Posts Tagged ‘theology’

Our latest ‘Underground Knowledge’ discussion group poll on the popular literary site Goodreads.com  asks: Do you believe Jesus Christ was a real historical person? Interim results show that 60% of poll respondents say Yes; 23% say No; and 17% are Unsure.

 Christ, by Heinrich Hofmann.jpg

Christ as depicted by artist Heinrich Hofmann.

The poll was inspired by a lively new discussion thread titled Forbidden history of the Bible in our group.

That thread in turn has spawned the following debates:

Earlier historical versions of Jesus Christ?

Extensive biblical revisions made by the Romans

Biblical conspiracy theory re Adam & Eve

Book of Genesis – not an original document?

and last but not least…

Banned books of the Bible

 

Before voting in the poll, members were advised, “For anyone wanting to read more on this subject before voting, here’s a discussion thread in the group on “Earlier historical versions of Jesus Christ”: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/…

 

A selection of poll respondents’ comments follow (names withheld):

No offense but the question to me is nonsensical, so I didn’t weigh in. No genuine scholar denies that Jesus existed. That leaves pretty much only propagandists and pseudo-scholars, who know nothing about history, that deny that He did. There is way more proof for His existence than there is for many other people that we accept as historical. People can argue about what His significance is, but that He was a historical figure is unquestionably so.

 

I am obligated to be honest with respect to my Christian brethren and friends here. My “YES” Jesus existed is qualified by the separation of what is ascribed to him in the Gospel. It is problematic to align with Paul’s advocating that a Jew of the first century would claim divinity when the Jews challenged Rome over the same issue to the very end of a disastrous conclusion, and without surrendering their belief: they rather faced a holocaust than surrender their belief before Rome. The followers of Jesus rejected Paul, not Jesus.

 

I don’t ALTOGETHER believe Jesus Christ existed as such, but the question, with only Yes, No and Unsure options, imposes limitations on the answer. By that I mean that it’s perfectly plausible that a man, or many men existed at that time called Jesus of Nazareth, and it’s wholly plausible that one or more might have been regarded as Jesus Christ. What I don’t believe is that a ‘Jesus Christ son of God’ existed, any more than I believe God himself existed. I hope I’ve explained that clearly. (Gulps)

 

I believe there is a true person behind the legends and stories. Just not that every action, event, or saying ascribed to him in the canonical or other writings is 100% accurate.

 

Way too much historical evidence for him. See Josephus.

 

It’s my understanding that many (or most?) historians now believe Josephus’ documents that name Jesus are forgeries: http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

 

It is very possible the Church threw in the forgery. I don’t disagree with that. I do disagree that Jesus is a figment of some one’s story telling ability.

 

Are you aware of all the Pagan Gods who came before Christ – like Mithra, Horus and Osiris – whose lives are remarkably similar to the story of Jesus? I find the history (or lack of, depending on your take) surrounding Jesus gets really convoluted the deeper you research.

 

Agreed. Lot’s of stuff borrowed. There was even a second messiah around 100 AD.

 

To see all the comments, or better still to have YOUR say, go to: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/list/142309-underground-knowledge—a-discussion-group?type=group

 

**************************************

Advertisements

Yet another interesting confab is unfolding in our ‘Underground Knowledge’ discussion group on Goodreads.com – this one relating to the authenticity of the Bible and the accuracy of the information contained within its hallowed pages.

1611 King James Bible Book

The discussion was sparked by one of the group’s moderators who claims it is historically proven many or all of the books in the Bible were edited (revised, rewritten, added to and subtracted from) at later dates. He refers to “the extensive Council of Nicea biblical edits in the 4th Century AD conducted by the Romans under Emperor Constantine.”

His post continues:

So to believe the Bible as we now know it is the pure “word of God” means one must also believe that the political and militant Romans who revised the Bible had no other agendas when they decided on what to include in the finalized Bible and what to remove from its content…

That belief would be a very big call when you think about it as it requires a faith in some very corrupt and militant Roman rulers…Today’s equivalent would be believing a spiritual text edited/revised by say George W. Bush, Oliver North, Henry Kissinger and Tony Blair retained the original word of God…

…The oldest bible ever found is the Sinai Bible which from memory was written on donkey skins in the 3RD Century AD. It differs radically from the modern (edited) Bible, which is further testimony to the changes Man has made to the “word of God” over the centuries. Apparently the Sinai Bible does not contain any mention of the Resurrection of Christ, which may indicate that was added later (probably in the Council of Nicea).

Here’s an article from VatiLeaks (January 02, 2013) about the Sinai Bible (headed) ‘A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible’:

“It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. Called the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, it was named after Mt. Sinai, the location of St. Catherine’s Monastery where it was discovered in 1859 by Dr. Constantine Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles…

“…With the Sinai Bible, Christian history is traced back as far as it can conceivably go, but it was still written, at best, more than 350 years after the time the Vatican says Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine.

“The ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ agrees to this extraordinary late composition of the world’s oldest Bible: ’The earliest of the extant manuscripts [relating to Christianity], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD’.”

 

The group moderator concludes by saying, “For anyone who believes the modern version of the Bible is the irrefutable and pure word of God, I would simply ask them then what were the older Bibles? Surely the Bibles written closer to the time of Christ should be more precise?”

 

The above discussion thread runs under the heading Extensive biblical revisions made by the Romans

Under the umbrella heading of “Forbidden history of the Bible,” other discussion threads have been established including Banned books of the Bible / Earlier historical versions of Jesus Christ? / Book of Genesis – not an original document? / Biblical conspiracy theory re Adam & Eve

 

To view the discussions, or better still to have YOUR say, go to: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group_folder/266160

 

*

Membership of our rapidly growing ‘Underground Knowledge’ group has now topped 650. Do visit the group at: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/142309-underground-knowledge—a-discussion-group

 

*************************************