Is the Story of Jesus Christ a Roman Invention For Crowd Control?

[Shabda]

There is a new theory, that is to be the topic of a conference in Britain on 10/19/2013, where evidence will be revealed showing this to be true....i am quite aware that this even being said will at first be laughed at, and then many might get angry, however, one must actually look at the information as opposed to blindly refusing to even view it, much less to seriously consider it....these Biblical scholars actually have more evidence to support their thesis than has ever existed as evidence to show that Jesus of Nazareth ever really existed....the book this theory comes from is from 2006, but the movie has just been released and of course the actual conference will be later this week, I looked, but could not find this even being discussed, so now I'm bringing it to the Christian forum, so that it can be looked at and potentially considered...as for myself, i have not as of yet accepted this as the truth, but I must admit, they have far more evidence to support their claim than any church on earth has ever had for its claims to support the real, physical existence of Jesus, and the Flavian Dynasty, those who were Ceasars after Nero died, DO have their names entirely all over the early Christian church, as well as all over the only historical source of what happened at that time, so, potentially, they COULD have easily created this story for their own benefit, i find it entirely plausible, but now ill let any interested look for themselves and make their own decisions...
http://youtu.be/0aSKN0xnfsA Ceasar's Messiah

http://youtu.be/4UqG8w7ezUQ The Flavian Signature

[WhiteWarrior]

A NEW theory? I heard that one at least 30 years ago. And at the time it seemed possible to me. Since then I have read more Roman history and by the time any real percentage of the roman power elite had even personally embraced the newest religion, the problem was no longer internal uprisings but the combination of economic collapse and ever increasing pressure on the tattered remains of roman borders. You don't rebel much when the Northern and Eastern tribes are taking turns razing Rome to the ground.

[Shabda]

Actually, no, the pieces of evidence are dated to 40 years after Jesus wouldve been crucified, Rome still completely Ruled Palestine/Judea/etc etc, and yes, others HAVE put forth the idea, but NONE have had the evidence to do anything more than suggest it, also they did NOT include the Flavians, whose direct connection is utterly undeniable....but i guess its normal that Rome would destroy all other versions of Jewish history and not the one written by a Jew that had a direct connection with the family, so much so, he even adopted their name....i take it you are reacting to the claim rather than watching the videos and directly making ANY counter points to what is stated there? why? to refute it is fine, but at the very least, examine the claims and the evidence first, THEN be specific when refuting it, claim by claim, not with this generalized statement that seems worthy, yet is completely empty of the context which the claim has sprung from..also, it is perfectly understandable if you find this disturbing, many do and will, undoubtedly, but i am not asking simply to start an argument or a disagreement, i am asking people to directly watch the videos and then either do the research themselves to refute the claims, or at the very least to do so from the point of view of a person that has actually taken the claims in and had a look at them...are you up to doing that?

[WhiteWarrior]

Good grief. Are you a history professor, or have you just consumed and embraced the specific set of information delivered by this scholar group? As I am neither I am clearly no match for you and am promptly withdrawing from this discussion. May others be more worthy of continuing it.

[SpiritCarrier]

To believe that Jesus Christ was a fiction is to do exactly what the devil wishes for mankind to do, ignore the evident in favor of answering to anyone for anything.

Do you believe it plausible that mankind could have written a book which span so many years on their own? Do you believe that it is plausible that in the book that was written that 40 men could have written about the same events with such eloquence and fluidity? Do you believe that when all other religious books were being burned and destroyed that this one book was the only one that survived and that people died to keep even a portion of it intact?

Men have for centuries debated the existence of Jesus, it is always easier to debate a subject/person when they are gone, yet his is still the only name, should you say it in any country, that each man, woman, child on this planet would recognize. Do you believe that possible, should divine help not have been provided? I do not.

I wish you well on your search for enlightenment, with one small caution, Do not believe everything that says it is dated old. There have been many who have been caught trying to carbon date relics, and many more will come forward in the future. Believe history. History has protected the story of this man for a reason and once we understand that reason we will be on that path to enlightenment.

I do hope that you do not take offense to my words but this is a subject that is close to my heart and I have done quite a lot of research on the subject.

May you have peace and light along your journey,
SC

[Mathew James]

It is not that Jesus, a man, did not ever exist, because the Jewish prophet Jesus did exist. The Nag Hammadi scriptures are the best source for what Jesus taught. I do agree that the "Romans" did make up all the lies about Jesus, which most of the Christians believe. Jesus was a man, the son of Mary. He was a Jewish prophet for the Jews, end of story. If the Christians want to believe the lies about Jesus, let them.

mj

[Shabda]

Originally Posted by WhiteWarrior

Good grief. Are you a history professor, or have you just consumed and embraced the specific set of information delivered by this scholar group? As I am neither I am clearly no match for you and am promptly withdrawing from this discussion. May others be more worthy of continuing it.

i don't see why that is any reason to withdraw, you treated me the same way with your first post, by claiming you were aware of this 30 years ago, and please let me be clear here, the idea itself isn't the new thing, but rather the evidence to support it, much of which was in fact uncovered by previous Bible scholars...whether or not you are a match for me is irrelevant, as this isnt by any means a competition, nor do i see it as a debate or an argument, the evidence exists, its as simple as that, i posted this only to ask others what they make of it, and also to come by that opinion by at the very least examining the evidence purported...so by all means, feel free to participate, also, i might add, i am not here to convert anyone to anything, nor to drive anyone away from Christianity, any of those things are the business of the individual to decide, not for me.

[Shabda]

Originally Posted by SpiritCarrier

To believe that Jesus Christ was a fiction is to do exactly what the devil wishes for mankind to do, ignore the evident in favor of answering to anyone for anything.

Do you believe it plausible that mankind could have written a book which span so many years on their own? Do you believe that it is plausible that in the book that was written that 40 men could have written about the same events with such eloquence and fluidity? Do you believe that when all other religious books were being burned and destroyed that this one book was the only one that survived and that people died to keep even a portion of it intact?

Men have for centuries debated the existence of Jesus, it is always easier to debate a subject/person when they are gone, yet his is still the only name, should you say it in any country, that each man, woman, child on this planet would recognize. Do you believe that possible, should divine help not have been provided? I do not.

I wish you well on your search for enlightenment, with one small caution, Do not believe everything that says it is dated old. There have been many who have been caught trying to carbon date relics, and many more will come forward in the future. Believe history. History has protected the story of this man for a reason and once we understand that reason we will be on that path to enlightenment.

I do hope that you do not take offense to my words but this is a subject that is close to my heart and I have done quite a lot of research on the subject.

May you have peace and light along your journey,
SC

well, thank you for your concern, however, the "devil" isnt a thing that worries me in any way..also, the things that are supposedly dated as old, include in fact, the main historical reference for the life of Jesus, that being Josephus, and im sorry, but it is definitely suspicious that IS version of the roman-jewish war is the predominate piece of history, and from that source, that is used by Christians in this debate, the person who is making this claim is using the very same texts, and it is a well known fact that Josephus' history is the only one available, that is, until the dead sea scrolls were found, but even those do not date to the time Jesus would have had to live, according to the Bible, so, there are points within that argument that are, and have alkways been very suspicious in my opinion...contradiction after contradiction...the method being used here is the same method used by Biblical scholars around the world, it is known as Typology, feel free to look it up for yourself..there is an undeniable and matching pattern between the story of Jesus' life, and the story of Moses' life, not to mention the same can be found between Jesus life, and Titus Flaviun's war against the Jews, this is undeniable...did you in your studies ever come to find out that the term Pontiff Maximus, the term used for the Pope, is the term that was previously used for the Ceasars? all of them? that happens to be a mighty strange coincidence....so i guess God also found THAT tidbit important enough to keep the historical references available so it could be found out again....i mean you no disrespect, but im sorry, you will have to abide by your own standards, the ones youre using to challenge me with, if youre willing to do that, then i guess we dont have a problem, also, the only thing i am actually stating with this is that this SHOULD be looked at and recognized, especially by Christians...ALL forms of Christianity sprang forth from that 1st form, that which became the Catholic Church, without them there would be no other forms on the planet today, so, if any mistakes or deceptions did in fact occur, regardless of who purpetrated them , it should be recognized and accounted for, before then being corrected, otherwise you have what the Hindus call Maya, illusion...just a thought, but of course you can do as you see fit for yourself, as has always been the case. My point in posting this is not to cause dissent, nor to make anyone break away from their religion, but come on now, since when is it harmful or under the influence of the devil to bring rational debate? it simply isnt true, thats a cop out in my opinion. Don't fall for it.

[Shabda]

Originally Posted by Mathew James

It is not that Jesus, a man, did not ever exist, because the Jewish prophet Jesus did exist. The Nag Hammadi scriptures are the best source for what Jesus taught. I do agree that the "Romans" did make up all the lies about Jesus, which most of the Christians believe. Jesus was a man, the son of Mary. He was a Jewish prophet for the Jews, end of story. If the Christians want to believe the lies about Jesus, let them.

mj

well, i dont disparage you for your comments, but i feel obliged to point out, there has never been a single scrap of physical evidence to prove that Jesus walked the earth, not one, not ever, also, there are comments made that suggest that originally the Jews who would have payed attention to these teachings never believed that he walked the earth...this from Biblical scholars, not from me, but it is one point they make..also, Jesus was never a jewish prophet for the Jews, the Jews NEVER accepted him as such, not one time ever, this is historical fact...also the Jewish Mosiach (messiah) never did arrive, some groups are STILL awaiting his arrival on earth.these are just points of fact, and are certainly no reason for you and I to argue, also, i DO agree with you, any and all Christians are certainly free to BELIEVE (much different than knowing) whatever they so wish, i see no reason to stand in the way of that, however, having to deal with the claims being made, is a pretty standard thing, so, no one is attacking anyone's faith here, and also, i am NOT the man who wrote the book or made the movie, so his conclusions arent necessarily mine....peace and blessings to one and all, of whichever faith or path, in the name of the Divine Reality!!!

[SpiritCarrier]

Originally Posted by Shabda

well, thank you for your concern, however, the "devil" isnt a thing that worries me in any way..also, the things that are supposedly dated as old, include in fact, the main historical reference for the life of Jesus, that being Josephus, and im sorry, but it is definitely suspicious that IS version of the roman-jewish war is the predominate piece of history, and from that source, that is used by Christians in this debate, the person who is making this claim is using the very same texts, and it is a well known fact that Josephus' history is the only one available, that is, until the dead sea scrolls were found, but even those do not date to the time Jesus would have had to live, according to the Bible, so, there are points within that argument that are, and have alkways been very suspicious in my opinion...contradiction after contradiction...the method being used here is the same method used by Biblical scholars around the world, it is known as Typology, feel free to look it up for yourself..there is an undeniable and matching pattern between the story of Jesus' life, and the story of Moses' life, not to mention the same can be found between Jesus life, and Titus Flaviun's war against the Jews, this is undeniable...did you in your studies ever come to find out that the term Pontiff Maximus, the term used for the Pope, is the term that was previously used for the Ceasars? all of them? that happens to be a mighty strange coincidence....so i guess God also found THAT tidbit important enough to keep the historical references available so it could be found out again....i mean you no disrespect, but im sorry, you will have to abide by your own standards, the ones youre using to challenge me with, if youre willing to do that, then i guess we dont have a problem, also, the only thing i am actually stating with this is that this SHOULD be looked at and recognized, especially by Christians...ALL forms of Christianity sprang forth from that 1st form, that which became the Catholic Church, without them there would be no other forms on the planet today, so, if any mistakes or deceptions did in fact occur, regardless of who purpetrated them , it should be recognized and accounted for, before then being corrected, otherwise you have what the Hindus call Maya, illusion...just a thought, but of course you can do as you see fit for yourself, as has always been the case. My point in posting this is not to cause dissent, nor to make anyone break away from their religion, but come on now, since when is it harmful or under the influence of the devil to bring rational debate? it simply isnt true, thats a cop out in my opinion. Don't fall for it.

I find it incredibly difficult to understand your writing style here. You keep saying sorry but for what I am not sure. Your opinion is yours and mine is mine. I did not mean any disrespect in my reply as I took no such was meant toward me. You mention, "did you in your studies ever come to find out that the term Pontiff Maximus, the term used for the Pope, is the term that was previously used for the Ceasars? all of them?" Well this make sense since the Pope is the head of the holy "ROMAN" church. The entire catholic religion is based on the roman church. I seen no need in taking one churches meaning of what the bible says as being the only meaning. I do not and have never agreed with the way Christianity has been depicted throughout history. It has nothing to do with, what the Romans felt was truth or fact.

I will put it to you this way; the bible, more to the point, the men who wrote it, tell of their shortcomings as well as their success. Throughout history man has been known to record only their victories not their shortcomings. For instance, I do not see many German men and woman bragging about their grandfathers grandfathers being the men in charge of the gas chambers which were used to extinguish thousands and thousands of Jews during world war 2. The same has been true of those men who were in charge of killing Jesus. We do not see the names of those soldiers being bragged about by their families because, after some hundreds of years it was Christianity that now was used by the Romans to keep the masses in line. So as history was written throughout time little things were not kept in those writings. Only the bible has been kept pure. I do not believe that everything written in the bible is beneficial for our day. Many of the things written in the bible were written strictly for the Jews of that time. Jesus even said that the old was replaced by the new. But the historical value of what had been written was and is still relevant.

My point in fact is that you cannot question the relevancy of a man like Jesus simply based on what is, was or will be said by people angry with the Roman Catholic Religion.

If you wish to debate the fact that history was written for those who it benefited then I will most assuredly agree with you. If you would like to keep going in circles on this subject then I would ask that you stop using a phone or I-pad to type on so that your voice can be understood, with punctuation and spelling that conveys your ideas more clearly. I wish you well.

Peace a light,
SC