Jesus had a Twin Proof!!!

by skyman 68 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • DavidChristopher

    Here is a simple question? did the serpent "help" us or "hurt" us? was he after "worship" or "freedom for his friends"? would we be here today asking these questions, if we were not misled? Statement, there is a reason we have to find. Question, Who created the serpent, and what were his intentions? What was his job? Is he a "drill instructor" to prepare us for a battle? Or a evil power hungry tyrant bent on killing us? Is this about rewards we didn't earn? How can that ever be defined as "paradise"? is this why the rich accumulate vast riches through decieving others? Yet cannot find enjoyment or satisfaction in them? ask Jesus to show you. I did. How can you find the truth, from men's writings and "theories"? Do they know Jehovahs mind and plans? WHO created them?

    They are trying to "help" the mechanics in the 50's interpert the strange language in the manual to fix the 06 Lexus S430's that are getting more messed up everyday, with every different "interpetation". the more the car gets worse the more money they are making. Are they going to accept the responsibility for the cars being messed up when the owners arrive? Did these men create and "teach" Jehovah this "language"? Did he teach them, and not you? Why would He do that? Do you not think he would enjoy teaching you about Himself and His ways? Would you want strangers while you were away, teaching your children about you? Open your minds and your eyes. Do you want to be your brothers child, or your Fathers?

    Your little brother,


  • peacefulpete

    Believe us Skyman, few people have their mind as 'open' as Leolaia and me. We hunger for information, but we have grown weary of sensationalism and half truths. As for your title, yes a whole branch of early Christianity felt their Jesus had a twin brother Thomas Didymus (twin, twin). This is not in doubt. In fact it is not surprising given that popular god/men of the day often had fully human twins or half brothers in the stories. The name is however a cue name for the character's role in some early version of the Jesus story. There is no reason to believe he existed as an historical person. Nor is there evidence that Jesus was one historical person. What we have is layers of tradition by competing sects editing the story. We have discussed this here before, and if the search function worked I could find it for you.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe was he Arnold or Danny?

    Traven: "The embryo split in two, but it didn't split equally. All the purity and strength went into Julius. All the crap that was left over went into what you see in the mirror every morning." Twins

  • Hellrider

    There is no way that it can be proven (or disproven for that matter) whether Jesus had a twin or not. It would be intriguing of course, for anyone trying to discredit the Bible, to say that he did. It could easily explain the ressurection, etc. But the Gospels themselves doesn`t mention baby Jesus sharing his crib in that stable with a brother, does it? If he really was a twin, it would have been in the Bible too, I would assume. Unless, of course, it was "removed" by the apostles, early church fathers or whatever, you know, that it was a whole "conspiracy" from the very beginning. Maybe Josef smuggled the kid out of the stable and sent him to Egypt or something. This is all ridicolous. I detest conspiracy theories. You know, the whole "the moon landings never happened, neither did the Holocaust, and the Stealth-planes were based on UFO-technology. Oh, and there`s a crop circle in my backyard".


  • 2112

    I don't want to sound like I'm arguing Skyman, but I want to point out a few things. At one point you say the Bible is in-accurate yet you started the thread by using the Bible. You also keep telling us to open our minds and we will see the truth in this. You even said something to the effect that we are like the witness for not accepting something new. Well, it seems to me that you are acting like the GB by saying you have the truth and it is up to the rest of us to accept it.

    You bring up a great subject and it is very intersting, but please, even if you are 100% correct, don't try and force it on anyone. Just show the info, debate it, but remember nobody has all the answers. We could all be wrong. After all all of us who were in the WT at one time believed and were convinced we had all the answers. And did not mant of us say of those that would not believe our teachings that they need to open their minds?

    Cool subject though.

  • peacefulpete

    Hellrider you seem to have missed the point. The Matt/Luke versions of the infancy of Jesus are only 2 among a number of such stories. The popularity of Thomasian Christianity betrays a great difference between branches of the forming religion. As an aside, a process of expunging the earlier traditon giving Jesus a father and brothers is seen in the extant mauscripts, so a hypothesis involving editing of the story is hardly radical conspiracy. The odd refernces to 'twin' in the Synoptics coupled with the the noncanonical explicite identification of the 'twin' make for a very provocative suggestion that the materials that the Synoptic writers sourced included Jesus' twin.

  • acadian

    Hello All,

    Skyman your on the right track, keep up the good work.

    It's funny that people put so much faith in a book (the Bible) when the facts/history show that the early Roman church change much of the meaning of Jesus words for their own agenda. The fact that many writings are not included in the NT is because they are against church policy.

    It's hard to have control of people when they know the truth, so lets, change, re-word, remove, and make it up as we go, so the people will never understand what Jesus really said.

    And it ain't what the churches teach today.

    Your right on Skyman !!!

    kind Regards

  • skyman

    Good morning world I have alittle while before I leave to go to work. The Christain churches of this world have a good thing going they say the bible say this and all the christians follow a long like good Lemmies. Their were many Christs that records say full filled the prophecies not just Jesus. The name Jesus is not even recorded by the Romans but yet they record the other Christ??? does that not open up questions in ones mind?

    Hellrider said

    But the Gospels themselves doesn`t mention baby Jesus sharing his crib in that stable with a brother, does it?

    Even the Society admidts that there is a problem with the date of Harods death and Jesus birth. You see Hellrider King Harod was dead years before Jesus of the bibles birth. Such an impertant bible story is not mentioned in any of the other Gosples more than likely the reason is it did not happen. This is another exsample I am talking about.

    Everyone should click on the link that David posted and take to time to watch the trailor

  • Leolaia
    Their were many Christs that records say full filled the prophecies not just Jesus. The name Jesus is not even recorded by the Romans but yet they record the other Christ??? does that not open up questions in ones mind?

    Of course, it indicates that secular references to "Christ" are based ultimately on Christian usage, rather than independent secular historical sources (which would not referred to him as such). And while khristos was a title that could refer to high priests or "Messiahs" in general (for the former, see Daniel 9 in the Greek, for the latter see the pseudokhristoi of the synoptic apocalypse), only Jesus was described as "crucified" in Judea by the "Christ" referred to by Tacitus and Lucian was also described. I notice that you say "the name Jesus was not even recorded by the Romans but yet they record the OTHER Christ?" Why do you assume that the "Christ" mentioned in secular authors as the "God" (cf. Pliny) or founder of Christianity was some "other Christ" than Jesus?

    In short, where is the evidence supporting Bushby's claim that there was some other Christ who was a contender for Christianity's god, that up to AD 325 "Christianity did not have an official god," and that in AD 210 there was an attempt to deify "Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus"? I've asked you several times to provide the basis for such claims; I'm still very interested in seeing it. Because I have never seen a whit of evidence that anyone else was referred to as "Christ" in the voluminous writings of the early church, that the non-orthodox gospels construed someone else as the Christ, or even the name "Judas Khrestus" which appears to have been invented by Bushby. Rather, Bushby appears to be fabricating stories out of whole cloth. What is the basis of this little episode:

    "Judas Khrestus was tried on a charge of treason against the Romans, found guilty of revolutionary activity and sentenced to die by crucifixion As a Roman citizen of noble heritage, Judas Khrestus then 'appealed to the Emperor', Caligula, as was his right, but to no avail. The death penalty stood. This was the year 37. Being aware of his royal blood, Judas Khrestus then exercised an age-old tradition that came with his birthright. This advantage allowed him to order the placement of a 'substitute' to take his allocated punishment.. He played the substitution card at the expense of his 'birthright' which now passed to the second born, his twin brother, Rabbi Jesus" (The Bible Fraud, p. 86).

    Like Bushby's fabricated story about the council of Nicea, this is simply a story that Bushby made up. Please inform me what historical sources Bushby uses to support this. It seems that he uses Suetonius as a sliver of historical support (that during the reign of Claudius, there was a Jewish rebel named Chrestus in Rome), but where is the evidence that 1) this "Chrestus" was named Judas, 2) that this "Chrestus" mentioned by Suetonius was the twin brother of Jesus, 3) that "Judas Chrestus" appealed to the Emperor Caligula to no avail (btw, the "Chrestus" of Suetonius as active in the days of Claudius, not Caligula), 4) that "Judas Chrestus" was of royal blood as the son of Emperor Tiberius, 5) that "Judas Khrestus" got his brother Jesus to die in his place and this is the "Jesus" of Christianity, 6) that "Jesus" and "Chrestus" were not identified with each other, or "Jesus" was not regarded as the "Christ" until the council of Nicea, 7) that an attempt was made in AD 210 to deify "Judas Chrestus", 8) that bishops at the Council of Nicea voted for either Judas or Jesus to become the "Christ" of Christianity.

    Why does Bushby have to make stuff up? I know you say you've gone to your college library and checked all this stuff out and it's all out there in the history books.....well, I've been reading and reading primary source materials of early Christianity for now almost two decades, and I can assure you I've seen nothing remotely likely the story that Bushby invents. Could you please just post some of the "evidence" that Bushby uses so we can get a discussion going?

  • Leolaia

    While you're at it, please also check this out. From your link

    By the early third century, it became well noted that a problem was occurring: politics! In 251AD, the number of Presbyter's (roving orator or priest) writings had increased dramatically and bitter arguments raged between opposing factions about their conflicting stories. According to Presbyter Albius Theodoret (circa 255), there were "more than two hundred" variant gospels in use in his time. In 313, groups of Presbyters and Biscops (Bishops) violently clashed over the variations in their writings and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience and territory.

    1) What is the event in AD 251 that Bushby was talking about?

    2) Who is "Presbyter Albius Theodoret"? Is there any evidence that such a person ever existed? Did Bushby make him up too? Do a google search on this name and the only things that turn up are references to The Bible Fraud. ( ) There was a much later bishop named Theodoret (AD 393-c. 457), but he obviously was not the same pre-Nicene "presbyter" that Bushby is talking about. None of my sources mention a "Albius Theodoret". This looks like another fabrication.

    3) What is the event in AD 313 that Bushby is talking about? Violent clashes over variant gospels? Does Bushby have any clue about what the Nicene Council was about?

Share this