The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?

[F L E S H]

Ok, we all know that the Church tells us that Jesus really did exist, that the Gospels are historical documents and should be taken at face value. But are they indeed historical? Did Jesus really exist? Does it matter?

Simple answer to all 3 questions: No.

Here's a passage from a book I've been reading, called The Pagan Christ written by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest who teaches Theology at the University of Toronto.

"Can we say with any authority that Jesus of Nazareth actualy existed as a historical person? I have grave doubts that we can. It is abundantly clear to me that while there are indeed certain historical elements in the Gospel accounts -- specific place names, actual persons (such as Herod, Pilate, and Caiaphas the High Priest), and alleged dates -- these alone don't constitute a genuine history or biography in any modern sense. When we review the exact parallels between early saviour stories and the sayings and actions of Jesus, it's more than obvious that what we're dealing with is another variant of the overarching archetypal theme of the same mythos in all ancient religion -- only this time in Jewish dress.

[...]

"The reality is that God calls us to use his divine gift of reason, and we ignore this not just at our peril but to our ultimate loss. What we are considering now is the logical consequence of all we have been through so far. Be patient and hear the argument to its end. You will find, as I have promised from the start, that we are being called not to an impoverished vision but to one that radiates with fresh understanding and hope. Jesus lives on for us, but in a new way.

[...]

"In spite of a mass of scholarship on the topic, in spite of the evidence from the study of comparative religion in particular, the historical view of Jesus's life is still stubornly maintained. Kuhn is correct when he says that all this scholarship 'points with steady directness' to the truth that the events of the Gospel narratives are matched with amazing fidelity 'by the antecedent careers of such world saviours as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Adonis, Atys, Orpheus, Mithras, Zoroaster, Marduk, Izdubar, Witoba, Apollonius of Tyana, Yehoshua ben Pandera, and even Plato and Pythagoras.'

[...]

"Massey testifies that neither Philo, the brilliant Alexandrian Jew who laboured so hard to effect a syncretism of Greek Platonism, Egyptian mysticism, and Mosaic Hebraism, and who was an exact contemporary of Jesus (c. 20 B.C. - A.D. 50), nor Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200), bishop of Lyons and one of the earliest Church Fathers, believed that the divine Word (Logos) could ever become incarnate in one man. Kuhn says that Philo no more knew of a Christ that could be made flesh than he knew of a Jesus in human form -- and he lived at the time of the alleged historical Jesus! The same is true of Tatian, the Christian apologist and Gnostic (c. A.D. 160) who wrote the first-ever attempted harmony of the four Gospels, the Diatesseron. He completely disclaimed the notion of the Christ having assumed an actual body, as did all the Gnostic Christians. They declared it impossible that he (the divine Logos) should suffer, since he was by nature both incomprehensible and invisible, a divine emanation of the one God.

[...]

"What is even more curious is that the closer one gets to Jesus' actual alleged time, the greater and more general is the denial or ignorance of his existence. But the further one draws away from it, the greater and more insistant are the 'proofs' of it. This again entirely reverses the universal phenomenon of a historical recording. Most living characters are familiar entities during and immediately after their lives, and they wax romantic and are haloed only after centuries have elapsed. But Jesus was airy and ethereal in the first century and crystallized into quite a concrete personality only after several centuries. Something quite strange was going on."

---

Ok, that's enough typing for today, but this was just a small exerpt from a very good and interesting book, and ultimately makes me want to return to Christianity, but not the one promulgated by any organized Church with dogmas and literal interpretation of everything in the Bible.

In the end, Harpur argues, and correctly, I might add, that the Gospels are as true as the many parables Jesus relates in them. The story of Jesus is not true in a superficial way, it didn't actually happen the way they say it does in the Gospels. However, there is a deeper truth, an allegorical or metaphorical truth, which makes God and Jesus relevant to us.

[juggalo420]

i think jesus and the jewish/christian god are myths built upon older myths. but i dont see any real truth in any of these myths that relates to a divine being, the number one reason i think theres a common thread of, creation, a fall from grace, and a redemption, among western religions is due to geography and not a type of universal truth. what i mean by geography is the western mediteranian world is pretty small and ideas flowed from egypt to greece and rome and palestine.

[F L E S H]

You're right, Jug, in another chapter of the book the author talks about just that, and goes into detail about similarites between Jesus and Horus, son of Osiris and ancient Egyptian religion. The similarities are striking, and numerous. I swear, in some passages you could replace one name for the other and it would be the same thing.

But his point in the book is to show that the bible, and the Gospels in particualr, were never meant to be taken literally, as any Christian church would tell us. They are allegory, myth, and possess a certain truth the same way a Shakespeare lay, or Greek mythology, possess a certain allegorical, satiric, or moral, truth. His point is that it's absolutely irrelevant whether Jesus actually existed or not, it's the moral message behind the story is where the truth lies. In essence, Jesus stands for the kernal of divinity which resides in all human beings, thus every one in other words has God withing them, and Jesus' life is an allegory of every one's life. His suffering represents our every day trials, the hard moments in our life, and that if we believe in ourselves, in our potential to surpass these difficulties, our ability in effect to become God, we will have a much more fulfilling spiritual life. That is the salvation, and that is the Kingdom of Heaven.

What's the most striking in the book, though, is that this idea was, contrary to what most believe, around for maybe as long as 3,000 years before Jesus allegedly live. In fact, the author, and countless other scholars, have proven that this concept existed all over the world, and that virtually all spiritual faith derives from this concept. He lists examples of divnities in other religions, whether existing or not, who had at least a section of their story that was identical to Jesus, and many their entire story. I listed some in my first post, and if you look it up and look at their stories in this light, you'll be amazed.

As for myself, I can say that it also caused anger in me, knowing that the Christian establishment has consisitently lied since almost the beginning, withholding knowledge from the rest of humanity just to keep them docile and obediant. But, in the end, it encouraged to be more spiritually aware, without being outright religious. God, or Jesus, or whatever you want to call it, truly lies within us all, and that's comforting thought, because know I know I can really make a difference to myself and others.

[Herbaholic00]

Hi flesh, have you ever read anything by Jodan Maxwell, he has some good stuff on religion similar to what you are saying. He talks aboutt the ancient mystrys etc and how they are as prominent today. He's also an expert on symbology...ancient, masonic, lucifarian, any way just wondering if you know of him.



Peace



Peace

[F L E S H]

Do you mean Jordan Maxwell? I never heard of him, but I might check him out.

[kronick]

y does everyone think their assumption of something they dont know for sure...is the right one....if u cant even prove it?

[F L E S H]

y does everyone think their assumption of something they dont know for sure...is the right one....if u cant even prove it?
Umm, wrong!

Everything written here IS proven, you just choose not to believe it

[GHoSToKeR]

On TV tomorrow night there's a show called 'The Real da Vinci Code'.. its basically exploring whether the claims made in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are real or not. The books premis is basically that Jesus WAS real, but that he wasnt the son of God, he was only a politican/king, and the idea to make everyone believe he was the son of God was decided a long time after he died. I believe it.

[kronick]

i dont believe that book or the story...but i do think its more probable than the idea of god and the first post in this thread.


Umm, wrong!

Everything written here IS proven, you just choose not to believe it

there is that opinion again....forcing your beliefs on someone else.


if i give you the impression that im forcing my thoughts on you....im sorry but that is not my intention.

[F L E S H]

It's not a question of forcing my beliefs on anyone, in fact I'm trying to dispel wrong beliefs that the church forced on all Christians.

Besides, it's not a belief, everything I wrote in the first post is completely factual and verifiable. However, it's my belief that these facts do not destroy christianity, but make it better.

[kronick]

It's not a question of forcing my beliefs on anyone, in fact I'm trying to dispel wrong beliefs that the church forced on all Christians.

Besides, it's not a belief, everything I wrote in the first post is completely factual and verifiable. However, it's my belief that these facts do not destroy christianity, but make it better.


wow....and i thought i knew some arrogant people...but u take the cake.

you cannot say anything someone writes down is "completely factual and verifiable" cause humans are exaggerating bastards...if you believed what you had read that made you think god and jesus didnt exist...whats stopping you from believing in the bible? because you choose not to...and you choose to believe what you want...but DO NOT say what you think is fact...cause the fact is you cannot prove it...SO DONT TRY!

wait...no go ahead and try to prove your point...cause u havent proven it to me yet...i wanna see where this is going...by all means...talk away...

[F L E S H]

I'd argue with you more, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying.

Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell:
The Gospels are not, and never were, meant to be taken literally. Moreover, the concepts of Chrisitanity are much older than 2,000 years, and have existed for maybe up to 3,000 years before Jesus actually, supposedly, lived. I'm not bashing in any way the religion, and in my opinion makes it that much more worthwhile. In fact, whether or not Jesus was truly historical doesn't even matter ultimately, because his story represents humanity in a much deeper way than the Church has been telling us for the past 2 millenia.

However, as almost all scholars point out, the period of Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, the two emperors who were active during Jesus' life, are relatively well documented, and there's absolutely no proof that Jesus did exist. Even the most prominent Christians of the time say that Jesus was not an actual man. It's only 200-300 years later that the Church claimed that Jesus was in fact real and that the Gospels were to be taken as completely factual. This, in essence, was to discredit other religions.

What's wrong with what I'm saying? If you need more details, tell me, and I'll look for it.

[F L E S H]

On TV tomorrow night there's a show called 'The Real da Vinci Code'.. its basically exploring whether the claims made in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are real or not. The books premis is basically that Jesus WAS real, but that he wasnt the son of God, he was only a politican/king, and the idea to make everyone believe he was the son of God was decided a long time after he died. I believe it.

That's definitely one view that some scholars support. There's one guy, I think I mentioned him before, who was a bishop of Lyons, France, around A.D. 100. Now, if the story of Jesus were true, he would surely know of it, right? What he says is actually pretty funny: he said that the real Jesus lived to be an old man, and that he never died on a cross. In fact, to him the concept of Jesus dyiing on a cross was almost funny, since he could never believe that the incarnation of God would die like a regular criminal... And this wasn't some pagan writer, he was a bishop, Irenaeus by name.

[kronick]

I'd argue with you more, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying.

Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell:
The Gospels are not, and never were, meant to be taken literally. Moreover, the concepts of Chrisitanity are much older than 2,000 years, and have existed for maybe up to 3,000 years before Jesus actually, supposedly, lived. I'm not bashing in any way the religion, and in my opinion makes it that much more worthwhile. In fact, whether or not Jesus was truly historical doesn't even matter ultimately, because his story represents humanity in a much deeper way than the Church has been telling us for the past 2 millenia.

However, as almost all scholars point out, the period of Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, the two emperors who were active during Jesus' life, are relatively well documented, and there's absolutely no proof that Jesus did exist. Even the most prominent Christians of the time say that Jesus was not an actual man. It's only 200-300 years later that the Church claimed that Jesus was in fact real and that the Gospels were to be taken as completely factual. This, in essence, was to discredit other religions.

What's wrong with what I'm saying? If you need more details, tell me, and I'll look for it.


you had me at hello


i understand what ur saying and what im trying to say is that ur trying to disprove something that is not even proven...with no facts none the less...but with VERY VERY good assumptions. which probably are true,but dont tell people they are tru unless you know for sure...and can prove it....or people wont believe you. im agnostic....and empathetic...i kno how people think...i try not to takes sides...ill fight both sides of the story...untill the real truth comes out. arrogance does not win arguments.

[F L E S H]

Did you even read my first post? I put enough proof in there, from scholars who actually read these ancient authors.... What more do you want? Of course there's a certain interpretation that comes along with the evidence, but that's how you construct an argument. I putt all the necessary proof in my first post, read it again.

[kronick]

ive read it more than once....

"Proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it". "

"Fact - a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts". "



you have given neither....all you have stated is a theory


"Theory - hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices". "


like i said...it maybe a correct theory....but there is no proof reliable enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[naturalmystic]

I personally don't like Dan Brown's writing. I started demons and angles or something and i just couldn't get into it. He was mixing some fact with some fiction and i could never really get a good internest in it. Some say his book 'the davinici code' is also ficitional in some aspects of the book,.

[F L E S H]

Hey kronick, I'm getting a little annoyed, what do you want proof of? Yeah, I have a dictionary too, I know what those words mean.

You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...

[juggalo420]

You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...

this is from josephus, hes a 1st century jewish historian- 'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day' (Antiquities 18:63-64).

well some say thats independant proof jesus exsists, but others contend it was added to his book by monks in the 3rd or 4th century to give additional credibility to christianity, i agree with the latter, but i guess its still up in the air whether its legit or not.

i definetlty 100 percently believe jesus isnt the son of god and theres no god, but he may have existed i just think the gospels exagerate the hell out of him.

[kronick]

You want actual proof of Jesus? My point is exactly that: there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament, when he supposedly lived in a period where we have records of even the most slightly famous people...


when the dead sea scrolls were found...they were apparently found with another set of scrolls. jesuses scrolls. so...why should i believe what you say...over what ive heard for a more reliable source?

saying there is not proof of someones existance does not mean the person MUST have never existed. the odds are he did exist....but he probably wasnt the son of god.


right when you say "except"(there's absolutely NO proof of Jesus anywhere in the entire world except for the New Testament) that totaly contradicts what you had said in the first part of the sentance....seeing as how he lived only to 30....there probably wasnt much writen about him except in the new testament (and most of the origional gospils were taken out) so there is more proof against what you had to say.

[F L E S H]

Ok, you're right to say that there's no proof that Jesus didn't or did exist. For all we know, there could very well have been a man named Jesus, or maybe there wasn't. But that wasn't really my point.

What I was trying to show was that people today, the Church as much as lay believers, feel that they need to believe in the Gospels as HISTORICAL (meaning true) documents, that the stories written in them actually happened as they appear in the books.

The author of the book I read showed, convincingly, I think, that whether or not he existed, the Gospels are myths, similar, if not almost identical, to other stories of saviours that existed in the ancient world. If you want me to type the parts where he compares Jesus' life with that of Horus, I could do it, but it's long :D Even the miracles ascribed to Jesus are often copied off miracles performed by these other religious figures.

But ultimately, if someone does have a strong and solid faith, and is able to read the Gospels on a deeper level than just blindly believing it word for word, whether Jesus existed or not is inconsequential, because the story is true on a mythological level. It represents humanity's struggle to live and to understand itself, its purpose, and it serves to show us that the Divinie is inside each of us, not only Jesus.

I hope I explained myself better this time.

[kronick]

you dont have to explain yourself at all...i understand exactly what you're saying, but who are you to tell people that jesus didnt exist? or that his storys are fictitious? let them believe what they wish.

we can choose for ourselves...just like we can tie up our shoes.

[meek mike]

So the question is: Was Jesus a real man? Or is Jesus only talked about in the Bible?

So I went to the Public Library and walked down those rows and rows of books and found a book by Cornelius Tacitus, in it he says

"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius." Annals XV.44

And when I saw this for the first time my skin crawled and I got chills down my spine Because right there for the first time in my life I was seeing the physical evidence in something other than the Bible that Jesus Christ really lived and walked on this earth. Jesus Christ really lived, he really lived, do you understand that, he walked on earth, he had legs, he had hair, he had blood and flesh, he was like me and you!! He really lived!


Here is another reference, although some claim it was added later by forgerers, in a book by Flavius Josephus (but then they would also have had to add the second reference in XX 9:1 where Josephus talks about James the brother of Jesus being executed).

Josephus wrote:

There was about this time a wise man named Jesus - if it is lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of the type of men who enjoy hearing the truth. He drew many of the Jews and Gentiles to him; he was the Christ. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the Jewish leaders, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold along with many other wonderful things concerning him. The tribe of Christians named for him still exists today............

And here was a non-Christian, an unbiased historian telling us this!

But that wasn't the only occurrence.

Suetoneous talks about Jesus, Plinius Secundus talks about Jesus, Thallus talks about Jesus, and the Jewish Talmuds talk about Jesus.

Flavius Josephus Antiquities, xviii 33, & XX 9:1; Cornelius Tacitus Annals XV.44; Lucian of Samosata The Passing Peregrinus; Suetonius Life of Claudius; Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) Epistles X.96.


So there it is, non biased historians, saying that Jesus did live and he was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar! Isn't funny that that is exactly what the Bible has been saying for the last 2000 years!

There's the proof that Jesus was a real man, not a metaphor, not a legend, not a fairy tale. He was a real man, real flesh and blood, real as you and me.

Rev. Michael T
Soldier for Christ

[kronick]

just like flesh....you dont give real solid proof. all you've given us is what someone else told you. if it cant hold its own in court, then its not good enough to be called proof. dont try and tell me that it would...cause i know for a "fact" that hearsay does not hold up in court.

[GHoSToKeR]

I dont doubt that Jesus was real.. But I dont believe that he was the son of God, or that he performed miracles.. All that was just propaganda

[kronick]

I dont doubt that Jesus was real.. But I dont believe that he was the son of God, or that he performed miracles.. All that was just propaganda

im not saying that i dont believe that too...im just stating that the possibility could be either way (true or not true) and there is NO WAY to know for certain. unless god actually came down and told you, or you use a time machine...but the odds of time travel to be possiable are probably way less, than if jesuses odds, if he really did exist. (not the odds of him being the real son of god...or if god exists at all...but jesus as a human, and only a human)

[F L E S H]

you dont have to explain yourself at all...i understand exactly what you're saying, but who are you to tell people that jesus didnt exist? or that his storys are fictitious? let them believe what they wish.

we can choose for ourselves...just like we can tie up our shoes.

Let me tell you something. I feel that humanity has been lied to for the past 2000 years, and if I successfully convince one person to change their views, then I'm happy. Who are you to decide to let people live in ignorance? I'm not forcing my message down anybody's throat, the information is just there and if people choose to read it and understand it, it's their choice.

I feel the need to expose something closer to the truth and make it available. Before you tell me what right I have to do this, tell me what right did the Catholic Church have to keep its members in the dark for almost a thousand years, what right did they have to kill in the name of a man who wanted nothing more than peace?

Meek Mike, it's actually been proven that those 2 exerpts were added in later by monks trying to create proof that Jesus existed. Document forgery was somewhat common in the Middle Ages, almost everytime someone copied a book, they sometimes added their own commentary and tried to make it look authentice. However, modern linguists are able to figure out which is authentice and which is added later.

Also, assuming the passages were not added later, maybe Tacitus and Josephus, who were not Christians, as you say, didn't know anything about the religion and just asked somebody "who do venerate?" and they asnwer him as you wrote above.

Look, again, my point is not to say for certain whether he existed or not, it's to say that ultimately it doesn't matter, because the Gospels follow a set pattern for religiou saviours that had existed for thousands of years before Jesus.

[kronick]

w.e....you dont have the right to call other people ignorant...fool


im done talking about this. i feel like ive been talking to a wall this whole time...no offence


i hope there will be no bad blood between us in the future. i have my opinions, and you have yours.

[F L E S H]

Kronick, you're a loser. I NEVER called anyone ignorant, the only one throwing insults around here is you. I'm up for any kind of debate, provided the other person actually undertands what I'm talking about, which clearly isn't the case here.

[kronick]

Who are you to decide to let people live in ignorance?

there! right fucking there! you said it...not me, you're implying that if people dont believe you...they must be ignorant.

[F L E S H]

ignorant, meaning 'not knowing'. not intended as an insult. besides, no one used that specific word until YOU brought it up. I never said to begin with.

[kronick]

the word ignorant is more commonly used in a negative way. just like how retard is used to describe the mentaly disabled. (retard: cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate; "This drug will retard your heart rate") i brought up the word to describe you, and people like you.

who are you to decide what is truth or fiction?

[F L E S H]

FUCK you, and fuck this shit. I type up this stuff to start a debate aboput spitiriuality, and you come here be be an asshole and tell me I have no right.

I have no right to question religion? I have no right to make other people question religion? I have no right to contradict you? fuck you and go to hell.

Thanks for ruining what could have been an interesting debate.

[GHoSToKeR]

FUCK you, and fuck this shit. I type up this stuff to start a debate aboput spitiriuality, and you come here be be an asshole and tell me I have no right.

I have no right to question religion? I have no right to make other people question religion? I have no right to contradict you? fuck you and go to hell.

Thanks for ruining what could have been an interesting debate.
F L E S H, as much as I agree with %99.9 of the stuff you say, I have to disagree with you on this one, mate.. surely this guy is just debating the issue with you the same as anyone else? he's just taking a different approach and saying that nobody will ever know..

[kronick]

F L E S H, as much as I agree with %99.9 of the stuff you say, I have to disagree with you on this one, mate.. surely this guy is just debating the issue with you the same as anyone else? he's just taking a different approach and saying that nobody will ever know..

THANK YOU!!!! that is EXACTLY what im trying to say!!!

[F L E S H]

Nah, I'm not mad because he said we'll never know, which I agree with anyway. I'm pissed because he's telling me I have no right to tell people what I believe. That's what's pissing me off.

[GHoSToKeR]

I think he was saying that you have no right to say that what you believe is the truth.

I disagree to some extent, but I also agree.. I mean, you should and you do have the right to say whatever you want, but then again, nothing is ever %100 true.. Nothing that we think we know can ever be %100 proved, and no matter how much we believe it, it still may be wrong.. So to say that what we think is definately true is kind of arrogant. I see what he's trying to say.

[GHoSToKeR]

But then again (again) to say that nothing can ever be proved to be %100 true is also just as arrogant, because it's can't be %100 proved that nothing can ever be %100 proved ;)

[Euphoric]

But then again (again) to say that nothing can ever be proved to be %100 true is also just as arrogant, because it's can't be %100 proved that nothing can ever be %100 proved ;)

whoa. ghosttokers got a point there.

[kronick]

I think he was saying that you have no right to say that what you believe is the truth.

I disagree to some extent, but I also agree.. I mean, you should and you do have the right to say whatever you want, but then again, nothing is ever %100 true.. Nothing that we think we know can ever be %100 proved, and no matter how much we believe it, it still may be wrong.. So to say that what we think is definately true is kind of arrogant. I see what he's trying to say.



But then again (again) to say that nothing can ever be proved to be %100 true is also just as arrogant, because it's can't be %100 proved that nothing can ever be %100 proved.


you may have a point but 1+1= 2....and that is 100% proven...so some things can be proven...and others...just cant


flesh...im sorry if i offended you...i just couldnt explain it as good as ghostoker did... :P

[F L E S H]

Ok, Ok, here's the official 'I overreacted' apology:

I'm sorry, I overreacted.

It just that I get very angry when it seems to me that people are telling me that I can't say what I think is correct. But I'm sticking to point, god damn it!

[kronick]

lol...ok....im sorry too....and i accept your apology :P

[SPLIFF ENJOYER]

incase you ppl didnt realize, it is a proven fact that their was a jesus. scientists have already proved that

[kronick]

ok...show us the proof(im serious, i wanna see some, and if u cant produce, then dont say there is proof)...for all we know..some guys made that story(new testiment) up around 500 AD. they coulda just wrote a story and told people it was true. and now adays people believe a fictional story....or it coulda really happaned but i find that highly unlikely(im not saying my story is more tru than theirs, im just sying that my story is more probable considering how humans act, and the likley hood of them actually doing that). jesus might have existed but he probably wasnt the real "son of god"...if he existed at all.

[F L E S H]

Well, I think there is proof that Jesus existed, but I'm not too sure about it. In any case, he probably didn't lead the life that's written down in the Gospels. Believe me when I say that many other, ancient, religious figures lead an almost identical life to Jesus' in the Gospels. That's the whole point of this topic. 'Jesus' has existed for thousands of years, under many different names, but the gist of the story is always the same.

[kronick]

i agree...but agree with me when i say there is no way of proving that beyond reasonable doubt (not just that the stories are fake but if the stories are real too, there is just no way to prove any of those theories)....thats all i want to hear.

[GHoSToKeR]

"gotta have faith, faith, faith" - George Michael

[kronick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/446721.stm

[F L E S H]

i agree...but agree with me when i say there is no way of proving that beyond reasonable doubt (not just that the stories are fake but if the stories are real too, there is just no way to prove any of those theories)....thats all i want to hear.
Yes, ok, ok, you're right!!!


Are you happy now???

:D

[XTC]

Aren't both Creationism and evoultion both Theories, and neither can be proven. No one knows for sure how we came to be, But I am sure there are facts that Jesus did Exist, but whether he was the Son of God is based on your faith. I believe in God and Jesus, want my proof, its called my faith. Nuff Said

[GHoSToKeR]

faith isnt proof

[sawleaf]

faith isnt proof

Faith isn't proof to the faithless, that's it. A person with faith has proof for themself and has no need to proove anything to anyone. You don't understand this Ghost, because you have no idea of what having faith means, you have zero faith. It isn't believeing in something blindly like you think it is. Many of us have experiences and feel and see things that you may not. Just because some scientist can't understand or proove anything doesn't mean that it is not real or doesn't exsist. It just means that it is beyond the reaches of current science. Who knows maybe science will someday proove religion right? What would you do then???

[kronick]

Aren't both Creationism and evoultion both Theories

darwins "theory" of evolution was more of a theory then, than it is now. there is lots of proof showing that we evolved from primates(did you kno that a humans genes is ONE cromo. from being an ameba!). but that dosent mean that god didnt put the human genome on the planet earth...but that cannot be proven...so like ive said many a times in this thread...you cannot prove the existance of god...you can choose to believe he exists or not....i for one will not take sides on this matter.



A person with faith has proof for themself and has no need to proove anything to anyone.

there is a word for what u just described...and it comes up a lot in this thread...its called "arrogance". but i can see where you are comming from when you say that but a lot of non believers will just get pissed off when you say they are wrong and you are right. like me :)


Who knows maybe science will someday proove religion right? What would you do then???

what happens if science proves the opposite of what you want? what would YOU do then??

[GHoSToKeR]

Faith isn't proof to the faithless, that's it. A person with faith has proof for themself and has no need to proove anything to anyone. You don't understand this Ghost, because you have no idea of what having faith means, you have zero faith. It isn't believeing in something blindly like you think it is. Many of us have experiences and feel and see things that you may not. Just because some scientist can't understand or proove anything doesn't mean that it is not real or doesn't exsist. It just means that it is beyond the reaches of current science. Who knows maybe science will someday proove religion right? What would you do then???
how can science 'prove religion right'? which religion? what part of that religion? it doesnt make sense

sawleaf, it is you who doesnt understand. Faith isnt proof. faith never has been or will be proof.. saying 'my faith is proof enough for me' doesnt prove anything. if i had faith that godzilla lives in tokyo with elvis, does it make it so?

[XTC]

Ghost, know you starting to sound like a Jerk. Look up what faith means. People like me dont need some scientific source and DNA or whatever. We just have faith, and that by itself is proof enough. It is like.... God has touched me or open my mind up.... stuff has happened in my life that has made me have faith.

[GHoSToKeR]

but just because you have faith, it doesnt mean its true.

[XTC]

Well, I never told you to believe or not in God or A God. It seems more or less that the people who don't believe in a god seem to throw insults and shove stuff down our throats in reasons why God doesnt exist. But it seems rarely if ever the Believers make post on Why There is a god and whatnot

[kronick]

but just because you have faith, it doesnt mean its true.


now that is 100% true right there! the only way to describe arrogance, is to be arrogant! and thats exactly what we are trying to say to you. you are not right...and we are not right....and THATS closer to the real truth, than we are EVER gonna get!!!

[kronick]

Well, I never told you to believe or not in God or A God. It seems more or less that the people who don't believe in a god seem to throw insults and shove stuff down our throats in reasons why God doesnt exist. But it seems rarely if ever the Believers make post on Why There is a god and whatnot


im living proof that, that is not true.

[F L E S H]

I think people misunderstand the term 'theory'. Just because evolution is a theory, doesn't mean you can dismiss it as just a 'theory'. Electricity as we understand today is 'just' a theory. Nobody ever saw electrons, or their movement. Electricity is a theoretical construct that allows us to predict and understand how electrons might behave, even though we can't possibly see them with our current technology; but that doesn't mean we can debate the existence of electricity. Same goes for evolution. Given what we know from fossil records and based on what we observe in micro-organisms today (like viruses evolving in order to become immune to anti-biotics), scientists came up with the theory of evolution.

As for the question of faith in God, or Christ, or whatever, either you have it or you don't, and there's no point explaining it to others. Faith is a deeple personal thing.

[kronick]

I think people misunderstand the term 'theory'. Just because evolution is a theory, doesn't mean you can dismiss it as just a 'theory'. Electricity as we understand today is 'just' a theory. Nobody ever saw electrons, or their movement. Electricity is a theoretical construct that allows us to predict and understand how electrons might behave, even though we can't possibly see them with our current technology; but that doesn't mean we can debate the existence of electricity.


you know what...it really dosent matter what exactly the electrons are doing. who cares, all we need to kno is that it makes it possiable to live everyday life as you kno it. try being on this msn w.o it.



Same goes for evolution. Given what we know from fossil records and based on what we observe in micro-organisms today (like viruses evolving in order to become immune to anti-biotics), scientists came up with the theory of evolution.

and thats the same thing ive been say ing all along about the existance of god...you will never know...unless god comes to see us...but thats IF he comes at all...or IF there is actually a god or not.



"antibiotics" are ment to kill bacteria...not viruses



As for the question of faith in God, or Christ, or whatever, either you have it or you don't, and there's no point explaining it to others. Faith is a deeple personal thing.



if it is what i think is more possiable than the other(god probably dosent exist with what we know present day..but remember my opinion...not my final answer!) a psychiatrist might think that people with that kinda faith in god("deeply" personal thing) would be considered kinda crazy, but in more technical terms.

[sawleaf]

I don't even see where this is going at all. What are you trying to proove Ghost? I'm not trying to prove anything, but you seem to think I am. You are the one who doesn't understand faith. People without it seem to think it is this blind belief in something we have no proof of. For most of my life I didn't understand why people could believe blindly, but then I realized that they weren't believing in something they had zero proof of. It is a personal proof that goes beyond what a scientist or psychiatrist can prove or understand. It is very hard to understand unless you have experienced it or actually seen proof of a higher exsistence. You are entitled to your opinions Ghost, but if you are going to argue something make it clear what you are arguing about. It's okay if there is no God for you, but for me he exsists and is very real, you can't prove that he doesn't, and I am not here to try and prove anything to anyone. By the way Ghost, have you ever seen a ghost at all?

[kronick]

how do u kno that your "faith" isnt jst an imbalance of chemicals in your brain?how do u kno you havent ust convinced yourself that it is faith and not just something you made up? people convince them selves of A LOT of stuff (eg. bg/gf cheating on them and they try and believe its not happaning, pretty much not excepting the fact of truth...in other terms...being ignorant) denile is not just a river in egypt! im not saying you are wrong....but dont you think there is a SLIM chance that you are?

[F L E S H]

Hey Kronick, no offense, but you seem to have fun contradicting people just for the heck of it. It's a little annoying....

[sawleaf]

Yeah this thread is getting stupid. Who the hell are you Kronick? I have nothing to prove to you. You are of zero authority in my life. Did I ask you to prove your beliefs to me? You know nothing about me or what I've seen and experienced, so you're in no position to question. Believe what you want, I could care less. But just because you have never seen something does not mean it doesn't exsist.

[kronick]

im not trying to make you believe anything you dont want to...im just pointing out that fact that no matter how much u believe something....dosent mean its true...not matter what you say or especially how you feel about it.

[GHoSToKeR]

"you cant prove that he doesnt exist"

ive heard that argument so many times. You can NEVER prove that something does not exist, but this is not a valid argument FOR the existence of said thing.

[kronick]

Hey Kronick, no offense, but you seem to have fun contradicting people just for the heck of it. It's a little annoying....


i opose everything....especially when people demand they are right when there is no proof on the matter...im definatly not saying im right but i cannot explain arrogance without being arogant myself so there is a difference between the 2 kinds of arrogance.


but i can see both sides of an argument and argue for both sides...most people dont have the brain power to do that cause they think something and think what they think is right and its not open for discussion.

[kronick]

"you cant prove that he doesnt exist"

ive heard that argument so many times. You can NEVER prove that something does not exist, but this is not a valid argument FOR the existence of said thing.


you cant prove that he does exist and you cant prove that he dosent....end of story.

[sawleaf]

you cant prove that he does exist and you cant prove that he dosent....end of story.

Exactly, so what is the point of your posts and Ghost's?

[kronick]

just trying to explain that to you my friend...when u said that stuff about faith...you didnt seem to care that it couldnt be proven...and i dont think u do now either. so just dont say you're right about him existing...cause u dont know if he does...and ghost dosent kno if he dosent...and i am in the middle of this...im not taking sides.

[sawleaf]

just trying to explain that to you my friend...when u said that stuff about faith...you didnt seem to care that it couldnt be proven...and i dont think u do now either. so just dont say you're right about him existing...cause u dont know if he does...and ghost dosent kno if he dosent...and i am in the middle of this...im not taking sides.


Oh no I understand you, but where in my posts did I claim that I was right? I'm just not for people saying I'm wrong for my beliefs when they can't prove me wrong. I am Christian, but I am not here trying to prove God to anyone.

[kronick]

ok im sorry...but you implyed that you were right about god...sorry for the misunderstanding

*thinks* this fucking chew is great :) */thinks*

[GHoSToKeR]

Exactly, so what is the point of your posts and Ghost's?
lol whats the point of yours?

i ust like debating stuff.. i dont claim to know whether god exists or not.. personally, i dont think he does, but i'll never say that he doesnt, or that he does... but debating stuff with people like you, kronik and F L E S H is interesting, and its how we learn.. wheres the harm in it? if by debating our beliefs i have offended you, then i apologize.. i just thought we were having a 'conversation'

[kronick]

ghost....i love you

[F L E S H]

Yeah, this thread isn't ging how I'd hoped... lol :D

But Kronick, with the way you think, there's no point in debating anything about religion, since no one can prove anything, right? But that's boring. Besides, we're not discussing facts, but rather opinions. We can discuss those, I hope. SO if you're looking for facts, go look somewhere else.

[Looker]

This is a great thread by the way...

What I try to do with the Jesus thing is this....

Try not to get to hung up on whether or not we can pin down his tangible existence on paper, but instead try to use some of the parables and "his" teachings for good use. It is good to have some moral rules to live by otherwise who knows where we would all be right now...

You could spend your whole life debating whether or not the man existed, I am sure many lives have come and gone over the centuries trying to to just that...but like one of you said above, dont miss the point....

The bible is a rich interesting group of writings if not a history book, if we stop trying to make it into a history book, then we will get more good out of it.

[kronick]

It is good to have some moral rules to live by otherwise who knows where we would all be right now...


i agree 100%! but if you are going to choose a religion souly on that matter, i would suggest buddism. if it worn't for the fact that they believe in re-incarnation, i would probably be a buddist. i find their ways of life would most help the human race. but to be able for everyone to do that we would have to get ride of the greed we have...so life like that is far away...if at all.

but back to the point...no matter what religion a person chooses...there are people who dont follow it. some mob memebers are very religious (especially the italians, im not being racest...im italian. :P ) but there religion dosent stop them at all...they only not do, what they dont want to do...so at this point in time...im going to say that religion does not help people with that kinda living...because if a few people dont follow suit...it really dosent matter about the religion in the first place cause the people that dont do bad stuff dont do it cause of the law...and not religion...and some ppl just dont do it cause they find it wrong. most likly from the way they were raised, which could be cause of religion but since there are people killing others, it influences the odd person to do the same, "they are doing it...so it must be ok"...right? so back to the fact that its all just a visious circle of death. there will always be people killing other people...its really hard to explain it...did anyone understand? someone wanna try and explain it better than i did...and ill tell u if thats what i was trying to say

[sawleaf]

lol whats the point of yours?

i ust like debating stuff.. i dont claim to know whether god exists or not.. personally, i dont think he does, but i'll never say that he doesnt, or that he does... but debating stuff with people like you, kronik and F L E S H is interesting, and its how we learn.. wheres the harm in it? if by debating our beliefs i have offended you, then i apologize.. i just thought we were having a 'conversation'

No, not offended at all, Ghost, just was wondering what you were trying to get across. :)

[SuburbanLife224]

faith isnt proof


Exactly. Invert it. Proof is Faith. but what is faith? Everything. then whats everything???????????GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nuh uh then whats god? EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!! how,,,,... what.... how do you know this ... what.. : confused : :confused: Confused? ummmmm no... yes... i dont know... huh... stop this...............................


Laughs.

Don't think. Feel. Don't Feel.Think.

huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttt

Stop that.

Laughs again...

[F L E S H]

^^You're a wierdo

[SuburbanLife224]

ghost....i love you


I Love You.

(feels better doesnt it lol)

[SuburbanLife224]

Umm, wrong!

Everything written here IS proven, you just choose not to believe it


It believes everything. Everything Believes it.

[kronick]

were u stoned when u typed that?

[SuburbanLife224]

were u stoned when u typed that?


lol no i'm just eve

you know

adam and eve

lol so this is only the beginning you will hear me on the news soon

[kronick]

oooh, i get it...you're just fucked up eh?

[GHoSToKeR]

mentalist lol but hes cool

[SuburbanLife224]

Ok, we all know that the Church tells us that Jesus really did exist, that the Gospels are historical documents and should be taken at face value. But are they indeed historical? Did Jesus really exist? Does it matter?

Simple answer to all 3 questions: No.

Here's a passage from a book I've been reading, called The Pagan Christ written by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest who teaches Theology at the University of Toronto.

"Can we say with any authority that Jesus of Nazareth actualy existed as a historical person? I have grave doubts that we can. It is abundantly clear to me that while there are indeed certain historical elements in the Gospel accounts -- specific place names, actual persons (such as Herod, Pilate, and Caiaphas the High Priest), and alleged dates -- these alone don't constitute a genuine history or biography in any modern sense. When we review the exact parallels between early saviour stories and the sayings and actions of Jesus, it's more than obvious that what we're dealing with is another variant of the overarching archetypal theme of the same mythos in all ancient religion -- only this time in Jewish dress.

[...]

"The reality is that God calls us to use his divine gift of reason, and we ignore this not just at our peril but to our ultimate loss. What we are considering now is the logical consequence of all we have been through so far. Be patient and hear the argument to its end. You will find, as I have promised from the start, that we are being called not to an impoverished vision but to one that radiates with fresh understanding and hope. Jesus lives on for us, but in a new way.

[...]

"In spite of a mass of scholarship on the topic, in spite of the evidence from the study of comparative religion in particular, the historical view of Jesus's life is still stubornly maintained. Kuhn is correct when he says that all this scholarship 'points with steady directness' to the truth that the events of the Gospel narratives are matched with amazing fidelity 'by the antecedent careers of such world saviours as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Adonis, Atys, Orpheus, Mithras, Zoroaster, Marduk, Izdubar, Witoba, Apollonius of Tyana, Yehoshua ben Pandera, and even Plato and Pythagoras.'

[...]

"Massey testifies that neither Philo, the brilliant Alexandrian Jew who laboured so hard to effect a syncretism of Greek Platonism, Egyptian mysticism, and Mosaic Hebraism, and who was an exact contemporary of Jesus (c. 20 B.C. - A.D. 50), nor Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200), bishop of Lyons and one of the earliest Church Fathers, believed that the divine Word (Logos) could ever become incarnate in one man. Kuhn says that Philo no more knew of a Christ that could be made flesh than he knew of a Jesus in human form -- and he lived at the time of the alleged historical Jesus! The same is true of Tatian, the Christian apologist and Gnostic (c. A.D. 160) who wrote the first-ever attempted harmony of the four Gospels, the Diatesseron. He completely disclaimed the notion of the Christ having assumed an actual body, as did all the Gnostic Christians. They declared it impossible that he (the divine Logos) should suffer, since he was by nature both incomprehensible and invisible, a divine emanation of the one God.

[...]

"What is even more curious is that the closer one gets to Jesus' actual alleged time, the greater and more general is the denial or ignorance of his existence. But the further one draws away from it, the greater and more insistant are the 'proofs' of it. This again entirely reverses the universal phenomenon of a historical recording. Most living characters are familiar entities during and immediately after their lives, and they wax romantic and are haloed only after centuries have elapsed. But Jesus was airy and ethereal in the first century and crystallized into quite a concrete personality only after several centuries. Something quite strange was going on."

---

Ok, that's enough typing for today, but this was just a small exerpt from a very good and interesting book, and ultimately makes me want to return to Christianity, but not the one promulgated by any organized Church with dogmas and literal interpretation of everything in the Bible.

In the end, Harpur argues, and correctly, I might add, that the Gospels are as true as the many parables Jesus relates in them. The story of Jesus is not true in a superficial way, it didn't actually happen the way they say it does in the Gospels. However, there is a deeper truth, an allegorical or metaphorical truth, which makes God and Jesus relevant to us.

Stop trying to explain everything. everyone eventually becomes god, its just a matter of who does it in the phsical world, the mental, and who puts it together the fastest. lol you will get there faster though because you experienced drugs. physically that is. laughs. dont die. overcome it.


anyways you gotta learn how to snap out of it. bla bla bla see i'm just a normal everyday stupid 8th grade chic rite? lol brb(goes and gets lipgloss)...

[kronick]

(here we go) can u prove that? or are u just guessing, cause thats what i think you're doing. if you read my previous posts ull kno what im trying to say.

[SuburbanLife224]

(here we go) can u prove that? or are u just guessing, cause thats what i think you're doing. if you read my previous posts ull kno what im trying to say.


the sooner you realise realisation the better you will get at putting yourself into my shoes.

See Feel.

see feel? what .. what the hell is that supposed to mean.....???. what? stop confusing me like this. yea............................................... ..i get it. i truly do. i know. i know i know. i know i know i know i know i know. Do you now?

Nope.

Am i>,fds

yea.

wait what...
what what

what what what

what whawt..rfjlLLLkfjdskkkkfdjsk88jfdsaj

Whats that mean. Explain.

EcXplInaLmn what?

What.
Whats whty.. huh.

Yep.





(yep>?FfdGeTGOD>>FDJ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????/.fffff

[kronick]

you prolly think your smart shit eh? *coughbullshitcough*

[F L E S H]

Kronick, if we ignore it, hopefully it'll go away...

shhh... :D

[SuburbanLife224]

you prolly think your smart shit eh? *coughbullshitcough*


nope i know it.

try to disprove me


try

you will find yourself only to make one huge mind circle...


love

'love'

love

"love"

love

'"love"'

"'lllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooov vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'"


the word is flying

jackass

i am god

gods not the bible

neither was jesus

he just knew he was onto soemthing

he didnt know what yet

so he wrote a very convincing story

of which one half believed

the other half didnt

the other half doesnt know what to think

then theres me.

[SuburbanLife224]

Kronick, if we ignore it, hopefully it'll go away...

shhh... :D


you cant ignore it

except when you are high

your just jealous

are you?

what

huh

you lost me.......

i know

[kronick]

Kronick, if we ignore it, hopefully it'll go away...

shhh... :D

ignore who? ;)

pie?

what kinda pie?

apple pie?

in the grass?

in the sky?

i am high!

like a fly?

who might die?

in a apple pie! :D

[GHoSToKeR]

this is an extract of a recent conversation between a friend and I:

Me: Jesus never really existed.
Him: Yes he did
Me: No, he didn't
Him: Yes he did
Me: No, he didn't
Him: Yes he did
Me: No, he didn't
Him: Yes he did
Me: No, he didn't
Him: Yes he did
Me: No, he didn't

**Joint break**

Him: Yes he did
Me: No, he didn't
Him: Yes he did
Me: No, he didn't
Him: Yes he did
Me: Yes, he did
Him: No, he didn't.
Me: Ahahahahahahah you lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


**

Thank you

[kronick]

did that really happen? or are u just messin'

[F L E S H]

GHoST, if there's a better way to resolve a debate, I can't think of one :D

[kronick]

he pretty much took the cake on that one

[sundance]

am surprised you have nt mentioned "holy blood holy grail" the work dan brown is supposed to have plagurised.if you perservere with this book you will be rewarded about the truth about the man from gallilee.that he did nt die on the cross

[kronick]

well honistly...im not gonna believe dan brown any more than ill believe the bible...whats makes dan brown more right than the bible?

[F L E S H]

am surprised you have nt mentioned "holy blood holy grail" the work dan brown is supposed to have plagurised.if you perservere with this book you will be rewarded about the truth about the man from gallilee.that he did nt die on the cross
Well, there are all sorts of theories about that too, sadly, none can be proven to be correct. I don't remember if I wrote it in the original post, but there was a bishop writing in the 2nd century who didn't believe Jesus dies on the cross. He said that Jesus went on to old age, got married, had kids, etc... Sort of like "last temptation of Christ" :D

[GHoSToKeR]

Dan Brown did not plagurise 'Holy Blood Holy Grail', he simply took the basic premis of the book and used it in his own work of fiction.

[kronick]

but whos to say which story is true? i dont think dan brown mad up the part of "a bishop writing in the 2nd century". he took a "rumor" and made it real in his book, with twists of his own but basic parts in the book are derived from real "rumors".

[sundance]

all I am saying is that if you want to know the TRUTH about Jesus then "Holy Blood Holy Grail" will solve any queries you may have on this subject .The research is impecable.I am intrigued by the Cathars and there religion and were they influenced by the blood line of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene!

[kronick]

however "impecable" the reascearch maybe...its not 100% so you cannot prove it no matter what you say.

[GHoSToKeR]

all I am saying is that if you want to know the TRUTH about Jesus then "Holy Blood Holy Grail" will solve any queries you may have on this subject .The research is impecable.I am intrigued by the Cathars and there religion and were they influenced by the blood line of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene!
The 'research' is totally flawed. They claim the PRiory of Sion is the keeper of this secret, when in actual fact Pierre Plantard forged documents and then got his colleges to 'find' them.. these documents claimed that the Priory of Sion was an ancient secret society and he was the Grand Master. Since the release of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', the author has admitted that these documents were forged and that the Priory is not who he claimed to be, even though they do exist to some extent.

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/poseur3.html

http://priory-of-sion.com/

http://www.ordotempli.org/priory_of_sion.htm (this is an interesting read)

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html

[F L E S H]

I also read somewhere that the Priory, as it's described in the Da Vinci Code, for example, is bogus. It might exist somewhere, but they're probably not the keepers of the Holy Grail, whatever it may be.

This Holy Grail business is a puzzle that will likely never be solved, but I do believe that it is so much more than a simple cup. I also believe in the interpretation of 'sang raal' (royal blood) instead of 'san graal' (holy grail) but that's just me. These are the problems because people who wrote over a thousand years ago didn't put spaces or lowercase letters when they wrote.

[kronick]

where ever you got "sang raal" and "san graal" from was prolly translated from another language, which means the thing about no spaces 1000 years ago would not mean anything when talking about our alphabet and language.

[GHoSToKeR]

I think you mean san grael or sangrael?

Anyway, F L E S H.. you're right.. The Priory as described in The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail is (from what I gather) a fallacy. I'm sure it it did exist to some extent - the real Priory of Sion was rumoured to be a Catholic monastic order. It has also been rumoured to be nothing more than an innocent group of friends who called themselves The Priory of Sion. Pierre Plantard used the name for his hoax, claiming he was the Grand Master of the Priory, and that the Priory was a secret society, which had links to the Knights Templar, the bloodline of Jesus Christ, and the Merovingian Kings.

What's interesting is how this false timeline incorperates both rumour and fact to give an impression of authenticity. When I first reads The Da Vinci Code, I totally believed it. Now, only a few months and a small amount of research later, I can see how well orchestrated the hoax was. Whether Dan Brown (author of The Da Vinci Code) actually believes it to be true is another question. Surely he would have heard that these documents were forged? And if so, why claim that all the documents he mentions in the text of his novel are accurate and true?

As you said, F L E S H, I also believe that there is more to the life of Jesus than we know. I believe he existed, but I believe he was nothing more than an enigmatic politician, who's legend has been used and twisted to further the control of certain people or groups of people. Who knows?

[F L E S H]

where ever you got "sang raal" and "san graal" from was prolly translated from another language, which means the thing about no spaces 1000 years ago would not mean anything when talking about our alphabet and language.
Kronick, FYI, 'our' alphabet and language comes from the Latin tradition, and 1,000 years ago everybody in Western Europe wrote in Latin, regardless of whether they were in Britain, France, Germany or Italy. All these monks also wrote completely in upper case letters, and with no spaces between words and no punctuation. Therefore, the question of whether it's really SAN GRAAL or SANG RAAL is of great importance and relevance.

As for the Priory, you're right GHoST, And Brown's been asked about it many times. He's really funny, every time someone points out an inconsistency or a fallacy, he just goes "well, I'm a fiction writer, so I can take some liberties." That's all fine and good, but then don't go write in the forward of your books that everything is based on actual facts... lol

[GHoSToKeR]

lol

I know this is pretty unrelated, but have either of you heard of the 'Kryptos' sculpture near the CIA building? Parts of it have been decrypted... I think there's a reward for anybody who can decrypt the entire sculpture, but there's probably no point in trying unless you have a university degree in cyrptology. Anyway, I found out about Kryptos when reading up about the Priory, the Knights Templar etc... I thought it was pretty interesting

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/tour/krypt.html

http://elonka.com/kryptos/

http://elonka.com/kryptos/transcript.html (the complete transcript, for anybody who wants to try and figure it out lol)

[kronick]

and they prolly dont tell anything related on what your looking for, right? lol

oh well, ill give it a shot :P

[kronick]

will they even tell you what the other 3 mean?

[kronick]

well thats neat and creative, on the creators part.

[sundance]

does anyone have any revelant information regarding the Cathars who were the true Christians living in southern france

[F L E S H]

does anyone have any revelant information regarding the Cathars who were the true Christians living in southern france
Here's the wikipedia article, it's quite accurate:

Origins
The beliefs came originally from eastern Europe by way of trade routes. The name of Bulgarians (Bougres) was also applied to the Albigenses, and they maintained an association with the Bogomils of Thrace. Their doctrines have numerous resemblances to those of the Bogomils, and still more to those of the Paulicians, with whom they are also sometimes connected. It is difficult to form any precise idea of the Cathar doctrines, as all the existing knowledge of them is derived from their opponents, and the few texts from the Cathars (the Rituel cathare de Lyon and the Nouveau Testament en provencal) contain very little information concerning their beliefs and moral practices. What is certain is that they formed an anti-sacerdotal party in opposition to the Roman church, and raised a continued protest against the corruption of the clergy. The Cathar theologians, called Cathari or perfecti (in France bons hommes or bons chretiens) were few in number; the mass of believers (credentes) were not initiated into the doctrine at all - they were freed from all moral prohibition and all religious obligation, on condition that they promised by an act called convenenza to become "hereticized" by receiving the consolamentum, the baptism of the Spirit, before their death.

The first Cathars appeared in Limousin between 1012 and 1020. Several were discovered and put to death at Toulouse in 1022. The synods of Charroux (Vienne) (1028) and Toulouse (1056) condemned the growing sect. Preachers were summoned to the districts of the Agenais and the Toulousain to combat the heretical propaganda in the 1100s. The Cathars, however, gained ground in the south thanks to the protection given by William, Duke of Aquitaine, and that given by a significant proportion of the southern nobility. The people were impressed by the bons hommes, and the anti-sacerdotal preaching of Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne in Perigord.


Beliefs
Catharism was based on the idea that the world was evil. This was a distinct feature of Gnosticism, Platonism-Neoplatonism, Manicheanism and the theology of the Bogomils. This idea may possibly also have been influenced by older Gnostic lines of thought. According to the Cathars, the world had been created by an evil deity known to the Gnostics as the Demiurge. The Cathars identified the Demiurge with the being the Christians called Satan. Earlier Gnostics, however, did not identify the Demiurge with Satan. This may be due to the fact that the concept of Satan was not "in fashion" in the 1st century, while the concept became increasingly popular in medieval times.

The Cathars also believed that souls would be reborn when they escaped the material world and succeeded to the immaterial heaven. The way to escape was to live an ascetic's life, and to be not corrupted by the world. Those that did live this life were called 'Perfects' (Parfaits). They had the power to wipe away a person's sins and connections to the material world, so that they would go to heaven when they died. The Perfects themselves lived lives of unimpeachable frugality, in stark contrast to that lived within the corrupt and opulent church of the time. Commonly, the wiping away of sin, called the consolamentum, was performed on someone about to die. After receiving this, the believer would sometimes stop eating, so that they could die faster, and with less taint from the world. The consulamentum was the only sacrament of the Cathar faith. They did not perform any rite of marriage, as procreation (bringing more souls into the world) was frowned upon. It was as a result of this particular belief that the term "buggery" was coined (after the 'Bulgars', or 'Bougres') since sex (using a loose definition) was perfectly all right as long as as no children resulted.

The Cathars also held many beliefs that were odious to the rest of medieval society. They believed that Jesus had been an apparition, a ghost, that showed the way to God. They refused to believe that the good God could or would come in material form, since all physical objects were tainted by sin. This specific belief is called docetism. Furthermore, they believed that the God of the Old Testament was the Devil, since he had created the world. They also did not believe in any sacrament except the consulamentum, which was another major heresy.

Women were treated as equals, because their physical form was irrelevant; their soul could have been a man's soul before, and it might once again become one.

They were also vegetarians.

One of their ideas most heretical to feudal Europe was the belief that oaths were a sin, because they attached you to the world. To call them a sin in this manner was very dangerous in a society where illiteracy was wide-spread and almost all business transactions and pledges of allegiance were based on oaths.


Suppression
In 1147, Pope Eugene III sent a legate to the affected district in order to arrest the progress of the Cathars. The few isolated successes of Bernard of Clairvaux could not obscure the poor results of this mission, and well shows the power of the sect in the south of France at that period. The missions of Cardinal Peter (of St Chrysogonus) to Toulouse and the Toulousain in 1178, and of Henry, cardinal-bishop of Albano, in 1180-1181, obtained merely momentary successes. Henry of Albano's armed expedition, where he took the stronghold at Lavaur, did not extinguish the movement.

The persistent decisions of the councils against the Cathars at this periodâ?? in particular, those of the Council of Tours (1163) and of the Third Council of the Lateran (1179)â?? had scarcely more effect. Pope Innocent III, however, when he came to power in 1198, resolved to suppress the Albigenses.

At first he tried pacific conversion, and sent a number of legates into the affected regions. They had to contend not only with the Cathars, the nobles who protected them, and the people who venerated them, but also with the bishops of the district, who rejected the extraordinary authority which the Pope had conferred upon his legates. In 1204 Innocent III suspended the authority of the bishops in the south of France. Papal legate Peter of Castelnau, known for recklessly excommunicating the noblemen who protected the Cathari, retaliated in 1207 by excommunicating the Count of Toulouse, as an abettor of heresy. He was murdered near Saint Gilles Abbey in 1208 on his way back to Rome, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "probably at the connivance of Raymond VI, count of Toulouse". As soon as he heard of the murder of Peter of Castelnau, the Pope ordered his legates to preach the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.

This implacable war threw the whole of the nobility of the north of France against that of the south, possibly instigated by a papal decree stating that all land owned by Cathars could be confiscated at will. This was practically an open invitation to wholesale theft with the blessings of the Church as the area was full of Cathar sympathisers. It is thus hardly surprising that the barons of the north flocked south to do battle for the Church.

In one famous incident in 1209, most of Béziers was slaughtered by the Catholic forces headed by the Papal legate. The Abbot of Citeaux was asked how to distinguish between the Catholic and Cathars, and he answered "kill them all, God will know his own." The Catholic Encyclopedia denies these words were ever spoken.

The war also involved Peter II, the king of Aragon, who owned fiefdoms and had vassals in the area. Peter died fighting against the crusade on September 12, 1213 at the Battle of Muret.

The war ended in the treaty of Paris (1229), by which the king of France dispossessed the house of Toulouse of the greater part of its fiefs, and that of Beziers of the whole of its fiefs. The independence of the princes of the south was at an end. But in spite of the wholesale massacre of Cathars during the war, Catharism was not extinguished.

The Inquisition was established in 1229 to root out the Cathars. Operating unremittingly in the south at Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne and other towns during the whole of the 13th century and a great part of the 14th, it succeeded in crushing the movement. From May 1243 to March 1244, the Cathar citadel of Montségur was besieged by the troops of the seneschal of Carcassonne and the archbishop of Narbonne. On March 16, 1244 a large and symbolically important slaughter took place, where leaders of Catharism together with more than 200 heretics were thrown into an enormous fire at the 'prat des cramats' near the foot of the castle. Moreover, the church decreed severe chastisement against all laymen suspected of sympathy with Cathars (Council of Narbonne, 1235; Bull Ad extirpanda, 1252).

Hunted down by the Inquisition and abandoned by the nobles of the district, the Albigenses became more and more scattered, hiding in the forests and mountains, and only meeting surreptitiously. The people made some attempts to throw off the yoke of the Inquisition and the French, and insurrections broke out under the leadership of Bernard of Foix, Aimerv of Narbonne, and Bernard Délicieux at the beginning of the 14th century. But at this point vast inquests were set on foot by the Inquisition, which terrorized the district. Precise indications of these are found in the registers of the Inquisitors, Bernard of Caux, Jean de St Pierre, Geoffroy d'Ablis, and others. The sect was exhausted and could find no more adepts and after 1330 the records of the Inquisition contain few proceedings against Catharists. The last Cathar Perfect died in the beginning of the 14th century. Sympathizers with the Cathars went underground and hid their faith for obvious reasons.


Influences
Christian Rosencreuz, according to some, may have been associated with an underground Cathar movement that hid from the Inquisition. However, this is highly unlikely because there is absolutely no evidence that the Cathar movement still existed by Rosencreuz' time, nor is there any concrete evidence that Rosencreuz existed at all.

The Holy Grail
It has been suggested in some modern fiction and non-fiction books that the Cathars could have been the protectors of the Holy Grail of Christian mythology, especially in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, although modern investigation into this book has largely discredited its findings.

[sundance]

thank you Flesh you have been most helpful.....Namaste

[F L E S H]

don't mention it :D

I think the history of the Cathars is very fascinating. If you're really interested, look for a book called, in English, "Montaillou: Promised land of Error" by Emmanuel Le Roy-Ladurie. This man is one of the most famous historians of France, and in the world, and the book itself was a best seller in France when it came uot in the 70s. It's a great book about a village in which most of the inhabitants were Cathars themselves, and about the subsequent Inquisition which rooted them out. Fascinating stuff :D

[Looker]

ALLRIGHT THATS IT IM COMING DOWN THERE..........