Church Fathers Purposely Lied about Jesus

by gumby 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Further, they were quite content to put down uprisings with a rod of iron, so surely a few children being slain in a tiny village (population approx 100?) by a vassal king, would barely even register.

    I'm sure the jewish zealots would have taken note of it. Historically we know they were upset with Herod for a number of reasons. Some were probably very legit, others more owing to their overzealousness...They build up a wall so that Herod couldn't see the sacrifices happening in the Temple courtyard from his residence, but as fas as I know they never mention the Matthean account of the murder of the innocents. Neither do the other gospels....Interestingly the parallel fits in with Matthew's portrayal of Jesus as a Moses like liberator. That said, I agree with LT and Kristofer that its likely the Romans cared very little about getting the particulars on every Galilean movement that arose. They'd probably just let it be until it became a nuisance. Then they'd just squash it. I think there was a historical Jesus. Just exactly what he did or who he was is a stumper of a question.

  • gumby

    LittleToe you bastard....I ain't promotin me nutsack buisness on this here thread.....but since you mentioned it......can I offer you a two shines for one price sunday special? I'll even give ya two coats of me best wax ..ya cute rascle

    Israel was a small backwater province of the Roman Empire. Why would they give a shyte about some minor insurrection where a guy gets crucified and none of his followers fight to stop it happening?

    That's correct. The Lord decided to have his son that he wanted the whole world to know about, be born in an enviroment where he drew the least amount of suspicion or attention, and in an enviroment any historian wouldn't even write about.

    I guess the lord rather preferred some followers of this man to make a book and pass the book down through the centuries and hoped that nobody would tamper with it. The Lord can send a son via a vigin, but he can't guard a book from error and can't come up with any outside sources to validify his boy is the real macoy.

    I'm still puttin my money in my nutbag buisness instead of the collection plate.


  • peacefulpete

    Some scholars assuming an historical Jesus would argue that its possible for an insignificant rebel Jew to have been executed without hurrah. And of course their right. However considering Josephus' painfully detailed accounts of various zealot leaders and their political intrigue and ambitions, it is rather implausible that someone who alledgedly healed hundreds of sick and raised the dead not to forget twice seized control of the largest financial institution in the region guarded by hundreds of Roman soldiers and Jewish temple guard was never mentioned in passing. If I remember right at least two other attempts by fanatics to seize the Temple are in Josephus, both were bloody armed conflicts.

  • gumby

    Pete....good points.

    Some other questions to consider are,

    If this paragraph about Jesus was from Josephus, then he too would have put faith in him and not REMAINED an orthodox jew like he did. Jews were looking for a messiah as was Josephus and so he surely would have followed the man he just glorified in his supposed "Jesus paragraph".....yet he did not. Why?

    Also ....why did not Josephus write more than one paragraph about a man who "really wasn't man" and about a man who was killed and resurrected? One paragraph?......c'mon!

    Doncha folks think if the Gospel of "Mark" was truely written around 50 AD....Josephus would have included some of it's contents and mentioned somewhere beside the famous Jesus paragraph some of the events mentioned in Mark.....such as the miracles?

    He never mentioned any gospel writings yet supposedly believed in Jesus and the things he done....yet remained a mosaic law abiding jew.......riiiiiiiight!


  • Leolaia

    Another interesting tidbit is that the rival of Josephus, the contemporary Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias (late first century AD), made no mention at all of Jesus in his Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews.

  • gumby

    and still another tidbit,

    Quote) ..."as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

    Actually, there was no "tribe" of christians in Josephus's day since christians never got really started till the 2nd century.

    So then.....who might have put in those spurious words claimed to be those Josephus?

    How about a self proclaimed liar bishop called Eusebius in the 4th century since he is the FIRST to mention this famous paragraph of Josephus? He was the one who was well known in sayin" it wasn't a sin to lie for god if it means advancing christianity"...or something to that effect. He's the culprit bastard and I say we hang the guy when he gets resurrected ( these were all the negative emoticons I could muster up)



  • LittleToe

    Which just goes to show that wearing tighty-whities of any colour is a bad idea...

    Don't do this at home, folks!

  • Narkissos

    What I find problematic, as ever, is our moral assessment of such "frauds".

    "Upbuilding creativity" vs. "factual accuracy" was never a black and white issue, and still isn't. Western modernity rests on their theoretical separation, which it did not invent -- there was such a thing as "professional ethics" for ancient "historians" or copyists -- but reinforced. Still, transgressing the borderline is a constant and powerful temptation, which I doubt anyone with a real opportunity will resist (e.g. Dan Brown etc.). An ancient historian or scribe had to meet the demands of both their religious and professional conscience, which were neither identical nor clearly separated: they would hardly resist any strong "inspiration" either.

    And perhaps invention and criticism are just two faces of the same desperate attempt to break through the saturation of our own imagination, whether in the form of "reality" or "belief"...

  • Shazard

    May coz not until 4th century anyobody doubted in his existence?

  • Sunnygal41

    Gumbaby, we still loves ya in all yur gooey greenness...........Balsam hit the nail on the head.........there has existed for millenia before "Christianity" the sacrificed king legend.........remember the Egyptians and the Osiris myth? These are powerful archetypes in human history.......they play out again and again. Kristofer, sorry, do some research about it, you'll see, Jesus was one of many who died for the good of mankind.


Share this