Jesus was a fake!

"Apocryphal texts portray the child Jesus as a divine "Dennis the Menace" — smarting off to his neighbors, giving his playmates a swift kick, even striking an offending youngster dead and then grudgingly bringing him back to life. A lot of these ancient stories have come to be considered heretical. Nevertheless, they get a fresh airing in "The Secret Lives of Jesus," a documentary premiering Sunday on the National Geographic Channel.

The controversial theme of the Gospel of Judas — that Jesus actually asked Judas Iscariot to betray him as part of the grand plan for salvation — almost pales in comparison with some of the other stories brought to life in the "Secret Lives":

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas tells of a Jesus who turns clay sparrows into real birds ... who argues with his parents ... who works magic on a miscut length of wood to get his father out of a jam ... who causes one playmate to wither up and die, but raises another from the dead. Mary Magdalene is identified as Jesus' closest disciple in the Gnostic gospels of Philip and Mary, sparking speculation over the centuries (including in "The Da Vinci Code") that they were husband and wife. The Apocalypse of Peter quotes the divine Jesus as saying that he didn't really die on the cross, but that only his "fleshly part" experienced the Passion. Other Gnostic texts claim that Jesus actually traded places with Simon the Cyrene — an innocent bystander who is depicted in the canonical gospels as helping Jesus carry the cross.
Much more recently, a book published by Russian doctor-explorer Nikolas Notovitch in 1894 purports to be the account of Jesus' youthful years in the Himalayas, learning at the feet of Buddhist and Hindu holy men. Notovitch said the tale came from an ancient Tibetan document titled "The Life of Issa."

Most of these apocryphal stories aren't taken seriously by the scholars. None of them come from before the latter part of the second century. They're the ancient equivalent of Harlequin romance novels." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16217095/

So Jesus was miracle Cartman? Sweet.

I stopped reading after I saw the words "Da vinci Code"

Who works magic on a miscut length of wood to get his father out of a jam

I've never read the gospel of Thomas, but I have heard of this particular anecdote.

I love it.
Know why?
It lends realism to the character of Jesus.
Sending the newbie to the truck to get the 'board stretcher' is probably the oldest carpenter gag in the world. Look, they even did it back in Jesus' day.

As to the Gospel of Judas. There's not much to it, and it doesn't really seem well written. It actually reads almost like a play. I bet it's a fake.

I stopped reading after I saw the words "Da vinci Code"

Oh but the gospel of Thomas has more credability?

The gospel of thomas has more truth to it than the Da Vinci Code. I think their are valuable things written in it and there is some bullshit in it as well.

But go to your local library. Look up Da vinci Code on the computer.

Look what it's under

Fiction. Too many people are starting to just consider the da vinci code to be 100% fact when it's riddled with errors.

Jesus was a fake!

"Apocryphal texts portray the child Jesus as a divine "Dennis the Menace" — smarting off to his neighbors, giving his playmates a swift kick, even striking an offending youngster dead and then grudgingly bringing him back to life. A lot of these ancient stories have come to be considered heretical. Nevertheless, they get a fresh airing in "The Secret Lives of Jesus," a documentary premiering Sunday on the National Geographic Channel.

The controversial theme of the Gospel of Judas — that Jesus actually asked Judas Iscariot to betray him as part of the grand plan for salvation — almost pales in comparison with some of the other stories brought to life in the "Secret Lives":

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas tells of a Jesus who turns clay sparrows into real birds ... who argues with his parents ... who works magic on a miscut length of wood to get his father out of a jam ... who causes one playmate to wither up and die, but raises another from the dead. Mary Magdalene is identified as Jesus' closest disciple in the Gnostic gospels of Philip and Mary, sparking speculation over the centuries (including in "The Da Vinci Code") that they were husband and wife. The Apocalypse of Peter quotes the divine Jesus as saying that he didn't really die on the cross, but that only his "fleshly part" experienced the Passion. Other Gnostic texts claim that Jesus actually traded places with Simon the Cyrene — an innocent bystander who is depicted in the canonical gospels as helping Jesus carry the cross.
Much more recently, a book published by Russian doctor-explorer Nikolas Notovitch in 1894 purports to be the account of Jesus' youthful years in the Himalayas, learning at the feet of Buddhist and Hindu holy men. Notovitch said the tale came from an ancient Tibetan document titled "The Life of Issa."

Most of these apocryphal stories aren't taken seriously by the scholars. None of them come from before the latter part of the second century. They're the ancient equivalent of Harlequin romance novels." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16217095/

fake or not, the story carried by jesus christ is that of suppression of violence and obidience to the rules of society.

Eventhough I'm not a practioner of Religous dogma. I find it amusing that "Christians" don't even know the origins of their cult. The Ancient Egyptian Religon of Isis and Horus pre-dates the Christian Religon by thousands of years. And they too worshiped a Virgin mother "Isis" who gave birth to "Horus" who demostrated devine powers, and was ressurected after his death. Sound familiar?

Many scholars believe that Isis worship in late Roman times was the primary influence behind Catholic adoption of the cult of the Virgin Mary. Evidence suggests that this allowed the Catholic Church to absorb a huge number of converts who had formerly believed in Isis, and would not have converted unless Catholicism offered them an "Isis-like" female focus for their faith. Iconographically the similarities between the seated Isis holding or suckling the child Horus (Harpocrates) and the seated Mary and the baby Jesus, is apparent.

Some Fundamentalist Christian writers find fault with these claims, and suggest that by the time the cult of the Virgin Mary arose, the worship of Isis had greatly evolved from the Egyptian myths, and her relationship with Horus was no longer a major factor. However, this view is overshadowed by the fact that Late Roman beliefs regarding the attributes of Isis are almost identical to Early Catholic beliefs regarding Mary. One has only to read the quote from Apuleius above, to see that Isis was worshipped in Roman Times as a Universal and merciful mother figure—precisely as was the Virgin Mary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/MaryAndHorus.jpg

See any similarities?

Technically the whole "Virgin" thing is aload of < insert non-gratuitous phrase >(if of course any of it's true), It's suggested that dogma back then was that people married before a sexual act and those that didn't follow that particular methodology were frowned upon.

Simply, they got it on before marriage and the only way to express to everyone it didn't happen was to say it was an "immaculate conception".
The source for this is actually kind of in one of the texts of the bible itself, although I'm not going to pull a reference because it's all a load of balderdash anyhow.

Technically the whole "Virgin" thing is aload of < insert non-gratuitous phrase >(if of course any of it's true), It's suggested that dogma back then was that people married before a sexual act and those that didn't follow that particular methodology were frowned upon.

Simply, they got it on before marriage and the only way to express to everyone it didn't happen was to say it was an "immaculate conception".
The source for this is actually kind of in one of the texts of the bible itself, although I'm not going to pull a reference because it's all a load of balderdash anyhow.

The hilarious thing about the virgin myth is that it takes away from Jesus the lineage of David, which was gotten through Joseph. Another case of trying to have it both ways and failing.

The hilarious thing about the virgin myth is that it takes away from Jesus the lineage of David, which was gotten through Joseph. Another case of trying to have it both ways and failing.

Actually incorrect as Mary was a descendant of David as well. Joseph and Nary were cousins, probably third or fourth. I am surprised you did not check this as a possibility.

Jesus was a fake!

So was the Steady State Theory, and most other scientific theories.

Then again, Jesus may have been a real person even if he wasn't an actual god.

Same for Mohammed.

"Real but fake" is a notion y'all seem predisposed to. So why all the discomfort with a similar idea?

-- Life-long Atheist

Posted by Valich

Jesus was a fake!

"Apocryphal texts portray the child Jesus as a divine "Dennis the Menace" — smarting off to his neighbors, giving his playmates a swift kick, even striking an offending youngster dead and then grudgingly bringing him back to life. A lot of these ancient stories have come to be considered heretical. Nevertheless, they get a fresh airing in "The Secret Lives of Jesus," a documentary premiering Sunday on the National Geographic Channel.

The controversial theme of the Gospel of Judas — that Jesus actually asked Judas Iscariot to betray him as part of the grand plan for salvation — almost pales in comparison with some of the other stories brought to life in the "Secret Lives":

Jesus didn't live some fairytale "perfect" life were He loved everybody, never said a harsh word and always strived to be a peacemaker.
No, no...

He said "don't you think I've come to bring peace"
I've come to bring a sword."
To separate mother from son, brother from sister, the members of your own household shall become your enemies."
The Spirit of God alway demands separation from sin.


The "Christian" church today represents little of what Jesus really stood for.
They have His teachings so scrupled up with traditions of men, and hopelessly tangled in their self made webs of theological confusion they have become the enemy of the cross.
And yet they claim to represent His Word.
Thats why He doesn't come to them in this day, just as he didn't come to the Sanhedrin council two thousand years ago.
Exactly the same thing.
When He did come to the religious leaders His Words had nothing but scathing rebuke..
Hypocrites, Whited Scepatures, full of dead mans bones.
"Generation of serpents, of your father the devil.
These were the kind of Words God gave Him to say to them.
Same today.
There has been exactly the same amount of time....from the promise given of a son to Abraham until Jesus for the Jews to fall away from the truth into false traditions, as the Gentiles have had today from Jesus till now.
Have the Christians fared any better the test of time.
No they haven't....they are in the same condition, teaching for doctrine the traditions of men, making the Word of non-effect.

Jesus was "sinless' - yes, but.....
That's not what most people think, sin is not smoking or drinking or prostituion, ect.....Sin is unbelief in the Word of God.
He healed the leapers, saved the prostitutes from stoning, etc..
It was said; "the common people accepted Him gladly"
He was one of them...The priests were the devils in flesh, the enemies of God, blind leaders of the blind.

Was this supposed to change when "Christianity took the torch from the Jews.
No, it's the same Satan, in politics and religions of the world that has always been.
Doesn't Rev. 18 say;The great harlot and her harlot daughters...the "Babylon" Christian church is in bed with the kings of the Earth.

Who would you have chosen as a "man from god" in that day.?

The kindly old priest who kissed the babies, married the young, and buried the dead dressed in brightly colored flowing silk robes....walking by the law so close you couldn't put a finger on their lives.

Or

Jesus, dressed like a commoner, living on the streets, associating with known criminals and prostitutes, healing on the Sabbath day.
He banded ropes together and in a violent rage overthrew the money tables in the temple, and ran all the priests out and shut the whole thing down, saying they were a "den of thieves."?

Which one to the natural eye, by reason and logic, would you chose as the "man of God"
The priests looked the part more than Jesus.
But He was the Word of God in flesh.
The difference was...
"By your fruits you shall know them"
And their fruits are there teachings.
The Word is the test.
Thats how you separate them, not by outward appearance.

Was Jesus this larger than life?
Was he some unreal kindly white robed perfection in Human flesh?.
No.

He was a man,with the fullness of God's Spirit in Him.
He was sinless yes, but sin is not what you have been led to believe.
Sin is unbelief.
Unbelief in the whole Word of God.

He was that Word, and lived it and knew it as it was supposed to be known.

Not as the false religious traditions had interpreted It to the people, making it of none effect, but as It was meant to be lived in the truth of Spirit
The Word of God written on the tables of flesh....in the heart of man.

Thats how he was sinless.

In a way that would throw some off, if they were looking for fault.

They wouldn't find it....unless they aproached Him with the right attitude.
Hearing, the do not hear....Seeing they do not see.
A people who's heart is waxed cold with sin....not looking for God, but looking for fault, to them He gave plenty of fault to find.
On purpose.
He did it that way because if they knew who He really was..they would be converted and He would have to heal them.
But in their heart, they had no love of God....just the things God could give them.
The miracles, or the fishes and the loaves.
He had to seperate them.

If they were looking for God, He was there to be found too....but hidden, behind the veil, the badger skin, of human flesh.
He still is the same.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.


Posted by Ganymede
Even though I'm not a practitioner of Religious dogma. I find it amusing that "Christians" don't even know the origins of their cult. The Ancient Egyptian Religion of Isis and Horus pre-dates the Christian Religion by thousands of years. And they too worshiped a Virgin mother "Isis" who gave birth to "Horus" who demonstrated Divine powers, and was resurrected after his death. Sound familiar?

Ganymede, it is you who don't know the origins of Isis and all the similar goddesses in ancient cultures.

The promise of a Messiah to come to Earth had been all peoples belief from before the flood.
Even after the flood of Noah, all men were of one language and believed in Jehovah as the one true God, until Nimrod of Babylon started the gods by falsely saying he was their interpreter.
'Man was split up, but took many of these beliefs in the prophecy of the sacrifice that Abel saw in the garden...the Lamb.... and blended them into false gods as they went, spreading out upon the face of the Earth.

Egypt, India, China...all had their virgin Marys and holy child carved from stone a thousand years before Christ.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222882&postcount=104
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222908&postcount=105[/b]

But that shows how little you really know about your religious history...or it shows how little your really cared to know.
What?... didn't you know this?
This isn't some new thing national geographic just uncovered.

If you wanted to know the truth instead of find fault, and reason to mock it, you could have found this out on your own.

Actually incorrect as Mary was a descendant of David as well. Joseph and Nary were cousins, probably third or fourth. I am surprised you did not check this as a possibility.

That would be nice on a family tree, but Hebrew tradition didn't see it that way. Lines of descendency were patriarchal. Please tell me how many women you see in the Bible mentioned when they are counting generations.

Eventhough I'm not a practioner of Religous dogma. I find it amusing that "Christians" don't even know the origins of their cult. The Ancient Egyptian Religon of Isis and Horus pre-dates the Christian Religon by thousands of years. And they too worshiped a Virgin mother "Isis" who gave birth to "Horus" who demostrated devine powers, and was ressurected after his death. Sound familiar?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/MaryAndHorus.jpg

See any similarities?

Could it also indicate that Christlike manifestations appeared more than once?

I never read more than a page or two of the bible or any other religious text so any attacks on specific faiths or name calling is not that big of a deal.

Do you think that people from ancient civilizations were complete simpletons and completely lacking in sophistication or comparatively less intelligent?

They only laid the groundwork for what we are today. I suspect they were not the starry eyed morons you purport them to be.

Do you think that people from ancient civilizations were complete simpletons and completely lacking in sophistication or comparatively less intelligent?

They only laid the groundwork for what we are today. I suspect they were not the starry eyed morons you purport them to be.

No, but they lived in a world without explanations. What a mysterious world it must have been, and how important to find answers. But today science has found some answers thereby reducing our need to create them.

Something as simple as the Sun rising would have had supernatural implications in those days. Not now. Doesn't lessen it's grandeur though.

Could it also indicate that Christlike manifestations appeared more than once?

Do you think that people from ancient civilizations were complete simpletons and completely lacking in sophistication or comparatively less intelligent?

They only laid the groundwork for what we are today. I suspect they were not the starry eyed morons you purport them to be.

It would appear more like the Christians stole ideas and claimed their own Christlike manifestations - I think the best word to describe that is plagiarism.

Do you think that people from ancient civilizations were complete simpletons and completely lacking in sophistication or comparatively less intelligent?

Intelligence, and Religous beliefs are 2 different things. The Mayans were highly intelligent, but they worshiped a GOD that required human sacrafices on a daily basis. Most of the savagery in Ancient times was justified because it was carried out in the name of God. Chirstianity, Judasim, and the Muslim religon was spreaded by the Sword.

They only laid the groundwork for what we are today. I suspect they were not the starry eyed morons you purport them to be.

Yes they were morons. In the early days people worshiped many Gods. Once the Egyptian Pharoh Akenaten came into power, he introduced monothesim, and worshiped Ra the Sun God. Anyone who oppssed those beliefs sufferd horrible deaths. So Religon wasn't spread through devine inspiration, it was used as a tool to control the kings subjects. Christianity didn't spread through Rome by divine inspiration, it was Emperor Constatine who legitimized Christianity as the official Religon of Rome. If you dare opposed his views, you sufferd a horrible death.


Christianity implies that they're the only true Religon. According to them, the only way to make it to Heaven, is by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior, and only through him can you attain everlasting life. The Christian Religon has morphed it's beliefs time and time again, not because they're looking for truth, it's because the Priests wanted absolute power over it's subjects.

The Christians preached that the Earth was at the center of the Universe. And that only Christian leaders had direct access to God, so when they spoke, it was GOD speaking through them. When Galileo revealed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around as God "allegedy" told them. Galileo had to spend the last 8 years of his life in Jail, because he wouldn't recant. So yes they were absolute morons and History has proven this time and time again.

Ganymede, it is you who don't know the origins of Isis and all the similar goddesses in ancient cultures.

And you do?

The promise of a Messiah to come to Earth had been all peoples belief from before the flood.

Sorry I don't subscribe to your biblical fairytales. And there's zero proof that the earth was flooded, and noah gathered all animals in the world onto his Ark. That is bullshit, so please don't preach that to me.


Even after the flood of Noah, all men were of one language and believed in Jehovah as the one true God, until Nimrod of Babylon started the gods by falsely saying he was their interpreter.

Yeah like Ted Haggard, Jim Baker, the fundementalist mullahs, basiclly all the religous leaders of today.

Man was split up, but took many of these beliefs in the prophecy of the sacrifice that Abel saw in the garden...the Lamb.... and blended them into false gods as they went, spreading out upon the face of the Earth.

Yeah, just like in Lord of Rings right?


Egypt, India, China...all had their virgin Marys and holy child carved from stone a thousand years before Christ.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222882&postcount=104
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222908&postcount=105[/b]

[quote]But that shows how little you really know about your religious history...or it shows how little your really cared to know.
What?... didn't you know this?
This isn't some new thing national geographic just uncovered.

Did you even read my post? I don't belive in your little fairytales. Monothesim started in Egypt with Akenaten, do you have any evidence to disupte that? My point is Christianity states that Jesus was the only Son of God. And I say it's bullshit because it's a fairytale that originated long before the Christians hijacked the concept. And you said yourself. It was praticed in many places before Christianity was even a Religon. I know where the bullshit starts, no do I really care, because it's all bullshit. Ya dig?

If you wanted to know the truth instead of find fault, and reason to mock it, you could have found this out on your own.

Found what on my own? I said the same thing in my post, that Christians weren't the first ones to worship a virgin mother, and devine child. So before you start flamming me atleast read what I wrote, so you don't look like a fool trying to mock me... Ya dig?