thing that is common
or unclean
15.And the voice spake unto him the second time What God hath cleansed, that
call not thou common
After saying this three times the vessel went back. Peter did not know what the
vision meant. But after this Simon Peter preached to a centurion claiming that
the above words meant
Acts 10/28: Ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to keep
company or come unto one of another nation, but God has showed me that I should
not call any man common or unclean.
After this there was lot of debate with Jews and other discliples and the end
of it was that Peter rose up and said his vision meant they could preach to the
Gentiles and it was unnecessary for the person to be circumscised or follow the
rules of the life of a Jew, as long as they
(Acts 15/19) - abstain from pollution of idols and from fornication and from
things strangled and from blood
it was alright to preach to the Gentiles and to convert them to Christianity.
BUT THIS GOES AGAINST THE COMMANDMENTS OF JESUS!!!
Now what is the evidence that Peter, the selected pupil and disciple of Christ
would succumb to such a betrayal? Matthew 26/21: Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray me.
It is commonly misunderstood that Judas betrayed Jesus. But Jesus never once
mentions Judas by name!!!!
Why would he do that? Because it was not Judas who was to betray him! It was
Simon Peter!
23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
This like everything else said by Jesus in his teachings is not a direct
statement. The person who has "the zeal to convert, like Jesus's zeal to
reform Judaism" = dipping the hand in the same dish - would betray him.
Judas never wanted to dip in the same dish as Jesus, but Simon Peter did.
24. The son of man goeth as it is written of him, but woe unto that man by whom
the son of man is betrayed, it had been good for that man if he had not been
born!
Clearly this does not refer to Judas in any way. Instead, after Jesus has gone
his way, who is it who was going to betray Jesus? Who indeed was it that it was
better that he had never been born? Jesus clearly wanted to die for humanity,
Judas was but the medium through which this could happen. So why that Judas
should never have been born?
Instead, it was better that Simon Peter should never have been born so that he
would betray Jesus as he did after Jesus was dead.
Judas asks Jesus directly whether "I am the betrayer". Jesus could
have said yes, since the 30 pieces of silver for which Judas sold him down
would become common knowledge very soon. But Jesus does not say Judas was the
man.
Instead, a very significant thing occurs. Jesus says to Simon Peter,
(34)...This night before the cock crows you shall deny me thrice.
And indeed Simon Peter does deny Jesus thrice when Jesus is arrested. All the
Gospels say so, that Simon Peter did this horrid thing. What is the
significance of Simon Peter denying him thus thrice? What else but a warning to
the rest of his followers that Simon Peter was the real Judas? That Simon Peter
was the real betrayer?
The significance of this denial is two fold. One that despite the profession of
Simon Peter that he was Jesus' most faithful disciple (33), the physical act of
denial by Peter when Jesus is arrested marks him out as the true betrayer. Also,
that though he thought himself strong, he was in fact the weak link in the
disciples.
What actually happened is very clear. Peter was the weakest of the disciples
Mat 26/40 & 41 : ... findeth them asleep and saith unto Peter What, could
ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation
: the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak
Simon Peter it was who drew a sword to protect Jesus, clearly betraying his
weakness of flesh despite the zeal of his spirit. These are the characteristics
of weak men
Jesus knew it all along, always he talked of betrayal by his own pupil, and he
never meant Judas. For the betrayal of Judas was insignificant, and came when
Jesus was still alive, when Jesus could have countered it. The real betrayal
was to come after he was gone, due to the weakness of one man whos spirit was
willing but whos flesh was weak.
Of course, there are those out there who call themselves Christians without
believing in miracles and Devils. Who believe that the sayings of Jesus
recorded in the New Testament are metaphorical teachings. So also can what I
have written above be interpreted in a different way. Jesus wanted to improve
Judaism and rid it of evil practices. He never wanted to convert others or
wanted his disciples to embrace evangelism.
Simon Peter subverted this by his "mistaken belief" that he should
convert gentiles. He forgot that which his master told him to do and did that
which he was forbidden to do, in the mistaken belief that he was doing good.
It is only after death of Jesus that Mark heard a disembodies voice saying "go forth and preach to all creatures" which also has been used as a reference to preaching to those who were not Jews
|
Venky
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2013 at 14:34 |
Amazing deductions Venkytalks! This actually makes a lot of sense the way you put the pieces together. I feel that there is also an important part of Christian history which people tend to overlook which is the first Church that was set-up by Jesus' brother James (Yaaqov). There is evidence suggesting that James and his early followers adhered a lot more to the laws of the Torah than the Christians that came afterwards and I remember hearing that he did not go out of his way to convert Gentiles or something to that effect.
The church of James was in clear opposition to the church of Peter/Paul and it would be the latter that wins out in the end.
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
Venkytalks
Knight
Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2013 at 05:49 |
Originally posted by Baal Melqart
Amazing deductions Venkytalks! This actually makes a lot of sense the way you put the pieces together. I feel that there is also an important part of Christian history which people tend to overlook which is the first Church that was set-up by Jesus' brother James (Yaaqov). There is evidence suggesting that James and his early followers adhered a lot more to the laws of the Torah than the Christians that came afterwards and I remember hearing that he did not go out of his way to convert Gentiles or something to that effect.
The church of James was in clear opposition to the church of Peter/Paul and it would be the latter that wins out in the end.
|
It is really unfortunate that the ecumenical council left out all the other gospels and had the choice to pick and chose which texts to exclude and which to include.
And so we have exclusion of multiple other gospels, including those of other disciples who had learned from Jesus himself. They chose the gospels which suited them in making a Roman church under the Emperor's control.
And they also chose included in new testament everything written by Paul. And Paul of Tarsus started out as an Anti Christ activist.
Paul,
or Saul of Tarsus, was a son of mixed parantage, A PHARISEE AND A ROMAN- The
two communities who killed Jesus.
We do not even know how significant was Paul's role in getting Jesus killed because we dont know the details. Paul was an influential anti Jesus conservative Jewish leader.
But we do know one thing - what is the first thing which Saint Paul did after Jesus was dead?(Paul was sainted after he did this, mind you)
HE
LED THE MOB WHO KILLED SAINT STEPHEN!!! And he persecuted many others of Jesus
followers!!!!.
Paul was a murderer, he led a lynch mob !!!!
Isnt it ridiculous that the man who killed Saint Stephen and for all we know got Jesus himself killed - is the same person who's writing fills up the biggest part of the New Testament? Much more than the Gospels themselves?
I find it ridiculous that the Christians do not see this - that the NT is written majorly not by Jesus but by Paul.
|
Venky
|
|