Christianity a Hoax

[Belisarius]

I was pondering this while listening to the Passion story from Matthew. What if Jesus' crucifixion was a trick by the Romans and Jesus working together. He was only on the cross for a few hours, it took many people days to die from crucifixion. They also didn't break his bones. They then took him down from the cross, laid him in the tomb that was "hewn from the rock" wich may have been designed to store food or allow Jesus to get food and water some way. Then the guard at the tomb would push the stone away, Jesus ressurects, the large sect of his followers would support Roman power over that of the High priests who put jesus to death. Jesus then gets his closest followers together who probably were in on it the whole time, tells them to spread the religion and then retires to an estate in southern gaul maybe to be joined by Mary Magdaline. This ressurection adds weight Christian beliefs and avoids Jesus from rising to become the literal king of the jews(may have been the intention of the conspiracy in the first place). The spread of this Christian belief may have given Pilot more political power where he was suffering before, while at the same time making the High Priests look bad. Many people during this era weren't above using simple tricks to propagate their religions(and make money doing it). It wouldn't surprise me all that much if this is what Jesus did. I know this is going to offend a ton of people here, but it's just speculation and I thought it was an interesting idea.

[spoon]

Just to go along with your theory: John19:29-30 has some people filling a sponge with vinegar and feeding it to jesus. Who then straight away dies. If the "vinegar" were something to knock him out it would fit. And John19:30 has some dude going to jesus in the tomb with a lot of herbs (aloes and myrrh) both which can be used for healing. Of course you could just take the theory that mark made it up -spoon

[Rakkantekimusouka]

I think the content of these links speak for themselves -- and volumes, no less! Jews For Judaism - Reference: FAQ Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups They could at least not make things up: Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris.[/b] I know little of Egyptian deities, but I certainly to know that according to Indian legend, Krishna was definitely not born of a virgin. And the historical Siddhartha Gotama (who became the Buddha) was born of King Suddhodana Gotama and the Queen Mahamaya, who tried to conceive a child for many years before before Siddhartha was born. A little bit of research will show that Dionysus was born of Semele and Zeus (she was not a virgin in any sense of the virgin Mary). According to the legend, Zeus came to her in the night and made love to her. I personally have no opinion on Jesus and whether he was the Messiah or not, or about the origins of Christianity. People are free to have any opinion they want and share it, but if you're going to have an opinion and make statements to back it up, if you think for whatever reason you need to backup your claims, it should be based in sound judgment and not crap you make up that is clearly not valid. (from confusion is the past, this statement is not aimed at or towards anyone. It is just a general statement)

[Alric]

That would really hurt, no one would go along with that as a trick.

[Yume]

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-Rakkantekimusouka Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups They could at least not make things up: Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris.[/b] I know little of Egyptian deities, but I certainly to know that according to Indian legend, Krishna was definitely not born of a virgin. And the historical Siddhartha Gotama (who became the Buddha) was born of King Suddhodana Gotama and the Queen Mahamaya, who tried to conceive a child for many years before before Siddhartha was born. A little bit of research will show that Dionysus was born of Semele and Zeus (she was not a virgin in any sense of the virgin Mary). According to the legend, Zeus came to her in the night and made love to her. I personally have no opinion on Jesus and whether he was the Messiah or not, or about the origins of Christianity. People are free to have any opinion they want and share it, but if you're going to have an opinion and make statements to back it up, if you think for whatever reason you need to backup your claims, it should be based in sound judgment and not crap you make up that is clearly not valid. (from confusion is the past, this statement is not aimed at or towards anyone. It is just a general statement)[/b] In reality Zues was a pervert. Like in many stories Zues was in love with many different creatures, but hey that is just my opinion. Overall though there is a lot of evidence to prove Jesus was not the Messiah. I do think though that there is a place where it says there will be a second coming in the New Testament. I don't know. I would check that out before I claimed or believed that. Even though I am Jewish I want to have statements that do actually have proof. When Christian Missionaries try to convert me I always have something to prove them wrong. None of them that I have seen can make claims other than "Jesus is coming". Also I have never seen one that can accurately quote the bible. They just say it is in the bible and I always ask where. They never can tell me.

[bradybaker]

Maybe I'm wrong...but didn't the church basically vote to decide if Jesus was in fact the incarnation of God or not at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?

[Yume]

Originally posted by bradybaker Maybe I'm wrong...but didn't the church basically vote to decide if Jesus was in fact the incarnation of God or not at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? There is more than one church my friend. I think it is in the 200's that this happened.

[spoon]

Nah brady's right. It was Constantine that kicked it off. That makes it 325 c.e. And the "divine jesus" camp won by something like 5 votes. -spoon

[Soilent Green]

I believe in a much less literal interpretation of bibilical events. I think believe that Jesus' virgin birth actually refers to a spiritual rebirth (i.e. enlightenment) rather Mary being knocked up by God. I also think that Jesus is only the son of God in the sense that you and I are all children of God.

[syzygy]

I agree with Solient Green all the way. If you take the Bible in the literal sense, you end up with a bunch of contradictions and a whole reality that goes against our daily life. Now if you take the Bible in an esoteric, spiritual sense, then it makes a lot of sense and can then be applied to your life as it is now. It is much more accessable and practical. The thing that most Christians (and most people in general) get caught up on is looking at the world as if it was outside of yourself. They see Jesus as an unattainable state they must bow down to. But this is not what Jesus wanted, this is what the church wants so you blindly follow them. Jesus is a teacher, he wants his students to gain what he already has, which is spiritual enlightenment. If you think the Bible does not make much sense and contradicts itself, try looking at it from a different perspective. Take the words in a spiritual sense, as Solient Green gave some examples. It then makes a lot of sense! The Bible was written in the physical world, so it can only use physical events to describe what it is trying to say, but ultimately it is talking about a spiritual world, not the physical. Once you see the Bible in this way, it is not necessary to argue about physical events in time. You go beyond time and the physical world. So Jesus's resurrection was not physical, it was spiritual. Why would some events in the Bible defy physical laws? Like Jesus healing a blind man, if you think it was a physical healing, you get yourself confused and in a lot of trouble. Look at it as a spiritual healing, he could now see the light of God, he changed his perspective.

[Mystical_Journey]

Thats a really interesting perspective, thanks! when i speak to christian people all they do is try and convert me into their belief system and expect me to agree with their universal "understanding" that we have to do everything God says or we go to Hell! i really dislike the recruitment aspect of Christianity and the social conditioning that comes with it. That is an insightful comment

[Yume]

Originally posted by syzygy I agree with Solient Green all the way. If you take the Bible in the literal sense, you end up with a bunch of contradictions and a whole reality that goes against our daily life. Now if you take the Bible in an esoteric, spiritual sense, then it makes a lot of sense and can then be applied to your life as it is now. It is much more accessable and practical. The thing that most Christians (and most people in general) get caught up on is looking at the world as if it was outside of yourself. They see Jesus as an unattainable state they must bow down to. But this is not what Jesus wanted, this is what the church wants so you blindly follow them. Jesus is a teacher, he wants his students to gain what he already has, which is spiritual enlightenment. If you think the Bible does not make much sense and contradicts itself, try looking at it from a different perspective. Take the words in a spiritual sense, as Solient Green gave some examples. It then makes a lot of sense! The Bible was written in the physical world, so it can only use physical events to describe what it is trying to say, but ultimately it is talking about a spiritual world, not the physical. Once you see the Bible in this way, it is not necessary to argue about physical events in time. You go beyond time and the physical world. So Jesus's resurrection was not physical, it was spiritual. Why would some events in the Bible defy physical laws? Like Jesus healing a blind man, if you think it was a physical healing, you get yourself confused and in a lot of trouble. Look at it as a spiritual healing, he could now see the light of God, he changed his perspective. That is the smartest way to interpret the bible I have ever heard by someone who I think might be Christian. I have been hoping there were people like you. I look at things both literally and unliterally. Since interpretation is an opinion I try to be a little more open-minded about it. I think that Jesus was a great teacher, but when he called himself(if he really did)the direct son of God it kind of pissed me off. I really hope that Jesus didn't want what the Christian churches made him to be. Of course I am Jewish so that is why I have this opinion.

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by syzygy I agree with Solient Green all the way. If you take the Bible in the literal sense, you end up with a bunch of contradictions and a whole reality that goes against our daily life. Now if you take the Bible in an esoteric, spiritual sense, then it makes a lot of sense and can then be applied to your life as it is now. It is much more accessable and practical. The thing that most Christians (and most people in general) get caught up on is looking at the world as if it was outside of yourself. They see Jesus as an unattainable state they must bow down to. But this is not what Jesus wanted, this is what the church wants so you blindly follow them. Jesus is a teacher, he wants his students to gain what he already has, which is spiritual enlightenment. If you think the Bible does not make much sense and contradicts itself, try looking at it from a different perspective. Take the words in a spiritual sense, as Solient Green gave some examples. It then makes a lot of sense! The Bible was written in the physical world, so it can only use physical events to describe what it is trying to say, but ultimately it is talking about a spiritual world, not the physical. Once you see the Bible in this way, it is not necessary to argue about physical events in time. You go beyond time and the physical world. So Jesus's resurrection was not physical, it was spiritual. Why would some events in the Bible defy physical laws? Like Jesus healing a blind man, if you think it was a physical healing, you get yourself confused and in a lot of trouble. Look at it as a spiritual healing, he could now see the light of God, he changed his perspective. I think that's a foolish way to interpret it. It should be interpreted the way the writers meant for it to be interpreted, it is a translation of their ideas into words, and as soon as you translate the words into something entirely different from the ideas, any weight the book carried is gone. You might as well be reading Calvin & Hobbs. When the bible says "Jesus healed a blind man" it means that he made a person who could not see light, see light, not some wacky spiritual sight type of thing. If that's what the writers wanted to write they probably would have written it. Books like Revelation are meant to be symbolic, but the only symbolism in the Gospel is that which Jesus uses himself, this is evident because all other symbolic happenings(like Jesus being 14 generations after David who was 14 generations after Joseph) are explained as if the reader was a small child. Jesus was not some fictional "esotheric" character that we can believe in without it having any impact on our actual lives. He was an actual historical figure who was born, lived, and died(or ascended). To claim that the events of his life should only be taken into account on some spiritual level just because they contradict the laws of science, is to exalt science as the greatest god, to be followed by the unimportant god of the "spiritual realm" who we get happy feelings from believing in, but aren't too inconvienienced by. If you're going to believe in such an irrational thing, you should at least go all the way, rather than making some half-assed attempt.

[syzygy]

Originally posted by Belisarius I think that's a foolish way to interpret it. It should be interpreted the way the writers meant for it to be interpreted, it is a translation of their ideas into words, and as soon as you translate the words into something entirely different from the ideas, any weight the book carried is gone. You might as well be reading Calvin & Hobbs. How is it foolish to interpret a spiritual book in a spiritual way? It only makes sense to me. Yes, you can interpret the Bible on a literal level, but something so complex can be interpreted on many levels, literal being the lowest. How do you know how the writers meant for it to be interpreted, I don't remember reading that part...and for the translation part, Emmanuel Swedenborg was one who wrote extensively on the esoteric meaning of the Bible (books and books of commentary, written late in his life after having a spiritual experience) and he read it in the original languages. A lot of Swedenborg's interpretations of the Bible parallel the esoteric Shi'ites interpretations of the Qur'an, too. Meister Eckhart is another Christian mystic worth checking out. When the bible says \"Jesus healed a blind man\" it means that he made a person who could not see light, see light, not some wacky spiritual sight type of thing. If that's what the writers wanted to write they probably would have written it. [/b] Wasn't Jesus a spiritual leader? What would help a man more, curing his physical blindness, or his spiritual blindness? And I'm not talking about any \"wacky spiritual sight type of thing\", the blindness and seeing part is a metaphor. Seeing in the spiritual sense, which doesn't mean you see weird spirits and stuff, it means you understand God with your whole essence. Jesus was not some fictional \"esotheric\" character that we can believe in without it having any impact on our actual lives. He was an actual historical figure who was born, lived, and died(or ascended). To claim that the events of his life should only be taken into account on some spiritual level just because they contradict the laws of science, is to exalt science as the greatest god, to be followed by the unimportant god of the \"spiritual realm\" who we get happy feelings from believing in, but aren't too inconvienienced by. If you're going to believe in such an irrational thing, you should at least go all the way, rather than making some half-assed attempt.[/b] I didn't say that Jesus was a fictional character, nor did I say I believe in him without an impact on my life. I said the opposite of that. He can have a very strong impact on your daily life, and even more so if you understand the esoteric meaning. How can you say that what I believe in is foolish? I am not interpreting the Bible in a spiritual sense because the literal way contradicts physical laws, it is only an after-thought. And doing this does not make science the greatest god at all, it is actually the opposite. The spiritual interpretation means to go beyond the physical world, to an inner-spiritual world which is the reason the physical world exists. What is the "unimportant god of the spiritual realm"? How do you get happy feelings from it and why should anyone be inconvienced by God? Where did I stop at my "irrational thinking"? This is not an attempt, it is a way of living, based on personal experience. I suggest you look into something and understand what it is before you immediately criticize it.

[AirRick101]

If you took the literal passages from the Bible and compared them with other certain passage, you will see direct contradiction. I'm not saying the Bible has contradictions, but you must work you way through and around things (along with a proper context) to justify the passages that may seem out of place. I encountered this while reading "Losing Faith in Faith" about a preacher who became an atheist. I can't say it convinced me of atheism, but pointed out some fallacies of some Christian apologetic arguments. If Christian preaching is only about convincing someone that the Bible is true, it may turn into an academic endeavor. Although it's enlightening to see how we are sinners, we should see absolutely everybody with True preaching must be heart to heart, without that whole "conquistador" and "fire and brimstone" attitude. Too many pastors and evangelists take advatange of people's guilt and fear to exploit a God concept more effectively and quickly. I've read most of the Bible (at least of the New Testament), if you read with an open mind, I think you can figure for yourself what's literal and what's symbolic. Because...I don't think Jesus really wanted to put wine in the right wineskins or for you to amputate body parts that sin. No, he's just determining the fatal consequences for not abiding by one's conscience. And there's nothing wrong with seeing the Bible in a spiritual highlight all the way through. Even one of the greatest Yogi's, Paramhamsa Yogananda, does not see the Bible as literal, and gives his symbolic interpretation of Jesus's life. In my church, while we acknowledge the Bible to be literal, they also point out symbolic metaphors that really blow my mind, cuz I didn't notice them before. So...whew, that's my post!

[Belisarius]

How is it foolish to interpret a spiritual book in a spiritual way? It only makes sense to me. Yes, you can interpret the Bible on a literal level, but something so complex can be interpreted on many levels, literal being the lowest. How do you know how the writers meant for it to be interpreted, I don't remember reading that part...and for the translation part, Emmanuel Swedenborg was one who wrote extensively on the esoteric meaning of the Bible (books and books of commentary, written late in his life after having a spiritual experience) and he read it in the original languages. A lot of Swedenborg's interpretations of the Bible parallel the esoteric Shi'ites interpretations of the Qur'an, too. Meister Eckhart is another Christian mystic worth checking out. [/b] The spiritual part of the book is what jesus says, the rest of the book is generally an account of Jesus' life and contains little in the way of spiritual teachings. The main point of contension I have with this sort of interpretation is that it tries to make the events of Jesus' life into metaphors employed by the writer. In reading the bible and in the general context of the gospels it's quite apparent that the gospel writers themselves were trying to accurately depict Jesus' life, or at least convey his teachings through his own words and, when Jesus himself intends his actions as symbolic, deeds. I didn't mean translate as in translate from one language to another, but from the authors thoughts to the authors words. Wasn't Jesus a spiritual leader? What would help a man more, curing his physical blindness, or his spiritual blindness? And I'm not talking about any \"wacky spiritual sight type of thing\", the blindness and seeing part is a metaphor. Seeing in the spiritual sense, which doesn't mean you see weird spirits and stuff, it means you understand God with your whole essence. [/b] The problem with this is the context. Either the story is mostly fictional, or he physically healed the blind man. The surrounding of a particular healing has the priests questioning the blind mans parents and the blind man himself to determine whether he had been blind from birth as claimed. It makes no sense that the priests would ask \"was this man spiritually blind from birth?\", because in their conservatism they had no conception of such a thing. The only way that event could have actually occured was in a physical sense. I didn't say that Jesus was a fictional character, nor did I say I believe in him without an impact on my life. I said the opposite of that. He can have a very strong impact on your daily life, and even more so if you understand the esoteric meaning. How can you say that what I believe in is foolish? I am not interpreting the Bible in a spiritual sense because the literal way contradicts physical laws, it is only an after-thought. And doing this does not make science the greatest god at all, it is actually the opposite. The spiritual interpretation means to go beyond the physical world, to an inner-spiritual world which is the reason the physical world exists. What is the \"unimportant god of the spiritual realm\"? How do you get happy feelings from it and why should anyone be inconvienced by God? Where did I stop at my \"irrational thinking\"? This is not an attempt, it is a way of living, based on personal experience. I suggest you look into something and understand what it is before you immediately criticize it.[/b] I apologize for jumping on your back so quickly, sometimes I get carried away. That said your beliefs are irrational because there is no reason to believe them, it's difficult to recognize this reguardless of your epistemology, and so I shouldn't fault you for that. Oh and BTW I have quite a bit of experience with Christianity(although not much of the 'esotheric' type). I was a devout Catholic, studying every aspect of the faith, delving deep into the catechism and such, the problem was I thought too much. About 10 months ago I found an inconsistency in the very fundamental theology of Christianity that no apologist could reconcile for me. I then realized that I had absolutely no reason to believe any of it, and eventually reasoned my way into epistemological skepticism(although I didn't know what it was at the time). It's not all that great to believe in nothing, but that doesn't mean I don't act with faith, although I have lost any illusion of that faith being grounded in reason.

[syzygy]

The whole point I'm trying to make is that everything is internal, spiritual, and the physical, sensory world is only the mirror image. The problem today is that no one looks at it like this, they take the physical world at face value. I believe that Jesus was trying to get people to see this. I do not consider myself "Christian", because I take from all religions, but I do believe in what Jesus has to say. So for me, it does not matter if Jesus actually performed physical miracles, and most people today with our rational minds cannot except this. Even if he did perform physical miracles (which I do not throw out, it just isn't useful in what I'm getting at), they were only to make people look beyond our physical world to the inner, spiritual world. What the church uses them for is superstition and control, but I do not think Jesus did them just to prove that he could, it was to get people to see that the spiritual world is in control of the physical. This whole world and our existance is a miracle, but it is so routine for people that they don't look at it like this. The whole point is to not get caught up with the physical world, to look beyond it to what is actually going on. This is something that can be experienced directly if one has the will, it is not blind faith. Swedenborg talks about the spiritual and physical world as having representations and correspondences. Just like our facial expression can be a representation of our inner feelings, the exoteric world is a representation of the esoteric, and when the two are alike, it is a correspondence. So physical light correspondes to divine wisdom, heat to love, hell-fire would be self-love and craving. He has volumes of books explaining in detail how this works with the Bible, very systematic and rational and based on personal experience. I don't want to get into it too much here, but I suggest his writings to anyone who is interested. I'll briefly describe the fall of man: He says the Garden of Eden is our internal state, a perfect state of being, when we have an understanding that the physical world is just a reflection of the spiritual, only an image that carries the truth. When we tried to inquire into this state with our senses and "science" (tree of knowledge), that was the fall of man, our inner and outer worlds were separated, which is where we are now, thrown out of paradise. We can only see the physical world as outside of us, separate from us, when in truth it only exists because of the internal. What is interesting for me is that this correspondes with other religions. The Shi'ites give a very similar meaning to the Qur'an. In Buddhism it can be linked to the ego, the identity that separates you from the rest of the world, trying to understand the world with your intellect, and becoming enlightened is understanding nonduality with your whole being. Another thing that interests me is that it is then not talking about some archaic event in time, but is happening right now. It can be applied to your life and it can be a guide for those who seek it. I hope I have cleared up what I was trying to say, I know this might be off topic a bit. The only other thing I could say is to look into it yourself, I have nothing to prove, nor could I get anyone to believe what I do even if I wanted to. Everyone has their own way of understanding their life and no way is more valid than another. This is one thing western religion gets caught up on, thinking that there is only one way. They base their beliefs too much on historical events and don't look at the significance. Something I admire about eastern religions is there seems to be more of a base in the infinite. When this is understood, there is no reason for holy war, burning witches, accusing heretics, or any other such nonsense, any new way of looking at it is just considered a new school.

[dreamtamer007]

Originally posted by Belisarius I was pondering this while listening to the Passion story from Matthew. *What if Jesus' crucifixion was a trick by the Romans and Jesus working together. *He was only on the cross for a few hours, it took many people days to die from crucifixion. *They also didn't break his bones. *They then took him down from the cross, laid him in the tomb that was \"hewn from the rock\" wich may have been designed to store food or allow Jesus to get food and water some way. *Then the guard at the tomb would push the stone away, Jesus ressurects, the large sect of his followers would support Roman power over that of the High priests who put jesus to death. *Jesus then gets his closest followers together who probably were in on it the whole time, tells them to spread the religion and then retires to an estate in southern gaul maybe to be joined by Mary Magdaline. *This ressurection adds weight Christian beliefs and avoids Jesus from rising to become the literal king of the jews(may have been the intention of the conspiracy in the first place). *The spread of this Christian belief may have given Pilot more political power where he was suffering before, while at the same time making the High Priests look bad. Many people during this era weren't above using simple tricks to propagate their religions(and make money doing it). *It wouldn't surprise me all that much if this is what Jesus did. *I know this is going to offend a ton of people here, but it's just speculation and I thought it was an interesting idea. There were many witnesses and his side was pierced with a sword John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.