God???

[dossantos]

Allah, Buddha, christin etc.. all a hoax to keep man tame?

dossantos Reviewed by dossantos on 04-25-2009. God??? Allah, Buddha, christin etc.. all a hoax to keep man tame? Rating: 5

[Mr. Clandestine]

"Allah" is just a Arabic translation for "God", but Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) and Jesus Christ really existed. Whether or not they were divine is a hotly contested topic, but history has reasonably proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the men did once walk this earth, and did lead lives that many would consider extraordinary.

If you'd prefer not to believe in God, that's your prerogative... but it's pretty silly to assume that religion has succeeded in keeping men "tame." Some may have worked better than others, but there's good and bad apples in every bunch.

[killerweed420]

Not sure about buddha but there's never been a shred of proof that Jesus ever existed. I think probably religion was started for the same reason some governments are started. Some petty little person that thought he should be important starts some religion to fill the void in some peoples lives and start manipulating them into believing that they are the only ones that have the answer. Its really all about power and selfishness.

[Mr. Clandestine]

thereâ??s never been a shred of proof that Jesus ever existed.

Actually, there's a ton of historical evidence that Jesus existed. If you're looking for tangible proof, like some old bones lying in a tomb, then don't expect "proof" like that to ever surfaceâ?¦ but if youâ??re looking for historical evidence, wellâ?¦ thereâ??s plenty of it.

We'll put the Gospels and Epistles aside, because even though those are indeed historical documents dating back to the time of Jesus (and the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that Old Testament manuscripts have been meticulously preserved - so one would think the New Testament manuscripts would be just as accurate, if not more so), I already know where raising that argument will lead me and I'm not here to debate theology anymore. (Too many dead-ends, needless insults, and wasted time.) Regardless, there really should be no debate over this particular area of recorded history, because even secular historians nearly all agree that Jesus did exist... again, they just canâ??t agree on whether or not He was actually divine.

Flavius Josephus (c. 37ADâ??c. 100AD) was a Roman citizen who wrote "Jewish Antiquities" somewhere around 93AD, and mentioned Jesus at least twice that I know of. Read "Testimonium Flavianum" for the exact quotes, which I can't remember off the top of my head, but there's no mistaking who he was talking about. And Josephus was also a Jew, who would have had absolutely no reason to lie about the presence of Jesus... which would only have served to prove that Jesus' life, ministry, and crucifixion by the Romans was based on historical fact, not legend.

Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56AD-c. 115) is another historian (a secular one) who wrote in his most popular work, "The Annals", of Christians "who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius" and wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44) to whom the persecution could be attributed to. Again, Tacitus was vehemently opposed to religion, preferring instead to worship Ceasar, and would have had no reason whatsoever to fabricate the story of Jesus. In fact, just writing about Jesus during Roman rule could have potentially subjected a person to arrest, or worseâ?¦ so Tacitus deliberately wrote from the perspective of a skeptic, but a skeptic who was convinced 100% that Jesus existed.

Those are just two of the most common references, but there are many, many more. Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Julius Africanus, and many more, all wrote about Jesus' life less than 150-200 years after Jesus' crucifixion... which most historians agree would have been too early for grandiose mythological ideas to spread. Even the Babylonian Talmud speaks of Jesus' crucifixion on the day of Passover, and speaks very negatively of His character. Regardless, it does speak of His character, which it would have absolutely no reason to do if Jesus never existed. Again, what logical reason would any secular or Jewish historian have to fabricate a story that's only going to further the Christian cause? They acknowledged His existence in attempts to shine a bad light on Him, calling Jesus an apostate, heretic, etc., but what they really did was just serve to prove what I've been saying all along: That the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth did, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exist.

...whether or not you want to believe in His divinity is a decision that's entirely up to you.

[killerweed420]

One of the problems with proving Jesus existed is that Jesus was a very common name back then. So if some book mentions somebody the name of Jesus it doesn't mean he's That Jesus.

[Mr. Clandestine]

One of the problems with proving Jesus existed is that Jesus was a very common name back then. So if some book mentions somebody the name of Jesus it doesn't mean he's That Jesus.

"Yeshua" (Jesus) may or may not have been a fairly popular Hebrew name at the time, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that there was clearly a man named Yeshua who lived in and around Jerusalem somewhere between 30-33 A.D., who reportedly performed many miracles during his short ministry, amassed a HUGE group of devoted followers (many of whom were willing to be persecuted and killed for their faith), was crucified at the hands of the Roman procurator named Pontius Pilate, and who reportedly rose from the grave - which many faithful witnesses gave testimony to (completely disregarding the fact that this would only bring them more persecution).

Again, these weren't reports from Christians, but from Jewish priests and secularists of that time period. The reports from Christians, as depicted in the Bible, naturally coincide with the secular accounts. So, yeah, there may have been other Yeshua's living at the same time, but only one of them stood out in all the historical manuscrips as a man that fits all the descriptions that I listed above, and was crucified as the "King of the Jews." That was Yeshua bin Yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph), or Jesus of Nazareth. Nobody else could have possibly fit that description.

[headshake]

Not sure about buddha but there's never been a shred of proof that Jesus ever existed. I think probably religion was started for the same reason some governments are started. Some petty little person that thought he should be important starts some religion to fill the void in some peoples lives and start manipulating them into believing that they are the only ones that have the answer. Its really all about power and selfishness.

i guess every biblical scholar and most skeptics are wrong. wow. all they had to do was come to cancom to find the truth.

good points, mr. clandestine!

religion has been going on since the beginning of time. ancient egypt had religion, the mayans, aztecs, incans, greeks, romans and just about every other civilization since the beginning of time.

(granted, most of those religions were polytheistic, although the idea of monotheism goes back to ancient egypt. akhenaten (who most think is tutenkhamun's dad) tried to get rid of all idols except, aten (disk of the sun).

on an interesting side not, akhenaten was more than likely a bisexual and possibly the first known homosexual in history. pretty interesting to think that maybe the first (possibly known homosexual) was also responsible for trying to buck polytheism for monotheism.)

once a civilization is defeated by another (obviously not applicable to the ones that just disappeared) then some of the defeated civ's religious ideologies, customs, traditions etc are absorbed into the victor's. often it's easier to keep some aspects of culture.

i can't remember the two major religions before christianity, but both of their "gods" had birthdays on december 25. what, wait a minute, that's the same as jesus' birthday. no, actually it's not, jesus was born in march. and you can ask any biblical scholar this. it was just easier to keep it the same. christmas was a pagan holiday, although it obviously didn't go by the same name.

it might have come from the roman Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or the birthday of the unconquered sun. Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god.

the tree part comes from other pagan traditions.

why would we celebrate jesus birthday on a pagan holiday? because it's just easier that way!

christianity was taken, by constantine, a pagan, because he knew it was starting to spread like wildfire. he used this to his advantage. so in a way, christianity was stolen from the "true followers".

or so some think.

anyhow, enough with the random history. i think a more appropriate question would be, "organized religion, a plot to keep man tamed?"

but that's just me.



-shake

[dossantos]

A dude could have been puffin on the green in a cave somewhere a long long long time ago n had a "vision"... found god...

Man needs hope.
He has to have something to believe in whether its jesus, Buddha or even ufo's... Gotta hand it to ole tom cruise.. no ordinary boring religion for him...

Everybody has the right to believe whatever they want...

I kinda like the rasta take..
At least ya will be happy..

:rasta:

[killerweed420]

"Yeshua" (Jesus) may or may not have been a fairly popular Hebrew name at the time, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that there was clearly a man named Yeshua who lived in and around Jerusalem somewhere between 30-33 A.D., who reportedly performed many miracles during his short ministry, amassed a HUGE group of devoted followers (many of whom were willing to be persecuted and killed for their faith), was crucified at the hands of the Roman procurator named Pontius Pilate, and who reportedly rose from the grave - which many faithful witnesses gave testimony to (completely disregarding the fact that this would only bring them more persecution).

Again, these weren't reports from Christians, but from Jewish priests and secularists of that time period. The reports from Christians, as depicted in the Bible, naturally coincide with the secular accounts. So, yeah, there may have been other Yeshua's living at the same time, but only one of them stood out in all the historical manuscrips as a man that fits all the descriptions that I listed above, and was crucified as the "King of the Jews." That was Yeshua bin Yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph), or Jesus of Nazareth. Nobody else could have possibly fit that description.

Any citations to prove the theory. Again Jesus was a very common name back then as so was Joseph. Its like me saying I've got a neighbour named Hitler. It doesn't mean its THAT Hitler. And part of the problem is these notationa you talk about are in Religious books. There needs to be more evidence outside of the religious community

[killerweed420]

i guess every biblical scholar and most skeptics are wrong. wow. all they had to do was come to cancom to find the truth.

good points, mr. clandestine!

religion has been going on since the beginning of time. ancient egypt had religion, the mayans, aztecs, incans, greeks, romans and just about every other civilization since the beginning of time.

(granted, most of those religions were polytheistic, although the idea of monotheism goes back to ancient egypt. akhenaten (who most think is tutenkhamun's dad) tried to get rid of all idols except, aten (disk of the sun).

on an interesting side not, akhenaten was more than likely a bisexual and possibly the first known homosexual in history. pretty interesting to think that maybe the first (possibly known homosexual) was also responsible for trying to buck polytheism for monotheism.)

once a civilization is defeated by another (obviously not applicable to the ones that just disappeared) then some of the defeated civ's religious ideologies, customs, traditions etc are absorbed into the victor's. often it's easier to keep some aspects of culture.

i can't remember the two major religions before christianity, but both of their "gods" had birthdays on december 25. what, wait a minute, that's the same as jesus' birthday. no, actually it's not, jesus was born in march. and you can ask any biblical scholar this. it was just easier to keep it the same. christmas was a pagan holiday, although it obviously didn't go by the same name.

it might have come from the roman Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or the birthday of the unconquered sun. Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god.

the tree part comes from other pagan traditions.

why would we celebrate jesus birthday on a pagan holiday? because it's just easier that way!

christianity was taken, by constantine, a pagan, because he knew it was starting to spread like wildfire. he used this to his advantage. so in a way, christianity was stolen from the "true followers".

or so some think.

anyhow, enough with the random history. i think a more appropriate question would be, "organized religion, a plot to keep man tamed?"

but that's just me.



-shake

Yaeh thats the main issue. Was religion used as a tool to tame man. I think it probably was but yet you see how much violence was perpetrated in the name of religion. As we see Islam today. You either join Islamic faith or you die. That is the simple bedrock of Islamic Faith. They do not believe nonbelievers should live.