₦airaland Forum

Sarassin:
I would not grant the possibility that Jesus was merely an esoteric “symbol” used to demonstrate Gnosis as you put it, if that pre-supposes the actual existence of Jesus. I believe (for my own reasons) that Jesus achieved “Christ consciousness” as did a select few.

Can you share your reasons?

In my view his teachings, going by the evidence of the gospel of Mark and others were Gnostic in nature, I think early followers of Jesus believed this also.

Ya, I know this.

I do not “judge” the miracles of Jesus, I merely point out what we know, which is that several of the miracles attributable to Jesus could not have been performed by him. Take for instance the miracle of the Coin in the mouth of the fish.

In the Book of Matthew the question is asked "Doth not your master pay the shekel-tax?"

In reply, one sentence turns everything upside down:
Matt 17:25 "Yes he does he replied ……..What thinkest thou Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take tax or tribute? Of their own children or of strangers?”

Whereupon Simon is then commanded to take up his net head for the waters and catch the first fish.

That verse 17:25 makes no sense whatsoever if applied to the tax (Jewish temple duty) that was levied in the lifetime of Jesus. In reality, the writer of Matthew who wrote much later is referring to a tax that was levied at a much later period. We know that the story is an allegory, it was written under the reign of Emperor Domitian the last of the Flavian rulers who ruled Rome from 81CE to 96CE, it was he who levied a General tax of every grown Jewish man for the Capitoline of Jupiter his reign began fully 50 years after the passing of Jesus and therefore that story cannot be fully attributable as a miracle of Jesus.

There are similar issues with other miracles but I believe I have made my point.

What am i reading, i don't think i'm getting you.
Is this not the tax system in practice since the time of moses?
What kind of tax was levied at a much later period and what makes you think that's the kind being referred to in that passage.

Anyways, that still doesn't answer my question.
You thought that particular verse was an allegory. Is Jesus walking on water, bringing the dead alive, ascending to heaven, destruction of the temple, and many more allegories too.
I just want to understand your thought patterend towards this issue.

OkaiCorne:
And the documentary on NatGeo are lies too?

It's a "documentary".
Please check the meaning of "documentary" and see how irrelevant what you're trying to imply is.

There are also documentaries about the existence of some mythical figures.

4kings:
It's a "documentary".
Please check the meaning of "documentary" and see how irrelevant what you're trying to imply is.

There are also documentaries about the existence of some mythical figures.

So that means the DNA results of the scientists on the documentary is not a fact abi?

Wehdone...so that means all documentaries are irrelevant abi?

Yes of course, there are documentaries on mythical figures...however, that of Jesus proves that He existed...especially this one on NatGeo which is a globally reputable channel...

Would you like me to bring the one on CNN too?

OkaiCorne:
So that means the DNA results of the scientists on the documentary is not a fact abi?

The method is not accepted by most sceintists apart from the team the catholics hand-picked.
I've told you three different tests were carried out at the same time, that debunks that the purpose of the research sef.

Wehdone...so that means all documentaries are irrelevant abi?

There are relevant for various purposes, including documenting people's beliefs.
I've watched documentaries about islam and there were fun, that's relevance.

Yes of course, there are documentaries on mythical figures...however, that of Jesus proves that He existed...especially this one on NatGeo which is a globally reputable channel...

But you can't explain the science involved in "proving" it.

Would you like me to bring the one on CNN too?

CNN is a news station. They report news and rumours Mr.Man

hopefulLandlord:
actually I cut in to address the part of your post about "dying for a lie", I stayed silent previously cuz I feel Sarassin, 4kings and you have agreed on some basis through this discussion which I don't agree with but I don't want to drag discussion back which might derail the discussion going on

What do i agree wit OkaiCorne that you don't agree with?

4kings:
Can you share your reasons?

Ya, I know this.


What am i reading, i don't think i'm getting you.
Is this not the tax system in practice since the time of moses?
What kind of tax was levied at a much later period and what makes you think that's the kind being referred to in that passage.

Anyways, that still doesn't answer my question.
You thought that particular verse was an allegory. Is Jesus walking on water, bringing the dead alive, ascending to heaven, destruction of the temple, and many more allegories too.
I just want to understand your thought patterend towards this issue.

A tax was levied by Jewish authorities for the reconstitution of the second Jerusalem Temple, it was well known and the temple had been completed. It was not levied by the “Kings of the earth” or “Caesar” as Jesus supposedly infers, it was the only direct taxation levied during the lifetime of Jesus therefore it would have been no surprise whatsoever to either Jesus or his disciples.

The author of Matthew is clearly referring to the tax levied by the Emperor Domitian supposedly referred to as “kings of the earth” for the building of a temple dedicated to Jupiter. It was not levied on Roman citizens, hence Jesus in that verse asks “ if the tax is levied only on the children of strangers”, this tax was burdensome and compulsory for every adult Jewish person.

It is clearly an allegory because the reference to Simon to “hook the first Fish and remove the coin from its mouth” is a reference to Simon to go out and convert a soul to Christ and obtain what was at that time the tradition of new converts paying a small amount of money for the redemption of their soul in order to pay the tax.

OkaiCorne:
Did you realize a lot of records about the happenings in Israel were destroyed gradually by the zealots' uprising and subsequently the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?

Have you heard of the Akashic records?

Have you also heard of the sleeping Nostradamus...Edgar Cayce?

I am not sure what you are getting at here. We have the surviving works of Philo Judaeas, we have the works of Josephus, Senecca's oratorial survives. I do not get your point. What has Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus got to do with this issue or the Akashic records for that matter?

4kings:
The method is not accepted by most sceintists apart from the team the catholics hand-picked.
I've told you three different tests were carried out at the same time, that debunks that the purpose of the research sef.

There are relevant for various purposes, including documenting people's beliefs.
I've watched documentaries about islam and there were fun, that's relevance.

But you can't explain the science involved in "proving" it.

CNN is a news station. They report news and rumours Mr.Man

From the part of your quote I bolded...it is very clear you didn't watch the documentary to the very end...or you are obviously denying the facts in front of you...

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the scientist who carried out the DNA test in the NatGeo documentary is affiliated to the Catholic church?

OkaiCorne:
From the part of your quote I bolded...it is very clear you didn't watch the documentary to the very end...or you are obviously denying the facts in front of you...

Please enlighten me on what i don't know. Thanks.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the scientist who carried out the DNA test in the NatGeo documentary is affiliated to the Catholic church?

Are you kidding me?

Sarassin:
I am not sure what you are getting at here. We have the surviving works of Philo Judaeas, we have the works of Josephus, Senecca's oratorial survives. I do not get your point. What has Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus got to do with this issue or the Akashic records for that matter?

Per the bolded, these are other sources whose findings are also consistent with the position of Josephus and Tacitus' works on Jesus...

I suggest you take advantage of the internet to find out more about these sources on Jesus...

Cheers

4kings:
Please enlighten me on what i don't know. Thanks.

Are you kidding me?

From the NatGeo documentary...DNA tests on the blood revealed that the DNA has no trace to an earthly Father...

23 Chromosomes traceable to the mother... but that of the Father is untraceable...

Is there any logical or scientific explanation for this?

You know you've not addressed my question yet.

Sarassin:
A tax was levied by Jewish authorities for the reconstitution of the second Jerusalem Temple, it was well known and the temple had been completed. It was not levied by the “Kings of the earth” or “Caesar” as Jesus supposedly infers, it was the only direct taxation levied during the lifetime of Jesus therefore it would have been no surprise whatsoever to either Jesus or his disciples.

The author of Matthew is clearly referring to the tax levied by the Emperor Domitian supposedly referred to as “kings of the earth” for the building of a temple dedicated to Jupiter. It was not levied on Roman citizens, hence Jesus in that verse asks “ if the tax is levied only on the children of strangers”, this tax was burdensome and compulsory for every adult Jewish person.

It is clearly an allegory because the reference to Simon to “hook the first Fish and remove the coin from its mouth” is a reference to Simon to go out and convert a soul to Christ and obtain what was at that time the tradition of new converts paying a small amount of money for the redemption of their soul in order to pay the tax.

Please bear with me, i'm just seeing this explanation for the first time.
But how did you arrive at the conclusion that the tax was levied for the reconstitution of Jerusalem Temple.

OkaiCorne:
Per the bolded, these are other sources whose findings are also consistent with the position of Josephus and Tacitus' works on Jesus...

I suggest you take advantage of the internet to find out more about these sources on Jesus...

Cheers

You're a very funny fellow. Anyway thanks for your "sources".

OkaiCorne:
From the NatGeo documentary...DNA tests on the blood revealed that the DNA has no trace to an earthly Father...

23 Chromosomes traceable to the mother... but that of the Father is untraceable...

Is there any logical or scientific explanation for this?

What were the methods used, and from where did they get the blood, the shroud?

OkaiCorne:
Did you realize a lot of records about the happenings in Israel were destroyed gradually by the zealots' uprising and subsequently the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?

Have you heard of the Akashic records?

Have you also heard of the sleeping Nostradamus...Edgar Cayce?

Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, Seriously?? lol

4kings:
What were the methods used, and from where did they get the blood, the shroud?

It's in the documentary... please watch it

4kings:
Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, Seriously?? lol

And what's funny about them? Are they circus clowns?

OkaiCorne:
It's in the documentary... please watch it

lol

OkaiCorne:
And what's funny about them? Are they circus clowns?

The fact that you almost took them seriously.

Sarassin:
You're a very funny fellow. Anyway thanks for your "sources".

What's funny?

Let's not digress from the core of the topic into banters and barbs...let's be focused here please...

You don't see me making a mockery of your thought process on this thread...or is that the direction you want this discussion to head to?

cooljude:
Interesting read but I think he as a person existed because you cannot tell me that a fictional person made all this cult like following till this day. most archaeological excavations has showed that Nazareth was a settlement during his life on earth. As for his God like status, I honestly think it was exaggerated. one thing me and you would agree on is that he must have been an exceptional person for him to have this level of followers till now.

For all you know, the historical Jesus may have been just a dull and regular guy who was head of one out of various sects in Roman Judae. Hence his organization remained local even at his death. Some time after his death, some smart chap observed his remaining band of small but die hard followers and realized that he could tap into their energy, re-direct it into something else and ultimately build something big and lasting.

In steps Sauli di Tarsisi (Saul of Tarsus) later known as Paul, a well read Roman academician, a religious zealot, a renowned angry man and a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia (in modern day Turkey) who never even met the historical Jesus, ever! He created his version of Jesus' teachings and spread it farther than the original followers of the man. He even climbed to the height where he could counter Cephas and the other Jews in doctrinal matters and beat them into acquiescing.

4kings:
The fact that you almost took them seriously.

Do you have any evidence to prove their findings as wrong and fraudulent?

Do you even have sufficient information about Edgar Cayce?

OkaiCorne:
Do you have any evidence to prove their findings as wrong and fraudulent?

Do you even have sufficient information about Edgar Cayce?

Their beliefs were ridiculous.

kjhova:
For all you know, the historical Jesus may have been just a dull and regular guy who was head of one out of various sects in Roman Judae. Hence his organization remained local even at his death. Some time after his death, some smart chap observed his remaining band of small but die hard followers and realized that he could tap into their energy, re-direct it into something else and ultimately build something big and lasting.

In steps Sauli di Tarsisi (Saul of Tarsus) later known as Paul, a well read Roman academician, a religious zealot, a renowned angry man and a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia (in modern day Turkey) who never even met the historical Jesus, ever! He created his version of Jesus' teachings and spread it farther than the original followers of the man. He even climbed to the height where he could counter Cephas and the other Jews in doctrinal matters and beat them into acquiescing.

Wow...any sources for this opinion of yours?

Definitely, Paul was not the author of the book of Acts...so who did Paul have an encounter with on his way to Damascus alongside some fellow witnesses that travelled with him on that journey?

4kings:
Their beliefs were ridiculous.

And what makes them ridiculous? Any sources or evidence for your position on this matter?

4kings:
lol

smh...

4kings:
You know you've not addressed my question yet.

Please bear with me, i'm just seeing this explanation for the first time.
But how did you arrive at the conclusion that the tax was levied for the reconstitution of Jerusalem Temple.

We have it on the authority of the Mishnah that collection of the half-shekel was certainly done, by a body of temple-treasurers (gebarim), the same who had the custody of the money owned by the national sanctuary or deposited there for safety and for the purposes of the sacrificial plate, vestments and of the supplies of corn, wine and oil, for ritual purposes. The treasurer was even mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities in conjunction with the high priest, who it seems was the head of these temple-financiers. After the destruction of the temple the Romans continued to levy the old Jewish tribute for the temple as a state-tax from every grown-up Jew for the benefit of the Capitoline Jupiter's treasury.

Suetonius records that every Jew whether practising or not had to pay the tax, adult Jewish men who tried to avoid the tax by claiming they were not Jewish were compelled to pull down their pants or whatever in order that Roman soldiers could check whether they were circumcised or not. The tax was burdensome onerous and degrading.

Early converts to Christianity were made to pay a "stater" out of the money collected in this manner one half was the "pence of Christ" from which the tax will be paid for the poor, who could not find the sum for themselves, the other half was the "pence of Peter" from which the unpaid clergy would pay their own tribute.

OkaiCorne:
Wow...any sources for this opinion of yours?

Definitely, Paul was not the author of the book of Acts...so who did Paul have an encounter with on his way to Damascus alongside some fellow witnesses that travelled with him on that journey?

Lucas is the ascribed author of the book now called Acts of the Apostles. Same guy who wrote the Gospel of Saint Luke.

From all indications, Lucas was a life long protege and acomplice of Paul. The story of Sauli's dramatic conversion experience on the way to Damascus is only evidenced by his own writings and those of Lucas, his right hand man. This isn't very much of an evidence, you'd admit, right?

kjhova:
Lucas is the ascribed author of the book now called Acts of the Apostles. Same guy who wrote the Gospel of Saint Luke.

From all indications, Lucas was a life long protege and acomplice of Paul. The story of Sauli's dramatic conversion experience on the way to Damascus is only evidenced by his own writings and those of Lucas, his right hand man. This isn't very much of an evidence, you'd admit, right?

Does Luke's account of Jesus differ from that of Matthew, Mark and John?

Is the book of Acts about the exploits of Paul alone? what of the other Apostles?

If Paul's conflict with Peter on a minor matter regarding hypocrisy towards the gentiles while with the Jews was recorded in the Bible...then why would a major fight with James be excluded from the Bible?

How does the teachings of Paul differ from Jesus' teachings?

kjhova:
For all you know, the historical Jesus may have been just a dull and regular guy who was head of one out of various sects in Roman Judae. Hence his organization remained local even at his death. Some time after his death, some smart chap observed his remaining band of small but die hard followers and realized that he could tap into their energy, re-direct it into something else and ultimately build something big and lasting.

In steps Sauli di Tarsisi (Saul of Tarsus) later known as Paul, a well read Roman academician, a religious zealot, a renowned angry man and a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia (in modern day Turkey) who never even met the historical Jesus, ever! He created his version of Jesus' teachings and spread it farther than the original followers of the man. He even climbed to the height where he could counter Cephas and the other Jews in doctrinal matters and beat them into acquiescing.

I totally disagree that he was a dull guy because it negates all the account of his life. He was smart and his reasoning was far more advanced than his time.

cooljude:
I totally disagree that he was a dull guy because it negates all the account of his life. He was smart and his reasoning was far more advanced than his time.

Noooooo...you got me all wrong, mate. I wasn't suggesting that a historical Jesus was stupid or anything remotely near to such likelihood. I meant "dull and regular guy" as a phrase for "just there" and not a celebrity status type of chap.

This said, you cannot really state as factual that Jesus was "smart and his reasoning...far more advanced than his time" without reasonably empirical evidence. And by this I hope you know that the bible isn't qualified as empirical

OkaiCorne:
Does Luke's account of Jesus differ from that of Matthew, Mark and John?

Is the book of Acts about the exploits of Paul alone? what of the other Apostles?

If Paul's conflict with Peter on a minor matter regarding hypocrisy towards the gentiles while with the Jews was recorded in the Bible...then why would a major fight with James be excluded from the Bible?

How does the teachings of Paul differ from Jesus' teachings?

I think page one of this thread answers your 1st question.

I also think a casual reading of the Acts of the Apostles always leaves one wondering why the book isn't named Acts of Apostle Paul.

To answer your third question, I'd remind you of who the book of Acts was ascribed to...yes, Lucas, Sauli's protege. Sauli did defeat Cephas in the 1st major diet of the church after Jesus' death. The guys who dined with Jesus lost out to the guys who never met the teacher. Ultimately, it was Sauli's doctrine that spread to Rome and Asia Minor and not Jesus or Cephas' own.

I shall answer your 4th question later in a bit.